From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Srock, John Nathan Wiser/R8/USEPA/US@EPA Blauch, Matthew; Dorfman, Grant; Jeanne Briskin/DC/USEPA/US@EPA; Christopher Impellitteri/CI/USEPA/US@EPA RE: Proposal: EPA and Superior data sharing 03/29/2012 12:51 PM Nathan: Thanks for your message and for keeping us updated on the progress of EPA’s study. As we have discussed, Superior Well Services is encouraged that EPA is seeking hard data on which to base the agency’s findings. We are hopeful that factual information will replace the rumor and innuendo that seems to form the basis for much public discussion of hydraulic fracturing. With regard to the proposal that was attached to your March 19 email, Superior is willing to participate with other hydraulic fracturing service companies and producers in a joint program to help EPA acquire the additional data you are seeking. However, please understand that Superior cannot take the lead in this initiative and submit requests to others on behalf of EPA. We think that EPA needs to reach out directly to other fracturing service providers and to the producers themselves to create the collaborative working group described in your proposal. It is important that other service companies are included in the working group so that the producers do not perceive that their confidential information is better protected by using a service provider who is not part of the working group. Also, it is important that several large producers be included in the working group because the flowback water belongs to the producer and it will be necessary to secure their willing participation in the working group in order for you to be able to collect samples of flowback water from multiple sources. If EPA can arrange for a majority of the hydraulic fracturing service providers (perhaps the companies that responded to EPA’s information request in the fall of 2010), Superior will participate with the others in the proposed working group. We are also willing to work with any of our clients whom you persuade to participate in this initiative. Superior would like to assist EPA in obtaining the hard data and factual information that will support the findings in your forthcoming report, but we need to look to EPA to take the initiative in putting together a working group involving a majority of industry participants to provide this information Thank you, John   -Regards John Srock HSE Director Health, Safety, and Environmental   SUPERIOR WELL SERVICES INC. A Nabors Industries Company W: 724.403.9066 C: 724.541.7822 F: 866.691.8298 www.swsi.com www.nabors.com   From: Nathan Wiser [mailto:Wiser.Nathan@epamail.epa.gov] Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 1:29 PM To: Srock, John Cc: Blauch, Matthew; Dorfman, Grant; Jeanne Briskin; Christopher Impellitteri Subject: Proposal: EPA and Superior data sharing Hi John, Attached please find a proposal from EPA outlining the ideas that we discussed Monday March 5, 2012, for collecting physical fluid samples at well stimulation locations and for sharing data. If you would like to schedule a call with EPA as follow up, please let me know and we can arrange for that. It is my understanding that you will transmit this proposal to your clients to gauge their interest. Please let me know if there anything else we can do you think would be useful. Also, we look forward to receiving the existing data you have collected, stored as data in a spreadsheet or database. To date, we have not yet received it. Thank you. (See attached file: EPA_Superior_Data_Share_Proposal_March_2012.docx) --Nathan Wiser Environmental Scientist U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development Office of Science Policy (303) 312-6211 office (303) 312-6953 fax wiser.nathan@epa.gov mailing address: U.S. EPA Region 8 (Mail Code 8ENF-UFO) 1595 Wynkoop Street Denver, Colorado 80202 ******************************* NABORS EMAIL NOTICE - This transmission may be strictly confidential. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you may not disclose, print, copy, or disseminate this information. If you have received this in error, please reply and notify the sender (only) and delete the message. Unauthorized interception of this e-mail is a violation of federal criminal law. This communication does not reflect an intention by the sender or the sender's principal to conduct a transaction or make any agreement by electronic means. Nothing contained in this message or in any attachment shall satisfy the requirements for a writing, and nothing contained herein shall constitute a contract or electronic signature under the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act, any version of the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, or any other statute governing electronic transactions. Confidential EPA HF Study – Haynesville Prospective Site F2F Meeting 9/19/2011 Agenda:       Introductions Review Status of Actions o Verify with Director that EPA analytical methods can be released to outside party (Bob, 9/19/2011 IN PROGRESS) o Design plan for geophysical work to be included in the QAPP (Bob, 9/19/2011 IN PROGRESS) o E&E to develop additional design plans for monitoring well location and installation to provide further options for discussion (Gene, 9/19/2011 IN PROGRESS) E&E has provided to EPA. o Develop a draft communication plan (Chris, 9/19/2011 IN PROGRESS) o EPA to develop FTP site for all study data and materials and will provide CHK with access. (Bob, 9/19/2011 IN PROGRESS) o E&E to provide EPA with names and contact information for all parties requiring access to FTP site. (Gene, 9/19/2011 IN PROGRESS) Tentative Schedule Monitoring Wells o Layout o Design o Geophysical Techniques                Down-hole video 3-arm caliper Natural gamma Electromagnetic induction Single point resistance Self potential Long and short normal resistivity Acoustic and optical televiewer with borehole deviation Fluid conductivity-- logged under ambient and pumped conditions Fluid temperature-- logged under ambient and pumped conditions Heat-pulse flow meter or EM flow meter -- logged under ambient and pumped conditions  CNL-FDC (compensated neutron log formation density) o Construction o Security Domestic Wells Sampling o Agreements o Procedures Soil samples o Locations o Procedures Sampling and Analytical Methods Communication Plan     1 Confidential   Documents Provided:  Tentative Schedule (pg 3)  CHK Comments on Draft QAPP (pg 4)  Proposed Surface Location Plat (pg 80)  Proposed Surface Location Aerial (pg 81)  Proposed Soil Sample Locations (pg 82)  Typical Well Completions (E&E) (pg 83)  Security Seal Example (pg 85)  De Soto Parish ½ mile Buffer Parcel Map (pg 86)  CHK List of Analytical Parameters (pg 87)  CHK Sample Collection List (EPA Table 8) (pg 92)  Representative Chemical Disclosures (5 mile radius from site) (pg 93) o BSOA 14-14-15 H-1 (pg 93) o BURFORD 21-14-15 H-1 (pg 98) o FORCAP 4-13-15 H-2 (pg 103) o KEATCHIE 15-14-15 H-1 (pg 108) o MARTINEZ 3-13-15 H-1 (pg 112)  CHK Draft Data Quality Evaluation and Validation Effort (pg 117)  CHK Draft Flowback and Baseline Sampling Procedures (pg 128)  CHK Draft Communication Plan (pg 135) 2 Confidential Task Name Duration Start Finish [June 11 [October 21lMarch1 [July 11 [November IApri 1 [August 11 [Decem 0 6/5 1 8/7 9/1 I11/3l 1/5 1 1 QAPP 30 days Mon 8/22/11 Fri 9/30/11 2 Monitoring Well Construction Bids 5 days Mon 9/26/11 Fri 9/30/11 3 I Monitoring Well Land Owner Agreements 10 days Mon 10/3/11 Fri 10/14/11 4 Monitoring Well Construction 45 days Mon 10/17/11 Fri 12/16/11 5 Domestic Baseline Sampling Land Owner Agreements and Outreach 10 days Mon 9/26/11 Fri 10/7/11 - 6 Domestic Baseline Sampling 15 days Mon 10/10/11 Fri 10/28/11 7 Baseline Monitoring Well Sampling 20 days Mon 12/19/11 Fri 1/13/12. 8 Pad Construction 20 days Wed 2/1/12 Wed 2/29/12- 9 Post-Pad Construction Sampling 15 days Wed 2/29/12 Wed 3/21/12: ?0 Drilling 45 days Wed 3/21/12 Tue 5/22/12- Post-Drilling Sampling 10 days Wed 5/23/12 Tue 6/5/12? ?2 Completions 15 days Wed 9/5/12 Tue 9/25/12: ?3 Post-Completions Sampling 10 days Wed 9/26/12 Tue 10/9/12 3 i Production Equipment Installation 15 days Wed 10/24/12 Tue 11/13/12j ?5 I Post-Production Sampling 260 days Wed 11/14/12 Tue 11/12/13 project projecn Task Progress Summary External Tasks Deadline Date: Mon 9/19/11 Split .. Milestone 9 Project Summary External Milestone 0 Page 1 (Con ?den?al 1.0 Projggt "Ianagement It: Deleted: cvsar QulityAssnrance Ci Deleted: Plan 1.1 Projecth ask Organization Formatted: Heading 1, Le? Formatted: NotAll caps The organizational structure for the Hydraulic Fracturing Prospective Case Study located in the Formatted: Font: Not Bold, Not AI caps Haynesville Shale. in Desoto Parish Louisiana is shown in Figure l. The responsibilities of the principal personnel associated with this case study are listed below. Dr. Robert Puls. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, O?ice of Research and Development, National Risk Management Research Laboratory. Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research - 65123919 ?81136. weal! Iii/519999 Fracturing Study. He is the principal investigator of this project and is responsible for preparing ?t I and maintaining the_Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) aspects of this QAPP. including overall responsibility for QA. He will lead the collection. analysis. and interpretation of groundwater and surface water samples. Q?reenf?e?rslr Enid. Development, National Risk Management Research Vandegri? is responsible for quality assurance review/approval of the QAPP. audits; I. and QA review/approval of the ?nal report. His HAZWOPER certi?cation is current. 2? "It I Dr Randall Ross, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Of?ce of Research and Development, I National Risk Management Research Ada. OK. Dr. Ross will assist the analyer of hydrologic at the srte and Will 1n the development of vI: II the site hydrologic conditions. His HAZWOPER certi?cation is current. II 0? Deleted: 1[ Title: Hydnulic Fracturing Prospective Case Study, Haynesville Shale, Desoto Parish, 1A1 1 TASK No 1 1 1 1 gACI?-?gwr 11 1 DlteQAPPsubmittett 1 1 NnubaofPags? 1 RevisionNo: 01 1 ?1 grind?! Investigator mommaMr. Steve Acree. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Of?ce of Research and Development. I National Risk Management Research Laboratory, BSKERC. Mr; A_cr_e_e_will_a?s_is_t_in - the analysis of hydrologic conditions at the Haynesville site and will assist in the development of I at I the site hydrologic conditions. His HAZWOPER certi?cation is cm?rent. Deleted: Deleted: QAPP Deleted: 1[ i" i r? Mr. Russell Neill, Environmental Protection Agency, Of?ce of Research and I Development, National Risk Management Research LaboratoryJ?SKERC Ill Deleted:RobatS Kathy-item] Cm( Research Hf Deleted: I Eerironlnieptalt?qa. 9.19.13}. 1.411131% grenesing?ze ?x analytical work performed under r?ormd Water and Ecos stems Restoration Division?s (GWERD) on site analytical contract (V dissolved gases, and metals). ?l is responsible for assisting in ground water sampling. His HAZWOPER certi?cation is current. Ms. Shauna Bennett, Shaw Environmental. Ada, OK. Dr. Ms. Bennett is the QC Coordinator for Shaw Environmental and will coordinate QC for Shaw Environmental portion of this study. Deleted: anliiyAmmoeProjectPlan( Deleted: Deleted: Roberts KerrEnvimmnunalResearch cum (RSKERC), Deleted:RobenS KerrEnvimnmartalReseardi Deleted:RobertS KarEmrimnmenaneseudi Carts Deleted: 1[ I Deleted: Formatted Section No. 2 Revision No. 0 September 18. 2011 Page Confidential Ms. Caporale. USEPA Region 3 Analytical Laboratory. Laboratory Branch Chief/Technical Director. Ms. Caporale will act as a liason between the Region 3 Lab and RSKERC. Mr. Christo her Hill Chesa eake Ener . OK. Mr. Hill will be the sin le point of contact for Chesapeake Energy tlu?oughout the Ha?iesville prospective study. (Deleted: I Formatted: Haghight I . . . Dr. Puls is responsible for initiating contact with appropriate project participants as he deems {loll Dd i necessary. Other project participants will keep Dr. Puls informed whenever signi?cant mm'mlu'?xdmm?w developments or changes occur. Lines of communication among project participants may be conducted via in person conversations. electronic mail, phone conversations. conference callsand periodic meetings. proceeds AEDR/Phselhrev'lwdiouldhemed to Mfy my partial such as USTS, 1.2 Problem De?nition/Background The prospective case study in the Haynesville?halc {see Figure leillipyestigotsdhe - ?mm . . mm? it construction of a new well pad. new production well. hydraulic fracttuing of said well. 99/ 1, Deleted? "a . management and disposal of wastewater and production of gas from said well for about ll year I I Newinclude surface water (ifpresem), soil and sediment followrng hydraulic fracturin to determine if there is a ne atrve un act to water. investigation will initially involv wate; _s1_u;fac_e_wa_ter and soil and sediment_ Deleted: sampling in the vicinity of the well pad to determine baselinepharacteiistics. _Thi_s_stu_dy_willp?_ I: Dam: conducted in conjunction with the mum WW, Chesapeake Energy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Region 6 (EPA R6): and U.S. W031 him! Environmental Protection Agency. Of?ce of Research and Development, National Risk II {Deleted; Management Research Laboratory Ground Water and Ecosystems Restoration negated: 550 Division (GWERD). GWERD Will be the lead organization for this case study. [Ix/?1 can? . The proposed pad location is in Desoto Parish in north western LA and has an estimated all? :??'g?mmws?th population The area ?11rzonnrii_n3_thc pr_op98_e_d_s_it9 38.911399! PM Mm However. we Howie experiencing extensive natural gas exploration using horizontal drilling technology and hydraulic fracttuing 15 being employed to stimulate production in these wells. 4 ?it? 1 The Iobjectives of this case studyj ?e_listed_belgw. HI, I Mm: mung I I I . Primary Objective: Evaluate groundwater. surface waterand soil characteristicsl during and afterkey phases of a shale gas well development; pad construction. well drilling. well_ I We minim my? completion. and?productig if there is a signi?cant change in media characteristics. I QC: Deleted: hunting of a Secondary Objective 1: [Determine the appropriate baseline characteristics of Deleted: wellfor mammal: groundwater, surface water. and soil. {Ornament Giventincnuult sdledule, tine does not appear mush time to seasonal . massaging]. datum ?1 Deleted: qualityofdrinkingwaterresoumes which could be inputted by hydraulic ?actnring Section No. 2 Revision No. 0 September 18. 2011 Page 2 of 70 (Con Secondary Objective 2: Detennine?gharacteristics of groundwater, surface water. and - a soil throughout the key phases of the gas well development: post-pad construction to approximately one year after initial gas production. Secondary Objective 3: Determine the chemistry, Ivolumes and rateLo_f produced wategh a eci?call 28109.0! mums?nni thaenr9?11cti99 Ee11_f91_19\ripg hydraulic fracturing. Secondary Objective 4: .Compare data gathered for secondary objectives 1 and 2 to determine insigni?cant changes were observed in theinedia baseline characteristicsa and if this change could be attributed to the gas well development. Secondary Objective 5: geview wastewaters site management and disposalpractices during drilling and hydraulic fracturingl and qualitatively identify risks to drinking water sources . 1.3 Project/Task Description ?den?al Deleted: Deleted: withdrawal? Deleted:) Delded:Detamine Deleted: anfaoeotsubsm?ceoontamimtion of Deleted: drilling mum maxing poees Delaed: Evaluate Deleted: ofwastewatas ?mn t1: Deleted: process In order to accomplish the primary objective of the study. the established monitoring well Deleted: (soe network. along with any pertinent domestic wells and municipal supply wells will be sampled for I Deleted: Gasoline (6R0), the following components foruid in "fable LIn_a_ddi_ti_onl se_le_c_t 4,17 components (such as potassium (K), barium alcohols, naphthalene. and boron), potentially mobilized naturally occurring substances (such as arsenic (As). selenium strontium and other trace hetalslwilt also. 12% te?t9<1 91.093 Paekgzqurlsi major anions and cations). In addition, during future samplings soil and stream samples will be taken and the critical analytes for these sample types are the same as listed previouslyorder to address secondary objective 1, groundwater surface watersampling and soil and sampling will be necessary. The target parameter? listed i_n_the primaryobjectiye _w_i1_l _be_ needed to address this objective. Secondary objective 2 will entail re-sampling of groundwater, surface water, and soils for the same suite of parameters to see if there was any adverse impact] Secondary objective 3 will require the sampling of the waters/?uids returned to the surface following hydraulic fracturing and release of downhole pressures during fracturing. Very few studies have been done to evaluate the chemistry of those ?uids, the exact volumes returned to the surface over time and the rate at which these ?uids return from the formation. jl'hese ?uids will include the chemicals injected (see Table 2), degradation products of those chemicals, and native constituents in the targeted fractured formation g. brines, radium, radon, metals etcj Diesel Range Organics (DRO), volatile organic oonpoundsWOCs), 'Comment[c9]: Radimmducbnarelistedin WW3mlyubmlenotWin hpinaryobjec?ve Itiarecommded?lyn eonment ismededtode?netbvuiabilitydm oollectiondepth,? vuiabilityinsample result: Suggetleas?buelinsaqlingsbe Matamidmntod?mdnm-qm?ty Lvuiability rComment snarling Oommem [c13]: A?analytestobeinvuu'yned buelinenuph'ng meniphtadonisnot Wm Maybemnsidaedme?illeyoud?lyou A 1 4 Section No. 2 Revision No. 0 September 18. 2011 Page 3 of 70 _heu,m226/223 I sample bias and effect the conclusions of the studjd Confidential Secondary objective 4 will determine if these same drinking water resources have been impacted following well completion or hydraulic fracturing activities. The target parameters listed above in paragraph 1 will be needed to address this objective. Secondary objective 5 will allow for the evaluation of best management practices by industry regarding on-site management and ultimate disposal of wastewaters from hydraulic fracturing operations . Cornmem [c14]: The mutation ofiulusuapenme his MMEPAW The data collected from this case study will be incorporated into the larger Hydraulic Fractluing mamm?m?nm?w??s report to Congress. It is also anticipated that this data will be utilized in EPA keports, conference proceedings and journal articlesl- slate 12e_ 118991)): - I mt last m? we? policy and decision makers in EPA and state regulatory agencies. ?wwbbe mmhm? reviewde ouuolenp?om A proposed schedule for ?eld activities is provided in Table 3. 1.4 Project Quality Objectives and Criteria As part of this case study, detailed site history has been collected and is continuing to be collected. This data has been collected from Chesapeake and other sources of public information. The site history will be used to determine the background conditions at the site as Wt well as the potential for other activities in the area to be a potential source of the impact dihl?mw used local aquifer. [Natural sources of contaminants or other human act1v1ties could potentially create I u, mums, ??lls, spills ling an railroad am salt stung yards, sepic huh, sewer Ems, mm thawi?iinalmihudinsofthesib A The installed monitoring well network and domestic water well sun'ounding the proposed pad ?06m: and conducting groundwater sampling. soil sampling and surface water Deleted: . me Pd lepresentative datzi setthatwill ,pe analyzed to deteimine if signi?cant changes were observed in _r [an . mm? thelpeclia Paselhge sliaracjelistisa? 91.121 if_tllese_ellaliee? 59111999 amputee! [Ollie are.? Well development. [To date EPA has received limited information on the hydrologic conditions near the proposed well pad Ppp'pg _t11e_ipi_ti_al goo events?atea level 1 Deleted= Mes wee be! comm-emf measurements will be taken in order to address the hydrologic setting, ?ow direction and Deleted: (kinkingwauresomoes of IvelocityLL Other project quality objectives. such as precision, accuracy, sensitivity. and etc. will be ?7 OonImeo t[c18]: or? discussed primarily in sections 2. 3. and 4. Lug QA Comment [c19]: trolls such as Speci?c Cuttle?vity lid wata level 1.5 Special Training/Certi?cation In to povide gnu-(kill huelim dill?commas A current HAZWOPER certi?cation is required for on-srte work. HAZWOPER traimng and wits-level mam is ache-p yearly refresher training is provided to GWERD personnel at an appropriate training facility . Needgoodhaamemmtde?mmu?tyin chosen by GWERD SHEMP (Safety, Health. and Envrronmental Management Program) stapling, whichcanbesigii?mt, manager. The HAZWOPER certi?cate and wallet card is provided to each person completing Deleted: Section No. 2 Revision No. 0 September 18. 2011 Page 4 of 70 (Son the training. All EPA contractor personnel will also be required to have HAZWOPER training and up-to-date training certi?cates. In addition to HAZWOPER naining, Chesapeake is requiring that all ?eld personnel undergo hydrogen sul?de training. This training will be ?den?al provided by Chesapeake; a Deleted: The laboratories performing critical analyses in support of this case study must demonstrate their competency in the ?elds of analyses to be conducted. prior to performing such analyses. Competency may be demonstrated through documentation of certi?cation/accreditation or some other means as determined to be acceptable by project participants. The EPA GP laboratory and the Shaw laboratories, the on-site contractor laboratory at will be u?e_d_t9 analyze select critical analytes listed in Table 1. These laboratories have demonstrated competency through the implementation of 0RD PPM 13.4. Minimum Practices for 0RD Laboratories Conducting Research which includes external independent assessments. These laboratories are also routinely subjected to internal laboratory assessments and performance evaluation (PE) samples. The USEPA Region V111 Laboratory will be used to analyze those critical analytes listed in Table 1. This laboratory has been subjected to the National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (NELAP) accreditation process through the state of Texas and Iis expected to soon be granted approvalL a The Region Laboratory will be used to analyze glycols. which is not identi?ed as critical at this time. However. it is accredited under the NELAP through the state of New Jersey as the Accrediting Body. The particular method being used by Region for Ithese analyses are not accreditedc 121331.19 1.8999912 Ewe-Yen. - initial data reported from the glycol analysis will be ?agged as ?screening? data from a method that is currently being developed. Once the data is validated. it will no longer be ?agged as ?screening? data. 1.6 [Documents and Recordi - muczok'lhehboruayslwuldalsobea I. . . I. . ?rl. waterquality stab?srequirm OnlyaccephbbEPAw Lunthodsshurldbemed Comment [c22]: EPARegioumbbamxy adequate CHKrequutsaoopyofallnon? _pmunlgadePAme?rod VOomment Data reports will be provided electronically as Excel spreadsheets. Shaw?s raw data is kept on- site at the GWERD and will be provided on to Dr. Puls. Raw data for sub-contracted laboratories shall be included with the data reports. Calibration and QC data and results shall be included. Field notebooks will be kept as well as customized data entry forms if needed. Records and documents expected to be produced include: ?eld data. chain-of-custody (COC). QA audit reports for ?eld and laboratory activities. data reports. raw data. calibration data, QC data, interim reports. and a ?nal report. All ?eld and laboratory docmnentation shall provide enough detail to allow for reconstruction of events. Documentation practices shall adhere to 0RD PPM 13.2. ?Paper Laboratory Records.? Section No. 2 Revision No. 0 September 18. 2011 Page 5 of 70 Lwebsiteinatimelymner Confidential Since this is a QA Category 1 project. all project records require permanent retention per Agency Records Schedule 501. Applied and Directed Scientl?c Research. . They shall be stored in Dr. Puls?s of?ce in the GWERD until they are transferred to Records Storage Roomdetermined time in the future the records will be transferred to a National Archive facility. .24! Data 991199111011. aaslAsqtlisitmL - - a In! ?owback should be the sum as baseline 2.1 Sampling Process Design (Experimental Design) Deleted; sneak (Next PageW] First sampling events in 2011 will include soils. surface water and ground water samples only. Flowback and produced water will be sampled after hydraulically fracturing the well in 2012. The QAPP will be revised as appropriate following these events and prior to succeeding sampling events. 2.1.1 Background Geologic and Hydrological Information Geology Surface exposures consist of Pleistocene and Holocene sediment. Sandy. gravelly and muddy alluvium from rivers and coastal marsh deposits make up the Holocene while terraces of glacial sand. gravel and mud deposits ?om the North make up the Pleistocene. Underlying the Pleistocene Imits are the units of the Eocene and Paleocene. Two formations from these periods that are of note are Claiborne group and the underlying Wilcox group. These groups are composed primarily of sandstones and are an important aquifer in Louisiana and Texas. This aquifer will be discussed in greater detail below. Underlying the Wilcox formation is the Midway formation which is a confining layer composed of clays. Underlying this are Upper Cretaceous formations which contain marl. chalk. limestone and shale and some groups which are known for hydrocarbon production in the area. These units. in order from top down are the Navarro. Taylor. Austin. Eagle Ford, Tuscaloosa and the top of the Washita. The Lower Cretaceous is composed of the limestone. chalk. marl. shales and sandstones of the Washita- Fredericksburg and Trinity Groups. Underlying the Lower Cretaceous is the Upper Jurassic which contains the Cotton Valley Group?s shallow marine shales. The Haynesville Formation lies below the Cotton Valley group and is a hydrocarbon producing black shale and the equivalent of the Lower Bossier Formation in Texas. Underlying the Haynesville is the calcareous shelf/reef/lagoon formations of the Smackover limestone which is underlain by the Norphlet mudstone. The Louann Salt and Werner red shale and sandstone formations are located underneath the Norphlet mudstone. The underlying Upper Triassic contains the thick red beds of the Eagle Mills Group which are above the undifferentiated rock of the Paleozoic (LAGS 2008 and AKGS). Desoto Parish Section No. 2 Revision No. 0 September 18. 2011 Page 6 of 70 Confidential Desoto Parish is located in the northwestern region of Louisiana in a geologically signi?cant area called the Sabine Uplift. The Sabine Upli? area was created as a result of the combination of the rifting events which created the Gulf of Mexico and shearing forces resulting from tectonics in North America. These same forces are the cause of multiple salt domes that occur in the county. While the stratigraphic sequence is the same in the county as the rest of the state. the Jurassic age formations of the Haynesville and Bossier shales are of note as both are well-known as hydrocarbon producers. The Bossier Shale is dark. calcareous. fossiliferous marine shale in sequence with sandstone that is determined to be the source rock for the gas accumulation in upper formations. The Haynesville Shale is a carbonaceous, ultra-low permeability/high porosity black shale below the Bossier Shale with the thin Gilmer Lime separating the two formations (LAGS 2008 and AKGS). a Comment [c25]: Additioum are mm mm seem name. The Carrizo-Wilcox is an Eocene and Paleocene age aquifer and is comprised of hydraulically connected. well sorted. fine to medium grained. cross bedded sands and silts from the Wilcox Group and the Carrizo Formation of the Claiborne Group (Ashworth and Hopkins. 1995). The origins of the sands which compose the Carrizo-Wilcox are both ?uvial and ?uvial-deltaic in origin. The Carrizo-Wilcox aquifer extends across Texas from the Rio Grande in the southwest to Red River the northeast including Desoto Parish in Louisiana. The aquifer is bounded at its base by the con?ning clays of the Midway group and is overlain by the con?ning clays and silty clays of Cane River formation. The aquifer has a down-dip trend to the south which is the primary factor in ground water ?ow direction. Brackish water formd in the aquifer is most likely the result of dissolution of salt domes found in the area and most likely also plays a role in the direction of groundwater ?ow because density differences. Water also moves between overlying alluvial and terrace aquifers. the Sparta aquifer. and the Carrizo-Wilcox aquifer. according to hydraulic head di?'erences and in some places artesian pressures within the aquifer were originally sufficient to drive water above grormd. Water level ?uctuations are mostly seasonal. and the hydraulic conductivity varies between 2 and Primary recharge of the Carrizo- Wilcox aquifer occurs from direct in?ltration of rainfall in upland outcrop-subcrop areas. Maximum depths of occurrence of freshwater in the Carrizo-Wilcox range from 200?. above sea level to 1.100?. below sea level. Based on well completion records from the Bankston 28-14- 15H well in Desoto Parish, the base of the Carrizo-Wilcox aquifer appears to be greater than 1.000 feet deep near the study location. The range of thickness of the fresh water interval in the aquifer is 50 to 850?. Depths of drinking water wells in the immediate vicinity of the site range from 70ft. to 566?. below ground sru?face. Analysis of the quality of the water ?om the Carrizo- Wilcox aquifer shows it to be so? and of good quality with an average pH of 8.31. total dissolved solids (TDS) of 0.48 gfL. a salinity of 0.36 and chloride content of 66.4 mg/L. Further information about the water quality from the Carrizo-Wilcox can be found in Table 4 (LDEQ 2009). Section No. 2 Revision No. 0 September 18. 2011 Page 7 of 70 10 Confidential 2.1.2 Ground-Water Monitoring Groundwater sampling and analysis will provide data that can be used to identify?ghanges in a Deleted: thepolmn?al water?qpality?nd investigate i_these changes have potentially been caused by the introduction_o_f_: Deleted: . drilling ?uids. hydraulic fracturing ?uids. and formation ?uids and gases to underground sources Deleted; of drinking water. [This sampling will aid in the understanding of the potential chemicals Deleted: my, ?mmyum constituents that could contaminate shallow ground water?gsyyell i_is_th? p9t_er_1t_ia_l_fi_it_ure_ i_m_p_a_ct_s releases af?ne cons?nmts to shallow groundwater that may occur as the result of the transport of contaminants to the siteL I ?LDeIeted: from opem?ons, The groundwater sampling component of this project is intended to provide a survey of water Wt Edmmu quality in the area of investigationthroughout the key phases of the gas well development: pi?pad construction to appi'oxnnately one year after initial gas production. Location. distribution. and number of sampling sites can a??ect the quality and applicability of the resulting data (USGS. Dam. 2010). Therefore. the following criteria may be used to determine groundwater water sampling Dam: won, and locations: study objectives and sampling methods: all available historical information; physical [hydraulic ?xturing operations characteristics of the area. such as size and shape. land use. geology. point and nonpoint sources of contamination, hydraulic conditions. climate. water depth; chemical characteristics of the area: and the types of equipment that will be needed for sampling (U SGS. 2010). GWERD. EPA R6. LADEQ. and Chesapeake will survey the existing data and potentially speak to landowners near the proposed pad to determine if ground water wells in the area could be sampled for the study. The domestic well(s). will be sampled via homeowner tapdt J13 i_s_b_eli?ved_that_mgs_t domestic 5 Oommem _[c271: Iran is I human min I wells are screened in the sur?cial aquifer between 100 and 500 it below ground surface] I ?wx: Similarly. the water supply wells will be sampled similar to the domestic wells. It is anticipated Howwill that the monitoring wells will be necessary and sampled quarterly by EPA over a period of 1.5 ii 4? years. The minimum number of sampling events to determine if an impact to the aquifer I. happened is estimated to be three sampling events. mm mm [It is estimated that up to 18 monitoring wells will be installed to monitor groundwater quality near the study location. Monitoring wells will be clustered, with a shallow, intermediate and In?omlu'month I deep monitoring well to monitor the full thickness of the aquifer (see Table when; ?1 appropriate and based on well screen depths, a domestic supply well may be substituted for one ?x mt?$ of the monitoring wells. Proposed monitoring well locations will include: to A well cluster upgradient of the drilling location; ?Wm 0 Two shallow monitoring wells immediately down gradient of the well pad; ?f Deleted: No complete well clusters on either side of the lateral approximately V2 to 3/4 of a Deleted? mile south of the drilling location; and 0 Three complete well clusters approximately of a mile south of the end of the lateral. These clusters will be oriented east to west with approximately 1/2 mile spacing between clusters. Section No. 2 Revision No. 0 September 18. 2011 Page 8 of 70 11 Confidential The study area and proposed locations of monitoring wells as well as existing water supply and gas wells is illustrated in Figure 3 Surface water sampling and analysis will 1 water quality and investigate i_f drilling ?acturina 111995; .8119 fqrmatiQQ 3114183119 ?9 amass are: sources of ddnkins waterE ;ai_d_iy_t1_l<: PQtSIltial shqmisab 45? constituents that could contaminate surface water that may occur as the result of the transport of is}. I contaminants to the sitekI 1? There are several ways in which surface water quality could be impacted as the result of hydraulic ?acm?n? 912% 298?ible31199h99i?131j? .tlieJlirestganqngipatiqn. the spillage. t" ?u Ill? l?lu in? run in? of drilling. hydraulic fracturing. or formation ?uids into the surface water body. In addition. runoff and or subsurface transport of drilling, hydraulic fracturing. or formation ?uid through the soil could cause impacts to surface water. IEach surface water location has a unique set of conditions that needs to be identi?ed and considered in the sample selection process. Therefore, it is important that sample locations accurately represent the intended conditions (such as time of year and ?ow rate or stage) of the aqueous being studied with respect to study objectives. In most bodies of ?owing or still water, a single sampling site or point is not adequate to describe the physical properties and the distribution and abundance of chemical constituents. Location, distribution, and number of I sampling sites can affect the quality and applicability of the resulting data (U SGS, 2010,); Therefore, the following criteria may be used to determine surface water sampling locations: study objectives and sampling methods; all available historical information; physical characteristics of the area, such as size and shape, land use, tributary and runoff characteristics, geology, point and nonpoint sources of contamination, hydraulic conditions, climate, water depth, and ?uvial-sediment transport characteristics; chemical characteristics of the area; and the I types of equipment that will be needed for sampling (U 868, ?ll \l I Surface water bodies are of two basic types: ?owing water bodies (intermittent and perennial I ?ow) and still water bodies poring flowing-water (f98_t_ Deleted: or slow. intermittent, ephemeral. or perennial). canals. ditches. and ?umes of all sizes and I Deleted; ?has I shapes, or to any other surface feature in which water moves unidirectionally (USGS. I Dam: Still-water sites refer to all sizes and shapes of lakes. reservoirs, ponds. swamps, marshes, {Dawn riverine backwaters. or any other body of surface water where water generally does not move I unidirectionally (USGS, 2010.1L Deleted: For ?owing water the optimal sampling locations is in straight reaches having uniform ?ow and stable bottom contours: far enough above and below con?uences of stream?ow or point sources Section No. 2 Revision No. 0 September 18. 2011 Page 9 of 70 Deleted: the potential Deleted: impacts, ??Imvuhgahd comm? Thritlwillaidin Deleted: . . . mdusbodmdde?md hddi?mmu??mofcmm wells hthepndlocation Deleted: any, ?'omthe accidental 0:de release of are constituents Deleted: and I Comment Irismderstoodfmm?xis hdn?ulcas?hmts?utoou?pota?a?y I Immune-Mesa]: mama? liming IDeleted:) Wm,hisnotwenmm HN?Jw?J?wawwl 12 Confidential of contamination to avoid sampling a cross section where ?ows are poorly mixed or not unidirectional: and in reaches upstream from bridges or other structures, to avoid contamination from the structure or from a road surface (U 868. 2010,)i s_ti_ll_wat_er_ samplipgsites {Deletedn the optimal locations should avoid areas near structures such as harbors. boat ramps. piers. fuel docks. and moored houseboats (to avoid point sources of contamination), unless these structures arepartofthe Baseline water quality will be assessed in order to establish a benchmark for water quality changes that have occurred as the result of drilling and hydraulic ?actun'ng process. The baseline water quality will be collected based on historical data. if available. or of the potentially impacted areal K, - mt [as];e Baseline down'fsam IS Fahd 2.1.4 Flowback! Produced Water Sampling Flowback and produced water sampling will be part of the Haynesville Shale prospective study. Flowback/ produced water sampling will identify the speci?c chemical constituents associated Wt Mum's with ?owback/ produced water_; understand the potential chemicals constituents that could my, fawmm contaminate surface water. groundwater and soil: and provide information to understand how II ?owback produced water affects water treatment and disposal. II Enigma?? I In general. several frac tanks are connected in-line and ?lled simultaneously with the ?ow back It, water. This is completed to avoid back pressure when shutting one frac tank and opening another I: My Wu.? W8 tank for additional capacity. This ?lling process will provide a composite sample of the ?ow I ?nds will oolbd a meantime staple omits fullihpdi, ifoolbc?ng?mnamk Bdterto back water over time. [To minimize volatilization, a representative composite sample of the ?ow I, oollectbefotedltanhglepossible Rm back water samples will be collected from the top of a frac tank or ?ow back impoundmentL ?mtg? (Hayes 2009). in demth Jeoimnenucsnmeomndcommie hhe Wodueed ?EL??mill be ?owed back 1.11311.th water 1, I properly 99 ?139 993% 129111ng _tlie_s_al_nple @919.frac tank usmg a peristaltic pump. mm mm Deleted: a back A baseline fractiu?ing ?uid sample will be collected prior to going Idown holeiL The baseline i ?acuuing ?uid will be collected from either the sampling lines built into the blenders or as a grab sample from the blending containers. In either case a representative sample of the ?uid will be collected. conmt management?: Fracturing is completed over several days depending on the geological formation. Because the ?t ?soimpounm ?ow back water 15 under pressure. initially the ?owback water 15 recovered at a faster rate in the beginning of fractiu'ing and signi?cantly declines as fracturing continues and the well is released madam, a sub sample ?Needlecde to production. The initial concentrations at the start of fracturing (hi yields of ?ow back water) g; ?of?(by should yield lower concentrations of naturally occurring chemicals. is assumed that the 1mm? to 1J5 1 concentration of the fracturing chemicals remain constant throughout the ?ow back regardless of mm mamangm series sample the rate ipsrease 903199159399 9! enemisab 18.411539 - - {com-ant [c40]: Amman-arm? necessarilym Section No. 2 Revision No. 0 September 18. 2011 Page 10 of 70 13 (Son a longer residence time in the applicable formation and the potential release of naturally occurring chemicals caused by geochemical process and physical changes brought about by the fractluing process. Therefore. to obtain representative samples of the ?ow back water. samples will be collected on 5 separate days. [The data obtained beyond day 15 should represent the chemical characteristics of the produced wat 2.1.5 Soil Sampling Soil sampling will be part of the monitoring utilized in the prospective case study. Soil sampling and analysis will provide data that can be used to and HI I investigate if 11e_se_3 chap es_ha_v_e pteptiall _l_)e_en_ca1_ls_ed_b contaminants during the development process. Not only can soils potentially act as a sink for the contaminants in the environment but, soils could also serve as a source of contaminants to shallow groundwater. Therefore. it is important to investigate L1 there i_s_a_n_a_ccun_11_llat_ign gt: I I ,ll/ contaminants in soilaatlic respite! hydranlic. damning infetmaticn It: undemandtlie Baseline soil samples will be assessed in order to establish a benchmark for impacts to soil that have occurred as the result of drilling and hydraulic fractluing processes. [The baseline soil samples will be collected in and around where the pad will be constructed. and will survey the area and speak to stakeholders in Keatchie to determine the location of sampling points. It is anticipated that the soils will be sampled prior to pad and well construction I and again (at the same locations) following the hydraulic fracturing of the well. The [latitude and longitudel 9f_tlie ?nmelin _ls>ca_ti_cn? will be ?e_c9r_ded .89 that tne_19c_a_ti9n? can_b_e_c_on?i_stet_it_lx 1? sampled throughout the tudy[.the area in and surrounding the proposed drilling pad. composite surface soil samples will be collected using a predetermined sampling bid; fimne :1 ?139W?tli? . a Each composite sample will be representative of approximatel a 200 square foot area as shown in Figure 4. Additionally. soil samples will be collected usmgLeoprobe sampling techniqung a ?om the seawater ?qu locatitzn? _lt2c_ati9ns 3 A Deleted: Deleted: the potential It,{ Deleted: impacts, _tl_1e_ {temper} and {eleasse 9t I Deleted: Deleted: to surface water and shallow groundwater through their gradual release pack into surface water and HI Deleted: of _(_q_y_nsk ?e uenc and magnitude?39 slainng Eaterimpactstemlting Deleted: may. I I I I I ?den?al Con?uent Based expaiune in WMWMIMWM Need s?mh?onandpainpsoutashumdays Need Deleted: hydru?ic?actmingprooess?om Deleted: annual Commem mandydoesnotappmto mt hismomdotherpom?al Comment Ornament Suggutwedoanm-38 1w The A gridbuedtpon?wseresuhs ConI'nent Muteonsidusoiltypesinmand immediately topographically down gradient of the drill pad. and one sample upgradient of the pad. [Proposed geoprobe sampling locations are also shown in Figure Dam: 2.2 Sampling Methods 2.2.1 [Installation of Monitoring Wells[ Section No. 2 Revision No. 0 September 18. 2011 Page 11 of 70 [Deleted: [-31 eomidaedtogetm-rdrepuamtive?ta ?owbe?xesebc?nglou?ms Tubulng Cornmem 14 Confidential The monitoring wells will be constructed using 2 in PVC casing and slotted PVC screens. The screen intervals in the monitoring wells will be based on information generated as part of site background data. The annular space between the borehole wall and the well screen will back?lled with 10-20 silica sand, usually to two feet above and below the screened interval. The remaining annular space above the sand pack will be sealed with a 3 to 5 foot bentonite pellet seal followed by a bentonite cement grout to within feet Comment [c50]: W3 ?eet then completed at the surface by concreting a lockable stick-up protective monitoring well cover. comment [csi]: Reooummd?bywa?gln, use The designated measuring point and elevation datum at each monitoring well is de?ned as the ground surface immediately adjacent to the sur?cial concrete pad to the north and the top of the inner PVC well casing on the north side. ese points will be surveyed in the horizontal and vertical positions of the monitoring well - 4? Comment [c52should be de?md as ham 1 hot, Wwom ?o 1 foot The installed wells will be developed by the Wetland/9r th_e_E_P_A2 co_n_tr_act_o_r ?113 ELL x: Deleted: - . 2.2.2 Ground-Water Monitoring Fomatted' Rm mt [c53]: The mm expuxeme needs bbevetbdfonh'llingdeepwelk, alongwith 2.2.2.1IMonitoringWelli goon-mm mmuimlvea - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - this process A EPA Region 3 low ?ow sampling procedures will be used to sample the wells as described Comment [c54]: Median: shouldbe budim below unpledinmonikxingwells Ifmhneism isotopic shouldbe pm 1) IWater Kill P9 P?i9r_ Illehupmieg 93:19 - mt in . The water level measurements will follow the RSKSOP-326 standard operating ?Zens ?lm procedure. [Water levels will be recorded in the ?eld notebook prior to samplingJ~ c561: . . mnitoting ofwau levels dung pulping 2) A new piece of tubing will be connected to the sampling port of the well and the Deleted: hemcated Pumd Kill PE .It_i? Will Yield}. - Gunnent[c51]: type shonldbe initial ?ow rate of approximately 1 min' This ?ow will pass through a ?ow cell speci?ed equipped with an YSI 5600 multiparameter probe (or equivalent probes). The rate of pumping will be determined by measuring the water volume collected after approximately 15 seconds into a 4 graduated cylinder: the desirable pumping rate through the ?ow cell should be less than 1 L/min. The pumping rate will ideally maintain minimal drawdown. Water levels will be taken following sampling to con?rm the drawdown caused by <[Cocmnent [ese]: Memento-athequ mjma?um A warningThe IYSI probekgr. Equivalent any! stabilizeioa mw?lwminwm?w of pH. oxidation-reduction potential (ORP), speci?c conductance (SC). dissolved oxygen Deleted: (DO), and temperature. In general. the guidelines in Table 6 will be used to determine Wt mm?m when parameters have stabilized. These criteria are initial guidelines; professional mum judgment in the ?eld will be used to determine on a well-by-well basis when stabilization occurs. Section No. 2 Revision No. 0 September 18. 2011 Page 12 of 70 15 Confidential 4) Once stabilization occurs. the ?nal values for speci?c conductance, dissolved oxygen. and temperature will be recordet? 5) After the values for pH, ORP. SC, DO. and temperature have been recorded. the ?ow cell will be disconnected. A series of un?ltered samples will be collected as follows: a. buplicatei4_0_n_?_~ X96 _V_ia_1? (ail-abs: glass) will)? $91_lsc_tsd_- _f9r_ - a I VOC analysis using Tribasic Sodium Phosphate (TSP) will be added to the VOA vial prior to shipping to the ?eld for sampling as a preservative. (Acid will not be used as a preservative due to a concern of acid hydrolysis of some analytes.) The samples will be stored and shipped on ice to Shaw. on-site contractor for GC-MS analysis. Duplicate 60 mL serum bottles will be collected, without headspace. for dissolved gas analysis hydrogen. carbon dioxide, ethane. methane. butane. propane). The bottles will contain trisodium phosphate as a preservative and will be ?lled with no head space and sealed with a crimp cap. The samples will be stored and shipped on ice to Shaw. on-site contractor for analysis. Duplicate 1 amber glass bottles will be collected for semi-volatile organic compounds. These samples will be stored and shipped on ice to EPA Region Laboratory for analysis. Duplicate 1L amber glass bottles will be collected for diesel range organic (DRO) analysis. These samples will be preserved with pH and shipped on ice to EPA Region Laboratory for analysis. Duplicate 40 mL amber VOA vials will be collected without headspace for gasoline range organic analysis (GRO). These samples will be preserved with pH and shipped on ice to EPA Region Laboratory for analysis. Duplicate 40 mL amber VOA vials will be collected for glycol analysis. These samples will be stored and shipped on ice to EPA Region HI Laboratory for analysis. Duplicate 40 mL glass VOA vials will be collected for low molecular weight acids using Tribasic Sodium Phosphate (TSP) will be added to the VOA vial prior to shipping to the ?eld for sampling as a preservative. The samples will be stored and shipped on ice to Shaw. on-site contractor for GC-MS analysis. A l-liter plastic beaker will be ?lled for selected analyses to be conducted in the ?eld. Field measurements will consist of turbidity. alkalinity. ferrous iron. and dissolved sul?de (Table 7). Turbidity (Standard Method 180.1) will be measured using a Section No. 2 Revision No. 0 September 18. 2011 Page 13 of 70 1 comment [060]: hismmdedwmd Collectdissolved nuple?ftrbidityisovuStolONTU Deleted: ?682603 WhihTSPisanaeoephble inthemlyticalproces Suggestei?u WW)ornom?manda7 _dayholdingtinn 16 Confidential HACH 2100Q portable turbidimeter (or equivalent instrument). will be Comment [062]: Fiddm ?x my? . . . dusolved? sul?depuucuhiy? maybe ?x measured by titrating ground water With 1.6N H2504 to the bromcresol green-methyl red endpoint using a HACH titrator (HACH method 8203. equivalent to Standard Method 2320B for alkalinity). Ferrous iron will be measured using the 1.10- wmwm?mhm . oompth phenanthrolme colorimetric method (HACH spectrometer. HACH method 8146. equivalent to Standard Method 3500-F for wastewater). Dissolved sul?de will be measured using the methylene blue colorimetric method (HACH spectrometer: HACH method 8131. equivalent to Standard Method 4500-52" for Iwastewateib. maimem [063]: wmumw W3, going to use (In ?ow values, or collect the from the of 6) A?er the un?ltered samples have been collected a high-capacity cartridge ground-water ?lter (0.45pm. Pall Corporation. or equivalent manufacturer) will be placed on the end of the pump tubing and ?ltered samples will be collected into pre-labeled sample bottles. First. approximately 100 mL of ground water will be ?ltered and sent to waste and next the following series of samples will be Icollectedi a Comment [664]: of ?ltered ma docunun did not have sodium my; in a. 125 mL plastic bottle for hretals by t_?o_r All?gq?s: 1353; ?lmComment [065]: ?gamma-mi this sample will also be used for ICP-MS analysis for Cd. Cr. As. Cu. Pb. Ni. Se. Hg. mmwma?mm and TI. This sample will be ?ltered and preserved by adding 5 drops of concentrated HNO3 (pH test strips will be used to con?rm that the sample pH is Test stn'ps mum LR, ?ml, for will used on every sample to insure that a broper preservation pH Wt [067]: ?magnum attained. This rs especrally nnportant in case high alkalimty samples are encountered during the ground-water sampling. The samples will be stored and shipped on ice to Shaw. on-site contractor for analysis. b. One 60 mL clear plastic bottle for CE (capillary electrophoresis) sulfate. chloride. bromide and ?uoride. This sample will be ?ltered. no preservative added. The samples will be stored and shipped on ice to the RSKERC general parameters lab. c. One 60 mL clear plastic bottle for nitrate nitrite and ammoniunit This sample will a 9mm! Suggestwe abomigorhugmic be ?ltered. 2 drops of sulfuric acid added as preservative (pH test strips will be used m?m' to con?rm that the sample pH is see note above regarding use of pH test strips). The samples will be stored and shipped on ice to the RSKERC general parameters lab. d. Duplicate 40 mL glass VOA vial in duplicate for analysis of dissolved inorganic carbon (hm-112$ ?19219 Kill P9 ?ltszesk 99 ptessryetite?sisigi - Wt Wk 1! be stored and shipped on ice to the RSKERC general parameters lab. My Section No. 2 Revision No. 0 September 18. 2011 Page 14 of 70 17 Confidential e. Duplicate 40 mL glass VOA vial in duplicate for analysis of dissolved organic carbon dDOd); will be ?lteresimhpuzllorie?s s_e_t - [cm We?? of 40 mL VOA vials will be collected without preservation in case acid preservation may interferes with the analysis or primary instrument is unavailable. VOA vials will indicate if preservative was added. The samples will be stored and shipped on ice to the RSKERC general parameters lab. See Tables 8 and 9 for numbers of sample bottles needed for each sample type and ?eld QC samples for ground and surface water sampling. 2.2.2.2 Domestic wells. water supply wells. and municipal supply wells Domestic wells will be sampled directly from the tap or where possible. by accessing the well t1 dd th 11 .If d.th 11 '11b ,x'aunment 71:Need de?nemtlieimlae ldlrec . mg: 1 . . ma 1 with the down-hole pump lowered to the water intake location within the well casing. I ?hem Whenever drawdown of the water table will be tracked by taking water level ??lters his . measurements every l10 to 15 minutes timing well Eaterlelcel will. - Mmui??x?m? "with follow the RSKSOP-326 standard operating procedure. Water levels will be recorded in a ?eld pmeeding 24mpaioamstbeitlmi?ad, an! has shown that use byhonnowm can notebook during purging prior to sampling. am,?th Mm? in . io_w yielding wen Mint document this prior to 1. At each sampling site. GPS coordinates will be collected with a handheld deviceL 4 Photos will be taken and stamped with the date. Pertinent information about well ??rmer will be recorded where possible depth. well diameter. con?guration. Ietcl.)_ _pumbem sampling A ground-water level will next be measured using a Solinst water level indicator (or Deleted; equivalent) and recorded. In cases where a remote pump can be used. the pump will Wt mm be hooked up with new polyethylene tubing. Tubing will be changed in between Mk each well and the pump will be rinsed with distilled water. The pump (Proactive aboutme Hlun'cane or equivalent) will be lowered down the well casing to a level selected in 06:? the ?eld and powered on. In most cases. well construction details will not be altytastingm, this available. The goal in domestic well sampling is generally to purge suf?cient water m3 to access native aquifer water prior to sampling; mbe damningbudim Also in the ?eld and consider variables such as water volume pumped. water level drawdown. and stabilization of geochemical parameters. In all cases, the water I volume ptunped will be tracked by recording time and purge ratel. It_i? eigpecteglthat? De'eted' . the pump will yield an initial ?ow rate of approximately 1?2 L/min. This ?ow will pass through a ?ow cell equipped with a YSI 5600 multiparameter probe (or ammunition:imllemlplee Themsevofme equivalent probes). The rate of pumping will be determined by measuring the water :25: volume collected a?er approximately 15 seconds into a 4 graduated cylinder: the ?e desirable pumping rate through the ?ow cell should be less than 2 L/min. The pumping rate will ideally maintain minimal drawdown. Draw down will be monitored by measuring the water level (where possible) approximately every 10 to 15 minutes. Section No. 2 Revision No. 0 September 18. 2011 Page 15 of 70 18 Confidential 2. The YSI probe (or equivalent probes and electrodes) will be used to track the stabilization of pH. oxidation-reduction potential (ORP). speci?c conductance (SC). dissolved oxygen (DO). and temperature. In general. the following guidelines in Table 6 will be used to determine when parameters have stabilized. These criteria are initial guidelines: professional judgment in the ?eld will be used to determine on a well-by-well basis when stabilization Ioccuri - sinuldbe Mod? 3. Once stabilization occurs. the ?nal values for pH. ORP. speci?c conductance. dissolved oxygen. and temperature will be recorded. For these well types it will be assumed that once stabilization occurs that the samples collected will be water from the formation and not water entrained in the well bore. 4. A?er the values for pH. ORP. SC. DO. and temperature have been recorded. the ?ow cell will be disconnected. A series of un?ltered samples and ?ltered samples be gglle_cte_d_a_s_in sectipn l_.l glimmer}; i I Canine-It [c77]: Mum turbidity of?hued See Tables 8 and 9 for numbers of sample bottles needed for each sample type and ?eld QC ?lters samples for ground and smface water sampling. 2.2.3 Surface Water Sampling [Methods will be provided if there is a surface water body present that can serve as a source of drinking water.[ . . win he. 2.2.I4 Flowback/Produced water Samplingi - mt [c7912 C1-le developedudwill sorsfomoiiecum? d'pmdiced mm min See povided SOP: ?x mommaded Mind 2.2.4.1 Collection of Flowback/ Produced Water- Peristaltic Ptunp A weighted sample tubing will be placed in the frac tank near the bottom. but high enough from the bottom of the tank as to not collect sediment that may have accumulated in the bottom of the tank. Alternatively. in a surface impoundment the sample tubing will be suspended in the water column but far enough from the bottom again as not to collect any sediment that may have accumulated on the bottom of the surface impoundment. The exact depth at which the sample will be collected will depend on the volume of ?uid in the tank or surface impoundment at the time of sampling and cannot be determined at this time. The tubing will be connected to the peristaltic pump to collect the ?owback or produced water sample. The sample tubing will be replaced a?er each sampling and multiple sample tubing will be used in the advent of multiple frac tanks or surface impoundments. The following methodology will be used for the ?owback/ produced water sampling. 1) iI'he peristaltic pump will be powered on. The rate of pumping will be determined by measuring the water volume collected a?er approximately 15 seconds into a 4 Section No. 2 Revision No. 0 September 18. 2011 Page 16 of 70 19 Confidential graduated cylinder; the desirable pumping rate through the ?ow cell should be less than 2 L/min. If the ?ow rate is greater than 2 L/min the ?ow rate will be adjusted so that the ?ow is less than 2 L/min. The sample tubing will then be connected to the ?ow cell and the ?ow will be allowed to pass into a ?ow cell equipped with a pH, ORP, SC, D0, and temperature probes. - Gum-ant [coo]: Wilhmeexoeptinuof mam,u?eidpumpnonp,sc,m D0 are pohtamhc? The high mm andhigh 2) The probes installed in the ?ow cell will be used to track the stabilization of pH. salinityof?n?ix?dsuphget?ng a sable mate oxidation-reduction potential (ORP). speci?c conductance (SC). dissolved oxygen (DO). m3 .m?wm? and temperature. In general. the following guidelines will be used to determine when parameters have stabilized: changes <0.02 standard units per minuteL QB?_change_s Wt [031]: war he vuydi?culno <2 mV per minute. and speci?c conductance changes 0.1 mg/L. then no acid will be added. The sample will be stored and transported on ice. 30 mL clear plastic bottle for CE (kapillary electrophoresis) ?uoride. This sample will be ?ltered. no preservative added. 30 mL clear plastic bottle for FIA (?ow injection analysis) for nitrate nitrite and ammonium. This sample will be ?ltered. 2 drops of sulfuric acid added as preservative (pH test strips will be used to con?rm that the sample pH is see note above regarding use of pH test strips). 30 mL clear plastic bottle for FIA for bromide. Add details. 45 mL glass VOA vial in duplicate for analysis of dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) and dissolved organic carbon (DOC). This sample will be ?ltered, no preservative added. Revision No. 0 September 18. Page 18 of 70 2011 un?ltuadmling Filhedordissohlednalyses Wt [088]: Whom Inseam staplesdnetomixconpbd?es Deleted: Comment[c90]: Wr?beekalydi?arltand 1 ?expectedth vaiden?mland Conmt Not sure thrill mlytiml Museofdlh . Oornment [c93]: Capilhryelectophea?sand Fm ammbustdetamim?mfulnoanpkx mics 21 Confidential g. 60 mL plastic bottle for analysis of 613C of dissolved inorganic carbon. This sample will be ?ltered. no preservative added. Samples will be shipped on ice to Isotech Laboratories for isotopic analyses. h. 20 mL glass VOA vial for analysis of 5180 and 62H of water using IRMS. This sample will be ?ltered. no preservative added. Unless noted otherwise above. ground-water samples will be submitted to Shaw. on-site contractor. and the EPA General Parameters (GP) Laboratory. for ?xed-laboratory analysis. Speci?c samples will be delivered to the analytical facility or to Isotech Laboratories for isotopic analyses of dissolved inorganic carbon and dissolved 100mm!? 1 samples, (inpth ?eldbhub, tip blanks, etc slunldbeimlnded 2.2.4.2 bollection of Flowback/ Produced Water- Bailed Samplei I co? . anthod see 0mm SOP: and mi: Bailed sample will be collected using a new PVC bailer from the top of the frac tank. The bailer ?Wm? will be lowered into the frac tanks and allowed to sink below the surface of the ?uid. Once the bailer is ?lled it will be brought to the surface and the collected sample will be poured into a large plastic beaker. A portion of this initial sample will be poured into a vessel that will accommodate the pH. ORP. SC. DO. and temperature probes. The probes will be allowed to equilibrate with the collected sample. In general. the following guidelines will be used to determine when parameters have stabilized: pH changes <0.02 standard units per minute. ORP changes <2 mV per minute. and speci?c conductance changes per minute. These criteria are initial guidelines: professional judgment in the ?eld will be used to determine on a well-by- well basis when stabilization occurs. 1) Once stabilization occurs. the ?nal values for pH. ORP. speci?c conductance. dissolved oxygen. and temperature will be recordecL a Deleted: 2) After the values for pH. ORP. SC. DO. and temperature have been recorded. remaining sample will have other ?eld measurements taken. Field measurements will consist of alkalinity. ferrous iron. and dissolved sul?de. Alkalinity will be measured by titrating ground water with 1.6N H2SO4 to the bromcresol green-methyl red endpoint using a HACH titrator (HACH method 8203. equivalent to Standard Method 2320B for alkalinity). Ferrous iron will be measured using the 1.10-phenanthroline colorimetric method spectrometer. HACH method 8146. equivalent to Standard Method 3500-Fe for wastewater). Dissolved sul?de will be measmed using the methylene blue colorimetric method (HACH spectrometer: HACH method 8131. equivalent to Standard Method 4500-Sz_ for wastewater). 3) An additional 6 of sample will then be bailed and poured into a large container. This will be split into the following samples: Section No. 2 Revision No. 0 September 18. 2011 Page 19 of 70 22 Confidential a. Triplicate 1 L samples (amber glass) and duplicate 20 mL vials (amber glass) will be collected for the ??? lab. No preservative will be added to these samples for trace organic analyses. The samples will be stored and shipped on ice to the ??? facility for GC-MS analysis. b. Duplicate 60 mL serum bottles will be collected for dissolved gas analysis (e.g., hydrogen, carbon dioxide, ethane, methane, butane, propane). The bottles will contain trisodium phosphate as a preservative and will be filled with no head space and sealed with a crimp cap. c. A 1 L plastic bottle containing a caplet of benzalkonium chloride will be filled and sealed and shipped to Isotech for δ13C of C1-C5 dissolved gases and δ2H of methane. 4) After the unfiltered samples have been collected a 4 L capacity vessel will be filled up with flowback/produced water. A peristaltic pump will be used pump water from the vessel through teflon-lined polyethylene tubing and through high-capacity ground-water filters into pre-labeled sample bottles. First, approximately 100 mL of ground water will be filtered and sent to waste and next the following series of samples will be collected: a. 125 mL plastic bottle for metals analysis by ICP-OES for Al, Ag, As, B, Be, Ba, Ca, Cd, Co, Cr, Cu, Fe, K, Mg, Mn, Mo, Na, Ni, Pb, Sb, Se, Sr, Ti, Tl, V, Zn, Si, and S; this sample will also be used for ICP-MS analysis for Cd, Cr, As, Cu, Pb, Ni, Se, Hg, and Tl. This sample will be filtered and preserved by adding 5 drops of concentrated HNO3 (pH test strips will be used to confirm that the sample pH is <2). Test strips for pH will be used on every sample to insure that a proper preservation pH is attained. This is especially important in case high alkalinity samples are encountered. b. 30 mL amber plastic bottle for LC-ICP-MS analysis of arsenic speciation. The method of preservation for this sample will depend on the result of the dissolved sulfide measurement (step 2 above). If the dissolved sulfide concentration is <0.1 mg/L, then the sample will be preserved with 2 drops of concentrated hydrochloric acid (pH test strips will be used to confirm that the sample pH is <2; see note above regarding use of pH test strips). If the dissolved sulfide concentration is >0.1 mg/L, then no acid will be added. The sample will be stored and transported on ice. c. 30 mL clear plastic bottle for CE (capillary electrophoresis) sulfate, chloride, and fluoride. This sample will be filtered, no preservative added. Section No. 2 Revision No. 0 September 18, 2011 Page 20 of 70 23 Confidential d. 30 mL clear plastic bottle for FIA (?ow injection analysis) for nitrate nitrite and ammonium. This sample will be ?ltered. 2 drops of sulfuric acid added as preservative (pH test strips will be used to confum that the sample pH is see note above regarding use of pH test strips). e. 30 mL clear plastic bottle for FIA for bromide. Add details. f. 45 mL glass VOA vial in duplicate for analysis of dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) and dissolved organic carbon (DOC). This sample will be ?ltered. no preservative added. g. 60 mL plastic bottle for analysis of 513C of dissolved inorganic carbon. This sample will be ?ltered. no preservative added. Samples will be shipped on ice to Isotech Laboratories for isotopic analyses. h. 20 mL glass VOA vial for analysis of 6180 and 62H of water using IRMS. This sample will be ?ltered. no preservative added. Unless noted otherwise above. ?owback/ produced samples will be submitted to Shaw. Ada's on-site contractor. and the EPA General Parameters (GP) Laboratory. for ?xed-laboratory analysis. Speci?c samples will be delivered to the analytical facility or to Isotech Laboratories for isotopic analyses of dissolved inorganic carbon and dissolved gases. 2.2.4.3 bollection of Flowback/ Produced Water- Grab Samples - Comment[c96]: Although it is unlikely grab samples collected from surface impoundment may be necessary. In ?mm this case a large volume bottle with lid secured will be lowered below the surface of the ?uid and suf?ciently above the bottom of the smface impoundment to prevent the sediment collected at the bottom ?om entering into the bottle. Once the bottle is positioned the lid will be removed to allow the ?uid to enter into the sample bottle. When the bottle is ?lled the lid will be replaced and the samples will be analyzed as indicated in 2.2.4.2. This may require multiple sampling to get the necessary volume for all the split samples. 2.2.5 Soil Sampling Soil sampling will be accomplished using either geoprobe sampling method (RSKSOP-221) or the use of hand held samplers. The use of hand held samplers will in general only be used in areas where the geoprobe equipment cannot be set up. e.g. heavily wooded areas. The depth to which samples can be collected using a hand held sampler will be limited to the length of the sampling barrel2.2.5.1 $011 With Geoprobe Macro-Core Sorl Sampler-i notneeded \{Deleted: Section No. 2 Revision No. 0 September 18. 2011 Page 21 of 70 24 Confidential The macro-core® (MC) soil sampler is a steel tubular sleeve that is used to collect core samples of unconsolidated material in four different lengths: 60-, 48-, 36-, or 24-inch lengths, each 2.2 inches in diameter. The unconsolidated material may include soils, sediment, and waste materials. When using the MC soil sampler, there are two sampling options, open tube and closed piston. Samples are recovered inside a removable liner that is inserted inside the MC soil sampler. Liners are 58-, 46-, 34-, or 22-inches in length and fit inside the respective size sampler. The liners are available in stainless steel, Teflon®, PVC, and PETG. MC spacer rings are used to attach the liners to the cutting shoe. Core catchers are sometimes used to improve sample recovery in some formations. In this method, an assembled MC soil sampler is advanced into the subsurface one sampling interval and retracted using a Geoprobe machine. The collected soil sample is removed from the sampler inside a liner. After decon, the MC sampler is reassembled with a new clean liner. The clean sampler is placed in the same hole and is advanced to the next sampling interval. In stable soil, an open tube MC sampler can be used. Coring starts at the ground with a sampler that is open at the leading end. The sampler is advanced into the ground then retrieved to obtain the first core sample. An open tube sampler is placed in the same hole to collect the next core. In unstable soil, the closed piston rod point assembly is used. The point fits in the cutting shoe and is held into place by a piston rod and stop pin. The MC closed piston system prevents collapsed soil from entering the sampler as it is advanced to the bottom of an existing hole. The MC closed piston sampler is not designed to be driven through undisturbed soil. A probe hole must be opened above the sampling interval either by continuous sampling or MC pre-probe to depth. Once a hole is open to depth, an assembled MC closed piston sampler is advanced through the slough material to the next sampling interval. Release rods are lowered inside the push rods and threaded into the stop pin. When unthreaded, the stop pin assembly and release rods are removed from the push rods. With the piston released, the sampler is advanced to fill the sampler with soil. The piston is later recovered with the soil sample. Loose soils may fall out of the sampler as it is retrieved. The MC core catcher is used to alleviate this problem. The core catcher should be used in saturated sands and other noncohesive materials. It should not be used with tight soils as it might inhibit sample recovery. The core catcher can be used with all Geoprobe liners. Soil sampling using the Geoprobe sampling will follow the current SOP outlined in RSKSOP221 as described below for either open tube sampler or closed piston sampler methods. 2.2.5.1.1 Open Tube Sampling Method. Section No. 2 Revision No. 0 September 18, 2011 Page 22 of 70 25 Confidential 1. Locate and set the Geoprobe rig in the sampling location. 2. Push the base of an MC spacer ring onto threaded end of cutting shoe (if an MC core catcher is to be used, first place the open end of core catcher over the threaded end of cutting shoe). 3. Thread the cutting shoe onto open end of MC sample tube. 4. Tighten shoe with MC combo wrench. 5. Insert a liner into open end of sample tube. 6. Thread an MC drive head into top of sample tube and tighten with MC combo wrench. Sampler assembly is complete (Figure 5. 7. Thread a drive cap onto drive head and position sampler under Geoprobe hammer. 8. The sampler should be centered inside the probe foot and parallel with probe derrick. 9. Apply weight and hammer to advance the sampler until the drive head reaches the ground surface (Figure 5. 10. Raise the hammer and remove the drive cap and thread a pull cap onto the drive head. 11. Lower the hammer and hook hammer latch over the pull cap and remove the sampler. 12. The soil sample is removed from the sampler by removing the cutting shoe with a MC combo wrench and pulling out the liner. 13. The sample is retained in the liner by placing vinyl caps over the ends of the liner and label the top and bottom of the core as well as the depth increment that was sampled. 14. Place the core on ice in a cooler. 15. To sample consecutive cores, advance a clean MC open tube sampler down the same hole to the top of the next sampling interval. 16. Drive the sampler the length of the sampler to collect the next soil core. Change to a MC piston rod sampler if side slough is encountered. 17. Once all the depths have been collected ship the soil cores to the lab as outlined later. 2.2.5.1.2 Closed Piston Sampling Method. Section No. 2 Revision No. 0 September 18, 2011 Page 23 of 70 26 Confidential 1. Locate and set the Geoprobe rig in the sampling location. 2. Put an o-ring in the groove on the piston rod point. 3. Push the point completely into the cutting shoe (Figure 6. 4. Place a core catcher or spacer ring onto threaded end of cutting shoe (Figure 6. 5. Thread the cutting shoe into the sample tube. 6. Put a liner inside sample tube and then thread drive head into sample tube. 7. Make sure cutting shoe and drive head are completely tightened. 8. Insert piston rod/stop-pin assembly through the drive head until the threads on the stop pin contact inside threads of drive head. 9. Thread stop-pin into drive head (left hand thread) until tight (Figure 6. 10. Attach drive cap to drive head and advance the sampler adding probe rods until the desired sampling interval is reached. 11. Once the desired depth is reached, raise the hammer and remove the drive cap. 12. Insert extension rods down inside the probe rods. Use extension rod couplers or quick links to connect the extension rods together until the leading rod touches the stop-pin. 13. Thread extension rod handle onto rod string and turn handle to thread extension rods into stop-pin. This is a left handed thread so that extension rods will not be unthreaded. 14. Continue turning handle until stop-pin is unthreaded from drive head. 15. Lift and remove extension rods and piston rod/ stop-pin assembly (Figure 6). 16. Thread the drive cap onto push rod and advance tool string the length of sampler. 17. Remove drive cap and thread pull cap onto top push rod. 18. Use hammer latch to pull rods until the sampler is brought to ground surface. Section No. 2 Revision No. 0 September 18, 2011 Page 24 of 70 27 Confidential 19. The sample is removed from the sample tube in the same manner as the open tube sampler by placing vinyl caps over the ends of the liner and label the top and bottom of the core as well as the depth increment that was sampled. 20. The piston rod tip is now retrieved from the end of the liner. 21. Place the core on ice in a cooler. 22. To sample consecutive cores, repeat steps 2-21 in the same hole. 23. Once all the depths have been collected ship the soil cores to the lab as outlined later. 2.2.5.2 Soil Sampling Using a Hand held Sampler. Soil cores can be collected using a hand held soil sampler. The procedure is outlined below. 1. Locate the sampling location. 2. Insert the sample liner in to the sample tube and screw on the end cap. 3. Screw the sampler rod and cross handle onto the sampler end cap. 4. Push the sampler into the soil to the desired depth. A sledge hammer or weighted drive sleeve and pounding cap may be necessary to drive the sampler to the desired depth. 5. Remove the sampler from the soil. 6. Remove the sampler rod and cross handle from the end cap. 7. Remove the end cap from the sampler. 8. Gently remove the liner from the sampler placing an end caps on the liner and marking the top and bottom of the liner in the correct orientation. 9. Label the core. 10. Place the core on ice in a cooler. 11. Once all samples are collected in the cooler, ship the cooler to the lab. 12. Decon the sampler. 13. Once samples arrive at the lab, place the samples in the freezer. Section No. 2 Revision No. 0 September 18, 2011 Page 25 of 70 28 Confidential 14. Cut the core in the liner at the appropriate depth increments. 15. Sub-sample the increments and place in appropriate containers for analysis. 2.2.5.3 Soil Core Sub-Sampling The individual sub samples for each depth increment will need to be split for the appropriate sample analysis. 1. Remove the sample from the liner and place in a clean container. 2. Homogenize the sample. 3. Split the homogenized sample into appropriate containers. a. Metals b. General parameters (pH. Eh, electrical konductivityijlejt t_o?a_l Oonment . . the ambdpaste Mod total morgamc carbon) Comment 11Cth c. Chemical Analysis (CEC. amporphous Al, Fe. Mn. Iacid volatile sulfurb Comment [c100]: '2 d. VOC and semi-VOC e. Organic chemical analysis (for example THP. DRO. GRO. PAH. etc.) f. IIsotopic analysid ?lComment [c101]: Inbullet? planede?m . analyses m? lide?ne minaalogiul My? knurled g. Particle size IanalysidL Comment [c102]: Thismedstobede?md h. Mineralogical lAnalysii {Gum-mt [c104]: Addmistunoom 4. Samples destined for analysis where volatilization or loss of moisture could affect the results should not be dried prior to analysis. These should be placed in the freezer until analysis. 5. When appropriate air dry the samples. Store samples until analysis. 2.3 Sample Handling and Custodyi momma; a Section No. 2 Revision No. 0 September 18. 2011 Page 26 of 70 29 Confidential 2.3.1 Sampling Labeling Each well. surface water body and soil sample location will be uniquely labeled. Samples collected from each of these locations will also include the unique label. well or name of sample location. the date. the initials of the sampler, and designation of the sample type. e. ?metals? and preservation technique (when applicable). This information will be recorded onto labeling tape. using water-insoluble ink. af?xed to each sample bottle. 2.3.2 Sample Packing and Shipping All samples will placed together in a sealed Ziploc plastic bag. The bags will be placed on ice in coolers. Glass bottles will be packed with bubble wrap to prevent breakage. The coolers will be sent via QYeIQight; ?01119 @92r9ptiet9 la_b_wi_t12 912819 9i EQSEOEIYIQEHEE (SEQ Eigyr?) 9:191 - New Fm Icustody . -??[Oomment [c106]: 100M R.S. Kerr Environmental Research Center 919 Kerr Research Drive Ada, OK 74820 1-580-436-8920 ATTN: Andrew Greenwood (for samples analyzed by both Shaw and EPA General Parameters Laboratory) EPA Region 8 Lab 16194 West 45?? Drive Golden. CO 80403 1-303-312-7775 ATTN: Mark Murphy Sample receipt and log-in at the Region 8 laboratory shall be conducted as described in their SOP. Sample Receipt and Control Procedure, Rev. 1.0 and the Region 8 Quality Manual. QSP-OOI Rev. 1.0 EPA Region 3 Lab 701 Maples Road Ft. Meade. MD 20755 1-410-305-2835 ATTN: Jennie Gundersen - - - - - 00m [c107]: The m?ods Sample receipt and log in at the Reglon 3 laboratory shall be conducted as described In their I, ?mm: mm! . mm SOP. Sample Schedulmg, Receipt, Log?In, Cham of Custody, and Disposal Procedures. R3- QA061. WPomnally?nscou?l?ect'?nquth I oftb am Why the study, mu)? prwidefasigl??camdi?smbetmePA I hhontory rm: ?plum 2.4 Analytical IMethodi . to mum Whech doorman-d Section No. 2 Revision No. 0 September 18. 2011 Page 27 of 70 3O Confidential Ground-water samples will be collected and analyzed using RSKERC standard operating procedures (RSKSOPs) at RSKERC and EPA Methods at the Region laboratory (Table 8). Region 111?s ILC-MS-MS method for glycols is_u_n_d?r_ qey'slopmeyt. with thejrltept. t9_ey913tp?lly_ - mm mm? t? 8W8 is - have a validated. documented method. Aqueous samples are injected directly on the HPLC after tuning with authentic standards (2-butoxyethanol. di-. tri-. and tetraethylene glycols) and bupoutg'nlm?m development of the HPLC gradient. HPLC column is Waters Ov?lford MA) Atlantis dC18 311m. 2.1 150mm column (p/n 186001299). HPLC gradient is with H20 and CH3CN with 0.1% formic acid. The 3 glycols are run on a separate gradient than the 2-butoxyethanol. All details of instrument conditions will be included in case ?le. EPA SW-846 Method 8000B and are used for basic chromatographic procedures. A suitable surrogate has not been identi?ed. Since there is no extraction or concentration step in sample preparation. extraction ef?ciency calculations using a surrogate are not applicable. If a suitable surrogate is found. it will be used to evaluate matrix effects. Custom standard mix from Ultra Scienti?c. (Kingstown RI) is used for the instrument calibration (IC). The working. linear range varies for each compound but is about 10-100 and may change with further development. Initial Calibration (IC) is performed before each day's sample set. calibration veri?cation is done at the beginning. after every 10 sample injectionssample set. The correlation coef?cient (r2) of the calibration curve must be >0.99. An instrument blank is also run a?er every 10 sample injections. The performance criteria are provided in Table 10. The system is tuned with individual authentic standards (at 1mg concentration) of each compound according to the manufacturer?s directions using the Waters Empower ?Intellistart? tune/method development program in the MRM (multiple reaction monitoring) (electrospray positive) mode. Tune data is included in the case ?le. Target masses. transition data and voltages determined in each tune for each compound are compiled into one instrument method. Only one MS tune ?le (which determines gas ?ow rates and source temperatures) may be used during a sample set. For these samples. the tetraethylene glycol tune is used as it provides adequate response for all targets. Due to di??erences in optimal chromatographic separation. the three glycols are analyzed in one run and 2-butoxyethanol is analyzed separately. Exact mass calibration of the instrument is done annually with the preventive maintenance procedure. Mass calibration was successfully performed according to manufacturer's speci?cations with on 6/17/2010 by a certi?ed Waters Corp Service technician. Custom mix supplied by Accustandard (New Haven. CT) is used as a second source veri?cation (SSV). The SSV is run after IC. Matrix spikes and matrix spike duplicates are also performed. Analysis at RSKERC includes inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectroscopy (ICP- for cations). inductively coupled plasma mass spectroscopy (ICP-MS: for trace metals). capillary electrophoresis (CE. for anions). carbon analysis using combustion and infrared detection. gas chromatography (GC. for dissolved gas analysis) and gas chromatography-mass spectroscopy (GC-MS) for VOCs. Analysis by the EPA Region laboratory includes GC for GRO. DRO. and GC-MS for semivolatiles with appropriate sample preparation and introduction techniques. These analytical methods are presented in Table 8. Section No. 2 Revision No. 0 September 18. 2011 Page 28 of 70 31 Confidential The RSKSOPs and their associated target analyte list are presented in Table 11. For these analyses. the only surrogates used are for the VOC analysis. Surrogate compounds used are p- bromo?uorobenzene and 1,2?dichlorobenzene?d4, spiked at 100 ug/L. For the semivolatiles the target analyte list is presented in Table 12. Surrogates used include phenol-d6. 2-?uorophenol. 2.4.6-tribromophenol. nitrobenzene-dS. 2-?uorobiphenyl. and p- terphenyl-d14. The concentrations used for the surrogates shall be spiked at 5 pg mL'l. For samples containing components not associated with the calibration standards. non-target peaks will be reported las tentatively identi?ed compounds on a library search. Only after Garment [c109]: Name-nut The-Mm visual com arison ofsam 1e tr 'thth tl'b - - - - ?nc?i?mly?muwmudm spec a wr neares 1 rary searc resu 5 WI en a rve identi?cations be made. Guidelines for making tentative identi?cation are: xepumdcnuhm of?estimd m" Thiswill drain review ?this would apply to any A peak must have an area at least 10% as large as the area of the nearest internal (ie VOC Wlm?odpa?mnd standard. (Deleted: 0 Major ions in the reference spectrum (ions 10% of the most abundant ion) should be present in the sample spectrum. 0 The relative intensities of the major ions should agree Within 1 20%. (Example: For an ion with an abundance of 50 in the reference spectrum. the corresponding sample ion abundance must be between 30 and 70 0 Molecular ions present in the reference spectrum should be present in the sample spectrum. 0 Ions present in the sample spectrum but not in the reference spectrum should be reviewed for possible background contamination or presence of co-eluting compounds. Ions present in the reference spectrum but not in the sample spectrum should be reviewed for possible subtraction from the sample spectrum because of background contamination or coeluting peaks. Data system library reduction programs can sometimes create these discrepancies. Commercial standards for IDRO calibration is locally procured DF a, - a Gunman [c110]: 1: mime ou??adsandard Surrogates used in DRO include o-terphenyl at spiking concentrations of 10 pg L'l. ?Melon?? Deleted: Commercial standards for GRO calibration are BTEX. MTBE. naphthalene. and gasoline range hydrocarbons (purchased as certi?ed solutions) and unleaded gasoline ?'om Supelco (product number 47516-U). Surrogates used in GRO include 4- bromo?uorobenzene at spiking concentrations of 50 pg . 2.5 Quality Control 2.5.1 Quality Metrics for Aqueous Analysis For analyses done at RSKERC. practices blanks. calibration checks. duplicates. second source standards. matrix spikes. and surrogates) are described in various in-house Section No. 2 Revision No. 0 September 18. 2011 Page 29 of 70 32 Confidential Standard Operating Procedures (RSKSOPs) and summarized in Table 13. Matrix spikes sample spiking levels are determined at the discretion of the individual analysts (based on sample concentrations) and are included with the sample results. Corrective actions are outlined in the appropriate SOPs and when corrective actions occur in laboratory analysis it will be documented and the PI will be notified as to the nature of the corrective action and the steps taken to correct the problem. The PI will review this information and judge if the corrective action was appropriate. For analyses done by the Region VIII laboratory, QA/QC requirements are: (1) Samples shall be processed and analyzed within the following holding times (from date sampled): Semivolatiles: 7 days until extraction, 30 days after extraction DRO: 14 days until extraction*, 40 days after extraction GRO: 14 days* *With acid preservation (2) Data verification shall be performed by the Region VIII laboratory to ensure data meets their SOP requirements. (3) Complete data package shall be provided electronically on disk , including copies of chain-of-custody forms, copy of method or Standard Operating Procedure used, calibration data, raw data (including notebook pages), QC data, data qualifiers, quantitation (reporting) and detection limits, deviations from method, and interpretation of impact on data from deviations from QC or method requirements. (All documentation needed to be able to re-construct analysis.) (4) Detection limits (DL) and quantitation (reporting) limits (RL) for the semivolatiles are as provided in Table 12. The DL and RL for DRO and GRO are both at 20 µg/L. (5) The laboratory shall be subject to an on-site QA audit and analysis of Performance Evaluation samples. If the laboratory is currently analyzing Performance Evaluation (aka Proficiency Testing) samples, a request will be made for this data. If they are not actively involved in analyzing these samples, then they shall be provided by RSKERC. (6) See Table 14 for QC types and performance criteria. Corrective Actions: If any samples are affected by failure of a QC sample to meet its performance criteria, the problem shall be corrected and samples will be re-analyzed. If reSection No. 2 Revision No. 0 September 18, 2011 Page 30 of 70 33 Confidential analysis is not possible (such as lack of sample volume), the PI shall be notified. The data will be qualified with a determination as to impact on the sample data. Failures and resulting corrective actions shall be reported. For analyses done by the Region III laboratory, QA/QC requirements are: (1) Samples shall be analyzed within the holding time of 14 days. (2) Data verification shall be performed by the Region III laboratory to ensure data meets the method requirements. (3) Complete data package shall be provided electronically on disk , including copies of chain-of-custody forms, copy of method or Standard Operating Procedure used, calibration data, raw data (including notebook pages), QC data, data qualifiers, quantitation (reporting) and detection limits, deviations from method, and interpretation of impact on data from deviations from QC or method requirements. (All documentation needed to be able to re-construct analysis.) (4) Detection and reporting limits are still be determined, but most will be between 10 and 50 ppb. (5) The laboratory shall be subject to an on-site QA audit if the glycol data becomes “critical” at a later data after method validation. (6) See Table 15 for QC types and performance criteria. (7) Until the method is validated, the data will be considered “screening” data. Corrective Actions: If any samples are affected by failure of a QC sample to meet its performance criteria, the problem shall be corrected and samples will be re-analyzed. If reanalysis is not possible (such as lack of sample volume), the PI shall be notified. The data will be qualified with a determination as to impact on the sample data. Failures and resulting corrective actions shall be reported. 2.5.2 Measured and Calculated Solute Concentration Data Evaluation The computer program AqQA (RockWare Inc., version 1.1.1) will be used as a check on the quality of solute concentration data. Two methods will be used. First, the specific conductance values measured in the field will be compared to 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. The agreement between the measured and calculated values should be within 15%. The second method will be to calculate the charge balance for each solution. This is done by summing and comparing the net positive and negative charge from the Section No. 2 Revision No. 0 September 18, 2011 Page 31 of 70 34 Confidential measured concentrations of anions and cations. The agreement should be within 10%. Poor agreement would suggest that some major solute(s) is not accounted for in the analytical measurements. At the discretion of the PI, discrepancies in this manner will be either flagged or the identity of other sample components and/or reason(s) for poor agreement will be investigated. 2.5.3 Detection Limits Detection limits for the various analytes are listed in the RSKERC Standard Operating Procedures for these methods and are not repeated here. Updated detection limits are provided in the data reports. Detection limits for the analytes, including those to be done by the contract lab are given in Table 11. They are adequate for project objectives. 2.5.4 QA/QC Calculations % Recovery or Accuracy %REC m 100 n Where m = measurement result n = True Value (a certified or known value) of standard or reference Precision Precision is described by Relative Percent Difference (RPD) as previously defined. The Relative Percent Difference (RPD) is calculated based on the following: RPD 2 a‐b a b 100 where a = sample measurement and b = duplicate sample measurement and a > b. Matrix Spike Recovery Matrix spikes sample spiking levels are determined at the discretion of the individual analysts (based on sample concentrations) and are included with the sample results. Section No. 2 Revision No. 0 September 18, 2011 Page 32 of 70 35 Confidential %Recovery spiked sample concentration‐native sample concentration 100 spiked sample concentration 2.6 Instrument/Equipment Testing, Inspection, and Maintenance RSKERC laboratory instrumentation used for analysis of project analytes are in routine use and are tested for acceptable performance prior to analyzing actual samples through the analysis of standards and QC samples. Field instruments are tested prior to use in the field by calibrating or checking calibration with standards. Routine inspection and maintenance of these instruments is documented in instrument logbooks. RSKSOPs provide details on instrument testing and corrective actions. 2.7 Instrument/Equipment Calibration and Frequency RSKERC calibration and calibration frequency are described in RSKSOPs (RSKERC Standard Operating Procedures). For the sub-contracted laboratory, these requirements are identified in the EPA Methods and the SOW (Statement of Work) included with the purchase requisition (PR) as well as in Table 10 Standards used for GRO and DRO calibration will be acquired from a commercial source. The SOW will be reviewed by the QAM for QA requirements prior to issuing the PR. Field instruments are calibrated or checked for calibration daily prior to use, mid-day, and at the end of the day after the last sample measurement. Calibration standards shall be traceable to NIST, if available and all dated calibration standards are not beyond their expiration date and will not expire during the field trip. Prior to the sampling event each test meter will be check that it is in good working order. Calibration data will be recorded in a bound waterproof notebook and personnel making entries will adhere to the GWERD Notebook policy. Calibration of instruments will be performed daily prior to initiation of sample collection and will be performed according to manufacturer’s instructions and will be recorded in the field notebook. In addition calibration checks will be performed using known standards or buffers before use, mid-day and at the end of the day. With the exception of pH all checks must be exceed ± 10 % of known concentrations and in the case of pH must be within ± 0.2 pH units. These calibration checks will be recorded in the field notebook. If a calibration check fails, this will be recorded in the field notebook and the possible causes of the failure will be investigated. Upon investigation corrective action will be taken and the instrument will be recalibrated. Samples taken between the last good calibration check and the failed calibration check will be flagged to indicate there was a problem. Duplicate field measurements are not applicable to measurements in flow through cell (RSKSOP-211). Hach spectrophotometers and turbidity meters will inspected prior to going to the field and there function verified. Calibration of these instruments are internal and calibration will be checked in the lab prior to going to the field. Standards for redox sensitive species such as sulfide and Section No. 2 Revision No. 0 September 18, 2011 Page 33 of 70 36 Confidential ferrous iron are di?'icult to use in the ?eld because once exposed to atmospheric oxygen there concentrations can change. Similarly calibration standards for alkalinity are sensitive to atmospheric carbon dioxide. Duplicates will be performed once a day or on every tenth sample. Duplicates acceptance criteria are 15 RPD. The values obtained for each duplicate sample will be recorded in the ?eld notebook and RPD will be calculated (section 2.5.4) and recorded in the ?eld notebook. Ifthe duplicate samples fail and additional duplicate sample will be taken and reanalyzed. Ifthe additional duplicate samples fail to meet the QC criteria, then the instruments will be checked and corrective action taken. The corrective actions will be recorded in the ?eld notebook. Samples collected between the last valid duplicate sample and the failed duplicate sample will be ?agged. 2.8 Inspection/Acceptance of Supplies and Consumables RSKSOPs provide requirements for the supplies and consumables needed for each method. The analyst is responsible for verifying that they meet the RSKSOP requirements. The supplies or consrunables not addressed by the RSKSOPs that are critical to this project are listed in Table 13. It should be noted that the vendors listed in Table 13 are suggest vendor and equivalent parts may be available from other vendors or substitute for based on purchasing rules. Dr. Puls is responsible for ensuring these are available and to ensure they are those as listed previously. If subcontractors are responsible for sampling. they will be responsible for providing the P1 with information on their sample containers to ensure they meet project requirements. 2.9 Non-direct Measurements 2.10 Data Management The PI is responsible for maintaining data ?les. including their security and integrity. All ?les (both electronic and hard copy) will be labeled such that it is evident that they are for the hydraulic fracturing project in Desoto Parish. LA. I Data will be submitted to Dr. Puls as either hard copies (?eld notes); or electronically_(l_ab9ratqry_ - Deleted: data) in Excel spreadsheets on CD or DVD or via email. Data in hard copy form will be blanually enteredlu?' Ito E39??9?e948119?t? 91.1 - computer and will be given to Dr. Puls. Either. Dr. Puls or a technician or student will conduct mu?? Mt? this task. Data will be spot-checked by Dr. Puls to ensure accuracy. Iferrors are detected dining {Wendi the spot-check, the entries will be corrected. Detection of an error will prompt a more extensive inspection of the data. which could lead to a 100% check of the data set being entered at that time if multiple errors are found. Data in electronic form shall be electronically transferred to the spreadsheets. Data will be spot- checked by Dr. Puls to ensure accuracy of the transfer. If errors are detected during the spot- Section No. 2 Revision No. 0 September 18. 2011 Page 34 of 70 37 Confidential check. the entries will be corrected. Detection of an error will prompt a more extensive inspection of the data. which could lead to a 100% check of the data set being entered at that time if multiple errors are found. 2.10.1I Data Analysis, Interpretation, and Managementi mtg-rent [CllzalimNeedanoutli?m . . I I . mw?lbe outliusin?tsln dill, armlistic Data validation will consist of initial and ?nal review [of datd._ I_n_it_ia_l_re_:V:ievy will _inc_lud_e results. ht?kdywillbewto sanding? lab continuous oversight during ?eld collection of data by the principal investigator to avoid common transcription errors associated with recording of data. Final review will include shredwi?fhg Ian-?owing: A evaluation of all collected data for suitability in data interpretation. It will include but is not ?mums? limited to the followmg activities: (1) assessment of data completeness. (2) revrew of log books Wt [c113]: mm? of? and forms used for data logging. and (3) reView of calibration and standard checks. reviewud?ml Wefdau 2.10.2 Data Recording Data collected during the ground-water investigation will be recorded into ?eld notebooks and entered into EXCEL spreadsheets. Water quality data will also be entered into a program for evaluating ground water quality and for evaluating data validity. Graphs will be produced using EXCEL or Origin to show key data trends. 2.10.3 Data Storage As this is a Category 1 project. all data and records associated with this project will be kept permanently and will not be destroyed. All data generated in this investigation will be stored electronically in Microso? EXCEL and backed up in local area network drive. All paper-based records will be kept in the PPS o?'rces. If the project records are archived. Dr. Puls will coordinate with GWERD management and records liaison and contract support the compiling of all data and records. 2.1014 IAnalysis of Datd [c114]: niede mm tinn?nidue Lnotmdin?rism All data collected associated with groundwater and surface water sampling will be summarized Wt [c115]: If . a in EXCEL spreadsheets. Data in spreadsheets will be spot-checked against original data reports was, mmume by selecting random data points for comparison to verify accuracy of data transfer. When possible. data sets will be graphically displayed using EXCEL to reveal important trends. n: levels 'Ihis mmbege?edominthedoamgandwm?d mumbeno??edusoonu?n Section No. 2 Revision No. 0 September 18. 2011 Page 35 of 70 38 Confidential 3.0 Assessment and Oversight 3.1 Assessments and Response Actions Technical Systems Audits (TSAs),Audits of Data Quality (ADQs), and Performance Evaluations will be conducted early in the project to allow for identification and correction of any issues that may affect data quality. TSAs will be conducted on both field and laboratory activities. Detailed checklists, based on the procedures and requirements specified in this QAPP, related SOPs, and SOWs, will be prepared and used during these TSAs. These audits will be conducted with contract support from Neptune and Co., with oversight by Steve Vandegrift, QAM, for those that are done outside of RSKERC. Those at RSKERC will be done by the QAM. See Section 4.2 for additional discussion on ADQs. Laboratory TSAs will focus on the critical target analytes at sub-contract laboratories. A laboratory TSA will be conducted at RSKERC for critical target analytes. ADQs will be conducted on a representative sample of data for the critical target analytes. These will also be performed by the Neptune and Co., with oversight by Steve Vandegrift, QAM. Performance Evaluations will be conducted on critical target analytes for those that are available commercially. The QAM shall acquire and submit the PE samples. These shall be coordinated with the PI for the contract laboratory. See Section 3.2 for how and to whom assessment results are reported. Assessors do not have stop work authority; however, they can advise the PI if a stop work order is needed in situations where data quality may be significantly impacted, or for safety reasons. The PI makes the final determination as to whether or not to issue a stop work order. For assessments that identify deficiencies requiring corrective action, the audited party must provide a written response to each finding and observation to the QA Manager, which shall include a plan for corrective action and a schedule. The PI is responsible for ensuring that audit findings are resolved. The QA Manager will review the written response to determine their appropriateness and provide, if necessary. If the audited party is other than the PI, then the PI shall also review and concur the corrective actions. The QA Manager will track implementation and completion of corrective actions. After all corrective actions have been implemented and confirmed to be completed, the QA Manager shall send documentation to the PI and their supervisor that the audit is 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. 3.1.1 Assessments Section No. 3 Revision No. 0 September 18, 2011 Page 36 of 70 39 Confidential TSAs will be conducted on both field and laboratory activities. Detailed checklists, based on the procedures and requirements specified in this QAPP, SOPs, EPA Methods, and SOW will be prepared and used during these TSAs. One field TSA will be done. It is anticipated this will take place in the summer of 2011. The laboratory audit will take place when samples are anticipated to be in the laboratory’s possession and being processed. Laboratory TSAs will focus on the critical target analytes (Table 14) and will be conducted onsite at RSKERC (involves both EPA and contractor-operated labs) and at an off-site contract laboratory which will analyze for semi-volatile organic, DRO and GRO analyses. It is anticipated this will take place in the summer of 2011. At this time, EPA Region III Laboratory and EPA Region VIII Laboratory are be the off-site laboratories. ADQs will be conducted on a representative sample of data for the critical target analytes. . These will begin with the first data packages to ensure there are no issues with the data and to allow for appropriate corrective actions on subsequent data sets if needed. Performance Evaluations will be conducted on critical target analytes for those that are available commercially. These are anticipated to be done in the summer of 2011. 3.1.2 Assessment Results At the conclusion of a TSA, a debriefing shall be held between the auditor and the PI or audited party to discuss the assessment results. Assessment results will be documented in reports to the PI, the PIs first-line manager, and the GWERD Division Director. If any serious problems are identified that require immediate action, the QAM will verbally convey these problems at the time of the audit to the PI. The PI is responsible for responding to the reports as well ensuring that corrective actions are implemented, if needed, in a timely manner to ensure that quality impacts to project results are minimal. 3.2 Reports to Management All final audit reports shall be sent to the GWERD Division Director, and copied to Dr. Puls. Audit reports will be prepared by the QA Manager or the QA support contractor, which will be reviewed and approved prior to release. Specific actions will be identified in the reports. Section No. 3 Revision No. 0 September 18, 2011 Page 37 of 70 40 Confidential 4.0 Data Validation and Usability 4.1 Data Review, Verification, and Validation Criteria that will be used to accept, reject, or qualify data will include specifications presented in this QAPP, including the methods used and the measurement performance criteria presented in Tables 8, 9 and 10. In addition, sample preservation and holding times will be evaluated against requirements Table 7. Data will not be released outside of RSKERC until all study data have been reviewed, verified and validated as described below. The PI is responsible for deciding when project data can be shared with interested stakeholders in conjunction with the GWERDs Director’s approval. 4.2 Verification and Validation Methods Data verification will evaluate data at the data set level for completeness, correctness, and conformance with the method. Data verification will be done by those generating the data. This will begin with the analysts in the laboratory and the personnel in the field conducting field measurements, monitoring the results in real-time or near real-time. At RSKERC, Shaw’s, verification includes team leaders, the QC coordinator, and the program manager. For the EPA GP Lab at RSKERC, data verification includes peer analysts in the GP lab and the team leader. Shaw’s and the EPA GP Lab’s process goes beyond the verification level, as they also evaluate the data at the analyte and sample level by evaluating the results of the QC checks against the RSKSOP performance criteria. For the Region VIII laboratory, QA/QC requirements include data verification prior to reporting and detailed description can be found in the QSP-001-10 QA Manual (Burkhardt and Datschelet, 2010). Results are reported to the client electronically, unless requested otherwise. Electronic test results reported to the client include the following: Data release memo from the analysts, LQAO, Laboratory Director (or their Designees) authorizing release of the data from the Laboratory, and a case narrative prepared by the analysts summarizing the samples received, test methods, QC notes with identification of noncompliance issues and their impact on data quality, and an explanation of any data qualifiers applied to the data. Section No. 4 Revision No. 0 , 2011 Page 38 of 70 41 Confidential The Region HI laboratory data veri?cation and validation procedure is described in detail in their Laboratory Quality Manual (Metzger et al.. 2011). Brie?y. the procedure is as follows. The actual numeric results of all quality control procedures performed must be included in the case ?le. The data report and narrative must describe any limitations of the data based on a comprehensive review of all quality control data produced. A written procedure or reference must be available for the method being performed and referenced in the narrative. If the method to be performed is unique. the procedures must be fully documented and a copy included in the case ?le. Verify that the calibration and instrument performance was checked by analyzing a second source standard (SCV). (The concentration of the second source standard must be in the range of the calibration.) Results must be within the method, procedure. client or in-house limits. At least one blank (BLK). duplicate analysis. and spiked sample must be carried through the entire method or procedure. Peer reviewers complete the On-Demand Data Checklist. The data report must document the accuracy and precision of the reported data by applying quali?er codes. if applicable. and include a summary of the quality control in the case ?le. For ?eld measurements. Dr. Puls will verify the ?eld data IcollectedL Comment [c116]: Amman. m? ?manning innumery? . . . Expaimce ha shown that ?eld reading other The laboratories shall contact the PI upon detection of any data quahty issues which srgm?cantly mouths dneto affect sample data. They shall also. report any issues identi?ed in the data report. corrective . of? i? ism. ma actions. and their determmatron of impact on data quality. ?whammy-?unk oollec?onbybothEPAdeHKjoimly Valiihu'ou . I . of Ed screening perm slimld not he ldi to Data vahdation is an analyte- and sample-specr?c process that evaluates the data against the new? project speci?cations as presented in the QAPP. Data validation will be performed by a party independent of the data collection activity. Neptime and Company. a QA support contractor. will conduct data validation on a representative sample of the critical analytes with oversight by the QAM. Data packages for the critical analytes that have been accepted by Doug Beak as ready to use or report shall be provided to Steve Vandegri?. QAM. who will coordinate the data validation with Neptlme. Neptune shall evaluate data against the QAPP speci?cations. Neptune will use SOP ?Performing Audits of Data Quality? as a guide for conducting the data validation. The outputs from this process will include the validated data and the data validation report. The report will include a summary of any identi?ed de?ciencies. a summary statement regarding the adequacy of the data for its intended use. and a discussion on each individual de?ciency and any effect on data quality and recommended corrective action. As part of the data validation process. the of data and conclusions drawn from the data will be reviewed by the RSKERC Case Study Team (minimally will include case study PIs. Technical Research Lead for case studies. and GWERD Director) prior to release of this information or data to entities outside of RSKERC. Once reviewed by the RSKERC Case Study Team in coordination with the GWERD Director. the GWERD Director will approve its release. Section No. 4 Revision No. 0 . 2011 Page 39 of 70 42 Confidential 4.3 Reconciliation with User Requirements The PI, Dr. Puls, shall analyze the data, as presented below. Dr. Puls shall also review the results from the data verification and validation process. Dr. Puls shall make a determination as to whether or not the data quality has met project requirements and thereby the user requirements. If there are data quality issues that impact their use, the impact will be evaluated by the PI. If corrective actions are available that would correct the issue, Dr. Puls will make the determination to implement such actions. For example, the PI may have the option to re-sample or re-analyze the affected samples. If not, then the PI will document the impact in the final report such that it is transparent to the data users how the conclusions from the project are affected. The types of statistical analyses that will be performed include summary statistics (mean, median, standard deviation, minimum, maximum, etc.) if applicable. In addition, the data will be plotted graphically over time and trends in the data will be analyzed, for example increasing or decreasing concentrations of a particular analyte. Data will be presented in both graphical and tabular form. Tabular forms of the data will include Excel spreadsheets for raw data and tables containing the processed data. Graphical representations of the data will not only include time series plots as previously described, but also Durov and Piper Diagrams for major anions and cations. In addition, concentrations of data could be plotted on surface maps of the Killdeer site showing well locations and concentrations of analytes and contours may be developed to show “analyte plumes”, if present. Section No. 4 Revision No. 0 , 2011 Page 40 of 70 43 Confidential 5.0 References Arkansas Geological Survey.  Petroleum Geology of southern Arkansas and the Gulf Coastal Plain.   http://www.geology.ar.gov/fossil fuels/oil geol prodarea.htm  Burkhardt, Mark; Datschelet, William. 2010. U.S. EPA Region 8 Environmental Laboratory Quality Assurance Manual. SOP No. QSP-001 rev 1.0. EPA Region 8 Laboratory. Domenico, Patrick A. and Schwartz, Franklin W. 1990. Physical and Chemical Hydrogeology. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York. Kiernan, Jesse. 2010. Determination of BTEX, MTBE, Naphthalene and TPH/GRO using EPA Method 8021B and 8015D Modified. SOP No.: ORGM-506 rev. 1.0. EPA Region 8 Laboratory. Kiernan, Jesse. 2010. Determination of Diesel Range Orgainics Using EPA Method 5015D Modified. SOP No. ORGM-508 rev. 1.0. EPA Region 8 Laboratory. Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality. 2009. Carizzo-Wilcox Aquifer Summary, 2007. Appendix 2 to the Triennial Summary Report, Aquifer Sampling and assessment Program. Louisiana Geological Survey 2008. General Geology of Louisiana, http://www.lgs.lsu.edu/deploy/uploads/gengeotext.pdf Marti, Vicente. 2011. Determination of Semivolatile Orgainic Compounds Using Method 8270D. SOP No. ORGM-515 rev. 1.1. EPA Region 8 Laboratory. Metzger, Cynthia; Caporale, Cynthia; Bilyeu, Jill. 2011. Laboratory Quality Manual, Version 8. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 3, Environmental Science Center Environmental Assessment and Innovation Division, Office of Analytical Services and Quality Assurance. RSKSOP-152v3. Ground-Water Sampling. 5 p. RSKSOP-175v5. Sample Preparation and Calculations for Dissolved Gas Analysis in Water Samples Using a GC Headspace Equilibration Technique. 33 p. RSKSOP-194v4. Gas Analysis by Micro Gas Chromatograph (Agilent Micro 3000). 13 p. RSKSOP-211v3. Field Analytical QA/QC. 4 p. Section No. 5 Revision No. 0 September 18, 2011 Page 41 of 70 44 Confidential RSKSOP-212v6. Standard Operating Procedure for Quantitative Analysis of Low Molecular Weight Acids in Aqueous Samples by HPLC. 22 p. RSKSOP-213v4. Standard Operating Procedure for Operation of Perkin Elmer Optima 3300 DV ICP-OES. 22 p. RSKSOP-216v2. Sample Receipt and Log-In Procedures for the On-Site Analytical Contractor. 5 p. RSKSOP-257v3. Operation of Thermo Elemental PQ Excell ICP-MS. 16 p. RSKSOP-275v1. Collection of Water Samples from Monitoring Wells. 10 p. RSKSOP-276v3. Determination of Major Anions in Aqueous Samples Using Capillary Ion Electrophoresis with Indirect UV Detection and Empower 2 Software. 11 p. RSKSOP-299v1. Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds (Fuel Oxygenates, Aromatic and Chlorinated Hydrocarbons) in Water Using Automated Headspace Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (Agilent 6890/5973 Quadrupole GC/MS System). 25 p. RSKSOP-326v0. Manual Measurement of Groundwater Levels for Hydrogeologic Characterization. 4 p. RSKSOP-330v0. Determination of Various Fractions of Carbon in Aqueous Samples Using the Shimadzu TOC-VCPH Analyzer. 15 p. Tetra Tech. 2003. Literature review and report surface sediment sampling technologies. Report for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Exposure Research Laboratory. GSA Contract No. GS-10F-0076K. Section No. 5 Revision No. 0 September 18, 2011 Page 42 of 70 45 Confidential 6.0 Tables Table l. britical analytesl Comment [c117]: Radonandndinmue "a mum mum butnome?iodsame Anal [Anal Meth Labora Performm Anal i y? ?1 my gale 35? {Comment [c118]:HZIndOO2notlistedas m1 item Gasoline Range Organics (GRO) ORGM-506 rl.0, EPA Method EPA Region Laboratory 8015B \1 Deleted: . Diesel Range Organics (DRO) r1 .0, EPA Method EPA Region Laboratory In snail, EPA shopldbe 80151) Volatile Organic Compomds meug (V ooupunbility of the duh Semivolatile Organic Compounds 0RGM-515 rl.l, EPA Method EPA Region laboratory Comment mm is (SVOC) 8270D Dissolved Gases? &?l75v5 Shaw Environmental Metals As, Se, Sr, Ba, B) &i?257v2l Shaw Environmental ?7 Comment [c121]: Whyis SW6010 or 6020 is not being used ?x ml: Major Cations (Ca, Mg, Na, K) Shaw Environmental A [Major 8042') RSKERC general parameters lab - - I (hunted [c122]: to list addC03 - - nuances mums coholsi 4 methane, ethane. propane. butane See I I mm interference with this method on Only those SVOC compelmds in Table 12 that have DL. RL. and Control Limits listed may be A . . . I used as critical analytes. Others only as screemng data. I, New Comment [c124]: The me con-non alcohols in a hydraulic stimulation ?uid are drool and Both VOC and SVOC have many target analytes and initially all are considered as critical (with em 4 exception for SVOC noted above). A tiered approach will be used to further re?ne the identi?cation of speci?c compounds as critical. Data from the ?rst sampling events will be evaluated by the PI to determine if there are speci?c compounds that are identi?ed in these samples which would warrant their speci?c identi?cation as critical to narrow the list. These will be identi?ed in a subsequent QAPP revision. GRO analysis provides data for not only TPH as gasoline, but several other compounds. Only TPH as gasoline will be considered critical from this analysis. Section No. 6 Revision No. 0 September 18. 2011 Page 43 of 70 46 friable 2. Known constituents of the Hydraulic Fi'acttu?ing Fluid Component use for the production welli Active Ingredients Section No. 6 Revision No. 0 September 18. 2011 Page 44 of 70 CAS Number Chemical Use Formula Confidential 4 Comment sitefone?amepmposes 47 Confidential ire-ple_3_-_Ie_qet_iye_ - {De-?ed: Chesapeake mm Case Study ?avnesn'lle Soto ParishI Lousiana._[ W, - Comment [c126]: Finlize Landowner gem 108/1! Media Nov 2011 March June August Nov April i? 2012 2012 2012 2012 2013 Groundwater We? . . 6 my oonplehcn Flowback to'sanple Set My 12 a?u Sediment Soil Mm? Deleted: Washington County, PA Section No. 6 Revision No. 0 September 18. 2011 Page 45 of 70 48 Confidential Table 4. Water Quality of the Carizzo-Wilcox Aquifer. Data from LDEQ 2009 (umhos/cm) Table 5. The physical characteristics of the monitoring wells near the proposed well pad. Section No. 6 Revision No. 0 September 18. 2011 Page 46 of 70 49 Confidential Monitoring Well MW-1 MW-2 MW-3 MW-4 MW-5 MW-6 MW-7 MW-8 Screen Interval (ft) Screen Length (ft) Total Depth (ft) TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD Section No. 6 Revision No. 0 September 18, 2011 Page 47 of 70 50 Confidential Table 6. Field parameter stabilization criteria and kalibration standardsi - a Comment [c127]: waiditymdunpmm - - - - - - - - - - - - A I Parameter Stabilization Criteria Calibration Standards meted: - pH 50.02 pH units min'1 pH 4, 7, and 10 buffers Oxidation Reduction Potential (ORP) 2mV min'I Zobells Solution Speci?c Conductance (SC) 1% min?1 1413 p8 Conductivity Standard Section No. 6 Revision No. 0 September 18. 2011 Page 48 of 70 51 Confidential Table 7. IGroundwater Field Analytical Methoqu {Mn-ant [c128which' is not idmh?ed' in this table Calibntion requirenmts should be provided amet thod at er Deleted: . Alkalinity EPA Standard Method HACH Model AL-DT Digital HACH method 8203 Titrator (or equivalent device) Ferrous Fe EPA Standard Method 3500?Fe HACH DR890 Portable Colorimeter HACH Method 8146 (or equivalent device) Dissolved Sul?de EPA Standard Method 4500-52' HACH DR890 Portable Colorimeter HACH Method 8131 (or equivalent device) Turbidity EPA Standard Method 180.1 HACH 2100Q Portable Turbidity meter Section No. 6 Revision No. 0 September 18. 2011 Page 49 of 70 52 Confidential mmnent [c129]:me Table 8. Ground and Surface \Vater Sample Collectioni ntthodology of poven I am not ?miliar Analysis Method Sample Bottles/# of Preservation! Holding Will! 50?" ?false ?51109 Sample mi (EPA Method) bottles? Storage Time(s) Comment [c130]: woos, H003, MBAS, omen?ammo], e?nnol, etc list app? tobe No Headspace 14 da 5 Dissolved ases &?l75v5 60 mL serum bottles/2 TSPT, pH>10; 0 re gelate 8 (N EPA 6 c" Method) 6 mend? Metals (Elia-11:31:15 125 mL plastic bottle/l HNO3, pH<2 (Hg 28 200.7 and 6020) days) 504, C1, F, Br (EPA Method 60 mL plastic/1 Re?igerateg6 28 days 6500) so pH_(Elitgsr?ggh?d - _rcfn-gm?e - {Comment [c131]. Add'l'KNamlamoma DIC 40 mL clear glass VOA re?igemte :6 14 days 40 mL clear glass VOA 2- H3PO4, pH<2. DOC (EPA Method . . 28 days 9060A) Hal/4 2- refrigerate 56 Volatile organic Rsxiobi-Ztigzl 40 mL amber glass 1 4 da compounds (V 0C) (EP VOA Vial/2 . ys re?lgerate <6 12v6 [Low Molecular . TSPT pH>10~ . . EPA 40 mL VOA al/2 . 30 da WeightACIdsL_ discussed in the text The of conducting this lL Amber glass bottle/2 7 days mm] analysis is and for ev 10 - samples of groan; water No current EPA sumo are widely med for Semi?volatile r1 need 2 more bottles for . ys ?x W$gew ?Wu organic compounds one selected sample, or Refugth 56 after but me widely accepted and validated if <10 samples collected, methodology (Ion a Gas collect 2 more bottles Gnomtogaphy) should be mouthed for one select sample 1L Amber glass bottle/2 7 days until aim f0; everydlo extraction. samp es 0 groun water DRO need 2 more bottles for pH<2; 40 days 80151)) one selected sample, or re?igerate 56 after if <10 samples collected, Cmcuon collect 2 more bottles for one select sample ORGM-506 r1 .0, No Headspace GRO (EPA Method 40 ?i?ll?sz/gh? pH<2; 14 days 8015D) refrigerate :6 Section No. 6 Revision No. 0 September 18. 2011 Page 50 of 70 53 Confidential ?above freezing point of water Region 111 Hf?ff?i?fs Method) trisodium phosphate *Spare bottles made available for laboratory QC samples and for replacement of compromised samples (broken bottle. QC failures. etc.). *lmder development Section No. 6 Revision No. 0 September 18. 2011 Page 51 of 70 54 Confidential Table 9. Field QC Samples for Water bamplesl Gunmen! [c133]: Didnotsee?scmimin repat QC Sample Purpose )Iethod Frequency Acceptance riteria/Corrective Action Trip Blanks (V OAs Assess Fill bottles with One in each ice if PI and Dissolved contamination reagent water and chest with VOA and will determine if Gases) during preserve, take to dissolved gas signi?cant relative to transportation. ?eld and returned samples. sample data. without opening. Equipment Blanks Assess Apply only to One per day of if contamination from ?ltered samples: sampling PI will determine if ?eld equipment, Reagent water is signi?cant relative to sampling ?ltered and collected sample data. procedures, sample into bottles and container, preserved same as preservative, and ?ltered samples. shipping. Field Duplicates Represent precision One or more One in every 10 Report duplicate of ?eld sampling, samples collected samples, or if <10 data; PI will analysis, and site immediame a?er samples collected determine if heterogeneity. original sample. for a water type signi?cant relative to (ground or surface), sample data. collect a duplicate for one sample Temperature Blanks Measure temperature Water sample that is One per cooler. 2C of samples in the transported in cooler cooler. to lab. Field Blanks (not Assess In the ?eld, reagent One taken with each if PI used for VOCs or contamination water is collected equipment blank will determine if dissolved gas introduced from into sample signi?cant relative to samples) sample container containers with sample data. with applicable preservatives. preservative. Section No. 6 Revision No. 0 September 18. 2011 Page 52 of 70 55 Confidential Table 10. Region III Laboratory QA/QC Requirements for Glycols. QC Type Performance Criteria 10x MDL and end of 110% of (Every 15 metals w/ Method (Beginning each sample known value samples) no 200.7 and end of queue, 10-15 (Immediately individual EPA each sample samples) a?er ?rst exceeding Method queue) calibration 70-1 30% 6020 check) Rec. $04, Cl, RSKSOP- 90-110% Rec. PE sample 80420% 276v3 (Beginning (Beginning, acceptance (every 15 Rec. and end of end, and every limits samples) (one per each sample 10 samples) (One per every 20 queue) sample set) samples) N03 N02, NH. RSKSOP- 20% different, with at least one of the recoveries falling outside of acceptance limits), indicating an efficiency problem for that analyte in the test. The analyte is then qualified as an estimate. ii) Matrix spikes run as pairs (MS1 & MS2, indicative of two different matrices). If they both show consistent, out-ofacceptance limits results for multiple analytes (recoveries within 10% of each other), it is indicative of an efficiency problem and the analytes in question may be qualified as estimates. Relative Percent Difference Analysis Falls Outside of Acceptance Criteria Relative percent difference is used to determine the precision of the analytical results. It is used to measure consistency using historically determined ranges to ascertain if the difference in results between two subsequent analyses of the same sample indicates that the test may not have given a precise result. The calculation used to determine the relative percent difference (RPD) number: 125 Confidential RPD = ( S-D )/(AVG(S+D)) X100 Where: RPD = Relative percent difference S = Sample results (original) D = Duplicate results This calculated number is compared to a historical limit above which the precision is called into question. If the RPD number exceeded the limit, the following actions were taken: Duplicate Sample Results Both original sample and duplicate sample >5x the RL and RPD > 120% of the RPD limit. Original sample or duplicate sample ≤ 5x the RL (including non-detects) and absolute difference between sample and duplicate > RL Action for Samples Qualify those results that are ≥ RL that are impacted as estimated (J) and nondetects as estimated (UJ) Qualify those results that are ≥ RL that are impacted as estimated (J) and nondetects as estimated (UJ) Limitations Any limitations on the data verification of field data will be explained. Parameters for Data Qualification Estimated Results The following criteria were employed to determine whether the analytical result was qualified as estimated: 1) Holding time: The EPA established preparation and analytical holding time for the method employed to analyze the water sample. 2) Temperature: The temperature of the sample must be maintained at EPA prescribed levels to insure that no degradation of analytes have occurred. Temperatures in excess of this level result in estimated values on the analytical result. Quality Control Elements An evaluation of the laboratory quality control spikes and surrogates run with the analytical batch which included the water sample was done if these controls fall outside of acceptance range, it results in estimated values on the analytical result. Unusable Results The following criteria were evaluated to determine the usability of the data: 126 Confidential 1) Trip Blanks and Laboratory Control Blanks The evaluation of the blank control samples was used to ensure no impact to the water sample during both transportation and analytical work-up. When an analytical detect for an analyte has a corresponding blank positive detection, the analytical detect is unusable. 2) Degradation and Sample Hold Time. If the sample hold time exceeds 2x the prescribed amount, the corresponding reported results are unusable. This is due to analyte degradation over time that has been scientifically determined by storage stability testing. Analyte specific data was determined to be estimated or unusable in the Analytical Result following situations: Detect NonDetect Outside of method hold time J UJ LCS Low J UJ Analytical Criteria for Sample Validation 2x out RPD Matrix Matrix of LCS outside spike spike method High prescribe low high hold d criteria time J J J J R No No J UJ R effect effect Positive Blank R* UJ* Definitions: J - Analyte detected result is an estimate UJ - Analyte non-detected result is an estimate R - Analyte result is unusable *Criteria for qualifying any analytical result as either estimates or unusable when a control blank is impacted is dependent upon both the magnitude of the impact, as well as the reported analytical detection of the analyte in the sample. Please see validation methodology for a more detailed description. 127 Confidential PRODUCED FLUIDS SAMPLING APPLICABILITY The information contained in this section applies to produced water/fluids sampling. Produced water/ fluids are defined as all the fluids that flow to the surface after hydraulic fracturing operations, but prior to the production of natural gas from the well. The composition of produced water/fluids varies by formation, but is typically a mixture of the return hydraulic fracturing fluid and the existing deep formation groundwater. The purpose of the produced water/fluid sampling plan is to collect water quality information to determine disposal options, and to show differences between the produced water/ fluid, and the fluid used in the frac (which is also sampled). Sampling of produced water/ fluid will be performed at three intervals during the flow?back event. Based on the total expected produced water/ volume, a grab sample will be collected from the flow-back manifold and/or separator after approximately 1/3 of the produced water/ volume has been captured, after approximately 2/3 of the produced water/ volume has been captured, and after 3/3 (all) of the produced water/ volume has been captured. Please note that the produced water/ volumes will vary with each well. PROCEDURE Produced water/ Fluid Sample Scheduling and Locations Prior to the sampling event, sampling personnel shall coordinate with the ?ow?back consultant as to when flow-back is scheduled to begin and arrange the preparation of a sample port on the low pressure side of the flow-back manifold (if possible). If a sampling port is not available, the ?ow-back sample may be sampled at an alternative location designated by the flow-back consultant (see collection details in following section). Produced water/ Fluid Sample Collection The sampling team will consist of one or more experienced individuals that have received training in environmental sample collection techniques, environmental sample collection at natural gas well locations, chain?of-custody documentation, environmental sample preservation, sample packaging, and sample shipment. Each sample bottle label will be completed with the sample location identification information, sample date and time, parameter or test name, and name of the sampler. Sufficient ice shall be taken to the sample collection locations so that filled containers can be placed on ice immediately following sample collection. Upon arriving onsite, the sample collection team shall discuss the nature of the sampling activities to be conducted and the site conditions with the flow-back consultant to determine site safety issues. Issues to be discussed may include: 0 pressures likely to be encountered during sampling activities, 128 Confidential 0 nature of the fluids to be sampled (temperature, additives/chemicals added to well, potential for exposure to liquid hydrocarbons 0 chemical hazards 0 biological hazards 0 equipment hazards 0 vehicular traffic hazards 0 other site specific hazards Personnel collecting samples shall use good environmental sample collection techniques and appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) to ensure samples are safely collected and are representative of the source water. Sampling personnel must remain aware of surroundings at all times while on-site. PPE will include, at a minimum, safety glasses, hard hat, steel toe boots and clean nitrile gloves. Sampling personnel shall photograph the well and well identification sign, sample location on blow-off line temporary separator and/or permanent separator, along with any other pertinent site features. Sampling personnel shall discuss and arrange appropriate sample collection locations and times with the flow-back consultant prior to sampling. During a typical flow?back event, the minimum required sample collections will be at three separate locations. These separate locations and setup instructions are detailed below: 1. Initial Produced water/ Sample: When flow-back is first initiated, there may not be a separator connected to the flow-back lines. In order to collect the initial sample, sampling personnel may need to arrange the installation of a valve and sampling port with the flow- back consultant. The valve and sampling port must be installed on the blow-out line connecting the well to the reserve pit. 2. Mid-Range Produced water] Sample: After a few hours/days (one-third and two-thirds of the volume samples) of ?ow-back directly to the frac tank or reserve pit, the well will begin to flow?back a small volume of natural gas with the fluid. At this point a temporary separator is installed to capture and separate gas and water. Sampling personnel must verify the location of the sampling manifold on the bottom of the temporary separator with the flow-back consultant. Once the location is verified, the valves on the manifold may be manipulated to collect the produced water/ sample. Prior to sample collection, the sampling port should be cleared by purging approximately 0.5 gallon of fluid. 3. Late Produced water/ Sample: As the well continues to flow?back, a permanent separator will eventually be setup and installed at the well location. This location will be used to collect the sample of approximately all the flow-back volume and for other time series samples. Most separators have two valves (one near the top, and one near the bottom of the separator). Both these valves should be closed (temporarily) and an additional small valve should be installed where the existing plug is located on the separator. This additional valve is needed to control the flow during sampling. Sampling personnel must verify that the temporary valve is properly installed (upstream of the actuator) with the flow-back consultant prior to flow-back. Mistaken/y installinq the valve of the actuator 129 Confidential could cause an unexpected spike in water and 005 pressure durinq samplinq potentially resultinq in injury and equipment damaqe. Once all valves are installed and verified, the separator valves should be opened, and the temporary valve and sampling port should be used to collect the produced water/ sample. Prior to sample collection, the sampling port should be cleared by purging approximately 0.5 gallon of fluid. All sample containers should be filled directly from the sample port (if available); this may not be possible. If the sample port is unavailable, the produced water/ fluid sample should be collected in dedicated 5- gallon buckets, S?gallon buckets with dedicated liners, or dedicated S?gallon jugs with screw caps. A peristaltic pump and clean dedicated tubing must be used to transfer produced water/fluid from S-gallon buckets/jugs into laboratory-prepared sample containers. Samples for dissolved metals should be filtered before transferring to laboratory sample containers. Dedicated 45 micron filters will be used for field filtration of dissolved metals samples. Samples for VOCs may need to be transferred into a dedicated clean unpreserved container, and then transferred into the appropriate VOA vial. Note: Zero headspace samples are impossible due to the surface tension of the matrix. If possible the VOA vial should be filled directly from the lined bucket. Field measurements that must be collected for turbidity and temperature are desirable but may not be possible due to matrix interferences. Sampling personnel shall note the well head pressure and produced water/ rate at the time of sampling. All containers must be labeled indicating source and contents. All unused produced water/ fluid must be disposed of into the frac tank specified by the flow-back consultant. PRODUCED WATER SAMPLING APPLICABILITY The information contained in this section applies to produced water sampling. Produced water is defined as all water that ?ows to the well surface during natural gas production. The composition of produced water varies by formation, but is primarily made up of existing deep formation groundwater, but may also include some return hydraulic fracturing fluid. The purpose of the produced water sampling plan is to collect water quality information to determine disposal options and monitor the variation in produced water quality over time. PROCEDURE Produced Water Sample Scheduling and Locations All produced water samples must be collected on-site at the sampling port on the separator. Sampling personnel shall coordinate with the pumper who will open the appropriate sampling port on the separator (see sample collection details in following section). Chesapeake Operations personnel (pumper, superintendent, etc) must be on location during the sampling event. Produced Water Sample Collection The sampling team will consist of one or more experienced individuals that have received training in environmental sample collection techniques, environmental sample collection at natural gas well locations, chain-of-custody documentation, environmental sample preservation, sample packaging, and 130 Confidential sample shipment. Approved consultants that can provide suitable personnel trained to conduct this sampling are listed in the following section. The sampling team will check the shipping container upon arrival to make sure there was no breakage or leakage during transit. If problems are evident, the laboratory contact personnel will be notified as soon as possible so replacement containers can be shipped. Each sample bottle label will be completed with the sample location identification information, sample date and time, parameter or test name, and name of the sampler. Sufficient ice shall be taken to the sample collection locations so that filled containers can be placed on ice immediately following sample collection. Upon arriving onsite, personnel collecting samples shall discuss the nature of the sampling activities with the pumper to determine site safety issues. Issues to be discussed may include: 0 pressures likely to be encountered during sampling activities, 0 nature of the fluids to be sampled (temperature, additives/chemicals added to well, potential for exposure to liquid hydrocarbons) 0 chemical hazards biological hazards 0 equipment hazards vehicular traffic hazards 0 other site specific hazards Personnel shall use good environmental sample collection techniques and appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) to ensure samples are safely collected and are representative of the source fluid. Sampling personnel must remain aware of surroundings at all times while on-site. PPE will include, at a minimum, safety glasses, hard hat, steel toe boots and clean nitrile gloves. Personnel shall photograph the well and well identification sign, production equipment, sample location on the separator, tankage, and other pertinent site features. Personnel shall make note of any additives pumped in to the well soap, biocides). Only the pumper should operate the sampling port on the separator and the pumper should be instructed by the sampling personnel to install the temporary flow control valve. Most separators have two valves (one near the top, and one near the bottom of the separator). Both these valves should be closed (temporarily) and an additional small valve should be installed where the existing plug is located on the separator. This additional valve is needed to control the flow during sampling. (Please Note: Only the pumper should install the temporary flow control valve and only the pumper should operate the sampling port on the separator). Sampling personnel must verify that the temporary valve is properly installed (upstream of the actuator) prior to sample collection. Mistaken/y installinq the valve of the actuator could cause an unexpected spike in water and qas pressure durinq samplinq potentially resulting in iniury and equipment damaqe. Once all valves are installed and verified, the separator valves should be opened and sampling personnel shall instruct the pumper to open the appropriate sampling port on the separator (sight glass drain or other port on separator) and purge approximately 0.5 gallon to clear sample port. 131 Confidential If the pressure is low: Fill sample containers directly from the port on the separator. If the pressure is high, OR, if produced water is foamy: Collect produced water into dedicated S?gallon buckets or 5-gallon buckets with dedicated liners and allow foam to settle When collecting produced water in 5-gallon buckets, utilize peristaltic pump and clean dedicated tubing to transfer produced water from 5?gallon buckets into laboratory?prepared sample containers. For consistency, use of the dedicated 5-gallon bucket with dedicated liners and transfer of samples via peristaltic pump may be the most appropriate for all samples. Samples for VOCs should first be collected in a dedicated clean unpreserved container, and then be filtered and/or transferred to laboratory sample containers. Samples for dissolved metals should be filtered before transferring to laboratory sample containers. Samples for dissolved metals should be filtered using dedicated 45 micron filters. Due to matrix interferences, the field measurements taken are turbidity and temperature. In order to obtain an accurate understanding of the characteristics of produced water, sampling at various time intervals is necessary. The specific timing of this sampling is dependent on the shale formation water being sampled. At a minimum the following samples should be included: 1. 2. 7. 6 hours after produced water begins flow-back 12 hours after produced water begins flow-back 5 days after 30 days after 45 days after 60 days after 90 days after (sample dependent on if the 60 day sample has a higher chloride and TDS value compared to the 45 day sample) Sampling needs to be conducted at 30 day intervals until the chloride and TDS stabilize. All unused produced water must be disposed of into the site produced water tanks. HYDRAULIC FRACTURE FLUID SAMPLING APPLICABILITY The information contained in this section applies to hydraulic fracturing fluid sampling. The purpose of the frac fluid sampling plan is collect information on the chemical makeup of the hydraulic frac fluids. A 132 Confidential list of the analytes should be reviewed and additional parameters added based on the chemicals utilized in the specific fluid being used for the well. The additives utilized vary from site to site and the additives are heavily diluted by fresh water prior to fracturing. As a result, sampling of the frac fluid is necessary to evaluate any impacts, and also to show differences between the fluid used in the frac, and the flowback fluid (which is also sampled). A sample of the source water should be obtained in addition to the hydraulic frac ?uid sample in order to differentiate parameters which are associated with recycled source water PROCEDURE Free Fluid Sample Scheduling and Locations Prior to the sampling event, sampling personnel shall coordinate with the Chesapeake consultant as to when hydraulic fracturing operations will take place. Sampling personnel must also ensure that the frac service company consultant is aware of the need to collect a sample of frac fluid containing all chemicals. The sample should be dispensed from the blender into a dedicated S-gallon bucket with liner. The proppant will drop to the bottom of the bucket before samples are transferred into containters. In some cases, special mechanical arrangements may need to be made to facilitate collection of the frac fluid sample. Laboratory contact personnel will schedule the sampling event at the laboratory and will ship pre- cleaned, properly preserved sample containers to the sampling team. The sampling team may choose to maintain a stock of a limited number of sampling containers. It is recommended that no more than a one (1) month supply of containers be kept in stock at any given time. It is very important that any changes in the sampling schedule be communicated to the appropriate laboratory contact personnel. Free Fluid Sample Collection The sampling team will consist of one or more experienced individuals that have received training in environmental sample collection techniques, environmental sample collection at natural gas well locations, chain-of-custody documentation, environmental sample preservation, sample packaging, and sample shipment. Approved consultants that can provide suitable personnel trained to conduct this sampling are listed in the following section. The sampling team will check the shipping container upon arrival to make sure there was no breakage or leakage during transit. If problems are evident, the laboratory contact personnel will be notified as soon as possible so replacement containers can be shipped. Each sample bottle label will be completed with the sample location identification information, sample date and time, parameter or test name, and name of the sampler. Sufficient ice shall be taken to the sample collection locations so that filled containers can be placed on ice immediately following sample collection. Upon arriving onsite, the sample collection team shall discuss the nature of the sampling activities to be conducted and the site conditions with the frac service company consultant to determine site safety issues. Please note that only frac service company personnel shall collect the frac fluid sample (details are provided below). Issues to be discussed with the frac service company consultant may include: 0 nature of the ?uids to be sampled (temperature, additives/chemicals added to well, potential for exposure to liquid hydrocarbons) 133 Confidential 0 chemical hazards 0 biological hazards 0 equipment hazards vehicular traffic hazards 0 other site specific hazards Personnel collecting samples shall use good environmental sample collection techniques and appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) to ensure samples are safely collected. Sampling personnel must remain aware of surroundings at all times during the frac fluid sampling event. Hydraulic fracturing operations are an extremely intensive, heavy industrial operation and all personnel must have appropriate PPE while onsite. Appropriate PPE will include, at a minimum: safety glasses, hard hat, steel toe boots, earplugs and clean nitrile gloves. Sampling personnel shall photograph the well and well identification sign and other pertinent site features. All frac fluid sample collection shall be performed by the frac service company employees. Sampling personnel shall provide two (2) dedicated five-gallon buckets (or jugs) to the frac service company consultant and the buckets shall be filled with approximately four gallons each (eight gallons total) of the frac fluid mixture prior to injection downhole. Once the samples are collected by the frac service company, the samples shall be immediately returned to the sampling personnel for laboratory preparation and shipping. Sampling personnel shall use a peristaltic pump and clean dedicated tubing to transfer frac fluid from 5- gallon buckets/jugs into laboratory?prepared sample containers. Samples for VOCs should first be collected in a dedicated clean unpreserved container prior to filling the VOA vials. Samples for dissolve metals should be filtered prior to transfer to laboratory sample containers. Dedicated 45 micron filters will be used for field filtration of dissolved metals samples. Due to the matrix interferences, field measurements are limited to turbidity and temperature. All containers must be labeled indicating source and contents. Upon completion of sample collection, all unused frac fluid must be disposed of into the frac tank specified by the frac service company consultant. 134 Confidential ISOTOPIC METHANE SAMPLING FROM DOMESTIC WATER WELLS, SURFACE WATERS AND COMPLETED NATURAL GAS WELLS. This section describes the procedures for collecting methane gas or water samples for isotopic analyses from domestic water wells, surface waters, and completed natural gas wells. Following is a list of equipment needed to conduct isotopic methane sampling: 0 Flame ionization detector used for measuring total volatile organics including methane calibrate to methane standard, 0 Lower Explosive Limit (LEL) meter calibrate to methane standard, 0 lsoBags, 0 Hand pump 0 Floating gas concentration device for surface water gas collection, 0 Disposable tubing (assorted sizes appropriate for connection to gas concentration device, etc.), 0 lsoTube, 0 lsoTube manifold, 0 Well adaptor with associated fittings (must be appropriate for well casings between 4? and for concentrating gas vapor, 0 Field Book, 0 1 Liter isotopic water sample collection bottles 0 5-gallon bucket, white (do not use any color bucket due to the potential for color dyes to interfere), 0 5-gallon bucket for flow measurement, 0 Handheld GPS (3-5m accuracy), 0 Calibration gases, 0 Tools to access well head (basic tool kit) 0 Health and Safety Plan, 0 Digital Camera, 0 Watch, and 0 50 foot garden hose. Replicate equipment must be taken to all jobs sites, and must include the following at a minimum: 0 Flame Ionization Detector, 0 Calibration gases, and 0 Lower Explosive Limit (LEL) meter. Domestic Water Well - Gas Sample for Isotopic Methane 1. Set-up for sampling a safe distance (approximately 20 ft or more) from the well. 2. Calibrate meters and record appropriate information in field book. 3. Monitor gas concentrations during approach to well using appropriate meter a. STOP if readings above 10% LEL are encountered. b. Sampling may continue upon approval from the Sampling Team Lead. 135 990N531 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. Confidential If <10% LEL, gain access to well (remove well cap, etc) and quickly record the methane concentration via the FID first and then using the LEL. Attach the well adaptor to the well casing (if this is not possible then insert tubing 5-7 feet into the casing and improvise seal). Connect the to the well adaptor for all readings. Check FID and LEL readings and record in the field book. Close the sampling valve. Activate the water well pump to reduce hydrostatic pressure by pumping the well at a low to moderate rate during the sample collection process steps noted below. This will increase the likelihood of detecting any methane that may be dissolved in the water. Leave the sampling valve closed a minimum of 10 minutes to concentrate vapors. Open the sampling valve, check FID and LEL readings and record in the field book. Close the sampling valve and allow to stand an additional 10 minutes. Open the sampling valve, check and LEL readings and record in the field book IF FID and/or LEL readings have stabilized, proceed to step 17. If not stable, repeat steps 12 and 13 until readings stabilize for a maximum of 4 additional iterations. If no FID or LEL readings are noted, then notify the Sampling Task Manager for further guidance. Connect tubing to sampling valve on well adaptor. Connect hand pump to the opposite end of the tubing. Open sampling valve and pump hand pump as required to purge the line of air. Remove an lsoBag from the shipping container (paint can) and while pumping slowly, insert the male luer fitting on the hand pump outlet into the luer valve on the lsoBag. Fill the lsoBag 2/3 full to allow for expansion during shipping. Carefully remove lsoBag from the pump. Label the lsoBag with the sampling location, date and time. Record the sample on the Chain-of?Custody and in the field book. Repeat steps as necessary to collect additional samples. Remove tubing and adaptor from the well. Replace any items removed to gain access to well. Fill out any additional information on the COC Pack sample for shipping and ship to lsotech Laboratories. Transmit copy of COC and field notes to the Department. Surface Water - Gas Sample for Isotopic Methane 1. Position the floating gas concentration device over the bubbling area and proceed similar to the procedure noted in Section on water wells. (Monitor FID and/or LEL readings for increasing trends and collect isotopic sample in lsoBag if methane is suspected based on the reading) Record all observations in the field book. Domestic Water Well or Surface Water Water Sample for Isotopic Methane 1. if a gas sample was just collected from this sample location then water sampling may proceed if directed by Chesapeake. Othen/vise, the well must be pumped to cycle water through the pressure tank prior to sample collection 136 Confidential 2. Fill a clean 5 gallon bucket with water. Preferably from a source that bypasses any water treatment system. 3. Attach a nozzle and a length of tubing to the end of the hose connected to the faucet. Keep the flow rates low to moderate. 4. Remove the cap from the 1Liter Isotopic sample bottle and fill it with water. Once the bottle is filled, immerse it in the 5 gallon bucket with the fill tubing at the bottom of the bottle. Continue water flow rate until another 2 volumes of water have been displaced from the bottle. 5. Slowly lift the tubing out of the bottle and immediately cap the bottle under the water. No air must be allowed into the 1L bottle. 6. Pack the bottle on its SIDE in loose, wet ice and ship to Isotech Laboratories, Inc. under chain-of?custody control. THE SAMPLE BOTTLE MUST BE PACKED ON ITS SIDE. 7. Transmit copy of COC and field notes to the Department. Completed Gas Well 1. Meet Chesapeake?s representative at site. 2. The representative is responsible for supplying the appropriate sampling containers (IsoTube) and the sampling manifold (lsoTube manifold). 3. Remove lsoTubes from shipping container and label with sample information 4. Transfer the labeled IsoTube to client representative and observe sample collection. Observations should be noted in a bound field book. 5. Receive filled IsoTube from representative and return to shipping container. 6. Complete COC in conjunction with representative. 7. Pack sample for shipping and ship to Isotech Laboratories. 8. Transmit copy of COC and field notes to Department. Records The details of each sampling event shall be recorded in a bound field book and any applicable field forms. Any field forms completed must be notated in the field book. At a minimum, the following information shall be recorded: Site location, Site description (include sketch as appropriate), Weather conditions (temperature, wind, precipitation, etc.), Homeowner's use of water in the preceeding twelve hours, Sample Identification, Date and time of sample collection, Names of individuals present at sampling site, and Field meter identification along with appropriate calibration information: 0 Lot numbers and expiration dates for all standards, and All calibration results and calibration re-check values. Photographs shall be taken of each sample location during sampling activities for field documentation. The photo number must be recorded with a description in the field book. 137 Confidential BASELINE WATER SAMPLING This Section describes the procedures for conducting baseline water and water gas sampling. Baseline sampling is conducted to document water quality conditions prior to drilling activities associated with natural gas development. Equipment 0 Flame ionization detector used for measuring total volatile organics including methane calibrate to methane standard, 0 Lower Explosive Limit (LEL) meter calibrate to methane standard, 0 Calibration gases, 0 Meters for measuring pH, temperature, conductivity, and turbidity 0 Calibration standards (pH, conductivity, and turbidity), 0 Disposable Bailers, Monofilament line for bailers, 0 5 gallon bucket, white, 0 5 gallon bucket for flow measurement, 0 Stainless Steel bowl of sufficient capacity to allow for the submerging of VOA vials, 0 Decon Kit (DI water, Alconox, brush, etc.), 0 Handheld GPS (3-5m accuracy), 0 Digital camera, 0 Laptop, 0 Public information packet, 0 Health and Safety Plan, 0 Sample containers for the specified parameter list based on state, 0 Custody seals, sample labels, shipping labels (FedEx, special handling labels, Saturday delivery, etc.), 0 Field Book 0 Basic tool kit 0 50 foot garden hose, 0 Field Forms, and 0 Personal Protective Equipment (nitrile gloves are required for all samples to protect the sample as well as the sampler; see plan for additional requirements . Replicate equipment must be taken to all jobs sites, and must include the following at a minimum: 0 Flame Ionization Detector, 0 Calibration gases, 0 Lower Explosive Limit (LEL) meter, 0 Meters for Measuring pH, conductivity, temperature, and turbidity, and 0 Calibration standards for pH, conductivity, and turbidity. 138 Confidential Procedure The existing water system shall NOT be modified in any way in order to collect samples. If existing equipment is not functional, then note the equipment problems and inability to collect the sample in the field book and on the Sample Collection Form. Determine the approximate size, in gallons, of any pressure or holding tank. Note the presence of treatment systems, such as a water softener, and make sure the selected sample location is BEFORE any such system. If the sample cannot be collected before the treatment system, then it should be documented on the Baseline Monitoring Form. Where possible, purge a minimum of at least two times the capacity of the holding tank before filling sample containers. If samples are being collected in an area of limited water resources, try to purge a minimum of 5?10 gallons before filling sample containers. Purge volume can be estimated by bucket fill. Intermediate collection containers should not be used sample collection containers should be filled directly from the tap or water source). Observe and document qualitative appearance of water sample. Pre and post purge observations for suspended solids, turbidity, and gas bubbles should be documented from a water sample collected prior to sampling for laboratory analyses. 1. Conduct Methane screening. 2. Review water system layout and note in field book with appropriate sketches. Photograph the water well if possible and all sample location(s) such as faucets, and record GPS coordinates in field book. 4. Fill sample containers for Light Gas (dissolved) analysis if required, but inspect containers first to ensure they are not damaged, clean, and have no preservatives: a. Direct the water flow (low to medium stream of water flow) into the pre- cleaned stainless steel bowl until it overflows. Continue the overflow at a low to medium rate through the duration of sample collection. b. Wearing clean nitrile gloves, submerge an un?opened, non?preserved, 40?ml VOA vial in the stainless steel bowl with the cap pointed down. c. Remove the cap and tilt vial until it begins filling. The open top of the vial must remain below the water surface at all times during filling. When the vial is completely full (no headspace or bubbles), replace the cap and tighten. This entire step must be completed with the vial submerged. d. Remove the sealed vial from the water and inspect for headspace or bubbles. If any are observed the vial must be discarded and the sample re-collected. 5. Label each sample container, and include date and time of collection, and sample ID. 6. If gas bubbles are observed in the water sample and are effervescing, head space samples for methane/ethane and isotopic analyses should be collected following the submerged bottle method as recommended by lsotech Laboratories, Inc. The sampling method can be found on the lsotech website at: This method requires filling a 1L bottle with well water then submerging the bottle into a 5 gallon bucket filled with well water; invert the bottle and insert tubing coming from the well faucet; increase the flow rate to 2?3 and allow bubbling gases to displace water in the headspace until 25%?50% of the water has been displaced; seal the 139 Confidential container under water with spetum and screw cap securely tightened. Pack in ice and ship for overnight delivery. 7. Fill remaining sample containers provided by certified laboratory. (major anions/cations, metals, etc.) from the water source outlet. Springs without a water collection system should be sampled from the end of the pipe or spring outlet. If a water collection system such as a cistern is present, use a clean, disposable bailer and monofilament line lowered to approximately the mid-depth of the collection container to minimize stagnant water issues. DO NOT PUT ANY TAPE AROUND THE SAMPLE CONTAINER CAP. 8. Collect an additional sample in a non-preserved container for pH, temperature, turbidity, and specific conductivity; take field reading using the appropriate calibrated equipment and record readings in the field book. 9. Fill out the Baseline Water Sample Collection Form. 10. Record all required information on the chain-of custody and pack samples in sufficient loose, wet, ice to maintain required temperature. Please note that each sample container filled should be immediately placed on ice following collection. Include trip blanks if appropriate, and note date on trip blank in field book. 11. Ship samples to certified laboratory. 12. Complete Field EDD. 13. Transmit copy of the field EDD, field notes, field forms, and CDC to the department within 24 hours of sample collection. Records The details of each sampling event shall be recorded in a bound field book and any applicable field forms. Any field forms completed must be notated in the field book. At a minimum, the following information shall be recorded: 0 Site location, 0 Site description (include sketch as appropriate), 0 Homeowner?s use of water source during the preceeding twelve hours 0 Weather conditions (temperature, wind, precipitation, etc.), 0 Sample Identification, 0 Date and time of sample collection, 0 Names of individuals present at sampling site, and 0 Field meter identification along with appropriate calibration information: 0 Lot numbers and expiration dates for all standards, and All calibration results and calibration re-check values. Photographs shall be taken of each sample location during sampling activities for field documentation. The photo number must be recorded with a description in the field book. AMBIENT METHANE SCREENING SURVEY This section describes the procedures for conducting an ambient methane screening survey of a designated location. An ambient methane screening survey will be conducted as part of baseline sampling activities to identify the presence of methane gas at sample collection locations ONLY. 140 Confidential Equipment 0 Flame ionization detector used for measuring total volatile organics including methane calibrate to methane standard, 0 Lower Explosive Limit (LEL) meter calibrate to methane standard, 0 New pint or quart jars with lid, 0 Aluminum foil, 0 Rubber bands, 0 Field Book, 0 Field Forms, 0 Handheld GPS (3-5m accuracy), 0 Calibration gases, 0 50?foot garden hose, 0 Tool kit with basic tools, 0 Health and Safety Plan, 0 5 gallon bucket, 0 Digital camera, and 0 Watch. Replicate equipment must be taken to all jobs sites, and must include the following at a minimum: 0 Flame Ionization Detector, 0 Calibration gases, and 0 Lower Explosive Limit (LEL) meter. Procedure The following activities shall only be conducted with landowner permission. If permission is refused, notate the refusal in the field book and on the field form. Water Wells 1. Monitor FID and LEL levels during approach to well and insert the meter tip into the well casing or vent. Record the meter readings along with any observations in the field book. Photograph the well head and note the photo in the field book. 2. Activate the water well and pump the well to reduce hydrostatic pressure and monitor methane concentrations during pumping. The reduced water pressure allows methane to be released and increases the likelihood of methane detection. a. Monitor FID and LEL readings during pumping at the well head. b. Note meter readings observed in the field book. Include the duration of the pumping activity and additional observations (approximate pumping rate in gallons per minute (gpm), smells, water coloration, etc.) 141 Confidential 3. After pumping the well an amount of time sufficient to cycle water through the pressure tank, take FID and LEL readings as indicated below. Attempt to cycle water a minimum of 2 times the capacity of the holding tank, but no less than 5 to 10 gallons. 3. Headspace reading 1. Fill two clean jars full with water from the sample collection location. One jar is for the LEL reading and the second is for the FID reading. 2.Seal with aluminum foil and jar lid or rubber band taking care not to tear the foil; allow to stand for 15 minutes. 3. Remove lid (if used), pierce foil and quickly insert appropriate probe - DO NOT ALLOW PROBE TO CONTACT WATER. 4. Record the highest reading from each probe. 5. If the water sample is being collected from a sink, repeat the procedure for the hot water tap. b. Readings at water sample collection point (dissolved gas escaping from running water) 1. If water sample is being collected from a sink, close the sink drain and turn on cold water. 2. Place the probe tip within 6-8? of the faucet and record reading - DO NOT ALLOW PROBE TO CONTACT WATER. 3. Move probe around sink with water running and observe readings. Continue monitoring until readings stabilize. 4. Record range of readings observed (readings should be collected for both FID and LEL). 5. Repeat for the hot water tap. 6. For samples collected from location other than a sink, such as an outside faucet, take FID and LEL readings 6-8? from the water stream. Continue to monitor and record readings until the levels stabilize. Supplemental Screening 1. Inside Structure a. Record readings from various locations inside the structure including: 0 Bathroom (middle of room, under sink, around drains, ceiling, floor) 0 Kitchen (same as bathroom), 0 Basement (middle of room, ceiling, floor, around any cracks, sumps, floor drains), 0 Laundry Room (middle of room, floor, ceiling, drain), and 0 Any other suspect areas. 2. Outside Structure a. Record readings from various locations around the property including: 0 Low lying areas, 142 Confidential Ponds or other surface water (especially if bubbles are noted), 0 Recent excavations, Recent landscaping, and Any other suspect areas. Any reading noted during any screening activity greater than 10% LEL must be reported immediately. All other monitoring activities must be stopped pending further instructions. Records The details of each sampling event shall be recorded in a bound field book and any applicable field forms. Any field forms completed must be notated in the field book. At a minimum, the following information shall be recorded: 0 Site location, 0 Site description (include sketch as appropriate), 0 Weather conditions (temperature, wind, precipitation, etc.) 0 Sample Identification, 0 Date and time of sample collection, 0 Names of individuals present, and 0 Field meter identification along with appropriate calibration information: 0 Lot numbers and expiration dates for all standards, and 0 Calibration results and re-check. Photographs shall be taken of each screening location during screening activities for field documentation. The photo number must be recorded with a description in the field book. 143 Confidential COMMUNICATION PLAN for EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Study September 201 1 (Q Chesa ?al To Bob Cc Sent on 03/21/2012 06:31:11 AM Subject Re: couple of things Absolutely. 10:00, 1130-1200, 1:30 to 4:00? Peter D. Robertson ANGA 202-789-1301 Sent from my iPhone On Mar 21, 2012, at 6:07 AM, "Bob Perciasepe" wrote: Time to chat today? Or tomorrow? Forwarded by Bob on 03/21/2012 06:07:15 -- Original Message From Bob To "Peter Robertson" Cc Sent on 03/19/2012 10:40:47 PM Subject RE: couple of things I agree it was a good meeting. Lisa is looking forward to the follow-up with her. We are working on rebuttals to API. We have made many improvements to the Oil and Gas NSPS and in no way believe it will have the impact they are suggesting. Here is a report from OW on seismicity. "We are working with regions on a technical report of the UIC technical work group (states, regions, and HQ) to provide recommendations to UIC permit writers on how to minimize induced seismicity. We are in the process of revising a draft of the report and are planning on a review by the SAB this summer. The draft report will srunmarize existing reports and will contain case studies and recommendations. You may have heard that we had planned to have those who contributed data (Texas, Chesapeake, USGS and others) to review a draft and we are still working out the details of that review" I will talk to them about notice and comment, but it seems like they want to do a review with several companies then a SAB review. Thoughts? Bob Perciasepe Deputy Administrator (0) 202 564 4711 Personal Prwacl -- Original Message Windsor.Richard@epa.gov = Secondary e-mail address of former EPA Administrator, Lisa P. Jackson From : Peter Robertson To : Bob Perciasepe/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Cc : Sent on : 03/16/2012 10:39:44 AM Subject : couple of things I don’t know what your reaction was, but I thought it was a great meeting (as did our members). Thanks again for being the moving force behind it. We are already gathering information from some CEOs about coming to town to meet with Lisa. We’ll offer a(some) date(s) in the near future. Could I get your help on a couple of things? A recent press piece calls the seismicity guidance “in press” – I take that to mean it’s getting printed and will soon be ready for distribution. Will there be no further review of it? As you may recall, this was something that we felt strongly should be put through notice and comment. Second, Ann Campbell called me once after our meeting to discuss the $43 million multiagency request for hydraulic fracturing R&D. I’ve called her several times since, but am not getting a return call. Can you gently remind her to give me a call? Thanks so much, Bob. Look forward to hearing from you on the seismicity guidance. PDR <15639695.jpg> Peter D. Robertson Senior Vice President for Legislative Windsor.Richard@epa.gov = Secondary e-mail address of former EPA Administrator, Lisa P. Jackson And Regulatory Affairs 701 8th Street NW Washington, DC 20001 202-789-1301 probertson@anga.us www.anga.us Windsor.Richard@epa.gov = Secondary e-mail address of former EPA Administrator, Lisa P. Jackson From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Attachments: Lora Werner Shawn Garvin Michael DAndrea; Ron Borsellino; Linda Boornazian; Bob Perciasepe CDC-ATSDR Hydraulic Fracturing Workshop in DC - EPA R3 participation? 04/24/2012 12:59 PM Agenda CDC-ATSDR Hydraulic Fracturing Health Effects Workshop.docx Hi, Shawn I just wanted to send a quick note about the CDC- ATSDR hydraulic fracturing/natural gas meeting coming up on May 1-2 in DC.  I know EPA R3 was invited, but I wasn't sure if you planned on sending any one.  The goal of this meeting is to help CDC and ATSDR prioritize our public health efforts related to hydraulic fracturing/natural gas and oil sites.  Obviously I think EPA Region 3's perspective on this is critical - I want the decision makers at this meeting to hear what EPA R3 really need us to focus on.  I attached the current version of the agenda.  Unfortunately it is a little heavy on the presentations side as opposed to the focused discussion side, but I really hope this meeting will still achieve our purpose of getting all the participant's perspectives out on the table to help us move forward and set an agenda for the agency.  This is a strictly closed, invitation only meeting that will have about 80 or so participants.  Last I heard, Jeanne Briskin and Bob Perciasepe would participate for EPA HQ and EPA R8 was not sending any one, and we were to hold an hour after the close of the meeting for a follow up discussion with Bob. Please let me know what you think or if you would like to discuss any of this further.  I was tapped to provide the only ATSDR presentation, which will review our findings in private wells across the different sites we've worked on nationally.  My slides are still in clearance at my HQ right now.   I do plan to share an advance copy of them with you prior to the meeting since I do mention Chesapeake ATGAS and Dimock; I was careful to refer only to publicly available information in these slides for these sites. thanks so much, Lora Lora Siegmann Werner, MPH Senior Regional Representative Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), Region 3 Department of Health and Human Services 1650 Arch Street, 3HS00,  Philadelphia, PA  19103 phone: 215-814-3141, fax: 215-814-3003 (b) (6) email: lkw9@cdc.gov CDC.gov is Your Online Source for Credible Health Information. Visit www.cdc.gov. Windsor.Richard@epa.gov = Secondary e-mail address of former EPA Administrator, Lisa P. Jackson From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Attachments: Ann Campbell Bob Perciasepe; Bob Sussman; Charles Imohiosen; Janet Woodka; Nena Shaw; Glenn Paulson Teri Porterfield; Denise Anderson; Donald Maddox Agenda and Materials for Tomorrow's Fracking Update 05/10/2012 08:24 PM Fracking Update 051112 agenda.docx EPA Activities 051112.docx CEOs Mtng Executive Summary 051612.docx AGENDA Update on Actions (see attached) CEOs Meeting, 5/16/12  (see attached) Interagency Collaboration on Oil and Gas Research  - implementation update Appalachian Shale Recommended Practices Group ___________________________________________________ Ann Campbell Office of the Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Mail Code: 1101 P: (202) 566-1370 C: (b) (6) Personal Privacy F: (202) 501-1428 From: Bob Sussman To: Bob Perciasex; Ann Campbell Cc: Nena Shaw Subject: Re: CEOs Mtng: Feedback from ANGA Date: 05/14/2012 03:25 PM (5) Deliberative 3 0 I erCIasepe Original Message From: Bob Perciasepe Sent: 05/14/3012 03:00 PM EDT To: Ann Campbell Cc: Bob Sussman; Nena Shaw Subject: Re: CEOS Mtng: Feedback from ANGA Which (5) Deliberative Bob Perciasepe Deputy Administrator (0) +1 202 564 4711 (C) +1 (6) Personal Privacy Ann 01:58:26 see the message below from n- q! IQ: 0 Co. I From: Ann To: Bob Bob Cc: Nena Date: 05/14/2012 01:58 PM Subject: CEOs Mtng: Feedback from ANGA Bobs, see the message below from Peter. Seems like their agenda for the Wednesday meeting is something like this: President's EO Data Quality HF Study - coordinating with industry Federal interagency coordination - prioritization amongst actions Ongoing EPA regulatory activities I know you both are quite well-versed in each of these areas. Please advise as to what, if any, materials you'd like prepared for the Administrator. Thanks, Windsor.Richard@epa.gov = Secondary e-mail address of former EPA Administrator, Lisa P. Jackson Ann ___________________________________________________ Ann Campbell Office of the Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Mail Code: 1101 P: (202) 566-1370 C: (b) (6) Personal Privacy F: (202) 501-1428 ----- Forwarded by Ann Campbell/DC/USEPA/US on 05/14/2012 01:54 PM ----From:    Peter Robertson To:    Ann Campbell/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Date:    05/11/2012 03:31 PM Subject:    Re: Checking In Hi Ann – Thanks for the note.  We’ve had a chance to talk to our CEO about the briefing.  We’ve prepared a list of high-level topics we believe will promote good discussion.  These include President Obama’s recent executive order regarding interagency coordination on the regulation of natural gas production; the use of up-to-date data on supply, price and emissions; the use of sound science and the importance of collaborating with industry experts in the stakeholder process (e.g. the HF study); and the need to prioritize among agency activities.  We are also going to provide the CEO’s with basic background on recent and ongoing regulatory activities but given the level and duration of the meeting we don’t anticipate there will be much in depth conversation.   Please let us know if there are any issues on your list that we should prepare are folks for.  Also, can you let me know who will attend the meeting from your side?   Thanks and look forward to seeing you next week, Peter Peter D. Robertson ANGA Windsor.Richard@epa.gov = Secondary e-mail address of former EPA Administrator, Lisa P. Jackson 202-789-1301 Sent from my iPhone On May 10, 2012, at 9:28 AM, "Ann Campbell" wrote: Peter - I hope the conference is going well.  Please let me know when today might be a good chance for us to check in on next week's meeting.  Best,  Ann  ___________________________________________________ Ann Campbell Office of the Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Mail Code: 1101 P: (202) 566-1370 C: (b) (6) Personal Privacy F: (202) 501-1428 Windsor.Richard@epa.gov = Secondary e-mail address of former EPA Administrator, Lisa P. Jackson From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Attachments: Ann Campbell Noah Dubin; briefings@epa.gov; Bob Perciasepe; Bob Sussman; Diane Thompson Donald Maddox; Nena Shaw; Teri Porterfield; Denise Anderson; Jose Lozano; Stephanie Washington; Christopher Busch 051612: Materials for Meeting with Natural Gas CEOs 05/15/2012 02:34 PM CEOs Mtng Executive Summary 051612.docx EPA Activities 051512.docx Attached are the meeting summary form and a briefing doc with updates on EPA hydraulic fracturing activities around the Agency.  I expect 2 more documents which delve into more detail on 2 of the subject by COB today.  Thanks, Ann ___________________________________________________ Ann Campbell Office of the Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Mail Code: 1101 P: (202) 566-1370 C: (b) (6) Personal Privacy F: (202) 501-1428 Windsor.Richard@epa.gov = Secondary e-mail address of former EPA Administrator, Lisa P. Jackson From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Attachments: Ann Campbell briefings@epa.gov; Noah Dubin; Bob Perciasepe; Bob Sussman; Diane Thompson Teri Porterfield; Denise Anderson; Donald Maddox; Christopher Busch; Stephanie Washington; Nena Shaw; Linda Chappell 051612: ORD Materials for Natural Gas CEOs mtng 05/15/2012 05:53 PM coordination  of hf research with industry 051512.docx qf96AAoACAgAAG4AY29vcmRpbmF0aW9uICBvZiBoZiByZXNlYXJjaCB3aXRoIGluZHVzdHJ5IDA1 MTUxMi5kb2N4AGNvb3JkaW5hdGlvbiAgb2YgaGYgcmVzZWFyY2ggd2l0aCBpbmR1c3RyeSAwNTE1 MTIuZG9jeAA= mQAcAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQAAAA== fQAcAAAAAQAsASIArAQAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA== fAC2BAAArASsBEdJRjg5YSwBIgDmAAD////o8Pjg6PgwSGDw8PjQ4PjY4PjY6Pjw+PiAoMiQqNCQ sNiguNiguOCYsNiouMioyPDI2PjY4PCIqNBQcKiQoNCYqLigwOCowOCQoLiYqMCYuNiwuNDo6PBw oOiIsOCQsODIyMgoSKAwUKBgmPBomPCAoNCIoNCgsMCgsMigsNDI0Ojg4ODg4OggSJg4UGhIYKBQ aKhYcLCAqOiYqNCYsOCYuODAwMjY2NjY4Ojo6Pjw8PBAWJhIYHhoeJBwgLhwiMB4oOh4qOiAiKCA qOCIoLiIqOCgsNiosMiouNiwyOC4wODAyNjAyODIyNDI2PDQ0NDQ0NjQ2OjQ2PjQ4PDY2PDg6OgQ OIggQIggQKA4ULA4WJhAWHBAWLBIYKhIaKBIaLBQYJhQaIBYaIBYaKBYcIBYcKhYcLhgcIhgcJhg eKhgeLhggLBggLhogLBooPBwgIhwgJBwgJhwiLh4iLB4iMB4kMCAkMCAmMiAqNiImKiImLiImMCI oMiIqNiQmKgsAAAAACwBIgBACP8AAQgcSLCgwYMIEypcyLChw4cQI0qcSLGixYsYM2rcyLFjjCZ4 fnAgsEKKQScsBEJAAGCFBTRlxPTg8mJAx5s4c+rcybOnQjVkwqQZ8gdFlAAEAii1AKUFSwQICEhV GkCAgA82fWrdyrWrV58WqIpVarWsgAMHDBgowNZD1q9w48qdS7eu3bt483ZVYoaGhL+AAf9AiEKA gRd6EytejBeGChFfBGZZk0PEGQIIooRoobLBhQYgQCRIGsDGW8aoU6veqQFqVKmwYY8tm1bI6dW4 c+uOmIE2WrRq1bJlOyWCceMkbu9ezrw5B4go5DSfTn03HxVSTqgoKKBDByY7BkL/GA9Bg+EnK5RX X89+rmMRVzoAGLECjAsAXnIQuJESAIQLn/lRw2hJMaBeewgmyBMPR8jwXABLACBBBVEF8AAUVhAE lWxKgXCggiCGyNEOHeiBQxROhHDDiiF0ENtUVJVFxIci1mgjRRa8OBZVOpiV1lpu3SjkkBT1ZtaR Z/241nDGlUAjkVBGCUAGPvRQ0wBYZqnllltK6eWXAnEgJgcPlGlmmUggkUIKKKQA5ptfdlABGxTU aWedcxAmwBhw9nljDjEsUUUFhFagwKGEuoGQeQY88aSfkC4nQxMK2OEmQjhw5h8AAVBhwQpKKIFB A49GampqHwEhwwoEjEBDDiMA/wBEGwCE0B8EVKwQAAafMeCrgacGu9x7WAjkQh13uEBDHwBYYatK eSxgwwIDkmaasNjixuAIdHDaRQdVaLFCVEw4oWkC6KabAFU1lJrtu3JtkcQeFRRUYQAaFOHAZw0w sIEDDiywAFkewmvwYjvgEAIcKFjgQxxDWPBAvr/+G/ACh1YlgBHuHuyxV60hICoGvDbQr8UCHzrB BFYdMEPHH8cMllQk97oByhgrsPIEJwAXBMwyB51TWAHw6y/AKeu88gkmmLBkkEJH/VUGPPaIpAA8 N40uWxE4KfXXXBl55G9KDldAccgBDfbaE2VwABMYJHEECB/U/YERRMwwgxBBeBHgwRsllEBCcmwX bvjhiK8dEAA7 dv9SADYAAAEAAAkBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGNvb3JkaW5hdGlvbiAgb2YgaGYgcmVzZWFyY2gg d2l0aCBpbmR1c3RyeSAwNTE1MTIuZG9jeA== qgI= ___________________________________________________ Ann Campbell Office of the Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Mail Code: 1101 P: (202) 566-1370 C: (b) (6) Personal Privacy F: (202) 501-1428 Windsor.Richard@epa.gov = Secondary e-mail address of former EPA Administrator, Lisa P. Jackson From: To: Bcc: Subject: Date: Noah Dubin Bob Perciasepe 06/25/2012 thru 07/08/2012 Schedule for Lisa P. Jackson 06/21/2012 04:57 PM *** Do not copy or forward this information *** EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson Schedule 06/21/2012 04:50:47 PM Monday, 6/25/2012 08:00 AM-01:00 PM    HOLD: Out of Office ------------------------------08:45 AM-09:30 AM    Daily Briefing  Location: Administrator's Office ------------------------------01:00 PM-02:00 PM    Senior Staff  Location: Bullet Room ------------------------------02:15 PM-02:45 PM    Meeting with EPA’s National Partnership Council (NPC) Unions Ct: Kim Wheeler - 202-564-1877 Staff: Craig Hooks (OARM) Optional: Jose Lozano (OA)  Location: OARM Conference Room, ARN 3330 ------------------------------03:00 PM-03:45 PM    Briefing on Recycling and the Definition of Solid Waste Rule Ct: Nelly Torres - 202-564-5767 Staff: Mathy Stanislaus, Lisa Feldt, Barry Breen, Suzanne Rudzinski, Sandra Connors (OSWER) Jim Jones (OCSPP) Arvin Ganesan (OCIR) Avi Garbow (OGC) Michael Goo, Bicky Corman (OP) Optional: Diane Thompson, Bob Perciasepe, Bob Sussman, Lisa Garcia (OA) Laura Vaught (OCIR)  Location: Bullet Room ------------------------------04:00 PM-04:15 PM    Video Recording for the Links Windsor.Richard@epa.gov = Secondary e-mail address of former EPA Administrator, Lisa P. Jackson Ct: Andra Belknap - 202-564-0369 Staff: Andra Belknap, Ron Slotkin (OEAEE)  Location: MOSS Studio ------------------------------04:30 PM-05:00 PM    One on One with Malcolm Jackson Ct:  Georgia Bednar - 202-564-9816 Staff: Malcolm Jackson (OEI) Optional: Diane Thompson, Bob Perciasepe, Bob Sussman (OA)  Location: Administrator's Office ------------------------------- Tuesday, 6/26/2012 08:00 AM-10:00 AM    Out of Office  Location: Out of Office ------------------------------10:10 AM-10:45 AM    Follow-up Meeting re: ORD Hydraulic Fracturing Study Ct: Don Maddox - 202-564-7207 Staff: Bob Sussman, Ann Campbell, Glenn Paulson (OA) Lek Kadeli,  Ramona Trovato, Cynthia Sonich-Mullin, Fred Hauchman, Jeanne Briskin, Kevin Teichman, Dorothy Miller (ORD) Optional: Bob Perciasepe, Diane Thompson, Janet Woodka (OA) Arvin Ganesan, Laura Vaught (OCIR)  Location: Administrator's Office ------------------------------11:00 AM-11:30 AM    Meeting with Luke Daly,CEO & Founder,Ferrate Treatment Technologies Ct: Ryan Robison - 202-564-2856 Ct: Adam J. Zellner -732-253-7717 Attendees: Luke Daly,CEO & Founder,Ferrate Treatment Technologies Susan Glickman - Grants and Incentives Coordinator Adam J. Zellner -President, Greener by Design Staff: Nancy Stoner (OW) Windsor.Richard@epa.gov = Secondary e-mail address of former EPA Administrator, Lisa P. Jackson Steve Chester (OECA) Optional: Bob Perciasepe (OA)  Location: Administrator's Office ------------------------------11:45 AM-12:10 PM    One on One with Craig Hooks Ct: Kim Wheeler - 202-564-1877 Staff: Craig Hooks (OARM) Optional: Diane Thompson, Bob Perciasepe, Bob Sussman (OA)  Location: Administrator's Office ------------------------------12:10 PM-01:20 PM    Out of Office  Location: Out of Office ------------------------------01:20 PM-01:50 PM    One on One with Peter Grevatt Ct:  Florence Claggett - 202-566-0637 Staff: Peter Grevatt (OCHP) Optional: Diane Thompson, Bob Perciasepe, Bob Sussman (OA)  Location: Administrator's Office ------------------------------02:00 PM-02:30 PM    One on One with Glenn Paulson Ct: Sharnett Willis - 202-564-7866 Staff: Glenn Paulson (OA)  Location: Administrator's Office ------------------------------02:45 PM-03:15 PM    One on One with Mathy Stanislaus Ct: Nelida Torres - 202-564-5767 Staff: Mathy Stanislaus (OSWER) Optional: Diane Thompson, Bob Perciasepe, Bob Sussman (OA)  Location: Administrator's Office ------------------------------03:30 PM-04:00 PM    One on One with Cameron Davis Windsor.Richard@epa.gov = Secondary e-mail address of former EPA Administrator, Lisa P. Jackson Ct: Veronica Burley - 202-564-7084 Staff: Cameron Davis (GLTF) The Administrator will call Cameron  at 312-405-2249  Location: By Phone ------------------------------04:15 PM-05:15 PM    HOLD: Testimony Prep Ct: Arvin Ganesan or Laura Vaught - 202-564-0304 Staff: Arvin Ganesan, Laura Vaught (OCIR)  Location: Administrator's Office ------------------------------05:30 PM-05:45 PM    HOLD:Remarks at the National Women's History Museum for Reta Jo Lewis Ct: Janet Redfern -202.647.7710  RedfernJK@state.gov  Location: National Museum of Women in the Arts -1250 New York Avenue, NW Elisabeth A. Kasser Board Room ------------------------------- Wednesday, 6/27/2012 08:00 AM-09:45 AM    Out of Office  Location: Out of Office ------------------------------10:00 AM-10:30 AM    HOLD:Meeting with Co-Chairs of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future Ct: Sharnett Willis - 202-7866 Staff: Glenn Paulsen (OA)  Location: Administrator's Office ------------------------------11:00 AM-11:30 AM    HOLD: Sierra Club Youth Club Event Ct: Dru Ealons or Scott Frazier - 202-566-2126  Location: Green Room ------------------------------11:00 AM-11:30 AM    Security Awareness/No Fear Act Training Ct: Ryan Robison - 202-564-2856  Location: Administrator's Office ------------------------------- Windsor.Richard@epa.gov = Secondary e-mail address of former EPA Administrator, Lisa P. Jackson 12:00 PM-01:00 PM    No Meetings  Location: Administrator's Office ------------------------------01:00 PM-02:00 PM    Hold: Testimony prep ------------------------------02:15 PM-02:45 PM    Meeting on KY Title V Petition Ct: Don Maddox: 202-564-7207 Staff: Diane Thompson, Bob Sussman, Janet Woodka (OA) Gina McCarthy, Janet McCabe (OAR) Gwen Keyes-Fleming (R4) Scott Fulton, Avi Garbow (OGC) Brendan Gilfillan (OEAEE)  Location: Administrator's Office ------------------------------03:00 PM-03:30 PM    One on One with John Hankinson Ct: Jody Ramsey - 202-564-564-5754 Staff: John Hankinson (GCTF) Optional: Diane Thompson (OA)  Location: Administrator's Office ------------------------------03:30 PM-05:00 PM    Senior Policy  Location: Bullet Room ------------------------------06:00 PM-07:30 PM    White House Congressional Picnic  Location: White House ------------------------------- Thursday, 6/28/2012 08:00 AM-10:00 AM    Hold: Testimony Prep Ct: Laura Vaught/ Arvin Ganesen ------------------------------08:45 AM-09:30 AM    Daily Briefing  Location: Administrator's Office ------------------------------10:00 AM-01:00 PM    Testimony before House Science Committee Ct: Laura Vaught - 202-564-0304  Location: 2318 Rayburn ------------------------------01:00 PM-02:00 PM    No Meetings  Location: Administrator's Office ------------------------------- Windsor.Richard@epa.gov = Secondary e-mail address of former EPA Administrator, Lisa P. Jackson 02:00 PM-03:00 PM    Cabinet Meeting with Chief of Staff, Jack Lew Ct: Colleen King - 202-456-2576  Location: WH -Roosevelt Room ------------------------------04:00 PM-05:30 PM    HOLD: Center for Global Development Post-Rio +20 Event Ct: jottenhoff@cgdev.org  Location: Center for Global Development 1800 Massachusetts Ave. NW Washington, DC ------------------------------- Friday, 6/29/2012 08:00 AM-09:15 AM    Breakfast with Admiral Robert Papp Ct: Ryan Robison - 202-564-2856 CG Ct: Jennifer Ey - 202-372-4409  Location: 2100 2nd St. SW, WDC ------------------------------09:15 AM-09:30 AM    Depart for Comcast Studio  Location: Ariel Rios ------------------------------09:45 AM-10:30 AM    On-Camera Taped Interview with Roland Martin, Washington Watch Ct: Alisha Johnson - 202-564-4373  Location: 101 Constitution Avenue, NW WDC, Comcast Studio on Lower Level ------------------------------10:30 AM-10:45 AM    Depart for Ariel Rios  Location: Comcast Studio ------------------------------11:30 AM-12:00 PM    One on One with Gwen Keyes Fleming Ct: Brenda Beverly - 404-562-8348 Staff: Gwen Keyes Fleming (R4) Optional: Bob Sussman, Bob Perciasepe, Diane Thompson (OA)  Location: Administrator's Office ------------------------------12:00 PM-01:00 PM    No Meetings  Location: Administrator's Office ------------------------------01:30 PM-02:30 PM    1890 Land-Grant Institutions MOU Signing between USDA and EPA Ct: Dru Ealons - 202-564-7818 Windsor.Richard@epa.gov = Secondary e-mail address of former EPA Administrator, Lisa P. Jackson (b) (6) USDA Ct: Sally Cluthe  Location: EEOB - Room Indian Treaty Room ------------------------------03:00 PM-03:30 PM    Pre-Brief for the Chesapeake Bay Executive Council Meeting Ct: Jeff Corbin - (215)667-9304 Staff: Bob Sussman (OA) Shawn Garvin (R3) Jeff Corbin, Carin Bisland, Nick Dipasquale (CBP) Sarah Pallone (OCIR)  Location: Administrator's Office ------------------------------- Saturday, 6/30/2012 Sunday, 7/1/2012 08:00 AM-08:00 PM    Hld: Travel to Aspen, CO ------------------------------08:31 AM-12:20 PM    En Route to Denver, CO United Airlines Flight 579 Departs Washington, DC (IAD): 8:31 AM EDT Arrives Denver, CO (DEN): 10:20 AM MDT ------------------------------02:47 PM-03:34 PM    En Route to Aspen, CO United Airlines Flight 5363 Departs Denver, CO (DEN): 12:47 PM MDT Arrives Aspen, CO (ASE): 1:34 PM MDT ------------------------------- Monday, 7/2/2012 05:00 AM-08:00 PM    Hold: Travel to Aspen, CO ------------------------------08:45 AM-09:30 AM    Daily Briefing Windsor.Richard@epa.gov = Secondary e-mail address of former EPA Administrator, Lisa P. Jackson  Location: Administrator's Office ------------------------------12:00 PM-01:00 PM    No Meetings  Location: Administrator's Office ------------------------------- Tuesday, 7/3/2012 05:00 AM-08:00 PM    Hld: Travel to Aspen, CO ------------------------------11:30 AM-12:00 PM    RESCHEDULE: One on One with Nancy Stoner Ct:  Martha Workman - 202-564-3774 Staff: Nancy Stoner (OW) Optional: Diane Thompson, Bob Perciasepe, Bob Sussman (OA)  Location: Administrator's Office ------------------------------12:30 PM-12:40 PM    HOLD: Call with Mayor Vincent Grey (DC) Mayor Ct: Alex Simbaña - 202-727-6263 Back-up Mayor Ct: Darin Allen: E-mail - darin.allen@dc.gov **The Administrator will call 202-727-6263 to be connected to the Mayor.  Location: By Phone ------------------------------- Wednesday, 7/4/2012 08:00 AM-09:00 PM    Out of Office ------------------------------- Thursday, 7/5/2012 05:00 AM-08:00 PM    Hold: Travel to Washington, DC ------------------------------08:45 AM-09:30 AM    Daily Briefing  Location: Administrator's Office ------------------------------12:00 PM-01:00 PM    No Meetings Windsor.Richard@epa.gov = Secondary e-mail address of former EPA Administrator, Lisa P. Jackson  Location: Administrator's Office ------------------------------05:49 PM-06:40 PM    En Route to Denver, CO United Airlines Flight 5623 Departs Aspen, CO (ASE): 3:49 PM MDT Arrives Denver, CO (DEN): 4:40 PM MDT ------------------------------07:57 PM-11:21 PM    En Route to Washington, DC United Airlines Flight 317 Departs Denver, CO (DEN): 5:57 PM MDT Arrives Washington, DC (IAD): 11:21 PM EDT ------------------------------- Friday, 7/6/2012 08:00 AM-09:00 PM    Do Not Schedule ------------------------------12:00 PM-01:00 PM    No Meetings  Location: Administrator's Office ------------------------------- Saturday, 7/7/2012 Sunday, 7/8/2012 *** END *** From: Janet Woodka To: Bob Sussman Cc: Arvin Ganesan; Bob Perciaseg; Brendan Gil?llan; Laura Vaught; Richard Windsor Subject: Re: - EPA HF Study Date: 06/22/2012 03:29 PM I'm not sure if it's for the interagency group the was set up through the ED, for the interagency science group that we set throuh the mou or for "ours". It would be a ood uestion to ask Heather. (5) Deliberative Bob Sussman Original Message From: Bob Sussman Sent: 06/32/3013 12:05 PM EDT To: Janet Woodka Cc: Arvin Ganesan; Bob Perciasepe; Brendan Gilfillan; Laura Vaught; Richard Windsor Subject: Thanks Janet. (5) Deliberative Robert M. Sussman Senior Policy Counsel to the Administrator Office of the Administrator US Environmental Protection Agency Front To: Bob Cc: Arvin Bob Brendan Laura Richard Date: 06/22/2012 11:31 AM Subject: Re: - EPA HF Study Thanks, Bob. Helpful additional perspective. (5) Deliberative From: Bob Sussman To: Janet Woodka Cc: Arvin Ganesan; Bob Perciasege; Brendan Gil?llan; Laura Vaught; Richard Windsor Subject: Re: - EPA HF Study Date: 06/22/2012 10:36 AM Attachments: Document 6. df Thanks Janet to add to this story . . . . (5) Deliberative see some va ue In getting more In ormatlon a out report -- It may to prepare for the upcoming hearing -- so sitting down with them to hear what's in the report would probably be useful (although I don't think we'll be surprised). (5) Deliberative 0 concerns ave posting 0 A on the website. This is after all a scientific study, and the scientists need some room to do their work. (5) Deliberative Robert M. Sussman Senior Policy Counsel to the Administrator Office of the Administrator US Environmental Protection Agency From: Janet To: Laura Bob Richard Bob Arvin Brendan Date: 06/22/2012 10:03 AM Subject: - EPA HF Study I just wanted to make sure that everyone had this information. As folks know, hired Battelle to do a review of our HF study. The review of study plan is complete but has not yet been made public or shared. The onl informtion that has been shared on it so far is rovided below. (5) Deliberative So, I wanted to put this forward to folks to see how y'all wanted to proceed. Janet Follow up from our discussion. Attached is the document we left behind during our May 18 meeting with Heather and Bob. Below is some additional information provided to Heather that was not covered in that meeting. Let me know if you have any questions. With regard to Study, there appears to be insufficient alignment and nexus between the processes of developing the study design and individual research activities, and those for the development of the Quality Assessment (QA) program that is to ensure systematic planning for design and implementation of the study and its individual research activities. In fact, the Quality Management Plan (QMP) does not provide guidance or requirements for the use of systematic planning. It also does not provide sufficient guidance to ensure all projects are: 1) conducted in Windsor.Richard@epa.gov = Secondary e-mail address of former EPA Administrator, Lisa P. Jackson a comprehensive, consistent, and coordinated manner and 2) linked to the overall program objectives defined in the study plan, even though this is specifically recognized as an essential requirement by EPA in the study plan. There is wide variability among the individual QA documents in terms of level of detail, consistency, guidance for documents and records and data management, as well as approaches for complying with QA and assessment requirements. And, there is no overarching roadmap laying out the interrelationships among the individual studies among QAPPs or how the intramural and extramural teams working on the individual projects will coordinate different elements of the project.   In addition to the critical review of the EPA Study Plan, API/ANGA will develop five characterization reports, based on the five retrospective sites selected by EPA.  The point of each report is to provide context, background, and additional historical information to “ground truth” each of the case sites.  The report will characterize groundwater quality and surface water quality at each location, in order to develop an understanding of the water resources within each retrospective study area, which can be used for comparisons to actual data generated as part of the Agency’s case study reviews.   From: Bob Sussman To: Bob Perciaseg; Laura Vaught Cc: Arvin Ganesan; Brendan Gil?llan; Janet Woodka; Richard Windsor; Laura Vaught; Administrator Lisa Jackson Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: study and hearing Date: 06/27/2012 09:42 AM Obviousl ?ne to say it at earini; From: Bob Perciasepe Sent: 06/27/2012 09:37 AM EDT To: Laura Vaught Cc: Arvin Ganesan; Bob Sussman; Brendan Gil?llan; Janet Woodka; Richard Windsor; "Laura Vaught" "Administrator Lisa Jackson" Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: study and hearing All: For what it is worth, If you all think a Deputy level meeting is appropriate, then Monday will be earliest. Bob Perciasepe Deputy Administrator (0) +1 202 564 4711 (C) +1 (6) Personal Privacy wrote: To: Janet Arvin Richard From: Laura Date: 06/27/2012 Cc: Bob Bob Brendan "Laura Vaught" "Richard Windsor" Subject: Re: Re: Re: study and hearing Windsor.Richard@epa.gov = Secondary e-mail address of former EPA Administrator, Lisa P. Jackson From: Janet Woodka Sent: 06/27/2012 08:03 AM EDT To: Arvin Ganesan; Richard Windsor Cc: Bob Perciasepe; Bob Sussman; Brendan Gilfillan; "Laura Vaught" ; "Richard Windsor" Subject: Re: Re: Re: DRe: API/ANGA study and hearing I don't think the Administrator doing the meetings is necessary(b) (5) From: Arvin Ganesan Sent: 06/27/2012 07:58 AM EDT To: Richard Windsor Cc: Bob Perciasepe; Bob Sussman; Brendan Gilfillan; Janet Woodka; Bob Perciasepe" ; "Laura Vaught" ; "Lisa Jackson" Subject: Re: Re: Re: DRe: API/ANGA study and hearing (b) (5) As for whether it be at your level, I defer to Bob and Janet, but I'd think at least a drop by would be a good thing. -----Richard Windsor/DC/USEPA/US wrote: ----To: Arvin Ganesan/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Bob Perciasepe/DC/USEPA/US@EPA From: Richard Windsor/DC/USEPA/US Date: 06/27/2012 07:49AM Cc: Bob Sussman/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Brendan Gilfillan/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Janet Woodka/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, "Arvin Ganesan" , "Bob Perciasepe" , "Laura Vaught" , "Lisa Jackson" Subject: Re: Re: DRe: API/ANGA study and hearing (b) (5) From: Arvin Ganesan Sent: 06/27/2012 07:29 AM EDT To: Bob Perciasepe Cc: Bob Sussman; Brendan Gilfillan; Janet Woodka; Richard Windsor; "Arvin Ganesan" ; "Bob Perciasepe" ; "Laura Vaught" ; "Lisa Jackson" Subject: Re: Re: DRe: API/ANGA study and hearing Windsor.Richard@epa.gov = Secondary e-mail address of former EPA Administrator, Lisa P. Jackson For hearing purposes,(b) (5) -----Bob Perciasepe/DC/USEPA/US wrote: ----To: Richard Windsor/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Bob Sussman/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Janet Woodka/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, "Bob Perciasepe" , "Laura Vaught" , "Arvin Ganesan" , Brendan Gilfillan/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, "Lisa Jackson" From: Bob Perciasepe/DC/USEPA/US Date: 06/27/2012 07:20AM Subject: Re: DRe: API/ANGA study and hearing Agree. (b) (5) Bob P Richard Windsor ----- Original Message ----- From: Richard Windsor Sent: 06/27/2012 07:05 AM EDT To: Bob Sussman; Janet Woodka; "Bob Perciasepe" ; "Laura Vaught" ; "Arvin Ganesan" ; Brendan Gilfillan; "Lisa Jackson" Subject: Re: DRe: API/ANGA study and hearing I think separate mtgs with them. We should move to set them up today I think but want input from Arvin, Laura, Brendan. Tx. Bob Sussman ----- Original Message ----- From: Bob Sussman Sent: 06/27/2012 06:57 AM EDT To: Janet Woodka; "Bob Perciasepe" ; "Laura Vaught" ; "Arvin Ganesan" ; Brendan Gilfillan; "Richard Windsor" Subject: Re: DRe: API/ANGA study and hearing Windsor.Richard@epa.gov = Secondary e-mail address of former EPA Administrator, Lisa P. Jackson Good points. Question for LPJ (b) (5) Janet Woodka ----- Original Message ----- From: Janet Woodka Sent: 06/26/2012 09:22 PM EDT To: Bob Sussman; "Bob Perciasepe" ; "Laura Vaught" ; "Arvin Ganesan" ; Brendan Gilfillan; "Richard Windsor" Subject: Re: DRe: API/ANGA study and hearing Thanks. That's helpful. On the letter component, I wonder if that is the best way to "engage". (b) (5) Btw - also got good feedback from the tour/site visit some of our staff did to Anadarko sites in PA yesterday and today. Bob Sussman ----- Original Message ----- From: Bob Sussman Sent: 06/26/2012 09:00 PM EDT To: Janet Woodka; "Bob Perciasepe" ; "Laura Vaught" ; "Arvin Ganesan" ; Brendan Gilfillan; "Richard Windsor" Subject: DRe: API/ANGA study and hearing Janet. We are in fact doing split samples for the retrospective case studies. In addition, when we selected these sites, we provided a full description of our selection methodology. (b) (5) LPJ may provide some insights in response to questions. (b) (5) Administrator should speak to that; she may have discussed the issue in her call today with Heather. Janet Woodka Windsor.Richard@epa.gov = Secondary e-mail address of former EPA Administrator, Lisa P. Jackson ----- Original Message ----- From: Janet Woodka Sent: 06/26/2012 08:09 PM EDT To: "Bob Perciasepe" ; "Laura Vaught" ; "Arvin Ganesan" ; Brendan Gilfillan; "Richard Windsor" ; Bob Sussman (b) (5) From: Laura Vaught To: Bob Perciasem Cc: Bob Sussman' Arvin Ganesan' James O'Hara; Diane Thompson Subject: RE: Api letter and Date: 07/06/2012 02:41 PM apologies if this is old information (which I'm guessing it may well be since is public), but passing along just in case it is not. The link below goes to a power point Chesapeake gave in a few forums over last couple of months. As of right now, it appears that this is the only actual document that folks on the hill have that mentions the Battelle study and hints at its contents (see page 27). There doesn't seem to be anything new or surprising, but again - just fyi in case folks haven't seen. Also - Stephanie Meadows and Amy Fan'ell are the two people that I was told would be accompanying Malty and Peter to the meeting on Monday. Bob 07:21:12 And as I said, the letter itself simply says we will put a proposal together. So our meeting wit From: Bob To: Bob "Diane Thompson" Cc: "Arvin Ganesan" "Laura Vaught" "James O'Hara" Date: 07/05/2012 07:21 PM Subject: RE: Api letter and Yes And as I said the letter itself sim sa 5 we will Thanks Bob Perciasepe Deputy Administrator (0) 202 564 4711 (C) (6) Personal Privacy -- Original Message From Bob To "Diane Thompson" "Bob Perciasepe'l Cc "Arvin Ganesan" "Laura Vaught" "James O'Hara" Sent on 07/05/2012 05:55:15 PM Subject Api letter and We can set in motion an enviro meeting tomorrow. It would not be at the CEO level but with the folks working on fravking issues who are following the issue. I'm happt to get the ball rolling. We could get a meeting set up for later in the week. Windsor.Richard@epa.gov = Secondary e-mail address of former EPA Administrator, Lisa P. Jackson From: To: Subject: Date: Attachments: Peter Robertson LisaP Jackson/DC/USEPA/US@EPA ANGA/API Letter to EPA RE: Battelle Study 07/10/2012 12:26 PM Final EPA Study Plan Review 061112.pdf ANGA-API Letter to EPA Battelle Critical Review.pdf Administrator Jackson,   Please find attached a letter from America’s Natural Gas Alliance and the American Petroleum Institute regarding a report from the Battelle Memorial Institute, which is also attached. Please do not hesitate to contact us for any reason.   Regards,   Peter Robertson     Description: Description: Description: ANGA Logo 2010.jpg   Peter D. Robertson Senior Vice President for Legislative   And Regulatory Affairs th 701 8  Street NW Washington, DC  20001   202-789-1301 Windsor.Richard@epa.gov = Secondary e-mail address of former EPA Administrator, Lisa P. Jackson probertson@anga.us   www.anga.us   *********************** ATTACHMENT NOT DELIVERED  ******************* This Email message contained an attachment named   image001.jpg which may be a computer program. This attached computer program could contain a computer virus which could cause harm to EPA's computers, network, and data.  The attachment has been deleted. This was done to limit the distribution of computer viruses introduced into the EPA network.  EPA is deleting all computer program attachments sent from the Internet into the agency via Email. If the message sender is known and the attachment was legitimate, you should contact the sender and request that they rename the file name extension and resend the Email with the renamed attachment.  After receiving the revised Email, containing the renamed attachment, you can rename the file extension to its correct name. For further information, please contact the EPA Call Center at (866) 411-4EPA (4372). The TDD number is (866) 489-4900. ***********************  ATTACHMENT NOT DELIVERED *********************** *********************** ATTACHMENT NOT DELIVERED  ******************* This Email message contained an attachment named image001.jpg which may be a computer program. This attached computer program could contain a computer virus which could cause harm to EPA's computers, network, and data.  The attachment has been deleted. This was done to limit the distribution of computer viruses Windsor.Richard@epa.gov = Secondary e-mail address of former EPA Administrator, Lisa P. Jackson introduced into the EPA network.  EPA is deleting all computer program attachments sent from the Internet into the agency via Email. If the message sender is known and the attachment was legitimate, you should contact the sender and request that they rename the file name extension and resend the Email with the renamed attachment.  After receiving the revised Email, containing the renamed attachment, you can rename the file extension to its correct name. For further information, please contact the EPA Call Center at (866) 411-4EPA (4372). The TDD number is (866) 489-4900. ***********************  ATTACHMENT NOT DELIVERED *********************** - Final_EPA_Study_Plan_Review_061112.pdf Battelle Critical Review.pdf - ANGA-API Letter to EPA Windsor.Richard@epa.gov = Secondary e-mail address of former EPA Administrator, Lisa P. Jackson From: To: Bob Sussman Bob Perciasepe; Richard Windsor; Janet Woodka; James O'Hara; Diane Thompson; Glenn Paulson; Arvin Ganesan; Lek Kadeli Fw: ANGA/API Letter to EPA RE: Battelle Study 07/10/2012 12:35 PM Final EPA Study Plan Review 061112.pdf ANGA-API Letter to EPA Battelle Critical Review.pdf Subject: Date: Attachments: Letter from Gerard/Hopper transmitting Battelle report to Administrator. Robert M. Sussman Senior Policy Counsel to the Administrator Office of the Administrator US Environmental Protection Agency ----- Forwarded by Bob Sussman/DC/USEPA/US on 07/10/2012 12:32 PM ----From:    Peter Robertson To:    LisaP Jackson/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Date:    07/10/2012 12:26 PM Subject:    ANGA/API Letter to EPA RE: Battelle Study Administrator Jackson,   Please find attached a letter from America’s Natural Gas Alliance and the American Petroleum Institute regarding a report from the Battelle Memorial Institute, which is also attached. Please do not hesitate to contact us for any reason.   Regards,   Peter Robertson       Peter D. Robertson Senior Vice President for Legislative   And Regulatory Affairs th 701 8  Street NW Washington, DC  20001   202-789-1301 probertson@anga.us Windsor.Richard@epa.gov = Secondary e-mail address of former EPA Administrator, Lisa P. Jackson   www.anga.us   *********************** ATTACHMENT NOT DELIVERED  ******************* This Email message contained an attachment named   image001.jpg which may be a computer program. This attached computer program could contain a computer virus which could cause harm to EPA's computers, network, and data.  The attachment has been deleted. This was done to limit the distribution of computer viruses introduced into the EPA network.  EPA is deleting all computer program attachments sent from the Internet into the agency via Email. If the message sender is known and the attachment was legitimate, you should contact the sender and request that they rename the file name extension and resend the Email with the renamed attachment.  After receiving the revised Email, containing the renamed attachment, you can rename the file extension to its correct name. For further information, please contact the EPA Call Center at (866) 411-4EPA (4372). The TDD number is (866) 489-4900. ***********************  ATTACHMENT NOT DELIVERED *********************** From: Bob Perciaseg To: Richard Windsor Cc: Bob Sussman? Glenn Paulson' Lek Kadeli' James O'Hara: Arvin Ganesan' Janet Woodka Subject: FW: Letter to EPA RE: Battelle Study Date: 07/10/2012 01:02 PM Attachments: mal EPA Study Plan Review 061112.Ddf Letter to EPA Battelle Critical Review? Just in from ANGA and API. Thoughts on responding? Bob Perciasepe Deputy Administrator (0) 202 564 4711 6 Personal Privacy onNare Bob on 07/10/2012 01:02:44 -- Original Message From Peter Robertson To LisaP Cc Sent on 07/10/2012 12:25:56 PM Subject Letter to EPA RE: Battelle Study Administrator Jackson, Please find attached a letter from America's Natural Gas Alliance and the American Petroleum Institute regarding a report from the Battelle Memorial Institute, which is also attached. Please do not hesitate to contact us for any reason. Regards, Peter Robertson From: Bob Perciaseg To: Bob Sussman; Richard Windsor; Janet Woodka', James O'Hara; Diane Thomwn; Glenn Paulson', Ganesan' Lek Kadeli Subject: RE: Letter to EPA RE: Battelle Study Date: 07/10/2012 01:04 PM Attachments: Final EPA Study Plan Review 061112.@ ANGA-API Letter to EPA Battelle Critical Review? Whoops, sorry for double send Bob Perciasepe Deputy Administrator (0) 202 564 4711 (6) Personal Privacy -- Original Message From Bob To Bob Richard Janet James Diane Glenn Arvin Lek Cc Sent on 07/10/2012 12:35:40 PM Subject Fw: Letter to EPA RE: Battelle Study Letter from Gerard/Hopper transmitting Battelle report to Administrator. Robert M. Sussman Senior Policy Counsel to the Administrator Of?ce of the Administrator US Environmental Protection Agency Forwarded by Bob on 07/10/2012 12:32 PM From: Peter Robertson To: LisaP Date: 07/10/2012 12:26 PM Subject: Letter to EPA RE: Battelle Study Administrator Jackson, Please ?nd attached a letter from America?s Natural Gas Alliance and the American Petroleum Institute regarding a report from the Battelle Memorial Institute, which is also attached. Please do not hesitate to contact us for any reason. Regards, From: Bob Sussman To: Bob Perciaseg Cc: Arvin Ganesan; Diane Thompson; Glenn Paulson; James O'Hara' Janet Woodka' Lek Kadeli; Richard Windsor Subject: RE: Letter to EPA RE: Battelle Study Date: 07/10/2012 01:12 PM Attachments: Final EPA Study Plan Review 061112.pdf ANGA-API Letter to EPA Battelle Critical Review.pdf Better two than none. I think we can and should write a fairly neutral response similar in tone to the incoming. We are in the process of reviewing the Battelle study and i will be meeting with 0RD this afternoon to get their initial feedback. Most ma be all of the oints in the Battelle re ort can be addressed readil Thoughts? We are also meeting with a group of enviros on Thursday. They are aware of and are reviewing the Battelle report. Robert M. Sussman Senior Policy Counsel to the Administrator Office of the Administrator US Environmental Protection Agency Bob 10/2012 01:04:41 sorry for double send Bob Perciasepe From: Bob To: Bob Richard Janet James Diane Glenn Arvin Lek Date: 07/10/2012 01:04 PM Subject: RE: Letter to EPA RE: Battelle Study Whoops, sorry for double send Bob Perciasepe Deputy Administrator 0) 202 564 4711 lo From: James O'Hara To: Richard Windsor' Bob Perciaseg; Bob Sussman' Jim Martin; Janet Woodka' Sarah Pallone' Arvin Ganesan' Laura Vaught; Alisha Johnson Subject: ?rst the facts Date: 09/26/2012 06:40 PM Diesel Compounds Found in Water Near Wyoming Fracking Site By Mark Drajem - Sep 26. 2012 6:22 PM ET a QUEUE Wyalusing Rocks Overlook is seen on March 20, 2012 just outside Wyalusing. Chesapeake Energy owns the drilling rights of this farmland within the Marcellus Shale region that has attracted many oil companies. A US. Geological Survey report on its water testing in Pavillion, Wyoming - where residents complain that gas drilling and hydraulic fracturing contaminated their drinking supplies -- found levels of methane, diesel-range compounds and other hydrocarbons. The geological agency retested water in one well after state of?cials and Encana Corp. (ECA), the driller, complained about a report by the Environmental Protection Agency last Windsor.Richard@epa.gov = Secondary e-mail address of former EPA Administrator, Lisa P. Jackson year linking contamination to fracking. The report today is “generally consistent” with what the EPA found, Alisha Johnson, an agency spokeswoman, said in an e-mail. Encana said the USGS’s testing was flawed. The EPA’s draft report in December was the first U.S. government finding to link hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, and water contamination. The USGS said it didn’t interpret the results, which were given to state officials. “We are now waiting as analysis of this data is done,” Wyoming Governor Matt Mead said in a statement. “It should help inform” the outside review of the EPA study, he said. Encana, based in Calgary, owns 140 natural-gas wells in an area of cattle and hay farms outside of Pavillion, about 230 miles (370 kilometers) northeast of Salt Lake City. The company has argued that contaminants found in homeowner water wells are naturally occurring, and the two test wells that the EPA drilled in 2010 were improperly constructed. Well Flaws The geological agency only tested water from one of the two EPA wells, a decision that bolsters the company’s claims about deficiencies with the monitoring wells, Doug Hock, an Encana spokesman, said in an e-mail. “From a preliminary examination of the data, there appears to be nothing surprising in these results,” Hock said. The wells in Pavillion are different than those in most areas of Pennsylvania, where residents also have complained about tainted water from fracking. These Wyoming gas wells don’t go as deep and the aquifer is closer to the gas-production zone. Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, uses millions of gallons of chemically treated water and sand to free oil and natural gas trapped in rock. The technology helped the U.S. cut dependence on imported fuels, lower power bills and cut state unemployment from Pennsylvania to North Dakota. Windsor.Richard@epa.gov = Secondary e-mail address of former EPA Administrator, Lisa P. Jackson From: To: Subject: Date: Bob Perciasepe Bob Sussman Re: first story...just the facts 09/26/2012 07:03 PM (b) (5) ▼ Bob Sussman---09/26/2012 06:47 PM EDT---Note the Encana comment about the data bolstering their critique of the initial EPA results. Robert From: Bob Sussman To: Cc: James O'Hara Alisha Johnson; Arvin Ganesan; Bob Perciasepe; Janet Woodka; Jim Martin; Laura Vaught; Richard Windsor; Sarah Pallone Date: 09/26/2012 06:47 PM EDT Subject: Re: first story...just the facts Note the Encana comment about the data bolstering their critique of the initial EPA results. Robert M. Sussman Senior Policy Counsel to the Administrator Office of the Administrator US Environmental Protection Agency ▼ James O'Hara---09/26/2012 06:40:10 PM---Diesel Compounds Found in Water Near Wyoming Fracking Site By Mark Drajem -  Sep 26, 2012 6:22 PM ET From:    James O'Hara/DC/USEPA/US To:    Richard Windsor/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Bob Perciasepe/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Bob Sussman/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Jim Martin/R8/USEPA/US@EPA, Janet Woodka/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Sarah Pallone/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Arvin Ganesan/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Laura Vaught/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Alisha Johnson/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Date:    09/26/2012 06:40 PM Subject:    first story...just the facts Diesel Compounds Found in Water Near Wyoming Fracking Windsor.Richard@epa.gov = Secondary e-mail address of former EPA Administrator, Lisa P. Jackson Site By Mark Drajem - Sep 26, 2012 6:22 PM ET Facebook Share LinkedIn Google +1 0 COMMENTS Print QUEUE Q Melanie Stetson Freeman/The Christian Science Monitor via Getty Images Wyalusing Rocks Overlook is seen on March 20, 2012 just outside Wyalusing, Pennsylvania. Chesapeake Energy owns the drilling rights of this farmland within the Marcellus Shale region that has attracted many oil companies. A U.S. Geological Survey report on its water testing in Pavillion, Wyoming -where residents complain that gas drilling and hydraulic fracturing contaminated their drinking supplies -- found levels of methane, dieselrange compounds and other hydrocarbons. The geological agency retested water in one well after state officials and Encana Corp. (ECA), the driller, complained about a report by the Environmental Protection Agency last year linking contamination to fracking. The report today is “generally consistent” with what the EPA found, Alisha Johnson, an agency spokeswoman, said in an e-mail. Encana said the USGS’s testing was flawed. The EPA’s draft report in December was the first U.S. government finding to link hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, and water contamination. The USGS said it didn’t interpret the results, which were given to state officials. “We are now waiting as analysis of this data is done,” Wyoming Governor Matt Mead said in a statement. “It should help inform” the outside review of the EPA study, he said. Encana, based in Calgary, owns 140 natural-gas wells in an area of cattle and hay farms outside of Pavillion, about 230 miles (370 kilometers) northeast of Salt Lake City. The company has argued that contaminants found in homeowner water wells are naturally occurring, and the two test wells that the EPA drilled in 2010 were improperly constructed. Well Flaws The geological agency only tested water from one of the two EPA wells, a decision that bolsters the company’s claims about deficiencies with the monitoring wells, Doug Hock, an Encana spokesman, said in an e-mail. “From a preliminary examination of the data, there appears to be nothing surprising in these results,” Hock said. The wells in Pavillion are different than those in most areas of Pennsylvania, where residents also have complained about tainted water from fracking. These Wyoming gas wells don’t go as deep and the aquifer is closer to the Windsor.Richard@epa.gov = Secondary e-mail address of former EPA Administrator, Lisa P. Jackson From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Importance: Attachments: Bob Sussman O'Hara.James@epamail.epa.gov; Woodka.Janet@epamail.epa.gov; Ganesan.Arvin@epamail.epa.gov; Glenn Paulson; Bob Perciasepe; Vaught.Laura@epamail.epa.gov Mary Hanley Fw: HF technical workshops/roundtables (updated) 12/07/2012 07:32 AM High Workshop Topics Summary.docx Roundtable next steps.docx draft flyer.docx Following up on the recent roundtables, ORD is planning to announce on Monday the workshops for the drinking water study. There will be five workshops, all of which were proposed during the roundtables. The first workshop will be on analytical methods and will be on  February  25. The others will be in April and June. The plan is to reconvene the roundtables over the summer. The workshops will be all-day events and ORD is expecting 50-60 participants in each. A broad outreach process will be conducted to solicit participation by experts. More details are in the attachments. Let us know whether you need more information before ORD moves forward on Monday. ▼ Lisa Matthews     ----- Original Message ----From: Lisa Matthews Sent: 12/06/2012 04:44 PM EST To: Bob Sussman Cc: Mary Hanley; Jeanne Briskin; Dayna Gibbons; Ramona Trovato; Lek Kadeli Subject: HF technical workshops/roundtables (updated) Target announcement date for the first technical workshop is Monday, December 10: Lisa Matthews U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development 202-564-6669 (ph) (b) (6) matthews.lisa@epa.gov From: Reply To: To: Subject: Date: Marcellus Shale Coalition Press Marcellus Shale Coalition Press What They're Saying: Maroelhrs Shale?a Gane-Changeron a Globd Scale" 12/11/2012 11:02 AM December 11, 2012 PERMALINK @MarcellusGas What They?re Saying: Marcellus Shale ?a Game-Changer on a Global Scale? Pittsburgh, Pa. The clear, undeniable economic, environmental and energy security bene?ts associated with the safe development of clean-buming natural gas continue to be realized across Appalachia, the United States and as well as overseas. Here?s what they?re saying about the responsible development of job-creating shale gas, which is Powen'pq_an American Renaissance: NATURAL GAS JOB CREATION, ENERGY SECURITY Public Support for Natural Gas Development Continues to Build: Two new survevs show that a signi?cant percentage of peOple sUDport drilling in portions of New York and that residents who live amid heaw drilling think the bene?ts outweigh the risks. Klaber, president of the Marcellus Shale Coalition, an industry group, noted that New York residents use large quantities of gas that comes from fracked wells in other states. She noted that - . - . - - . good economic and environmental sense.? Patrick Henderson, energy executive in the governor's of?ce, said the Siena College poll shows that New Yorkers ?see in and other states the ability to develop this resource responsibly while protecting the environment.? (Associated Press, 12/10/12) ?Shale Gas Keeps Philadelphia Region?s Electric Costs Down?: WW game-changer for electric companies in the Northeast. This is good news for Philadelphia. The increase in the availability of natural gas is owing to the more-effective use of hydraulic fracturing in conjunction with horizontal drilling. Over the four-year period ending 2010, natural- gas production in the US rose by roughly 20% according to the US Energy Information Administration and most of the increase was due to shale-gas extraction. The consumer should continue to bene?t from lower natural gas in the near term. In the average utility customer's bill in August 2012 was 2% lower than the same month is 2011. (Philadelphia Public Record, 12L6L12) Natural Gas: Powering Pa.?s Economy: Rural has an ocean of natural gas below ground and will soon have electricig produced at the surface. Inexpensive, available fuel begets power plants. The exploitation of gas a mile below the surface in the Marcellus Shale rock formation has attracted power generation companies natural gas-?red power plants, each at a cost of hundreds of million of dollars. Anthony Ventello, executive director of the Progress Authority, a regional economic development agency, said the power plant will have a signi?cant economic impact much like a manufacturing facility, which supports spin-off jobs. "If we can create a permanent market for natural gas and add value to it by turning it into electricity or using it make some other product, we can stabilize the economy." (T imes- Tribune, M) Pa.?s Geisinger Health System ?Considers Natural Gas Stations?: A Geisinger Health System administrator savs the companv is studvind the potential for a business partnership to create a natural gas fueling station. Al Neuner, vice president of facilities operations, the review is part of a continuing evaluation of a state grant program providing incentives for using natural gas to fuel ?eet vehicles like large trucks and. in Geisinger's case, shuttle buses. Diesel averaged $4.02 a gallon this week, and regular unleaded gasoline $3.39 a gallon, a federal agency reported. That's compared to the $2.16 average for the equivalent of one gallon of compressed natural gas, according to an industry website. (The News-Item, 12/9/12) 0 ?Report: Sees Shale Job Growth?: Those working in West Virginia's oil and natural gas ?elds have seen their annual salaries drow bv an average of $8.100 since 2008. thanks to the Marcellus Shale rush. A new report from WorkForce West Virginia also shows that since the Marcellus activity began ramping up in 2008, another 916 state workers were directly employed by the oil and natural gas extraction business. ?The overall effect on speci?c industries in West Virm due to activity within the Marcellus Shale is becoming more evident,? the report states. In addition to these jobs counted by WorkForce, the presence of the drilling industry does lead to increased employment in certain areas, as restaurant and hotel owners report being very busy these days because of drillers working in the area. New businesses to service the oil and gas industrv also continue pooping Up. (Wheeling-lntelligencer, 12/6/12) Gov. Tomblin: Responsible Marcellus Development ?Brings a Great Economic Boost to the State?: Governor Earl Ray Tomblin was also at the [MarkWest] plant Thursday. He said local economv and provide more iobs. ?This is the ?rst phase with the opening of this processing plant," Tomblin said. ?There have been hundreds of workers in the construction. There will be at least 20 full time iobs here. It brinds a great economic boost to the state, and this one in particular to Doddridge County.? (WBOY-TV, 12/7/12) OPINION PAGES TOUT NATURAL GAS Marcellus Shale ?a Game-Changer on a Global Scale?: Thanks to new drilling technologies with six more under construction statewide. In 2013, MarkWest will add six more processing facilities in West Virginia. MarkWest currently employs about 75 people in West Virginia. Each processing plant will add about 20-30 permanent jobs. It looks like development of the Marcellus Shale gas ?elds could be the catalyst to take us to the next level and provide the state with a verv. verv briaht future. (Exponent-Telegraph editorial, 12/8/12) 0 Has Opportunity With Natural Gas Vehicles?: More than 100,000 natural gas vehicles are currently on the road across the United States -- and millions more are being utilized around the world. With fewer emissions than traditional fuels and lower costs. the choice for transportation and heaw truck uses that refuel at the same station everv nidht is M. Instead of sending almost half a trillion dollars to foreign countries, we can help turn around our own economy by investing in a fuel that literally comes from beneath our own mountains. (Charleston Gazette op-ed, 12/10/12) 0 American Natural Gas Adds ?Significant Economic Bene?ts?: Americans will pay much less than most foreigners for natural gas, giving domestic businesses a competitive advantage. Not only does cheap U.S. natural gas hold the possibility of signi?cant economic bene?ts. it is also alreadv making a positive difference for the environment. (Washington Post editorial, 12/7/12) - Shale Gas Leads to ?a Plunge In US. Greenhouse Gas Emissions?: factors for much of the emissions} improvement in the US. environmental picture includes the shale gas revolution. The bene?ts of the shale gas explosion include the newfound abundant supply which will provide more than enough natural gas to meet us domestic consumption needs and provide an expectation for relatively low natural gas prices in the future. (Forbes.com op-ed, 12/7/12) 0 London Mayor: Natural Gas is ?Green, Cheap and Plentiful?: The extraction of shale seems an answer to the nation?s prayers. By offering the hope of cheap electricity, fracking would make Britain once again competitive in sectors of industry bauxite smelting springs to mind where we have lost hope. The extraction process alone would generate tens of thousands of jobs in parts of the country that desperately need them. And above all, the burning of gas to generate electricity is much, much cleaner. As a result of the use of gas, the Americans have cut their CO2 emissions to levels not seen since the Nineties. in spite of a growing population. (The Telegraph op-ed, 12/9/12) 0 ?Fracking Can Boost Economy, Add to Region's Job Base?: Hopefully. New York will ince 2008, gas companies have established several regional centers in Halliburton in Williamsport, Shell in Mans?eld and Chesapeake in Sayre. The Southern Tier needs population growth now. The Southern Tier needs jobs now. (Star-Gazette op-ed, 12/10/12) Marcellus Shale Coalition 24 Summit Park Drive Pittsburgh, PA 15275 (qu Click to VleW this email In a browser Ifyou I'nk: Maoellus Shae Coalition Summit Park Drive EMAIL SOCIAL 335nm?- PA 15275 Efertical?espoose Try It Free Today! Read the Ver?calResponse maket?mg policy. Windsor.Richard@epa.gov = Secondary e-mail address of former EPA Administrator, Lisa P. Jackson Fw: Final PDFs Susan Burden to: Bob Sussman 12/17/2012 03:39 PM Cc: Donald Maddox, Jeanne Briskin, Ramona Trovato From: Susan Burden/DC/USEPA/US To: Bob Sussman/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Cc: Donald Maddox/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Jeanne Briskin/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Ramona Trovato/DC/USEPA/US@EPA History: This message has been forwarded. Hi Bob, Attached are two PDFs for the progress report: 2012 HF Report_FINAL 121412 contains the full report. 2012 HF Progress Report_Executive Summary_FINAL 121412 contains only the Executive Summary. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Susan Susan Burden, Ph.D. Office of Science Policy Office of Research and Development U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Phone: (202) 564-6308 E-mail: burden.susan@epa.gov 2012 HF Progress Report_Executive Summary_FINAL 121412.pdf 2012 HF Report_FINAL 121412.pdf Windsor.Richard@epa.gov = Secondary e-mail address of former EPA Administrator, Lisa P. Jackson From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Bob Sussman Ramona Trovato; Jeanne Briskin Ann Campbell Fw: Meeting on Tuesday 02/13/2012 03:19 PM Just sent the enclosed to Paul. He wants a follow-call for staff to report in -probably a good idea. My recollection is that Mike is following up with Chesapeake this week. Is that right and if so, when? Once Mike has this discussion, a call with Paul should be in order. Robert M. Sussman Senior Policy Counsel to the Administrator Office of the Administrator US Environmental Protection Agency ----- Forwarded by Bob Sussman/DC/USEPA/US on 02/13/2012 03:17 PM ----From:    Bob Sussman/DC/USEPA/US To:    Paul Hagemeier Date:    02/13/2012 03:15 PM Subject:    RE: Meeting on Tuesday Paul -- sorry for being slow to respond. Am still digging out from last week. Am glad we're getting similar reports on last week's meeting. Let's see if we can arrange time for a report back by our staffs -- perhaps after an additional discussion scheduled for this week, I believe. The shale school is a promising idea and starting in DC makes sense. When we have our call, we should discuss. Robert M. Sussman Senior Policy Counsel to the Administrator Office of the Administrator US Environmental Protection Agency ▼ Paul Hagemeier ---02/09/2012 10:48:56 AM---I agree - heard the same thing.  Stephanie was impressed and positive about the meeting.  My folks t From:    Paul Hagemeier To:    Bob Sussman/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Date:    02/09/2012 10:48 AM Subject:    RE: Meeting on Tuesday I agree - heard the same thing.  Stephanie was impressed and positive about the meeting.  My folks think Ramona has been a very good add to the discussion, and will be needed as we progress.  Thanks for making her available. I'd suggest that we make some time to discuss some of the other issues you and I have teed up together.  Shale school in DC with you and some of your leadership staff could be a good foundation for that.  I would be happy to facilitate, and think that it Windsor.Richard@epa.gov = Secondary e-mail address of former EPA Administrator, Lisa P. Jackson would be positive for both of us and for our folks that need to work together.  Could serve as a model that we could use at the regional level if you think it a good forum. Perhaps we could line that up in conjunction with a progress report on the study in the near future? Best - P -----Original Message----From: Bob Sussman [mailto:Sussman.Bob@epamail.epa.gov] Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 8:39 AM To: Paul Hagemeier Subject: Meeting on Tuesday Paul -- I've gotten good reports on the Tuesday meeting here in DC. It sounds like we made good progress on site selection and have another discussion scheduled. I'm crossing my fingers that we're heading in a positive direction and you and I can step back a bit. Let me know if you're hearing anything different. Robert M. Sussman Senior Policy Counsel to the Administrator Office of the Administrator US Environmental Protection Agency ________________________________ This email (and attachments if any) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this email is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return email and destroy all copies of the email (and attachments if any). Page 1 of 3 Meeting Request and Action Items - CHK Haynesville Prospective Study Site Stephanie Timmermeyer to: Jeanne Briskin, Ramona Trovato 01/27/2012 05:12 PM Cc: John Satterfield Hide Details From: Stephanie Timmermeyer To: Jeanne Briskin/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Ramona Trovato/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Cc: John Satterfield 6 Attachments 6010-13c.pdf 8015-17.pdf 300 & SM4110 B-8a.pdf 8270-14.pdf 8260-16.pdf Microseismic Data Map.pdf Ramona and Jeanne:  It was very nice to meet with both of you this week.  I would like to check with you on setting up a meeting between your team  and CHK for next week.   I believe we talked about a conference call or a videoconference (which I believe would work even  better). On our end, John Satterfield and I will attend along with Chris Hill our CHK study liaison.  Please let me know a couple of  days and times that work for you next week, and we will accommodate.  By this email, I am also responding to the items you requested in our conference call prior to our face to face meeting.  First,  please find in the below table the list of critical analytes, identified by your agency, and the corresponding commercial laboratory  SOPs.   Please consider this confidential information.  You had also asked, Jeanne, about supplying a QAPP for our lab.  I have been  informed that labs do not have “QAPPs” per se but do have Quality Management (or Quality Assurance) Systems.  The lab we use,  Test America, is also contractor for the EPA, and given the confidential nature of the information, I wanted to suggest that you may  have better luck requesting this information directly.  We would be happy to revisit this issue, if necessary.  The other item you  requested was microseismic data in the vicinity of the Haynesville prospective study site.  I forwarded you a map Monday showing  two nearby locations for which we have that data.  Please let me know whether the microseismic from those two sites will be  useful to you.  If so, I will send the reports.  I have reattached the map for your convenience.  From our perspective, we are still waiting on the following information from your office:  1) the definition of critical versus non‐critical analytes 2) a link to the ORD‐TPM‐3.4 protocol 3) verification of the Region III lab’s glycol method 4) a schedule on timing for your activities at the site Thank you for taking the time to meet with us this week.  We look forward to a productive meeting next week to continue to move  toward the next steps of the study.  Stephanie  file://C:\Documents and Settings\jzambran\Local Settings\Temp\notesFCBCEE\~web3432... 6/22/2013 Page 2 of 3 EPA Analysis EPA Laboratory CHK Laboratory SOP Analyte Method Performing the Analysis Attached Gasoline Range Organics ORGM-506 r1.0, EPA Region Laboratory 8015-17 (GRO) EPA Method 8015D Diesel Range Organics ORGM-508 r1.0, EPA Region Laboratory 8015-17 (DRO) EPA Method 8015B Volatile Organic Shaw Environmental 8260-16 Compounds Semivolatile Organic ORGM-515 r1.1, EPA Region Laboratory 8270-14 Compounds (SVOC) EPA Method 8270D Metals (As, Se, Sr, Ba, B) Shaw Environmental 6010?13c 257v2 or -332v0 Major Cations (Ca, Mg, Na, Shaw Environmental 601013c KI Major Anions (CI, (N03- RSKERC general parameters 300 SM4110 B-8 carbonate, bicarbonate, Br, lab SO42-) by 214v5) Thank you, Stephanie R. Timmermeyer Director - Federal Regulatory Affairs Chesapeake Energy Corporation Mobile: (304) 941-9879 E-mail: Ste hanie.Timmerme 3r@chk.com Chesapeake Logo This email (and attachments if any) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, con?dential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this email is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby noti?ed that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by retum email and destroy all copies of the email (and attachments if any). ATTACHMENT NOT DELIVERED This Email message contained an attachment named image001.jpg which may be a computer program. This attached computer program could contain a computer virus which could cause harm to EPA's computers, network, and data. The attachment has been deleted. This was done to limit the distribution of computer viruses introduced into the EPA network. EPA is deleting all computer program attachments sent from the Internet into the agency via Email. If the message sender is known and the attachment was legitimate, you should contact the sender and request that they rename the file name extension and resend the Email with the renamed attachment. After receiving the revised Email, containing the renamed attachment, you can rename the file extension to its correct name. and Settings\jzambran\Local 6/22/2013 Page 3 of 3 For further information, please contact the EPA Call Center at (866) 411-4EPA (4372). The TDD number is (866) 489-4900. *********************** ATTACHMENT NOT DELIVERED *********************** file://C:\Documents and Settings\jzambran\Local Settings\Temp\notesFCBCEE\~web3432... 6/22/2013 Action Items Stephanie Timmermeyer to: Jeanne Briskin, Ramona Trovato Bob Sussman, Donald Maddox, Ann Campbell, Paul Hagemeier, Cc: John Satterfield History: This message has been forwarded. 1 attachment HF Study Action Items 1-30.pdf Jeanne and Ramona:   Attached is a list of action items we prepared – please feel free to add  or revise items from your notes.  Also – I am resending the schedule the  we prepared for the HF Work Team.   While it is clearly out of date at  this point, it is a good estimation on timing for drilling, completions, and  other activities on our sites.   In order to facilitate selection of a new site, we still need to understand  EPA’s site criteria.  In speaking with John after the call yesterday, he  very quickly listed these site criteria from the EPA HF Team:   1.       Rural area (less opportunity for anthropogenic activities  to impact drinking water resources) 2.       Large contiguous surface land holding (fewer agreements  for monitoring wells/access) 3.       Low historical oil and gas activity in the area 4.       Consideration for depths/thicknesses of drinking water  aquifer(s) for costs associated with monitoring well installation  and sampling 5.       Low HF activity in the area   We understand now that you may be requesting that “no construction  activity” be a site criterion.  Additionally, because EPA recently asked  for microseismic in the vicinity of the Haynesville proposed site, we  assume that having that data in some proximity is also a part of site  criteria.  In any case, please feel free to add to or revise our  understanding of EPA’s site criteria.  The quicker we have that  information, the quicker we can respond to you with potential sites.   We would primarily be attempting to locate sites in the following plays,  once we have EPA’s site criteria in hand:   Mississippi Lime  Utica Eagle Ford  Colony Wash 02/01/2012 02:01 PM   We are available to travel to DC Tuesday February 7, to discuss  selection of a new site and to work toward resolution on the other  issues listed in the attached update.  Please let us know if you could  meet that day.       Thank you, Stephanie R. Timmermeyer Director - Federal Regulatory Affairs Chesapeake Energy Corporation Mobile: (304) 941-9879 E-mail: Stephanie.Timmermeyer@chk.com   This email (and attachments if any) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this email is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly proh bited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return email and destroy all copies of the email (and attachments if any). *********************** ATTACHMENT NOT DELIVERED ******************* This Email message contained an attachment named Schedule.pdf which may be a computer program. This attached computer program could contain a computer virus which could cause harm to EPA's computers, network, and data. The attachment has been deleted. This was done to limit the distribution of computer viruses introduced into the EPA network. EPA is deleting all computer program attachments sent from the Internet into the agency via Email. If the message sender is known and the attachment was legitimate, you should contact the sender and request that they rename the file name extension and resend the Email with the renamed attachment. After receiving the revised Email, containing the renamed attachment, you can rename the file extension to its correct name. For further information, please contact the EPA Call Center at (866) 411-4EPA (4372). The TDD number is (866) 489-4900. Page 1 of 2 Action Items week of 2/6/12 Stephanie Timmermeyer to: Jeanne Briskin, Ramona Trovato 02/06/2012 03:19 PM Cc: John Satterfield Hide Details From: Stephanie Timmermeyer To: Jeanne Briskin/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Ramona Trovato/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Cc: John Satterfield History: This message has been replied to. 1 Attachment HF Study Action Items 2-6.pdf Jeanne and Ramona:  It is unfortunate that the EPA HF study project schedule and Site Selection Criteria sent February 2, 2012  precludes using the originally proposed site located in the Haynesville Shale.  We are disappointed that all our  collective work associated with that site cannot be accomplished based on these documents, but will  nonetheless work with you to find another prospective site.     We look forward to our meeting tomorrow to focus on selection of a new Chesapeake site for a prospective  study.  We will come prepared to offer potential sites based upon the new EPA schedule and selection criteria.      We remain hopeful to schedule a meeting soon to resolve other project related issues that were not specific to  the study location, such as the QAPP.  Perhaps we can schedule a follow up video conference for this coming  Thursday?  Please let me know of any additions/changes to the attached action item list.        Thank you,  file://C:\Documents and Settings\jzambran\Local Settings\Temp\notesFCBCEE\~web9849... 6/22/2013 Page 2 of 2 Stephanie R. Timmermeyer Director - Federal Regulatory Affairs Chesapeake Energy Corporation Mobile: (304) 941-9879 E-mail: Stephanie.Timmermeyer@chk.com  Chesapeake Logo   This email (and attachments if any) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this email is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent respons ble for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distr bution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return email and destroy all copies of the email (and attachments if any). *********************** ATTACHMENT NOT DELIVERED ******************* This Email message contained an attachment named image001.jpg which may be a computer program. This attached computer program could contain a computer virus which could cause harm to EPA's computers, network, and data. The attachment has been deleted. This was done to limit the distribution of computer viruses introduced into the EPA network. EPA is deleting all computer program attachments sent from the Internet into the agency via Email. If the message sender is known and the attachment was legitimate, you should contact the sender and request that they rename the file name extension and resend the Email with the renamed attachment. After receiving the revised Email, containing the renamed attachment, you can rename the file extension to its correct name. For further information, please contact the EPA Call Center at (866) 411-4EPA (4372). The TDD number is (866) 489-4900. *********************** ATTACHMENT NOT DELIVERED *********************** file://C:\Documents and Settings\jzambran\Local Settings\Temp\notesFCBCEE\~web9849... 6/22/2013 CHK Technical Review E & E Technical Memorandum – Installation of groundwater monitoring wells in support of EPA’s hydraulic fracturing study. Executive Summary: Chesapeake Energy (CHK) has prepared these comments in response to E&E’s two technical memorandums prepared for the EPA and transmitted to CHK on March 1, 2012 and March 27, 2011 via email. CHK’s detailed response is formatted to follow the technical memorandums; the first bullet paraphrases language from the memorandum and sub-bullets represent CHK comments. General comments are highlighted below:       Chesapeake Energy understands that the Option #1 (vertical well with off pad access) proposed in the original technical memorandum has been removed as a viable alternative. The installation of horizontal monitoring wells after the production well has been installed significantly mitigates the potential risk to the monitoring wells’ integrity, and, therefore, the study. The limitations of the horizontal monitoring wells require additional consideration to ensure the study’s data quality objectives will be met. For example, the fluctuation in groundwater levels and end data use (i.e., modeling) should have specific considerations identified. CHK recommends EPA identify the process it will use to differentiate between potential causes (including naturally occurring) should sampling results indicate a significant change in water quality that is otherwise unexplainable. CHK does not believe the site characterization activity identified by the EPA will provide the information necessary to determine the groundwater velocity in the deeper bedrock formation. Appropriate monitoring well abandonment procedures for non-standard well should be developed. CHK understands EPA’s rationale for using non-standard wells on this highly influential scientific assessment stems from an EPA schedule issue related its 2014 report. CHK has worked with the EPA to identify a second site with what we believe to have favorable groundwater velocity. Based on characterization of the aquifers, the use of horizontal monitoring wells may not be necessary to achieve EPA’s study goals. 04/05/2012 Detailed comments: Re: Technical Memorandum – Installation of groundwater monitoring wells in support of EPA’s hydraulic fracturing study. (February 24, 2012). Introduction:  E&E limited the scope of the study to underground sources of drinking water (USDW), which has a specific definition under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) (i.e., 10,000 mg/L TDS). The State of OK has defined the base of treatable water (i.e. TDS of 10,000 mg/L) in this area at occurring between approximately 100 to 150 ft below ground level (bgl)., however, the E&E/EPA have proposed monitoring wells at depths up to 300 ft. The Final Study Plan does not limit the boundaries of the study to USDW. o EPA should develop clear boundaries for the study. It is recommended EPA use and clearly state that USDW are the boundaries of the study, and not install monitoring wells into zones that have naturally occurring brine or salt water present (TDS >10,000 mg/L).. o During the March 23, 2012 meeting, EPA stated it used 300 ft. because CHK previously stated this value as the depth of groundwater in this area. CHK believes it is important that EPA independently validate information (or secondary data) provided by CHK or others in accordance with EPA project specific data quality objectives, QMP, and QAPPs. The 300 ft. value was stated early in the site selection process as an approximation for the depth of USDW in the Mississippi Lime Play, but the Oklahoma Corporation has developed accurate depth to treatable water maps for this specific site, and those maps should be evaluated and used appropriately  E&E acknowledges that the proposed alternatives are non-standard groundwater monitoring wells. o CHK recommends the use of standard vertical groundwater monitoring wells on this study in order to reduce the risk to the study associated with the application of non-standard monitoring wells.  E&E states that this is a natural gas well pad. This statement is made throughout the memo. o This well is not considered a natural gas well. The Mississippi Lime is an oil play. Background:  E&E has assumed a 400 ft. by 400 ft. pad, and the ability to install the well approximately 75 ft. from the production well. o More accurate well pad dimensions will be provided to the EPA at a later date. There are a number of variables that dictate the size of the pad (i.e., drill rig, number of wells, etc.). Conservative dimensions for the pad are 350 ft. by 400 ft. 04/05/2012 o Note that orientation of the pad will not be necessary if EPA plans to use horizontal monitoring wells. The adjustment will impact CHK’s operations, and was offered to facilitate the installation of conventional monitoring wells off the pad location.  E&E states that piezometers will be used to determine actual subsurface conditions, including groundwater flow direction, depth to water and depth to bedrock. o The limitations of the geo-probe scope of work should be disclosed in terms of the information that will be able to be collected. For example, the piezometer will not be able to determine conditions (i.e., groundwater velocity) for the proposed deep monitoring well in the bedrock formation. It has now been agreed that conventionally drilled monitoring wells will be used in lieu of geo-probe installed wells.  E&E referenced a 300 ft. exploratory boring (off-pad) to determine the presence or absence of water bearing zones in bedrock. o “Water bearing zones” need to be clearly defined (e.g., USDW). The quality and quantity of water is of interest. o EPA should set limits, in terms of monitoring drilling capabilities (i.e., accuracy of location), for target water bearing zones.  The depths of proposed down gradient monitoring wells are stated as 20 ft. (top of the water table), 50 ft. (base of the unconsolidated aquifer), and 300 ft. (within the underlying shale formation). o It is understood that E&E made assumptions based on previous conversations, however, CHK would like the methods for determining the depths of the monitoring wells to be clearly stated and the use of best available information to be assured. For example, the top of the water table changes based on seasonal variations and water use, and the underlying bedrock formation varies greatly with depth, and the water quality varies with depth, typically becoming poorer with depth. Monitoring Well Installation:  E&E has stated an approximate sample point, for each of the down gradient wells, 15 ft. horizontally from the production wellbore. o There are numerous potential sources of contamination, both associated with and not associated with oil development operations. CHK does not believe EPA has incorporated systematic planning into the study design to ensure the study objective can be met and the appropriate data will be collected. For example, it is not clearly identified how EPA would differentiate the potential sources of contamination. o Data quality objectives for modeling and use of data need to be identified. o Certainty of monitoring well locations will effect modeling and data use. o Certainty of production well location will effect modeling and data use. 04/05/2012 o There would be a likely physical impact to monitoring wells due to proximity to production wellbore during well construction, which would compromise the study. Option 1: Vertical Wells with Off-Pad Access o CHK understands this option is no longer being considered. Option 2: Horizontal Direction Drilled (HDD) Monitoring Wells and Angle Drilled Wells  Active wireline guidance will be used to monitor the bit locations. o EPA should state the tolerances and accuracies of bore path required to meet its data quality objectives and intended use of data (i.e., modeling). Robert Keyes stated that the technology could be navigated within a +/- 3 ft. horizontal and vertical tolerance. However, the tolerances associated with the monitoring well drilling technology are not inclusive of all variables that could affect the total spatial accuracy.  Minimal starting distances of 100 ft. for the 20 ft. well and 250 ft. for the 50 ft. well. o The minimal starting distances will complicate the land owner access agreements and assessments.  The goal of the 20 ft. well is to intersect the top of the water table. o The use of horizontal wells only allows for the sampling of a small vertical interval. There is a very likely risk that the water level will change causing the water table to drop below the shallow well. A vertical well is more appropriate well type for monitoring the top of the water. In this geological setting it is not uncommon to see yearly water level fluctuations on the order of 5 to 10 feet occur.  Development of the wells: o Details regarding the development of the well should be provided, included parameter stabilization requirements.  The wells are stated to be abandoned after study/sampling activities are completed in accordance with state regulations. o It should be stated exactly how the wells will be abandoned. EPA should work with the state to understand its expectations. Without a clear understanding of what is required for proper abandonment, there is no assurance these requirement would not impede CHK operations at a future date. 04/05/2012 Groundwater monitoring, purging and sampling procedures  E&E states development of wells at least 48 hours before sampling. o CHK requests that the time between development of well and sampling be no less than 5 days.  The use of pressure transducers. o The EPA will need to specify calibration requirements. o The pressure transducers in option one will not be accessible. How will the risk of equipment failure be mitigated. In addition, the use of offset monitoring wells to monitor water levels would not allow the use of the provided low-flow sampling procedure. Pervious use of HDD Techniques for Groundwater Monitoring  E & E has listed previous use of HDD monitoring wells. o CHK acknowledges HDD monitoring wells have been used on previous projects as a last alternative to monitoring groundwater quality. Note one of the examples provided choose to use HDD if the application of standard wells was possible. o Limited detail information could be found publically available for the examples provided, however, the information found stressed the limitation of HDD technology and completely understanding the application of HDD technology prior to use. 04/05/2012 Re: Technical Memorandum – Revised groundwater monitoring wells in support of EPA’s hydraulic fracturing study. (March 26, 2012) Introduction  E & E based the depth of the USDW on statements made by CHK in the meeting. o CHK recommends EPA and its contractors independently verify information CHK provides when possible. This recommendation is related to the public perception issues associated with the study. In addition, CHK believes it is important that both EPA and its contractors are familiar with the wealth of information the state provides to the public.  E & E has stated, for the purposes of discussion, assumed groundwater screen intervals. o CHK would prefer that the logic used to determine the groundwater screen intervals are described, as well as, how this information will be collected and the quality of this information will be assured. This preference is aligned with EPA’s Quality policies, procedures, and guidelines.  E & E states that three permanent monitoring wells will be installed to characterize the site. . o The monitoring wells may be temporary, and additional monitoring wells would be installed to increase the accuracy of the site characterization.  E & E stated that CHK will drill, log and complete a deep monitoring well. o The parties have not determined that CHK will drill the well.  E & E has stated that the need for the installation of horizontal monitoring wells will be made based on the results from groundwater monitoring. o CHK believes that the appropriate information will be collected to ascertain the groundwater velocity in the alluvial aquifer.  E & E states that the application of horizontal wells will be based on the need and subject to CHK approval. o CHK confirms that the application of horizontal wells is subject to our approval.  E & E states that the distance from the production well to the horizontal wells will be based on groundwater flow data during the initial monitoring period. o There are other variables to be considered besides groundwater velocity. In addition, determining the groundwater flow in the bedrock formation may be problematic. o The distance a potential contaminant from the wellbore is not limited solely by groundwater velocity. “The accelerated arrival of contaminants at a discharge point can be a characteristic feature of dispersion that is due to 04/05/2012 the fact that some parts of the contaminant plume move faster than the average groundwater velocity” according the a report found on the National Academies Press website (http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record id=1770&page=37).  The following comments and concerns from the original February 24, 2012 Technical Memorandum remain outstanding: o There is not the necessity for CHK to orientate the pad to accommodate a minimum distance of 75 ft., if EPA plans to use one of the alternative well designs. The adjustment will impact CHK’s operations, and was offered to facilitate the installation of conventional monitoring wells off the pad location. o The limitations of the site characterization scope of work should be disclosed in terms of the information that will be able to be collected. For example, the piezometer well will not be able to determine conditions (i.e., groundwater velocity) for the proposed deep monitoring well in the bedrock formation. o “Water bearing zones” need to be clearly defined (e.g., USDW). The quality and quantity of water is of interest. o EPA should set limits, in terms of monitoring drilling capabilities (i.e., accuracy of location), for target water bearing zones. o We recommend EPA identify the process it will use to differentiate between potential causes (including naturally occurring) should sampling results indicate a significant change in water quality that is otherwise unexplainable. o We recommend data quality objectives for modeling and use of data be identified. o Certainty of monitoring well location will effect modeling and data use. o Certainty of production well location will effect modeling and data use. o We recommend EPA state the tolerances and accuracies of bore path required to meet its data quality objectives and intended use of data (i.e., modeling). Robert Keyes stated that the technology could be navigated within a +/- 3 ft. horizontal and vertical tolerance. However, the tolerances associated with the monitoring well drilling technology are not inclusive of all variables that could affect the total spatial accuracy. o The minimal starting distances will complicate the land owner access agreements and assessments. o The use of horizontal wells only allows for the sampling of a small vertical interval. There is a very likely risk that the water level will change causing the water table to drop below the shallow well. A vertical well, screened at intervals is more appropriate well type for monitoring the top of the water. o Details regarding the development of the well should be provided, included parameter stabilization requirements. o It should be stated exactly how the wells are to be abandoned. EPA should work with the state to understand its expectations. Without a clear understanding of what is required for proper abandonment, there is no 04/05/2012 assurance these requirement would not impede CHK operations at a future date. Kent Wilkin and Robert Keyes had similar concerns with the lack of clarity regarding abandoning procedures. o CHK requests that the time between development of well and sampling be no less than 5 days. o The EPA will need to specify calibration requirements for transducers. 04/05/2012 From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Chris Hill (Regulatory) Michael Overbay/R6/USEPA/US@EPA; Stephanie Timmermeyer David Jewett/ADA/USEPA/US@EPA; Doug Beak/ADA/USEPA/US@EPA; Jeanne Briskin/DC/USEPA/US@EPA; John Satterfield; Randall Ross/ADA/USEPA/US@EPA; Steven Acree/ADA/USEPA/US@EPA RE: Phone call Wednesday afternoon at 3:30 pm? 02/28/2012 08:40 AM I have sent a meeting invite to everyone on this email distribution. Please let me know if you have any questions or do not receive the invite. I look forward to our discussion. Thank you, Chris Hill Environmental Engineer Chesapeake Energy Corporation Office: (405) 935-2321 Mobile: (405) 388-3907 Fax: (405) 849-2321 E-mail: Chris.Hill@chk.com From: Michael Overbay [mailto:Overbay.Michael@epamail.epa.gov] Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 7:32 AM To: Stephanie Timmermeyer Cc: Chris Hill (Regulatory); David Jewett; Doug Beak; Jeanne Briskin; John Satterfield; Randall Ross; Steven Acree Subject: Re: Phone call Wednesday afternoon at 3:30 pm? I think we can make that work.  Can Chris send out a calendar invite? Michael Overbay, P.G. Regional Ground Water Center Coordinator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 6 (214)665-6482 (214)665-2191 (FAX) Visit the Ground Water Center on the web at: www.epa.gov/earth1r6/6wq/swp/groundwater/gw.htm From:        Stephanie Timmermeyer To:        Michael Overbay/R6/USEPA/US@EPA, John Satterfield , "Chris Hill (Regulatory)" , David Jewett/ADA/USEPA/US@EPA, Doug Beak/ADA/USEPA/US@EPA, Steven Acree/ADA/USEPA/US@EPA, Randall Ross/ADA/USEPA/US@EPA Cc:  Jeanne Briskin/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Date:  02/27/2012 05:43 PM Subject:  Re: Phone call Wednesday afternoon at 3:30 pm? Hey Mike I'm afraid the CHK team has an all day meeting Wednesday - how does 10:30 am Thursday work for you guys? Steph Stephanie R. Timmermeyer Chesapeake Energy Director, Regulatory Affairs - Federal 304.941.9879 From: Michael Overbay [mailto:Overbay.Michael@epamail.epa.gov] Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 04:30 PM To: John Satterfield; Stephanie Timmermeyer; Chris Hill (Regulatory); David Jewett ; Doug Beak ; Steven Acree ; Randall Ross Cc: Jeanne Briskin Subject: Phone call Wednesday afternoon at 3:30 pm? Hello everbody, Would Wednesday afternoon at 3:30 pm work for a conference call?  Please respond by e-mail. We hope to be able to provide the technical memo from our contractors to Chesapeake on that call.  We have just received it ourselves and want a quick review to make sure it is OK before sharing it. Also, following the site visit last week to look at the potential sites, we believe that the Oklahoma site is the best candidate for moving forward on.  We would like to send an EPA-owned direct-push (Geoprobe) rig to both the Oklahoma and Kansas sites in the next few weeks, just to push down through the terrace deposits and confirm the presence of an aquifer.  We anticipate doing one or two holes on each site.  This information would not be used as "data" in the study, but is just to make sure we have a usable site.  Therefore, we won't be writing a QAPP for that activity and can do it subject to getting the landowner's consent and the availability of our operators.  Looks like next week or the week after could work for them.  Since they are going that far, and the sites are only 15 miles apart, we think it makes sense just to plan on probing the Kansas site, too.  So, we would like Chesapeake to check into getting access for us, if possible. Doug and I will be doing field work in Texas starting Sunday and all of next week.  During that week, we anticipate providing you with the supplemental information on how the decision process will work. Michael Overbay, P.G. Regional Ground Water Center Coordinator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 6 (214)665-6482 (214)665-2191 (FAX) Visit the Ground Water Center on the web at:  www.epa.gov/earth1r6/6wq/swp/groundwater/gw.htm This email (and attachments if any) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this email is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly proh bited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return email and destroy all copies of the email (and attachments if any). Chesa cake ENERGY April 11, 2012 VIA: email trovato.ramona@epa.qov Ms. Ramona Trovato Office of Research and Development USEPA Headquarters 1200 Avenue, NW. Mail Code: 8101R Washington, DC 20460 Re: Horizontal Drilling Dear Ms. Trovato: Pursuant to our discussions about the potential need to install horizontal monitoring wells at the proposed prospective study site, attached is a technical memorandum that outlines several issues that should be addressed before Chesapeake could agree to the installation. Four of the critical issues are detailed below: First and foremost we want to re-emphasize that site characterization may reveal that installation of these non?standard wells is unnecessary. Second, we have conditionally determined that the best possibility for installing the horizontal monitoring wells, if needed, would be after our Mississippi Limestone well is drilled but prior to hydraulic fracturing. As we have discussed, EPA will be required to accept all liability related to potential damage to the Chesapeake well and the environment related to the installation and use of these wells. This will be an extremely important issue that should be resolved quickly given the multi-million dollar investment Chesapeake has made, and will continue to make, at the location. The third issue is the ability for contractor to very accurately steer and map the location of the horizontal monitoring wells and formally agreeing to an anti-collision policy which includes a requirement that the horizontal monitoring wells will not be drilled within a 30 foot radius of Chesapeake's well, regardless of groundwater velocity. The fourth issue to resolve, as mentioned by the Oklahoma Water Resources Board and the contract water well driller during our March meeting, is a detailed procedure for plugging and abandonment. Chesapeake Energy Corporation PO. Box 8496 Oklahoma City, OK 73154?0496 0 6100 N. \?I?estern Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 731 18 405-848?8000 April 12, 2012 Ms. Ramona Trovato Page 2 Finally, we would request that your agency allow that, should horizontal monitoring wells be required, Chesapeake's comments about the non-standard nature of the wells as well as our attached technical memorandum be included in the final study report. Thank you for continuing to dedicate resources to this project. Chesapeake remains committed to a study based on sound science and recognized and accepted protocols. Given the importance of domestic oil and natural gas as an energy source for our country?s quality of life, independence, and environment, we feel there is no more important task at hand than to continue to bolster the public?s confidence that we can, and do, explore and produce this important source of energy safely. Best regards, Chesapeake Energy Corporation . A c/ Stephanie R. Timmermeyer Director Federal Regulatory Affairs CHK Technical Review Technical Memorandum Installation of groundwater monitoring wells in support of hydraulic fracturing study. Executive Summary: Chesapeake Energy (CHK) has prepared these comments in response to two technical memorandums prepared for the EPA and transmitted to CHK on March 1, 2012 and March 27, 2011 via email. detailed response is formatted to follow the technical memorandums; the ?rst bullet paraphrases language from the memorandum and sub-bullets represent CHK comments. General comments are highlighted below: 0 Chesapeake Energy understands that the Option #1 (vertical well with off pad access) proposed in the original technical memorandum has been removed as a viable alternative. 0 The installation of horizontal monitoring wells after the production well has been installed signi?cantly mitigates the potential risk to the monitoring wells? integrity, and, therefore, the study. 0 The limitations of the horizontal monitoring wells require additional consideration to ensure the study?s data quality objectives will be met. For example, the ?uctuation in groundwater levels and end data use modeling) should have speci?c considerations identified. 0 CHK recommends EPA identify the process it will use to differentiate between potential causes (including naturally occurring) should sampling results indicate a signi?cant change in water quality that is otherwise unexplainable. CHK does not believe the site characterization activity identified by the EPA will provide the information necessary to determine the groundwater velocity in the deeper bedrock formation. 0 Appropriate monitoring well abandonment procedures for non-standard well should be developed. CHK understands rationale for using non-standard wells on this highly influential scienti?c assessment stems from an EPA schedule issue related its 2014 report. CHK has worked with the EPA to identify a second site with what we believe to have favorable groundwater velocity. Based on characterization of the aquifers, the use of horizontal monitoring wells may not be necessary to achieve study goals. 04/05/2012 Detailed comments: Re: Technical Memorandum - Installation of groundwater monitoring wells in support of_EPA?s hvdraulic fracturing studv. (Februarv 24, 2012). Introduction: limited the scope of the study to underground sources of drinking water (USDW), which has a speci?c de?nition under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) 10,000 mg/L TDS). The State of OK has defined the base of treatable water TDS of 10,000 mg/L) in this area at occurring between approximately 100 to 150 ft below ground level however, the have proposed monitoring wells at depths up to 300 ft. The Final Study Plan does not limit the boundaries of the study to USDW. 0 EPA should develop clear boundaries for the study. It is recommended EPA use and clearly state that USDW are the boundaries of the study, and not install monitoring wells into zones that have naturally occurring brine or salt water present (TDS >10,000 0 During the March 23, 2012 meeting, EPA stated it used 300 ft. because CHK previously stated this value as the depth of groundwater in this area. CHK believes it is important that EPA independently validate information (or secondary data) provided by CHK or others in accordance with EPA project specific data quality objectives, QMP, and QAPPs. The 300 ft. value was stated early in the site selection process as an approximation for the depth of USDW in the Mississippi Lime Play, but the Oklahoma Corporation has developed accurate depth to treatable water maps for this speci?c site, and those maps should be evaluated and used appropriately acknowledges that the proposed alternatives are non-standard groundwater monitoring wells. 0 CHK recommends the use of standard vertical groundwater monitoring wells on this study in order to reduce the risk to the study associated with the application of non-standard monitoring wells. states that this is a natural gas well pad. This statement is made throughout the memo. This well is not considered a natural gas well. The Mississippi Lime is an oil play. Background: has assumed a 400 ft. by 400 ft. pad, and the ability to install the well approximately 75 ft. from the production well. 0 More accurate well pad dimensions will be provided to the EPA at a later date. There are a number of variables that dictate the size of the pad drill rig, number of wells, etc.). Conservative dimensions for the pad are 350 ft. by 400 ft. 04/05/2012 0 Note that orientation of the pad will not be necessary if EPA plans to use horizontal monitoring wells. The adjustment will impact operations, and was offered to facilitate the installation of conventional monitoring wells off the pad location. 0 states that piezometers will be used to determine actual subsurface conditions, including groundwater flow direction, depth to water and depth to bedrock. The limitations of the geo-probe scope of work should be disclosed in terms of the information that will be able to be collected. For example, the piezometer will not be able to determine conditions groundwater velocity) for the proposed deep monitoring well in the bedrock formation. It has now been agreed that conventionally drilled monitoring wells will be used in lieu of geo-probe installed wells. 0 referenced a 300 ft. exploratory boring (off-pad) to determine the presence or absence of water bearing zones in bedrock. 0 ?Water bearing zones? need to be clearly defined USDW). The quality and quantity of water is of interest. 0 EPA should set limits, in terms of monitoring drilling capabilities accuracy of location), for target water bearing zones. 0 The depths of proposed down gradient monitoring wells are stated as 20 ft. (top of the water table), 50 ft. (base of the unconsolidated aquifer), and 300 ft. (within the underlying shale formation). 0 It is understood that made assumptions based on previous conversations, however, CHK would like the methods for determining the depths of the monitoring wells to be clearly stated and the use of best available information to be assured. For example, the top of the water table changes based on seasonal variations and water use, and the underlying bedrock formation varies greatly with depth, and the water quality varies with depth, typically becoming poorer with depth. Monitoring Well Installation: 0 has stated an approximate sample point, for each of the down gradient wells, 15 ft. horizontally from the production wellbore. 0 There are numerous potential sources of contamination, both associated with and not associated with oil development operations. CHK does not believe EPA has incorporated systematic planning into the study design to ensure the study objective can be met and the appropriate data will be collected. For example, it is not clearly identi?ed how EPA would differentiate the potential sources of contamination. 0 Data quality objectives for modeling and use of data need to be identified. 0 Certainty of monitoring well locations will effect modeling and data use. 0 Certainty of production well location will effect modeling and data use. 04/05/2012 0 There would be a likely physical impact to monitoring wells due to proximity to production wellbore during well construction, which would compromise the study. Option 1: Vertical Wells with Off-Pad Access 0 CHK understands this option is no longer being considered. Option 2: Horizontal Direction Drilled (HDD) Monitoring Wells and Angle Drilled Wells 0 Active wireline guidance will be used to monitor the bit locations. 0 EPA should state the tolerances and accuracies of bore path required to meet its data quality objectives and intended use of data modeling). Robert Keyes stated that the technology could be navigated within a 3 ft. horizontal and vertical tolerance. However, the tolerances associated with the monitoring well drilling technology are not inclusive of all variables that could affect the total spatial accuracy. 0 Minimal starting distances of 100 ft. for the 20 ft. well and 250 ft. for the 50 ft. well. 0 The minimal starting distances will complicate the land owner access agreements and assessments. The goal of the 20 ft. well is to intersect the top of the water table. 0 The use of horizontal wells only allows for the sampling of a small vertical interval. There is a very likely risk that the water level will change causing the water table to drop below the shallow well. A vertical well is more appropriate well type for monitoring the top of the water. In this geological setting it is not uncommon to see year1y water level ?uctuations on the order of 5 to 10 feet occur. 0 Development of the wells: 0 Details regarding the development of the well should be provided, included parameter stabilization requirements. 0 The wells are stated to be abandoned after study/sampling activities are completed in accordance with state regulations. 0 It should be stated exactly how the wells will be abandoned. EPA should work with the state to understand its expectations. Without a clear understanding of what is required for proper abandonment, there is no assurance these requirement would not impede CHK operations at a future date. 04/05/2012 Groundwater monitoring, purging and sampling procedures 0 states development of wells at least 48 hours before sampling. 0 CHK requests that the time between development of well and sampling be no less than 5 days. 0 The use of pressure transducers. The EPA will need to specify calibration requirements. 0 The pressure transducers in option one will not be accessible. How will the risk of equipment failure be mitigated. In addition, the use of offset monitoring wells to monitor water levels would not allow the use of the provided low-flow sampling procedure. Pervious use of HDD Techniques for Groundwater Monitoring 0 has listed previous use of HDD monitoring wells. 0 CHK acknowledges HDD monitoring wells have been used on previous projects as a last alternative to monitoring groundwater quality. Note one of the examples provided choose to use HDD if the application of standard wells was possible. 0 Limited detail information could be found publically available for the examples provided, however, the information found stressed the limitation of HDD technology and completely understanding the application of HDD technology prior to use. 04/05/2012 Re: Technical Memorandum Revised groundwater monitoring wells in Simon of hvdraulic fracturing studv. (March 26, 2012) Introduction 0 based the depth of the USDW on statements made by CHK in the meeting. 0 CHK recommends EPA and its contractors independently verify information CHK provides when possible. This recommendation is related to the public perception issues associated with the study. In addition, CHK believes it is important that both EPA and its contractors are familiar with the wealth of information the state provides to the public. 0 has stated, for the purposes of discussion, assumed groundwater screen intervals. 0 CHK would prefer that the logic used to determine the groundwater screen intervals are described, as well as, how this information will be collected and the quality of this information will be assured. This preference is aligned with Quality policies, procedures, and guidelines. 0 states that three permanent monitoring wells will be installed to characterize the site. 0 The monitoring wells may be temporary, and additional monitoring wells would be installed to increase the accuracy of the site characterization. stated that CHK will drill, log and complete a deep monitoring well. 0 The parties have not determined that CHK will drill the well. 0 has stated that the need for the installation of horizontal monitoring wells will be made based on the results from groundwater monitoring. 0 CHK believes that the appropriate information will be collected to ascertain the groundwater velocity in the alluvial aquifer. states that the application of horizontal wells will be based on the need and subject to CHK approval. 0 CHK con?rms that the application of horizontal wells is subject to our approval. 0 states that the distance from the production well to the horizontal wells will be based on groundwater flow data during the initial monitoring period. 0 There are other variables to be considered besides groundwater velocity. In addition, determining the groundwater flow in the bedrock formation may be problematic. The distance a potential contaminant from the wellbore is not limited solely by groundwater velocity. ?The accelerated arrival of contaminants at a discharge point can be a characteristic feature of dispersion that is due to 04/05/2012 the fact that some parts of the contaminant plume move faster than the average groundwater velocity? according the a report found on the National Academies Press website The following comments and concerns from the original February 24, 2012 Technical Memorandum remain outstanding: 0 There is not the necessity for CHK to orientate the pad to accommodate a minimum distance of 75 ft., if EPA plans to use one of the alternative well designs. The adjustment will impact CH K?s operations, and was offered to facilitate the installation of conventional monitoring wells off the pad location. The limitations of the site characterization scope of work should be disclosed in terms of the information that will be able to be collected. For example, the piezometer well will not be able to determine conditions groundwater velocity) for the proposed deep monitoring well in the bedrock formation. ?Water bearing zones? need to be clearly defined USDW). The quality and quantity of water is of interest. EPA should set limits, in terms of monitoring drilling capabilities accuracy of location), for target water bearing zones. We recommend EPA identify the process it will use to differentiate between potential causes (including naturally occurring) should sampling results indicate a signi?cant change in water quality that is otherwise unexplainable. We recommend data quality objectives for modeling and use of data be iden??ed. Certainty of monitoring well location will effect modeling and data use. Certainty of production well location will effect modeling and data use. We recommend EPA state the tolerances and accuracies of bore path required to meet its data quality objectives and intended use of data modeling). Robert Keyes stated that the technology could be navigated within a 3 ft. horizontal and vertical tolerance. However, the tolerances associated with the monitoring well drilling technology are not inclusive of all variables that could affect the total spatial accuracy. The minimal starting distances will complicate the land owner access agreements and assessments. The use of horizontal wells only allows for the sampling of a small vertical interval. There is a very likely risk that the water level will change causing the water table to drop below the shallow well. A vertical well, screened at intervals is more appropriate well type for monitoring the top of the water. Details regarding the development of the well should be provided, included parameter stabilization requirements. It should be stated exactly how the wells are to be abandoned. EPA should work with the state to understand its expectations. Without a clear understanding of what is required for proper abandonment, there is no 04/05/2012 assurance these requirement would not impede CHK operations at a future date. Kent Wilkin and Robert Keyes had similar concerns with the lack of clarity regarding abandoning procedures. 0 CHK requests that the time between development of well and sampling be no less than 5 days. 0 The EPA will need to specify calibration requirements for transducers. 04/05/2012 Page 1 of 3 Re: Insurance information John Satterfield to: Ramona Trovato 07/18/2012 09:55 AM Hide Details From: John Satterfield To: Ramona Trovato/DC/USEPA/US@EPA History: This message has been forwarded. Paul is looking to schedule a meeting week of 30 JUL with Bob to discuss our ATGAS report and our report on the retrospective split sampling in Bradford county, pa. If we get this scheduled, let me know what level of convo you'd like to have. I can cover the technical issues to a certain point, but if you really want to talk about the hydrogeology and statistical correlation of differing parameters, will need to bring a couple of other folks. Alternately, can have higher level discussions including bob and Paul after we have a technical convo.... Let me know.... John A Satterfield Director Environmental & Regulatory Affairs Chesapeake Energy Corporation Sent from my iPad On Jul 17, 2012, at 8:09 AM, "Ramona Trovato" wrote: Thanks John. I'll move this along. From: John Satterfield [john.satterfield@chk.com] Sent: 07/17/2012 12:56 PM GMT file://C:\Documents and Settings\jzambran\Local Settings\Temp\notesFCBCEE\~web7398... 6/22/2013 Page 2 of 3 To: Ramona Trovato Subject: FW: Insurance information Ramona – below is our Risk Management Department’s review of E&E’s insurance information.    Hopefully will be easy adjustment on E&E’s part.   Please let me know if you have questions or concerns.       From: Chris Hill (Regulatory) Sent: Monday, July 16, 2012 10:58 PM To: 'Michael Overbay' Cc: 'David Jewett'; 'Doug Beak'; 'Susan Mravik'; John Satterfield Subject: RE: Insurance information Mike,   Please see CHK’s comments regarding EPA’s proposed agreement attached. The embedded  revisions address all concerns regarding the subcontractor issue. Once EPA has accepted all  changes to the agreement, signed the document and provided CHK a new E&E certificate of  insurance aligned with the agreement, CHK will consider the contractor liability issues adequately  addressed to proceed with field activities. I would be more than happy to setup a conference call in  the near future, if there are any issues with the revised agreement that we need to work through.    I have attached a copy of the CHK/Landowner access agreement for your information.    Please let me know if you have any questions or comments, or if there is anything else we can do  to help. We look forward to proceeding with the Mississippi Lime prospective study.    Thank you, Chris Hill Environmental Engineer Chesapeake Energy Corporation Office: (405) 935-2321 Mobile: (405) 388-3907 Fax: (405) 849-2321 E-mail: Chris.Hill@chk.com     From: John Satterfield Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2012 3:37 PM To: 'Michael Overbay' Cc: Chris Hill (Regulatory); 'Jeanne Briskin'; 'Ramona Trovato'; 'Bob Sussman'; 'Stephen Hess'; 'Lek Kadeli'; 'Steve Pressman'; 'David Jewett'; 'Doug Beak'; 'Susan Mravik' Subject: RE: Insurance information Thanks!  Will run to ground and get back with you as soon as I can.   From: Michael Overbay [mailto:Overbay.Michael@epamail.epa.gov] Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2012 3:35 PM To: John Satterfield Cc: Chris Hill (Regulatory); Jeanne Briskin; Ramona Trovato; Bob Sussman; Stephen Hess; Lek file://C:\Documents and Settings\jzambran\Local Settings\Temp\notesFCBCEE\~web7398... 6/22/2013 Page 3 of 3 Kadeli; Steve Pressman; David Jewett; Doug Beak; Susan Mravik Subject: Insurance information Hello John, I am happy to finally be able to provide you information about the insurance requirements contained in the EPA contract with our prime contractor for this project, Ecology and Environment (E&E). Attached is a certificate of insurance showing E&E's existing policies, with coverage up to $15 million. The policies will be carried forward under our existing contract with E&E. If the coverage is sufficient, Chesapeake will be added as an additional insured for the liability coverage. Per Stephanie's E-mail message June 27th, it appears you will not need insurance information about the drilling subcontractor in order to move forward. I am hoping the above information will be adequate to allow Chesapeake to resolve their concerns about liabilities issues. Once you have had a chance to share this information and discuss it internally, I would appreciate receiving an E-mail with your confirmation that the liability/indemnification issue is resolved. Also, we would like to receive a copy of the access agreement with the landowner to confirm that we have access to conduct our EPA activities through your agreement. As you know, we would like to make sure all the paperwork is agreed to so that we can move ahead with this project. Please feel free for either you or Chris Hill to call me if you have any questions. Best regards, Mike Michael Overbay, P.G. Regional Ground Water Center Coordinator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 6 (214)665-6482 (214)665-2191 (FAX) This email (and attachments if any) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is confidential or privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this email is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent respons ble for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return email and destroy all copies of the email (and attachments if any). This email (and attachments if any) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is confidential or privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this email is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent respons ble for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distr bution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return email and destroy all copies of the email (and attachments if any). file://C:\Documents and Settings\jzambran\Local Settings\Temp\notesFCBCEE\~web7398... 6/22/2013 April 25, 2012 Mr. Chris Hill Environmental Engineer Chesapeake Energy Corporation P.O. Box 18496 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73154-0496 Re: Proposal/Cost Estimate Limited Hydrogeological Investigation Hydraulic Fracturing Prospective Case Study NE/4 Section 15, Township 28 North, Range 11 West Alfalfa County, Oklahoma Dear Mr. Hill: SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC (SAIC), is pleased to present Chesapeake Energy Corporation (Chesapeake) the following Proposal/Cost Estimate to conduct a Limited Hydrogeological Investigation (Investigation) to support the Hydraulic Fracturing Prospective Case Study proposed in the NE/4 of Section 15, Township 28 North, Range 11 West, Alfalfa County, Oklahoma (Site). The Investigation is being conducted to evaluate the Site soil and groundwater background conditions prior to construction of a pad site for gas well drilling/development. Groundwater contained within the Quaternary-age terrace deposits underlie the well pad area, and have been identified as a major alluvial aquifer that is used for agricultural, municipal and domestic purposes. The bedrock (Permian-age) groundwater that underlies the terrace deposits in the area will also be evaluated. The bedrock formations in this area contain naturally-occurring poor water quality of low yield and therefore, groundwater is not typically used from bedrock formations in this area. However, this investigation will evaluate that portion of the bedrock groundwater system that is above the base of treatable groundwater (i.e., groundwater with a TDS of 10,000 mg/L or less). The base of treatable groundwater in the well pad area has initially been determined to be 100 to150 feet below ground level (bgl) by the Oklahoma Corporation Commission (OCC). The base of treatable groundwater will occur within the Hennessey Group bedrock units. The main objectives of this Investigation will be to: 1) determine the groundwater flow direction and collect hydraulic parameters to estimate groundwater velocity; 2) determine the subsurface geology and groundwater occurrence beneath the Site; 3) collect initial soil samples for limited analytical testing; 4) collect 1 round of groundwater samples for comprehensive analytical testing; and 5) define the variation of groundwater quality with depth within the terrace and bedrock groundwater systems. Surficial geology at the Site consists of Quaternary-age terrace deposits related to the Salt Fork of the Arkansas River. These deposits consist of light-tan to gray gravel, sand, silt, clay, and volcanic ash, with sand dunes common in places. A review of water well data from wells located within approximately 2 miles of the Site indicates that the terrace deposits at the Site likely range from 20 to 50 feet in thickness and average approximately 35 feet in thickness. Groundwater in the terrace deposits in this area are reported to range from approximately 3 feet bgl to 28 feet bgl, and average approximately 15 feet bgl. Underlying the terrace deposits is Permian-age consolidated bedrock of the Hennessey Group, which includes the Bison Formation, Salt Plains Formation, Kingman Formation, and Fairmont Shale. These units consist of fine-grained sandstone, siltstone, and shale. The Bison Formation is approximately 120 feet thick, the Salt Plans Formation is approximately 160 O:\Enviro\TUL\PROPOSAL\2012\2602299041-_CHK_AlfalfaCo\Ltd Hydr Invest Prop 4-25-2012.docx SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC One West Third Street, Suite 100 Tulsa, OK 74103 tel: 918.492.1600 fax: 918.496.0132 saic.com/EEandI Mr. Chris Hill Chesapeake Energy Corporation April 25, 2012 Page 2 of 7 feet thick, the Kingman Formation is approximately 70 feet thick, and the Fairmont Shale is approximately 160 feet thick, with a collective thickness of approximately 510 feet. Groundwater in the consolidated bedrock occurs principally within fractures and joints and is typically of very poor quality, becoming more mineralized with depth. During implementation of the Investigation, SAIC anticipates implementing the following activities on behalf of Chesapeake: Task 1 - Project Management The Investigation activities will be managed out of SAIC’s Tulsa, Oklahoma office by Mr. Bruce McKenzie. SAIC’s on-site hydrogeologist will be Mr. Matt Mugavero, and SAIC technicians will include either Mr. Stan Marshall or Mr. Terry Fisher as schedules allow. QA/QC of the laboratory analytical data will be managed by Ms. Kristin Drucquer. SAIC will prepare a Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan (HSP) that will address all field activities proposed herein. Task 2 - Monitoring Well Installation and Development A total of 6 groundwater monitoring wells, 5 shallow (~50 feet) and 1 deep (~150 feet), will be installed to establish and monitor the groundwater quality at or in close proximity to the proposed well pad site. These monitoring wells will be drilled and installed by a licensed well driller (Associated Environmental Industries, Inc., Norman, Oklahoma) in accordance with Oklahoma state regulations. The shallow groundwater monitoring wells will be installed utilizing a truck-mounted hollow-stem auger drilling rig and CME continuous split-barrel sample system from surface to total depth. Borings will be advanced to the top of the underlying consolidated bedrock. During drilling, lithological descriptions will be made using the Unified Soil Classification System. Field activities will be recorded in a dedicated field logbook, and all hydrogeological information noted documented on permanent soil boring records. In each borehole, soil samples will be collected from the following depth intervals: 0-0.5 feet bgl, 1-2 feet bgl and 2-3 feet bgl. Upon collection, the soil samples will be placed into laboratory prepared containers, labeled as to source and contents, placed on wet-ice for preservation, and placed under chain-of-custody control for transport to the analytical laboratory (TestAmerica, Inc., Nashville, TN) for volatile organic compound (VOC) (SW 8260B), semi-volatile organic compound (SVOC) (SW 8270C), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) (SW 8270C-SIM) and total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) (TX 1005) analyses. In addition to soil samples for laboratory analysis, an aliquot of each soil sample will be submitted to a soils laboratory (Inter-Mountain Laboratories, Inc., Sheridan, Wyoming) for comprehensive salinity analysis by Saturated Paste Extraction (Cations: sodium, calcium, magnesium, potassium; Anions: nitrate-n, chloride, sulfate, boron, bicarbonate, carbonate; General Chemistry: pH, conductivity, texture; Derived Values: total soluble salts, sodium adsorption ratio, potassium adsorption ratio, exchangeable sodium percentage, exchangeable potassium percentage). The shallow monitoring wells will be constructed using 2-inch diameter, screw-coupled, Schedule 40 PVC 0.010-inch slot screens and Schedule 40 PVC casing. In general, approximately 30 to 40 feet of screen will be installed in each monitor well such that the top of the screen is situated above (approximately 5 feet) the groundwater saturation level observed at the time of well installation. Once the screen/casing strings are positioned within the open boreholes, a clean silica sand pack will be placed in the annular space between the screen/casing and the open borehole. In each monitor well, the sand pack will extend from total depth to approximately two feet above the top slot of the screen. A 2-foot minimum sodium bentonite pellet seal will be placed immediately above the O:\Enviro\TUL\PROPOSAL\2012\2602299041-_CHK_AlfalfaCo\Ltd Hydr Invest Prop 4-25-2012.docx Mr. Chris Hill Chesapeake Energy Corporation April 25, 2012 Page 3 of 7 sand packs. Following hydration of the bentonite seal, the remaining annular space will be filled with a cement/bentonite grout using pressure-grouting techniques to approximately one foot bgl. A vented cap will be placed on top of the well casing, and a locking steel protective outer casing will be centered upon each well casing. The protective outer casing will be set in a 3-inch thick by 36-inch diameter concrete pad. During well completion, the well identification nomenclature will be placed on or in the well protector. When the well pads have cured, a weep hole will be drilled in each protective outer casing just above the concrete pad so that moisture will not accumulated within the protective outer casing. Well completion details will be recorded on permanent well completion records. The deep monitoring well will be installed by drilling through the terrace deposits and 5 feet into the underlying bedrock utilizing a truck-mounted hollow-stem auger drilling rig and CME continuous splitbarrel sample system. A 10-inch diameter surface casing will then be set and grouted in-place to isolate the groundwater within the terrace deposits from the groundwater within the underlying bedrock. Once the surface casing grout has cured, air-rotary drilling equipment will be utilized to drill into the underlying bed rock. During bedrock drilling operations, an attempt will be made to collect water quality measurements (i.e., specific conductivity, temperature and pH) from the borehole as these data may be useful in determining the base of treatable water. Upon reaching total depth, geophysical and water quality logging will be conducted in the deep borehole. The geophysical and water quality logging will be conducted by Century Geophysical Corporation and Earth Data Northeast, Inc., respectively, and will include the following: • • • • • • • • • • • • • Caliper, Natural Gamma, Normal Resistivity, Single Point Resistance, Fluid Resistivity and Temperature, Spontaneous Potential (SP), Induction Conductivity, Magnetic Susceptibility, Full Wave Form Sonic, Acoustic Borehole Imager with Vertical Deviation and Azimuth, Neutron Density, Gamma-Gamma Density, and Water Quality Logging (pressure, temperature, conductivity, dissolved oxygen, pH and Eh). The deep monitoring well will be constructed using 4-inch diameter, screw-coupled, Schedule 40 PVC 0.010-inch slot screens and Schedule 40 PVC casing. Approximately 80 to 100 feet of screen will be installed so that the top of the screened interval will terminate at, or just above, the top of the groundwater zone to be monitored. Once the screen/casing assembly is positioned within the borehole, the annular space between the wellbore and the screen/casing will be filled with clean, silica sand to a level approximately two feet above the top slot of the screened interval. Four feet of bentonite will then be placed in the annular space above the silica sand/filter pack and hydrated. Following hydration of the bentonite seal, the remaining annular space will be filled with a cement/bentonite grout using pressure-grouting techniques to approximately one foot bgl. A vented cap will be placed on top of the well casing, and a locking steel protective outer casing will be centered upon the well casing. The protective outer casing will be set in a 3-inch thick by 36-inch diameter concrete pad. During well completion, the well identification nomenclature will be placed on or in the well protector. When the well pad has cured, a weep hole will be drilled in the protective O:\Enviro\TUL\PROPOSAL\2012\2602299041-_CHK_AlfalfaCo\Ltd Hydr Invest Prop 4-25-2012.docx Mr. Chris Hill Chesapeake Energy Corporation April 25, 2012 Page 4 of 7 outer casing just above the concrete pad so that moisture will not accumulated within the protective outer casing. Well completion details will be recorded on a permanent well completion record. During drilling operations, soil and rock cuttings will be containerized and labeled properly. These cuttings will be stored on-site until proper disposal can be arranged. Drilling equipment will be decontaminated between each monitoring well location. During well drilling/completion activities, samples of the silica sand, bentonite (pellets and powder), cement and any drill-fluid additives will be collected and archived for future analysis if needed. Following well completion activities, each monitoring well will be left undisturbed for a minimum of 48 hours to allow the cement/bentonite grout to cure. After this 48-hour period, each of the newly installed monitoring wells will be developed to remove the fine particles that have accumulated in the well casing and annulus. The monitoring wells will be developed utilizing bailers, submersible pumps, surge-blocks or other suitable devices to ensure that the wells are free of suspended sediment and provide representative water samples. Development will be conducted until a minimum of three casing volumes are removed, the water quality parameters of the discharging groundwater are stable (within 10% variance) and the turbidity of the discharging groundwater is 20 NTU or less. All well development water will be containerized, properly labeled and stored on-site until proper disposal can be arranged. Upon completion of well installation/completion activities, each monitoring well will be surveyed for horizontal and vertical control by an Oklahoma-licensed land surveyor (Jividens Land Survey Company, Woodward, Oklahoma). The coordinate location (within 1 foot), top of case elevation (TOC) (within 0.01 foot) and ground elevation (within 0.01 foot) for each monitoring well will be determined. In addition, to surveying, the location of each monitoring well will be recorded with a sub-meter GIS-compatible GPS. Task 3 - Groundwater Monitoring Upon completion of well development activities, the monitoring wells will be left undisturbed for a period of one week. Following this period, two rounds of concurrent depth to groundwater (DTW) measurements will be taken within each of the monitoring wells at the Site. The first DTW event will be conducted immediately prior to conducting groundwater purging/sampling activities, and the second DTW event will be conducted one week following the groundwater sampling event. The water levels will be measured from the surveyed TOC of each monitoring well utilizing a decontaminated electronic water level indicator and will be recorded in a dedicated field logbook. Data from the water level measurements, in conjunction with the TOC elevation data, will be utilized to construct groundwater potentiometric surface maps of the groundwater system being monitored. Upon completion of well development activities and prior to conducting groundwater purging/sampling activities, vertical water quality logging will be conducted within each monitoring well. During these activities, the specific conductivity, temperature, dissolved oxygen (DO), pH and oxidation/reduction potential (Eh) of the groundwater will be measured on 1-foot increments from the top of the water column to the base of the monitoring well. These measurements will be recorded in a dedicated field logbook. Reference data for the area indicate that the groundwater within the shallow terrace deposits likely exhibits density and/or chemical stratification. These data also suggest that the deep bedrock groundwater is also likely stratified. Therefore, it is anticipated that two groundwater samples will be collected from each of the monitoring wells completed at the Site. The groundwater sampling zones will be selected based upon the results of the vertical water quality logging conducted within each monitoring well. O:\Enviro\TUL\PROPOSAL\2012\2602299041-_CHK_AlfalfaCo\Ltd Hydr Invest Prop 4-25-2012.docx Mr. Chris Hill Chesapeake Energy Corporation April 25, 2012 Page 5 of 7 Prior to conducting groundwater sampling within each selected zone, the zone will be low-flow purged utilizing a decontaminated bladder-pump with a dedicated bladder. Field measurements of pH, Eh, dissolved oxygen, specific conductance, temperature and turbidity will be collected and documented in a dedicated field logbook during well purging and immediately prior to sample collection. When three consecutive readings of the field parameters taken do not differ by more than 10%, and the turbidity of the discharging groundwater is 20 NTU or less, groundwater samples will be collected. If turbidity values of <20 NTU cannot be achieved, then dissolved analyses of metals, cations and radionuclides will be conducted. Upon collection, the groundwater samples will be placed directly into laboratory prepared sample containers, labeled as to source and contents, placed on wet-ice for preservation, and placed under chain-of-custody control for transport to the analytical laboratory (TestAmerica, Inc., Nashville, Tennessee) for analytical suite developed by Chesapeake for this investigation. This analytical suite is provided in attached Table 1. All purge water and water not consumed during the sampling process will be containerized, properly labeled and stored on-site until proper disposal can be arranged. Task 4 - Hydraulic Conductivity Testing To further characterize the shallow unconfined groundwater system present beneath the Site, singlewell displacement tests (slug) tests will be conducted in the 5 proposed shallow groundwater monitoring wells. During these slug tests, the groundwater within the well will be artificially lowered by rapidly removing groundwater from the well utilizing dedicated bailers. The return of the lowered groundwater level to an equilibrium level will be recorded utilizing a pressure transducer positioned at the bottom of the monitoring well attached to a data logger at the surface. To further characterize the bedrock groundwater system, a 12-hour constant rate pump test followed by a 12-hour recovery monitored period will be conducted in the proposed deep monitoring well. A 1-hour pumping pre-test will be conducted on the well to determine pumping rate for the 24-hour test and will be conducted at least 1 day prior to the 24-hour test. The deep well will be outfitted with a pressure transducer positioned at the bottom of the monitoring well (placed in the well approximately 2 days prior to initiating pre-test activities) attached to a data logger at the surface to monitor drawdown. A pressure transducer will also be installed in the shallow monitoring well located adjacent to the deep monitoring well to measure any potential change/effect that pumping of the bedrock groundwater system may have upon the shallow groundwater system. Discharge measurements will be taken and the pH, specific conductivity and temperature of the discharging groundwater measured hourly throughout the pump test. A totalizing flow meter will be installed in the discharge line to monitor flow throughout the test. Data from the pump and slug tests will be interpreted and values for hydraulic conductivity and transmissivity calculated, which will be used to estimate groundwater flow velocities. Task 5 - Report Preparation Upon completion of the field activities and receipt of the laboratory analytical data, SAIC will prepare a brief report detailing the results of the investigation. This report will describe the field operations and sampling activities conducted and will include the following: • • • • • • • A brief discussion of the Site geology, A discussion of all field activities performed, A summary of results of the well installation activities, A discussion of the results of the deep geophysical logs, Tables summarizing the laboratory analytical data, A Site location and topographic features map, A Site map showing the actual locations of the newly installed monitoring wells, O:\Enviro\TUL\PROPOSAL\2012\2602299041-_CHK_AlfalfaCo\Ltd Hydr Invest Prop 4-25-2012.docx Mr. Chris Hill Chesapeake Energy Corporation • • • • • • • • • April 25, 2012 Page 6 of 7 A depth to water map, Two groundwater potentiometric surface maps for the shallow groundwater system, Two cross sections (N-S and E-W), An evaluation of velocity of the shallow groundwater system beneath the Site, Soil boring and monitoring well construction records, Copies of the deep geophysical logs, Copies of field notes, Site photographs, and Laboratory analytical reports and chain-of-custody documentation. A Cost Estimate to implement the scope of work is attached. SAIC’s charges will be billed on a timeand-materials basis in accordance with the current Chesapeake/SAIC contract agreement. SAIC appreciates this opportunity to be of service to Chesapeake. If you have any questions concerning the proposed scope of work or the estimated costs, please do not hesitate to contact me at (918) 599-4383. Sincerely, SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC Bruce E. McKenzie, P.G. Project Manager Attachments: Table 1 - Retrospective Case Study Analytical Suite Figure 1 - Site Location and Topographic Features Figure 2 - Proposed Gas Well Pad Site and Monitoring Well Locations Cost Estimate Assumptions and Limitations In preparing the proposed Scope of Work (SOW) and Cost Estimate, SAIC has relied upon verbal and/or written information provided by Chesapeake Energy Corporation (Chesapeake) and/or secondary sources. SAIC has not been tasked to make an independent investigation concerning the accuracy or completeness of the information relied upon. To the extent that SAIC has based its proposed SOW and Cost Estimate on such information, the proposed SOW and Cost Estimate are contingent on the validity of the information provided. Chesapeake acknowledges that SAIC has not contributed to the presence of hazardous substances, hazardous wastes, petroleum products, asbestos, chemicals, pollutants, contaminants, or any other hazardous or toxic materials (hereinafter Hazardous Materials) that may exist or be discovered in the future at the site at which SAIC’s services shall be provided and that SAIC does not assume any liability for the known or unknown presence of Hazardous Materials. SAIC’s investigation will be restricted to collection and analyses of a limited number of environmental samples and visual observations obtained during the physical site visit, and from records made available by Chesapeake or third parties during the investigation. Because the investigation will consist of collecting and evaluating a limited supply of information, SAIC may not identify all potential items of concern. Therefore, SAIC warrants only that the project activities under this SOW and contract have been performed within the parameters and scope communicated by Chesapeake and reflected in the SOW and contract. O:\Enviro\TUL\PROPOSAL\2012\2602299041-_CHK_AlfalfaCo\Ltd Hydr Invest Prop 4-25-2012.docx Mr. Chris Hill Chesapeake Energy Corporation April 25, 2012 Page 7 of 7 The proposed report will be prepared for the sole and intended use of Chesapeake. Any person or entity obtaining, using, or relying on this report hereby acknowledges that they do so at their own risk, and that SAIC shall have no responsibility or liability for the consequences thereof. This report is intended to be used in its entirety and taking or using in any way excerpts from the proposed report are not permitted and any party doing so does so at its own risk. In preparing this proposed report, SAIC will have relied on verbal and written information provided by secondary sources and interviews, including information provided by Chesapeake. Opinions and recommendations that may be presented in this report apply only to site conditions and features as they existed at the time of SAIC’s site visit. The opinions and recommendations presented in this report cannot be applied to conditions and features of which SAIC is unaware and has not had the opportunity to evaluate. O:\Enviro\TUL\PROPOSAL\2012\2602299041-_CHK_AlfalfaCo\Ltd Hydr Invest Prop 4-25-2012.docx Client#: 812 ACORD ECOLENV DATE (MM/DD/YYYY) CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE TM 9/20/2011 THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S), AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER, AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. IMPORTANT: If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(ies) must be endorsed. If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s). CONTACT NAME: PHONE (A/C, No, Ext): E-MAIL ADDRESS: PRODUCER Willis of New York, Inc. 344 Delaware Avenue Buffalo, NY 14202 716 856-1100 FAX (A/C, No): 716 856-1100 716-803-6762 INSURER(S) AFFORDING COVERAGE NAIC # Commerce & Industry Ins. Co. INSURER B : National Union Fire Ins. Co. INSURER C : New Hampshire Ins. Co. INSURER D : Chartis Specialty Insurance Com 19410 19445 23841 19402 INSURER A : INSURED Ecology & Environment, Inc. 368 Pleasant View Drive Lancaster, NY 14086 INSURER E : INSURER F : COVERAGES CERTIFICATE NUMBER: REVISION NUMBER: THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. INSR LTR A GENERAL LIABILITY X POLICY NUMBER 4691781 POLICY EFF POLICY EXP (MM/DD/YYYY) (MM/DD/YYYY) 08/01/2011 08/01/2012 COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY CLAIMS-MADE A A ADDL SUBR INSR WVD TYPE OF INSURANCE X OCCUR LIMITS EACH OCCURRENCE DAMAGE TO RENTED PREMISES (Ea occurrence) $ 3,000,000 MED EXP (Any one person) $ 50,000 PERSONAL & ADV INJURY $ 3,000,000 $ 500,000 GENERAL AGGREGATE $ 3,000,000 GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER: X PROX LOC POLICY JECT PRODUCTS - COMP/OP AGG $ 3,000,000 AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT (Ea accident) $ 2,000,000 BODILY INJURY (Per person) $ X X ANY AUTO ALL OWNED AUTOS HIRED AUTOS X $ 4691782 4691783 08/01/2011 08/01/2012 08/01/2011 08/01/2012 SCHEDULED AUTOS NON-OWNED AUTOS BODILY INJURY (Per accident) $ PROPERTY DAMAGE (Per accident) $ $ B X UMBRELLA LIAB EXCESS LIAB C C X BE23542942 OCCUR 08/01/2011 08/01/2012 CLAIMS-MADE X RETENTION $10000 DED WORKERS COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY Y/N ANY PROPRIETOR/PARTNER/EXECUTIVE OFFICER/MEMBER EXCLUDED? N N/A (Mandatory in NH) If yes, describe under DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS below D Professional & Pollution Liability EACH OCCURRENCE $ 15,000,000 AGGREGATE $ 15,000,000 $ WC25889575 WC25889576 STATU08/01/2011 08/01/2012 X WC TORY LIMITS 08/01/2011 08/01/2012 E.L. EACH ACCIDENT OTHER $ 1,000,000 E.L. DISEASE - EA EMPLOYEE $ 1,000,000 COPS28426118 E.L. DISEASE - POLICY LIMIT $ 1,000,000 08/01/2011 08/01/2012 $11,000,000 Each Claim $11,000,000 Aggregate DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS / LOCATIONS / VEHICLES (Attach ACORD 101, Additional Remarks Schedule, if more space is required) CERTIFICATE HOLDER CANCELLATION SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS. Specimen AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE © 1988-2010 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved. ACORD 25 (2010/05) #S62183/M60260 1 of 1 The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD PJQ SURFACE DAMAGE AGREEMENT AND RELEASE KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: WHEREAS, Greg Baker, Power of Attorney (POA) for Barbara Ann Bouziden ("Surface Owner") is the Owner of the Northeast Quarter of Section 15, Township 28 North, Range 11 West, Alfalfa County, Oklahoma. For and in Consideration of the total sum of Fifteen Thousand Dollars to be paid to Surface Owner by CHESAPEAKE OPERATING, INC. ("Operator"), prior to Operator entering said property, Surface Owner hereby releases Operator from all ordinary necessary damages sustained in connection with the drilling, completing, and equipping of the Baker 15-28-11 1H, (Well) to be located approximately 250 feet from the North line and 660 feet from the East line on the above property according to the attached plat, together with the drilling and installation of monitor water wells provided for in Paragraph 10 below. As additional consideration for the covenants contained herein, Operator expressly agrees to the following as binding terms of this agreement: 1. If the Well is completed as a commercial producer, Operator shall maintain the Well site and road for ingress and egress in a prudent and reasonable manner, including keeping same from erosion and keeping free of noxious weeds. Roadway location shall be agreed to by Lessor. 2. If the Well is not completed as a commercial producer or upon abandonment of the Well, Operator shall, within 90 days, remove all of its equipment and restore all of the Surface Owner's property as nearly as practical to its original condition, Operator shall at all times keep Surface Owner's property, the location and lease road free of trash and debris. 3. .Surface Owner and Operator agree that Operator shall limit its use of the above described lands to that area of land necessary for it operations, surrounding or immediately adjacent to the well bore of the Well, and the monitor water wells provided for in Paragraph 10 below. The location will not exceed 375 feet by 325 feet in size. The roadway shall not exceed 20 feet in width for ingress and egress to the well site. Dirt dug pits shall not be allowed and frac trailers must be used for fracing operations. 4. The production facility of the Well shall be fenced by Operator and cattle guard(s) placed at one entry point where Operator has to cut Surface Owner's fence lines in the construction of a lease road and location. Operator will install at the entrance to Surface Owner's pr0perty off of the county road an arm across the cattle guard. Upon abandonment of a Well, the cattle guards shall become the property of Surface Owner. Operator shall repair any fences that are cut on Surface Owner's property in a manner consistent with existing fences to Surface Owner's satisfaction. All corner posts and bracing shall be steel pipe set in concrete, all to be approved by the surface owner. Operator shall install metal pipe H-Braces on each side of the cattle guard to tie and properly stretch all wire to Surface Owners satisfaction into the fence. Operator will at the request of Surface Owner, lock any new entrance made to Surface Owner's property. Operator agrees to rock all lease roads constructed on Surface Owner's property and said roads shall be maintained for the life of the well so as to prevent obstruction of water and spreading of rock off the location and roadways. Operator shall clean up any rock which is scattered to prevent a hazard to Surface Owner's farm equipment. Low areas and ruts occurring in the road will be repaired and employees or agents of Operator' shall not be permitted to by-pass such ruts and low areas by driving around the roadway. Operator shall not allow water to back up on either side and provide proper drainage from same including any necessary water culverts. 5. The aforementioned consideration does not include damages for any gathering lines or pipelines that Operator lays across lands owned by Surface Owner for the Well. 6. Operator will comply with all Oklahoma Corporation Commission rules and regulations with respect to any pits constructed on Surface Owner's property. 7. Operator agrees to conduct its operations on the location and road authorized by this Agreement and will advise its employees, representatives, contractors, subcontractors and independent contractors to stay on the road and location built by Operator and not to utilize any of Surface Owner?s land, without prior written authorization by the Surface Owner. Violation of this shall be considered trespass. Operator, its employees, representatives, contractors, subcontractors and independent contractors shall not be allowed to hunt or fish on Surface Owner's land. 8. Operator agrees to indemnify and hold Surface Owner harmless for all debts, claims, damages and demands incurred in connection with the performance of this Agreement and the operations conducted thereon whether above or below the surface. 9. It is the specific intent of this Release to cover the drilling, completing and equipping insofar and only insofar as to the Well and the monitor water wells described in Paragraph 10 There shall be no other well or borehole situated on Surface Owner's property. This Release does not cover unusual or extraordinary damages of pollution presently or in the future. Operator shall be further liable to Surface Owner for any unusual damages or pollution not covered by this Agreement, whether the same is caused by Operator, its employees, agents, representatives, contractors, subcontractors or independent contractors. Operator shall not be allowed to diSpose of any saltwater or other deleterious substances from outside the well site upon or into Surface Owner's property without written permission. Commercial saltwater disposal wells shall not be allowed. 10. Surface Owner agrees that Operator may drill, equip and operate as many water monitoring wells as are necessary to properly characterize the shallow geology/hydrogeology and monitor the water quality through out the complete process of site preparation, drilling, operating and producing the Well. All water monitoring wells will be drilled in accordance with Oklahoma Water Resource Board regulations, and located approximately thirty (30) feet outside the perimeter of the Well location.. Operator and Surface Owner agree that no water will be used from the water monitoring wells to drill or complete the Well without an expressed written agreement with the Surface Owner. If the Well is completed as a well capable of commercial production, the water monitoring wells will remain in place for a minimum of two (2) years from the date of first sales from the Well. Surface Owner hereby expressly grants ingress and egress to Operator, and its designees (including but not limited to representatives of the US. Environmental Protection Agency) onto the location to periodically collect water samples, and to maintain or repair the monitor wells. Upon completion of the use of the water wells as provided for herein, the wells shall be proper plugged and abandoned in accordance with Oklahoma Water Resource Board regulations. 11. This Agreement shall bind and inure to the benefit of all parties hereto, their heirs, successors and assigns. 12. This Agreement may be executed in counterpart, each of which counterpart execution shall be deemed an original for purposes of this instrument. 13. Except as provided for in Paragraph 10 above, Lessee may not use fresh water obtained from or under the leased premises without the express written consent of the Surface Owner. In Witness Whereof, this Agreement has been executed this day of April, 2012. SURFACE OWNER: Barbara Ann Bouziden By aker (POA) OPERATOR CHESAPEAKE OPERATING, INC. I Adam Doty, FieldManajer ACKNOWLEDGMENTS STATE OF OKLAHOMA )ss: COUNTY OF WOODS BEFORE me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said County and State, on this 2(3) day of April, 2012 personally appeared Greg Baker as Power of Attorney for Barbara Ann Bouziden, to me known to be the identical person(s) who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged to me that he executed the same as his free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein set forth. Given under my hand and seal the day and y/ejr last above written. Nq?a?l P?ublic ?11 Ill#11003372 My Commission expires: V?Bml My Commission EXP- 09?13?15 STATE OF OKLAHOMA SS: COUNTY OF OKLAHOMA BEFORE me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said County and State, on this of April, 2012, personally appeared Adam Doty, Field Manager of Chesapeake Operating, Inc., to me known to be the identical person who subscribed the name of the maker thereof to the foregoing instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same as his free and voluntary act and deed and as the free and voluntary act and deed of such corporation, for the uses and purposes therein set forth. Given under my hand and seal the day and year last above written. Notaprpmic 7 My Commission expires: My Commission #03013930 "2 TOPOGHAPHIO LAND SURVEYORS OF OKLAHOMA 6709 NORTH CLASSEN BLVD.. OKLA. CITY, OKLA. 73115 LOCAL (405) 843?4847 OUT OF STATE (800) 654?3219 I I Certi?cate of Authon'zahbn No. 129.3. . ALFALFA County. Oklahoma 250 FNL 560 FEL Section W15 Township Range 11w LM. 1894931 696751 X: 1389639 696806 SURFACE HOLE (us Feet) 36'54'462" 56312333612 96361971449 x=1662669 2532547? PROPOSED DRILL PATH 1894920 Y- 694104 1889642 694-169 Hole 1010-27 (us Feet) I 36'53'57.9" I 56699416463 98.361622042 x=1694251 I (us Feet) 36'53'58.0" 9321.411" I 361399446612 96361972626 ?2545GRID I Scale: I I 560' 1 1000 x= 166964 2635 x: 18922 . 2633? mlejhfa?n??im?Pro?vi?d1;I - - - Distances shown In arenthees are calculated based lby operator ?Sted' suweyed' upon the arter Se?cptian bein )2640 feet. those shown come" Qoordim?es Taken . in brackets are based on GL General Land Office dis ances and have 1391 been me-(asured on the grouhd. Operator: CHESAPEAKE OPERATING. INC. Lease Name: BAKER 15*28-11 we? 1H Gr. at Stake Topography 8c Vegetation Lac. feII in wheat field Reference Stakes or Alternate Location Good Drill Site? Yes Stakes Set None Best Accessibility to Location From North off county road Distance Direction from Hwy Jot or Town The Jct. of St. 11 and St. Hwy. 58 South. go 1.0 m1. North to the NE Car. of Sec. Date of Drawing: A F- 20. 2012 DATUM: Invoice 181815 Date Stoked; Apr. 19, 2012 AC 9% LAT: z? a LONG: CERTIFICATE: =68 LAT- 36912805656 . THOMAS L. gun I. Thomas L- Howe? 0 Oklahoma Licensed Land HOWELL go? Surveyor and an authorized agent of Topographic Land .2155, STATE PLANE Surveyors of Oklahoma, do hereby certify that the above COORDINATESI (US Feet) described well location was Surveyed and stoked on the OK NORTH groun shown g-?i x: 1894270 - 696508 Oklahoma Lic. No. -- 7. m1 it? T?PBi'??lxt 2'3 li'dzf?i 'l Fw: New FOIA Request #01479-12 - please fonNard your responsive records for review Doug Beak Suzanne Jackson 07/05/2012 07:53 AM Pam Daggs Hi Suzanne. This is part 1 of 2 for the above FOIA request. If you have any questions let me know. Doug Dr. Douglas G. Beak Geochemistry/ Environmental Chemistry 919 Kerr Research Dr. Ada, OK 74820 email: beak.doug@epa.gov Phone: 580-436-8813 Fax: 580-436-8703 Blackberry: 580-2357158 Forwarded by Doug on 07/05/2012 06:49 AM From "Chris Hill (Regulatory)? 10. Michael Doug Randall Steven Bert Smith Tamara Robbins Sic Stephanie Timmermeyer Date 04/30/2012 09:51 PM Subject. Invitation: EPA Miss Lime Prospective Study (May 1 03:00 PM CDT in Call in: 877-935-0245 Code: 745 420 Rm 231) This meeting has been scheduled to have a technical discussion regarding CHK proposed site characterization scope of work. Additional topics of discussion may include the following - Status of EPA's formal response to CHK's tech memo comments. - Access agreement status. - Schedule. This email (and attachments if any) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is con?dential or privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this email is not the intended recipient. or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby noti?ed that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited . If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return email and destroy all copies of the email (and attachments if any). Forwarded by Doug on 07/05/2012 06:49 AM Ficne "Chris Hill (Regulatory)?? M- Forwarded by Doug on 07/05/2012 06:49 AM From ?Chris Hill (Regulatory)" to Michael 0? Stephanie Timmerrneyer John Satter?eld Tamara Robbins "Bert Smith" Randall Steven Doug Dale: 04/30/2012 09:49 PM Subjecl: EPA Prospective Study Mike, As you requested, I have attached the following items: 1. A copy of monitoring well alternatives technical memo comments with ?draft? water mark removed. 2. A copy of CH K?s proposed site characterization scope of work. We would appreciate comments and/or approval of the proposed site characterization scope of work at earliest convenience. Please let me know if you have any questions. I will be sending you a calendar invite for a conference call tomorrow (Tuesday) at 3 pm, as you requested. Thank you, Chris Hill Environmental Engineer Chesapeake Energy Corporation Of?ce: (405) 935-2321 Mobile: (405)388-3907 Fax: (405) 849-2321 E-mail: Chris.Hill@chk.ng Thus 0mm} (and :Itlatznt?tenls if any) is intended only [w the L139 0! the tin ur?ttly to .I IS addressed. and may (iomdl'l that Is Cont denlml or pr vtvged and uxcn?pt from under law. If the reader 0! lh.s elnm' its nol the :ntumed recipient. or the employee or agent hle Inr \Il;flnf) this message :0 tht: inter?ded you are hereby v'tc-nfuert any disseminatim?. or copying ut ?lib us mohihtted. It you have ?:02de this In (nroug pioasc the hv rnimn t'm'nit Ji?d destroy al?. come: 0! Ihe emmf (and attachments If any) [attachment Review - Tech Mcmo.pdf? deleted by Doug [attachment "Pages from Prop 4-25-2012 (2).pdf? deleted by Doug Forwarded by Doug on 07/05/2012 06:49 AM rom' Doug To- ?Chris Hill (Regulatory)" Cc: Carlyle Ralph Date. 05/03/2012 07:30 AM Subject: RE: Sampling methods and protocols used in Ne PA Hi Chris. I can only speak for the case studies l'm Involved with. TX and ND. if you want to know about the other case studies, you will need to contact the PPS on those. The others involved with NE PA case studies have been or will be contacted. we split up the task. Doug Dr. Douglas G. Beak Geochemisz Environmental Chemistry 919 Kerr Research Dr. Ada, OK 74820 email: beak.doug@epa.gov Phone: 580-436-8813 Fax: 580-436-8703 Blackberry: 580-235-7158 "Chris Hill (Regulatory)" Hi Doug, I appreciate the quick response. 05/03/2012 12:16:42 AM From: "Chris Hill (Regulatory)? To: Doug Cc: Ralph Carlyle Date: 05/03/2012 12:16 AM Subject: RE: Sampling methods and protocols used in Ne PA Hi Doug, I appreciate the quick response. I am working to provide you the same courtesy regarding the information you requested. Please note that I believe some of this information has been provided to EPA on previous occasions in regards to our prospective study. However, I will have the information verified, compiled and sent to you as soon as possible. It is interesting to hear that EPA has only requested this information for the TX and ND studies. i know there are other stakeholders (state and industry) that are collecting samples in conjunction with EPA's retrospective sampling events, including in the Susquehanna/Bradford Co. study. Out of curiosity, what is the rationale behind requesting this information from some participating stakeholders and not others? Please let me know if you think of anything else CHK can do to help. Thanks From: Doug Beak Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 10:46 AM To: Chris Hill (Regulatory) Cc: Ralph Ludwig; Carlyle Miller Subject: Re: Sampling methods and protocols used in Ne PA Hi Chris, Yes, we have requested similar information for both the TX and ND studies. For the ND site we have had this information since last July along with their approved QAPP. In TX the state is currently putting this information together since they are the only others sampling and observing. Since we don?t know how the data you are collecting will be used, we are concerned about the comparability and quality of the data you are collecting. Similar to what we are hearing from your side when in the ?eld. Therefore, we need the requested information to be assured that the data you are collecting is comparable and of similar quality. Doug Dr. Douglas G. Beak 9 9 Kerr Research Dr. Ada, OK 74820 email: Phone: 580-436-8813 Fax: 580-436-8703 Blackberry: 580-235-7158 From: "Chris Hill (Regulatory)" [chris.hill@chk.com] Sent: 05/02/2012 03:58 AM GMT To: Doug Beak Cc: Ralph Ludwig; Carlyle Miller Subject: RE: Sampling methods and protocols used in Ne PA Hi Doug, I hope you all had a good round of sampling in Bradford County! I was disappointed I was not able to get out there, but hopefully I can make it in July. I am more than happy to round up this information for you, Ralph, and Carl. Similar to your team, we have anumber of folks in transit, however, it shouldn't be a problem getting this information to you next week. If you don?t mind, could you please inform me how this information will be used by EPA in their study efforts? i would also like to know if EPA has requested similar information from other operators? Please let me know if you think of anything else CHK can do to help. Thanks From: Doug Beak Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 8:38 PM To: Chris Hill (Regulatory) Cc: Ralph Ludwig; Carlyle Miller Subject: Sampling methods and protocols used in Ne PA HI Chris, In October 2011 we asked Dana for the sampling methods and protocols you used for your sampling in NE PA. We never received these, but did receive information on split sampling method. We are again requesting the this Information. We are interested in knowing what analytes were sampled for, the protocols for sampling (including sampling ?ow rates, how the ?ow rates are determined, containers used, preservatives used, criteria for determining when samples should be collected, and all methods used for sample collection). In addition, we are interested in knowing what QA samples were collected, the frequency of collection, and the proximity to the sampling location in the case of blanks . Finally, we are requesting the protocols for the calibration of ?eld equipment, the QA types and frequency used for the field equipment and measurements. It would also be helpful to get a copy of the QAPP for this effort. We would also like the same information for the April/May sampling also. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Doug This email (and attachments it any) is intended only fur the use oi the Individual or entty to which it is addressed and may con'an information that is confidential or privileged and exempt from disclosxc under applicable law, it the reader of this email is not the intended recipient. or the employee or agent responsible for delive'rirg this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notilied that any dissemination, distribution or copying 0: this communcation is strictly prohibited. If you have received his communication in arm, p'easo not-ly the sender immediately by return email and destroy all copies of the email (and any) {,tnr? my) IS intended hr the ,igt?ut tr: i? acd'esuPd. anti Iricty midi iliei? in .ttal u. it 'anri emr ipt (mm itsFl-?sure tmdm? l'aw l: the re; o'er of this. it. mt the interim-n" rer?ipir-nl ri the er?tt?ilruyee 0t agerii re-z; for delivering; ti?rs message is: Mr: retipient, ynt: are beret; nolrltur.? {list any rm. dih'an-titlrt u: topiary; ti: this IS it you ?ta-m renewed Hm; COHlItiJli ca?itir'ii pie.th il"1 it the sender into/red ate I li/ ri-ltiar email incl Guilt'oy all conic-s oi ire email rant: if .zi'l?ll Forwarded by Doug on 07/05/2012 06:49 AM From: "Chris Hill (Regulatory)" To: Michael Cc: Doug David John Satter?eld Bert Smith Tamara Robbins Stephanie Timmermeyer Date: 05/04/2012 10:48 AM Subject RE: QAPP and contact info Hi Mike, You are correct, I did owe you Bert?s contact information (See below). Please keep John Satterfield and Stephanie Timmermeyer included in email correspondence as well. For your information I believe Bert is out of the office today Bert Smith Work: 405-935-1270 As you requested, I have attached a copy of our QAPP comments that we sent to Doug Beak on 1/6/12 for your reference. Based on our conversation on Tuesday, it would be beneficial for EPA finalize this QAPP in parallel with the site characterization work. i am comfortable having you incorporate the specific technical comments in to the QAPP, however, I would appreciate a formal response to the critical items listed in the CHK cover letter. Based on our April 18, 2012 conference call, we are operating with the following understanding: 1. EPA agrees with the timing li.e., after well construction and pre-HF) of the installation of horizontal wells, if they are even necessary. . 2. EPA is willing to accept any and all liabilities associated their actions on the project and is self-insured. The EPA project team has initiated discussions with their general counsel. 3. EPA is willing to maintain a buffer of 30 ft. when installing the horizontal wells. 4. EPA will have a detailed procedure for abandoning the horizontal monitoring wells prior to their construction. 5. EPA plans to include language in the final study plan regarding our concern and the limitations of horizontal monitoring wells. I appreciate you touching base with Steve V. regarding the QA requirements for the site characterization scope of work. This is valuable information for me to communicate to CHK management as they deliberate on whether or not CHK will manage and finance this the scope of work. I have attached below the subcontractor's estimates for drilling and logging for your reference. WW Subcontractor - Well Loqgmg (Cenluy Geophysics Corp . Set UpISewice Charge LS I 800 800 L5 2 400 800 Per Diem Man/Day 4 I50 600 Magnetic Susceptibility 450 450 Slim More trimaran Ea I 350 360 :LArm Caliper En I 250 250 E-Log vim Neutron Ea 2 400 800 Televnewer En I 875 875 Subcontracla - mom Wen (Associated Environmental Industries. in: R19 and Sound Veflcics LS I 3.000 3.000 E11 6 150 900 Ol'Ill Air Rotary w! 7-7/8 or 8-3/4-lnch Tooth Bu Fl 450 24 45 I Loos Complete 2-lnch and Diameter PVC Mounting Wells Ft 450 20 9,000 Ream mu Se! Sutace Casing Fl 50 51 00 2.550 Above Grade mutations Ea 6 525 3. ISO Per Diem 6 425 3.400 Thank you. Chris Hill Environmental Engineer Chesapeake Energy Corporation Of?ce: (405)935-2321 Mobile: (405)388-3907 Fax: (405) 849-2321 E-mail: hris. ill hk om From: Mldwael Overbay Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2012 10:53 AM To: Chris Hill (Regulatory) Cc: Doug Beak; David Jewett Subject: QAPP and contact info Hi Chris, Wanted to remind you that you were going to send me Bert?s contact lnforrnation and the QA comments from Chesapeake. Also, we have started a review of the proposal and I had a discussion with the Ada crew this morning about it from a QA vieWpoint. The CA manager for the HF study project says that these prospective projects are not like the retrospective ones in that as a collaborator on this study, EPA needs your information that we will use to meet the same QA standards as if we generated it, which is what we call Category 1 standards. Here is a link to our QAPP's for the retrospective case studies that you can use as an example. Since we will be using the hydrogeologic data generated by your efforts to characterize the site, we will de?nitely have to have information on the well installation and development procedures, water level measurements, pump testing, etc. Most of that can probably be referenced to either information the driller can provide. or ASTM standard methods. We will also need the information on the procedures the geophysics companies will use to log the wells. i have an example from the USGS on what their procedures would be (note that it includes an example of the log montage at the end): As to the collection and analysis of environmental media samples. we will be putting our own QAPP together to do that for ourselves, but if Chesapeake wants EPA to be able to consider your sample analytical results. those sample collection and analytical procedures will have to meet our Category 1 QA requirement in order to be included in the study. Again. review the QAPPs at the link above for examples. Finally, as to the comments Chesapeake had provided earlier. although I would still like a c0py sent to me, our contractor has them and will be writing a new version of the QAPP that will consider those comments, as well as new information and procedures EPA has developed. As such, due to the time crunch (in order to construct the pad in July and allow 3 weeks for ?eld work, we have to get the ball moving here), we won?t be producing a direct response to those previous comments. but will rely on our revised QAPP to ful?ll that role. We look forward to hearing from you on Monday about Chesapeake?s funding decision. Michael Overbay. P.G. Regional Ground Water Center Coordinator US. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 6 (214)665-6482 (214)665-2191 (FAX) Visit the Ground Water Center on the web at: him This turn I (and ii any) It- Inr lhu use of tin.? indivmial or entity in which it is ndcressetl, and may nor?lmn Information that IS Oi Gx'Elii'Jl irom disclosure.- under Applicable law. It the 'uuder the.? email IS not the intended recipient, cr [he en-iployee or agent ?or this I?ll?238.190 in ?lm intended recipien: you arr: hereby notified ii?ai any UlEll?lDUiiOli tr copying; of Eliza communication is; strictly you have received this in error. please notify the sender immadmiely by i'eilif?l email ans! Jr'sliny all copies; of the email (and r?iiliiChlINN?IS if arin [attachment CI-IK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611 (CHK Comments deleted by Doug "-onuarded by Doug on 07/05/2012 06:49 AM From: Michael To: ?Chris Hill (Regulatory)" Bert Smith David Doug John Satteriield Stephanie Timmermeyer Tamara Robbins Susan Date; 05/04l2012 11:16 AM Subject: RE: QAPP and contact info Thanks for the reply Chris. We do plan on giving y'all back a reply to the letter from Stephanie to Ramona. i have a conference call set up with OGC next week to discuss how we can document the liability . but they have con?rmed to me that the federal government. including EPA. is "self-insured". So we'll get something going on that. but as you noted. it is not on the critical path for beginning the field work. We do agree with the installation timing and location of any horizontal wells, if needed at least 30' from the well bore and being installed after the gas well is drilled, but before the hydraulic fracturing). I have tasked with developing a plugging and abandonment plan. which will be generic in some details for now, but will be revised with speci?cs about well construction details after they are built so the plan will re?ect actual conditions . This is another task we talked about not being on the critical path. but it is underway. Mike Michael Overbay. P.G. Regional Ground Water Center Coordinator US. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 6 (214)665?6482 (214)665-2191 (FAX) Visit the Ground Water Center on the web at: r6/6waswp/groundwater/gw.htm "Chris Hill (Regulatory)" Hi Mike. You are correct, did owe you 05/04/2012 10:48:27 AM FonNarded by Doug on 07/05/2012 06:49 AM Research on Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources: Coordination with Industry 5/15/12 We appreciate the information industry (as well as states, academia and others) has shared with EPA so far, and look forward to additional exchanges of reliable scientific data and analysis. Past 1. Public input during SAB review of study scope - Winter 2010 2. Public stakeholder process, included opportunities for oral and written statements - Summer 2010 3. Technical workshops February-March 2011 4. Input during SAB review of draft study plan February - August 2011 5. Data provided by nine hydraulic fracturing companies in response to request of September 2010 6. Data provided by nine randomly chosen well owner/operator companies in response to request of August 2011. Ongoing 1. Two prospective case studies underway with Range Resources and Chesapeake 2. Duplicate samples offered to relevant stakeholders at five retrospective case study sites 3. Collaboration at two waste water treatment plants in Pennsylvania for source apportionment study 4. Discussions with selected hydraulic fracturing service providers to follow up on data provided in response to information request 5. Provide quality assurance project plans (QAPPs) on website for use by industry. These include chemical methods, QA approaches to allow companies to conduct studies comparable to EPA's. Possible future collaborations/coordination 1. Additional prospective case study (only if additional funds allowed by Congress -- We have discussed this option with Southwestern) 2. We would appreciate working with companies to obtain samples of flowback, produced water, and cores to inform: chemical method development, assessment of effectiveness of waste water treatment methods, and to assess interactions between chemicals used in HF and target formations. (Samples of flowback and produced water are our highest priority request from industry) 3 Does industry have other data to share with EPA (especially data with known QA/QC information)? 4. Public input during SAB review of study reports (expected December 2012 and December 2014) Current research focuses on potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources. The President's FY 13 budget requests $14.1 M: 6.1 M to continue the current study (baseline), and $8 M (increase) to address air, water, human health and environmental risk. We will work through our MOU with DOE and DOI/USGS to assure the three agencies coordinate research. Up to date information on EPA's HF study is at www.epa.gov/hfstudy ACCESS AGREEMENT BETWEEN EPA AND HYDRAULIC FRACTURING PRO PECTIVE ASE STUDY IN OKLAHOMA pursuant to the Surface Damage Agreement and Release between and the surface owners of the (attached as Exhibit A, the ?Surface Agreement?) and pursuant to the necessary rights and privileges arising from ownership interest in the oil and gas leasehold estate, hereby authorizes entry and access on the property in (as described in Exhibit B, ?Property?) to the employees and authorized representatives, agents, consultants, contractors and subcontractors of the United States Environmental Protection Agency in order to implement a prospective case study of potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources (hereinafter the ?Project?). 1. The following activities (hereinafter the ?Work?) may be conducted on the Property by the EPA and its contractors and representatives, and are covered by this authorization: Staging equipment and supplies 0 Installation and sampling of ground water monitoring wells 0 Collection of environmental media samples soil, surface water) 0 Measurement of geophysical properties 0 Related Activities The activities conducted by EPA are undertaken as part of a national scienti?c study. EPA shall, in the exercise of the rights and privileges granted by this agreement, adhere to and comply with good engineering practices and all laws, ordinances, rules, regulations and orders applicable to EPA's activities, operations and work performed upon, or use of, the Property. 2. The-'Work shall be coordinated and approved in advance with and a representative shall accompany the EPA at all times the EPA enters the Property. Therefore, EPA shall provide a copy of the schedule for the Work with 5 business days notice prior to commencement. The initial notice, any subsequent notices or communications shall be provided to: ?3 Representative: CONTACT EPA Representative: CONTACT does not intend, and EPA shall not be required to follow the provision in this paragraph two (2) if and when it enters the Property in its of?cial enforcement and inspection 1 capacity. 3. shall provide the Property to EPA in "as-is" condition. EPA has inspected the Property and is satis?ed that it is ?t for EPA's purpose. shall not be responsible for repairing, maintaining or removing any alterations to or installations on the Property by EPA or its contractors. 4. EPA's access to the Property is non-exclusive. EPA shall access the Property and perform the Work at all times so as not to unreasonably interfere with the use of the Property by or any owner, tenant, licensee or other occupant of the Property. The Surface Agreement, recorded at Book Page of the records of the intended to and shall constitute a covenant running with the Property for the term hereof. 5. Upon the completion of either of the activities included in the Work on the Property or upon the expiration of this Access Agreement, whichever shall earlier occru?, contractors shall restore the portions of the Property disturbed by the Work to the same or substantially similar condition, based upon photographs to be taken by contractors prior to the commencement of the Work, as existed prior to the commencement of the Work. The foregoing will not apply to any wells and appurtenances required to be maintained by EPA on the Property. 6. contractors shall provide the following insurance for the Work: Certi?cates of Insurance for prime contractor, Ecology and Environment, have been furnished to and accepted by as evidence that such contractor maintains adequate insurance coverage. The drilling subcontractor will be required to maintain the insurance coverage described in Exhibit C. All other professional services subcontractors will be required to maintain the insurance coverage described in Exhibit D. Prior to entering the Property the subcontractors must submit to certi?cates of insurance showing that the subcontractor has the proper insurance coverage, as described above, and that has been named as an ?additional Insured? on all policies except Workers Compensation and Professional Liability where applicable, and that is extended a waiver of subrogation on all those policies. Said certi?cates should be forwarded to: CONTACT 7. Nothing contained in this Access Agreement shall be deemed or construed to create the relationship of principal and agent, or a partnership, or any form of joint venture between the parties, it being understood and agreed that there is no relationship between the parties. 8. By giving consent, does not waive or otherwise compromise its rights under federal, state or local law, nor under common law, with the exception of those rights waived in giving this consent. 9. This Access Agreement shall expire on December 31, 2015, unless earlier withdrawn, in which case notice of such withdrawal shall be made at least 30 days in advance. The expiration date may be extended by mutual agreement, con?rmed in writing, prior to the expiration date. 10. This Access Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties as to the subject matter and there are no verbal or collateral understandings, agreements, representations or warranties not expressly set forth herein. This Access Agreement may not be changed or terminated orally but only by an instrument in writing signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought. 11. These terms, conditions, covenants, releases, provisions and undertakings shall be binding upon and inure to the bene?t of the parties to this Access Agreement and their respective heirs, successors, representatives and assigns, and is intended to and shall constitute a covenant running with the Property for the term hereof. 12. If any provision of this Access Agreement is held invalid under any applicable statute or rule of law, whether now existing or hereinafter passed or adopted, such invalidity shall not affect any other provision of this Access Agreement that can be given effect without the invalid provision, and, to this end, the provisions of this Access Agreement are declared to be severable. In such event, the particular provision held invalid shall be renegotiated and redrafted so as to comply with the particular statute or rule of law. In no event, however, shall this severability provision operate as to alter in any material respect the basic understandings to the parties as to their respective obligations hereunder. 13. EPA, an agency of the federal government, shall be liable for claims, damages and injuries which may occur under this Access Agreement as provided in subsections a. and b. below: a. The Federal Tort Claims Act (28 U.S.C. 2671, 2680) provides coverage for damage or loss of property, or personal injury or death, caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of an employee of EPA while acting within the scope of his or her employment, under circumstances where EPA, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred. b. If an employee of EPA is injiu?ed while acting within the scope of his or her employment, government liability for that injury will generally be dictated by the provisions of the Federal Employees Compensation Act (5 U.S.C. 1801). 14. List of Exhibits: A. Surface Damage Agreement and Release between and the surface owners of the B. Property description C. Insurance Requirements - Drilling Subcontractor 3 D. Insurance Requirements - Professional Services Subcontractors [Remainder of Page Intentionally Blank] OWNER: [COMPANY]  Signature Date    ___________________________________________  Printed or Typed Name    ___________________________________________  Title 5   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Signature Date _____________________________________ Printed or Typed Name _____________________________________ Title   6 . e04 Fw: Comments on the CHK proposal for site characterization Michael ()verbay Claudia Meza-Cuadra 01/29/2013 11:22 AM Here is the second E-mail. Michael Overbay, P.G. Regional Ground Water Center Coordinator US. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 6 (214)665-6482 (214)665-2191 (FAX) Forwarded by Michael on 01/29/2013 10:21 AM From: Michael To: Chris Hill Bert Smith Cc: Doug Steven Randall David Date: 05/18/2012 01:01 PM Subject: Comments on the CHK proposal for site characterization Hi Chris and Bert, Below are the comments from Steve Acree, our hydrogeologist working on this project, on the proposal Chesapeake sent on conducting the initial site hydrogeologic characterization . We will still need to look at the geochemical parameters. Regards, Michael Overbay, P.G. Regional Ground Water Center Coordinator US. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 6 (214)665-6482 (214)6652191 (FAX) Wsit the Ground Water Center on the web at: .gov/earth1 r6/Bwaswp/groundwater/gw.htm Mike, I have reviewed the proposal for site characterization provided on April 30 by Mr. Chris Hill and have the following comments and recommendations to offer regarding the proposed hydrogeologic methodology. I will leave review of the geochemical aspects, particularly Table 1, to others. Task 2 Monitoring Well Installation and Development 1. The plan proposes to obtain samples for Iithologic logging using a split barrel sampling system during the drilling of the shallow monitoring wells. The methodology is appropriate. For clarity, the plan should explicitly state that samples will be obtained continuously from land surface to the total depth of the bonng. 2. The plan proposes to install the shallow monitoring wells with continuous screens positioned acmss the entire saturated thickness of the terrace aquifer. Depending on the actual thickness of the aquifer, this could result in wells screening as much as 30 to 50 ft of saturated materials. Given that vertical strati?cation in water quality is anticipated (page 4 of the plan) and that there will likely be differences in hydraulic conductivity of aquifer materials with depth, this type of construction combined with the characterization methods proposed in the plan would result in bulk characterization data appropriate for estimating aquifer yield and bulk quality for purposes such as agricultural use assessments but not for estimating groundwater velocities or background quality in speci?c intervals of interest. If the saturated thickness is found to be greater than approximately 15 ft, it is recommended that well pairs, with one well screened across the water table and one well screened at the bottom of the terrace aquifer, be installed rather than a continuously screened well. 3. The plan lacked speci?c details regarding some aspects of well construction. With respect to the shallow wells, the proposed borehole diameter and HSA size should be speci?ed. The size distribution of the ?lter pack material should be specified. The method for placing the filter pack and bentonite pellets should be described placement using a tremie pipe through the augers). The plan should also describe the general methodology for installing the well presumably through the augers. Similar detailed information should be provided regarding drilling and installation of the deep monitoring well installed in the Hennessey Group. 4. The plan states that an attempt will be made to collect water quality measurements during drilling of the deep well. Obtaining discrete water samples representative of specific intervals during drilling can be dif?cult. Details regarding the tools to be used and the methodology should be provided. 5. Water quality logging is proposed in conjunction with the suite of geophysical logs. More information should be provided concerning the proposed tool to be used, its calibration, and the methodology. In addition, it is likely that there will be vertical ?ow of groundwater within the borehole given the length of the open hole and the geology of the site. In order to interpret the information from the water quality log, it will be necessary to also have a vertical ?ow log using a tool such as the electromagnetic borehole ?owmeter produced by Century Geophysical. This addition should not be a problem since the plan proposes to use Century Geophysical to do the logging. Depending on the magnitude of the observed ?ow, it may be necessary to run the tool in stationary mode as well as trolling mode. Details regarding the calibration and proposed methodology for use of the ?owmeter should be provided. 6. The plan states that soil and rock cuttings will be containerized and stored until disposal can be arranged. It is recommended that the split spoon samples from a representative number of the shallow wells and samples of the cuttings from the deep well be retained for the duration of the project. 7. Well development is only discussed in general terms. More details concerning the speci?c methods to be used should be provided. In general, development should be suf?ciently aggressive to remove any accumulation of ?ne-grained materials from the well and to result in water ?ow in and out of the screen. Water velocity should be suf?cient to remove fines from the ?lter pack and repair damage to the borehole wall. This will often require methods such as surging and over pumping and often require removal of signi?cantly more than three borehole volumes of water. Task 3 - Groundwater Monitoring 8. The plan proposes water quality logging in each well on a 1-ft interval within the screen. More information should be provided concerning the proposed tool to be used, its calibration, and the methodology. It should be noted that some of the larger diameter tools that are currently available can result in water mixing within a 2-in ID well during tool positioning. This factor should be considered during the design of the measurement methodology. In addition, it is quite possible that there will be vertical ?ow of groundwater within the well screen, particularly if screens longer than 10 to 20 ft are used. In order to interpret the information from the water quality log, it will be necessary to also have a flow log obtained under non-pumping conditions using a sensitive vertical -component borehole ?owmeter. 9. The plan states that low-?ow techniques will be used during well sampling. Details concerning equipment, pumping rates, stabilization criteria, and the proposed methodology should be provided. Due to the potential range in geologic heterogeneity of aquifer materials adjacent to long -screened wells and the potential existence of vertical groundwater ?ow within such wells, low-?ow sampling methods often result in water samples being obtained from a very limited zone in the well which is not understood not necessarily adjacent to the pump, and not necessarily representative of either a zone of greatest interest or of the bulk water chemistry. Therefore, caution should be exercised in using this methodology with the proposed well construction. Information regarding the vertical flow in the well at the time of sampling and the hydraulic conductivity distribution of the aquifer materials adjacent to the screen, not simply the bulk hydraulic conductivity, would be needed to properly interpret these data. 10. Slug tests performed by removal of water using a bailer are proposed to estimate hydraulic conductivity of materials adjacent to the shallow wells. It is recommended that this procedure be revised to re?ect the use of solid slug PVC rods) to allow both falling head and rising head tests to be performed and to alleviate data bias caused by leaking bailers. In addition, it is recommended that the methodology be revised to conform to the recommendations of Butler (1997). particularly with respect to the performance of tests with different displacements and to repetition of displacements to allow better evaluation of data quality. It is also noted that this methodology would only provide an estimate of the average or bqu hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer materials. The values obtained from this type of test in a long-screened well would not provide a reliable estimate of groundwater velocity for any particular interval of interest water table) if significant heterogeneity were present. Additional studies, such as estimation of the hydraulic conductivity distribution using borehole ?owmeter techniques or multi -Ievel slug testing, would be required to provide such information in a long-screened well. 11. A 12-hour pumping and recovery test is proposed to estimate transmissivity in the deep well. In a well screened over the proposed 80-100 ft interval, such data would be appropriate for estimating yield but not for estimating groundwater velocity or for identifying potential contaminant transport pathways in a heterogeneous setting such as this is likely to be the case in this setting . If a long-screened well is used, it is recommended that borehole ?ow logging be performed using a sensitive vertical component borehole ?owmeter to determining the relative contribution of flow as a function of depth in the screen during the pumping test (Young et al., 1998) and under static Conditions. This information can be used to estimate the differences in hydraulic conductivity of the materials adjacent to the screen and allow more targeted sampling. References: Butler, J.J., Jr., (1997). The Design, Performance, andAna/ysis of Slug Tests. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL. Young, S.C., H.E. Julian, H.S. Pearson, F.J. Molz, and GK. Boman, (1998). Application of the electromagnetic borehole ?owmeter. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH. Steven D. Acree, Hydrologist Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Center PO. Box 1198/ 919 Kerr Research Drive Ada, OK 74821 (580) 436-8609 (voice) (580) 436-8614 (FAX) From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Stephanie Timmermeyer Jeanne Briskin/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Chris Hill (Regulatory); John Satterfield; Ramona Trovato/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Re: OGC 06/07/2012 01:31 PM That time works for us - thanks Stephanie R. Timmermeyer Chesapeake Energy Director, Regulatory Affairs - Federal 304.941.9879 From: Jeanne Briskin [mailto:Briskin.Jeanne@epamail.epa.gov] Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 12:18 PM To: Stephanie Timmermeyer Cc: Chris Hill (Regulatory); John Satterfield; Ramona Trovato Subject: Re: OGC Hi Stephanie, How about 2 pm EDT on Tuesday June 12? Our general counsel's office will participate. I can provide a conference call line. To assist the discussion, please provide us in advance with a draft of any access agreement or other similar document they anticipate using in connection with this project. Thanks, Jeanne Jeanne Briskin Office of Science Policy Office of Research and Development U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. (8104R) Washington, D.C. 20460 (202) 564-4583 - office (202) 565-2911 - fax briskin.jeanne@epa.gov Address for Deliveries: US EPA Ronald Reagan Building --Room 51144 Washington DC 20004 Stephanie Timmermeyer ---06/06/2012 08:33:17 PM---Just heard back - we can do anytime between 3-5CT Monday or 1-4CT Tues or Wed. Thanks. Stephanie R. From: Stephanie Timmermeyer To: Jeanne Briskin/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Cc: "Chris Hill (Regulatory)" , John Satterfield , Ramona Trovato/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 06/06/2012 08:33 PM Subject: Re: OGC Just heard back - we can do anytime between 3-5CT Monday or 1-4CT Tues or Wed. Thanks. Stephanie R. Timmermeyer Chesapeake Energy Director, Regulatory Affairs - Federal 304.941.9879 From: Jeanne Briskin [mailto:Briskin.Jeanne@epamail.epa.gov] Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 06:17 PM To: Stephanie Timmermeyer Cc: Chris Hill (Regulatory); John Satterfield; Ramona Trovato Subject: RE: OGC That sounds fine. Thanks! -----Stephanie Timmermeyer wrote: ----To: Jeanne Briskin/DC/USEPA/US@EPA From: Stephanie Timmermeyer Date: 06/06/2012 01:13PM Cc: "Chris Hill (Regulatory)" , John Satterfield , Ramona Trovato/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Subject: RE: OGC Friday we have a shareholders meeting on campus so all will be very busy – we are checking the team’s schedules for Mon through Wed and will let you know best times first thing in the morning From: Jeanne Briskin [mailto:Briskin.Jeanne@epamail.epa.gov] Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 3:05 PM To: Stephanie Timmermeyer Cc: Chris Hill (Regulatory); John Satterfield; Ramona Trovato Subject: Re: OGC Hi Stephanie, As we discussed today, EPA would like to confirm that, as we stated in our letter of 5/23, the federal government self insures, and that this arrangement is acceptable to Chesapeake before we invest in the site characterization. I will set up a meeting with our general counsel's office. What is your availability for Friday and early next week? Thanks, Jeanne Jeanne Briskin Office of Science Policy Office of Research and Development U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. (8104R) Washington, D.C. 20460 (202) 564-4583 - office (202) 565-2911 - fax briskin.jeanne@epa.gov Address for Deliveries: US EPA Ronald Reagan Building --Room 51144 Washington DC 20004 Stephanie Timmermeyer ---06/06/2012 03:59:23 PM---Ramona and Jeanne - It did come as a surprise that EPA is not moving forward with site characterizat From: Stephanie Timmermeyer To: Jeanne Briskin/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Ramona Trovato/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Cc: John Satterfield , "Chris Hill (Regulatory)" Date: 06/06/2012 03:59 PM Subject: OGC Ramona and Jeanne – It did come as a surprise that EPA is not moving forward with site characterization due to the liability issue associated with the horizontal wells which may or may not be drilled. Given this information, we now appreciate the need to resolve this issue post-haste. We believe we will require a conversation with your attorneys – could you send us their contact information or set up a meeting for our attorneys with yours? At a minimum, we will require something written from OGC I believe. In any case, a phone conference would be helpful to schedule as soon as possible. Thanks, Stephanie Thank you, Stephanie R. Timmermeyer Director - Federal Regulatory Affairs Chesapeake Energy Corporation Mobile: (304) 941-9879 E-mail: Stephanie.Timmermeyer@chk.com This email (and attachments if any) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is confidential or privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this email is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly proh bited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return email and destroy all copies of the email (and attachments if any). *********************** ATTACHMENT NOT DELIVERED ******************* This Email message contained an attachment named image001.jpg which may be a computer program. This attached computer program could contain a computer virus which could cause harm to EPA's computers, network, and data. The attachment has been deleted. This was done to limit the distribution of computer viruses introduced into the EPA network. EPA is deleting all computer program attachments sent from the Internet into the agency via Email. If the message sender is known and the attachment was legitimate, you should contact the sender and request that they rename the file name extension and resend the Email with the renamed attachment. After receiving the revised Email, containing the renamed attachment, you can rename the file extension to its correct name. For further information, please contact the EPA Call Center at (866) 411-4EPA (4372). The TDD number is (866) 489-4900. *********************** ATTACHMENT NOT DELIVERED *********************** This email (and attachments if any) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is confidential or privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this email is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly proh bited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return email and destroy all copies of the email (and attachments if any). This email (and attachments if any) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is confidential or privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this email is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly proh bited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return email and destroy all copies of the email (and attachments if any). This email (and attachments if any) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is confidential or privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this email is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly proh bited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return email and destroy all copies of the email (and attachments if any). Meeting Invitation Accepted: Calendar Entry Subject: When Date: Time: Chair: Invitees Required (to): Optional (cc): Where Location: catch up re:  prospective case study Monday  07/16/2012 10:30 AM - 11:00 AM   (0 hours 30 minutes) Jeanne Briskin sroy@rangeresources.com ckiray@rangeresources.com Jeanne will call Scott Meeting Confirmed: Susan Sharkey has confirmed this meeting Calendar Entry Subject: When Date: Time: Chair: Invitees Required (to): Optional (cc): Where Location: Pattersone-UTI Rob Kirsch (in person) Tuesday  06/26/2012 02:00 PM - 03:00 PM   (1 hour) Susan Sharkey Jeanne Briskin/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Conference Room 51109-1/DC-Ronald Reagan-OSP Meeting Invitation Accepted: Calendar Entry Subject: EPA hydraulic fracturing research When Date: Tuesday  06/12/2012 Time: 09:30 AM - 10:00 AM   (0 hours 30 minutes) Meeting is in time zone (GMT-06:00) Central Time (US & Canada) Here:  09:30 AM - 10:00 AM There:  08:30 AM - 09:00 AM Chair: Jeanne Briskin Invitees Required (to): matt.armstrong@bakerhughes.com Optional (cc): Where Location: I'll call you at 202-569-1130 Thanks for sending this; sorry we’ve kept missing each other. Matt Meeting Invitation Accepted: Calendar Entry Subject: Prospective case study: Chesapeake question re: indemni?cation When Date: Tuesday 06/12/2012 Time: 02:00 PM - 03:00 PM (1 hour) Chair: leann?riskin. Sent By: Invitees Reqllil'ed Optional Wm WW Where Location: ?conf_ This email (and attachments if any) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is con?dential or privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this email is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby noti?ed that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return email and destroy all copies of the email (and attachments if any). From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Jeanne Briskin Stephanie Timmermeyer John Satterfield; Ramona Trovato FW: Information Update - Description has changed: Prospective case study:  Chesapeake question re: indemnification 06/11/2012 08:10 PM Hi Stephanie, I was able to forward this to our attorney yesterday in preparation for our meeting. Looking forward to our conversation later today. Jeanne -----Stephanie Timmermeyer wrote: ----To: Jeanne Briskin/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Ramona Trovato/DC/USEPA/US@EPA From: Stephanie Timmermeyer Date: 06/11/2012 04:29PM Cc: John Satterfield Subject: FW: Information Update - Description has changed: Prospective case study: Chesapeake question re: indemnification Were you guys able to track down any of the standard agreements we requested below?  In the meantime, we think the following questions will help inform our discussions tomorrow – you could forward to your attorneys ahead of time.  These are issues be believe we need to talk through – Thanks Steph Questions for Consideration 1. What limits if any does sovereign immunity place upon the EPA’s ability to indemnify and hold CHK harmless 2. Who at the EPA can “accept” liability on behalf of the agency? 3. If the EPA itself cannot or is unwilling to indemnify CHK, is subcontractor insurance and/or an EPA bond sufficient? 4. What has the EPA done before in situations like this? 5. What are the EPA’s suggestions? 6. What does self-insured mean precisely to the EPA? 7. What effect does being self-insured have on CHK’s ability to collect on a claim given the EPA’s protection under sovereign immunity and the federal tort claims act? From: Stephanie Timmermeyer Sent: Friday, June 08, 2012 8:48 AM To: 'Jeanne Chris Hill (Regulatory); David Doug Michael Pooja Stephen Susan Cc: John Satter?eld; Ramona Subject: RE: Information Update - Description has changed: Prospective case study: Chesapeake question re: indemni?cation Jeanne and Team: Our legal department is in the process of preparing for our meeting next week regarding the potential liability and indemnity issues with respect to the prospective study. In an effort to facilitate discussions, they have asked whether you can provide a "sample" or "standard" agreement the EPA uses with its non?government vendors or partners. Specifically, they are looking for EPA standard provisions around premises liability, personal injury, safety, subcontractor indemnity, and environmental hazard/pollution, etc. By making this request, the legal department is hoping that they may be able to work from your standard provisions in creating an agreement to address any concerns more quickly than might be the case in starting fresh. Thanks Stephanie From: Jeanne Sent: Friday, June 08, 2012 8:27 AM To: Jeanne Chris Hill (Regulatory); David Doug Michael Pooja Stephanie Timmermeyer; Stephen Susan Cc: John Satter?eld; Ramona Subject: Information Update - Description has changed: Prospective case study: Chesapeake question re: indemni?cation When: Tuesda June 12, 2012 2:00 PM Eastern. Where: conf cod To assist the discussion, please provide to EPA in advance with a draft of any access agreement or other similar document Chesapeake anticipates using in connection with this project. File: ATT00001.htm File: c092647.ics e'ra' :anc: attachments If arin Is Intendezil entity to which It IS ant: 'nay that IS or egezil exe'rpt tro'n GISC under app Icaljr law It the of this er a: IS not the l'ECIplt??I or the or agent for rite? Iverinug; this message to the Interutleil recipient, are hereziyv that a"y (:Istnnatron or of this com'rLPICatIO" Ii. strictly proh If ya. have this ccnn'runlcatm" In error please notify the senaer I'rr?tecjllate 1in return email J"iil a copies of the email Ia"::l attachments If any: From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Chris Hill (Regulatory) Michael Overbay/R6/USEPA/US@EPA John Satterfield; Stephanie Timmermeyer; Jeanne Briskin/DC/USEPA/US@EPA; David Jewett/ADA/USEPA/US@EPA; Susan Mravik/ADA/USEPA/US@EPA; Doug Beak/ADA/USEPA/US@EPA RE: Follow-up on the liability issues 06/15/2012 06:09 PM Hi Mike, We appreciate you looking in to having CHK included as an additional insured within the Master Service Agreement (MSA) (or equivalent) between E&E and EPA, as requested during our conference call. After discussing this topic with CHK’s Risk Management department, it appears a $10MM value would be appropriate. The CHK RM department also requested a copy of the MSA (or equivalent) between E&E and EPA for their review. This additional information will provide a better understanding of the liabilities association with the project, which would be valuable for CHK to make an informed decision regarding our willingness to proceed with the project. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Chris Hill Environmental Engineer Chesapeake Energy Corporation Office: (405) 935-2321 Mobile: (405) 388-3907 Fax: (405) 849-2321 E-mail: Chris.Hill@chk.com From: Michael Overbay [mailto:Overbay.Michael@epamail.epa.gov] Sent: Friday, June 15, 2012 3:24 PM To: Chris Hill (Regulatory) Cc: John Satterfield; Stephanie Timmermeyer; Jeanne Briskin; David Jewett; Susan Mravik; Doug Beak Subject: Follow-up on the liability issues Hi Chris, Just wanted to check in after our call earlier this week.  We have E&E looking into the potential issuance of that insurance certificate naming Chesapeake as an additional insured (I think I have that term correct).  Have y'all finished putting together the $ value we talked about?  Did John get any feedback from Chesapeake management about their willingness to proceed with the project under the liability scenarios we discussed? Hope all is well. Mike Michael Overbay, P.G. Regional Ground Water Center Coordinator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 6 (214)665-6482 (214)665-2191 (FAX) This email (and attachments if any) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is confidential or privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this email is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly proh bited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return email and destroy all copies of the email (and attachments if any). From: Michael Overbay [mailto:Overbay.Michael@epamail.epa.gov] Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 2:41 PM To: Bob Costello; Chris Hill (Regulatory); John Satterfield Cc: Stephen Hess; Susan Mravik; Doug Beak; Jeanne Briskin; Florentino, Gene Subject: Draft Access Agreement Hi Bob, Chris and John, As we just discussed, here is the draft access agreement with edits from counsels representing EPA, CHK and E&E.   I had discussed the recent revisions with Chris Hill on Wednesday, July 18th, regarding the changes to the insurance language requirements.  I am still waiting on E&E to get cost information so that I can go forward to EPA management to approve the additional insurance costs for liability and well control insurance.  Also, based on our discussions today, CHK will make additional revisions to address the issue of allowing EPA continued access to the property should CHK no longer own the mineral interests in the future.  Bob Costello will also send Steve Hess information relating to the title opinion he discussed.   Since it seems that is something that we may be able to do in just a few days, I will wait to make sure that we are comfortable with our understanding of that issue before pushing forward for final OK.  Hopefully, we can this all resolved next week. Michael Overbay, P.G. Regional Ground Water Center Coordinator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 6 (214)665-6482 (214)665-2191 (FAX) This email (and attachments if any) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is confidential or privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this email is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly proh bited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return email and destroy all copies of the email (and attachments if any). [attachment "draft EPA Chesapeake access agreement July 27 12.docx" deleted by Michael Overbay/R6/USEPA/US] [attachment "Scanned Document.pdf" deleted by Michael Overbay/R6/USEPA/US] This email (and attachments if any) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is confidential or privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this email is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly proh bited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return email and destroy all copies of the email (and attachments if any). From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Srock, John Nathan Wiser/R8/USEPA/US@EPA Jeanne Briskin/DC/USEPA/US@EPA RE: 2-13-12-RE: Some additional well ID information needed from Superior 02/15/2012 04:15 PM Nathan, I have the facility going back to hard copy records for the month and pulling all jobs. I believe we should be able to identify the customer and well from the records. I should have this to you by the February 22nd. -Regards John Srock HSE Director Health, Safety, and Environmental SUPERIOR WELL SERVICES INC. A Nabors Industries Company W: 724.403.9066 C: 724.541.7822 F: 866.691.8298 www.swsi.com www.nabors.com -----Original Message----From: Nathan Wiser [mailto:Wiser.Nathan@epamail.epa.gov] Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 1:02 PM To: Srock, John Cc: Jeanne Briskin Subject: Re: 2-13-12-RE: Some additional well ID information needed from Superior Thank you John, I will forward the two MDS well information sets to Randy Morris, of MDS Energy. On the last well, the data came to EPA from Superior with that information, in Superior's response to EPA's Sept 2010 letter to Superior seeking information on hydraulic fracturing. That information included the list of all wells that Superior frac'd in the year prior to EPA's Sept 2010 letter. This particular well was one of those picked at random from that list. Although in Superior's submission it was identified as an EQT Production well, it seems that it either is not an EQT well or if it is, then the well's location is wrong and it is not located in Uintah County, Utah. How would you like to proceed on this very last well? --Nathan Wiser Environmental Scientist U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development Office of Science Policy (303) 312-6211 office (303) 312-6953 fax wiser.nathan@epa.gov mailing address: U.S. EPA Region 8 (Mail Code 8ENF-UFO) 1595 Wynkoop Street Denver, Colorado 80202 From: "Srock, John" To: Nathan Wiser/R8/USEPA/US@EPA Cc: Jeanne Briskin/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 02/13/2012 10:55 AM Subject: 2-13-12-RE: Some additional well ID information needed from Superior Nathan, Below is the information on MDS Energy. The EQT well is not a Utah well. If I was able to get more specific information on the well I could let you know the customer in Utah if you need it. I do not have the email address for the MDS individual overseeing this project. Could you please send this along to him or send me the contact email and I can send it along. 22-026568 22-026802 MDS Energy - Edward Dunmire #2-331 - 08-13-09 MDS Energy - Gilbert Querio #1-43 - 08-29-10 - 2 -Regards John Srock HSE Director Health, Safety, and Environmental SUPERIOR WELL SERVICES INC. A Nabors Industries Company W: 724.403.9066 C: 724.541.7822 F: 866.691.8298 www.swsi.com www.nabors.com -----Original Message----From: Nathan Wiser [mailto:Wiser.Nathan@epamail.epa.gov] Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 11:38 AM To: Srock, John Cc: Jeanne Briskin Subject: Fw: Some additional well ID information needed from Superior To John Srock, Superior Well Services Hi John, Has there been any news to report about better identifying these three well IDs from Superior? We'd like to be able to get back to the operators so they can compile well data to send to EPA. --Nathan Wiser Environmental Scientist U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development Office of Science Policy (303) 312-6211 office (303) 312-6953 fax wiser.nathan@epa.gov mailing address: U.S. EPA Region 8 (Mail Code 8ENF-UFO) 1595 Wynkoop Street Denver, Colorado 80202 ----- Forwarded by Nathan Wiser/R8/USEPA/US on 02/13/2012 09:26 AM ----From: To: Date: Subject: Superior Nathan Wiser/R8/USEPA/US "Srock, John" 01/27/2012 10:26 AM RE: Some additional well ID information needed from Hi John, Here is the well data that we're trying to correct: 1. MDS Energy Well ID supplied by Superior: 22-026568 Date: 8/13/2009 Armstrong County, PA 2. MDS Energy Well ID supplied by Superior: 22-026802 Date: 8/29/2010 Armstrong County, PA 3. EQT Production Well ID supplied by Superior: Neilson 3-22 Date: 12/7/2009 Unitah County, UT For the MDS wells, they cannot recognize the well ID (I assume this is actually Superior's job ticket number). For the EQT Production well, they told us they've never had Utah operations and thus claim that cannot be their well. Jeanne and I still plan to contact you today. this. Thanks for your help on --Nathan Wiser Environmental Scientist U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development Office of Science Policy (303) 312-6211 office (303) 312-6953 fax wiser.nathan@epa.gov mailing address: U.S. EPA Region 8 (Mail Code 8ENF-UFO) 1595 Wynkoop Street Denver, Colorado 80202 From: To: Cc: Date: Subject: Superior "Srock, John" Nathan Wiser/R8/USEPA/US@EPA Jeanne Briskin/DC/USEPA/US@EPA 01/26/2012 05:34 PM RE: Some additional well ID information needed from Nathan, I am just returning from vacation. I will be back in the office Friday. I was able to receive emails but not send them for the last week due to size limitations. I will be available for a call at 1:30 EST for about 1/2 hour. I am OK with you sending me the well data like before. This way I can get our appropriate sales member to pull the hard copy information if we have it. The call may be more beneficial after I have the data. Either way I am good. Have a great evening. -John -Regards John Srock HSE Director Health, Safety, and Environmental SUPERIOR WELL SERVICES INC. A Nabors Industries Company W: 724.403.9066 C: 724.541.7822 F: 866.691.8298 ________________________________________ From: Nathan Wiser [Wiser.Nathan@epamail.epa.gov] Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 6:19 PM To: Srock, John Cc: Jeanne Briskin Subject: Fw: Some additional well ID information needed from Superior Hi John, Jeanne Briskin and I plan to call you tomorrow (Friday, Jan 27) at 1:30 pm Eastern time to see if we can follow up on this matter. Will that work for you? --Nathan Wiser Environmental Scientist U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development Office of Science Policy (303) 312-6211 office (303) 312-6953 fax wiser.nathan@epa.gov mailing address: U.S. EPA Region 8 (Mail Code 8ENF-UFO) 1595 Wynkoop Street Denver, Colorado 80202 ----- Forwarded by Nathan Wiser/R8/USEPA/US on 01/26/2012 04:17 PM ----From: Nathan Wiser/R8/USEPA/US To: "Srock, John" Date: 01/25/2012 01:02 PM Subject: Fw: Some additional well ID information needed from Superior Hi John, I have not heard from you about this matter. I have confirmed that there are mis-identification issues at three wells (two operators) where the originating data came from Superior's answer to EPA's Sep 2010 letter, yet these two operators cannot ID their well(s) as we that original identification on to them. This would, I assume, be a fairly simple matter to Superior which could be handled in much the same way we addressed the three Sand Ridge well IDs before. Please let me know if I should set up a call with you or others at Superior, or if (with your permission) emailing you the well IDs as originally supplied by Superior along with the operator might be sufficient. Thank you. --Nathan Wiser Environmental Scientist U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development Office of Science Policy (303) 312-6211 office (303) 312-6953 fax wiser.nathan@epa.gov mailing address: U.S. EPA Region 8 (Mail Code 8ENF-UFO) 1595 Wynkoop Street Denver, Colorado 80202 ----- Forwarded by Nathan Wiser/R8/USEPA/US on 01/25/2012 12:56 PM ----From: Nathan Wiser/R8/USEPA/US To: "Srock, John" Date: 01/18/2012 03:14 PM Subject: Some additional well ID information needed from Superior Hi John, I need to identify to Superior some information about well IDs that pose a problem much like the Sand Ridge examples we dealt with earlier. I want to honor confidentiality of information, so I do not wish to place that information in this email. Might I be able to contact you and provide it over the phone in the near future? Or, with your permission, I could send you the operator name and well ID as provided to EPA by Superior. This applies only to 2 or 3 wells. Thanks. --Nathan Wiser Environmental Scientist U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development Office of Science Policy (303) 312-6211 office (303) 312-6953 fax wiser.nathan@epa.gov mailing address: U.S. EPA Region 8 (Mail Code 8ENF-UFO) 1595 Wynkoop Street Denver, Colorado 80202 ******************************* NABORS EMAIL NOTICE - This transmission may be strictly confidential. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you may not disclose, print, copy, or disseminate this information. If you have received this in error, please reply and notify the sender (only) and delete the message. Unauthorized interception of this e-mail is a violation of federal criminal law. This communication does not reflect an intention by the sender or the sender's principal to conduct a transaction or make any agreement by electronic means. Nothing contained in this message or in any attachment shall satisfy the requirements for a writing, and nothing contained herein shall constitute a contract or electronic signature under the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act, any version of the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, or any other statute governing electronic transactions. From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Stephanie Meadows Mary Hanley/DC/USEPA/US@EPA; Amy Farrell Jeanne Briskin/DC/USEPA/US@EPA; Donald Maddox/DC/USEPA/US@EPA; Lisa Matthews/DC/USEPA/US@EPA RE: Meeting 12/13/2012 01:49 PM Mary: Thank you for the prompt response.  I think Don can just get in contact with me to help organize the session.  My contact information is included.  Happy holidays to everyone. Stephanie Stephanie R. Meadows Senior Policy Advisor Upstream American Petroleum Institute 1220 L Street, NW Washington, DC  20005 Phone:  202-682-8578 Fax:  202-682-8426 Email:  meadows@api.org From: Hanley.Mary@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Hanley.Mary@epamail.epa.gov] Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 11:01 AM To: Amy Farrell; Stephanie Meadows Cc: Briskin.Jeanne@epamail.epa.gov; Maddox.Donald@epamail.epa.gov; Matthews.Lisa@epamail.epa.gov Subject: Fw: Meeting Amy, Stephanie, We look forward to having this meeting. Don Maddox will work to set this up in early January. Would you kindly reply with the name of the person Don can work with in your organization to get this on the calendar? Wishing you a very Happy Holiday! Mary Mary Hanley Special Assistant Office of the Administrator US EPA (Mail Code 1101A) 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW Washington DC, 20460 Ph: 202-564-0316 FAX: 202-501-1428 ----- Forwarded by Mary Hanley/DC/USEPA/US on 12/13/2012 10:34 AM ----From: Mary Hanley/DC/USEPA/US To: "Amy Farrell" , Lisa Matthews/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Cc: Jeanne Briskin/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, "Stephanie Meadows" Date: 12/11/2012 03:08 PM Subject: Re: Meeting Amy, Thank you for this opportunity. We look forward to getting back to you with some possible dates. Mary From: Amy Farrell [afarrell@anga.us] Sent: 12/11/2012 03:00 PM EST To: Mary Hanley; Lisa Matthews Cc: Jeanne Briskin; "'Stephanie Meadows' (Meadows@api.org)" Subject: Meeting Hi Mary and Lisa – Thanks for sending around the information on the workshop. We’ll get the word out so we can send a good set of technical experts your way. I’m actually writing because we are close to having some final deliverables from Battelle and we’d like to come in to brief you all. I’ve briefly described the effort to Jeanne and mentioned it to Bob when we last spoke. I think it would be beneficial for us to meet and for you all to have a chance to review the materials in advance of your retrospective data release. Given holiday travel I think the best thing would be to start looking for days in the new year – basically the week of the 31 st or soon after. Please email to let us know a few options that might work on your end and Stephanie and I will work to get Battelle and some of our members lined up. Thanks! Amy Amy L. Farrell VP of Regulatory Affairs America's Natural Gas Alliance 202-789-2642 (office) 202-715-1742 (direct) 202-997-7012 (mobile) afarrell@anga.us Page 1 of 3 Re: Insurance information John Satterfield to: Ramona Trovato 07/18/2012 09:55 AM Hide Details From: John Satterfield To: Ramona Trovato/DC/USEPA/US@EPA History: This message has been forwarded. Paul is looking to schedule a meeting week of 30 JUL with Bob to discuss our ATGAS report and our report on the retrospective split sampling in Bradford county, pa. If we get this scheduled, let me know what level of convo you'd like to have. I can cover the technical issues to a certain point, but if you really want to talk about the hydrogeology and statistical correlation of differing parameters, will need to bring a couple of other folks. Alternately, can have higher level discussions including bob and Paul after we have a technical convo.... Let me know.... John A Satterfield Director Environmental & Regulatory Affairs Chesapeake Energy Corporation Sent from my iPad On Jul 17, 2012, at 8:09 AM, "Ramona Trovato" wrote: Thanks John. I'll move this along. From: John Satterfield [john.satterfield@chk.com] Sent: 07/17/2012 12:56 PM GMT file://C:\Documents and Settings\jzambran\Local Settings\Temp\notesFCBCEE\~web7398... 6/22/2013 Page 2 of 3 To: Ramona Trovato Subject: FW: Insurance information Ramona – below is our Risk Management Department’s review of E&E’s insurance information.    Hopefully will be easy adjustment on E&E’s part. Please let me know if you have questions or concerns. From: Chris Hill (Regulatory) Sent: Monday, July 16, 2012 10:58 PM To: 'Michael Overbay' Cc: 'David Jewett'; 'Doug Beak'; 'Susan Mravik'; John Satterfield Subject: RE: Insurance information Mike, Please see CHK’s comments regarding EPA’s proposed agreement attached. The embedded  revisions address all concerns regarding the subcontractor issue. Once EPA has accepted all  changes to the agreement, signed the document and provided CHK a new E&E certificate of  insurance aligned with the agreement, CHK will consider the contractor liability issues adequately  addressed to proceed with field activities. I would be more than happy to setup a conference call in  the near future, if there are any issues with the revised agreement that we need to work through.  I have attached a copy of the CHK/Landowner access agreement for your information.  Please let me know if you have any questions or comments, or if there is anything else we can do  to help. We look forward to proceeding with the Mississippi Lime prospective study.  Thank you, Chris Hill Environmental Engineer Chesapeake Energy Corporation Office: (405) 935-2321 Mobile: (405) 388-3907 Fax: (405) 849-2321 E-mail: Chris.Hill@chk.com From: John Satterfield Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2012 3:37 PM To: 'Michael Overbay' Cc: Chris Hill (Regulatory); 'Jeanne Briskin'; 'Ramona Trovato'; 'Bob Sussman'; 'Stephen Hess'; 'Lek Kadeli'; 'Steve Pressman'; 'David Jewett'; 'Doug Beak'; 'Susan Mravik' Subject: RE: Insurance information Thanks!  Will run to ground and get back with you as soon as I can. From: Michael Overbay [mailto:Overbay.Michael@epamail.epa.gov] Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2012 3:35 PM To: John Satterfield Cc: Chris Hill (Regulatory); Jeanne Briskin; Ramona Trovato; Bob Sussman; Stephen Hess; Lek file://C:\Documents and Settings\jzambran\Local Settings\Temp\notesFCBCEE\~web7398... 6/22/2013 Page 3 of 3 Kadeli; Steve Pressman; David Jewett; Doug Beak; Susan Mravik Subject: Insurance information Hello John, I am happy to finally be able to provide you information about the insurance requirements contained in the EPA contract with our prime contractor for this project, Ecology and Environment (E&E). Attached is a certificate of insurance showing E&E's existing policies, with coverage up to $15 million. The policies will be carried forward under our existing contract with E&E. If the coverage is sufficient, Chesapeake will be added as an additional insured for the liability coverage. Per Stephanie's E-mail message June 27th, it appears you will not need insurance information about the drilling subcontractor in order to move forward. I am hoping the above information will be adequate to allow Chesapeake to resolve their concerns about liabilities issues. Once you have had a chance to share this information and discuss it internally, I would appreciate receiving an E-mail with your confirmation that the liability/indemnification issue is resolved. Also, we would like to receive a copy of the access agreement with the landowner to confirm that we have access to conduct our EPA activities through your agreement. As you know, we would like to make sure all the paperwork is agreed to so that we can move ahead with this project. Please feel free for either you or Chris Hill to call me if you have any questions. Best regards, Mike Michael Overbay, P.G. Regional Ground Water Center Coordinator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 6 (214)665-6482 (214)665-2191 (FAX) This email (and attachments if any) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is confidential or privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this email is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent respons ble for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return email and destroy all copies of the email (and attachments if any). This email (and attachments if any) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is confidential or privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this email is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent respons ble for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distr bution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return email and destroy all copies of the email (and attachments if any). file://C:\Documents and Settings\jzambran\Local Settings\Temp\notesFCBCEE\~web7398... 6/22/2013 Page 1 of 3 FW: Insurance information John Satterfield to: Ramona Trovato 07/17/2012 08:56 AM Hide Details From: John Satterfield To: Ramona Trovato/DC/USEPA/US@EPA History: This message has been replied to and forwarded. 3 Attachments Draft Access Agreement with Chesapeake v1 by MO CBH2.docx Scanned Document.pdf Eand E insurance certificate.pdf Ramona – below is our Risk Management Department’s review of E&E’s insurance information.   Hopefully will  be easy adjustment on E&E’s part. Please let me know if you have questions or concerns. From: Chris Hill (Regulatory) Sent: Monday, July 16, 2012 10:58 PM To: 'Michael Overbay' Cc: 'David Jewett'; 'Doug Beak'; 'Susan Mravik'; John Satterfield Subject: RE: Insurance information file://C:\Documents and Settings\jzambran\Local Settings\Temp\notesFCBCEE\~web8267... 6/22/2013 Page 2 of 3 Mike,   Please see CHK’s comments regarding EPA’s proposed agreement attached. The embedded revisions address all  concerns regarding the subcontractor issue. Once EPA has accepted all changes to the agreement, signed the  document and provided CHK a new E&E certificate of insurance aligned with the agreement, CHK will consider  the contractor liability issues adequately addressed to proceed with field activities. I would be more than happy  to setup a conference call in the near future, if there are any issues with the revised agreement that we need to  work through.    I have attached a copy of the CHK/Landowner access agreement for your information.    Please let me know if you have any questions or comments, or if there is anything else we can do to help. We  look forward to proceeding with the Mississippi Lime prospective study.    Thank you, Chris Hill Environmental Engineer Chesapeake Energy Corporation Office: (405) 935-2321 Mobile: (405) 388-3907 Fax: (405) 849-2321 E-mail: Chris.Hill@chk.com     From: John Satterfield Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2012 3:37 PM To: 'Michael Overbay' Cc: Chris Hill (Regulatory); 'Jeanne Briskin'; 'Ramona Trovato'; 'Bob Sussman'; 'Stephen Hess'; 'Lek Kadeli'; 'Steve Pressman'; 'David Jewett'; 'Doug Beak'; 'Susan Mravik' Subject: RE: Insurance information Thanks!  Will run to ground and get back with you as soon as I can.   From: Michael Overbay [mailto:Overbay.Michael@epamail.epa.gov] Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2012 3:35 PM To: John Satterfield Cc: Chris Hill (Regulatory); Jeanne Briskin; Ramona Trovato; Bob Sussman; Stephen Hess; Lek Kadeli; Steve Pressman; David Jewett; Doug Beak; Susan Mravik Subject: Insurance information Hello John, I am happy to finally be able to provide you information about the insurance requirements contained in the EPA contract with our prime contractor for this project, Ecology and Environment (E&E). Attached is a certificate of insurance showing E&E's existing policies, with coverage up to $15 million. The policies will be carried forward under our existing contract with E&E. If the coverage is sufficient, Chesapeake will be added as an additional insured for the liability coverage. Per Stephanie's E-mail message June 27th, it appears you will not need insurance information about the drilling subcontractor in order to move forward. I am hoping the above information will be adequate to allow Chesapeake to resolve their concerns about liabilities issues. Once you have had a chance to share this information and discuss it internally, I would appreciate receiving an E- file://C:\Documents and Settings\jzambran\Local Settings\Temp\notesFCBCEE\~web8267... 6/22/2013 Page 3 of 3 mail with your confirmation that the liability/indemnification issue is resolved. Also, we would like to receive a copy of the access agreement with the landowner to confirm that we have access to conduct our EPA activities through your agreement. As you know, we would like to make sure all the paperwork is agreed to so that we can move ahead with this project. Please feel free for either you or Chris Hill to call me if you have any questions. Best regards, Mike Michael Overbay, P.G. Regional Ground Water Center Coordinator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 6 (214)665-6482 (214)665-2191 (FAX) This email (and attachments if any) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is confidential or privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this email is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent respons ble for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distr bution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return email and destroy all copies of the email (and attachments if any). file://C:\Documents and Settings\jzambran\Local Settings\Temp\notesFCBCEE\~web8267... 6/22/2013 From: To: Subject: Date: walter.postula@shell.com Jeanne Briskin/DC/USEPA/US@EPA RE: Query on Potential Paper/Presentation for 2013 Ethylene Producers' Conference on EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Study 08/31/2012 12:04 PM Thanks for the reply Jeanne.  Sorry to hear the EPA will not be able to participate on this topic. Kind regards, Walter From: Jeanne Briskin [mailto:Briskin.Jeanne@epamail.epa.gov] Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 9:08 AM To: Postula, Walter S GSUSI-PTD/TCB Subject: RE: Query on Potential Paper/Presentation for 2013 Ethylene Producers' Conference on EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Study Dear Walter, Thank you for your kind invitation. I have checked with our folks and we will need to decline your offer to participate in the 2013 Ethylene Producer's Conference. Thank you for considering us as part of the agenda. Best, Jeanne Jeanne Briskin Office of Science Policy Office of Research and Development U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. (8104R) Washington, D.C. 20460 (202) 564-4583 - office (202) 565-2911 - fax briskin.jeanne@epa.gov Address for Deliveries: US EPA Ronald Reagan Building --Room 51144 Washington DC 20004 ---08/30/2012 07:00:28 PM---Dear Jeanne, Just wanted to follow up on EPA interest in a paper/presentation as detailed in my note From: To: Jeanne Briskin/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 08/30/2012 07:00 PM Subject: RE: Query on Potential Paper/Presentation for 2013 Ethylene Producers' Conference on EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Study Dear Jeanne, Just wanted to follow up on EPA interest in a paper/presentation as detailed in my note below. We are about two months away from the abstract submission deadline and I would like to firm up my list of authors/papers to know if I need to pursue other possibilities. Kind regards, Walter From: Postula, Walter S GSUSI-PTD/TCB Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 1:44 PM To: 'Briskin.jeanne@Epa.gov' Subject: Query on Potential Paper/Presentation for 2013 Ethylene Producers' Conference on EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Study Dear Jeanne, I am a member of the Ethylene Producers’ Environmental Sub-Committee. Each year the Ethylene Producers’ Conference takes place in conjunction with the Spring Meeting of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers. At this conference, 12-13 sessions are organized by various sub-committees to present material of general (non-confidential) interest to US Ethylene Producers. The 2013 conference is being held in San Antonio at the end of April, 2013. I found your name via a “podcast” on hydraulic fracturing and am writing to begin the discussion on someone from the EPA making a presentation (writing paper too) at our conference on the current knowledge on environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing. This is especially topical because of the recent announcements for ethylene plant expansions and new construction, based on availability of shale gas from hydraulic fracturing. Please let me know if this is possible. Kind regards, Walter Walter S. Postula Shell Projects and Technology - Global Solutions Downstream Lower Olefins and Aromatics (GSUSI-PTD/TCB) Westhollow Technology Center, D-3 Q10 3333 Highway 6 South, Houston, TX 77082 Tel: +01 281 544-8313 Email: walter.postula@shell.com, 9/80 Schedule B www.shell.com/globalsolutions This e-mail, and any attachment and response string are confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please telephone or e-mail the sender and delete this message and any attachment immediately. Internet communications are not secure and therefore Shell does not accept legal respons bility for the contents of this message as it has been transmitted over a public network. If you suspect the message may have been intercepted or amended, please call the sender. From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Jeanne Briskin John Satterfield Dayna Gibbons RE: draft Alfalfa County desk statement.docx 08/15/2012 07:45 AM thanks for the update. Jeanne Briskin Office of Science Policy Office of Research and Development U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. (8104R) Washington, D.C.  20460 (202) 564-4583 - office (202) 565-2911 - fax briskin.jeanne@epa.gov Address for Deliveries: US EPA Ronald Reagan Building --Room 51144 Washington DC  20004 ▼ John Satterfield ---08/15/2012 07:40:39 AM---It's in Paul's hands.  He may want to discuss with Bob.  Sorry can't be more help. From: Jeanne Bris From:    John Satterfield To:    Jeanne Briskin/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Cc:    Dayna Gibbons/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Date:    08/15/2012 07:40 AM Subject:    RE: draft Alfalfa County desk statement.docx It’s in Paul’s hands.  He may want to discuss with Bob.  Sorry can’t be more help. From: Jeanne Briskin [mailto:Briskin.Jeanne@epamail.epa.gov] Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 3:41 PM To: John Satterfield Cc: Dayna Gibbons Subject: Re: draft Alfalfa County desk statement.docx Hi John, Any word on whether the proposed desk statement is still ok or suggested edits? I understand that Paul Hagemeier may have a call in to Bob Sussman, so we would appreciate being able to let Bob S know the latest, soon. thanks! Jeanne Jeanne Briskin Office of Science Policy Office of Research and Development U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. (8104R) Washington, D.C. 20460 (202) 564-4583 - office (202) 565-2911 - fax briskin.jeanne@epa.gov Address for Deliveries: US EPA Ronald Reagan Building --Room 51144 Washington DC 20004 yv+LAH8AAAAAAAAASW5hY3RpdmUgaGlkZSBkZXRhaWxzIGZvciBKZWFubmUgQnJpc2tpbi0tLTA4 LzEwLzIwMTIgMDQ6MDc6NDUgUE0tLS1IaSBKb2huLCBJIHRoaW5rIHdlIGFyZSBvbiB0aGUgdmVy Z2Ugb2YgcmVzb2x2aW5nIGFsbCB0aGUgbw== Jeanne Briskin---08/10/2012 04:07:45 PM---Hi John, I think we are on the verge of resolving all the outstanding questions regarding our collab From: Jeanne Briskin/DC/USEPA/US To: John Satterfield Cc: Dayna Gibbons/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 08/10/2012 04 07 PM Subject: draft Alfalfa County desk statement.docx Hi John, I think we are on the verge of resolving all the outstanding questions regarding our collaboration on our prospective case study in Oklahoma. Several months ago, Stephanie Timmermeyer and I worked out the attached text so that we could update our website and explain why we are changing locations. The attachment contains the language we agreed to at that time. Would you please review the proposed text to make sure that it still works for Chesapeake and let me know whether it is ok as is? Thanks, Jeanne Jeanne Briskin Office of Science Policy Office of Research and Development U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. (8104R) Washington, D.C. 20460 (202) 564-4583 - office (202) 565-2911 - fax briskin.jeanne@epa.gov Address for Deliveries: US EPA Ronald Reagan Building --Room 51144 Washington DC 20004 (See attached file: draft Alfalfa County desk statement.docx) This email (and attachments if any) is intended only for the use of the individual or en ity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is confidential or privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this email is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return email and destroy all copies of the email (and attachments if any). Due to scheduling con?icts, the prospective case study of the hydraulic fracturing site near Mans?eld in DeSoto Parish, Louisiana, will be replaced by an alternative site. Sampling to establish baseline conditions for the study could not be completed before drilling was to begin on the site. While it was not a factor in the decision to cancel this case study, the site was also not ideal for collection of certain baseline samples, due in part to the anticipated slow rate of groundwater ?ow. We have been working closely with Chesapeake Energy (our indusz partner on this project) to identify a replacement site that meets the criteria for hydraulic fracturing study. A new site has been selected in Alfalfa County, Oklahoma. Draft Questions and Answers 1. Why was the newly selected prospective case study site not in the Haynesville Shale area? EPA was not able to replace this site with another one in the Haynesville Shale area because there were no available sites that satisfy our criteria while fitting into the schedules of both EPA and Chesapeake Energy. Therefore, we have worked with Chesapeake to evaluate potential replacement sites they have provided in areas where drilling activities remain high. 2. Why was the Alfalfa County site selected? The site in Alfalfa County meets the technical considerations for a site which EPA had outlined as relevant to a prospective case study. This includes factors such as being in an area without signi?cant pre-existing development, and having relatively shallow depths to good quality groundwater. Additionally, the site schedule for development is compatible with the EPA schedule for investigation. 2. Will this delay results for the ?nal Hydraulic Fracturing Report? EPA intends to establish a schedule, in agreement with our industry partner, that would make results available in 2014. 3- Invitation: Fw: EPA Prospective Study Conf Call ig?J Thu 11I01l201210200 AM - 11:00 AM 3 Attendance is required for Ramona Trovato Cha Sen: 5; John Satterfield seamen 877-935-0245 (745420) chris.hill@chk.com chris.hill has invited Ramona Trovato to a meeting. Required: trovato.ramona@epa.gov Time zones, This entry was created in a different time zone. The time in that time zone is: Thu 11/01/2012 I 9:00 AM CDT - 10:00 AM CDT Description Fyi from chris .. have schedule this meeting to ensure we continue forward progress regarding the Prospective Study. The proposed topics of discussion are identi?ed in the agenda below. Agenda - Site Selection - QAPP Development - Access Agreement Please let me know if you have any questions prior to the conference call. I look fonNard to our discussion. Thank you, Chris Hill Environmental Engineer Chesapeake Energy Corporation Office: (405) 935-2321 Mobile: (405) 388-3907 Fax: (405) 849-2321 E-mail: Thanks, John Satter?eld Director, Environmental and Regulatory Affairs Chesapeake Energy Corporation Sent from my BlackBerry This email (and attachments if any) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is con?dential or privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this email is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return email and destroy all copies of the email (and attachments if any). I EPA HF Study - Prospective Study Tue 03/27/2012 4:00 PM - 4:30 PM I I Attendance is required for Ramona Trovato we chris.hili@chk.com Atari-Cr? Conference Call (877-935-0245 745420) Michael stephanie.timmenneyer@chk.com, Required: Jeanne beak.doug@epa.gov, David trovato.ramona@epa.gov This entry was created in a different time zone. The time in that time zone is: Tue 03/27/2012 3:00 PM CDT - 3:30 PM CDT Time zones: Description Please forward as appropriate. This email (and attachments if any) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, con?dential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this email is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby noti?ed that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return email and destroy all copies of the email (and attachments if any). Personal Notes 002233.0696.SGTG 2233.0696.SGTG-B3494 Quality Assurance Project Plan for the Haynesville Shale Prospective Case Study United States Environmental Pr Protection Agency Hydraulic Fracturing Study December 2011 Prepared for: United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development National Risk Management Research Laboratory Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Center Ada, Oklahoma Prepared by: ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONM ENVIRONMENT, INC. 368 Pleasant View Drive Lancaster, New York 14086 Table of Contents T able of Contents Section 1 Page Project Management ................................................................ 1-1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 2 Project/Task Organization ................................................................................ 1-1 Problem Definition/Background ...................................................................... 1-2 Project/Task Description ............................................................................. 1-81-7 Project Quality Objectives and Criteria .................................................... 1-101-8 Special Training/Certification ................................................................... 1-101-9 Documents and Records .......................................................................... 1-111-10 Data Generation and Acquisition ............................................ 2-1 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 Sampling Process Design (Experimental Design) ........................................... 2-1 2.1.1 Background Geologic and Hydrological Information .......................... 2-2 2.1.2 Ground-Water Monitoring ................................................................... 2-4 2.1.3 Surface Water Sampling....................................................................... 2-6 2.1.4 Soil Sampling .............................................................................. 2-122-11 Sampling Methods ................................................................................... 2-132-12 2.2.1 Installation of Temporary Piezometers ....................................... 2-132-12 2.2.2 Installation of Monitoring Wells ................................................. 2-162-15 2.2.2.1 Geophysical Logging .................................................... 2-162-15 2.2.2.2 Approach ....................................................................... 2-162-15 2.2.2.3 Monitoring Well construction ....................................... 2-182-17 2.2.3 Monitoring Well Sampling.......................................................... 2-192-18 2.2.4 Domestic Wells, Water Supply Wells, and Municipal Supply Well Sampling ............................................................................. 2-322-30 2.2.5 Surface Water Sampling.............................................................. 2-342-32 2.2.6 Soil Sampling .............................................................................. 2-342-32 2.2.6.1 Soil Sampling Procedures. ............................................ 2-352-32 2.2.7 Mechanical Well Integrity Testing .............................................. 2-362-34 2.2.8 Flow Back Sampling ................................................................... 2-382-36 Sample Handling and Custody ................................................................ 2-382-36 2.3.1 Sampling Labeling ...................................................................... 2-382-36 2.3.2 Sample Packing and Shipping ..................................................... 2-382-36 Analytical Methods ................................................................................. 2-392-37 Quality Control ........................................................................................ 2-522-49 2.5.1 Quality Metrics for Aqueous Analysis ........................................ 2-522-49 2.5.2 Measured and Calculated Solute Concentration Data Evaluation2-592-56 2.5.3 Detection Limits .......................................................................... 2-592-56 iii 02:002233_0696_SGTG-B3494 4_attachment_EPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611 (CEPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611.doc10/21/1308/06/1301/06/1201/06/1201/06/1212/20/11 Table of Contents (cont.) Section Page 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.10 3 Assessment and Oversight ..................................................... 3-1 3.1 3.2 4 Assessments and Response Actions ................................................................. 3-1 3.1.1 Assessments ......................................................................................... 3-2 3.1.2 Assessment Results .............................................................................. 3-2 Reports to Management ................................................................................... 3-3 Data Validation and Usability .................................................. 4-1 4.1 4.2 4.3 5 2.5.4 QA/QC Calculations ................................................................... 2-592-56 Instrument/Equipment Testing, Inspection, and Maintenance ................ 2-602-57 Instrument/Equipment Calibration and Frequency ................................. 2-602-57 Inspection/Acceptance of Supplies and Consumables ............................ 2-612-58 Non-direct Measurements ....................................................................... 2-622-59 Data Management ................................................................................... 2-622-59 2.10.1 Data Analysis, Interpretation, and Management ......................... 2-632-60 2.10.2 Data Recording ............................................................................ 2-632-60 2.10.3 Data Storage ................................................................................ 2-632-60 2.10.4 Analysis of Data .......................................................................... 2-632-60 Data Review, Verification, and Validation ...................................................... 4-1 Verification and Validation Methods ............................................................... 4-1 Reconciliation with User Requirements ........................................................... 4-3 References ................................................................................ 5-1 Appendix A Standard Operating Procedures ............................................ A-1 B Field Forms .............................................................................. B-1 iv 02:002233_0696_SGTG-B3494 4_attachment_EPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611 (CEPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611.doc10/21/1308/06/1301/06/1201/06/1201/06/1212/20/11 List of Tables L ist of Tables Table Page 1 Critical analytes .................................................................................................... 1-91-8 2 Water Quality of the Carizzo-Wilcox Aquifer. Data from LDEQ 2009................... 2-4 3 The Physical Characteristics of the Monitoring Wells Near the Proposed Well Pad.............................................................................................................................. 2-5 4 Field Parameter Stabilization Criteria and Calibration Standards .................... 2-272-25 5 Groundwater Field Analytical Methods............................................................ 2-292-27 6 Ground and Surface Water Sample Collection ................................................. 2-302-28 7 Field QC Samples for Water Samples .............................................................. 2-322-30 8 Region III Laboratory QA/QC Requirements for Glycols ............................... 2-402-38 9 RSKERC Detection Limits for Various Analytes ............................................ 2-442-41 10 Region VIII Detection and Reporting limits and LCS and MS Control Limits for Semivolatile Organic Compounds (SVOC) using Method 8270 ................ 2-482-45 11 RSKERC Laboratory QA/QC Requirements Summary* from SOPs ............... 2-542-51 12 Region VIII Laboratory QA/QC Requirements for Semivolatiles, GRO, DRO2-572-54 13 Region III Detection and Reporting Limits for Glycols ................................... 2-592-56 14 Supplies or Consumables Needed Not Listed in SOPs*................................... 2-622-59 v 02:002233_0696_SGTG-B3494 4_attachment_EPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611 (CEPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611.doc10/21/1308/06/1301/06/1201/06/1201/06/1212/20/11 List of Figures L ist of Figures Figure Page 1 Organizational Chart for the Hydraulic Fracturing Prospective Case Study ........ 1-41-3 2 EPA HF Prospective Case Study Location Map................................................... 1-61-5 3A Proposed Monitoring Well Location Map ............................................................ 2-82-7 3B Expanded View of Proposed Monitoring Wells in Close Proximity to the Proposed Gas Well.............................................................................................. 2-102-9 4 Proposed Soil, Surface Water and Piezometer Locations ................................. 2-142-13 5 Typical Groundwater Monitoring Well ............................................................ 2-212-19 6 Open Tube Sampling Method ........................................................................... 2-232-21 7 Closed Piston Sampling Method....................................................................... 2-252-23 8 Chain of Custody Form for Submittal of Samples to R.S. Kerr Environmental Research Center ................................................................................................ 2-422-39 vii 02:002233_0696_SGTG-B3494 4_attachment_EPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611 (CEPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611.doc10/21/1308/06/1301/06/1201/06/1201/06/1212/20/11 List of Abbreviations and Acronyms L ist of Abbreviations and Acronyms Start here ix 02:002233_0696_SGTG-B3494 4_attachment_EPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611 (CEPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611.doc10/21/1308/06/1301/06/1201/06/1201/06/1212/20/11 Section No.: 1 Revision No.: 00 Date: May October 21, 2013August 6, 2013January 6, 2012January 6, 2012January 6, 2012December 20, 2011 1 Project Management 1.1 Project/Task Organization The organizational structure for the Hydraulic Fracturing Prospective Case Study located in the Haynesville Shale, in Desoto Parish Louisiana is shown in Figure 1. The responsibilities of the principal personnel associated with this case study are listed below. Dr. Robert Puls, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Center (RSKERC), Ada, OK. Dr. Puls is the overall technical lead on the Hydraulic Fracturing Study. He is the principal investigator of this project and is responsible for preparing and maintaining the Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) and ensuring completion of all aspects of this QAPP, including overall responsibility for QA. He will lead the collection, analysis, and interpretation of groundwater and surface water samples. Mr. Steve Vandegrift, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, RSKERC, Ada, OK. Mr. Vandegrift is responsible for quality assurance review/approval of the QAPP, conducting audits, and QA review/approval of the final report. His HAZWOPER certification is current. Dr. Randall Ross, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, RSKERC, Ada, OK. Dr. Ross will assist in the analysis of hydrologic conditions at the Haynesville site and will assist in the development of the site hydrologic conditions. His HAZWOPER certification is current. Mr. Steve Acree, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, RSKERC, Ada, OK. Mr. Acree will assist in the analysis of hydrologic conditions at the Haynesville site and will assist in the development of the site hydrologic conditions. His HAZWOPER certification is current. 1-1 02:002233_0696_SGTG-B3494 4_attachment_EPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611 (CEPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611.doc10/21/20138/6/20131/6/20121/6/20121/6/201212/20/2011 Comment [nc1]: Need to replace with current person Section No.: 1 Revision No.: 00 Date: May October 21, 2013August 6, 2013January 6, 2012January 6, 2012January 6, 2012December 20, 2011 1. Project Management Mr. Russell Neill, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, RSKERC, Ada, OK. Mr. Neill is responsible for assisting in ground water sampling. His HAZWOPER certification is current. Dr. Sujith Kumar, Shaw Environmental, Ada, OK. Dr. Kumar is responsible for overseeing the analytical work performed under Ground Water and Ecosystems Restoration Division’s (GWERD) on site analytical contract (VOC’s, dissolved gases, and metals). Ms. Shauna Bennett, Shaw Environmental, Ada, OK. Dr. Ms. Bennett is the QC Coordinator for Shaw Environmental and will coordinate QC for Shaw Environmental portion of this study. Ms. Cynthia Caporale, USEPA Region 3 Analytical Laboratory, Laboratory Branch Chief/Technical Director. Ms. Caporale will act as a liaison between the Region 3 Lab and RSKERC. Mr. Christopher Hill, Chesapeake Energy, Oklahoma City, OK. Mr. Hill will be the single point of contact for Chesapeake Energy throughout the Haynesville prospective study. Dr. Puls is responsible for initiating contact with appropriate project participants as he deems necessary. Other project participants will keep Dr. Puls informed whenever significant developments or changes occur. Lines of communication among project participants may be conducted via in person conversations, electronic mail, phone conversations, conference calls, and periodic meetings. 1.2 Problem Definition/Background The prospective case study in the Haynesville Shale (see Figure 2) will investigate the construction of a new production well, hydraulic fracturing of said well, management and disposal of wastewater and production of gas from said well for about 1 year following hydraulic fracturing to determine if there is a negative impact to drinking water. The investigation will initially involve sampling ground water, surface water and soil and sediment sampling in the vicinity of the well pad to determine baseline characteristics. This study will be conducted in conjunction with the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ), Chesapeake Energy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6 (EPA R6); and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL), Ground Water and Ecosystems Restoration Division (GWERD). GWERD will be the lead organization for this case study. In addition, the EPA will undertake a review of all other potential sources of contamination in the area, and identify those sources before the project proceeds. Potential sources that will be identified include USTs, historical oil and 1-2 02:002233_0696_SGTG-B3494 4_attachment_EPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611 (CEPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611.doc10/21/20138/6/20131/6/20121/6/20121/6/201212/20/2011 Formatted: Not Highlight Comment [CV2]: All potential sources of contamination should be identified before the project during Tier 1 activities as identified the the Final Study Plan (11/3/2011). A EDR/Phase I data review should be used to identify any potential sources such as USTs, landfills, spills along the railroad easement, salt storage yards, septic tanks, sewer lines, stormwater lines, etc within a 3-mile radius of the site. Comment [nc3]: I thought it was decided to not to do the sediment sampling Section No.: 1 Revision No.: 00 Date: May October 21, 2013August 6, 2013January 6, 2012January 6, 2012January 6, 2012December 20, 2011 1. Project Management gas wells/pits/pipelines/storage area, landfills, releases, salt storage yards, septic tanks, sewer lines, stormwater lines, ecttc. within a 2 mile radius of the site. 1-3 02:002233_0696_SGTG-B3494 4_attachment_EPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611 (CEPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611.doc10/21/20138/6/20131/6/20121/6/20121/6/201212/20/2011 Section No.: 1 Revision No.: 00 Date: May October 21, 2013August 6, 2013January 6, 2012January 6, 2012January 6, 2012December 20, 2011 1. Project Management Insert Figure (color) page 1 of 2 1 Organizational Chart for the Hydraulic Fracturing Prospective Case Study, Desoto Parish, LA 1-4 02:002233_0696_SGTG-B3494 4_attachment_EPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611 (CEPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611.doc10/21/20138/6/20131/6/20121/6/20121/6/201212/20/2011 Section No.: 1 Revision No.: 00 Date: May October 21, 2013August 6, 2013January 6, 2012January 6, 2012January 6, 2012December 20, 2011 1. Project Management Figure 1 page 2 of 2 1-5 02:002233_0696_SGTG-B3494 4_attachment_EPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611 (CEPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611.doc10/21/20138/6/20131/6/20121/6/20121/6/201212/20/2011 Section No.: 1 Revision No.: 00 Date: May October 21, 2013August 6, 2013January 6, 2012January 6, 2012January 6, 2012December 20, 2011 1. Project Management Insert Figure (color) page 1 of 2 2 EPA HF Prospective Case Study Location Map 1-6 02:002233_0696_SGTG-B3494 4_attachment_EPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611 (CEPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611.doc10/21/20138/6/20131/6/20121/6/20121/6/201212/20/2011 Section No.: 1 Revision No.: 00 Date: May October 21, 2013August 6, 2013January 6, 2012January 6, 2012January 6, 2012December 20, 2011 1. Project Management Figure 2 page 2 of 2 1-7 02:002233_0696_SGTG-B3494 4_attachment_EPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611 (CEPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611.doc10/21/20138/6/20131/6/20121/6/20121/6/201212/20/2011 Section No.: 1 Revision No.: 00 Date: May October 21, 2013August 6, 2013January 6, 2012January 6, 2012January 6, 2012December 20, 2011 1. Project Management The proposed pad location is in De Soto Parish in north western LA and has an estimated population of 26,656 individuals (2010). The area surrounding the proposed site is currently experiencing extensive natural gas exploration using horizontal drilling technology and hydraulic fracturing is being employed to stimulate production in these wells. In addition, this area was part of historical oil and gas field developed in the 1950’s and 1960’s. Prior to proceeding any sampling and monitor well installation as part of Tier 1 & 2 activities (described in the final Study Plan 11/3/2011), all historical oil/gas infrastructure will be identified, such as tank batteries, pipelines, existing and plugged/abandoned oil/gas wells, and pits. Following identification, the final location of monitoring wells and sample sites will be selected. The objectives of this case study are listed below. ■ Primary Objective: Evaluate ground water, surface water and soil characteristics before, during and after key phases of a shale gas well development; well drilling, well completion, and production to identify if there is a significant change in media characteristics. Comment [CV4]: Should also note history of the area, as has experienced extensive oil and gas development in the 1950s-60s. Comment [CV5]: Case study objectives should be the same as objectives listed in the Final Study Plan. Comment [c6]: The SAB specifically requested that the study be limited to hydraulic fracturing. It appears the EPA has expanded the scope of the study to include all development activities. CHK recommends that the EPA focus on hydraulic fracturing. ■ Secondary Objective 1: Determine the appropriate baseline characteristics of ground water, surface water, and soil. Comment [c7]: The definition of a significant change needs to be defined. It is equally important to determine the cause of all changes; natural or anthropogenic. ■ Secondary Objective 2: Determine characteristics of ground water, surface water, and soil throughout the key phases of the gas well development; postpad construction to approximately one year after initial gas production. Comment [CV8]: Given the current schedule, there does not appear to be enough time to capture seasonal variations in sample characteristics, , however, this is critical to determining if a change is significant. ■ Secondary Objective 3: Determine the chemistry, volumes and rates of produced water, specifically flowback, over a period of months from the production well following hydraulic fracturing. ■ Secondary Objective 4: Compare data gathered for secondary objectives 1 and 2 to determine if significant changes were observed in the media baseline characterisitics, and if this change could be attributed to the gas well development. ■ Secondary Objective 5: Review wastewaters site management and disposal practices during drilling and hydraulic fracturing, and qualitatively identify risks to drinking water sources. 1.3 Project/Task Description In order to accomplish the primary objective of the study, the established monitoring well network, along with any pertinent domestic wells and municipal supply wells will be sampled for the components found in Table 1. In addition, select 1-8 02:002233_0696_SGTG-B3494 4_attachment_EPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611 (CEPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611.doc10/21/20138/6/20131/6/20121/6/20121/6/201212/20/2011 Comment [CV9]: It remains CHK’s position that the QAPP be as complete as possible prior to study commencement. As such, Secondary Objectives 3-5 should be included if they are in fact objectives of this study. Section No.: 1 Revision No.: 00 Date: May October 21, 2013August 6, 2013January 6, 2012January 6, 2012January 6, 2012December 20, 2011 1. Project Management hydraulic fracturing fluid components (such as potassium (K), barium (Ba), alcohols, naphthalene, and boron), potentially mobilized naturally occurring substances (such as arsenic (As), selenium (Se), strontium (Sr), and other trace metals) will also be tested along with changes in background water quality (pH, major anions and cations). In addition, during future samplings soil and stream samples will be taken and the critical analytes for these sample types are the same as listed previously. Comment [nc10]: Potassium has not been found to be a good indicator of hydraulic fracturing fluid components. In order to address secondary objective 1, groundwater sampling, surface water sampling and soil sampling will be necessary. The target parameters listed in the primary objective will be needed to address this objective. At least 3 rounds of baseline sampling should be conducted on monitoring wells, streams, and area water wells following completion of the pad. Comment [c12]: As experience has shown, multiple samplings of surface water and groundwater is needed to define the variability of parameter constituents, which will vary depending on climatic conditions, sampling methodology, sample collection depth, and laboratory variability in sample results. Suggest at least 3 baseline samplings be conducted at a minimum to define the water-quality variability. Secondary objective 2 will entail re-sampling of groundwater, surface water, and soils for the same suite of parameters to see if there was any adverse impact. Comment [nc11]: These elements are not necessarily mobilized but rather are naturally present in the formation waters. Comment [n13]: Will probably only be able to do 2 rounds of baseline given slips in schedule Comment [WU14]: I would agree to 2 based on budget. If CHK wants 3, they can pay for it Comment [c15]: All analytes and methods should be consistent for baseline and non-baseline sampling. The data collected from this case study will be incorporated into the larger Hydraulic Fracturing report to Congress. It is also anticipated that this data will be utilized in EPA reports, conference proceedings and journal articles. Work group members, including Chesapeake, will have an opportunity to review and comment on any and all products, including draft reports, related to this prospective study prior to their public release. In addition, the data collected in this case study may be used by policy and decision makers in EPA and state regulatory agencies. Table 1 Gasoline Range Organics (GRO) Diesel Range Organics (DRO) Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)* Semivolatile Organic Compounds (SVOC) Metals (As, Se, Sr, Ba, B) Major Cations (Ca, Mg, Na, K) Comment [n17]: Given time constraints we can commit to one and maybe 2 post well construction Comment [c18]: The number of sampling events between key phases of the gas well development should be indentified. Comment [WU19]: E&E please add Ra and U to tables, text Comment [n20]: Can discuss this on down the road, lets get the baseline stuff covered under the QAPP so we can do private well sampling before years end Critical Analytes. Analyte Comment [WU16]: I agree Analysis Method ORGM-506 r1.0, EPA Method 8015D ORGM-508 r1.0, EPA Method 8015D RSKSOP-299v1 ORGM-515 r1.1, EPA Method 8270D RSKSOP-213v4 &-257v2 or -332v0 RSKSOP-213v4 Laboratory Performing the Analysis EPA Region VIII Laboratory EPA Region VIII Laboratory Shaw Environmental EPA Region VIII Laboratory Shaw Environmental Shaw Environmental Comment [WU21]: We will consider this Comment [c22]: Chesapeake would appreciate the opportunity to be included in the production and review of these reports. We request that we discuss our role up front. Comment [n23]: This is assumed but if you (CHK) wish to propose some language here do so Comment [WU24]: CHK would be involved in the review of any report or publication coming from this case study. With respect to the reports to Congress, I will raise it up the line but cannot commit to it now Comment [n25]: Rads will be added on later update of QAPP Comment [c26]: Radon and radium are mentioned in the discussion but no methods are identified for use. Comment [WU27]: Need to add 1-9 02:002233_0696_SGTG-B3494 4_attachment_EPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611 (CEPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611.doc10/21/20138/6/20131/6/20121/6/20121/6/201212/20/2011 Section No.: 1 Revision No.: 00 Date: May October 21, 2013August 6, 2013January 6, 2012January 6, 2012January 6, 2012December 20, 2011 1. Project Management Major Anions (Cl, carbonate, bicarbonate, Br, NO3-+NO2-, SO42-) RSKSOP-276v3 (NO3-+NO2- RSKERC general parameters by RSKSOP-214v5) lab Comment [CV28]: Add carbonate and bicarbonate and bromide. *Ethanol, isopropyl alcohol, tert-butyl alcohol, naphthalene. Only those SVOC compounds in Table 10 that have DL, RL, and Control Limits listed may be used as critical analytes; all others will be used only as screening data. Both VOC and SVOC have many target analytes and initially all are considered critical (with exception for SVOC noted above). A tiered approach will be used to further refine the identification of specific compounds as critical. Data from the first sampling events will be evaluated by the PI to determine if there are specific compounds that are identified in these samples which would warrant their specific identification as critical to narrow the list. These will be identified in a subsequent QAPP revision. GRO analysis provides data for not only TPH as gasoline, but several other compounds. Only TPH as gasoline will be considered critical from this analysis. 1.4 Project Quality Objectives and Criteria As part of this case study, detailed site history has been collected and is continuing to be collected. This data has been collected from Chesapeake and other sources of public information. The site history will be used to determine the background conditions at the site as well as the potential for other activities in the area to be a potential source of the impact to the local aquifer. Natural sources of contaminants or other human activities need to be considered in all interpretations of the data. The installed monitoring well soil sampling and surface water sampling should yield a representative data set that will be analyzed to determine if significant changes were observed in the media baseline characteristics, and if these changes could be attributed to the gas well development. Data from private wells will also be considered but are not considered to be part of the monitoring network. To date EPA has received limited information on the hydrologic conditions near the proposed well pad. During the initial and subsequent sampling events water level measurements will be taken in order to address the hydrologic setting, flow direction and velocity. Other project quality objectives, such as precision, accuracy, sensitivity, and etc. will be discussed primarily in sections 2, 3, and 4. 1.5 Special Training/Certification A current HAZWOPER certification is required for on-site work. HAZWOPER training and yearly refresher training is provided to GWERD personnel at an appropriate training facility chosen by GWERD SHEMP (Safety, Health, and Environmental Management Program) manager. The HAZWOPER certificate and wallet card is provided to each person completing the training. All EPA contractor personnel will also be required to have HAZWOPER training and up-to-date training certificates. In addition to HAZWOPER training, Chesapeake is requiring that all field personnel undergo hydrogen sulfide training. This training will be provided by Chesapeake. All work performed must comply with professional licensing requirement for the State of Louisiana, and those include laboratory, 1-10 02:002233_0696_SGTG-B3494 4_attachment_EPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611 (CEPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611.doc10/21/20138/6/20131/6/20121/6/20121/6/201212/20/2011 Comment [c29]: The study should be designed to ensure a representative data set is collected. Will EPA be collecting enough samples to statistically say that the samples are representative and changes are significant? Comment [c30]: Geophysical techniques will also be used, correct? Comment [c31]: Consider using water-quality trolls such as Specific Conductivity and water level recording trolls to use in-situ in select wells in an area to provide pre-drill baseline data---continuous water-level and water quality data—this is a cheap way of collecting data. Same on streams in area. Need good baseline data that defines variability in sampling, which can be significant, especially for some metals such as iron and manganese. Comment [WU32]: If CHK wants to buy and deploy they can-you guys are part of the team hereplease write things in as you see fit Comment [CV33]: Should add to this section that the geological field work may require supervision by a Louisiana licensed Professional Geologist (depending on when the work is performed). In addition, the monitoring wells and geoprobe borings must be installed and constructed by a licensed driller in Louisiana. Section No.: 1 Revision No.: 00 Date: May October 21, 2013August 6, 2013January 6, 2012January 6, 2012January 6, 2012December 20, 2011 1. Project Management drilling, engineering, and professional geological certifications/registrations. All geologists surpervisingsupervising the monitoring well installation should be registered in the State of Louisiana. The laboratories performing critical analyses in support of this case study must demonstrate their competency in the fields of analyses to be conducted, prior to performing such analyses. Competency may be demonstrated through documentation of certification/accreditation or some other means as determined to be acceptable by project participants. The EPA GP laboratory and the Shaw laboratories, the on-site contractor laboratory at RSKERC, will be used to analyze select critical analytes listed in Table 1. These laboratories have demonstrated competency through the implementation of ORD PPM 13.4, Minimum QA/QC Practices for ORD Laboratories Conducting Research which includes external independent assessments. These laboratories are also routinely subjected to internal laboratory assessments and performance evaluation (PE) samples. The USEPA Region VIII Laboratory will be used to analyze those critical analytes listed in Table 1. This laboratory has been subjected to the National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (NELAP) accreditation process through the state of Texas and is expected to soon be granted approval. The Region III Laboratory will be used to analyze glycols, which is not identified as critical at this time. However, it is accredited under the NELAP through the state of New Jersey as the Accrediting Body. The particular method being used by Region III for these analyses are not accredited, but the laboratory follows all the requirements for an accredited method. However, initial data reported from the glycol analysis will be flagged as “screening” data from a method that is currently being developed. Once the data is validated, it will no longer be flagged as screening” data. 1.6 Documents and Records Data reports will be provided electronically as Excel spreadsheets. Shaw’s raw data is kept on-site at the GWERD and will be provided on CD/DVD to Dr. Puls. Raw data for sub-contracted laboratories shall be included with the data reports. Calibration and QC data and results shall be included. Field notebooks will be kept as well as customized data entry forms if needed. Data will be uploaded to a FTP website that Chesapeake has access within two weeks of receipt of data by the EPA. Records and documents expected to be produced include: field data, chain-ofcustody (COC), QA audit reports for field and laboratory activities, data reports, raw data, calibration data, QC data, interim reports, and a final report. 1-11 02:002233_0696_SGTG-B3494 4_attachment_EPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611 (CEPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611.doc10/21/20138/6/20131/6/20121/6/20121/6/201212/20/2011 Comment [c34]: Has this lab been approval for their NELAP accreditation. Comment [c35]: EPA Region III Laboratory needs to provide a detailed comparison of the result of their method and a more accepted method to provide documentation that the analytical method is adequate. CHK requests a copy of all nonpromulgated EPA method. Comment [WU36]: OK Comment [c37]: CHK doesn’t believe data from testing prior to method validation should be used for the study. Comment [CV38]: CHK is operating under the assumption that EPA will make all data associate with the Haynesville site available on an FTP website in a timely manner. Comment [c39]: Geophysical, well mechanical integrity data needs to be included in this section. Comment [c40]: Secondary Data Gathering and Evaluations needs to be included in this QAPPs. Comment [nc41]: Need to add acknowledgement that this is a trademark. Section No.: 1 Revision No.: 00 Date: May October 21, 2013August 6, 2013January 6, 2012January 6, 2012January 6, 2012December 20, 2011 1. Project Management All field and laboratory documentation shall provide enough detail to allow for reconstruction of events. Documentation practices shall adhere to ORD PPM 13.2, “Paper Laboratory Records.” Since this is a QA Category 1 project, all project records require permanent retention per Agency Records Schedule 501, Applied and Directed Scientific Research They shall be stored in Dr. Puls’s office in the GWERD until they are transferred to GWERD’s Records Storage Room. At an as yet to be determined time in the future the records will be transferred to a National Archive facility. 1-12 02:002233_0696_SGTG-B3494 4_attachment_EPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611 (CEPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611.doc10/21/20138/6/20131/6/20121/6/20121/6/201212/20/2011 Section No.: 2 Revision No.: 00 Date: May October 21, 2013August 6, 2013January 6, 2012January 6, 2012January 6, 2012December 20, 2011 2 Comment [c42]: In order to ensure direct comparison, parameters analyzed in post activities and flowback should be the same as baseline. Comment [c43]: Secondary Data Gathering and Evaluations needs to be included in this QAPPs. Data Generation and Acquisition 2.1 Sampling Process Design (Experimental Design) First sampling events in 2012 will include base line sampling of groundwater, soils, and surface water. Flowback and produced water will be sampled after hydraulically fracturing the well later in 2012. The following is a summary of the planning sampling events. The QAPP will be revised as appropriate prior to succeeding sampling events. Baseline: 23 Rounds (Domestic Wells) ■ January 2012 Domestic Well Sampling ■ March 2012 Domestic Well Sampling Baseline: 23 Rounds (Monitoring Wells) ■ March 2012 MW Sampling ■ April 2012 MW Sampling Post–production Well Drilling: (Monitoring Wells) Assumption: Drilling Spud date April 2012 – 45 days to complete ■ Late May/early June 2012 MW Sampling Post-fracing (Monitoring Wells Domestic Wells) Assumption: hydraulic fracturing in September 2012 ■ September 2012 MW and Domestic Well Sampling Flowback Sampling Over 90 Day Period ■ ■ ■ ■ Immediately following hydraulic fracturing 45 days 90 days 120 days 2-1 02:002233_0696_SGTG-B3494 4_attachment_EPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611 (CEPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611.doc10/21/20138/6/20131/6/20121/6/20121/6/201212/20/2011 Comment [c44]: In reality, flowback sampling and quarterly sampling are equivalent. Flowback is a process and brings to the surface produced water immediately after HF has taken place. Comment [c45]: Should this be removed? Section No.: 2 Revision No.: 00 Date: May October 21, 2013August 6, 2013January 6, 2012January 6, 2012January 6, 2012December 20, 2011 2. Data Generation and Acquisition Quarterly Sampling (Assuming Hydraulic Fracturing Occurs in September 2012) ■ ■ ■ ■ December 2012 MW Sampling March 2013 MW and Domestic Well Sampling June 2013 MW Sampling September 2013 MW and Domestic Well Sampling 2.1.1 Background Geologic and Hydrological Information Geology Surface exposures consist of Pleistocene and Holocene sediment. Sandy, gravelly and muddy alluvium from rivers and coastal marsh deposits make up the Holocene while terraces of glacial sand, gravel and mud deposits from the North make up the Pleistocene. Underlying the Pleistocene units are the units of the Eocene and Paleocene. Two formations from these periods that are of note are Claiborne group and the underlying Wilcox group. These groups are composed primarily of sandstones and are an important aquifer in Louisiana and Texas. This aquifer will be discussed in greater detail below. Underlying the Wilcox formation is the Midway formation which is a confining layer composed of clays. Underlying this are Upper Cretaceous formations which contain marl, chalk, limestone and shale and some groups which are known for hydrocarbon production in the area. These units, in order from top down are the Navarro, Taylor, Austin, Eagle Ford, Tuscaloosa and the top of the Washita. The Lower Cretaceous is composed of the limestone, chalk, marl, shales and sandstones of the Washita-Fredericksburg and Trinity Groups. Underlying the Lower Cretaceous is the Upper Jurassic which contains the Cotton Valley Group’s shallow marine shales. The Haynesville Formation lies below the Cotton Valley group and is a hydrocarbon producing black shale and the equivalent of the Lower Bossier Formation in Texas. Underlying the Haynesville is the calcareous shelf/reef/lagoon formations of the Smackover limestone which is underlain by the Norphlet mudstone. The Louann Salt and Werner red shale and sandstone formations are located underneath the Norphlet mudstone. The underlying Upper Triassic contains the thick red beds of the Eagle Mills Group which are above the undifferentiated rock of the Paleozoic (LAGS 2008 and AKGS). Desoto Parish Desoto Parish is located in the northwestern region of Louisiana in a geologically significant area called the Sabine Uplift. The Sabine Uplift area was created as a result of the combination of the rifting events which created the Gulf of Mexico and shearing forces resulting from tectonics in North America. These same forces are the cause of multiple salt domes that occur in the county. While the stratigraphic sequence is the same in the county as the rest of the state, the Jurassic age formations of the Haynesville and Bossier shales are of note as both are wellknown as hydrocarbon producers. The Bossier Shale is dark, calcareous, 2-2 02:002233_0696_SGTG-B3494 4_attachment_EPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611 (CEPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611.doc10/21/20138/6/20131/6/20121/6/20121/6/201212/20/2011 Comment [c46]: CHK provided EPA and E&E more site specific reference that should be integrated into the background geology and hydrological information. (e.g., well logs) Section No.: 2 Revision No.: 00 Date: May October 21, 2013August 6, 2013January 6, 2012January 6, 2012January 6, 2012December 20, 2011 2. Data Generation and Acquisition fossiliferous marine shale in sequence with sandstone that is determined to be the source rock for the gas accumulation in upper formations. The Haynesville Shale is a carbonaceous, ultra-low permeability/high porosity black shale below the Bossier Shale with the thin Gilmer Lime separating the two formations (LAGS 2008 and AKGS). Hydrology The Carrizo-Wilcox is an Eocene and Paleocene age aquifer and is comprised of hydraulically connected, well sorted, fine to medium grained, cross bedded sands and silts from the Wilcox Group and the Carrizo Formation of the Claiborne Group (Ashworth and Hopkins, 1995). The origins of the sands which compose the Carrizo-Wilcox are both fluvial and fluvial-deltaic in origin. The CarrizoWilcox aquifer extends across Texas from the Rio Grande in the southwest to Red River the northeast including Desoto Parish in Louisiana. The aquifer is bounded at its base by the confining clays of the Midway group and is overlain by the confining clays and silty clays of Cane River formation. The aquifer has a down-dip trend to the south which is the primary factor in ground water flow direction. Brackish water found in the aquifer is most likely the result of dissolution of salt domes found in the area and most likely also plays a role in the direction of groundwater flow because density differences. Water also moves between overlying alluvial and terrace aquifers, the Sparta aquifer, and the Carrizo-Wilcox aquifer, according to hydraulic head differences and in some places artesian pressures within the aquifer were originally sufficient to drive water above ground. Water level fluctuations are mostly seasonal, and the hydraulic conductivity varies between 2 and 40ft./day. Primary recharge of the Carrizo-Wilcox aquifer occurs from direct infiltration of rainfall in upland outcrop-subcrop areas. Maximum depths of occurrence of freshwater in the Carrizo-Wilcox range from 200ft. above sea level to 1,100ft. below sea level. Based on literature review, and available well logs, the base of the Carrizo-Wilcox aquifer appears to be between 600 to 800 feet deep near the study location. Drinking water wells in the immediate vicinity of the site are screened from between 181 feet to 360 feet below ground surface. The deepest boring in the area, a USGS well (DS-315) extended to a depth of 570 and was still in the Carizzo-Wilcox aquifer. Shallow groundwater in the study area is anticipated to be less than 40 feet bgs (Page, 1964). Analysis of the quality of the water from the Carrizo-Wilcox aquifer shows it to be soft and of good quality with an average pH of 8.31, total dissolved solids (TDS) of 0.48 g/L, a salinity of 0.36 ppt and chloride content of 66.4 mg/L. Further information about the water quality from the Carrizo-Wilcox can be found in Table 2 (LDEQ 2009). 2-3 02:002233_0696_SGTG-B3494 4_attachment_EPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611 (CEPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611.doc10/21/20138/6/20131/6/20121/6/20121/6/201212/20/2011 Comment [c47]: Addition resources are available regarding the groundwater and surface water quality. This information should be complied and tabulated. Examples include USGS NWIS and NURE sites. Comment [WU48]: I think what we have is sufficient Comment [nc49]: Need to be consistent throughout the document in the use of ft. , ft or feet Comment [c50]: The base of USDW from SONRIS should be sited. I believe it was approximately 780 ft. Section No.: 2 Revision No.: 00 Date: May October 21, 2013August 6, 2013January 6, 2012January 6, 2012January 6, 2012December 20, 2011 2. Data Generation and Acquisition Laboratory Field Table 2 Water Quality of the Carizzo-Wilcox Aquifer. Data from LDEQ 2009 FY 1995 FY 1998 FY 2001 FY 2004 FY 2007 Parameter Average Average Average Average Average Temperature (OC) pH (SU) Specific Conductance (mmhos/cm) Salinity (ppt) TDS (g/L) Alkalinity (mg/L) Chloride (mg/L) Color (PCU) Specific Conductance (µumhos/cm) Sulfate (mg/L) TDS (mg/L) TSS (mg/L) Turbidity (NTU) Ammonia, as N (mg/L) Hardness (mg/L) Nitrite - Nitrate, as N (mg/L) TKN (mg/L) Total Phosphorus (mg/L) 21.44 7.53 0.676 21.30 7.65 0.732 21.98 7.87 0.808 21.39 7.75 0.80 21.83 8.31 0.740 0.35 267.2 59.2 25.8 726.4 0.36 251.5 71.6 13.8 772.4 0.40 249.4 69.7 24.1 748.1 0.39 0.520 273.5 66.5 14.8 799.5 0.36 0.480 283.4 66.4 8.2 739 30.1 434.7 <4 2.6 0.42 52.4 0.08 0.78 0.29 30.5 435.7 4.9 5.2 0.64 42.2 0.07 0.96 0.24 28.7 449.6 <4 2.3 0.64 31.3 0.07 0.82 0.26 26.6 481.2 <4 1.6 0.81 41.0 0.07 0.97 0.33 13.1 429.7 <4 1.9 0.63 33.5 0.10 0.77 0.26 2.1.2 Ground-Water Monitoring Groundwater sampling and analysis will provide data that can be used to identify significant changes in water quality and investigate if these changes have potentially been caused by the introduction of drilling fluids, hydraulic fracturing fluids, and formation fluids and gases to underground sources of drinking water. This sampling will aid in the understanding of the potential chemicals constituents that could contaminate shallow ground water as well as the potential future impacts to shallow groundwater that may occur as the result of the transport of contaminants to the site. The groundwater sampling component of this project is intended to provide a survey of water quality in the area of investigation throughout the key phases of the gas well development; post well construction to approximately one year after hydraulic fracturing activities have been completed. Location, distribution, and number of sampling sites can affect the quality and applicability of the resulting data. Therefore, the following criteria may be used to determine groundwater water sampling locations: study objectives and sampling methods; all available historical information; physical characteristics of the area, such as size and shape, land use, geology, point and nonpoint sources of contamination, hydraulic conditions, climate, water depth, historical oil and gas wells/pipeline/storage areas; chemical characteristics of the area; and the types of equipment that will be needed for sampling (USGS, 2010). GWERD, EPA R6, 2-4 02:002233_0696_SGTG-B3494 4_attachment_EPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611 (CEPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611.doc10/21/20138/6/20131/6/20121/6/20121/6/201212/20/2011 Comment [c51]: Has EPA discussed with LA DEQ how they can collaborate on future data gather exercise that would benefit the state and EPA? Since this work the final report for this work is not expect until the end of 2014, there appears to be time to work with the state on this effort. CHK would appreciate the opportunity to participate in any collaborative effort that could benefit the EPA HF Study and the State of LA. Comment [nc52]: Need to use consistent units for specific conductance throughout the document Comment [c53]: The study should be focused on hydraulic fracturing. If the EPA chooses against Congresses request and SAB recommendation to expand the scope of the study, it is necessary to ensure differentiation between potential sources of contaminations. Comment [CV54]: The list of analytes should be the chemical constituents that could potentially contaminate ground water. The data will aid in determining IF there has been a contamination. Comment [CV55]: Should also factor in preexisting oil/gas development in the area. Section No.: 2 Revision No.: 00 Date: May October 21, 2013August 6, 2013January 6, 2012January 6, 2012January 6, 2012December 20, 2011 2. Data Generation and Acquisition LADEQ, and Chesapeake will survey the existing data and speak to landowners near the proposed pad to determine if ground water wells in the area could be sampled for the study. The domestic wells will be sampled directly from the well casing (if possible) with the sampling pump just above the well pump. In cases where this is not possible, the sampling pump will be placed as close as possible to well pump. If access to the well is limited or the sampling pump cannot be lowered to the desired depth, the sample will be collected from the tap from at the closest port to the wellhead. It is believed that most domestic wells are screened in the Carizzo-Wilcox aquifer between 100 and 500 ft below ground surface. Similarly, any water supplymonitoring wells will be sampled similar to the domestic wells. It is anticipated that the monitoring wells will be sampled quarterly by EPA until approximately one year after hydraulic fracturing activities. The minimum number of post-baseline sampling events to determine if an impact to the aquifer happened is estimated to be three sampling events. It is estimated that 11 monitoring wells will be installed to monitor groundwater quality near the study location. An initial deep boring will be completed and logged using downhole wireline logging techniques to evaluate actual aquifer thickness, zone of preferential flow, and flow direction (see Section 2.2.2.1). This well will then be converted to a deep monitoring well and included as part of the groundwater monitoring well network. Monitoring wells will be clustered to capture up to three water bearing zones (shallow, intermediate and deep) to monitor the full thickness of the aquifer (see Table 3). Proposed monitoring well locations will include: Comment [c56]: Has LADEQ been consulted regarding this statement? Chesapeake is more than happy to work with EPA on conducting a survey and speaking to land owners, however, this is an EPA an therefore, EPA should have responsibility for this task with support for LADEQ and Chesapeake. Comment [GF57]: Is there an EPA SOP for domestic well sampling? Comment [CV58]: Experience has shown that depending on the use of a domestic water well by the landowner before sampling, the baseline results can vary widely. Heavy use before baseline sampling event affects the sampling results different than samples collected from a well with no prior domestic use before baseline sampling. Information on the landowner pump setting is also very important, along with accurate records on well construction and components between the well and tap. Much of these data will not be available unless a downhole survey is done in each water well. Multiple sampling are required under differing pumping conditions to define the variability in analytical results during baseline sampling. Comment [CV59]: Should emphasize more that this is the minimum number of sampling events. ■ A well cluster upgradient of the drilling location; ■ A directionally drilled well (from an off-pad location) screened beneath the production well pad, downgradient from the proposed production well. ■ Two clusters immediately down gradient of the well pad; and ■ One deep well approximately mid-way along the lateral Table 3 The Physical Characteristics of the Monitoring Wells Near the Proposed Well Pad Screen Interval Screen Length Monitoring Well (ft) (ft) Total Depth (ft) MW-1 MW-2 MW-3 MW-4 MW-5 MW-6 MW-7 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD 2-5 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD 02:002233_0696_SGTG-B3494 4_attachment_EPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611 (CEPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611.doc10/21/20138/6/20131/6/20121/6/20121/6/201212/20/2011 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD Comment [c60]: Chesapeake request additional information on the design and construction of this well. In addition, we would appreciate addition information on the application of this technology for monitoring wells. Section No.: 2 Revision No.: 00 Date: May October 21, 2013August 6, 2013January 6, 2012January 6, 2012January 6, 2012December 20, 2011 2. Data Generation and Acquisition MW-8 TBD TBD TBD The study area and proposed locations of monitoring wells as well as existing domestic water wells and gas wells is illustrated in Figure 3. Prior to installation of groundwater monitoring wells, approximately 7 temporary piezometers will be installed and surveyed. Depth to groundwater measurements will be collected to calculate shallow groundwater flow direction. Temporary piezometers will be installed using a direct push drilling rig or other suitable technology and will be abandoned by plugging with a cement bentonite grout to ground surface prior to pad construction. Testing of the piezometers may be conducted to determine aquifer properties. 2.1.3 Surface Water Sampling While surface water in the vicinity of the proposed production well location does not appear to serve as a source of drinking water, it could be in contact with the underground source of drinking water. Surface water sampling and analysis will provide data that can be used to identify changes in water quality and investigate if these changes have potentially been caused by the introduction of drilling fluids, hydraulic fracturing fluids, and formation fluids and gases to surface water or surface water sources of drinking water. This sampling will aid in the understanding of the potential chemicals constituents that could contaminate surface water that may occur as the result of the transport of contaminants to the site. There are several ways in which surface water quality could be impacted as the result of hydraulic fracturing. One possible mechanism is the direct contamination caused by the spillage of drilling, hydraulic fracturing, or formation fluids into the surface water body. In addition, runoff and or subsurface transport of drilling, hydraulic fracturing, or formation fluid through the soil could cause impacts to surface water. Each surface water location has a unique set of conditions that needs to be identified and considered in the sample selection process. Therefore, it is important that sample locations accurately represent the intended conditions (such as time of year and flow rate or stage) of the aqueous system being studied with respect to study objectives. In most bodies of flowing or still water, a single sampling site or point is not adequate to describe the physical properties and the distribution and abundance of chemical constituents. Location, distribution, and number of sampling sites can affect the quality and applicability of the resulting data (USGS, 2010). Therefore, the following criteria may be used to determine surface water sampling locations: study objectives and sampling methods; all available historical information, including historical oil/gas operations in the area; physical characteristics of the area, such as size and shape, land use, tributary and runoff characteristics, geology, point and nonpoint sources of contamination, hydraulic conditions, climate, water depth, and fluvial-sediment transport characteristics; chem- 2-6 02:002233_0696_SGTG-B3494 4_attachment_EPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611 (CEPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611.doc10/21/20138/6/20131/6/20121/6/20121/6/201212/20/2011 Comment [CV61]: There is discrepancy in the number of wells proposed, one said 8 another says 11. Must clarify. Comment [c62]: Post pad construction? Comment [CV63]: Consider using continuous recording sondes for basic water quality parameters for baseline characterization, and during monitoring. With periodic sampling for more comprehensive analytical list per seasonal or local flow conditions— high flow vs low flow, consider if base flow occurs in stream and its affect on local gw quality. Comment [c64]: The study should be focused on hydraulic fracturing. Comment [c65]: It is understood from this statement that only drinking water sources will be investigated. Comment [CV66]: The list of analytes should be the chemical constituents that could potentially contaminate ground water. The data will aid in determining IF there has been a contamination. Comment [c67]: A clear definition of hydraulic fracturing should be provided because it is used incorrectly to describe oil and gas development throughout this document. Section No.: 2 Revision No.: 00 Date: May October 21, 2013August 6, 2013January 6, 2012January 6, 2012January 6, 2012December 20, 2011 2. Data Generation and Acquisition ical characteristics of the area; and the types of equipment that will be needed for sampling (USGS, 2010). Comment [c68]: CHK agrees with this paragraph, however, it is not well understood how the study will incorporate these criteria. Sampling locations should be prescribed in the QAPP. Comment [WU69]: We can make some tentative selections of locations subject to change-see below 2-7 02:002233_0696_SGTG-B3494 4_attachment_EPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611 (CEPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611.doc10/21/20138/6/20131/6/20121/6/20121/6/201212/20/2011 Section No.: 2 Revision No.: 00 Date: May October 21, 2013August 6, 2013January 6, 2012January 6, 2012January 6, 2012December 20, 2011 2. Data Generation and Acquisition Insert Figure (color) page 1 of 2 3A Proposed Monitoring Well Location Map 2-8 02:002233_0696_SGTG-B3494 4_attachment_EPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611 (CEPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611.doc10/21/20138/6/20131/6/20121/6/20121/6/201212/20/2011 Section No.: 2 Revision No.: 00 Date: May October 21, 2013August 6, 2013January 6, 2012January 6, 2012January 6, 2012December 20, 2011 2. Data Generation and Acquisition Figure 3A page 2 of 2 2-9 02:002233_0696_SGTG-B3494 4_attachment_EPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611 (CEPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611.doc10/21/20138/6/20131/6/20121/6/20121/6/201212/20/2011 Section No.: 2 Revision No.: 00 Date: May October 21, 2013August 6, 2013January 6, 2012January 6, 2012January 6, 2012December 20, 2011 2. Data Generation and Acquisition Insert Figure (color) page 1 of 2 3B Expanded View of Proposed Monitoring Wells in Close Proximity to the Proposed Gas Well 2-10 02:002233_0696_SGTG-B3494 4_attachment_EPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611 (CEPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611.doc10/21/20138/6/20131/6/20121/6/20121/6/201212/20/2011 Section No.: 2 Revision No.: 00 Date: May October 21, 2013August 6, 2013January 6, 2012January 6, 2012January 6, 2012December 20, 2011 2. Data Generation and Acquisition Figure 3B page 2 of 2 2-11 02:002233_0696_SGTG-B3494 4_attachment_EPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611 (CEPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611.doc10/21/20138/6/20131/6/20121/6/20121/6/201212/20/2011 Section No.: 2 Revision No.: 00 Date: May October 21, 2013August 6, 2013January 6, 2012January 6, 2012January 6, 2012December 20, 2011 2. Data Generation and Acquisition Surface water bodies are of two basic types: flowing water bodies (intermittent and perennial flow) and still water bodies (e.g., lakes and ponds). Flowing-water sites can refer to streams (fast or slow, intermittent, ephemeral, or perennial), canals, ditches, and flumes of all sizes and shapes, or to any other surface feature in which water moves unidirectionally (USGS, 2010). Still-water sites refer to all sizes and shapes of lakes, reservoirs, ponds, swamps, marshes, riverine backwaters, or any other body of surface water where water generally does not move unidirectionally (USGS, 2010). For flowing water the optimal sampling locations is in straight reaches having uniform flow and stable bottom contours; far enough above and below confluences of streamflow or point sources of contamination to avoid sampling a cross section where flows are poorly mixed or not unidirectional; and in reaches upstream from bridges or other structures, to avoid contamination from the structure or from a road surface (USGS, 2010). Similarly, for still water sampling sites the optimal locations should avoid areas near structures or historical oil/gas operationssuch as harbors, boat ramps, piers, fuel docks, and moored houseboats (to avoid point sources of contamination), unless these structures are part of the study. (USGS, 2010). Baseline surface water quality will be assessed in order to establish a benchmark baseline for water quality changes that have occurred as the result of drilling and hydraulic fracturing process in surface water resources. The baseline surface water quality will be collected based on historical data, if available, or both upstream and downstream of the potentially impacted area. At this site, surface water samples will be collected from the stream located west of the drilling pad. Surface water sampling locations are shown in Figure 4. Surface water samples will be collected as outlined in Appendix A.1 (ENV 3.12). 2.1.4 Soil Sampling Soil sampling will be part of the monitoring utilized in the prospective case study. Soil sampling and analysis will provide data that can be used to identify changes in soil characteristics and investigate if these changes have potentially been caused by the transport and release of contaminants during the development process. Not only can soils potentially act as a sink for the contaminants in the environment but, soils could also serve as a source of contaminants to surface water and shallow groundwater through their gradual release back into surface water and shallow groundwater. Therefore, it is important to investigate if there is an accumulation of contaminants in soil as the result of hydraulic fracturing, understand the potential chemicals constituents that could contaminate drinking water; and provide information to understand the risk (frequency and magnitude) to drinking water impacts resulting from hydraulic fracturing operations. Baseline soil samples will be assessed in order to establish a benchmark for impacts to soil that have occurred as the result of drilling and hydraulic fracturing 2-12 02:002233_0696_SGTG-B3494 4_attachment_EPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611 (CEPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611.doc10/21/20138/6/20131/6/20121/6/20121/6/201212/20/2011 Comment [CV70]: None of these are present in the area, so is this necessary? Or can be modified to describe structures that actually may be present in the area? Comment [c71]: Baseline downstream information should be collected as well. Comment [WU72]: OK Section No.: 2 Revision No.: 00 Date: May October 21, 2013August 6, 2013January 6, 2012January 6, 2012January 6, 2012December 20, 2011 2. Data Generation and Acquisition processes. The baseline soil samples will be collected in and around the pad once pad construction has been completed. NRMRL-Ada and Chesapeake will survey the area and speak to stakeholders in Keatchie to determine the location of sampling points. It is anticipated that the soils will be sampled following pad construction and prior to well construction and again (at the same locations) following the hydraulic fracturing of the well. The latitude and longitude and elevation of the sampling locations will be recorded so that the locations can be consistently sampled throughout the study. Soil samples will consist of surface samples collected from 0 to 6 – inches below ground surface. Sampling locations are shown in Figure 4 and have been selected to provide equal representation of existing soil types surrounding the well pad. Soil types include the Keithville very fine sandy loam and Metcalf silt loam as mapped and described in the Soil Survey of De Soto Parish, LA. A sufficient number of background samples should be collected from each soil type present in order to statistically evaluate data collected from this investigation through background comparison. 2.2 Sampling Methods 2.2.1 Installation of Temporary Piezometers Piezometer installations will be accomplished using a GeoProbe 6610DT direct push rig using 2.25” rods and expendable points. Depth of screen placement will be determined by use of the Soil Electrical Conductivity (EC) Logging system by GeoProbe Systems (see RSKSOP 219 in Appendix A.2) and/or by a few soil cores taken using the GeoProbe Macro-Core System (see RSKSOP 221 in Appendix A.3) to locate the local water table level. For the purposes of purchasing well installation supplies the water table depth has been estimated to be no more than 70’ below ground surface. It is anticipated that approximately 7 temporary piezometers will be installed around the site as shown in Figure 4. Installations will begin by driving the 2.25” rods with an expendable point to the desired depth. The well (.75” ID, 1.4” OD pre-packed screen 10’ in length with a 4” bottom plug/sump) will then be lowered into the rods. The well will be held in position while the rods are retracted 10.5’ to allow natural collapse to contact the pre-packed screen. If natural collapse does not occur, sand will be placed around the pre-packed screen. A 2’ sand grout barrier will be installed above the prepacked screen via gravity placement. A minimum 2’ bentonite seal of granular bentonite will be installed via gravity placement and allowed to hydrate. A highsolids bentonite slurry will then be installed from the bentonite seal to the ground surface via gravity placement. The well riser will be cut leaving 36” of stickup above ground surface and capped with a vented well cap. A painted steel locking well protector will be installed into the bentonite grout column and secured with a 2-13 02:002233_0696_SGTG-B3494 4_attachment_EPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611 (CEPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611.doc10/21/20138/6/20131/6/20121/6/20121/6/201212/20/2011 Comment [CV73]: It is recommended that other potential sources of contamination are identified and tested Comment [c74]: A sub-meter GPS should be used for all sample locations. Comment [c75]: Suggest we do an EM-38 survey of the well pad area first (the pad and a 100 foot buffer surrounding the pad footprint), then use those results in conjunction with the soil types to collect representative baseline samples with depth and soil type/horizon. The baseline EM survey can be repeated adjacent to the pad once completed. The EM-38 is an extremely sensitive tool to changes in the conductivity of soils caused by fluid releases containing salts or brines. Comment [WU76]: OK-CHK willing to fund and do it? Comment [CV77]: No mention of QA/QC samples (splits, duplicates, field blanks, equipment blanks etc.) in any of the sampling sections. Formatted: Not Highlight Formatted: Not Highlight Section No.: 2 Revision No.: 00 Date: May October 21, 2013August 6, 2013January 6, 2012January 6, 2012January 6, 2012December 20, 2011 2. Data Generation and Acquisition 4” thick concrete slab that has a radius of at least 12” from the well protector. The concrete slab will slope away from the protector for drainage purposes. An “X” will be made in the concrete near the protector and a mark made on the well stickup to serve as a reference point for water elevation surveys and the well ID number will be etched into the slab. A threaded hole with drain plug will be installed into the steel protective casing just above the slab surface to allow drainage of any water that may collect between the well stickup and protective casing. Samples of the filter sand, bentonite pellets, and grout will be collected and analyzed for the list of soil and groundwater analytical parameters. Insert Figure (color) page 1 of 2 4 Proposed Soil, Surface Water and Piezometer Locations 2-14 02:002233_0696_SGTG-B3494 4_attachment_EPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611 (CEPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611.doc10/21/20138/6/20131/6/20121/6/20121/6/201212/20/2011 Section No.: 2 Revision No.: 00 Date: May October 21, 2013August 6, 2013January 6, 2012January 6, 2012January 6, 2012December 20, 2011 2. Data Generation and Acquisition Figure 4 page 2 of 2 2-15 02:002233_0696_SGTG-B3494 4_attachment_EPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611 (CEPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611.doc10/21/20138/6/20131/6/20121/6/20121/6/201212/20/2011 Section No.: 2 Revision No.: 00 Date: May October 21, 2013August 6, 2013January 6, 2012January 6, 2012January 6, 2012December 20, 2011 2. Data Generation and Acquisition The hydraulic conductivity of geologic materials near the water table will be estimated using slug tests performed in each of the shallow piezometers. These data will be used in conjunction with measured hydraulic heads to estimate shallow groundwater flow direction and rate. The slug tests will be performed by RSKSOP-260 using solid slugs constructed of either PVC or stainless steel or, alternatively, RSKSOP-256 using pneumatic slug testing techniques (see Appendix A.4 and A.5). Both methods provide equivalent data, if hydraulic conductivity is less than 0.02 cm/s. If the estimated hydraulic conductivity of the shallow aquifer materials is greater than 0.02 cm/s, only RSKSOP-256 will be used. These procedures are based on recommendations derived from Butler (1997). The aquifer response data will be analyzed using the methods of Bouwer and Rice (1976) and, if inertial effects are observed, Springer and Gelhar (1991). 2.2.2 Installation of Monitoring Wells The monitoring well network will consist of clusters with up to three wells (shallow, intermediate and deep) based on data collected from an initial exploratory boring. As mentioned above, the initial exploratory boring will be completed as one of the deep monitoring wells. Downhole geophysical logging will be performed on the exploratory boring as described below in section 2.2.2.1. 2.2.2.1 Geophysical Logging Geophysical logging will be conducted by Tthe USGS at the request of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development (ORD). Borehole geophysical data collection and analysis will be conducted on one deep well to be drilled in northwestern Louisiana study area for the purpose of monitoring groundwater in the vicinity of hydraulic fracturing operations of the Haynesville Shale as mentioned in Section 2.1.2. The planned well will be drilled into the Carrizo-Wilcox aquifer under the direction of ORD or their contractor. The targeted depth is about 600 to 800 feet below land surface which is expected to penetrate the freshwater/salinewater interface near the base of the aquifer. 2.2.2.2 Approach The approach is divided into two phases, one phase with data collected at the conclusion of drilling the open hole (before casing is set) and one phase with data collected after the well has been constructed with PVC casing and screen. Phase 1 The proposed borehole geophysical logging methods include basic and advanced logging techniques (listed below) which will be collected in the uncased open borehole shortly after drilling has concluded. Geophysical logging entails the lowering of geophysical probes on a wireline to the total depth of the borehole and the collection of geophysical measurements either during the lowering of the probe or during retrieval of the probe to surface. Several logging runs will be required to collect the proposed parameters. The collection of these logs will require removal of the drill string and will require the borehole to be stabilized with drill2-16 02:002233_0696_SGTG-B3494 4_attachment_EPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611 (CEPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611.doc10/21/20138/6/20131/6/20121/6/20121/6/201212/20/2011 Comment [c78]: The monitoring well design and construction methods should be better defined in this document. CHK has provided some preliminary comments based on current QAPP content. 2” monitoring well may be not be adequate. May require steel casing (preferably stainless). Suggest putting a 1-2 sediment sump below the screen. Comment [CV79]: During the 10/11/2011 F2F meeting it was discussed that samples of the materials brought on site for completion of the piezometers and monitoring wells (e.g. water, drilling mud, bentonite, cement, etc.) were to be sampled. Comment [WU80]: E&E insert mods here based on discussions by team on 091911 Formatted: Not Highlight Comment [c81]: Should this be a subsection of 2.2.2.1 because it is the geophysical logging approach? Section No.: 2 Revision No.: 00 Date: May October 21, 2013August 6, 2013January 6, 2012January 6, 2012January 6, 2012December 20, 2011 2. Data Generation and Acquisition ing fluid and free of obstructions. If the borehole becomes unstable and begins to collapse during logging runs, additional circulation or mud conditioning by the drilling crew may be necessary before logging can continue. The optional use of sealed radioactive sources to collect density and neutron logs (depending on hole conditions) has also been included to better assess the porosity of the formations to aid in the placement of screen openings. The following is a list of proposed logs to be collected in the uncased borehole shortly after drilling has concluded and before casing is set. About eight logging runs will be necessary to collect these logs. 1. Caliper; 2. Natural Gamma; 3. Normal Resistivity; 4. Single Point Resistance (SPR); 5. Fluid resistivity and temperature; 6. Spontaneous Potential (SP); 7. Induction Conductivity; 8. Magnetic Susceptibility (MS); 9. Full Wave Sonic with post-processing to compute acoustic velocity; 10. Acoustic Borehole Imager with Vertical Deviation and Azimuth; 11. Neutron (optional); and 12. Gamma-Gamma Density (optional). Phase 2 Additional logs such as nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) and induction conductivity will be collected after the well has been cased with PVC casing. Nuclear magnetic resonance data is useful to assess permeability and total porosity including percent volume of bound and free fluid in the formation. Induction conductivity will be used to locate the fresh water/saline water interface and assess movement of this interface before and after the hydraulic fracturing operation. One additional trip to the wellsite will be necessary to complete the Phase 2 logging after the nearby hydraulic fracturing is completed. The following is a list of proposed logs to be collected in the PVC-cased borehole shortly after the well has been constructed. 1. 2. 3. 4. Magnetic susceptibility; Nuclear Magnetic Resonance; Induction Conductivity (repeated after hydro-fracturing); and Water Quality Logging – conductivity, temperature, DO, PhpH, EeH, etc. Outputs from this effort will included those listed below. Descriptions of each logging method are included in Appendix A.6. 2-17 02:002233_0696_SGTG-B3494 4_attachment_EPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611 (CEPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611.doc10/21/20138/6/20131/6/20121/6/20121/6/201212/20/2011 Section No.: 2 Revision No.: 00 Date: May October 21, 2013August 6, 2013January 6, 2012January 6, 2012January 6, 2012December 20, 2011 2. Data Generation and Acquisition 1. Geophysical well log montage including natural gamma, caliper, SP, long and short normal resistivity, SPR, induction conductivity, MS, full wave sonic processed to include acoustic velocity, density (if collected), neutron (if collected), an azimuth-oriented acoustic borehole image, with deviation, nuclear magnetic resonance data. 2. A time series plot of induction conductivity logs collected at the time of drilling, after well is constructed before nearby hydraulic fracturing and after nearby hydraulic fracturing. Digital data of logs listed above. 2.2.2.3 Monitoring Well construction Monitoring wells will be constructed using a minimum of 2.5-/ to 3-inch schedule 80 PVC casing and slotted PVC screens for both intermediate and deep monitoring wells. Depending on depth (< 100 feet), shallow monitoring wells may be constructed of 2-inch diameter schedule 40 PVC screen and casing. All casing and screen will utilized threaded connections. Screen intervals will be determined based on data collected from the initial exploratory boring. PVC screen will consist of 0.010 factory slotted screen, Monitoring wells will be drilled using conventional mud rotary techniques (see Geo 4.7 in Appendix A.7) and installed in accordance with all State of Louisiana regulations, by a licensed driller, and under supervision of a Louisiana licensed Professional Geologist, if applicable. Typical Mmonitoring well construction is depicted in Figure 5. In general, monitoring well construction will be as follows described below (see Geo 4.10 in Appendix A.8): . ■ 1-foot PVC blank section will be threaded to the bottom of the PVC screen to act as a sump for fines which may collect in the well. ■ The annular space between the borehole wall and the well screen/sump will backfilled with 10-20 silica sand, to approximately two feet above the screened interval. ■ The annular space above the sand pack will be sealed with a 3 foot bentonite pellet seal, which will be placed by tremie pipe. ■ The remaining annular space will be filled with bentonite cement grout to within 3 feet below ground surface. Bentonite cement grout will consist of 6 percent by weight of a pH neutral bentonite (e.g. pure-gold brand). ■ All permanent wells will be finished as above ground completions (where possible). The above ground completion will consist of an outer (un-painted) 2-18 02:002233_0696_SGTG-B3494 4_attachment_EPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611 (CEPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611.doc10/21/20138/6/20131/6/20121/6/20121/6/201212/20/2011 Comment [c82]: Cleaning up of the monitoring wells should be included in the QAPP. This topic was discussed at the F2F meetings. Comment [CV83]: Is this available? Are these correct? Section No.: 2 Revision No.: 00 Date: May October 21, 2013August 6, 2013January 6, 2012January 6, 2012January 6, 2012December 20, 2011 2. Data Generation and Acquisition steel protective casing extending at least 3 feet below ground surface and approximately 3 feet above ground. Each stickup will include a lockable cover and keyed padlock. Protective custody seals will also be utilized at each well location, such that a well cannot be opened without tearing the seal. ■ A square concrete pad will be placed around each well. The pad will measure 3 feet square (1.5 feet from the center of the well) and extend a minimum of 3.5 to 4-inches below ground surface. ■ The annular space between the well and protective casing will be filled with silica sand to with 6-inches of the well top, and a drain hole will be drilled approximately two inches above the well pad ■ A minimum of three protective steel bollards will be placed around the well. Additional well protective measures such as chain between the bollards may also be utilized depending on well location. ■ Samples of the filter sand, bentonite pellets, and grout will be collected and analyzed for the list of soil and groundwater analytical parameters. In addition, at different times during the drilling process, samples of the drilling fluids will be collected for comprehensive analyses. The designated measuring point and elevation datum at each monitoring well is defined as the ground surface immediately adjacent to the surficial concrete pad to the north and the top of the inner PVC well casing on the north side. These points will be surveyed in the horizontal position to within 1.0 foot accuracy and to within 0.01 foot vertically. The installed wells will be developed by the water well driller and the EPA contractor (E & E) according to procedures in Appendix A.9 (GEO 4.11).. Comment [c84]: The contractors experience needs to be vetted for drilling deep wells, along with the contractors experience. CHK should be involved in this process. 2.2.3 Monitoring Well Sampling EPA low flow sampling procedures will be used to sample the wells as described below (see Appendix A.10). For all duplicate and split samples, an in-line “T” shall be installed on the sample discharge tubing so that the original sample an duplicate sample bottles can be filled simultaneously. When split samples are collected at locations with duplicate samples, multiple inline “T’s” will be utilized so that the original, duplicate, and split sample bottles can all be filled simultaneously: : Comment [CV85]: Methane should be baseline sampled in monitoring wells. If methane is present, isotopic analysis should be performed. 2-19 02:002233_0696_SGTG-B3494 4_attachment_EPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611 (CEPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611.doc10/21/20138/6/20131/6/20121/6/20121/6/201212/20/2011 Section No.: 2 Revision No.: 00 Date: May October 21, 2013August 6, 2013January 6, 2012January 6, 2012January 6, 2012December 20, 2011 2. Data Generation and Acquisition 1. Water level measurements will be taken prior to and during the pumping of the wells. The water level measurements will follow the RSKSOP-326 standard operating procedure (see Appendix A.11). Water levels will be recorded in the field notebook prior to and during sampling. 2-20 02:002233_0696_SGTG-B3494 4_attachment_EPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611 (CEPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611.doc10/21/20138/6/20131/6/20121/6/20121/6/201212/20/2011 Comment [c86]: Consider installing trolls in select wells to monitor water levels long term and in getting a baseline. Comment [WU87]: Up to CHK Comment [GF88]: Need from EPA Section No.: 2 Revision No.: 00 Date: May October 21, 2013August 6, 2013January 6, 2012January 6, 2012January 6, 2012December 20, 2011 2. Data Generation and Acquisition Insert Figure (color) page 1 of 2 5 Typical Groundwater Monitoring Well 2-21 02:002233_0696_SGTG-B3494 4_attachment_EPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611 (CEPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611.doc10/21/20138/6/20131/6/20121/6/20121/6/201212/20/2011 Section No.: 2 Revision No.: 00 Date: May October 21, 2013August 6, 2013January 6, 2012January 6, 2012January 6, 2012December 20, 2011 2. Data Generation and Acquisition Figure 5 page 2 of 2 2-22 02:002233_0696_SGTG-B3494 4_attachment_EPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611 (CEPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611.doc10/21/20138/6/20131/6/20121/6/20121/6/201212/20/2011 Section No.: 2 Revision No.: 00 Date: May October 21, 2013August 6, 2013January 6, 2012January 6, 2012January 6, 2012December 20, 2011 2. Data Generation and Acquisition Insert Figure (color) page 1 of 2 6 Open Tube Sampling Method 2-23 02:002233_0696_SGTG-B3494 4_attachment_EPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611 (CEPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611.doc10/21/20138/6/20131/6/20121/6/20121/6/201212/20/2011 Section No.: 2 Revision No.: 00 Date: May October 21, 2013August 6, 2013January 6, 2012January 6, 2012January 6, 2012December 20, 2011 2. Data Generation and Acquisition Figure 6 page 2 of 2 2-24 02:002233_0696_SGTG-B3494 4_attachment_EPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611 (CEPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611.doc10/21/20138/6/20131/6/20121/6/20121/6/201212/20/2011 Section No.: 2 Revision No.: 00 Date: May October 21, 2013August 6, 2013January 6, 2012January 6, 2012January 6, 2012December 20, 2011 2. Data Generation and Acquisition Insert Figure (color) page 1 of 2 7 Closed Piston Sampling Method 2-25 02:002233_0696_SGTG-B3494 4_attachment_EPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611 (CEPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611.doc10/21/20138/6/20131/6/20121/6/20121/6/201212/20/2011 Section No.: 2 Revision No.: 00 Date: May October 21, 2013August 6, 2013January 6, 2012January 6, 2012January 6, 2012December 20, 2011 2. Data Generation and Acquisition Figure 7 page 2 of 2 2-26 02:002233_0696_SGTG-B3494 4_attachment_EPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611 (CEPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611.doc10/21/20138/6/20131/6/20121/6/20121/6/201212/20/2011 Section No.: 2 Revision No.: 00 Date: May October 21, 2013August 6, 2013January 6, 2012January 6, 2012January 6, 2012December 20, 2011 2. Data Generation and Acquisition 2. A new piece of tubing will be connected to the sampling port of the well and the dedicated pump will be powered on. It is expected that the pump will yield a maximum initial flow rate of approximately 1 L min-1). This flow will pass through a flow cell equipped with an YSI 5600 multi-parameter probe (or equivalent probes). The rate of pumping will be determined by measuring the water volume collected after approximately 15 seconds into a 4 L graduated cylinder; the desirable pumping rate through the flow cell should be less than 1 L/min. The pumping rate will ideally maintain minimal drawdown. Water levels will be taken throughout sampling to confirm the drawdown caused by pumping. 3. The YSI probe (or equivalent probes and electrodes) will be used to track the stabilization of pH, oxidation-reduction potential (ORP), specific conductance (SC), dissolved oxygen (DO), and temperature. In general, the guidelines in Table 4 will be used to determine when parameters have stabilized. These criteria are initial guidelines; professional judgment in the field will be used to determine on a well-by-well basis when stabilization occurs. Field readings must be recorded at no more than 5 minute intervals, or continuously if continuous recordings are being used, until stabilization occurs. Table 4 Comment [CV89]: What kind of pump? Specify. Certain pumps are not well suited for VOC samples. Comment [c90]: Measurement must be taken during the actual sampling, not just afterwards. A warning, in a stratified environment, low flow purging will not result in representative samples. Comment [CV91]: The frequency of recording should be specified. Field Parameter Stabilization Criteria and Calibration Standards Calibration Parameter Stabilization Criteria Standards pH ≤0.02 pH units min-1 Oxidation Reduction Po≤ 2mV min-1 tential (ORP) Specific Conductance (SC) ≤ 1% min-1 pH 4, 7, and 10 buffers Zobells Solution 1413 µS Conductivity Standard 4. Once stabilization occurs, the final values for pH, ORP, specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, and temperature will be recorded. Turbidity will also be recorded immediately prior to sampling, and also just before the collection of the metals and radiological samples. 5. After the values for pH, ORP, SC, DO, and temperature have been recorded, the flow cell will be disconnected. A series of unfiltered samples will be collected as follows: a. Duplicate 40 mL VOA vials (amber glass) will be collected, without headspace, for VOC analysis using RSKSOP-299v1. Tribasic Sodium Phosphate (TSP) will be added to the VOA vial prior to shipping to the field for sampling as a preservative. (Acid will not be used as a preservative due to a concern of acid hydrolysis of some analytes.) The samples will be stored and shipped on ice to Shaw, NRMRL-Ada's on-site contractor for GC-MS analysis. 2-27 02:002233_0696_SGTG-B3494 4_attachment_EPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611 (CEPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611.doc10/21/20138/6/20131/6/20121/6/20121/6/201212/20/2011 Comment [CV92]: MDH: This applies to all testing comments in this general section. It does not appear that any of these analyses include notations of split samples/ bottleware exceptions, method references, etc…outside of what the EPA is proposing. Is that to be included in this document or elsewhere? Comment [c93]: Method is equivalent to SW846 method 8260B. While TSP is an acceptable preservative, it should not be used if brominated compounds are of critical interest due to possible degradation in the analytical process. Suggest either both HCL and TSP vials be collected (for brominated compounds) or no preservation and a 7 day holding time Comment [n94]: Our analytical chemists differ on this. We may want to consider this for flowback sampling however Section No.: 2 Revision No.: 00 Date: May October 21, 2013August 6, 2013January 6, 2012January 6, 2012January 6, 2012December 20, 2011 2. Data Generation and Acquisition b. Duplicate 60 mL serum bottles will be collected, without headspace, for dissolved gas analysis (e.g., hydrogen, carbon dioxide, ethane, methane, butane, propane). The bottles will contain trisodium phosphate as a preservative and will be filled with no head space and sealed with a crimp cap. The samples will be stored and shipped on ice to Shaw, NRMRLAda's on-site contractor for analysis. Samples will be collected in accordance with procedures outlined in Appendix A.12. Comment [CV95]: MDH: Again, we would recommend a different set of bottleware for the methodologies we would recommend. c. Duplicate 1 L amber glass bottles will be collected for semi-volatile organic compounds. These samples will be stored and shipped on ice to EPA Region VIII Laboratory for analysis. d. Duplicate 1L amber glass bottles will be collected for diesel range organic (DRO) analysis. These samples will be preserved with HCl, pH <2, and shipped on ice to EPA Region VIII Laboratory for analysis. e. Duplicate 40 mL amber VOA vials will be collected without headspace for gasoline range organic analysis (GRO). These samples will be preserved with HCl, pH <2, and shipped on ice to EPA Region VIII Laboratory for analysis. f. Duplicate 40 mL amber VOA vials will be collected for glycol analysis. These samples will be stored and shipped on ice to EPA Region III Laboratory for analysis. g. Duplicate 40 mL glass VOA vials will be collected for low molecular weight acids using RSKSOP-112v6. Tribasic Sodium Phosphate (TSP) will be added to the VOA vial prior to shipping to the field for sampling as a preservative. The samples will be stored and shipped on ice to Shaw, NRMRL-Ada's on-site contractor for GC-MS analysis. h. A 1-liter plastic beaker will be filled for selected analyses to be conducted in the field. Field measurements will consist of turbidity, alkalinity, ferrous iron, and dissolved sulfide (Table 5). Turbidity (Standard Method 180.1) will be measured using a HACH 2100Q portable turbidimeter (or equivalent instrument). Alkalinity will be measured by titrating ground water with 1.6N H2SO4 to the bromcresol green-methyl red endpoint using a HACH titrator (HACH method 8203, equivalent to Standard Method 2320B for alkalinity). Ferrous iron will be measured using the 1,10phenanthroline colorimetric method (HACH DR/2010 spectrometer, HACH method 8146, equivalent to Standard Method 3500-Fe B for wastewater). Dissolved sulfide will be measured using the methylene blue colorimetric method (HACH DR/2010 spectrometer; HACH method 8131, equivalent to Standard Method 4500-S2– D for wastewater). 2-28 02:002233_0696_SGTG-B3494 4_attachment_EPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611 (CEPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611.doc10/21/20138/6/20131/6/20121/6/20121/6/201212/20/2011 Comment [CV96]: Field tests for alkalinity and dissolved sulfide particularly may be suitable for baseline samples but not for flow back samples. High salt and dissolved solids content and matrix color interferences will make these Hach colorimetric method unsuitable with the more complex matrices. Suggest consistent with all matrices using fixed based lab methods for these analyses. Comment [CV97]: What about the other field parameters, going to use the flow cell values, or collect the actual water from the actual time of sampling for these parameters? Section No.: 2 Revision No.: 00 Date: May October 21, 2013August 6, 2013January 6, 2012January 6, 2012January 6, 2012December 20, 2011 2. Data Generation and Acquisition Table 5 Groundwater Field Analytical Methods Parameter Method Alkalinity Ferrous Fe Dissolved Sulfide Turbidity EPA Standard Method 2320B; HACH method 8203 EPA Standard Method 3500Fe B; HACH Method 8146 EPA Standard Method 4500S2- D; HACH Method 8131 EPA Standard Method 180.1 Equipment HACH Model AL-DT Digital Titrator (or equivalent device) HACH DR890 Portable Colorimeter (or equivalent device) HACH DR890 Portable Colorimeter (or equivalent device) HACH 2100Q Portable Turbidity meter 6. After the unfiltered samples have been collected a high-capacity cartridge ground-water filter (0.45µm, Pall Corporation, or equivalent manufacturer) will be placed on the end of the pump tubing and filtered samples will be collected into pre-labeled sample bottles. First, approximately 100 mL of ground water will be filtered and sent to waste and next the following series of samples will be collected: a. 125 mL plastic bottle for metals analysis by ICP-OES for Al, Ag, As, B, Be, Ba, Ca, Cd, Co, Cr, Cu, Fe, K, Mg, Mn, Mo, Na, Ni, Pb, Sb, Se, Sr, Ti, Tl, V, Zn, Si, and S; this sample will also be used for ICP-MS analysis for Cd, Cr, As, Cu, Pb, Ni, Se, Hg, and Tl. This sample will be filtered and preserved by adding 5 drops of concentrated HNO3 (pH test strips will be used to confirm that the sample pH is <2). Test strips for pH will be used on every sample to insure that a proper preservation pH is attained. A small amount of sample will be poured into a separate container to test pH. This is especially important in case high alkalinity samples are encountered during the ground-water sampling. The samples will be stored and shipped on ice to Shaw, NRMRL-Ada's on-site contractor for analysis. Comment [CV98]: Measure turbidity of filtered sample in field and record in log book to ensure and document did not have sediment breakthrough in filters. Comment [CV99]: Add carbonate and bicarbonate; and turbidity, and TSS to insure no sediment was in sample analyzed for dissolved cations and metals. Comment [c100]: Are the pH test strip contaminant free, need to see documentation on this. Comment [n101]: Agree – we should add text to insure no contamination from strips Comment [CV102]: MDH: The proper technique for verifying pH of a bottle would be to use disposable glass capillary tubes and use that tube to disperse the sample aliquot onto the pH paper strip b. One 60 mL clear plastic bottle for CE (capillary electrophoresis) sulfate, chloride, bromide and fluoride. This sample will be filtered, no preservative added. The samples will be stored and shipped on ice to the RSKERC general parameters lab. c. One 60 mL clear plastic bottle for nitrate + nitrite and ammonium. This sample will be filtered, 2 drops of sulfuric acid added as preservative (pH test strips will be used to confirm that the sample pH is <2; see note above regarding use of pH test strips). The samples will be stored and shipped on ice to the RSKERC general parameters lab. d. Duplicate 40 mL glass VOA vial in duplicate for analysis of dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC). This sample will be filtered, no preservative added. 2-29 02:002233_0696_SGTG-B3494 4_attachment_EPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611 (CEPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611.doc10/21/20138/6/20131/6/20121/6/20121/6/201212/20/2011 Comment [CV103]: Suggest we also test for organic nitrogen or TKN, useful in evaluating septic impacts. Comment [c104]: It is not understood why and how this parameter will be used in the EPA study. Comment [n105]: This gets to the issue of accurate carbonate/bicarbonate numbers. We do not feel that lab alkalinity is the best way to go-prefer field alkalinity together with other analysis to then arrive at accurate numbers Section No.: 2 Revision No.: 00 Date: May October 21, 2013August 6, 2013January 6, 2012January 6, 2012January 6, 2012December 20, 2011 2. Data Generation and Acquisition The samples will be stored and shipped on ice to the RSKERC general parameters lab. e. Duplicate 40 mL glass VOA vial in duplicate for analysis of dissolved organic carbon (DOC). This sample will be filtered, phosphoric acid added to pH<2. A duplicate set of 40 mL VOA vials will be collected without preservation in case acid preservation interferes with the analysis or primary instrument is unavailable. VOA vials will indicate if preservative was added. The samples will be stored and shipped on ice to the RSKERC general parameters lab. f. Filter radioactive samples also Comment [c106]: It is not understood why and how this parameter will be used in the EPA study. Comment [n107]: An important parameter in terms of binding of organic compounds Comment [CV108]: Add description for gross alpha, gross beta, Uranium, Thorium, Radium 226/228. Very important to include. See Tables 6 and 7 for numbers of sample bottles needed for each sample type and field QC samples for ground and surface water sampling. Table 6 Ground and Surface Water Sample Collection Sample Type Dissolved gases Metals (filtered) Analysis Method (EPA Method) RSKSOP-194v4 &175v5 (No EPA Method) RSKSOP-213v4 &257v3 or 332v0 (EPA Methods 220.7 and 6020) Metals (unfiltered) RSKSOP179v2; RSKSOP-213v4 &257v3 or 332v0 (EPA Methods 220.7 and 6020) SO4, Cl, F, Br RSKSOP-276v3 (EPA Method 6500) NO3 + NO2, NH4 RSKSOP-214v5 (EPA Method 350.1) DIC RSKSOP-330v0 (EPA Method 9060A) DOC RSKSOP-330v0 (EPA Method 9060A) Volatile organic RSKSOP-299v1 or compounds (VOC) 259v1 (EPA Method 5021A plus 8260C) Low Molecular RSKSOP-112V6 Weight Acids (No EPA Method) O, H stable isoRSKSOP-296v0 topes of water (No EPA Method) Sample Bottles/# of bottles* Preservation/ Storage 60 mL serum bottles/2 No Headspace TSP†, pH>10; refrigerate 6°C†† 125 mL plastic bottle/1 HNO3, pH<2; room temperature Holding Time(s) 14 days 6 months (Hg 28 days) 125 mL plastic bottle/1 HNO3, pH<2; room temperature 6 months (Hg 28 days) 30 mL plastic/1 28 days Refrigerate <6°C 30 mL plastic/1 H2SO4, pH<2; refrigerate <6°C 40 mL clear glass VOA refrigerate <6°C vial/2 40 mL clear glass VOA H3PO4, pH<2; refrigvial/2 erate <6°C 40 mL amber glass No Headspace VOA vial/2 TSP†, pH>10; refrigerate <6°C 40 mL glass VOA viTSP†, pH>10; refrigal/2 erate <6°C 20 mL glass VOA viRefrigerate at <6°C al/1? 2-30 02:002233_0696_SGTG-B3494 4_attachment_EPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611 (CEPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611.doc10/21/20138/6/20131/6/20121/6/20121/6/201212/20/2011 28 days 14 days 28 days 14 days 30 days stable Comment [CV109]: Where are the radionuclides, analyses must be done on both filtered and unfiltered samples Section No.: 2 Revision No.: 00 Date: May October 21, 2013August 6, 2013January 6, 2012January 6, 2012January 6, 2012December 20, 2011 2. Data Generation and Acquisition Table 6 Ground and Surface Water Sample Collection Sample Type δ13C of inorganic carbon δ13C and δ2H of methane 87 Sr/86Sr analysis Semi-volatile organic compounds DRO GRO 21Glycols Microbial Analysis Method (EPA Method) Sample Bottles/# of bottles* Isotech: gas stripping and IRMS (No EPA Method) Isotech: gas stripping and IRMS (No EPA Method) Thermal ionization mass spectrometry (No EPA Method) ORGM-515 r1.1, EPA Method 8270D 60 mL plastic bottle/1? Preservation/ Storage Refrigerate <6°C Holding Time(s) No information 1 L plastic bottle/1? Caplet of No inforbenzalkonium chlomation ride; refrigerate <6°C 500 mL plastic bottle/1? Refrigerate <6°C No information 1L Amber glass bottle/2 and for every 10 samples of ground water need 2 more bottles for one selected sample, or if <10 samples collected, collect 2 more bottles for one select sample ORGM-508 r1.0, EPA 1L Amber glass bottle/2 Method 8015D and for every 10 samples of ground water need 2 more bottles for one selected sample, or if <10 samples collected, collect 2 more bottles for one select sample ORGM-506 r1.0, EPA 40 mL amber glass Method 8015D VOA vial/2 and for every 10 samples of ground water need 2 more bottles for one selected sample, or if <10 samples collected, collect 2 more bottles for one select sample Region III method** 40 mL amber glass (No EPA Method) VOA vial/2 NA 1 L plastic amber/2 Autoclaved Refrigerate <6°C 7 days until extraction, 30 days after extraction HCl, pH<2; refrigerate <6°C 7 days until extraction, 40 days after extraction No headspace; HCl, pH<2; refrigerate <6°C 14 days Refrigerate <6ºC 14 days Refrigerate <6ºC NA † trisodium phosphate above freezing point of water * Spare bottles made available for laboratory QC samples and for replacement of compromised samples (broken bottle, QC failures, etc.). ** under development †† 2-31 02:002233_0696_SGTG-B3494 4_attachment_EPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611 (CEPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611.doc10/21/20138/6/20131/6/20121/6/20121/6/201212/20/2011 Comment [CV109]: Where are the radionuclides, analyses must be done on both filtered and unfiltered samples Section No.: 2 Revision No.: 00 Date: May October 21, 2013August 6, 2013January 6, 2012January 6, 2012January 6, 2012December 20, 2011 2. Data Generation and Acquisition Table 7 Field QC Samples for Water Samples QC Sample Frequency Acceptance Criteria/ Corrective Action* One in each ice chest with VOA and dissolved gas samples. RL, PI will determine if significant relative to sample data. One every two days of sampling. RL, PI will determine if significant relative to sample data. One in every 10 samples, or if <10 samples collected for a water type (ground or surface), collect a duplicate for one sample. Measure tempera- Water sample that One per cooler. ture of samples in is transported in the cooler. cooler to lab. Assess contamina- In the field, reaOne per day of tion introduced gent water is col- sampling. from sample con- lected into sample tainer with appli- containers with cable preservative. preservatives. Report duplicate data; RPD > 30 for results greater than RL. The affected data will be flagged as needed. Purpose Method Trip Blanks Assess contamina- Fill bottles with (VOCs and Distion during trans- reagent water and solved Gases only) portation. preserve, take to field and returned without opening. Equipment Blanks Assess contamina- Apply only to tion from field samples collected equipment, samvia equipment, pling procedures, such as filtered decon procedures, samples: Reagent sample container, water is filtered preservative, and and collected into shipping. bottles and preserved same as filtered samples. Field Duplicates Represent preciOne or more samsion of field sam- ples collected impling, analysis, and mediately after site heterogeneity. original sample. Temperature Blanks Field Blanks** Record temperature; condition noted on COC form*** RL, PI will determine if significant relative to sample data. *Reporting limit or Quantitation Limit ** - Blank samples will not be collected for isotope measurements, including O, H, C, and Sr. *** - The PI should be notified immediately if samples arrive with no ice and/or if the temperature recorded from temperature blanks is greater than or equal to 12 °C. These samples will be flagged accordingly. 2.2.4 Domestic Wells, Water Supply Wells, and Municipal Supply Well Sampling Domestic wells will be sampled directly from the well or the tap (if necessary), by accessing the well directly using pumps lowered down the well casing to immediately above the existing pump. Drawdown of the water table will be tracked by taking water level measurements during well purging and sampling. The water level measurements will follow the RSKSOP-326 standard operating procedure 2-32 02:002233_0696_SGTG-B3494 4_attachment_EPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611 (CEPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611.doc10/21/20138/6/20131/6/20121/6/20121/6/201212/20/2011 Comment [c110]: Need to define how the intake location will be determined, purging times and volumes, and be aware of any in-home water softeners or other treatment units or filters. It is preferable to collect from before the pressure tank, if possible. Use of the well by the landowner in the proceeding 24 hour period must be identified, and experience has shown that use by homeowner can dramatically affect the results, especially heavy use in a low yielding well. Must document this prior to sampling. Comment [CV111]: Type of pump? Some pumps not well suited for the collection of groundwater samples for VOC analyses. Section No.: 2 Revision No.: 00 Date: May October 21, 2013August 6, 2013January 6, 2012January 6, 2012January 6, 2012December 20, 2011 2. Data Generation and Acquisition (see Appendix A.11). Water levels will be recorded in a field notebook. If the well cannot be accessed directly, the sample will be collected from the closest port to the well, preferably before the pressure tank, any water softeners, treatments systems, and filters. Use of the well by the landowner in the preceding 24 hour will be documented. In addition, the homeowner will be interviewed regarding historical water quality issues (e.g., iron or Mn staining, scale buildup, odors, salty tasting water, turbidity issues, and yield issues). The interview will also include questions about well construction, depth, when drilled, driller, etc. For all duplicate and split samples, an in-line “T” shall be installed on the sample discharge tubing so that the original sample and duplicate sample bottles can be filled simultaneously. When split samples are collected at locations with duplicate samples, multiple inline “T’s” will be utilized so that the original, duplicate, and split sample bottles can all be filled simultaneously: 1. At each sampling site, GPS coordinates will be collected with a handheld device. Photos will be taken and stamped with the date. Pertinent information about well will (as described above) be recorded where possible. The groundwater level will next be measured using a Solinst water level indicator (or equivalent) and recorded. In cases where a remote pump can be used, the pump will be hooked up with new polyethylene tubing. Tubing will be changed in between each well and the pump will be rinsed with distilled water. The pump (Proactive Hurricane or equivalent) will be lowered down the well casing to a level selected in the field and powered on. In most cases, well construction details will not be available. The goal in domestic well sampling is generally to purge sufficient water to access native aquifer water prior to sampling. Professional judgment will be used in the field and consider variables such as water volume pumped, water level drawdown, and stabilization of geochemical parameters. In all cases, the water volume pumped will be tracked by recording time and purge rate. It is expected that the pump will yield an initial flow rate of approximately 1-2 L/min. This flow will pass through a flow cell equipped with a YSI 5600 multiparameter probe (or equivalent probes). The rate of pumping will be determined by measuring the water volume collected after approximately 15 seconds into a 4 L graduated cylinder; the desirable pumping rate through the flow cell should be less than 2 L/min. The pumping rate will ideally maintain minimal drawdown. Draw down will be monitored by measuring the water level (where possible) approximately every 10 to 15 minutes. 2. The YSI probe (or equivalent probes and electrodes) will be used to track the stabilization of pH, oxidation-reduction potential (ORP), specific conductance (SC), dissolved oxygen (DO), and temperature. In general, the following guidelines in Table 4 will be used to determine when parameters have stabilized. These criteria are initial guidelines; professional judgment in the field will be used to determine on a well-by-well basis when stabilization occurs. 2-33 02:002233_0696_SGTG-B3494 4_attachment_EPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611 (CEPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611.doc10/21/20138/6/20131/6/20121/6/20121/6/201212/20/2011 Comment [CV112]: Sub-meter unit. Comment [CV113]: Is this pump well suited for collecting groundwater samples for VOC analyses? Comment [CV114]: The frequency of recording should be specified. Section No.: 2 Revision No.: 00 Date: May October 21, 2013August 6, 2013January 6, 2012January 6, 2012January 6, 2012December 20, 2011 2. Data Generation and Acquisition Field readings must be recorded at no more than 5 minute intervals, or continuously if continuous recordings are being used, until stabilization occurs. 3. Once stabilization occurs, the final values for pH, ORP, specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, and temperature will be recorded. For these well types it will be assumed that once stabilization occurs that the samples collected will be water from the formation and not water entrained in the well bore. 4. After the values for pH, ORP, SC, DO, and temperature have been recorded, the flow cell will be disconnected. A series of unfiltered samples and filtered samples will be collected as in section 2.2.1.1 number 5. Following completion of the field filtration for metals, a small portion will be collected and tested for turbidity to document that sediment pass through did not occur. Comment [CV115]: As previously stated, measure turbidity of filtered sample in field and record in log book to insure and document did not have sediment breakthrough in filters. See Tables 6 and 7 for numbers of sample bottles needed for each sample type and field QC samples for ground and surface water sampling. 2.2.5 Surface Water Sampling Two surface water samples will be collected from the locations depicted on Figure 4 using the direct method typically used for stream sampling. Following completion of hydraulic fracturing activities, two confirmation samples will also be collected from the same locations. Sampling stations will be accessed from the bank or if necessary using waders. Methods will be provided if there is a surface water body present that can serve as a source of drinking water. Sample bottles will be submerged into the surface water just below the surface and filled as grab samples. The locations of the sampling sites will be recorded with a handheld GPS device. The site will be photographed. General observations about the flow and the stream depth will be recorded in a field notebook. The sampling will be performed as to minimize any capture of sediment into the sampling bottles. In cases where clear (turbidity <20 10 NTUs) water cannot be retrieved, water samples for metals, all isotope analyses, anions, nutrients, and inorganic/organic carbon will be filtered using a peristaltic pump and a high-capacity (0.45 micron) capsule filter. Clean tubing will be used prior to any sampling and filtration. The readings from the YSI will be recorded by inserting the probe set with protective cover directly into the surface water body and allowing readings to stabilize. Again the logging function will be utilized and readings will be recorded in a field notebook. Following completion of the field filtration for metals, a small portion will be collected and tested for turbidity to document that sediment pass through did not occur. 2.2.6 Soil Sampling Soil sampling will be accomplished using hand held samplers since all samples will be surface soil samples collected from 0 to 6 – inches in depth. Using sampling procedures outline below and in Appendix A.13 (ENV 3.13) 2-34 02:002233_0696_SGTG-B3494 4_attachment_EPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611 (CEPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611.doc10/21/20138/6/20131/6/20121/6/20121/6/201212/20/2011 Comment [n116]: See new sentence above regarding gw-sw interactions Comment [CV117]: Submerging sample containers will allow preservatives to escape. Possibly utilize Kemmerer sampler or other applicable methods. Section No.: 2 Revision No.: 00 Date: May October 21, 2013August 6, 2013January 6, 2012January 6, 2012January 6, 2012December 20, 2011 2. Data Generation and Acquisition 2.2.6.1 Soil Sampling Procedures. Composite surface soil samples will be collected from the locations shown on Figure 4. Additionally, discreet samples will be collected from the same locations for volatile organic analysis. Dedicated sampling equipment will be used at each location for sample collection. Soil samples will be collected using the following procedure: 1. Carefully remove the top layer of soil/vegetation to the desired sample depth with a pre-cleaned spade; Comment [CV118]: Why not use Terra-core samplers? Comment [CV119]: MDH: Is a rinse/decon blank performed on any “pre-cleaned” device used in between sampling events? 2. Using a stainless-steel scoop, spoon, trowel, or plastic spoon, remove and discard the thin layer of soil from the area that came into contact with the shovel; 3. Transfer the sample into an appropriate container (stainless steel bowl) using a stainless-steel or plastic lab spoon or equivalent. Composite samples will be placed in a stainless-steel bowl and mixed thoroughly to obtain a homogeneous sample representative of the entire sampling interval. Place the soil samples into labeled containers; 4. VOA samples will be collected directly from the bottom of the hole before mixing the sample to minimize volatilization of contaminants; 5. Check to ensure that the VOA vial Teflon liner is present in the cap, if required. Fill the VOA vial fully to the top to reduce headspace. Secure the cap tightly. The chemical preservation of solids is generally not recommended. Refrigeration is usually the best approach, supplemented by a minimal holding time; 6. Ensure that a sufficient sample size has been collected for the desired analysis; Comment [CV120]: MDH: For soil sampling, EPA Method 5035 should be used for VOC analysis. Filling a 40-mL VOA vial to the top does not allow room for chemical preservative and/or purge water for proper purge and trap analysis. Method 5035 should be strictly followed in these cases 7. Split the homogenized sample into appropriate containers a. Metals; b. General parameters (pH, Eh, electrical conductivity, BOD, total organic carbon, total inorganic carbon); Comment [c121]: Needs to be conducted using the saturated paste method. Comment [c122]: The purpose of soil BOD, TOC, TIC is not understood. c. Chemical Analysis (CEC, amporphous Al, Fe, Mn, acid volatile sulfur); d. VOC and semi-VOC; e. Organic chemical analysis (for example THP, DRO, GRO, PAH, etc.); 2-35 02:002233_0696_SGTG-B3494 4_attachment_EPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611 (CEPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611.doc10/21/20138/6/20131/6/20121/6/20121/6/201212/20/2011 Comment [c123]: ? Section No.: 2 Revision No.: 00 Date: May October 21, 2013August 6, 2013January 6, 2012January 6, 2012January 6, 2012December 20, 2011 2. Data Generation and Acquisition f. Isotopic analysis Comment [c124]: In bullet f, please define isotopic analyses intended, section h define mineralogical analyses intended g. Particle size analysis Comment [c125]: This needs to be defined. Comment [c126]: This needs to be defined. h. Mineralogical Analysis Comment [c127]: Add moisture content. 8. Fill in the hole and replace grass turf, if necessary. 2.2.7 Mechanical Well Integrity Testing Mechanical Integrity Test Meeting Summary ■ The information provided in this summary is general in nature to the Haynesville shale play; however, it should be noted that each well within the play is designed and constructed fit-for-purpose and for the specifics of the location. ■ The USDW depths very throughout the Haynesville shale play, however, within the study area the base of the USDW has been identified as 780 ft (http://sonris.com/). ■ Conductor Casing – The conductor casing is set at 80 ft and cemented to surface. ■ Surface Casing – The surface casing is set at approximately 1,850 ft and cemented to the surface, per LA State regulations greater than 1,800 ft (Title 43 Part XIX §109). – Cement is allowed to cure. – A pressure test is conducted on the casing at a pressure of 1,500 psi for 30 min. – Shoe is drilled out. – A pressure test (or shoe test) is conducted by sealing the volume between the well head and a packer located just below the surface casing shoe and applying an equivalent mud weight of 12 lb/gal. – Wellbore is drilled to the desired intermediate casing depth (typically 10,500 – 11,500 ft). – A pressure test is conducted on the surface casing by sealing the volume between the well head and a packer located just above the surface casing shoe and a pressure of 1,500 psi for 30 min. ■ Intermediate Casing (7 5/8”) 2-36 02:002233_0696_SGTG-B3494 4_attachment_EPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611 (CEPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611.doc10/21/20138/6/20131/6/20121/6/20121/6/201212/20/2011 Comment [c128]: A meeting summary CHK provided to the EPA was simply pasted below. EPA needs to determine based on the objectives of the study the exact information need. This has not been clearly communicated to CHK. Section No.: 2 Revision No.: 00 Date: May October 21, 2013August 6, 2013January 6, 2012January 6, 2012January 6, 2012December 20, 2011 2. Data Generation and Acquisition – The intermediate casing is installed and cemented to cover oil and gas bearing zones, which varies by location. – A broader discussion of the isolation of oil and gas bearing zones can be found in API STD 65-2 Isolating Potential Flow Zones During Well Construction (http://www.api.org/policy/exploration/hydraulicfracturing/) – The staging of cement is not typically required for this particular area. – The designed extent of cement above oil and gas bearing zones is typically 500 ft. – After the cement has cured, a pressure test is conducted on the intermediate casing with 16.5 – 17.5 lb/gal equivalent mud weight (typical 15.5 lb/gal with appropriate pressure applied at surface). – The shoe is drilled out approximately 10 ft. – A pressure test (shoe test) is conducted for 30 min with 16.5 – 17.5 lb/gal equivalent mud weight (typical 15.5 lb/gal with appropriate pressure applied at surface). ■ Production Casing (5 ½”) – Directionally drill production wellbore. Laterals are typically 5,000 ft with 4,500 ft in target zone. (standard sq. mi. sections) – Run casing string and cement. The designed extent of cement above the intermediate shoe is typically a minimum of 500 ft. – Drilling rig demobilization – Clean up lateral and prepare for completion, displacing oil based mud with clear fluid. – Conduct cement bond log (CBL) in production casing • Basic acoustic CBL tool • Run tool as it will run on a wireline. Typically 30o to 60o. • Run under zero pressure to identify top of cement • Re-run with applied pressure if the result of initial run is not definitive. – Pressure test production casing for 30 min at maximum fracture pressure (12,500 psi). – Pressure test production and intermediate casing annulus for 30 min at 2,500 psi. ■ Completion – Well is stimulated with multiple fracturing stages utilizing the “plug and perf” method. Frac plugs are set between each stage. – Continuous monitoring of backside pressure. • 2,000 – 2,500 psi applied pressure maintained on the production- intermediate casing annulus. • Pressure monitoring of annulus between production and intermediate casing. – Drill out plugs with coil tubing 2-37 02:002233_0696_SGTG-B3494 4_attachment_EPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611 (CEPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611.doc10/21/20138/6/20131/6/20121/6/20121/6/201212/20/2011 Section No.: 2 Revision No.: 00 Date: May October 21, 2013August 6, 2013January 6, 2012January 6, 2012January 6, 2012December 20, 2011 2. Data Generation and Acquisition – Install packer (with ceramic disk in the bottom of the packer) between top perforation and top of the cement. – Pressure test packer • Apply 4,000 psi above packer (also applied to production casing). • Negative pressure test by bleeding off pressure and creating a differential from formation pressure. – Install 2 3/8” production tubing and tree • Test tree to 10,000 psi • Test tubing to 6,000 – 6,500 psi • Test tubing casing annulus to 2,500 psi – Ceramic disk is removed. ■ Operating pressure – Well is ready for production. – Typical shut-in tubing pressure after flowback is 7,000 – 8,000 psi. – Telemetry is used to continuously monitor flows and pressures. • Tubing pressure • Production casing pressure • Tubing and production casing annular pressure. • Production and intermediate casing annular pressure. • Intermediate and surface casing annular pressures. – Annular pressure is managed throughout the life of the well. (API RP-90 Annular Casing Pressure Management) 2.2.8 Flow Back Sampling Quarterly flowback water sampling will be conducted over a period of 120, beginning immediately following the completion of hydraulic fracturing activities. The process for collecting flowback/produced water is described in Appendix A.14. 2.3 Sample Handling and Custody 2.3.1 Sampling Labeling Each well, surface water body and soil sample location will be uniquely labeled. Samples collected from each of these locations will also include the unique label, well # or name of sample location, the date, the initials of the sampler, and designation of the sample type, e.g., “metals” and preservation technique (when applicable). This information will be recorded onto labeling tape, using waterinsoluble ink, affixed to each sample bottle. 2.3.2 Sample Packing and Shipping All samples will placed together in a sealed Ziploc plastic bag. The bags will be placed on wet ice in coolers. Glass bottles will be packed with bubble wrap to prevent breakage. The coolers will be sent via FedEx, overnight, to the appropriate lab with chain of custody forms (see Figure 8) and custody seal. 2-38 02:002233_0696_SGTG-B3494 4_attachment_EPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611 (CEPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611.doc10/21/20138/6/20131/6/20121/6/20121/6/201212/20/2011 Comment [nc129]: Appears to be misplaced. Comment [CV130]: No mention of QA/QC samples, e.g. duplicates, trip blanks, field blanks, etc. Comment [CV131]: Flowback/Produced water samples. Comment [CV132]: MDH: No information is provided on where to send split samples…is this to be included Comment [CV133]: The flowback/produced water samples may need to be pre-chilled prior to packaging for shipment as the temperature of these samples are often quite warm at the time of collection. Section No.: 2 Revision No.: 00 Date: May October 21, 2013August 6, 2013January 6, 2012January 6, 2012January 6, 2012December 20, 2011 2. Data Generation and Acquisition R.S. Kerr Environmental Research Center 919 Kerr Research Drive Ada, OK 74820 1-580-436-8920 ATTN: Andrew Greenwood (for samples analyzed by both Shaw and EPA General Parameters Laboratory) EPA Region 8 Lab 16194 West 45th Drive Golden, CO 80403 1-303-312-7775 ATTN: Mark Murphy Sample receipt and log-in at the Region 8 laboratory shall be conducted as described in their SOP, Sample Receipt and Control Procedure, #GENLP-808 Rev. 1.0 and the Region 8 Quality Manual, # QSP-001 Rev. 1.0 Comment [nc134]: Need to be consistent on references throughout the document on use of roman numerals or not EPA Region 3 Lab 701 Maples Road Ft. Meade, MD 20755 1-410-305-2835 ATTN: Jennie Gundersen Sample receipt and log-in at the Region 3 laboratory shall be conducted as described in their SOP, Sample Scheduling, Receipt, Log-In, Chain of Custody, and Disposal Procedures, R3-QA061. 2.4 Analytical Methods Ground-water samples will be collected and analyzed using RSKERC standard operating procedures (RSKSOPs) at RSKERC and EPA Methods at the Region VIII laboratory (Table 6). Region III’s LC-MS-MS method for glycols is under development with the intent to eventually have a validated, documented method. Aqueous samples are injected directly on the HPLC after tuning MS/MS with authentic standards (2butoxyethanol, di-, tri-, and tetraethylene glycols) and development of the HPLC gradient. HPLC column is Waters (Milford MA) Atlantis dC18 3um, 2.1 x 150mm column (p/n 186001299). HPLC gradient is with H2O and CH3CN with 0.1% formic acid. The 3 glycols are run on a separate gradient than the 2butoxyethanol. All details of instrument conditions will be included in case file. EPA SW-846 Method 8000B and C are used for basic chromatographic procedures. A suitable surrogate has not been identified. Since there is no extraction or concentration step in sample preparation, extraction efficiency calculations using a surrogate are not applicable. If a suitable surrogate is found, it will be used 2-39 02:002233_0696_SGTG-B3494 4_attachment_EPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611 (CEPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611.doc10/21/20138/6/20131/6/20121/6/20121/6/201212/20/2011 Comment [CV135]: LC-MS-MS for glycols is a suitable method currently under evaluation but not widely accepted or validated. May be suitable for baseline analyses but potential interferences from high solids and salt content in flowback water and produced water may be an issue with this method. Regardless, all methods used should be validated prior to use. Section No.: 2 Revision No.: 00 Date: May October 21, 2013August 6, 2013January 6, 2012January 6, 2012January 6, 2012December 20, 2011 2. Data Generation and Acquisition to evaluate matrix effects. Custom standard mix from Ultra Scientific, (Kingstown RI) is used for the instrument calibration (IC). The working, linear range varies for each compound but is about 10-100 µg L-1 and may change with further development. Initial Calibration (IC) is performed before each day's sample set, calibration verification is done at the beginning, after every 10 sample injections, and at the end of a sample set. The correlation coefficient (r2) of the calibration curve must be >0.99. An instrument blank is also run after every 10 sample injections. The performance criteria are provided in Table 8. The system is tuned with individual authentic standards (at 1mg L-1 concentration) of each compound according to the manufacturer’s directions using the Waters Empower “Intellistart” tune/method development program in the MRM (multiple reaction monitoring) ESI+ (electrospray positive) mode. Tune data is included in the case file. Target masses, transition data and voltages determined in each tune for each compound are compiled into one instrument method. Only one MS tune file (which determines gas flow rates and source temperatures) may be used during a sample set. For these samples, the tetraethylene glycol tune is used as it provides adequate response for all targets. Due to differences in optimal chromatographic separation, the three glycols are analyzed in one run and 2-butoxyethanol is analyzed separately. Exact mass calibration of the instrument is done annually with the preventive maintenance procedure. Mass calibration was successfully performed according to manufacturer's specifications with NaCsI on 6/17/2010 by a certified Waters Corp Service technician. Custom mix supplied by Accustandard (New Haven, CT) is used as a second source verification (SSV). The SSV is run after IC. Matrix spikes and matrix spike duplicates are also performed. Table 8 Region III Laboratory QA/QC Requirements for Glycols QC Type Performance Criteria Frequency Method Blanks Solvent Blanks Initial and Continuing Calibration Checks Second Source Standards Laboratory Control Samples (LCS) Matrix Spikes (MS) MS/MSD 10% of the most abundant ion) should be present in the sample spectrum. ■ The relative intensities of the major ions should agree within ± 20%. (Example: For an ion with an abundance of 50 % in the reference spectrum, the corresponding sample ion abundance must be between 30 and 70 %.) Comment [c138]: Not recommend: The analysis of TICs is only at best “estimated” data and CHK would not recommend any study to be performed or replicated on the basis of “estimated data”. This will only be suspect data at best and not valid data by a chemist review. This would apply to any GC/MS (i.e. VOC or SVOC analyses) method performed. Comment [CV139]: MDH: We would not recommend TICs be analyzed for or reported since they are at best “estimated values. Is there any specific number of TICs that is being proposed to be evaluated? Comment [n140]: Appropriate qualifiers can be added ■ Molecular ions present in the reference spectrum should be present in the sample spectrum. ■ Ions present in the sample spectrum but not in the reference spectrum should be reviewed for possible background contamination or presence of co-eluting compounds. Ions present in the reference spectrum but not in the sample spectrum should be reviewed for possible subtraction from the sample spectrum because of background contamination or coeluting peaks. Data system library reduction programs can sometimes create these discrepancies. Table 10 Region VIII Detection and Reporting limits and LCS and MS Control Limits for Semivolatile Organic Compounds (SVOC) using Method 8270 Detection Limits Analyte 1-Chloronaphthalene 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 1,2-Dinitrobenzene 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 1,3-Dinitrobenzene 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 1,4-Dinitrobenzene 2-Chloronaphthalene 2-Chlorophenol 2-Fluorobiphenyl (Surrogate) Control Limits Lower Standard Control Deviation Limit Upper Control Limit DL (µg/L) RL (µg/L) Mean 0.218 0.500 67.3 11.4 33 102 0.208 0.500 84.8 71.7 9.4 11.6 57 37 113 107 0.226 0.500 64.8 10.9 32 98 0.225 0.500 64.8 10.9 32 98 0.167 0.243 0.500 0.500 71.3 79.9 11.4 10.6 37 48 106 112 2-48 02:002233_0696_SGTG-B3494 4_attachment_EPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611 (CEPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611.doc10/21/20138/6/20131/6/20121/6/20121/6/201212/20/2011 Comment [n141]: Not sure what is meant by ‘define’-these are analytes identified in prior studies and standards have been obtained and equipment calibrated. Section No.: 2 Revision No.: 00 Date: May October 21, 2013August 6, 2013January 6, 2012January 6, 2012January 6, 2012December 20, 2011 2. Data Generation and Acquisition Table 10 Region VIII Detection and Reporting limits and LCS and MS Control Limits for Semivolatile Organic Compounds (SVOC) using Method 8270 Detection Limits Analyte 2-Fluorophenol (Surrogate) 2-Methylnaphthalene 2-Methylphenol 2-Nitroaniline 2-Nitrophenol 2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol 2,4-Dichlorophenol 2,4-Dimethylphenol 2,4-Dinitrophenol 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 2,4,6-Tribromophenol (Surrogate) 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 2,6-Dichlorophenol 2,6-Dinitrotoluene 3-Methylphenol 3-Nitroaniline 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether 4-Chloroaniline 4-Chloro-3-methylphenol 4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether 4-Methylphenol 4-Nitroaniline 4-Nitrophenol 4,4'-DDD 4,4'-DDE 4,4'-DDT 4,4'-Methylenebis (2chloroaniline) 4,4'-Methylenebis (N,Ndimethylaniline) 4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol Acenaphthene Acenaphthylene Acetophenone Aldrin Aniline Anthracene Control Limits Lower Standard Control Deviation Limit Upper Control Limit DL (µg/L) RL (µg/L) Mean 0.190 0.217 0.118 0.197 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.500 63.7 75.0 73.3 81.8 75.8 14.8 9.5 11.7 11.2 12.4 19 46 38 48 39 108 104 109 115 113 0.185 0.142 2.00 0.086 0.151 0.500 0.500 2.00 0.500 0.500 76.3 68.8 75.8 84.3 79.7 82.9 9.6 13.5 20.6 11.2 10.3 13.6 48 28 14 51 49 42 105 109 138 118 111 124 0.166 0.500 80.7 82.7 10.7 11.3 49 49 113 117 0.091 0.189 0.394 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.108 0.546 0.165 0.120 0.189 0.320 0.085 0.500 1.00 0.500 0500 0.500 0.500 0.500 71.3 72.6 65.2 82.9 62.2 78.6 80.6 71.3 77.2 13 17.7 15.3 10.2 15.6 10.7 10.3 13.0 13.7 32 19 19 52 15 47 50 32 36 110 126 111 113 109 111 111 110 118 0.202 0.147 0.139 0.500 0.500 0.500 84.9 77.6 78.5 15.0 10.1 9.4 40 47 40 130 108 107 0.088 0.500 83.0 9.7 54 112 2-49 02:002233_0696_SGTG-B3494 4_attachment_EPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611 (CEPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611.doc10/21/20138/6/20131/6/20121/6/20121/6/201212/20/2011 Comment [n141]: Not sure what is meant by ‘define’-these are analytes identified in prior studies and standards have been obtained and equipment calibrated. Section No.: 2 Revision No.: 00 Date: May October 21, 2013August 6, 2013January 6, 2012January 6, 2012January 6, 2012December 20, 2011 2. Data Generation and Acquisition Table 10 Region VIII Detection and Reporting limits and LCS and MS Control Limits for Semivolatile Organic Compounds (SVOC) using Method 8270 Detection Limits Analyte Azinphos-methyl Azobenzene Benzoic acid Benz(a)anthracene Benzo(b)fluoranthene Benzo(k)fluoranthene Benzo(g,h,i)perylene Benzo(a)pyrene Benzyl alcohol α-BHC β-BHC δ-BHC γ-BHC (Lindane) Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether Bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate Butyl benzyl phthalate Carbaryl Carbazole Chlorobenzilate Chrysene Dibenz(a,h)anthracene Dibenzofuran Di-n-butyl phthalate Dichlorovos Dieldrin Diethyl phthalate Dimethyl phthalate Dinoseb Diphenylamine Di-n-butyl phthalate Di-n-octyl phthalate Disulfoton Endosulfan I Endosulfan II Endosulfan sulfate Endrin Endrin aldehyde Endrin ketone Upper Control Limit DL (µg/L) RL (µg/L) 0.102 0.500 0.079 0.081 0.088 0.098 0.083 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.500 82.7 81.8 84.6 80.5 81.3 71.0 8.9 12.1 13.2 14.1 9.5 13.8 56 45 45 38 53 30 109 118 124 123 110 112 0.183 0.238 0.426 0.500 0.190 0.500 0.500 0.500 1.00 0.500 76.2 73.3 78.2 84.2 81.1 10.2 12.3 17.5 14.0 11.7 46 37 26 42 46 107 110 131 126 116 0.084 0.500 82.5 11.4 48 117 0.079 0.110 0.133 0.153 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.500 82.1 84.7 80.3 8.9 14.1 8.8 55 42 54 109 127 107 0.099 0.107 0.500 0.500 79.2 75.9 12.9 16.9 41 25 118 127 0.188 0.500 84.8 87.4 10.3 16.6 54 37 116 137 2-50 Mean Control Limits Lower Standard Control Deviation Limit 02:002233_0696_SGTG-B3494 4_attachment_EPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611 (CEPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611.doc10/21/20138/6/20131/6/20121/6/20121/6/201212/20/2011 Comment [n141]: Not sure what is meant by ‘define’-these are analytes identified in prior studies and standards have been obtained and equipment calibrated. Section No.: 2 Revision No.: 00 Date: May October 21, 2013August 6, 2013January 6, 2012January 6, 2012January 6, 2012December 20, 2011 2. Data Generation and Acquisition Table 10 Region VIII Detection and Reporting limits and LCS and MS Control Limits for Semivolatile Organic Compounds (SVOC) using Method 8270 Detection Limits Analyte Fluoranthene Fluorene Heptachlor Heptachlor epoxide Hexachlorobenzene Hexachlorobutadiene Hexachlorocyclopentadiene Hexachloroethane Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene Isophorone Malathion Methoxychlor Mevinphos Naphthalene Nitrobenzene Nitrobenzene-d5 (Surrogate) N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine N-Nitrosodiethylamine N-Nitrosodimethylamine N-Nitrosodiphenylamine N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine N-Nitrosomethylethylamine Parathion Pentachlorobenzene Pentachlorophenol Phenanthrene Phenol Phorate Pronamide Pyrene Pyridine Terbufos Terphenyl-d14 (Surrogate) Trifluralin ®-(+)-Limonene 1,3-Dimethyl adamantine 2-Butoxyethanol Adamantane Squalene Terpiniol Control Limits Lower Standard Control Deviation Limit Upper Control Limit DL (µg/L) RL (µg/L) Mean 0.094 0.120 0.500 0.500 85.2 80.6 10.4 10.3 54 50 116 112 0.116 0.225 0.202 0.196 0.093 0.167 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.500 82.3 65.2 10.0 12.6 52 27 112 103 60.9 84.3 81.0 11.1 13.6 10.5 28 43 50 94 125 112 0.212 0.233 0.500 0.500 70.8 76.8 76.0 10.5 10.8 11.8 39 44 41 102 109 111 0.187 0.500 67.9 79.6 80.9 41.1 10.6 15.7 26 48 34 110 111 128 0.199 0.107 0.246 0.500 0.500 0.500 77.6 84.0 13.3 11.0 38 51 117 117 0.087 0.500 88.6 13.2 49 128 92.7 14.0 51 135 0.054 0.028 0.054 0.033 0.565 0.031 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 1.00 0.100 2-51 02:002233_0696_SGTG-B3494 4_attachment_EPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611 (CEPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611.doc10/21/20138/6/20131/6/20121/6/20121/6/201212/20/2011 Comment [n141]: Not sure what is meant by ‘define’-these are analytes identified in prior studies and standards have been obtained and equipment calibrated. Section No.: 2 Revision No.: 00 Date: May October 21, 2013August 6, 2013January 6, 2012January 6, 2012January 6, 2012December 20, 2011 2. Data Generation and Acquisition Table 10 Region VIII Detection and Reporting limits and LCS and MS Control Limits for Semivolatile Organic Compounds (SVOC) using Method 8270 Detection Limits Analyte Tri(2-butoxyethyl)phosphate DL (µg/L) RL (µg/L) 0.133 0.200 Mean Control Limits Lower Standard Control Deviation Limit Upper Control Limit Commercial standards for DRO calibration is locally procured DF #2 (source: Texaco station). Surrogates used in DRO include o-terphenyl at spiking concentrations of 10 µg L-1. Commercial standards for GRO calibration are BTEX, MTBE, naphthalene, and gasoline range hydrocarbons (purchased as certified solutions) and unleaded gasoline from Supelco (product number 47516-U). Surrogates used in GRO include 4- bromofluorobenzene at spiking concentrations of 50 µg L-1. 2.5 Quality Control 2.5.1 Quality Metrics for Aqueous Analysis For analyses done at RSKERC, QA/QC practices (e.g., blanks, calibration checks, duplicates, second source standards, matrix spikes, and surrogates) are described in various in-house Standard Operating Procedures (RSKSOPs) and summarized in Table 11. Matrix spikes sample spiking levels are determined at the discretion of the individual analysts (based on sample concentrations) and are included with the sample results. Corrective actions are outlined in the appropriate SOPs and when corrective actions occur in laboratory analysis it will be documented and the PI will be notified as to the nature of the corrective action and the steps taken to correct the problem. The PI will review this information and judge if the corrective action was appropriate. QC samples identified in this study are defined as: Field Duplicate: Independent samples which are collected as close as possible to the same point in space and time. They are two separate samples taken from the same source, stored in separate containers, and analyzed independently. Equipment Blank: A sample of analyte-free media which has been used to rinse the sampling equipment. It is collected after completion of decontamination and prior to sampling. This blank is useful in documenting adequate decontamination of sampling equipment. Method Blank: An analyte-free matrix to which all reagents are added in the same volumes or proportions as used in sample processing. The method blank should be carried through the complete sample preparation and analytical proce- 2-52 02:002233_0696_SGTG-B3494 4_attachment_EPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611 (CEPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611.doc10/21/20138/6/20131/6/20121/6/20121/6/201212/20/2011 Comment [n141]: Not sure what is meant by ‘define’-these are analytes identified in prior studies and standards have been obtained and equipment calibrated. Comment [CV142]: Is this the certified standard for Fuel Oil #2? Section No.: 2 Revision No.: 00 Date: May October 21, 2013August 6, 2013January 6, 2012January 6, 2012January 6, 2012December 20, 2011 2. Data Generation and Acquisition dure. The method blank is used to document contamination resulting from the analytical process. Trip Blank: A sample of analyte-free media taken from a laboratory to the sampling site and returned to the laboratory unopened. A trip blank is used to document contamination attributable to shipping and field handling procedures. Matrix Spike: An aliquot of sample spiked with a known concentration of target analyte(s). The spiking occurs prior to sample preparation and analysis. A matrix spike is used to document the bias of a method in a given sample matrix. Matrix Spike Duplicates: Intralaboratory split samples spike with identical concentrations of target analyte(s). The spiking occurs prior to sample preparation and analysis. They are used to document the precision and bias of a method in a given sample matrix. Split Samples: Aliquots of sample taken from the same container and analyzed independently. These are usually taken after mixing or compositing and are used to document intra- or interlaboratory precision. Laboratory Control Sample: A known matrix spiked with compound(s) representative of the target analytes. This is used to document laboratory performance. Quality Control Sample: A sample introduced into a process to monitor the performance of a system. For analyses done by the Region VIII laboratory, QA/QC requirements are: 1. Samples shall be processed and analyzed within the following holding times (from date sampled): – Semivolatiles: 7 days until extraction, 30 days after extraction – DRO: 14 days until extraction*, 40 days after extraction – GRO: 14 days* – *With acid preservation 2. Data verification shall be performed by the Region VIII laboratory to ensure data meets their SOP requirements. 3. Complete data package shall be provided electronically on disk , including copies of chain-of-custody forms, copy of method or Standard Operating Procedure used, calibration data, raw data (including notebook pages), QC data, data qualifiers, quantitation (reporting) and detection limits, deviations from method, and interpretation of impact on data from deviations from QC or 2-53 02:002233_0696_SGTG-B3494 4_attachment_EPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611 (CEPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611.doc10/21/20138/6/20131/6/20121/6/20121/6/201212/20/2011 Section No.: 2 Revision No.: 00 Date: May October 21, 2013August 6, 2013January 6, 2012January 6, 2012January 6, 2012December 20, 2011 2. Data Generation and Acquisition method requirements. (All documentation needed to be able to re-construct analysis.) 2-54 02:002233_0696_SGTG-B3494 4_attachment_EPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611 (CEPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611.doc10/21/20138/6/20131/6/20121/6/20121/6/201212/20/2011 Section No.: 2 Revision No.: 00 Date: May October 21, 2013August 6, 2013January 6, 2012January 6, 2012January 6, 2012December 20, 2011 Table 11 RSKERC Laboratory QA/QC Requirements Summary* from SOPs Calibration Blanks Checks Analysis Second Source Measurement Method (Frequency) (Frequency) (Frequency) RSKSOP194v4 &175v5* 10xMDL (Beginning and end of each sample queue, 10-15 samples) 5xQL (Every 15 samples) 90-110% Rec. for 80% of metals w/ no individual exceeding 70-130% (one per sample set, 10-15 samples) RPD<20* for 80% of metals above 5xQL; for results <5x QL, difference of b. Matrix Spike Recovery Matrix spikes sample spiking levels are determined at the discretion of the individual analysts (based on sample concentrations) and are included with the sample results. %Recovery= spiked sample concentration-native sample concentration ×100 spiked sample concentration 2.6 Instrument/Equipment Testing, Inspection, and Maintenance RSKERC laboratory instrumentation used for analysis of project analytes are in routine use and are tested for acceptable performance prior to analyzing actual samples through the analysis of standards and QC samples. Field instruments are tested prior to use in the field by calibrating or checking calibration with standards. Routine inspection and maintenance of these instruments is documented in instrument logbooks. RSKSOPs provide details on instrument testing and corrective actions. 2.7 Instrument/Equipment Calibration and Frequency RSKERC calibration and calibration frequency are described in RSKSOPs (RSKERC Standard Operating Procedures). For the sub-contracted laboratory, these requirements are identified in the EPA Methods and the SOW (Statement of Work) included with the purchase requisition (PR) as well as in Table 12 Standards used for GRO and DRO calibration will be acquired from a commercial source. The SOW will be reviewed by the QAM for QA requirements prior to issuing the PR. Field instruments are calibrated or checked for calibration daily prior to use, midday, and at the end of the day after the last sample measurement. Calibration standards shall be traceable to NIST, if available and all dated calibration standards are not beyond their expiration date and will not expire during the field trip. 2-61 02:002233_0696_SGTG-B3494 4_attachment_EPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611 (CEPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611.doc10/21/20138/6/20131/6/20121/6/20121/6/201212/20/2011 Section No.: 2 Revision No.: 00 Date: May October 21, 2013August 6, 2013January 6, 2012January 6, 2012January 6, 2012December 20, 2011 2. Data Generation and Acquisition Prior to the sampling event each test meter will be check that it is in good working order. Calibration data will be recorded in a bound waterproof notebook and personnel making entries will adhere to the GWERD Notebook policy. Calibration of instruments will be performed daily prior to initiation of sample collection and will be performed according to manufacturer’s instructions and will be recorded in the field notebook. In addition calibration checks will be performed using known standards or buffers before use, mid-day and at the end of the day. With the exception of pH all checks must be exceed ± 10 % of known concentrations and in the case of pH must be within ± 0.2 pH units. These calibration checks will be recorded in the field notebook. If a calibration check fails, this will be recorded in the field notebook and the possible causes of the failure will be investigated. Upon investigation corrective action will be taken and the instrument will be recalibrated. Samples taken between the last good calibration check and the failed calibration check will be flagged to indicate there was a problem. Duplicate field measurements are not applicable to measurements in flow through cell (RSKSOP-211). Hach spectrophotometers and turbidity meters will inspected prior to going to the field and there function verified. Calibration of these instruments are internal and calibration will be checked in the lab prior to going to the field. Standards for redox sensitive species such as sulfide and ferrous iron are difficult to use in the field because once exposed to atmospheric oxygen there concentrations can change. Similarly calibration standards for alkalinity are sensitive to atmospheric carbon dioxide. Duplicates will be performed once a day or on every tenth sample. Duplicates acceptance criteria are ± 15 % RPD. The values obtained for each duplicate sample will be recorded in the field notebook and RPD will be calculated (section 2.5.4) and recorded in the field notebook. If the duplicate samples fail and additional duplicate sample will be taken and reanalyzed. If the additional duplicate samples fail to meet the QC criteria, then the instruments will be checked and corrective action taken. The corrective actions will be recorded in the field notebook. Samples collected between the last valid duplicate sample and the failed duplicate sample will be flagged. 2.8 Inspection/Acceptance of Supplies and Consumables RSKSOPs provide requirements for the supplies and consumables needed for each method. The analyst is responsible for verifying that they meet the RSKSOP requirements. The supplies or consumables not addressed by the RSKSOPs that are critical to this project are listed in Table 14. It should be noted that the vendors listed in Table 14 are suggest vendor and equivalent parts may be available from other vendors or substitute for based on purchasing rules. Dr. Puls is responsible for ensuring these are available and to ensure they are those as listed previously. If subcontractors are responsible for sampling, they will be responsible for providing the PI with information on their sample containers to ensure they meet project requirements. 2-62 02:002233_0696_SGTG-B3494 4_attachment_EPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611 (CEPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611.doc10/21/20138/6/20131/6/20121/6/20121/6/201212/20/2011 Section No.: 2 Revision No.: 00 Date: May October 21, 2013August 6, 2013January 6, 2012January 6, 2012January 6, 2012December 20, 2011 2. Data Generation and Acquisition Table 14 Supplies or Consumables Needed Not Listed in SOPs* Item Vendor Buffer Solution, pH 4 Buffer Solution, pH 7 Buffer Solution, pH 10 Conductivity Standard, 1413µmho Zobell Solution Oakton DO Probe Membranes Bromcresol Green-Methyl Red Indicator Sulfuric Acid Cartridges, 0.1600N Sulfuric Acid Cartridges, 1.600N Delivery Tubes for Digital Titrator Iron, Ferrous Reagent Sulfide 1 Reagent Sulfide 2 Reagent POL DO cap Memebrane Kit/ Electrolyte Solution Silicone Tubing, size 24 Silicone Tubing, size 36 Polyethylene Tubing 0.25” ID x 0.375” OD Polyethylene Tubing 0.375” ID x 0.50” OD Part Number Fisher Scientific Fisher Scientific Fisher Scientific Fisher Scientific Fisher Scientific Fisher Scientific HACH SB101-500 SB108-500 SB115-500 15-077-951 15-176-222 15-500-039 94399 HACH HACH HACH 1438801 1438901 1720500 HACH HACH HACH YSI 103769 181632 181732 605307 Fondriest Environmental Fondriest Environmental Fondriest Environmental 77050009 77050011 77050502 Fondriest Environmental 77050503 * Equivalent products from other vendors can be used if needed. 2.9 Non-direct Measurements At this stage of the project, there are no non-direct measurements anticipated. 2.10 Data Management The PI is responsible for maintaining data files, including their security and integrity. All files (both electronic and hard copy) will be labeled such that it is evident that they are for the hydraulic fracturing project in Desoto Parish, LA. Data will be submitted to Dr. Puls as either hard copies (field notes), or electronically (laboratory data) in Excel spreadsheets on CD or DVD or via email. Data in hard copy form will be manually entered into Excel spreadsheets on Dr. Puls’s computer or designated GWERD staff computer and will be given to Dr. Puls. Either, Dr. Puls or a technician or student will conduct this task. Data will be spot-checked by Dr. Puls to ensure accuracy. If errors are detected during the 2-63 02:002233_0696_SGTG-B3494 4_attachment_EPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611 (CEPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611.doc10/21/20138/6/20131/6/20121/6/20121/6/201212/20/2011 Comment [CV146]: Electronic Data delivery should be used. Field notes should be digitized. Section No.: 2 Revision No.: 00 Date: May October 21, 2013August 6, 2013January 6, 2012January 6, 2012January 6, 2012December 20, 2011 2. Data Generation and Acquisition spot-check, the entries will be corrected. Detection of an error will prompt a more extensive inspection of the data, which could lead to a 100% check of the data set being entered at that time if multiple errors are found. Data in electronic form shall be electronically transferred to the spreadsheets. Data will be spot-checked by Dr. Puls to ensure accuracy of the transfer. If errors are detected during the spot-check, the entries will be corrected. Detection of an error will prompt a more extensive inspection of the data, which could lead to a 100% check of the data set being entered at that time if multiple errors are found. 2.10.1 Data Analysis, Interpretation, and Management Data validation will consist of initial and final review of data. Initial review will include continuous oversight during field collection of data by the principal investigator to avoid common transcription errors associated with recording of data. Final review will include evaluation of all collected data for suitability in data interpretation. It will include but is not limited to the following activities: (1) assessment of data completeness, (2) review of log books and forms used for data logging, and (3) review of calibration and standard checks. Comment [c147]: Need an outlier data resolution program that is agreeable to both parties. There will be outliers in the data, or unrealistic results, that likely will be traced to sampling or lab error. Needs to be provided in report. 2.10.2 Data Recording Data collected during the ground-water investigation will be recorded into field notebooks and entered into EXCEL spreadsheets. Water quality data will also be entered into AqQA a program for evaluating ground water quality and for evaluating data validity. Graphs will be produced using EXCEL or Origin to show key data trends. Comment [n149]: All data needs to be reviewed by the PI and any outliers (unusual results) will be reviewed to determine why (lab error, etc.) 2.10.3 Data Storage As this is a Category I project, all data and records associated with this project will be kept permanently and will not be destroyed. All data generated in this investigation will be stored electronically in Microsoft EXCEL and backed up in RSKERC’s local area network ‘M’ drive. All paper-based records will be kept in the PI's offices. If the project records are archived, Dr. Puls will coordinate with GWERD management and GWERD’s records liaison and contract support the compiling of all data and records. 2.10.4 Analysis of Data All data collected associated with groundwater and surface water sampling will be summarized in EXCEL spreadsheets. Data in spreadsheets will be spot-checked against original data reports by selecting random data points for comparison to verify accuracy of data transfer. When possible, data sets will be graphically displayed using EXCEL to reveal important trends. 2-64 02:002233_0696_SGTG-B3494 4_attachment_EPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611 (CEPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611.doc10/21/20138/6/20131/6/20121/6/20121/6/201212/20/2011 Is the data going to be shared with the landowners. A discussion, clarification, and description on this issue is needed. Comment [n148]: Data from private sampling of homeowner wells will be shared with them once quality assured and verified. Comment [c150]: Should also be part of final review and final acceptance of data. Comment [nc151]: Need to be consistent in citing of Excel and need to include trademark identificatioin Comment [CV152]: The handling of produced fluids and samples of hydraulic stimulation fluid are not mentioned in this section Comment [CV153]: If comparisons are made to standards, appropriate standards should be used, e.g. drinking water standards are not appropriate for surface water resources which are not directly consumed as human drinking water. The comparison should focus more on comparison to background levels. EPA does need to identify what actions if any will be taken to notify residents if baseline sampling has parameters which are higher than drinking water standards. A discussion on recommendations to a landowner if say nitrate is exceeded (due to septic impacts. This needs to be spelled out in the document, and would recommend the landowner be notified as soon as the baseline result is available that a MCL or SMCL is exceeded, or an organic compound found in their well at high levels.) Section No.: 3 Revision No.: 00 Date: May October 21, 2013August 6, 2013January 6, 2012January 6, 2012January 6, 2012December 20, 2011 3 Assessment and Oversight 3.1 Assessments and Response Actions Technical Systems Audits (TSAs), Audits of Data Quality (ADQs), and Performance Evaluations will be conducted early in the project to allow for identification and correction of any issues that may affect data quality. TSAs will be conducted on both field and laboratory activities. Detailed checklists, based on the procedures and requirements specified in this QAPP, related SOPs, and SOWs, will be prepared and used during these TSAs. These audits will be conducted with contract support from Neptune and Co., with oversight by Steve Vandegrift, QAM, for those that are done outside of RSKERC. Those at RSKERC will be done by the QAM. See Section 4.2 for additional discussion on ADQs. Laboratory TSAs will focus on the critical target analytes at sub-contract laboratories. A laboratory TSA will be conducted at RSKERC for critical target analytes. ADQs will be conducted on a representative sample of data for the critical target analytes. These will also be performed by the Neptune and Co., with oversight by Steve Vandegrift, QAM. Performance Evaluations will be conducted on critical target analytes for those that are available commercially. The QAM shall acquire and submit the PE samples. These shall be coordinated with the PI for the contract laboratory. See Section 3.2 for how and to whom assessment results are reported. Assessors do not have stop work authority; however, they can advise the PI if a stop work order is needed in situations where data quality may be significantly impacted, or for safety reasons. The PI makes the final determination as to whether or not to issue a stop work order. For assessments that identify deficiencies requiring corrective action, the audited party must provide a written response to each finding and observation to the QA Manager, which shall include a plan for corrective action and a schedule. The PI is responsible for ensuring that audit findings are resolved. The QA Manager will 3-1 02:002233_0696_SGTG-B3494 4_attachment_EPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611 (CEPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611.doc10/21/20138/6/20131/6/20121/6/20121/6/201212/20/2011 Comment [c154]: And project specific QMP? Section No.: 3 Revision No.: 00 Date: May October 21, 2013August 6, 2013January 6, 2012January 6, 2012January 6, 2012December 20, 2011 3. Assessment and Oversight review the written response to determine their appropriateness and provide, if necessary. If the audited party is other than the PI, then the PI shall also review and concur the corrective actions. The QA Manager will track implementation and completion of corrective actions. After all corrective actions have been implemented and confirmed to be completed, the QA Manager shall send documentation to the PI and their supervisor that the audit is 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. 3.1.1 Assessments TSAs will be conducted on both field and laboratory activities. Detailed checklists, based on the procedures and requirements specified in this QAPP, SOPs, EPA Methods, and SOW will be prepared and used during these TSAs. One field TSA will be done. The laboratory audit will take place when samples are anticipated to be in the laboratory’s possession and being processed. Laboratory TSAs will focus on the critical target analytes (Table 1) and will be conducted on-site at RSKERC (involves both EPA and contractor-operated labs) and at an off-site contract laboratory which will analyze for semi-volatile organic, DRO and GRO analyses. It is anticipated this will take place in the summer of 2011. At this time, EPA Region III Laboratory and EPA Region VIII Laboratory are be the off-site laboratories. ADQs will be conducted on a representative sample of data for the critical target analytes. . These will begin with the first data packages to ensure there are no issues with the data and to allow for appropriate corrective actions on subsequent data sets if needed. Performance Evaluations will be conducted on critical target analytes for those that are available commercially. These are anticipated to be done in the summer of 2011. 3.1.2 Assessment Results At the conclusion of a TSA, a debriefing shall be held between the auditor and the PI or audited party to discuss the assessment results. Assessment results will be documented in reports to the PI, the PIs first-line manager, and the GWERD Division Director. If any serious problems are identified that require immediate action, the QAM will verbally convey these problems at the time of the audit to the PI. The PI is responsible for responding to the reports as well ensuring that corrective actions are implemented, if needed, in a timely manner to ensure that quality impacts to project results are minimal. 3-2 02:002233_0696_SGTG-B3494 4_attachment_EPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611 (CEPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611.doc10/21/20138/6/20131/6/20121/6/20121/6/201212/20/2011 Section No.: 3 Revision No.: 00 Date: May October 21, 2013August 6, 2013January 6, 2012January 6, 2012January 6, 2012December 20, 2011 3. Assessment and Oversight 3.2 Reports to Management All final audit reports shall be sent to the GWERD Division Director, and copied to Dr. Puls. Audit reports will be prepared by the QA Manager or the QA support contractor, which will be reviewed and approved prior to release. Specific actions will be identified in the reports. 3-3 02:002233_0696_SGTG-B3494 4_attachment_EPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611 (CEPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611.doc10/21/20138/6/20131/6/20121/6/20121/6/201212/20/2011 Section No.: 4 Revision No.: 00 Date: May October 21, 2013August 6, 2013January 6, 2012January 6, 2012January 6, 2012December 20, 2011 4 Data Validation and Usability 4.1 Data Review, Verification, and Validation Criteria that will be used to accept, reject, or qualify data will include specifications presented in this QAPP, including the methods used and the measurement performance criteria presented in Tables 6, 7, and 8. In addition, sample preservation and holding times will be evaluated against requirements Table 6. Data will not be released outside of RSKERC until all study data have been reviewed, verified and validated as described below. The PI is responsible for deciding when project data can be shared with interested stakeholders in conjunction with the GWERDs Director’s approval. 4.2 Verification and Validation Methods Data verification will evaluate data at the data set level for completeness, correctness, and conformance with the method. Data verification will be done by those generating the data. This will begin with the analysts in the laboratory and the personnel in the field conducting field measurements, monitoring the results in real-time or near real-time. At RSKERC, Shaw’s, verification includes team leaders, the QC coordinator, and the program manager. For the EPA GP Lab at RSKERC, data verification includes peer analysts in the GP lab and the team leader. Shaw’s and the EPA GP Lab’s process goes beyond the verification level, as they also evaluate the data at the analyte and sample level by evaluating the results of the QC checks against the RSKSOP performance criteria. For the Region VIII laboratory, QA/QC requirements include data verification prior to reporting and detailed description can be found in the QSP-001-10 QA Manual (Burkhardt and Datschelet, 2010). Results are reported to the client electronically, unless requested otherwise. Electronic test results reported to the client include the following: Data release memo from the analysts, LQAO, Laboratory Director (or their Designees) authorizing release of the data from the Laboratory, and a case narrative prepared by the analysts summarizing the samples received, test methods, QC notes with identification of noncompliance issues and their impact on data quality, and an explanation of any data qualifiers applied to the data. 4-1 02:002233_0696_SGTG-B3494 4_attachment_EPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611 (CEPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611.doc10/21/20138/6/20131/6/20121/6/20121/6/201212/20/2011 Section No.: 4 Revision No.: 00 Date: May October 21, 2013August 6, 2013January 6, 2012January 6, 2012January 6, 2012December 20, 2011 4. Data Validation and Usability The Region III laboratory data verification and validation procedure is described in detail in their Laboratory Quality Manual (Metzger et al., 2011). Briefly, the procedure is as follows. The actual numeric results of all quality control procedures performed must be included in the case file. The data report and narrative must describe any limitations of the data based on a comprehensive review of all quality control data produced. A written procedure or reference must be available for the method being performed and referenced in the narrative. If the method to be performed is unique, the procedures must be fully documented and a copy included in the case file. Verify that the calibration and instrument performance was checked by analyzing a second source standard (SCV). (The concentration of the second source standard must be in the range of the calibration.) Results must be within the method, procedure, client or in-house limits. At least one blank (BLK), duplicate analysis, and spiked sample must be carried through the entire method or procedure. Peer reviewers complete the On-Demand Data Checklist. The data report must document the accuracy and precision of the reported data by applying qualifier codes, if applicable, and include a summary of the quality control in the case file. For field measurements, Dr. Puls, E & E staff and Chesapeake field staff will verify the field data collected. The laboratories shall contact the PI upon detection of any data quality issues which significantly affect sample data. They shall also report any issues identified in the data report, corrective actions, and their determination of impact on data quality. Data validation is an analyte- and sample-specific process that evaluates the data against the project specifications as presented in the QAPP. Data validation will be performed by a party independent of the data collection activity. Neptune and Company, a QA support contractor, will conduct data validation on a representative sample of the critical analytes with oversight by the QAM. Data packages for the critical analytes that have been accepted by Doug Beak as ready to use or report shall be provided to Steve Vandegrift, QAM, who will coordinate the data validation with Neptune. Neptune shall evaluate data against the QAPP specifications. Neptune will use NRMRL SOP #LSAS-QA-02-0, “Performing Audits of Data Quality” as a guide for conducting the data validation. The outputs from this process will include the validated data and the data validation report. The report will include a summary of any identified deficiencies, a summary statement regarding the adequacy of the data for its intended use, and a discussion on each individual deficiency and any effect on data quality and recommended corrective action. As part of the data validation process, the synthesis of data and conclusions drawn from the data will be reviewed by the RSKERC Case Study Team (minimally will include case study PIs, Technical Research Lead for case studies, and GWERD 4-2 02:002233_0696_SGTG-B3494 4_attachment_EPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611 (CEPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611.doc10/21/20138/6/20131/6/20121/6/20121/6/201212/20/2011 Comment [c155]: A common problem is data review of field readings in a timely manner. Experience has shown that field reading often contain outliers due to instrument calibration issues, misreading by technicians, or transcription errors. Review of the field results is very important and needs to be conducted immediately after sample collection by both EPA and CHK, jointly. Validation of field screening parameters should not be left to one person. Section No.: 4 Revision No.: 00 Date: May October 21, 2013August 6, 2013January 6, 2012January 6, 2012January 6, 2012December 20, 2011 4. Data Validation and Usability Director) prior to release of this information or data to entities outside of RSKERC. Once reviewed by the RSKERC Case Study Team in coordination with the GWERD Director, the GWERD Director will approve its release. 4.3 Reconciliation with User Requirements The PI, Dr. Puls, shall analyze the data, as presented below. Dr. Puls shall also review the results from the data verification and validation process. Dr. Puls shall make a determination as to whether or not the data quality has met project requirements and thereby the user requirements. If there are data quality issues that impact their use, the impact will be evaluated by the PI. If corrective actions are available that would correct the issue, Dr. Puls will make the determination to implement such actions. For example, the PI may have the option to re-sample or re-analyze the affected samples. If not, then the PI will document the impact in the final report such that it is transparent to the data users how the conclusions from the project are affected. The types of statistical analyses that will be performed include summary statistics (mean, median, standard deviation, minimum, maximum, etc.) if applicable. In addition, the data will be plotted graphically over time and trends in the data will be analyzed, for example increasing or decreasing concentrations of a particular analyte. Data will be presented in both graphical and tabular form. Tabular forms of the data will include Excel spreadsheets for raw data and tables containing the processed data. Graphical representations of the data will not only include time series plots as previously described, but also Durov and Piper Diagrams for major anions and cations. In addition, concentrations of data could be plotted on surface maps of the Killdeer site showing well locations and concentrations of analytes and contours may be developed to show “analyte plumes”, if present. 4-3 02:002233_0696_SGTG-B3494 4_attachment_EPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611 (CEPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611.doc10/21/20138/6/20131/6/20121/6/20121/6/201212/20/2011 Section No.: 5 Revision No.: 00 Date: May October 21, 2013August 6, 2013January 6, 2012January 6, 2012January 6, 2012December 20, 2011 5 References Arkansas Geological Survey. Petroleum Geology of southern Arkansas and the Gulf Coastal Plain. http://www.geology.ar.gov/fossil_fuels/oil_geol_prodarea.htm Burkhardt, Mark; Datschelet, William. 2010. U.S. EPA Region 8 Environmental Laboratory Quality Assurance Manual. SOP No. QSP-001 rev 1.0. EPA Region 8 Laboratory. Domenico, Patrick A. and Schwartz, Franklin W. 1990. Physical and Chemical Hydrogeology. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York. Kiernan, Jesse. 2010. Determination of BTEX, MTBE, Naphthalene and TPH/GRO using EPA Method 8021B and 8015D Modified. SOP No.: ORGM-506 rev. 1.0. EPA Region 8 Laboratory. Kiernan, Jesse. 2010. Determination of Diesel Range Organics Using EPA Method 5015D Modified. SOP No. ORGM-508 rev. 1.0. EPA Region 8 Laboratory. Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality. 2009. Carizzo-Wilcox Aquifer Summary, 2007. Appendix 2 to the Triennial Summary Report, Aquifer Sampling and assessment Program. Louisiana Geological Survey 2008. General Geology of Louisiana, http://www.lgs.lsu.edu/deploy/uploads/gengeotext.pdf Marti, Vicente. 2011. Determination of Semivolatile Organic Compounds Using Method 8270D. SOP No. ORGM-515 rev. 1.1. EPA Region 8 Laboratory. Metzger, Cynthia; Caporale, Cynthia; Bilyeu, Jill. 2011. Laboratory Quality Manual, Version 8. 5-1 02:002233_0696_SGTG-B3494 4_attachment_EPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611 (CEPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611.doc10/21/20138/6/20131/6/20121/6/20121/6/201212/20/2011 Section No.: 5 Revision No.: 00 Date: May October 21, 2013August 6, 2013January 6, 2012January 6, 2012January 6, 2012December 20, 2011 5. References U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 3, Environmental Science Center Environmental Assessment and Innovation Division, Office of Analytical Services and Quality Assurance. Page, L.V., and Pree', H.L., Jr., 1964, Water resources of De Soto Parish, Louisiana: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1774 , 152 p. RSKSOP-152v3. Ground-Water Sampling. 5 p. RSKSOP-175v5. Sample Preparation and Calculations for Dissolved Gas Analysis in Water Samples Using a GC Headspace Equilibration Technique. 33 p. RSKSOP-194v4. Gas Analysis by Micro Gas Chromatograph (Agilent Micro 3000). 13 p. RSKSOP-211v3. Field Analytical QA/QC. 4 p. RSKSOP-212v6. Standard Operating Procedure for Quantitative Analysis of Low Molecular Weight Acids in Aqueous Samples by HPLC. 22 p. RSKSOP-213v4. Standard Operating Procedure for Operation of Perkin Elmer Optima 3300 DV ICP-OES. 22 p. RSKSOP-216v2. Sample Receipt and Log-In Procedures for the On-Site Analytical Contractor. 5 p. RSKSOP-257v3. Operation of Thermo Elemental PQ Excell ICP-MS. 16 p. RSKSOP-275v1. Collection of Water Samples from Monitoring Wells. 10 p. RSKSOP-276v3. Determination of Major Anions in Aqueous Samples Using Capillary Ion Electrophoresis with Indirect UV Detection and Empower 2 Software. 11 p. RSKSOP-299v1. Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds (Fuel Oxygenates, Aromatic and Chlorinated Hydrocarbons) in Water Using Automated Headspace Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (Agilent 6890/5973 Quadrupole GC/MS System). 25 p. RSKSOP-326v0. Manual Measurement of Groundwater Levels for Hydrogeologic Characterization. 4 p. RSKSOP-330v0. Determination of Various Fractions of Carbon in Aqueous Samples Using the Shimadzu TOC-VCPH Analyzer. 15 p. 5-2 02:002233_0696_SGTG-B3494 4_attachment_EPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611 (CEPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611.doc10/21/20138/6/20131/6/20121/6/20121/6/201212/20/2011 Section No.: 5 Revision No.: 00 Date: May October 21, 2013August 6, 2013January 6, 2012January 6, 2012January 6, 2012December 20, 2011 5. References Tetra Tech. 2003. Literature review and report surface sediment sampling technologies. Report for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Exposure Research Laboratory. GSA Contract No. GS-10F-0076K. 5-3 02:002233_0696_SGTG-B3494 4_attachment_EPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611 (CEPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611.doc10/21/20138/6/20131/6/20121/6/20121/6/201212/20/2011 Section No.: A Revision No.: 00 Date: May October 21, 2013August 6, 2013January 6, 2012January 6, 2012January 6, 2012December 20, 2011 A Comment [nc156]: Without all the Figures and Appendices to review, it is difficult to totally review this document. Standard Operating Procedures A-1 02:002233_0696_SGTG-B3494 4_attachment_EPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611 (CEPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611.doc10/21/20138/6/20131/6/20121/6/20121/6/201212/20/2011 Section No.: B Revision No.: 00 Date: May October 21, 2013August 6, 2013January 6, 2012January 6, 2012January 6, 2012December 20, 2011 B Field Forms B-1 02:002233_0696_SGTG-B3494 4_attachment_EPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611 (CEPA CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611.doc10/21/20138/6/20131/6/20121/6/20121/6/201212/20/2011 Research on Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources: Coordination with Industry 5/15/12 We appreciate the information industry (as well as states, academia and others) has shared with EPA so far, and look forward to additional exchanges of reliable scientific data and analysis. Past 1. Public input during SAB review of study scope - Winter 2010 2. Public stakeholder process, included opportunities for oral and written statements - Summer 2010 3. Technical workshops February-March 2011 4. Input during SAB review of draft study plan February - August 2011 5. Data provided by nine hydraulic fracturing companies in response to request of September 2010 6. Data provided by nine randomly chosen well owner/operator companies in response to request of August 2011. Ongoing 1. Two prospective case studies underway with Range Resources and Chesapeake 2. Duplicate samples offered to relevant stakeholders at five retrospective case study sites 3. Collaboration at two waste water treatment plants in Pennsylvania for source apportionment study 4. Discussions with selected hydraulic fracturing service providers to follow up on data provided in response to information request 5. Provide quality assurance project plans (QAPPs) on website for use by industry. These include chemical methods, QA approaches to allow companies to conduct studies comparable to EPA's. Possible future collaborations/coordination 1. Additional prospective case study (only if additional funds allowed by Congress -- We have discussed this option with Southwestern) 2. We would appreciate working with companies to obtain samples of flowback, produced water, and cores to inform: chemical method development, assessment of effectiveness of waste water treatment methods, and to assess interactions between chemicals used in HF and target formations. (Samples of flowback and produced water are our highest priority request from industry) 3 Does industry have other data to share with EPA (especially data with known QA/QC information)? 4. Public input during SAB review of study reports (expected December 2012 and December 2014) Current research focuses on potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources. The President's FY 13 budget requests $14.1 M: 6.1 M to continue the current study (baseline), and $8 M (increase) to address air, water, human health and environmental risk. We will work through our MOU with DOE and DOI/USGS to assure the three agencies coordinate research. Up to date information on EPA's HF study is at www.epa.gov/hfstudy RE: May 14 - Would the May 15th work? Stephanie Timmermeyer to: Ramona Trovato 05/08/2012 05:16 PM Cc: Dorothy Miller From: Stephanie Timmermeyer To: Ramona Trovato/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Cc: Dorothy Miller/DC/USEPA/US@EPA OK – I will try to catch her another time – thanks for checking Dotti! Steph   From: Dorothy Miller [mailto:Miller.Dorothy@epamail.epa.gov] On Behalf Of Ramona Trovato Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 2:29 PM To: Stephanie Timmermeyer Cc: Ramona Trovato; Dorothy Miller Subject: Re: May 14 - Would the May 15th work? Hi Stephanie, Sigh, Ramona is in North Carolina on Thursday and out of the office Friday. Dotti Stephanie Timmermeyer ---05/08/2012 03:17:22 PM---Hello - she has not and just today my trip changed to Thurs and Fri this week. How does Thursday lat From: Stephanie Timmermeyer To: Ramona Trovato/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 05/08/2012 03:17 PM Subject: Re: May 14 - Would the May 15th work? Hello ‐ she has not and just today my trip changed to Thurs and Fri this week. How does Thursday late look for  her? Or Friday early afternoon? I realize it's extremely short notice. Stephanie R. Timmermeyer  Chesapeake Energy  Director, Regulatory Affairs ‐ Federal  304.941.9879 From: Ramona Trovato [mailto:Trovato.Ramona@epamail.epa.gov] Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 10:23 AM To: Stephanie Timmermeyer Cc: Ramona Trovato Subject: Re: May 14 - Would the May 15th work? Hi Stephanie, I don't know if Ramona has gotten back with you regarding dinner. If not, I can let you know that she will be out of the office on the 14th but may be able to make time on the 15th, if your day is still pretty open. I will see what could be worked in. Would 4:30pm on the 15th work? Have a great day, Dotti ________________________________________ Dorothy J. Miller, Ph.D. Office of Research and Development Environmental Protection Agency ph: 202-564-5192 cell: 202-306-4706 miller.dorothy@epa.gov Stephanie Timmermeyer ---05/02/2012 03:40:59 PM---Hi Ramona I will be on DC on the 14th and 15th. Let me know if you want to grab dinner on the 14th From: Stephanie Timmermeyer To: Ramona Trovato/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 05/02/2012 03:40 PM Subject: May 14 Hi Ramona I will be on DC on the 14th and 15th. Let me know if you want to grab dinner on the 14th (I finish meetings at 4) or have time to meet informally on the 15th (my day is still pretty open). Things appear to still be moving forward on the study. The landowner agreed to everything! Hope you are well. Stephanie Stephanie R. Timmermeyer Chesapeake Energy Director, Regulatory Affairs - Federal 304.941.9879 ________________________________ This email (and attachments if any) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is confidential or privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this email is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return email and destroy all copies of the email (and attachments if any). This email (and attachments if any) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is confidential or privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this email is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return email and destroy all copies of the email (and attachments if any). (See attached file: graycol.gif) This email (and attachments if any) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is confidential or privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this email is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return email and destroy all copies of the email (and attachments if any). Re: May 14 - Would the May 15th work? Ramona Trovato to: Stephanie Timmermeyer Sent by: Dorothy Miller Cc: 05/08/2012 03:28 PM Ramona Trovato, Dorothy Miller From: Ramona Trovato/DC/USEPA/US To: Stephanie Timmermeyer Cc: Ramona Trovato/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Dorothy Miller/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Hi Stephanie, Sigh, Ramona is in North Carolina on Thursday and out of the office Friday. Dotti Stephanie Timmermeyer From: To: Date: Subject: Hello - she has not and just today my trip... 05/08/2012 03:17:22 PM Stephanie Timmermeyer Ramona Trovato/DC/USEPA/US@EPA 05/08/2012 03:17 PM Re: May 14 - Would the May 15th work? Hello ‐ she has not and just today my trip changed to Thurs and Fri this week. How does Thursday late  look for her? Or Friday early afternoon? I realize it's extremely short notice. Stephanie R. Timmermeyer  Chesapeake Energy  Director, Regulatory Affairs ‐ Federal  304.941.9879 From: Ramona Trovato [mailto:Trovato.Ramona@epamail.epa.gov] Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 10:23 AM To: Stephanie Timmermeyer Cc: Ramona Trovato Subject: Re: May 14 - Would the May 15th work? Hi Stephanie, I don't know if Ramona has gotten back with you regarding dinner. If not, I can let you know that she will be out of the office on the 14th but may be able to make time on the 15th, if your day is still pretty open. I will see what could be worked in. Would 4:30pm on the 15th work? Have a great day, Dotti ________________________________________ Dorothy J. Miller, Ph.D. Office of Research and Development Environmental Protection Agency ph: 202-564-5192 cell: 202-306-4706 miller.dorothy@epa.gov Stephanie Timmermeyer ---05/02/2012 03:40:59 PM---Hi Ramona I will be on DC on the 14th and 15th. Let me know if you want to grab dinner on the 14th From: Stephanie Timmermeyer To: Ramona Trovato/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 05/02/2012 03:40 PM Subject: May 14 Hi Ramona I will be on DC on the 14th and 15th. Let me know if you want to grab dinner on the 14th (I finish meetings at 4) or have time to meet informally on the 15th (my day is still pretty open). Things appear to still be moving forward on the study. The landowner agreed to everything! Hope you are well. Stephanie Stephanie R. Timmermeyer Chesapeake Energy Director, Regulatory Affairs - Federal 304.941.9879 ________________________________ This email (and attachments if any) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is confidential or privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this email is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return email and destroy all copies of the email (and attachments if any). This email (and attachments if any) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is confidential or privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this email is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return email and destroy all copies of the email (and attachments if any). graycol.gif Re: May 14 - Would the May 15th work? Stephanie Timmermeyer to: Ramona Trovato From: Stephanie Timmermeyer To: Ramona Trovato/DC/USEPA/US@EPA History: 05/08/2012 03:17 PM This message has been replied to. Hello ‐ she has not and just today my trip changed to Thurs and Fri this week. How does Thursday late  look for her? Or Friday early afternoon? I realize it's extremely short notice. Stephanie R. Timmermeyer  Chesapeake Energy  Director, Regulatory Affairs ‐ Federal  304.941.9879 From: Ramona Trovato [mailto:Trovato.Ramona@epamail.epa.gov] Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 10:23 AM To: Stephanie Timmermeyer Cc: Ramona Trovato Subject: Re: May 14 - Would the May 15th work? Hi Stephanie, I don't know if Ramona has gotten back with you regarding dinner. If not, I can let you know that she will be out of the office on the 14th but may be able to make time on the 15th, if your day is still pretty open. I will see what could be worked in. Would 4:30pm on the 15th work? Have a great day, Dotti ________________________________________ Dorothy J. Miller, Ph.D. Office of Research and Development Environmental Protection Agency ph: 202-564-5192 cell: 202-306-4706 miller.dorothy@epa.gov Stephanie Timmermeyer ---05/02/2012 03:40:59 PM---Hi Ramona I will be on DC on the 14th and 15th. Let me know if you want to grab dinner on the 14th From: Stephanie Timmermeyer To: Ramona Trovato/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 05/02/2012 03:40 PM Subject: May 14 Hi Ramona I will be on DC on the 14th and 15th. Let me know if you want to grab dinner on the 14th (I finish meetings at 4) or have time to meet informally on the 15th (my day is still pretty open). Things appear to still be moving forward on the study. The landowner agreed to everything! Hope you are well. Stephanie Stephanie R. Timmermeyer Chesapeake Energy Director, Regulatory Affairs - Federal 304.941.9879 ________________________________ This email (and attachments if any) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is confidential or privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this email is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return email and destroy all copies of the email (and attachments if any). This email (and attachments if any) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is confidential or privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this email is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return email and destroy all copies of the email (and attachments if any). Re: May 14 - Would the May 15th work? Ramona Trovato to: Stephanie Timmermeyer Sent by: Dorothy Miller Cc: 05/08/2012 11:23 AM Ramona Trovato From: Ramona Trovato/DC/USEPA/US To: Stephanie Timmermeyer Cc: Ramona Trovato/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Hi Stephanie, I don't know if Ramona has gotten back with you regarding dinner. If not, I can let you know that she will be out of the office on the 14th but may be able to make time on the 15th, if your day is still pretty open. I will see what could be worked in. Would 4:30pm on the 15th work? Have a great day, Dotti ________________________________________ Dorothy J. Miller, Ph.D. Office of Research and Development Environmental Protection Agency ph: 202-564-5192 cell: 202-306-4706 miller.dorothy@epa.gov Stephanie Timmermeyer From: To: Date: Subject: Hi Ramona I will be on DC on the 14th an... 05/02/2012 03:40:59 PM Stephanie Timmermeyer Ramona Trovato/DC/USEPA/US@EPA 05/02/2012 03:40 PM May 14 Hi Ramona I will be on DC on the 14th and 15th. Let me know if you want to grab dinner on the 14th (I finish meetings at 4) or have time to meet informally on the 15th (my day is still pretty open). Things appear to still be moving forward on the study. The landowner agreed to everything! Hope you are well. Stephanie Stephanie R. Timmermeyer Chesapeake Energy Director, Regulatory Affairs - Federal 304.941.9879 ________________________________ This email (and attachments if any) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is confidential or privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this email is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return email and destroy all copies of the email (and attachments if any). May 14 Stephanie Timmermeyer to: Ramona Trovato From: Stephanie Timmermeyer To: Ramona Trovato/DC/USEPA/US@EPA History: 05/02/2012 03:40 PM This message has been replied to. Hi Ramona I will be on DC on the 14th and 15th. Let me know if you want to grab dinner on the 14th (I finish meetings at 4) or have time to meet informally on the 15th (my day is still pretty open). Things appear to still be moving forward on the study. The landowner agreed to everything! Hope you are well. Stephanie Stephanie R. Timmermeyer Chesapeake Energy Director, Regulatory Affairs - Federal 304.941.9879 ________________________________ This email (and attachments if any) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is confidential or privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this email is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return email and destroy all copies of the email (and attachments if any). EPA Retrospective Study in Bradford County , PA - Weston Solutions Evaluation of Data John Satterfield to: Ramona Trovato 05/17/2012 02:03 PM Cc: Jeanne Briskin, Stephanie Timmermeyer Ramona:   As you know, Chesapeake’s consultants collected split samples from residential drinking water sources  during EPA’s retrospective study field work in Bradford County, PA in October and November 2011.   Though EPA sampled 37 total residential drinking water sources during this effort, Chesapeake’s  consultants were only able to obtain split samples from 14 residential wells and 1 spring.  Access to  collect splits from the other EPA sampling sites was denied Chesapeake’s consultant by the associated  landowners.   Chesapeake commissioned WESTON Solutions to evaluate the data in respect to previously collected  Chesapeake samples from some of the studied drinking water sources and historic regional drinking  water quality as available from the United States Geologic Survey.  Based upon this evaluation, WESTON  concludes these 15 residential drinking water sources do not appear to be impacted by Marcellus Shale  natural gas drilling or production activities ‐ including hydraulic stimulation.   Please note that we have begun disseminating this report to other appropriate stakeholders (i.e.,  landowners, PA DEP) and will make the document available to the public via the internet in the near  future.   Chesapeake understands and supports EPA’s critical evaluation of all sources of secondary information  used in its hydraulic fracturing study. We hope you will consider the attached as you review and  interpret your own sets of data and certainly welcome any comments or questions you may have  regarding the WESTON report.   Please feel free to contact Stephanie or me if you’d like to discuss further.   Thank you, John Satterfield Director Environmental and Regulatory Affairs Chesapeake Energy Corporation Office: (405) 935-3171 Fax: (405) 849-3171 E-mail: john.satterfield@chk.com This email (and attachments if any) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is confidential or privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this email is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return email and destroy all copies of the email (and attachments if any). CHK.Report_041312.pdf Meza-Cuadra, Claudia From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Briskin, Jeanne Thursday, June 27, 2013 8:24 AM Meza-Cuadra, Claudia FW: Materials Needed for Wednesday Meeting with Natural Gas CEO's coordination of hf research with industry 051512.docx From: Jeanne Briskin [mailto:Briskin.Jeanne@epamail.epa.gov] Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 8:23 AM To: Briskin, Jeanne Subject: Fw: Materials Needed for Wednesday Meeting with Natural Gas CEO's Jeanne Briskin Office of Science Policy Office of Research and Development U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. (8104R) Washington, D.C. 20460 (202) 564-4583 - office (202) 565-2911 - fax briskin.jeanne@epa.gov Address for Deliveries: US EPA Ronald Reagan Building --Room 51144 Washington DC 20004 ----- Forwarded by Jeanne Briskin/DC/USEPA/US on 06/27/2013 08:23 AM ----From: Jeanne Briskin/DC/USEPA/US To: Ann Campbell/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Cc: Bruce Moore/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Don Zinger/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Fred Hauchman/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, KarenL Martin/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Linda Chappell/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Nena Shaw/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Ashley Gels/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Dorothy Miller/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Ramona Trovato/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 05/15/2012 05:13 PM Subject: Re: Materials Needed for Wednesday Meeting with Natural Gas CEO's Here is our material. I will bring a map of US showing location of case studies tomorrow. -----Ann Campbell/DC/USEPA/US wrote: ----To: Don Zinger/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Jeanne Briskin/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Fred Hauchman/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Bruce Moore/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA From: Ann Campbell/DC/USEPA/US Date: 05/14/2012 03:11PM Cc: Nena Shaw/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, KarenL Martin/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Linda Chappell/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Subject: Materials Needed for Wednesday Meeting with Natural Gas CEO's Folks - as has been mentioned during the weekly Hydraulic Fracturing calls, the CEOs of QEP, Apache and 1 Southwestern, along with representatives of ANGA, will be meeting with the Administrator and Deputy Administrator. This group has indicated an interested in discussing, amongst other topics, coordination with industry on the HF study (ORD) and quality of data used on on supply, price and emissions (OAR). If your offices could prepare background information and talking points on these topics by COB tomorrow, I would greatly appreciate it. The information need not go into great depth; a half page or no more than a page would be appropriate. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to shoot me an email or call. Thanks, Ann ___________________________________________________ Ann Campbell Office of the Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Mail Code: 1101 P: (202) 566-1370 C: (202) 657-3117 F: (202) 501-1428 (See attached file: coordination of hf research with industry 051512.docx) 2 Fon~arded by Doug on 07/05/2012 06:49 AM From: "Chris Hill (Regulatory)" To: Michael Cc: Doug David John Satter?eld Bert Smith Tamara Robbins Stephanie Timmermeyer Date: 05/04/2012 10:48 AM Subject: RE: QAPP and contact info Hi Mike, You are correct, i did owe you Bert's contact information (See below). Please keep John Satterfield and Stephanie Timmermeyer included in email correspondence as well. For your information I believe Bert is out of the office today Bert Smith Work: 405-935-1270 As you requested, I have attached a copy of our QAPP comments that we sent to Doug Beak on 1/6/12 for your reference. Based on our conversation on Tuesday, it would be beneficial for EPA finalize this QAPP in parallel with the site characterization work. I am comfortable having you incorporate the specific technical comments in to the QAPP, however, I would appreciate a formal response to the critical items listed in the CHK cover letter. Based on our April 18, 2012 conference call, we are operating with the following understanding: 1. EPA agrees with the timing after well construction and pre-HF) of the installation of horizontal wells, if they are even necessary. . 2. EPA is willing to accept any and all liabilities associated their actions on the project and is self-insured. The EPA project team has initiated discussions with their general counsel. 3. EPA is willing to maintain a buffer of 30 ft. when installing the horizontal wells. 4. EPA will have a detailed procedure for abandoning the horizontal monitoring wells prior to their construction. 5. EPA plans to include language in the final study plan regarding our concern and the limitations of horizontal monitoring wells. I appreciate you touching base with Steve V. regarding the QA requirements for the site characterization scope of work. This is valuable information for me to communicate to CHK management as they deliberate on whether or not CHK will manage and finance this the scope of work. I have attached below the subcontractor?s estimates for drilling and logging for your reference. TASKDESCRIPTION UNITS Subcontractor Well Logging {Century Geophysical Cup . Set UpISeMce Charge LS I 800 800 LS 2 400 800 Per Diem Manmay 4 I50 600 Magnetic Susceptibility 350 700 Sonic Ea I 450 450 Slim Hale Induction Ea I 350 350 3-Ann Caliper En I 250 250 E-Log Min Neutron Ea 2 400 800 Televiewer En I 875 875 Subcomracror - Memorth Wen (Assouated EmrIrmmenlal Industries. in: Homean R19 and Support Vehicles LS I 3.000 3.000 Ea 150 900 All Rotary 1418 or B-Wd-Inch Tooth Bit Ft 450 24 45 I I.003 Complete 2-inch and 4 inch Diameter PVC l-Ionltonng Wells Ft 450 20 9.000 Ream and Set Surlace Casing Ft 50 51 00 2.550 Above Grade Ccmpietlons Ea 6 525 3, l50 Per Diem ClewlDav 8 425 3.400 Thank you, Chris Hill Environmental Engineer Chesapeake Energy Corporation Of?ce: (405) 935-2321 Mobile: (405) 388-3907 Fax: (405) 849-2321 E-mail: Chris.Hill@chk.com From: Michael Overbay Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2012 10:53 AM To: Chris Hill (Regulatory) Cc: Doug Beak; David Jewett Subject: QAPP and contact info Hi Chris, Wanted to remind you that you were going to send me Bert's contact information and the QA comments from Chesapeake. Also, we have started a review of the proposal and I had a discussion with the Ada crew this morning about it from a QA vieWpoint. The QA manager for the HF study project says that these prospective projects are not like the retrospective ones in that as a collaborator on this study, EPA needs your information that we will use to meet the same QA standards as if we generated it, which is what we call Category 1 standards. Here is a link to our QAPP's for the retrospective case studies that you can use as an example. Since we will be using the hydrogeologic data generated by your efforts to characterize the site, we will de?nitely have to have information on the well installation and development procedures, water level measurements, pump testing, etc. Most of that can probably be referenced to either information the driller can provide, or ASTM standard methods. We will also need the information on the procedures the geophysics companies will use to log the wells. have an example from the USGS on what their procedures would be (note that it includes an example of the log montage at the end): As to the collection and analysis of environmental media samples, we will be putting our own QAPP together to do that for ourselves, but if Chesapeake wants EPA to be able to consider your sample analytical results, those sample collection and analytical procedures will have to meet our Category 1 QA requirement in order to be included in the study. Again. review the QAPPs at the link above for examples. Finally. as to the comments Chesapeake had provided earlier, although I would still like a copy sent to me, our contractor has them and will be writing a new version of the QAPP that will consider those comments, as well as new information and procedures EPA has developed. As such, due to the time crunch (in order to construct the pad in July and allow 3 weeks for ?eld work, we have to get the ball moving here), we won't be producing a direct response to those previous comments, but will rely on our revised QAPP to fulfill that role. We look forward to hearing from you on Monday about Chesapeake's funding decision. Michael Overbay, P.G. Regional Ground Water Center Coordinator US. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 6 (214)665-6482 (214)665-2191 (FAX) Visit the Ground Water Center on the web at: r6/6wo/swp/qroundwaterlqw.htm I irlun or! iv 1d .0 I 94): b: I ropwn . Jeri [attachment CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611 (CHK Comments deleted by Doug Torwarded by Doug on 07105I2012 06:49 AM From: Michael To: ?Chris Hill (Regulatory)" Bert Smith David Doug John Satier?eld Stephanie Timmermeyer Tamara Robbins Susan Date: 05I0412012 11:16 AM Subject: RE: QAPP and contact info Thanks for the reply Chris. We do plan on giving y'all back a reply to the letter from Stephanie to Ramona. i have a conference call set up with OGC next week to discuss how we can document the liability but they have con?rmed to me that the federal government, inciuding EPA, is "self-insured". So we'll get something going on that, but as you noted, it is not on the critical path for beginning the field work. We do agree with the installation timing and location of any horizontal wells, if needed at least 30' from the well bore and being installed after the gas well is drilled, but before the hydraulic fracturing). have tasked with developing a plugging and abandonment plan, which wili be generic in some details for now, but will be revised with speci?cs about well construction details after they are built so the plan will re?ect actual conditions . This is another task we talked about not being on the critical path, but it is underway. Mike Michaei Overbay, P.G. Regional Ground Water Center Coordinator US. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 6 (214)665-6482 (214)665-2191 (FAX) Visit the Ground Water Center on the web at: "Chris Hill (Regulatory)? Hi Mike. You are correct, I did owe you 05/04/2012 10:48:27 AM Forwarded by Doug on 07/05/2012 05:49 AM rom' Doug To "Chris Hill (Regulatory)" Cc: Carlyle Ralph Date. 05/03/2012 07:30 AM Subject: RE: Sampling methods and protocols used in Ne PA Hi Chris, 1 can only speak for the case studies i'm involved with. TX and ND. If you want to know about the other case studies, you will need to contact the PPS on those. The others involved with NE PA case studies have been or will be contacted, we split up the task. Doug Dr. Douglas G. Beak Geochemistry! Environmental Chemistry 919 Kerr Research Dr. Ada, OK 74820 email: beak.doug@epa.gov Phone: 580-436-8813 Fax: 580-436-8703 Blackberry: 580-235-7158 "Chris Hill (Regulatory)" Hi Doug, I appreciate the quick response. 05/03/2012 12:16:42 AM From: "Chris Hill (Regulatory)" To: Doug Cc: Ralph Carlyle Date: 05/03/2012 12:16 AM Subject: RE: Sampling methods and protocols used in Ne PA Hi Doug, I appreciate the quick response. i am working to provide you the same courtesy regarding the information you requested. Please note that believe some of this information has been provided to EPA on previous occasions in regards to our prospective study. However, I will have the information verified, compiled and sent to you as soon as possible. It is interesting to hear that EPA has only requested this information for the TX and ND studies. i know there are other stakeholders (state and industry) that are collecting samples in conjunction with retrospective sampling events, including in the Susquehanna/Bradford Co. study. Out of curiosity, what is the rationale behind requesting this information from some participating stakeholders and not others? Please let me know if you think of anything else CHK can do to help. Thanks From: Doug Beak Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 10:46 AM To: Chris Hill (Regulatory) Cc: Ralph Ludwig; Carlyle Miller Subject: Re: Sampling methods and protocols used in Ne PA Hi Chris, Yes, we have requested similar information for both the TX and ND studies. For the ND site we have had this information since last July along with their approved QAPP. In TX the state is currently putting this information together since they are the only others sampling and observing. Since we don't know how the data you are collecting will be used, we are concerned about the comparability and quality of the data you are collecting. Similar to what we are hearing from your side when in the ?eld. Therefore, we need the requested information to be assured that the data you are collecting is comparable and of similar quality. Doug Dr. Douglas G. Beak 919 Kerr Research Dr. Ada, OK 74820 email: Phone: 580-436?8813 Fax: 580-436-8703 Blackberry: 580-235-7158 From: "Chris Hill (Regulatory)" [chris.hill@chk.com] Sent: 05/02/2012 03:58 AM GMT To: Doug Beak Cc: Ralph Ludwig; Carlyle Miller Subject: RE: Sampling methods and protocols used in Ne PA Hi Doug, I hope you all had a good round of sampling in Bradford County! 1 was disappointed was not able to get out there, but hopefully I can make it in July. i am more than happy to round up this information for you, Ralph, and Carl. Similar to your team, we have anumber of folks in transit, however, it shouldn't be a problem getting this information to you next week. if you don?t mind, could you please inform me how this information will be used by EPA in their study efforts? I would also like to know if EPA has requested similar information from other operators? Please let me know if you think of anything else can do to help. Thanks From: Doug Beak Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 8:38 PM To: Chris (Regulatory) Cc: Ralph Ludwig; Carlyle Miller Subject: Sampling methods and protocols used in Ne PA Hi Chris, In October 2011 we asked Dana for the sampling methods and protocols you used for your sampling in NE PA. We never received these, but did receive information on split sampling method. We are again requesting the this Information. We are interested in knowing what analytes were sampled for, the protocols for sampling (including sampling flow rates, how the flow rates are determined, containers used, preservatives used, criteria for determining when samples should be collected, and all methods used for sample collection). In addition, we are interested in knowlng what QA samples were collected, the frequency of collection, and the proximity to the sampling location in the case of blanks . Finally, we are requesting the protocols for the calibration of ?eld equipment, the QA types and frequency used for the field equipment and measurements. It would also be helpful to get a copy of the QAPP for this effort. We would also like the same information for the April/May sampling also. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Doug This email (and attachments if any) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may con?ain information that is confidential or privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. if the reader of this email is not the intended recipient. or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby he communication in error, ease not fy the sender immediately by return email and destroy all copies of the email (and attachmen' any). April 25, 2012 Mr. Chris Hill Environmental Engineer Chesapeake Energy Corporation P.O. Box 18496 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73154-0496 Re: Proposal/Cost Estimate Limited Hydrogeological Investigation Hydraulic Fracturing Prospective Case Study NE/4 Section 15, Township 28 North, Range 11 West Alfalfa County, Oklahoma Dear Mr. Hill: SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC (SAIC), is pleased to present Chesapeake Energy Corporation (Chesapeake) the following Proposal/Cost Estimate to conduct a Limited Hydrogeological Investigation (Investigation) to support the Hydraulic Fracturing Prospective Case Study proposed in the NE/4 of Section 15, Township 28 North, Range 11 West, Alfalfa County, Oklahoma (Site). The Investigation is being conducted to evaluate the Site soil and groundwater background conditions prior to construction of a pad site for gas well drilling/development. Groundwater contained within the Quaternary-age terrace deposits underlie the well pad area, and have been identified as a major alluvial aquifer that is used for agricultural, municipal and domestic purposes. The bedrock (Permian-age) groundwater that underlies the terrace deposits in the area will also be evaluated. The bedrock formations in this area contain naturally-occurring poor water quality of low yield and therefore, groundwater is not typically used from bedrock formations in this area. However, this investigation will evaluate that portion of the bedrock groundwater system that is above the base of treatable groundwater (i.e., groundwater with a TDS of 10,000 mg/L or less). The base of treatable groundwater in the well pad area has initially been determined to be 100 to150 feet below ground level (bgl) by the Oklahoma Corporation Commission (OCC). The base of treatable groundwater will occur within the Hennessey Group bedrock units. The main objectives of this Investigation will be to: 1) determine the groundwater flow direction and collect hydraulic parameters to estimate groundwater velocity; 2) determine the subsurface geology and groundwater occurrence beneath the Site; 3) collect initial soil samples for limited analytical testing; 4) collect 1 round of groundwater samples for comprehensive analytical testing; and 5) define the variation of groundwater quality with depth within the terrace and bedrock groundwater systems. Surficial geology at the Site consists of Quaternary-age terrace deposits related to the Salt Fork of the Arkansas River. These deposits consist of light-tan to gray gravel, sand, silt, clay, and volcanic ash, with sand dunes common in places. A review of water well data from wells located within approximately 2 miles of the Site indicates that the terrace deposits at the Site likely range from 20 to 50 feet in thickness and average approximately 35 feet in thickness. Groundwater in the terrace deposits in this area are reported to range from approximately 3 feet bgl to 28 feet bgl, and average approximately 15 feet bgl. Underlying the terrace deposits is Permian-age consolidated bedrock of the Hennessey Group, which includes the Bison Formation, Salt Plains Formation, Kingman Formation, and Fairmont Shale. These units consist of fine-grained sandstone, siltstone, and shale. The Bison Formation is approximately 120 feet thick, the Salt Plans Formation is approximately 160 O:\Enviro\TUL\PROPOSAL\2012\2602299041-_CHK_AlfalfaCo\Ltd Hydr Invest Prop 4-25-2012.docx SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC One West Third Street, Suite 100 Tulsa, OK 74103 tel: 918.492.1600 fax: 918.496.0132 saic.com/EEandI Mr. Chris Hill Chesapeake Energy Corporation April 25, 2012 Page 2 of 7 feet thick, the Kingman Formation is approximately 70 feet thick, and the Fairmont Shale is approximately 160 feet thick, with a collective thickness of approximately 510 feet. Groundwater in the consolidated bedrock occurs principally within fractures and joints and is typically of very poor quality, becoming more mineralized with depth. During implementation of the Investigation, SAIC anticipates implementing the following activities on behalf of Chesapeake: Task 1 - Project Management The Investigation activities will be managed out of SAIC’s Tulsa, Oklahoma office by Mr. Bruce McKenzie. SAIC’s on-site hydrogeologist will be Mr. Matt Mugavero, and SAIC technicians will include either Mr. Stan Marshall or Mr. Terry Fisher as schedules allow. QA/QC of the laboratory analytical data will be managed by Ms. Kristin Drucquer. SAIC will prepare a Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan (HSP) that will address all field activities proposed herein. Task 2 - Monitoring Well Installation and Development A total of 6 groundwater monitoring wells, 5 shallow (~50 feet) and 1 deep (~150 feet), will be installed to establish and monitor the groundwater quality at or in close proximity to the proposed well pad site. These monitoring wells will be drilled and installed by a licensed well driller (Associated Environmental Industries, Inc., Norman, Oklahoma) in accordance with Oklahoma state regulations. The shallow groundwater monitoring wells will be installed utilizing a truck-mounted hollow-stem auger drilling rig and CME continuous split-barrel sample system from surface to total depth. Borings will be advanced to the top of the underlying consolidated bedrock. During drilling, lithological descriptions will be made using the Unified Soil Classification System. Field activities will be recorded in a dedicated field logbook, and all hydrogeological information noted documented on permanent soil boring records. In each borehole, soil samples will be collected from the following depth intervals: 0-0.5 feet bgl, 1-2 feet bgl and 2-3 feet bgl. Upon collection, the soil samples will be placed into laboratory prepared containers, labeled as to source and contents, placed on wet-ice for preservation, and placed under chain-of-custody control for transport to the analytical laboratory (TestAmerica, Inc., Nashville, TN) for volatile organic compound (VOC) (SW 8260B), semi-volatile organic compound (SVOC) (SW 8270C), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) (SW 8270C-SIM) and total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) (TX 1005) analyses. In addition to soil samples for laboratory analysis, an aliquot of each soil sample will be submitted to a soils laboratory (Inter-Mountain Laboratories, Inc., Sheridan, Wyoming) for comprehensive salinity analysis by Saturated Paste Extraction (Cations: sodium, calcium, magnesium, potassium; Anions: nitrate-n, chloride, sulfate, boron, bicarbonate, carbonate; General Chemistry: pH, conductivity, texture; Derived Values: total soluble salts, sodium adsorption ratio, potassium adsorption ratio, exchangeable sodium percentage, exchangeable potassium percentage). The shallow monitoring wells will be constructed using 2-inch diameter, screw-coupled, Schedule 40 PVC 0.010-inch slot screens and Schedule 40 PVC casing. In general, approximately 30 to 40 feet of screen will be installed in each monitor well such that the top of the screen is situated above (approximately 5 feet) the groundwater saturation level observed at the time of well installation. Once the screen/casing strings are positioned within the open boreholes, a clean silica sand pack will be placed in the annular space between the screen/casing and the open borehole. In each monitor well, the sand pack will extend from total depth to approximately two feet above the top slot of the screen. A 2-foot minimum sodium bentonite pellet seal will be placed immediately above the O:\Enviro\TUL\PROPOSAL\2012\2602299041-_CHK_AlfalfaCo\Ltd Hydr Invest Prop 4-25-2012.docx Mr. Chris Hill Chesapeake Energy Corporation April 25, 2012 Page 3 of 7 sand packs. Following hydration of the bentonite seal, the remaining annular space will be filled with a cement/bentonite grout using pressure-grouting techniques to approximately one foot bgl. A vented cap will be placed on top of the well casing, and a locking steel protective outer casing will be centered upon each well casing. The protective outer casing will be set in a 3-inch thick by 36-inch diameter concrete pad. During well completion, the well identification nomenclature will be placed on or in the well protector. When the well pads have cured, a weep hole will be drilled in each protective outer casing just above the concrete pad so that moisture will not accumulated within the protective outer casing. Well completion details will be recorded on permanent well completion records. The deep monitoring well will be installed by drilling through the terrace deposits and 5 feet into the underlying bedrock utilizing a truck-mounted hollow-stem auger drilling rig and CME continuous splitbarrel sample system. A 10-inch diameter surface casing will then be set and grouted in-place to isolate the groundwater within the terrace deposits from the groundwater within the underlying bedrock. Once the surface casing grout has cured, air-rotary drilling equipment will be utilized to drill into the underlying bed rock. During bedrock drilling operations, an attempt will be made to collect water quality measurements (i.e., specific conductivity, temperature and pH) from the borehole as these data may be useful in determining the base of treatable water. Upon reaching total depth, geophysical and water quality logging will be conducted in the deep borehole. The geophysical and water quality logging will be conducted by Century Geophysical Corporation and Earth Data Northeast, Inc., respectively, and will include the following: • • • • • • • • • • • • • Caliper, Natural Gamma, Normal Resistivity, Single Point Resistance, Fluid Resistivity and Temperature, Spontaneous Potential (SP), Induction Conductivity, Magnetic Susceptibility, Full Wave Form Sonic, Acoustic Borehole Imager with Vertical Deviation and Azimuth, Neutron Density, Gamma-Gamma Density, and Water Quality Logging (pressure, temperature, conductivity, dissolved oxygen, pH and Eh). The deep monitoring well will be constructed using 4-inch diameter, screw-coupled, Schedule 40 PVC 0.010-inch slot screens and Schedule 40 PVC casing. Approximately 80 to 100 feet of screen will be installed so that the top of the screened interval will terminate at, or just above, the top of the groundwater zone to be monitored. Once the screen/casing assembly is positioned within the borehole, the annular space between the wellbore and the screen/casing will be filled with clean, silica sand to a level approximately two feet above the top slot of the screened interval. Four feet of bentonite will then be placed in the annular space above the silica sand/filter pack and hydrated. Following hydration of the bentonite seal, the remaining annular space will be filled with a cement/bentonite grout using pressure-grouting techniques to approximately one foot bgl. A vented cap will be placed on top of the well casing, and a locking steel protective outer casing will be centered upon the well casing. The protective outer casing will be set in a 3-inch thick by 36-inch diameter concrete pad. During well completion, the well identification nomenclature will be placed on or in the well protector. When the well pad has cured, a weep hole will be drilled in the protective O:\Enviro\TUL\PROPOSAL\2012\2602299041-_CHK_AlfalfaCo\Ltd Hydr Invest Prop 4-25-2012.docx Mr. Chris Hill Chesapeake Energy Corporation April 25, 2012 Page 4 of 7 outer casing just above the concrete pad so that moisture will not accumulated within the protective outer casing. Well completion details will be recorded on a permanent well completion record. During drilling operations, soil and rock cuttings will be containerized and labeled properly. These cuttings will be stored on-site until proper disposal can be arranged. Drilling equipment will be decontaminated between each monitoring well location. During well drilling/completion activities, samples of the silica sand, bentonite (pellets and powder), cement and any drill-fluid additives will be collected and archived for future analysis if needed. Following well completion activities, each monitoring well will be left undisturbed for a minimum of 48 hours to allow the cement/bentonite grout to cure. After this 48-hour period, each of the newly installed monitoring wells will be developed to remove the fine particles that have accumulated in the well casing and annulus. The monitoring wells will be developed utilizing bailers, submersible pumps, surge-blocks or other suitable devices to ensure that the wells are free of suspended sediment and provide representative water samples. Development will be conducted until a minimum of three casing volumes are removed, the water quality parameters of the discharging groundwater are stable (within 10% variance) and the turbidity of the discharging groundwater is 20 NTU or less. All well development water will be containerized, properly labeled and stored on-site until proper disposal can be arranged. Upon completion of well installation/completion activities, each monitoring well will be surveyed for horizontal and vertical control by an Oklahoma-licensed land surveyor (Jividens Land Survey Company, Woodward, Oklahoma). The coordinate location (within 1 foot), top of case elevation (TOC) (within 0.01 foot) and ground elevation (within 0.01 foot) for each monitoring well will be determined. In addition, to surveying, the location of each monitoring well will be recorded with a sub-meter GIS-compatible GPS. Task 3 - Groundwater Monitoring Upon completion of well development activities, the monitoring wells will be left undisturbed for a period of one week. Following this period, two rounds of concurrent depth to groundwater (DTW) measurements will be taken within each of the monitoring wells at the Site. The first DTW event will be conducted immediately prior to conducting groundwater purging/sampling activities, and the second DTW event will be conducted one week following the groundwater sampling event. The water levels will be measured from the surveyed TOC of each monitoring well utilizing a decontaminated electronic water level indicator and will be recorded in a dedicated field logbook. Data from the water level measurements, in conjunction with the TOC elevation data, will be utilized to construct groundwater potentiometric surface maps of the groundwater system being monitored. Upon completion of well development activities and prior to conducting groundwater purging/sampling activities, vertical water quality logging will be conducted within each monitoring well. During these activities, the specific conductivity, temperature, dissolved oxygen (DO), pH and oxidation/reduction potential (Eh) of the groundwater will be measured on 1-foot increments from the top of the water column to the base of the monitoring well. These measurements will be recorded in a dedicated field logbook. Reference data for the area indicate that the groundwater within the shallow terrace deposits likely exhibits density and/or chemical stratification. These data also suggest that the deep bedrock groundwater is also likely stratified. Therefore, it is anticipated that two groundwater samples will be collected from each of the monitoring wells completed at the Site. The groundwater sampling zones will be selected based upon the results of the vertical water quality logging conducted within each monitoring well. O:\Enviro\TUL\PROPOSAL\2012\2602299041-_CHK_AlfalfaCo\Ltd Hydr Invest Prop 4-25-2012.docx Mr. Chris Hill Chesapeake Energy Corporation April 25, 2012 Page 5 of 7 Prior to conducting groundwater sampling within each selected zone, the zone will be low-flow purged utilizing a decontaminated bladder-pump with a dedicated bladder. Field measurements of pH, Eh, dissolved oxygen, specific conductance, temperature and turbidity will be collected and documented in a dedicated field logbook during well purging and immediately prior to sample collection. When three consecutive readings of the field parameters taken do not differ by more than 10%, and the turbidity of the discharging groundwater is 20 NTU or less, groundwater samples will be collected. If turbidity values of <20 NTU cannot be achieved, then dissolved analyses of metals, cations and radionuclides will be conducted. Upon collection, the groundwater samples will be placed directly into laboratory prepared sample containers, labeled as to source and contents, placed on wet-ice for preservation, and placed under chain-of-custody control for transport to the analytical laboratory (TestAmerica, Inc., Nashville, Tennessee) for analytical suite developed by Chesapeake for this investigation. This analytical suite is provided in attached Table 1. All purge water and water not consumed during the sampling process will be containerized, properly labeled and stored on-site until proper disposal can be arranged. Task 4 - Hydraulic Conductivity Testing To further characterize the shallow unconfined groundwater system present beneath the Site, singlewell displacement tests (slug) tests will be conducted in the 5 proposed shallow groundwater monitoring wells. During these slug tests, the groundwater within the well will be artificially lowered by rapidly removing groundwater from the well utilizing dedicated bailers. The return of the lowered groundwater level to an equilibrium level will be recorded utilizing a pressure transducer positioned at the bottom of the monitoring well attached to a data logger at the surface. To further characterize the bedrock groundwater system, a 12-hour constant rate pump test followed by a 12-hour recovery monitored period will be conducted in the proposed deep monitoring well. A 1-hour pumping pre-test will be conducted on the well to determine pumping rate for the 24-hour test and will be conducted at least 1 day prior to the 24-hour test. The deep well will be outfitted with a pressure transducer positioned at the bottom of the monitoring well (placed in the well approximately 2 days prior to initiating pre-test activities) attached to a data logger at the surface to monitor drawdown. A pressure transducer will also be installed in the shallow monitoring well located adjacent to the deep monitoring well to measure any potential change/effect that pumping of the bedrock groundwater system may have upon the shallow groundwater system. Discharge measurements will be taken and the pH, specific conductivity and temperature of the discharging groundwater measured hourly throughout the pump test. A totalizing flow meter will be installed in the discharge line to monitor flow throughout the test. Data from the pump and slug tests will be interpreted and values for hydraulic conductivity and transmissivity calculated, which will be used to estimate groundwater flow velocities. Task 5 - Report Preparation Upon completion of the field activities and receipt of the laboratory analytical data, SAIC will prepare a brief report detailing the results of the investigation. This report will describe the field operations and sampling activities conducted and will include the following: • • • • • • • A brief discussion of the Site geology, A discussion of all field activities performed, A summary of results of the well installation activities, A discussion of the results of the deep geophysical logs, Tables summarizing the laboratory analytical data, A Site location and topographic features map, A Site map showing the actual locations of the newly installed monitoring wells, O:\Enviro\TUL\PROPOSAL\2012\2602299041-_CHK_AlfalfaCo\Ltd Hydr Invest Prop 4-25-2012.docx Mr. Chris Hill Chesapeake Energy Corporation • • • • • • • • • April 25, 2012 Page 6 of 7 A depth to water map, Two groundwater potentiometric surface maps for the shallow groundwater system, Two cross sections (N-S and E-W), An evaluation of velocity of the shallow groundwater system beneath the Site, Soil boring and monitoring well construction records, Copies of the deep geophysical logs, Copies of field notes, Site photographs, and Laboratory analytical reports and chain-of-custody documentation. A Cost Estimate to implement the scope of work is attached. SAIC’s charges will be billed on a timeand-materials basis in accordance with the current Chesapeake/SAIC contract agreement. SAIC appreciates this opportunity to be of service to Chesapeake. If you have any questions concerning the proposed scope of work or the estimated costs, please do not hesitate to contact me at (918) 599-4383. Sincerely, SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC Bruce E. McKenzie, P.G. Project Manager Attachments: Table 1 - Retrospective Case Study Analytical Suite Figure 1 - Site Location and Topographic Features Figure 2 - Proposed Gas Well Pad Site and Monitoring Well Locations Cost Estimate Assumptions and Limitations In preparing the proposed Scope of Work (SOW) and Cost Estimate, SAIC has relied upon verbal and/or written information provided by Chesapeake Energy Corporation (Chesapeake) and/or secondary sources. SAIC has not been tasked to make an independent investigation concerning the accuracy or completeness of the information relied upon. To the extent that SAIC has based its proposed SOW and Cost Estimate on such information, the proposed SOW and Cost Estimate are contingent on the validity of the information provided. Chesapeake acknowledges that SAIC has not contributed to the presence of hazardous substances, hazardous wastes, petroleum products, asbestos, chemicals, pollutants, contaminants, or any other hazardous or toxic materials (hereinafter Hazardous Materials) that may exist or be discovered in the future at the site at which SAIC’s services shall be provided and that SAIC does not assume any liability for the known or unknown presence of Hazardous Materials. SAIC’s investigation will be restricted to collection and analyses of a limited number of environmental samples and visual observations obtained during the physical site visit, and from records made available by Chesapeake or third parties during the investigation. Because the investigation will consist of collecting and evaluating a limited supply of information, SAIC may not identify all potential items of concern. Therefore, SAIC warrants only that the project activities under this SOW and contract have been performed within the parameters and scope communicated by Chesapeake and reflected in the SOW and contract. O:\Enviro\TUL\PROPOSAL\2012\2602299041-_CHK_AlfalfaCo\Ltd Hydr Invest Prop 4-25-2012.docx Mr. Chris Hill Chesapeake Energy Corporation April 25, 2012 Page 7 of 7 The proposed report will be prepared for the sole and intended use of Chesapeake. Any person or entity obtaining, using, or relying on this report hereby acknowledges that they do so at their own risk, and that SAIC shall have no responsibility or liability for the consequences thereof. This report is intended to be used in its entirety and taking or using in any way excerpts from the proposed report are not permitted and any party doing so does so at its own risk. In preparing this proposed report, SAIC will have relied on verbal and written information provided by secondary sources and interviews, including information provided by Chesapeake. Opinions and recommendations that may be presented in this report apply only to site conditions and features as they existed at the time of SAIC’s site visit. The opinions and recommendations presented in this report cannot be applied to conditions and features of which SAIC is unaware and has not had the opportunity to evaluate. O:\Enviro\TUL\PROPOSAL\2012\2602299041-_CHK_AlfalfaCo\Ltd Hydr Invest Prop 4-25-2012.docx Table 1 : Chesapeake Developed Groundwater Analytical Suite Limited Hydrogeological Investigation Alfalfa County, Oklahoma Analyte EPA Method CHK's Lab Method δ13C and δ2H of methane Isotech: gas stripping and IRMS δ13C of inorganic carbon Isotech: gas stripping and IRMS δ86Sr & δ87Sr ?? Geo Chron Turbidity Fecal Coliform Total Coliform MBAS Carbon Dioxide Acetate Butyrate Formate Isobutyrate Lactate Propionate Diethylene glycol tetraethylene glycol triethylene glycol ®-(+)-Limonene 1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine (Azobenzene) 1,3-Dimethyl adamantine 1,3-Dinitrobenzene 1,4-Dinitrobenzene 1-Chloronaphthalene 2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 2,4-Dichlorophenol 2,4-Dimethylphenol 2,4-Dinitrophenol 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 2,6-Dichlorophenol 2,6-Dinitrotoluene 2-Butoxyethanol 2-Chloronaphthalene 2-Chlorophenol 2-Methylnaphthalene 2-Methylphenol 2-Nitroaniline NA NA NA NA RSKSOP-194v4& RSKSOP-175v5 RSKSOP-112v6 RSKSOP-112v6 RSKSOP-112v6 RSKSOP-112v6 RSKSOP-112v6 RSKSOP-112v6 Region III Method Region III Method Region III Method ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 E180.1 SM20 9222D SM20 9223B SM5540C SW8000B SW8015 SW8015 SW8015 SW8015 SW8015 SW8015 SW8015 SW8015 SW8015 SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 Isotech: gas stripping and IRMS Isotech: gas stripping and IRMS Table 1 Page 1 of 7 CHK Analytical-Method List Comparison as of 11-4-2011.xlsx 04/25/2012 Table 1 : Chesapeake Developed Groundwater Analytical Suite Limited Hydrogeological Investigation Alfalfa County, Oklahoma Analyte EPA Method CHK's Lab Method 2-Nitrophenol 3,3-Dichlorobenzidine 3/4-Methylphenol 3-Nitroaniline 4,4'-Methylenebis (2- ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 4,4'-Methylenebis (N,N-dimethylaniline) ORGM 515r1.1 SW8270 4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether 4-Chloro-3-methylphenol 4-Chloroaniline 4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether 4-Nitroaniline 4-Nitrophenol Acenaphthene Acenaphthylene Acetophenone Adamantane Aniline Anthracene Benzo (a) anthracene Benzo (a) pyrene Benzo (b) fluoranthene Benzo (g,h,i) perylene Benzo (k) fluoranthene Benzoic acid Benzyl alcohol Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate Butyl benzyl phthalate Carbazole ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 Chloroaniline ORGM 515r1.1 SW8270 Chlorobenzilate Chrysene Diallate (cis or trans) Dibenz (a,h) anthracene Dibenzofuran Diethyl phthalate Dimethyl phthalate ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 Table 1 Page 2 of 7 CHK Analytical-Method List Comparison as of 11-4-2011.xlsx 04/25/2012 Table 1 : Chesapeake Developed Groundwater Analytical Suite Limited Hydrogeological Investigation Alfalfa County, Oklahoma Analyte EPA Method CHK's Lab Method Di-n-butyl phthalate Di-n-octyl phthalate Dinoseb Diphenylamine Disulfoton Fluoranthene Fluorene Hexachlorobenzene Hexachlorobutadiene Hexachlorocyclopentadiene Hexachloroethane Indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene Isophorone Naphthalene Nitrobenzene N-Nitrosodiethylamine N-Nitrosodimethylamine N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine N-Nitrosodiphenylamine N-Nitrosomethylethylamine ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 Parathion ORGM 515r1.1 SW8270 Parathion-ethyl Parathion-methyl Pentachlorobenzene Pentachlorophenol Phenanthrene Phenol Phorate Pronamide Pyrene Pyridine Squalene Terbufos Terpiniol Tri(2-butoxyethyl)phosphate Trifluralin ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 Carbaryl ORGM 515r1.1 SW8270 (EPA531.1 optional) 1,2-Dinitrobenzene ORGM 515r1.1 SW8270 (SW8330 optional) Table 1 Page 3 of 7 CHK Analytical-Method List Comparison as of 11-4-2011.xlsx 04/25/2012 Table 1 : Chesapeake Developed Groundwater Analytical Suite Limited Hydrogeological Investigation Alfalfa County, Oklahoma Analyte EPA Method CHK's Lab Method Bromide Chloride Fluoride Nitrate Nitrite Sulfate Hydrogen RSKSOP-276v3 RSKSOP-276v3 RSKSOP-276v3 RSKSOP-214v5 RSKSOP-214v5 RSKSOP-276v3 RSKSOP-194v4& RSKSOP-175v5 SW9056 SW9056 SW9056 SW9056 SW9056 SW9056 ?? BART Kit (IRB,SRB,SFB) NA BART Diesel ORGM 508 r 1.0 SW8015 GRO as Gasoline ORGM 506 r 1.0 SW8015 Oil & Grease HEM NA E1664A Temperature of pH determination Phosphorus NA RSKSOP-213v4 Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC) RSKSOP 330v0 Acetylene Butane Ethane Ethylene Methane Propane Alkalinity, Total (CaCO3) Bicarbonate Alkalinity as CaCO3 Carbonate as CaCO3 Specific conductance Total Dissolved Solids Total Suspended Solids pH RSKSOP-194v4 & RSKSOP-175v5 RSKSOP-194v4& RSKSOP-175v5 RSKSOP-194v4& RSKSOP-175v5 RSKSOP-194v4 & RSKSOP-175v5 RSKSOP-194v4 & RSKSOP-175v5 RSKSOP-194v4& RSKSOP-175v5 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA E170.1 E365.4 SW9060 or SM20 5310C / 415.1M RSK175 RSK175 RSK175 RSK175 RSK175 RSK175 SM2320B SM2320B SM2320B SM2510B SM2540C SM2540D SM4500HB Dissolved Inorganic Carbon (DIC) RSKSOP 330v0 SW9060 or Standard Methods (SM20) or equivalent Ammonia as N Silicon Boron Magnesium Potassium Sodium RSKSOP-214v5 RSKSOP-213v4 RSKSOP-213v4 RSKSOP-213v4 RSKSOP-213v4 RSKSOP-213v4 SM4500NH3BG SW6010 SW6010C SW6010C SW6010C SW6010C Table 1 Page 4 of 7 CHK Analytical-Method List Comparison as of 11-4-2011.xlsx 04/25/2012 Table 1 : Chesapeake Developed Groundwater Analytical Suite Limited Hydrogeological Investigation Alfalfa County, Oklahoma Analyte EPA Method CHK's Lab Method Strontium RSKSOP-213v4 / RSKSOP-257v3/-332v0 SW6010C Sulfur Calcium Aluminum RSKSOP-213v4 RSKSOP-213v4 RSKSOP-213v4 SW6010C SW6010C SW6020 Antimony RSKSOP-213v4 / RSKSOP-257v3/-332v0 SW6020 Arsenic RSKSOP-213v4 / RSKSOP-257v3/-332v0 SW6020 Barium RSKSOP-213v4 SW6020 Beryllium RSKSOP-213v4 / RSKSOP-257v3/-332v0 SW6020 Cadmium RSKSOP-213v4 / RSKSOP-257v3/-332v0 SW6020 Cesium RSKSOP-257v3/-332v0 SW6020 Chromium RSKSOP-213v4 / RSKSOP-257v3/-332v0 SW6020 Cobalt RSKSOP-213v4 SW6020 Copper RSKSOP-213v4 / RSKSOP-257v3/-332v0 SW6020 Iron RSKSOP-213v4 / RSKSOP-257v3/-332v0 SW6020 Lead RSKSOP-213v4 / RSKSOP-257v3/-332v0 SW6020 Manganese RSKSOP-213v4 / RSKSOP-257v3/-332v0 SW6020 Molybdenum RSKSOP-213v4 SW6020 Nickel RSKSOP-213v4 / RSKSOP-257v3/-332v0 SW6020 Potassium SW6020 Selenium RSKSOP-213v4 / RSKSOP-257v3/-332v0 SW6020 Silver RSKSOP-213v4 SW6020 Thallium RSKSOP-213v4 / RSKSOP-257v3/-332v0 SW6020 Thorium Titanium NA RSKSOP-213v4 SW6020 SW6020 Uranium RSKSOP-213v4 / RSKSOP-257v3/-332v0 SW6020 Vanadium RSKSOP-213v4 / RSKSOP-257v3/-332v0 SW6020 Zinc RSKSOP-213v4 / RSKSOP-257v3/-332v0 SW6020 Table 1 Page 5 of 7 CHK Analytical-Method List Comparison as of 11-4-2011.xlsx 04/25/2012 Table 1 : Chesapeake Developed Groundwater Analytical Suite Limited Hydrogeological Investigation Alfalfa County, Oklahoma Analyte EPA Method CHK's Lab Method Mercury RSKSOP-257v3/-332v0 SW7470A 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane ORGM 515r1.1 SW8011 4,4'-DDD 4,4'-DDE 4,4'-DDT Aldrin Dieldrin Endosulfan I Endosulfan II Endosulfan sulfate Endrin Endrin aldehyde Endrin ketone Heptachlor Heptachlor epoxide Methoxychlor α-BHC β-BHC γ-BHC (Lindane) δ-BHC Azinphos-methyl Dichlorovos Malathion Mevinphos 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 1,1-Dichloroethane 1,1-Dichloroethene 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 1,2-Dichloroethane 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 1,4-Dichlorobenzene Acetone Benzene Carbon disulfide Carbon Tetrachloride Chlorobenzene ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 ORGM 515r1.1 RSKSOP-213v4 RSKSOP-259v1 / RSKSOP-299v1 RSKSOP-299v1 RSKSOP-259v1 / RSKSOP-299v1 RSKSOP-259v1 / RSKSOP-299v1 RSKSOP-259v1 / RSKSOP-299v1 NA RSKSOP-259v1 / RSKSOP-299v1 RSKSOP-259v1 / RSKSOP-299v1 RSKSOP-259v1 / RSKSOP-299v1 RSKSOP-259v1 / RSKSOP-299v1 RSKSOP-259v1 / RSKSOP-299v1 RSKSOP-259v1 / RSKSOP-299v1 RSKSOP-259v1 / RSKSOP-299v1 RSKSOP-299v1 RSKSOP-259v1 / RSKSOP-299v1 RSKSOP-259v1 / RSKSOP-299v1 SW8081 SW8081 SW8081 SW8081 SW8081 SW8081 SW8081 SW8081 SW8081 SW8081 SW8081 SW8081 SW8081 SW8081 SW8081 SW8081 SW8081 SW8081 SW8141 SW8141 SW8141 SW8141 SW8260B SW8260B SW8260B SW8260B SW8260B SW8260B SW8260B SW8260B SW8260B SW8260B SW8260B SW8260B SW8260B SW8260B SW8260B SW8260B Table 1 Page 6 of 7 CHK Analytical-Method List Comparison as of 11-4-2011.xlsx 04/25/2012 Table 1 : Chesapeake Developed Groundwater Analytical Suite Limited Hydrogeological Investigation Alfalfa County, Oklahoma Analyte EPA Method CHK's Lab Method Chloroform cis-1,2-Dichloroethene Diisopropyl ether Ethanol Ethyl t-butyl ether Ethylbenzene Isopropyl Alcohol Isopropyl benzene m/p-Xylene Methyl t-butyl ether Methylene Chloride Naphthalene o-Xylene t-Amyl methyl ether t-Butyl alcohol Tetrachloroethene Toluene trans-1,2-Dichloroethene Trichloroethene Vinyl chloride Xylenes, total 1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene RSKSOP-259v1 / RSKSOP-299v1 RSKSOP-259v1 / RSKSOP-299v1 RSKSOP-259v1 / RSKSOP-299v1 RSKSOP-259v1 / RSKSOP-299v1 RSKSOP-259v1 / RSKSOP-299v1 RSKSOP-259v1 / RSKSOP-299v1 RSKSOP-259v1 / RSKSOP-299v1 RSKSOP-299v1 RSKSOP-259v1 / RSKSOP-299v1 RSKSOP-259v1 / RSKSOP-299v1 RSKSOP-259v1 / RSKSOP-299v1 RSKSOP-259v1 / RSKSOP-299v1 RSKSOP-259v1 / RSKSOP-299v1 RSKSOP-259v1 / RSKSOP-299v1 RSKSOP-259v1 / RSKSOP-299v1 RSKSOP-259v1 / RSKSOP-299v1 RSKSOP-259v1 / RSKSOP-299v1 RSKSOP-259v1 / RSKSOP-299v1 RSKSOP-259v1 / RSKSOP-299v1 RSKSOP-259v1 / RSKSOP-299v1 NA RSKSOP-259v1 / RSKSOP-299v1 SW8260B SW8260B SW8260B SW8260B SW8260B SW8260B SW8260B SW8260B SW8260B SW8260B SW8260B SW8260B SW8260B SW8260B SW8260B SW8260B SW8260B SW8260B SW8260B SW8260B SW8260B SW8260B Radiochemistry: Gamma Spectroscopy NA EPA 901.1 Radiochemistry: Ra 226 NA EPA 903.0 Radiochemistry: Ra 228 NA EPA 904.0 Radiochemistry: Gross Alpha NA SW9310 Radiochemistry: Gross Beta NA SW9310 Footnotes: NA = Not Analyzed Table 1 Page 7 of 7 CHK Analytical-Method List Comparison as of 11-4-2011.xlsx 04/25/2012 PROPOSED GAS WELL PAD SITE ?2'20 if, eff-:3 Iran '11SOURCE: U.S.G.S. 7.5 MINUTE TOPOGRAPHIC QUADRANGLES on Apr 24, 2012?1229pm BURLINGTON, OKLA.-KANS. 1969 AND AMORITA, OKLA.-KANS. - 1969 OKLAHOMA SCALE 0 1/2 1 MILE FIGURE TITLE SITE LOCA AND DATE 4/23/2012 TOPOGRAPHIC FEA TURES SCALE AS SHOWN DOCUMENT TITLE DESIGNED BY BEM PROPOSAL FOR LIMITED APPROVED BY BEM HYDROGEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION DRAWN BY SKG Energy, Environment CHESAPEAKE ENERGY CORPORATION PROJECT NUMBER Infrastructure, LLC One West Third Street, Suite 100 2602299041 Ok'ahoma 74103 LOCATION FIGURE NUMBER (918) 492-1600 SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 28 NORTH, RANGE 11 WEST ALFALFA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA 1 SOURCE: AERIAL DATED SEPTEMBER 2011 - SCREEN CAPTURE FROM GOOGLE EARTH PRO LEGEND PROPOSED GAS WELL LOCATION PROPOSED SHALLOW GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL LOCATION PROPOSED DEEP GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL LOCATION PROPOSED LOCATION OF WELL PAD DISTURBED AREA Energy, Environment Infrastructure, LLC One West Third Street, Suite 100 Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103 (918) 492-1600 FIGURE TITLE DATE 4/23/2012 PROPOSED GAS WELL PAD SITE AND SCALE MONITORING WELL LOOA TIONS DOCUMENT TITLE DESIGNED BY BEM PROPOSAL FOR LIMITED APPROVED BY BEM HYDROGEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION DRAWN BY SKG CLIENT PROJECT NUMBER CHESAPEAKE ENERGY CORPORATION 2602299041 LOCATION FIGURE NUMBER SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 28 NORTH, RANGE 11 WEST ALFALFA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA CHK Technical Review E & E Technical Memorandum – Installation of groundwater monitoring wells in support of EPA’s hydraulic fracturing study. Executive Summary: Chesapeake Energy (CHK) has prepared these comments in response to E&E’s two technical memorandums prepared for the EPA and transmitted to CHK on March 1, 2012 and March 27, 2011 via email. CHK’s detailed response is formatted to follow the technical memorandums; the first bullet paraphrases language from the memorandum and sub-bullets represent CHK comments. General comments are highlighted below:       Chesapeake Energy understands that the Option #1 (vertical well with off pad access) proposed in the original technical memorandum has been removed as a viable alternative. The installation of horizontal monitoring wells after the production well has been installed significantly mitigates the potential risk to the monitoring wells’ integrity, and, therefore, the study. The limitations of the horizontal monitoring wells require additional consideration to ensure the study’s data quality objectives will be met. For example, the fluctuation in groundwater levels and end data use (i.e., modeling) should have specific considerations identified. CHK recommends EPA identify the process it will use to differentiate between potential causes (including naturally occurring) should sampling results indicate a significant change in water quality that is otherwise unexplainable. CHK does not believe the site characterization activity identified by the EPA will provide the information necessary to determine the groundwater velocity in the deeper bedrock formation. Appropriate monitoring well abandonment procedures for non-standard well should be developed. CHK understands EPA’s rationale for using non-standard wells on this highly influential scientific assessment stems from an EPA schedule issue related its 2014 report. CHK has worked with the EPA to identify a second site with what we believe to have favorable groundwater velocity. Based on characterization of the aquifers, the use of horizontal monitoring wells may not be necessary to achieve EPA’s study goals. 04/05/2012 Detailed comments: Re: Technical Memorandum – Installation of groundwater monitoring wells in support of EPA’s hydraulic fracturing study. (February 24, 2012). Introduction:  E&E limited the scope of the study to underground sources of drinking water (USDW), which has a specific definition under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) (i.e., 10,000 mg/L TDS). The State of OK has defined the base of treatable water (i.e. TDS of 10,000 mg/L) in this area at occurring between approximately 100 to 150 ft below ground level (bgl)., however, the E&E/EPA have proposed monitoring wells at depths up to 300 ft. The Final Study Plan does not limit the boundaries of the study to USDW. o EPA should develop clear boundaries for the study. It is recommended EPA use and clearly state that USDW are the boundaries of the study, and not install monitoring wells into zones that have naturally occurring brine or salt water present (TDS >10,000 mg/L).. o During the March 23, 2012 meeting, EPA stated it used 300 ft. because CHK previously stated this value as the depth of groundwater in this area. CHK believes it is important that EPA independently validate information (or secondary data) provided by CHK or others in accordance with EPA project specific data quality objectives, QMP, and QAPPs. The 300 ft. value was stated early in the site selection process as an approximation for the depth of USDW in the Mississippi Lime Play, but the Oklahoma Corporation has developed accurate depth to treatable water maps for this specific site, and those maps should be evaluated and used appropriately  E&E acknowledges that the proposed alternatives are non-standard groundwater monitoring wells. o CHK recommends the use of standard vertical groundwater monitoring wells on this study in order to reduce the risk to the study associated with the application of non-standard monitoring wells.  E&E states that this is a natural gas well pad. This statement is made throughout the memo. o This well is not considered a natural gas well. The Mississippi Lime is an oil play. Background:  E&E has assumed a 400 ft. by 400 ft. pad, and the ability to install the well approximately 75 ft. from the production well. o More accurate well pad dimensions will be provided to the EPA at a later date. There are a number of variables that dictate the size of the pad (i.e., drill rig, number of wells, etc.). Conservative dimensions for the pad are 350 ft. by 400 ft. 04/05/2012 o Note that orientation of the pad will not be necessary if EPA plans to use horizontal monitoring wells. The adjustment will impact CHK’s operations, and was offered to facilitate the installation of conventional monitoring wells off the pad location.  E&E states that piezometers will be used to determine actual subsurface conditions, including groundwater flow direction, depth to water and depth to bedrock. o The limitations of the geo-probe scope of work should be disclosed in terms of the information that will be able to be collected. For example, the piezometer will not be able to determine conditions (i.e., groundwater velocity) for the proposed deep monitoring well in the bedrock formation. It has now been agreed that conventionally drilled monitoring wells will be used in lieu of geo-probe installed wells.  E&E referenced a 300 ft. exploratory boring (off-pad) to determine the presence or absence of water bearing zones in bedrock. o “Water bearing zones” need to be clearly defined (e.g., USDW). The quality and quantity of water is of interest. o EPA should set limits, in terms of monitoring drilling capabilities (i.e., accuracy of location), for target water bearing zones.  The depths of proposed down gradient monitoring wells are stated as 20 ft. (top of the water table), 50 ft. (base of the unconsolidated aquifer), and 300 ft. (within the underlying shale formation). o It is understood that E&E made assumptions based on previous conversations, however, CHK would like the methods for determining the depths of the monitoring wells to be clearly stated and the use of best available information to be assured. For example, the top of the water table changes based on seasonal variations and water use, and the underlying bedrock formation varies greatly with depth, and the water quality varies with depth, typically becoming poorer with depth. Monitoring Well Installation:  E&E has stated an approximate sample point, for each of the down gradient wells, 15 ft. horizontally from the production wellbore. o There are numerous potential sources of contamination, both associated with and not associated with oil development operations. CHK does not believe EPA has incorporated systematic planning into the study design to ensure the study objective can be met and the appropriate data will be collected. For example, it is not clearly identified how EPA would differentiate the potential sources of contamination. o Data quality objectives for modeling and use of data need to be identified. o Certainty of monitoring well locations will effect modeling and data use. o Certainty of production well location will effect modeling and data use. 04/05/2012 o There would be a likely physical impact to monitoring wells due to proximity to production wellbore during well construction, which would compromise the study. Option 1: Vertical Wells with Off-Pad Access o CHK understands this option is no longer being considered. Option 2: Horizontal Direction Drilled (HDD) Monitoring Wells and Angle Drilled Wells  Active wireline guidance will be used to monitor the bit locations. o EPA should state the tolerances and accuracies of bore path required to meet its data quality objectives and intended use of data (i.e., modeling). Robert Keyes stated that the technology could be navigated within a +/- 3 ft. horizontal and vertical tolerance. However, the tolerances associated with the monitoring well drilling technology are not inclusive of all variables that could affect the total spatial accuracy.  Minimal starting distances of 100 ft. for the 20 ft. well and 250 ft. for the 50 ft. well. o The minimal starting distances will complicate the land owner access agreements and assessments.  The goal of the 20 ft. well is to intersect the top of the water table. o The use of horizontal wells only allows for the sampling of a small vertical interval. There is a very likely risk that the water level will change causing the water table to drop below the shallow well. A vertical well is more appropriate well type for monitoring the top of the water. In this geological setting it is not uncommon to see yearly water level fluctuations on the order of 5 to 10 feet occur.  Development of the wells: o Details regarding the development of the well should be provided, included parameter stabilization requirements.  The wells are stated to be abandoned after study/sampling activities are completed in accordance with state regulations. o It should be stated exactly how the wells will be abandoned. EPA should work with the state to understand its expectations. Without a clear understanding of what is required for proper abandonment, there is no assurance these requirement would not impede CHK operations at a future date. 04/05/2012 Groundwater monitoring, purging and sampling procedures  E&E states development of wells at least 48 hours before sampling. o CHK requests that the time between development of well and sampling be no less than 5 days.  The use of pressure transducers. o The EPA will need to specify calibration requirements. o The pressure transducers in option one will not be accessible. How will the risk of equipment failure be mitigated. In addition, the use of offset monitoring wells to monitor water levels would not allow the use of the provided low-flow sampling procedure. Pervious use of HDD Techniques for Groundwater Monitoring  E & E has listed previous use of HDD monitoring wells. o CHK acknowledges HDD monitoring wells have been used on previous projects as a last alternative to monitoring groundwater quality. Note one of the examples provided choose to use HDD if the application of standard wells was possible. o Limited detail information could be found publically available for the examples provided, however, the information found stressed the limitation of HDD technology and completely understanding the application of HDD technology prior to use. 04/05/2012 Re: Technical Memorandum – Revised groundwater monitoring wells in support of EPA’s hydraulic fracturing study. (March 26, 2012) Introduction  E & E based the depth of the USDW on statements made by CHK in the meeting. o CHK recommends EPA and its contractors independently verify information CHK provides when possible. This recommendation is related to the public perception issues associated with the study. In addition, CHK believes it is important that both EPA and its contractors are familiar with the wealth of information the state provides to the public.  E & E has stated, for the purposes of discussion, assumed groundwater screen intervals. o CHK would prefer that the logic used to determine the groundwater screen intervals are described, as well as, how this information will be collected and the quality of this information will be assured. This preference is aligned with EPA’s Quality policies, procedures, and guidelines.  E & E states that three permanent monitoring wells will be installed to characterize the site. . o The monitoring wells may be temporary, and additional monitoring wells would be installed to increase the accuracy of the site characterization.  E & E stated that CHK will drill, log and complete a deep monitoring well. o The parties have not determined that CHK will drill the well.  E & E has stated that the need for the installation of horizontal monitoring wells will be made based on the results from groundwater monitoring. o CHK believes that the appropriate information will be collected to ascertain the groundwater velocity in the alluvial aquifer.  E & E states that the application of horizontal wells will be based on the need and subject to CHK approval. o CHK confirms that the application of horizontal wells is subject to our approval.  E & E states that the distance from the production well to the horizontal wells will be based on groundwater flow data during the initial monitoring period. o There are other variables to be considered besides groundwater velocity. In addition, determining the groundwater flow in the bedrock formation may be problematic. o The distance a potential contaminant from the wellbore is not limited solely by groundwater velocity. “The accelerated arrival of contaminants at a discharge point can be a characteristic feature of dispersion that is due to 04/05/2012 the fact that some parts of the contaminant plume move faster than the average groundwater velocity” according the a report found on the National Academies Press website (http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=1770&page=37).  The following comments and concerns from the original February 24, 2012 Technical Memorandum remain outstanding: o There is not the necessity for CHK to orientate the pad to accommodate a minimum distance of 75 ft., if EPA plans to use one of the alternative well designs. The adjustment will impact CHK’s operations, and was offered to facilitate the installation of conventional monitoring wells off the pad location. o The limitations of the site characterization scope of work should be disclosed in terms of the information that will be able to be collected. For example, the piezometer well will not be able to determine conditions (i.e., groundwater velocity) for the proposed deep monitoring well in the bedrock formation. o “Water bearing zones” need to be clearly defined (e.g., USDW). The quality and quantity of water is of interest. o EPA should set limits, in terms of monitoring drilling capabilities (i.e., accuracy of location), for target water bearing zones. o We recommend EPA identify the process it will use to differentiate between potential causes (including naturally occurring) should sampling results indicate a significant change in water quality that is otherwise unexplainable. o We recommend data quality objectives for modeling and use of data be identified. o Certainty of monitoring well location will effect modeling and data use. o Certainty of production well location will effect modeling and data use. o We recommend EPA state the tolerances and accuracies of bore path required to meet its data quality objectives and intended use of data (i.e., modeling). Robert Keyes stated that the technology could be navigated within a +/- 3 ft. horizontal and vertical tolerance. However, the tolerances associated with the monitoring well drilling technology are not inclusive of all variables that could affect the total spatial accuracy. o The minimal starting distances will complicate the land owner access agreements and assessments. o The use of horizontal wells only allows for the sampling of a small vertical interval. There is a very likely risk that the water level will change causing the water table to drop below the shallow well. A vertical well, screened at intervals is more appropriate well type for monitoring the top of the water. o Details regarding the development of the well should be provided, included parameter stabilization requirements. o It should be stated exactly how the wells are to be abandoned. EPA should work with the state to understand its expectations. Without a clear understanding of what is required for proper abandonment, there is no 04/05/2012 assurance these requirement would not impede CHK operations at a future date. Kent Wilkin and Robert Keyes had similar concerns with the lack of clarity regarding abandoning procedures. o CHK requests that the time between development of well and sampling be no less than 5 days. o The EPA will need to specify calibration requirements for transducers. 04/05/2012 To: Doug Date: 04/30/2012 10:14 PM Subject: RE: Invitation: EPA Miss Lime Prospective Study (May 1 03:00 PM CDT in Call in: 877-935-0245 Code: 745 420 Rm 231) Doug, Mike Overbay mentioned you would be out when he requested that schedule this meeting for this time. I will be in an all-day meeting on Thursday and out from Friday until the following Wednesday therefore, it would be beneficial to keep the meeting as schedule and have Mike et al. give you a download (I can give you a download as well if you would like). However, I am more than willing to try and move some things around on my schedule to accommodate your schedule if you would like to coordinate with Mike et al. on the EPA side. Please let me know what your prefer. Thanks, Chris From: Doug Beak Sent: Monday, April 30, 2012 9:57 PM To: Chris Hill (Regulatory) Subject: Re: Invitation: EPA Miss Lime Prospective Study (May 1 03:00 PM CDT in Call in: 877-935-0245 Code: 745 420 Rm 231) I'm out of the office until Thursday. Can we reschedule? Dr. Douglas G. Beak 919 Kerr Research Dr. Ada, OK 74820 email: beak.doug@ega.gov Phone: 580-436-8813 Fax: 580-436-8703 Blackberry: 580-235-7158 "Chris Hill (Regulatory)" Original Message From: "Chris Hill (Regulatory)" [chris.hill@chk.com] Sent: 05/01/2012 02:51 AM GMT To: Michael Overbay; Doug Beak; Randall Ross; Steven Acree; Bert Smith bert.smith@chk com>; Tamara Robbins Cc: Stephanie Timmermeyer Subject: Invitation: EPA Miss Lime Prospective Study (May 1 03:00 PM CDT in Call in: 877-935-0245 Code: 745 420 Rm 231) This meeting has been scheduled to have a technical discussion regarding CHK proposed site characterization scope of work. Additional topics of discussion may include the following: - Status of formal response to CHK's tech memo comments. - Access agreement status. 0 Schedule. Fw: New FOIA Request #01479-12 - please forward your responsive records for review Suzanne Jackson 07/05/2012 07:53 AM Pam Daggs Hi Suzanne, This is part 1 of 2 for the above FOIA request. if you have any questions let me know. Doug Dr. Douglas G. Beak Geochemistry/ Environmental Chemistry 919 Kerr Research Dr. Ada, OK 74820 email: beak.doug@epa.gov Phone: 580-436-8813 Fax: 580-436-8703 Blackberry: 580-235-7158 Forwarded by Doug on 07/05/2012 06:49 AM From. ?Chris Hill (Regulatory)" Michael Doug Randall Steven Bert Smith Tamara Robbins Stephanie Timmermeyer Date 04/30/2012 09:51 PM Subject. Invitation: EPA Miss Lime Prospective Study (May 1 03:00 PM CDT in Call in: 877-935-0245 Code: 745 420 Rm 231) This meeting has been scheduled to have a technical discussion regarding CHK proposed site characterization scope of work. Additional topics of discussion may include the following: - Status of formal response to CH K's tech memo comments. - Access agreement status. - Schedule. This email (and attachments if any) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is confidential or privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this email is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited . If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return email and destroy all copies of the email (and attachments if any). Forwarded by Doug on 07105/2012 06:49 AM Fr?cm' "Chris Hill (Regulatory)" g] foia response Leigh DeHaven 06/21/2012 03:28 PM I will send you responsive records with response in the header. Jeanne Briskin Of?ce of Science Policy Of?ce of Research and Development US. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Avenue, NW. (8104R) Washington, DC. 20460 (202) 5644583 - of?ce (202) 565-2911 - fax briskin.jeanne@epa.gov Address for Deliveries: US EPA Ronald Reagan Building ?Room 51144 Washington DC 20004 Fon/varded by Jeanne on 06/21/2012 0328 PM From; Andrew Paterson To: Jeanne Cc: Dayna Date: 05/01/2012 12:01 PM Subject: RE: Request for a Presentation at the MSC Conference in September Jeanne, notified the EPA HF Study Steering Committee that you are interested in hearing more about their efforts and you can expect to hear from them in the near future. If that doesn?t happen, please let me know and I will follow up. Also, they have confirmed their participation in the MSC conference. Thanks, Andrew From: Andrew Paterson Sent: Monday, April 30, 2012 8:54 AM To: 'Jeanne Briskin' Cc: Dayna Gibbons; Helen Goodman Subject: RE: Request for a Presentation at the MSC Conference in September Jeanne, Your participation is much appreciated and thanks for the quick response. Yes, API is working with Batelle. I will get back to you with an API contact shortly. Andrew From: Jeanne Briskin Sent: Monday, April 30, 2012 8:47 AM To: Andrew Paterson Cc: Dayna Gibbons; Helen Goodman Subject: Re: Request for a Presentation at the MSC Conference in September 6. Hi Andrew, I would be happy to provide an update at the September meeting. Could you recommend who I might contact to learn more about the study? believe Batelle is working on this, but I am not sure who is the best person to contact. thanks, Jeanne Jeanne Briskin Office of Science Policy Office of Research and Development US. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Avenue, NW. (8104B) Washington, DC. 20460 (202) 564-4583 - office (202) 565-2911 - fax briskin.ieanne@epa.oov Address for Deliveries: US EPA Ronald Reagan Building --Room 51144 Washington DC 20004 Andrew Paterson 08:43:57 Further to my previous e-mail, the Marcellus Shale Coalition?s annual conference is in Phila From. Andrew Paterson To: Jeanne Date: 05/23/2012 02:16 PM Subject: RE: SPE HF course Jeanne, Absolutely, I?m free most of next week from Tuesday through Thursday. As background, the shale course can be one day or two day depending on the level of detail needed. A course description is attached and I can provide a full set of slides on request. If we have the Society of Petroleum Engineers as the main provider (doesn't change anything in the course), they can give continuing education credit for the course. If not through them, it?s the same materials without credit. My background and publication list is at My Estimating and Evaluating Frac Risk is in the Downloads section. I am an approved reviewer for Geothermal Projects and attended the DOE Review meeting in Denver, 7?10 April 2012. George George E. King Apache Corporation Distinguished Engineering Advisor 1 713 296 6281 (office) 3? 1 281 851 8095 (mobile) From: Jeanne Briskin Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 12:51 PM To: King, George Subject: SPE HF course Hi George, It was good to see you at the recent NSF workshop. We would be interested in having the SPE course on hydraulic fracturing in shale presented at EPA in Washington. Is there a convenient time we could talk in the next week or so, so I can gather more information so I may figure out with our admin folks on how we might proceed with this? Thanks, Jeanne Jeanne Briskin Office of Science Policy Office of Research and Development U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Avenue, NW. (8104R) Washington, DC. 20460 (202) 564-4583 - office (202) 565-2911 -fax briskin.ieanne@epa.gov Address for Deliveries: US EPA Ronald Reagan Building --Room 51144 W3 Washington DC 20004SPE Shale Gas Completions Fracturing and Production.docx Fonlvarded by Jeanne on 0612/2012 08:46 AM From: "King, George" To: Jeanne Date; 05/23/2012 02:47 PM Subject: RE: SPE HF course Jeanne, I forgot to include the detail on objectives (attached). George E. King Apache Corporation Distinguished Engineering Advisor 1 713 296 6281 (office) 1 281 851 8095 (mobile) From: Jeanne Briskin Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 12:51 PM To: King, George Subject: SPE HF course Hi George, It was good to see you at the recent NSF workshop. We would be interested in having the SPE course on hydraulic fracturing in shale presented at EPA in Washington. Is there a convenient time we could talk in the next week or so, so I can gather more information so I may figure out with our admin folks on how we might proceed with this? Thanks. Jeanne Jeanne Briskin Office of Science Policy Office of Research and Development US. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Avenue, NW. (8104R) Washington, 0.0. 20460 (202) 564-4583 - office (202) 565-2911 -fax briskin.ieanne@epa.oov Address for Deliveries: US EPA Ronald Reagan Building ?-Room 51144 nn monaSPE Shale Course Description.xfsx MW Shale Selection, Completions, Fracturing, and Production George E. King, PE This 2?day course acquaints participants with the basics of oil and gas shale evaluation and current shale selection, well completion, fracturing, and production technologies for shale reservoirs. The interactive format includes field data, current approaches and use of technologies suited for shale developments. Technologies include logging, frac interval selection, multi?stage fracturing in horizontal wells, and a summary of field data from many shale plays. Topics include: Candidate selection criteria to identify shale "sweet spots? 0 Complex fractures and role of geomechanics - Well orientation, optimum length and perf cluster design 0 Optimizing well completions and stimulations - Fracturing risk estimation: and areas to improve a Water sources, treatment, reuse and disposal - Predicting production, estimating decline and well start?up suggestions I Surface equipment and production operations This course is for all well completion and production engineers, managers, geologists and regulators working with shale reserves. Why You Should Attend The technology for recovering oil and gas reserves from shale is changing the face of the industry worldwide. If shale reserves are part of your portfolio, this course is for you. Special Requirements There are no special requirements for this course. 1.6 CEUs (Continuing Education Units) are awarded for this 2-day course. George E. King, PE, worked for Amoco production from 1971 to 1999 and BP from 1999 to 2008. He is now with Apache, where he assists on shale stimulations, production chemistry and workovers. Mr. King has written more than 65 technical papers and a book on completions and workovers. He was a 1985 SPE Distinguished Lecturer, and 1999 SPE Short Course Lecturer. Industry positions include Technical Chair of 1992 SPE Annual Meeting, subcommittee chair on perforating, Adjunct Professor at the University of Tulsa (teaching well completions and fracturing), and numerous SPE committees. He was awarded the 2004 SPE Production Operations Award and is the 2012 Engineer of the Year for the Greater Houston Region of the Texas Society of Professional Engineers. Mr. King holds a bachelor?s in Chemistry from Oklahoma State University, a bachelor?s degree in Chemical Engineering, and a master's degree in Petroleum Engineering from the University of Tulsa. Section Description Delivery Outcome Sought Time Brief intro to shales - what they are, where they are, gas and oil in place and supply General knowledge of shale's potential in supplying 1 potential energy. 1/2 hr. Know the main selection criteria and how, where and Assess General Gas and Oil Production through what methods to attain it. This is an intro to the Potential and Select Limiting Factors in Shale critical shale factors needed to produce gas or oil from 2 Hydrocarbon Production from a shale. 1.5 Estimate potential for initial production. Explain EUR, Stimulated rock volume, Know enough about shale gas and oil flow to assess a stress dependent complex fracturing, basics moderately complex shale development. Know what is 3 of fluid flow through the shale. behind the SRV estimations and the EUR projections. 1.5 Formulation of a basic shale development from seismic requirements to exploratory Be able to describe the general approach to selection of a wells and on through pads, gas and oil pad or single wells, vertical or horizontal wells. transport, water supplies for drilling and Understand the basic layout and requirements of an 4 fracturing. operating shale development. 1 hr. Well Completion design including well orientation, length, pipe size, toe-up or toe down, and azimuth. Completion design includes basics of casing and tubing Be able to review a new completion design for basic selection, cementing requirements and fitness of production and raise awareness of risk elements general well architecture and how of completion and following operations. Know the quality 5 completions vary with geology. and longevity of basic barriers. 2.0 Pre Frac considerations including fracture Be able to take logs, mud logs, gas shows, geologic stage selection, perforation design for studies and other critical shale information from data cluster location, spacing, charge type and gathering steps and select locations for the stages and hydraulic diversion needs. Determine if clusters. Select initial well and frac monitoring methods there are potential frac barriers and how and demonstrate a knowledge on how and when to use 6 they can be tested. monitoring. 1.5 Be able to design a basic frac, select a fluid, estimate Fracturing design, including fluid and volumes, read a frac chart and explain what monitoring proppant selection, pressure limits, rates, methods can answer frac placement questions. Know proppant loading and volumes. What how to spot frac problems and warning signs as well as formation factors suggest that a complex or how to estimate frac risk impact and occurrence. What planar frac is expected. Refrac potential and monitoring methods are useful at what stage of 7 simul stimulation methods. development. 4 hr Estimate a now back rate and wnat velumes would be expected over what time. What are the elements in frac and produced water, what are the risks and when is Flowback strategies and realities of flowback over? How can real emissions be curtailed or 8 operation. eliminated. 1 hr. Water for fracs; replacnng fresh water With saltine source water and produced Have a working knowledge of how to select or generate a saltwater. What is involved and what are the quality frac water source from produced or source salt 9 resources? water. 1 hr. Hot Button issues - what are the facts and Cover methane migration, fugative emissions, water 10 what we need to improve. issues, reduction of trucks and greener chemicals 1 hr. foia Leigh DeHaven 06/22/2012 03:52 PM Jeanne Briskin Of?ce of Science Policy Of?ce of Research and Development US. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Avenue, NW. (8104R) Washington, DC. 20460 (202) 564-4583 - of?ce (202) 565-2911 - fax briskin.jeanne@epa.gov Address for Deliveries: US EPA Ronald Reagan Building --Room 51144 Washington DC 20004 FonNarded by Jeanne on 06/22/2012 08:35 AM From: "Daniel Soeder" To: "Deborah Glosser" "Robert Dilmore" Cc: Jeanne Angela Date: 05/16/2012 10:11 AM Subject; Fwd: Marcellus incident Report Debb: This Penn State report looks like a good place to start with incident assessment. The numbers still seem a little high, like they included everything from a spilled can of motor oil to a leak from a 10,000 gallon frac tank. Not only the number of incidents is important, but also the seriousness or signi?cance of each should be ranked. I suggest the following scheme for classifying incidents: Administrative events are things such as missing signage, poor record-keeping, incorrect permit applications or other missing or wrong "paperwork." Minor incidents are small spills or leaks that require clean up, but are contained on site, do not enter the groundwater, and can be remediated by the local rig crew. Signi?cant incidents are larger spills or leaks that could potentially leave the site but did not, and required outside assistance (such as a HAZMAT team) to help clean up. Serious incidents can be de?ned as events involving an explosion, ?re, stream damage or ?sh kill, human injury or fatality, signi?cant property damage, and contamination of a drinking water supply, either surface or groundwater. Finally, catastrophic events involve the destruction of the well site and serious damage to surrounding areas. As a ?rst cut, binning reported incidents in such a manner will help us understand the different things that are happening out there. I've copied Jeanne Briskin of the EPA, who is pulling together similar data on drinking water impacts. We should collaborate and compare methodologies to make sure we're going at this the same way. 514 - Dan Daniel J. Soeder US. Department of Energy National Energy Technology Laboratory Morgantown, WV 26507 (304) 285-5258 Richard Hammack 5/16/2012 9:19 AM FYI James Ammer 5/16/2012 8:02 AM All: I have only glanced through this report but based on ?gures and data reported and analysis of actual incidents from 2008-2011 this appears to be an excellent resource. [3 Jim Environmental Impacts During Marcellus 2008-2011.pdf May 15, 2012 Environmental Impacts DURING MARCELLUS SHALE GAS DRILLING: CAUSES, IMPACTS, AND REMEDIES TIMOTHY CONSIOINE ROBERT WATSON NICHOLAS CONSIOINE JOHN MARTIN CENTER FOR ENERGY ECONOMICS AND PUBLIC POLICY SCHOOL OF ENERGY RESOURCES I THE UNIVERSITY OF WYOMING TI-IE STATE UNIVERSITY CENTER FOR ENERGY ECONOMICS AND PUBLIC POLICY SHALE RESOURCES AND SOCIETY INSTITUTE STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AT BUFFALO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS DURING MARCELLUS SHALE GAS DRILLING: CAUSES, IMPACTS, AND REMEDIES REPORT 2012 - 1 TIMOTHY CONSIDINE CENTER FOR ENERGY ECONOMICS AND PUBLIC POLICY SCHOOL OF ENERGY RESOURCES I THE UNIVERSITY OF WYOMING ROBERT WATSON THE STATE UNIVERSITY NICHOLAS CONSIDINE CENTER FOR ENERGY ECONOMICS AND PUBLIC POLICY JOHN MARTIN SHALE RESOURCES AND SOCIETY INSTITUTE STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AT BUFFALO The authors gratefully acknowledge comments from Scott Anderson of the Environmental Defense Fund. Andrew Hunter of Cornell University. Robert Jacobi of the State University of New York at Buffalo. Brigham McCown of United Transportation Advisors. LLC. and George Rusk of Ecology and Environment. Inc. with the usual disclaimer that the authors accept full responsibility for any remaining errors and omissions. The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in the report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the University at Buffalo. University at Buffalo does not make any warranty, expressed or implied. or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy. completeness, or usefulness of any information. apparatus. product. or process disclosed, or rep- resents that its use would not infringe upon privately owned rights. Trademarks and copyrights mentioned with this report are the ownership of their respective companies. Executive Summary The development of shale gas through hydraulic fracturing has awakened what some have described as an American energy renaissance. Shale gas formations thought to be economically unrecover- able as recently as a decade ago now provide nearly 25 percent of our nation's total natural gas supply. According to the Energy Information Administration?s reference case forecast of April 2011, natural gas production from shale formations will comprise 46.5 percent of total U.S. dry gas pro- duction in 2035. The investments under way for developing these shale resources are generating tens of thousands of jobs. billions in state and local tax revenues. and hundreds of billions in direct economic activity. Indirect benefits to oil and gas suppliers. to US. manufacturers that utilize natural gas as a feed- stock, and to consumers enjoying lower electricity and heating bills multiply the already substantial direct economic gains. In short, the incentives for states to encourage and facilitate development are substantial. But surprisingly little comprehensive analysis exists to quantify the success or failure of states in effectively and safely managing natural gas development. Without such information, it is very difficult for regulators. elected officials. and citizens to engage in productive dialogue around natural gas development and the process of hydraulic fracturing. Whether considering regulatory changes in a state where development is already under way, or debating the permitting of natural gas development where it has not yet occurred. quantifying measurements of success are neces- sary for building consensus and making sound decisions. To address this question, this study provides a detailed analysis of notices of violations (NOVs) from the Department of Environmental Protection (PA DEP) from January 2008 through August 2011, catego~ rizing each violation. Of the 2,988 violations, 1.844. or 62 percent, were for administrative or preventative reasons. The remaining 38 percent. or 1,144 NOVs, were for environmental violations. The number of these environmen- tal violations, however, is a misleading metric because an individual event may be associated with multiple environmental violations. As such, the 845 unique environmental events considered in this study were associated with 1,144 NOVs. To produce an accurate accounting of the environmental impacts of these 845 unique events. this study defines major and non-major environmental events through a detailed examination of NOV records. Major environmental events are defined in this study to include major site restoration failures. serious contamination of local water supplies. major land spills, blowouts and venting, and gas migration. Our evaluation of NOV records identified 25 such events. In all but six cases, the resulting environmental impacts from major events have been mitigated. Non-major environmental events concern site restoration. water contamination, land spills. and cement and casing events that do not involve what is classified as having major environmental impact. Many of the NOVs in this category, while resulting in measurable pollution, were rather FIGURE ES1: ENVIRONMENTAL VIOLATIONS AND EVENTS IN MARCELLUS ?l':ln:vl (Eulat?im TIL-XE). LU. M5 . 34135.: ?t (NWT.- E?k?f??'lill?9 m1?: in: Hm: qua-vi . n1. lull .. ?ul-dwmm 1-1.- {tum}. ?Iauruhmlm'lfu?, .awa 11W): I mm; [Mi 5' lithe, - {$31313 tIszE?L-?w aim-n1- Hmlm?q?ml .?nm n' a - . "mm minor. involving. for example, a gallon of diesel fuel or antifreeze spilled on the ground. The 820 non-major events identified. comprise the overwhelming majority of environmental NOV's issued by the PA DEP, as shown in figure ES 1. Significantly. the incidence of polluting environmental events declined 60 percent between 2008 and August 2011, from 52.9 percent of all wells drilled in 2008 to 20.8 percent through August 2011 (Figure E52). On this basis. the Marcellus industry has cut its incidence of environmental violations by more than half in three years, a rather notable indicator of improvement by the industry and oversight by the regulators. FIGURE E52: WELLS DRILLED AND ENVIRONMENTAL EVENTS IN MARCELLUS 52.9% 1,405 1.248 71 II 243% 22.9% 20.8% A 2008 2009 20m" 2011 August 1 Wells Drilled - Environmental Events of Wells with Pollution Events In conclusion, this study demonstrates that the odds of non-major environmental events and the much smaller odds of major environmental events are being reduced even further by enhanced regulation and improved industry practice. Moreover, the environmental impacts of most of these events have been almost completely mitigated by remedial actions taken by the companies. The observed impacts of development in captured within the paper provide a metric to gauge the regulatory proposal, known as the Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement or SGEIS, currently under review in New York State. The last part of this study compares each of the 25 major incidents that occurred in against New York's proposed SGEIS guidelines. Findings indicate that each of the underlying causes associated with these specific events could have been either entirely avoided or mitigated under New York State's proposed regulatory framework. This suggests that regulators are not only responding effectively within their states, but are learning and acting on the experiences of other states as well - a positive sign for the continued successful state regulation of natural gas development through hydraulic fracturing. Table of Contents Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .l List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .v List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .v 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 2. Emergence of Shale Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 3. Economic Impacts of Shale Energy Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 4. Producing Energy from Shale Formations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 5. Complications Associated With Natural Gas Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 6. Notice of Violations in the Marcellus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1O 7. Environmental Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 7.1 Blowouts Venting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 7.2 Spills on Land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 7.3 Gas Migration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 7.4 Cement Casing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..17 7.5 Site Restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 7.6 Surface Water Contamination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 7.7 Analysis of Environmental Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 7.8 Regulatory Response to Environmental Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 8. Implications for RegulatOry Policy in New York State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 8.1 Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (SGEIS8.2 New York Regulations and Environmental Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 8.21 Blowouts Venting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 8.22 Spills on Land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25 8.23 Gas Migration. and Casing Cementing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25 8.24 Site Restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..26 8.25 Water Contamination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..27 8.26 Commentary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27 9. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Appendixes A. Economic Impact Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32 B. Detailed Discussion of Major Environmental Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34 B.1 Atlas Resources Maior site restoration failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 B.2 PA General Energy - Creek discharge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34 B.3 Cabot Oil 8: Gas - Dimock gas migration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34 B.4 Cabot Oil Gas - Stevens Creek fish kill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35 B.5 Range Resources Stream discharge into Brush Run . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35 B.6 EOG Resources - Clearfield County stream discharge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35 B.7 Atlas Resources - Diesel spill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36 B.8 Talisman Energy - Armenia pit overflow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36 B.9 Atlas Resources - Hopewell pit overflow into Dunkle Creek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36 B10 Chesapeake Energy Bradford County gas migration incident . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37 B11 Anadarko Clinton County mud spill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37 B12 Chief Oil and Gas Bradford County uncontrolled flowback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37 B13 EOG Resources - Clearfield County well blowout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38 B14 JW Operating Company - Mud spill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38 B15 Cabot Oil Gas Susquehanna County hose failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38 B16 Chief Oil and Gas Susquehanna County fluid spill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38 Talisman Energy Tioga County blowout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39 B18 Talisman Energy - Jackson production fluid release . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39 B19 Carrizo - Monroe mud spill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39 B20 Carrizo - Wyoming County drilling mud spill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39 B21 Chesapeake Energy - Washington County pit fire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40 B22 Ultra Resources - Flowback spill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40 B23 Chesapeake Energy - Leroy Township blowout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40 B24 CNX Gas Company - Mud spill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40 B25 Ultra Resources - Major site restoration failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41 B26 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41 List of Tables Table 1: Classification of Environmental Violations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 Table 2: Regulatory Decisions and Incidence of Environmental Violations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 Table 3: Polluting Environmental Events in the Marcellus Shale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 Table 4: Major Environmental Events and NY SGEIS Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28 Table A1: Projected Marcellus Activity in New York (2011, 2015, 2020.32 Table A2: Projected Value Added in New York by Sector (2012, 2016, 2021.33 List of Figures Figure E51: Environmental Violations and Events in Marcellus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ii Figure E82: Wells Drilled and Environmental Events in Marcellus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 1: Shares of Total Energy Consumption by Source, 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Figure 2: Horizontal and Vertical Wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 Figure 3: Groundwater Protection through Proper Well Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 Figure 4: Shares of Administrative and Environmental Violations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 Figure 5: Shares of Administrative Violations and Environmental Violations by Category . . . . . . .12 Figure 6: Composition of Environmental Violations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Figure 7: Wells Drilled and Environmental Violations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 Figure 8: Polluting Environmental Events by Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19 Figure 9: Wells Drilled and Polluting Environmental Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS DURING MARCELLUS SHALE GAS DRILLING Introduction There are a growing number of states that are reviewing their regulations regarding shale energy development. This study examines New York as a representative example. since it has just completed a three-month public comment period addressing proposed environmental regulations governing shale gas development. A majority of citizens of New York may be supportive of oil and natural gas resource development if the environmental impacts appear manageable in light of the anticipated economic benefits. There is. however. a void of factual information concerning the environmental impacts. inadequate data on assessing the risks from development, and an incomplete articulation of strategies on how regulation may mitigate these impacts and risks. Existing research previously conducted by Considine, et al. (2011a) provides a categorization of incidents in the Marcellus Shale. parsing administrative failures from physical environmental events. There is, however, a noticeable lack of digestible research classifying physical incidents. and specific explanations of the causes and impacts associated with each category of physical incident. Offering this information is an important precursor to understanding the safeguards New Y0rk has adopted. and in communicating how regulation can prevent future incidents and protect local residents. This study provides an extension of the research by Considine, et al. (2011a) with a more detailed analysis of notice of environmental violations (NOV) from the Marcellus Shale industry. Not all environmental violations result in environmental pollution because many violations are cita? tions for administrative failures or are issued to prevent pollution from occurring. Accordingly, this study makes the critical distinction between environmental violations and events, providing a com- plete enumeration and classification of environmental violations and the corresponding subset of events that resulted in actual. measurable pollution during drilling and completion operations in the Marcellus. The categories for violations and events include drilling or well construction failures. surface handling and treatment of fluids. and failures in the drilling and completion process itself. Based upon this analysis. this study then examines how New York?s proposed regulatory regime addresses these different categories of concern. Coupling known risk with existing responses will both: 1) help the public differentiate between largely unrealized threats. such as migration of fracturing fluids out of a formation. and existing issues of con- cerns, such as improper surface disposal or wellhead and well casing failures, and 2) enable regulators to demonstrate and potentially identify areas where state rules should be strengthened. To quantify these risks and assess their impacts. this study provides a detailed analysis of environ- mental violations incurred during the drilling of natural gas wells in the Marcellus from 2008 through 2011. The analysis of environmental violations estimates their probability of occur- rence and severity, and identifies their causes. describing the response of natural gas production companies, available technologies to remedy these problems, and the implications for regulation. The structure of this study is as follows. The next section provides an overview of the emergence of the shale energy industry. The study then provides a primer on the economic impacts from develop~ ing and producing energy from shale formations. What follows next is an overview of shale energy development, which is then followed by a discussion of complications associated with shale energy drilling and completion operations. The next three sections of the report provide the core analysis of the environmental violations and environmental events. A detailed discussion of 25 major environmen- tal events appears in Appendix B. The implications for New York State regulatory policy are presented in section eight. The study concludes with a summary of the main findings and recommendations. i. Emergence of . Shale Energy The US. economy is powered by fossil fuels. with more than 83 percent of domestic energy consumption supplied by oil, natural gas, and coal. Oil leads with a share of 36.7 percent. natural gas is second with 25.2 percent. and coal provides 21.3 percent of total energy consumption (see Figure 1). Nuclear energy supplies 8.62 percent of total consumption. with biomass and hydroelec- tricity providing 4.39 percent and 2.56 percent. respectively. Wind energy provided 0.94 percent of total energy consumption during 2010. up from 0.76 percent in 2009. Geothermal energy furnished 0.22 percent of total consumption during 2010. Finally. solar photovoltaic provided 0.11 percent during 2010 (see Figure 1). FIGURE 1: SHARES OF TOTAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION BY SOURCE, 2010 CRUDE UIL 36.14% GEDTHEHMAL 2.56% 0.22% NUCLEAR SBLAR 8.62% 0.11% WIND 0.94% Emll?i NATURAL GAS COAL 25.17% 21.25% Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration The contribution from natural gas in total energy consumption has been rising in recent years. expanding from 22.3 percent in 2006 to 25.2 percent in 2010. Much of this increase has been due to greater use of natural gas in electric power generation. Since 2005. natural gas use in electricity production has increased 25 percent. In 2010. more than a third of U.S. end-use natural gas con- sumption occurred in electric power generation. The electricity industry is now the single largest user of natural gas. and will likely expand consumption significantly in future years to meet higher demand for electricity and to replace aging coal-fired power plants. Since natural gas electric power generation has only 41 percent of the carbon dioxide emissions of coal-fired power generation, such a transition could significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions.? 1 According to data from the us. Energy Information Administration. net electricity generation from coal and natural gas in 2009 was 1.755.904 and 920.929 thousand megawatt hours. respectively, while emissions of carbon dioxide were 1,742.2 and 372.6 miliion metric tons from coal and natural gas, respectively. ENVIRONMENTAL DURING MARCELLUS SHALE GAS DRILLING These additional demands for natural gas have been increasingly supplied by shale gas production. There are three major shale gas plays in the United States. The Barnett shale in Texas was the first to be developed and produced 1.936 billion cubic feet (BCF) of natural gas during 2011.2 The Haynesville shale now appears to be the largest shale gas-producing field. according to the Energy Information Administration.3 The third-largest producing field is the Marcellus in and West Virginia, with estimated production of 1.2 BCF during 2011 (Considine, et al. 2011b). As conven- tional natural gas deposits deplete, the role of shale gas in the US. natural gas supply is likely to continue to increase. Indeed, the Energy Information Administration projects that the share of shale gas in total US. dry gas production will rise from 24.8 percent in 2011 to 46.5 percent in 2035.4 Shale resources also contain crude oil and petroleum liquids. The Marcellus Shale in Appalachia is emerging as a major producer of natural gas liquids such as propane and butane. These fuels are a critical input in petrochemical industries. Production of crude oil from the Bakken shale play in North Dakota is also increasing rapidly. For example. crude oil production from North Dakota rose from an average of 123,620 barrels per day during 2007 to 418,923 barrels per day dur- ing 2011 (North Dakota, 2011). From negligible amounts in 2007, the Eagle Ford shale play in south Texas produced 83,434 barrels per day during 2011 (Texas Railroad Commission. 2011). The Niobrara plays in eastern Colorado and Wyoming are also promising. Production from these new oil-produc- ing areas and the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico are reversing the long-term decline in US. oil production that began in the early 19705. According to the Energy Information Administration (2011). there are nearly 24 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil and 862 trillion cubic feet of natural gas from shale resources. The Potential Gas Committee (2011) estimated that the total natural gas resource base for the United States is even larger at 1.898 trillion cubic feet. This large reserve base suggests that it will take decades to fully develop the shale energy potential. 2 3 4 Economic Impacts of Shale Energy Development Shale gas production is different from conventional natural gas production from shallow fields because the production decline curve is much steeper. with output declining roughly 50 percent during the first few years of production before leveling out. This high rate of output early during the production period often implies very high rates of return, even at low prices. These high rates of return provide the incentive to continue drilling. which allows shale energy?producing companies to maintain or increase production as they bring new wells on stream to offset the steep production decline of older wells. Accordingly. shale energy deveIOpment resembles continuous energy manufacturing. unlike conventional natural gas development with an intensive three- to seven-year period of well and pipeline infrastructure development, and relatively little labor and resource use afterward. The continuity of drilling effort and the economic activity that it generates set shale resource development apart from other energy development activities. Developing coal mines. wind turbines. hydroelectric resources, and solar energy involves significant job creation during construction. Once the facilities are in place. however, their operation requires relatively few workers. In contrast, the labor-intensive aspects of shale gas development accelerate over time and can persist for decades, if the reserves in place are large enough. and market prices for natural gas justify continued investment. Transportation costs are high for key materials used in the exploration. drilling. and construc- tion of gas-processing plants and pipelines. Therefore. support industries. including well support, steel. sand and gravel. concrete, trucking. and scientific and engineering services. often arise locally. Most of these support activities are not easily outsourced to foreign suppliers. And in regions with private mineral rights. shale gas development requires lease and bonus payments to landowners. who in turn pay taxes and spend this income on local goods and services. While the footprint of a shale well site is small, the shale deposits occupy an extensive geographical area. necessitating the leasing of large tracts of land. Economic-impact studies have been conducted for the Barnett. Fayetteville. Haynesville. and Marcellus Shale gas plays. These studies employ input-output models to estimate the direct. indi- rect, and induced impacts on regional value added (the regional equivalent of contribution to the nation's gross domestic product), employment. and tax revenues. ?Direct impacts" constitute the purchases by natural gas companies from other sectors of the economy. ?Indirect impacts" refer to the supply chain. For example. a natural gas company contracts with a drilling supply company. which then hires workers and other companies to supply it with materials, equipment. and services. "Induced impacts" constitute the rounds of transactions throughout the economy set off by the spending of workers, hired directly or indirectly. on goods and services. "Induced impacts" also result from landowners' spending of lease. bonus. and royalty payments. The development of these shale energy resources during 2010 alone supported more than 600,000 jobs. increased gross domestic product or value added by $76 billion, and generated more than $18.6 billion in tax revenues at the local. state. and federal levels (IHS, 2011). Similarly. the study by Considine, et al. (2011) finds that development of the Marcellus Shale in supported nearly 140,000 jobs and generated $11.6 billion and $1.1 billion in value added and state and local taxes. respectively. If shale gas development was allowed in New York State. Considine (2010, 2011a) estimates that the accumulated value added from 2012 to 2021 would come to more than $11.4 billion. with more than 18.000 additional jobs in 2021 and approximately $214 million in state and local taxes by 2016 (see Appendix A). Producing Energy 11" I. from Shale Formations Two distinct technologies horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracture stimulation enable shale energy development. Horizontal drilling involves vertically drilling down to the shale-bearing strata and then drilling horizontally to establish lateral well sections that may be up to a mile in length. This approach allows greater surface contact with the energy-bearing shale layer. Producers then inject a water- based solution that contains between 2 and 4 percent sand and chemicals under high pressure into the well. which cracks the rock and increases the permeability of the reservoir. Most of the gas reserves in the Marcellus Shale are only economically recoverable using horizontal wells and hydraulic fracturing. Companies are constantly increasing the speed and efficiency of these operations. The first step in drilling a well is to install a well pad to support a drilling rig. Land is cleared, an area for the well is leveled off. and gravel roads are laid. After a well is completed, all surrounding land is restored and replanted. typically required under regulatOry and bond release programs. Two types of wells can be constructed: a vertical well in which a large drilling rig rotates a steel pipe with a drill bit on the end; and a horizontal well in which a drilling motor pushes fluid through a stationary drill pipe, causing the bit to rotate. In either case. as the well is drilled. a new length of pipe is connected to the one already in use so that the latter can be pushed deeper into the hole. Currently, both vertical and horizontal wells are being drilled in most shale plays. Both types of wells are drilled to a predetermined vertical depth, but the latter then makes a turn. permitting it to be drilled sideways for several thousand feet. While the cost of a horizontal well is three to four times that of a vertical well, they are much more productive because they have far more contact with the gas-bearing rock (Figure 2). Standard drilling practice includes several measures intended to protect the environment. Oil and gas wells penetrate the water table. generally extending several thousand feet below potable water supplies. As the well is drilled, steel pipe called casing is inserted into the well bore and then FIGURE 2: HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL WELLS '1 ill ?1 Viv?. V1914 9 RESERVOIR SEAL PRODUCING FORMATION 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS DURING MARCELLUS SHALE GAS DRILLING cemented into place to form a barrier that protects subsurface groundwater from contamination. Well drillers are also responsible for ensuring that any fluids or chemicals used or produced during drilling and completion of the well do not contaminate surface waters such as streams, rivers, or lakes. In all fluids on a well site are now contained within plastic tarpaulins, plastic- Iined pits, or steel tanks, facilitating the recycling or transportation of these fluids to well-disposal sites permitted by the US. Environmental Protection Agency. After the well is drilled to its final depth. another steel pipe is installed inside of larger ones above it and cemented into place. The drilling rig then leaves the site. and a wellhead is installed on the surface. The wellhead is a collection of valves. often referred to as a Christmas tree, which controls the flow of gas and allows it to be turned off completely if necessary and allows the use of equip- ment for performing well stimulation and maintenance. Once drilling is complete, hydraulic fracturing, which stimulates the well to produce more gas by creating new fractures that intersect and connect to as many of the natural fractures to the well as possible, can occur. The first step in this process is to use shaped explosive charges to perforate the bottom section of the steel pipe. Doing so allows hydraulic fracturing fluid to be pumped into the rock to fracture the shale. and then allows hydraulic fracturing fluid and gas into the pipe casing and to the wellhead at the surface. The resulting well is a set of pipes within pipes known as casing strings. The point where one casing string ends and another extends is known as the "shoe." Most companies use multiple strings of casings of varying diameters. and grades (Figure 3). FIGURE 3: GROUNDWATER PROTECTION THROUGH PROPER WELL CONSTRUCTION ?Ii? fl CIINIIUCTITR CASING CEMENT SURFACE CASING 2,000 FT DRILLING FT CASING 4,000 IT FT TARGET [ii-i ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS DURING MARCELLUS SHALE GAS DRILLING Complications Associated With Natural Gas Development The extraction. processing. and transportation of natural gas all affect the environment. Koomey and Krause (1997) outline the basic steps for estimating environmental externalitiess and the costs they impose on society. involving these general steps: - Identifying insults to the physical and human environment; - Charting pathways that convert the insults to stresses; - Estimating the physical or social consequences of the stresses; and Valuing the environmental and social costs of the stresses. The first three steps collectively can be referred to as environmental-impact assessment and can be accomplished with varying degrees of accuracy or confidence. As a result. most studies estimating environmental externalities specify a degree of uncertainty. Some upstream negative externalities of natural gas production are unavoidable. They involve the clearing of land for well pads and pipelines; local congestion due to truck traffic: and noise and dust. Lease and bonus payments to landowners or direct outlays by companies to repair infrastruc- ture damage caused by gas drilling activity compensate for most of these impacts. Nonetheless, the sheer presence of gas wells has effects on the ecosystem. Environmental hazards associated with natural gas production are infrequent. but can lead to con- tamination of local water supplies and impairment of air quality. Perhaps the most publicized envi- ronmental risk arises from the use and disposal of fluids used in hydraulic fracturing. The New York City Department of Environmental Protection (2009) study of the potential impacts of natural gas drilling on the New York City watershed raised the possibility that water from hydraulic fracturing could migrate from the gas-bearing layers, which are 5,000 feet below the surface, up to water tables less than 500 feet from the surface. The presence of 4,500 feet of rock above the hydraulic fractured zone makes such an eventuality unlikely. indeed. there exists no documented evidence of such an event since hydraulic fracturing was first introduced approximately 60 years ago. Vaughan (2010) argues that water-supply con- tamination from so-called stray gas occurs more often from failures in well design and construction. breaches in spent hydraulic-fracturing water-containment ponds, and spills of leftover natural gas liquids used in drilling. Where groundwater has been impacted, the PA DEP has concluded that the issue stems not from hydraulic fracturing per se. but poorly formulated cement and improperly designed wells - traits that should be of concern in all wells, not just high-volume hydraulic fracture (HVHF) wells. Methane contamination of water is manageable with the use of water treatment systems that remove methane and metals related to methane contamination. Migration of natural gas into struc- tures. however, poses a serious risk of explosions, which have happened on a number of occasions. Stray gas events can be signi?cantly mitigated by proper well construction. These methods, however, cannot entirely eliminate stray gas emissions because there are many sources of stray gas, 5 Environmental externalities refer to effects external to production and consumption activities by firms or households. For example. water pollution from natural gas production is a production externality. while air poilution during combustion of natUral gas for home heating is a consumption externality. entirely unrelated to shale gas drilling, such as shallow gas reserves, unplugged orphan wells. decaying plant and animal materials, and septic fields. To address this issue, mandatory standards for water-well construction should be adopted in which surprisingly do not yet exist due to strong opposition from rural communities and the agricultural industry. To determine the frequency of environmental incidents, a detailed examination of the environmental violations reported in the Marcellus appears in the next section. Notice of Violations in the Marcellus The Department of Environmental Protection (PA DEP) regulates natural gas develop- ment in the Commonwealth of The responsibility of the PA DEP is to enforce a body of regulations that date back to the 19305 that recently have been updated to reflect the environ- mental impact of the development of the Marcellus Shale and other unconventional sources of natural gas. if an operating company faiis to comply with these regulations. the PA DEP issues a Notice of Violation (NOV). These violations are indicative of many different situations. To fully understand the effectiveness of current regulations in mitigating the environmental impacts of Marcellus Shale development and the various incidents that garnished an NOV, a closer examination of these violations is required. A notice of environmental violation often does not indicate an actual environmental event because many of these citations are for administrative violations or are issued to prevent pollution from occurring. Consequently, to estimate the actual environmental impact of shale gas drilling, a careful analysis is required of the environmental violations to determine what actually happened, which appears in section seven below and in greater detail in Appendix B. Meanwhile. this section provides an overview of environmental violations to provide a context for the identification and discussion of the environmental events that resulted in measurable pollution or harm to the environment that are discussed below. The database for this inquiry includes NOVs issued to operators from January 2008 through August of 2011.5 Each NOV is analyzed by first determining the legal statute that prompted its issuance. and then by comparing the statute with the descriptions of the violation provided by the PA DEP and its well site inspectors. This study classifies the violations into seven categories: cement casing. blowouts venting. major and non-major spills on land, gas migration. site restoration. and water contamination. More detailed definitions of these categories appear in Table 1 below. Cement 8. casing Cement and casing job cited as defective and the cause of the pollution Blowouts venting Citation for a blowout or hazardous venting Major spills on land Citation for major 400 gallons) spills of materials on land Minor spills on land Citation for minor 400 gallons) spills of materials on land Gas migration Citation for migration of gas in underground aquifers or substrates Site restoration Citation for violations of site restoration regulations Water contamination Citation for tainted water as the primary focus of the Citation The next step reconciles the legal citation with the description of the violation to determine if pollution took place. For example. if a statute discussed discharges of material into waters of the Commonwealth, then the NOV would be classified as a violation involving water contamination as long as this matched the PADEP description and inspector's comments. This close scrutiny of each 6 violation allows a more precise determination of the frequency of NOVs that result in measurable pol- lution or damage to the environment. This approach also allows the identification of those violations that affected the environment. To identify these violations, our analysis used a series of indicators developed from the well inspec- tor's comments for each NOV. These violations stood out based upon the amount of fluids spilled. the amount of water or land disturbed. and the potential threat to human health or safety. Once these violations had been identified, our analysis employed the Environmental Facility Applications Tracking System from the PADEP to classify the violations into those that did and did not involve actuai environmental harm. The raw number of NOVs does not tell the whole story. Our analysis of the NOVs reveals that only a fraction of them were issued for a violation that involved an environmental impact. Among the 2.988 violations issued, only 1,144 were for a violation that involved an environmental event. The other 1,844 violations issued were administrative violations or citations to prevent pollution. Hence, 38.3 percent of the 2.988 NOVs issued were for environmental violations of some type. which is illustrated below in Figure 4. Determining what proportion of these environmental violations were preventative in nature is problematic because it is nearly impossible to assess whether pollution would have occurred had these violations not been issued. Regardless, the number of these viola- tions that did not involve pollution should be considered as a good metric for regulatory oversight. While some in the industry may find these NOVs a nuisance, state oversight through robust regula- tion does provide incentives for companies to more ciosely comply with environmental regulations and, most importantly, adopt technological innovations to avoid these citations altogether. FIGURE 4: SHARES OF ADMINISTRATIVE AND ENVIRONMENTAL VIOLATIONS ENVIRONMENTAL ADMINISTRATIVE VIOLATIONS VIOLATIONS 33.3% 61.7% ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS DURING MARCELLUS SHALE GAS DRILLING A further disaggregation of the environmental violations using the six categories of violations identified above in Table 1 is displayed below in Figure 5. Understanding the distinctions of these categories is important to understanding the key risks of concern to regulators. The environmental violations constitute 38.3 percent of all NOVs and are split seven ways in Figure 5. For example, the largest portion is the 13.4 percent of all NOVs arising from breaking site restoration rules (Figure 5). The next largest category is water contamination with 11.6 percent of all NOVs. Minor spills on [and constitute 7.9 percent of all violations. Cement and casing violations comprise 3.3 percent of all NOVs. Violations for major land spills. blowouts and venting. and gas migration constitute 1.5. 0.3. and 0.2 percent of all violations. respectively (Figure 5). FIGURE 5: SHARES OF ADMINISTRATIVE VIOLATIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL VIOLATIONS BY CATEGORY MINOR LAND SPILLS WATER CONTAMINATION 7.9% 11.6% SITE RESTORATION CEMENT 8 CASING 13.4% 3.3% GAS MIGRATION ADMINISTRATIVE 0.2% 61.7% MAJOR LAND SPILLS 1.5% BLOWOUTS 8 VENTING 0.311: 9 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS DURING MARCELLUS SHALE GAS DRILLING Figure 6 below displays a disaggregation of the environmental violations. Of these 1,144 violations. 35 percent involved site restOration issues. more than 30 percent entailed surface water contamination, and almost 21 percent were for minor on land. Cement and casing violations constituted 8.7 percent of violations that resulted in pollution. Major land spills comprised 4 percent of these violations. while blowouts and venting and gas migration comprised 0.9 and 0.5 percent, respectively (Figure 6). FIGURE 6: COMPOSITION OF ENVIRONMENTAL VIOLATIONS GAS MIGRATION SITE RESTORATION 0.5% 35.0% MAJOR SPILLS 4.0% . A smus 0.9% 20.6% CEMENT a CASING 8.7% sunmce WATER CONTAMINATION 30.2% Many of the NOVs that resuited in measurable pollution, however, were rather minor. involving, for example, a gallon of diesel fuel or antifreeze spilled on the ground. The next section identifies the incidents that presented or had the potential to present significant environmental impact. Significantly. the record of environmentai The Marcellus industry has cut its violations in shows that the rate incidence of environmental of envrronmental Violations expressed as a percentage of wells declined over Violations by more than half In three ?me' examp'e' 20.08 there wele 17.0 years. a rather notable indicator of welis drilled and 99 envuronmentai Violations. or more than 58 percent of all wells drilled in Improvement by the . . . that year incurred some violation. In the first eight months of 2011. there were 331 recorded violations, or 26.5 percent of the 1,248 wells drilled during the first eight months of 2011. So. on this basis, the Marcellus industry has cut its incidence of environmental violations by more than half in three years, a rather notable indicator of improvement by the industry and oversight by the reguiators. While a 26.5 percent rate of environmental violations appears high, it is important to note that most of these violations are not major. FIGURE 7: WELLS DRILLED AND ENVIRONMENTAL VIOLATIONS 1,405 30.5% 286 110 has 2008 2009 2010 2011 August - Wells Drilled - Environmental Violations of Wells with Environmental Violations ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS DURING MARCELLUS SHALE GAS DRILLING While difficult to conclusively illustrate causation between regulatory actions and decreases in environmental violations. the history of regulations in suggests such a relationship may exist. The PA DEP has made significant regulatory changes over the four-year time frame. The agency opened up a new field office, hired additional staff. and made a number of rule changes that were heavily advertised. These regulatory milestones are summarized in Table 2. This trend is expected to continue as stronger regulatory requirements are promulgated. enforcement efforts become well established. and industry gains a better understanding of the new regulatory requirements. 2008 58.2% August Required companies to identify treatment and storage of wastewater December Imposed permitting fees to facilitate the hiring of additional regulators 2009 40.3% January Partnered with industry for new wastewater treatment plants and technologies February Opened Scranton office for regulatory oversight of northeastern Marcellus April Announced new standards for wastewater discharges with dissolved solids 2010 26.5% May Announced new discharge rules and well construction standards June Enforcement campaign to ensure compliance by trucks hauling wastewater October "Operation FracNet." for compliance by vehicles hauling wastewater While the distinction between administrative and other violations is important. an additional deiin- eation is required because some environmental events generate multiple environmental violations. Using a count of environmental violations. therefore, would over-estimate the number of actual environmental events that took place. Accordingly. to fully understand the effectiveness of current regulations on mitigating environmental impacts of Marcellus Shale development and the various incidents that garnished an NOV, an even closer examination of these events is required. Environmental Events In this section, the notices of environmental violation are analyzed to determine how many actual events took place that resulted in environmental poilution. These events were found by examining each individual inspection report and determining what took place based upon the various NOVs issued. The classification system for environmental events is the same as it is for environmental violations. Below is a closer look at each category of environmental event and their nature. 7.1 Blowouts 8c Venting Blowout and venting events are among the most serious. and are classified as major for two primary reasons. First. they are uncontrolled in nature and. thus. innately dangerous. Blowouts are usually the result of excess pressure in the well and. as a result, often occur in a violent manner. The other reason blowout and venting events are considered major is their environmental impacts. When a blowout or uncontrolled venting occurs. the potential exists for large amounts of fluids and gases to be released from the wells. deSpite initial mitigation efforts by operators. in such cases. negative environmental impacts are almost impossible to avoid. 7.2 Spills on Land As the title suggests. these events are spills in which a drilling substance is spilled onto a surface other than water. These spills often took place on the drilling pad itself and did not have environ- mental impacts as they are contained within the boundaries of the pad site. The majority of spills were small. and the average amount of fluid spilled was approximately 176 gallons for non-major events. This was determined by taking the average amount of fluid spilled from the events that reported the spilled fluid volumes. The types of fluids spilled vary greatly among the environmental events. The most common type of ?uid spilled was diesel fuel. Other fluids spilled included drilling mud. production fluid. hydrochloric acid. drilling soap. produced water. freshwater, and gel friction reducer. 7.3 Gas Migration Gas migration into freshwater is very rare but serious, usually occurring due to a flaw in the cement and casing of a well. These ?aws can be repaired. and the volume of gas escaping from vents is very smail. The environmental impacts of gas migration can be mitigated and. therefore. gas migration incidents do not necessarily represent a long-term or permanent environmental impairment. Gas migration. however, is a real danger to public safety because sequestered methane is very volatile and can be explosive. The highly publicized case of gas migration in Dimock. illustrates these environmental. health and safety, and public relations impacts. As the discussion below illus- trates. however, the environmental impacts can be repaired and. therefore, diligent monitoring and inspection are typicaliy required to minimize these occurrences to the extent possible. and the associated environmental, health. and safety impacts that could potentially result from gas migration. 7.4 Cement Casing ln almost all cases of cement and casing violations, there was some measurable amount of gas escaping from the well itself. This is not to be confused with a blowout or gas migration, as gas venting from these wells is vented in a less extreme manner. The venting that took place is the primary environmental impact of these events, but the amount of gas that was released is difficult to quantify. The amount of time and quantity of gas was not listed in any of the well inspectors? comments in the NOVsinstances of casing and cementing events. it was explicitly noted that gas was vented from the well. ln the other 13 cases. the pollution observed constituted small leaks coming from the casing. Cement and casing violations are in nature less dangerous than blowouts or gas migration, but in some cases can lead to those events. 7.5 Site Restoration Our analysis above defines site restoration events when a company did not restore a drilling site properly under guidelines issued by the PA DEP. To properly restore a site, a company needs to restore 70 percent of the perennial vegetation cover, and remove all drilling equipment and waste from the site within nine months after drilling is completed. In most cases, the NOVs indicated how much land was disturbed or what types of problems existed. In most cases, erosion was a problem, and in some cases vegetation was not restored or equipment was left on-site. While these land disturbances had an impact on the environment, they were not as serious in nature as spills or water contamination events and can be completely rectified through minor reclamation efforts. 7.6 Surface Water Contamination Water contamination events result from spills that impact bodies of water directly. In most cases. these events are minor. Our analysis tracks all types of spills from a gallon of diesel fuel to hundreds of barrels spilled into the many small creeks and ponds in rural The spilled substances included many of the same materials spilled on land: fuels, drilling mud, production fluids, hydrochloric acid. sediments, and produced fluids. The impacts of these events varied by the amount of fluids spilled. Our analysis indicates that on average 105 gallons of fluid were spilled for minor water contamination events. Water contami- nation events could have direct negative environmental effects or none at all. ln areas with sensitive ecosystems, like wetlands, certain forms of aquatic life could be adversely affected by the spill. In other instances. the impacts of the spills can be mitigated with no observable damage to plants or wildlife. 7.7 Analysis of Environmental Events Our analysis of the environmental records from the PA DEP indicates the total number of unique incidents that resulted in environmental pollution is 845 over our sample period from January 2008 through August 2011, tabulated below in Table 3. Note from above that the total number of environ- mental vioiations is 1,144. Based upon our evaluation of the environmental impacts associated with each environmental event, there were 25 incidents that resulted in major environmental impact. Of these 25 incidents, nine involve major spills of materials on land. another eight entail spills that contaminated local water supplies. four incidents concern well blowouts and venting. two events incur major site restoration impacts, and two events concern gas migration. There were no reported cases of hydraulic fracturing fiuid migrating into potable water supplies. Major impacts Blowouts Venting 0 2 2 4 Major Land Spills 2 2 5 9 Gas Migration 1 1 2 Site Restoration 1 0 1 2 Water Contamination 5 1 2 8 Subtotal 1 8 6 10 25 Minor impacts Cement Casing 0 2 27 56 85 Site Restoration 72 68 9O 98 328 Minor Land Spills 4 56 66 23 149 Water Contamination 13 39 133 73 258 Subtotal 89 165 316 250 820 Grand Total 90 173 322 260 845 Of all the polluting environmental events. 38.8 percent involved site restoration. 30.5 percent involved spills contaminating surface water, 17.6 percent were nonmaior land spills. and 10.1 percent involved cement and casing problems. Three percent of all environmental events created major problems for the environment, 1.1 percent from major land spills, 0.9 percent involving major water contamination. 0.5 percent from blowouts and venting, 0.2 percent involving major site restoration problems. and 0.2 percent from gas migration (see Figure 8 below). FIGURE 8: POLLUTING ENVIRONMENTAL EVENTS BY CATEGORY SITE MAJUH RESTORATION SURFACE WATER Slim (1?5 mill 7 - 5A3 02% "'f?lff- MIGRATION - i 0.2% EVENTS 3% MAJOR BLOWOUTS SPILLS a VENTING 1.1% 0.5% Like the environmental violations, the number of environmental events varied with the number of wells drilled, as illustrated in Figure 9 below. The incidence of these events, however, steadily declined over the past four years. For example, more than half of all wells involved some level of environmental pollution in 2008, albeit most instances were minor, but that proportion declined to over a fifth of all wells in 2011. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS DURING MARCELLUS SHALE GAS DRILLING 52.9% 1,405 1,248 710 24.4% 223% 20.8% 200 170 173 90 2000 2009 2010 2011 August ill Wells Drilled - Environmental of Wells with l?ollulinn Evenls These findings are based solely on the Marceiius record and are not necessarily indicative of the incidence of polluting environmental events one would expect to find in the future in other regulatory jurisdictions or involving other drilling companies. As indicated previously, however, enforcement activity and awareness of new regulatory requirements by the regulated community is likely to result in a decline in the incidence of polluting environmental events as illustrated above. Moreover, as the analysis presented in Appendix iliustrates. the long-term environmental impacts of these events are almost completely mitigated by remedial actions taken by the companies. in most cases. due to the severity of these 25 major environmental events. information is available to determine what went wrong, who was responsible. and how the impact was remediated. Appendix discusses each of the major environmental events that occurred during Marcellus Shale development in The first major conclusion that can be reached from this analysis is that there are only two docu? mented cases in which subsurface potable water supplies were tainted from Marcellus gas drilling activity. These subsurface water contamination events resulted from stray gas or gas migration into potable water supplies due to improper casing of multiple welis in the areas. According to our analysis. local water supplies have been completely restored to one of the affected areas, and in the second area the impacts are still being mitigated. Further. additional safety protocols and engineering measurements through proper state-based regulation can and should eliminate future incidents. The second finding is that there were four serious well blowouts, implying a 0.11 percent probability of a well biowout. In other words. there is roughly a one-tenth of one percent chance of a serious well blowout in the Marcellus gas drilling industry. To put this in some context and relative perspective. there are 40.000 highway deaths in America each year. If an individual drives an average amount each year for 50 years. there is a one percent chance of dying in an accident, roughly 12 times higher than the odds of a well blowout in the Marcellus. Also, it is important to keep in mind that these four well blowouts did not result in loss of life. The third major conclusion is the environmental damages resulting from these events were mitigated with the exception of six cases. two of which are too early to determine if remediation has been completed and for the other four cases. remediation efforts have been undertaken but not verified as completely effective. Hence, even when there are serious environmental impacts. regulators and drilling companies act to completely remediate the environmental damages. This implies that the PA DEP is acting effectively to minimize and in many cases prevent environmental harm from occurring. Hence, the data shows that of the polluting environmental events that resulted in envi- ronmental damage, the regulatory agencies and drilling companies acted to completely remediate those damages. The fourth and final conclusion is that the majority of the events were due to operator error, negligence, or a failure to follow proper procedures when drilling. This suggests that the industry has room for improvement. and the frequency of environmental events can be reduced. The following subsections discuss the implications of these findings for and New York. 7.8 Regulatory Response to Environmental Events Since 2008. more than 3.500 Marcellus wells have been drilled in from more than 100 drilling rigs. The sudden creation of a multibillion-dollar industry of well development, including drilling and completion activities and major infrastructure construction - of pipelines, dehydration systems, gas-processing facilities. and compressor stations - had a range of environmental impacts that caught state regulators by surprise. This section discusses the environmental issues created, the response by regulators and industry, and the implications for regulatory policy for and New York. There is little debate that Marcellus Shale development caught the PA DEP unprepared with up-to- date environmental regulations for unconventional production from the Marcellus Shale despite ongoing conventional oil and gas industry activity that drilled thousands of wells annually. The response of the PA DEP to Marcellus Shale development and its associated impacts on land and potable water was predictable and justified. As noted above, NOVs of all types were issued. and significant monetary fines were assessed to the industry for the more serious violations. Coincidental to these actions, the PA DEP. through collaboration with its Technical Advisory Board and by working in concert with its various stakeholders, has moved to update its oil and gas regulations. These stakeholders include representatives from industry, academia, and various environmental groups. As such, its regulations have evolved with respect to well construction and protection of the environment. These regulations, like all good regulatory regimes, will likely undergo almost continuous refinement. The Commonwealth of efforts to update its regulations have involved audits of its regulations by members of the American Petroleum Institute (API). In addition, the Commonwealth. with support from industry, has moved to add to the number of field inspectors. This addition was financed through a significant increase in permit fees. Also. the Cerbett administration recently announced that the PA DEP itself has been reorganized, and that Oil and Gas Management has been elevated in stature and is now managed by a Deputy Secretary. Ostensibly, these changes reflect the Commonwealth's efforts for more consistent enforcement of the regulations from region to region and at the same time recognize regional differences. In summary, the regulations associated with oil and gas development in remain a work in progress. Much has been accomplished in terms of updating the regulatory framework that had effectively functioned for more than 70 years. New regulations reflect the development of uncon- ventional oil and gas resources. It should be noted that the industry has reSponded in positive fashion to complex geography and water-related challenges in that are not common elsewhere. Revisions in the regulatory framework through significant improvements in well site construction and completion methodologies are a positive development, and must continue to address lessons learned. Implications for Regulatory Policy in New York State The oil and gas industry in New York dates back to the early 18005, and the state has formally regulated the industry since 1963. New York State regulates the oil and gas industry using a combi- nation of statute, regulation, and a generic environmental impact statement with authority under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) passed in 1976. The Environmental Conservation Law, Article 23 - Mineral Resources. and Article 71 - Enforcement. govern the industry. Regulations affecting oil and gas are found in Title 6 of the New York State Register and Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations of the State of New York Chapter - Resource Management Services. Subchapter B: Mineral Resources.7 At first glance. these seem somewhat limited in breadth. However. SEGRA gave state regulators significant authority to develop a robust regulatory program to identify potential environmental risks and pro- vided the flexible framework to mitigate them. Adopted in 1976, SEQRA was designed to "encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment." SEORA requires that government agencies "review the environmental impact of its actions, not limited to a specific environmental medium. such as air or water, but includes all environmental and many socioeconomic issues that arise in considering the re5ult of any governmental action." The agency must disclose and address impacts that can be reasonably anticipated and, to the best of their ability, attempt to avoid or minimize adverse environmental impacts. The goal of the SEGRA process is not to eliminate all activities that may have risk, but to identify potential adverse impacts and ways to mitigate them. Ultimately, this is a subjective decision making legal challenges complex and difficult. Until three decades ago, New York's oil and gas industry was regulated through inconsistent state and municipal requirements for drilling. This approach resulted in a few well site issues and generally inconsistent state and local rules governing the industry. In 1980, state legislators chose to revise the regulatory program using its SEQRA authority rather than promulgate new regulations. The process started in 1980 and ended in 1992 with the adoption of the final Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS). The GEIS abrogated the right of municipalities to regulate any aspect of oil and gas development, and provided a flexible permitting program that could react quickly to changes on the ground and allow the issuance of permits in a timely fashion. The 1992 GEIS looked at all common impacts deemed significant, including surface waters, ground- water, agriculture, historical sites, archaeological sites, significant habitats, floodplains, freshwater wetlands. state lands, coastal zones. streams, and general habitat loss. A unique environmental assessment form for drilling was developed from the GEIS. 8.1 Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (SGEIS) In 2008, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYS DEC) began review- ing the 1992 Generic Environmental Impact Statement for oil, gas, and solution mining (GEIS) to determine the extent to which it should be supplemented to address the potential environmental 7 impacts of the high-volume hydraulic fracture stimulations (HVHF) used to develop the natural gas resources in the Marcellus Shale formation. In accordance with SEQRA. the purpose of the 2009 draft SGEIS was to inventory the potential environmental risks. determine which impacts are significant, and provide mitigation measures. This process is routinely used to address the environmental impacts of many industrial processes. The host of complex environmental impacts analyzed in the draft SGEIS range from the initial water withdrawals to the ultimate disposal of the waste products. In preparing the DSGEIS, NYS DEC sought to recognize. characterize. and provide appropriate mitigation measures based upon sound science. engineering. and experience. The 2009 DSGEIS was put forth for public comment, a process that ended December 31. 2009. with the receipt of more than 13,000 comments. Comment evaluation lasted through 2010 and well into a new state executive administration. In 2011. the DEC released a revised DSGEIS (RDSGEIS), which outlines a much more procedural approach to regulating wells using high-volume hydraulic fracture stimulations (HVHF). defined in the RDSGEIS as a completion using 300,000 gallons of water or more. Concurrently. NYSDEC issued revised draft regulations based on the RDSGEIS. This can be seen as a major change in approach. Since 1992, the GEIS has been used as a flexible regulatory tool allowing real-time modernization of regulations to match industry innovation. Now, a much more detailed and formal regulatory structure is proposed for wells using HVHF. The most productive way to evaluate whether this framework will be ultimately successful is to study prior environmental incidents using the new RDSGEIS. The Department has indicated that they have done this. In 2011, DEC staff studied high-volume hydraulic fracturing incidents through- out to assess their causes and identify solutions. Given the above analysis that aggre- gates all environmental incidents occurring in we will be able to assess the degree to which New York regulators have been successful in incorporating lessons learned into the RDSGEIS. 8.2 New York Regulations and Environmental Events Through statutes. regulations. and permit conditions derived from the 1992 GEIS, New York State's program for regulating the oil and gas industry is quite comprehensive. The RDSGEIS and proposed regulations dramatically increase regulatory scrutiny of wells using HVHF. Using the categories defined in Table 7: Classification of Environmental Violations, this section will summarize how the regulatory structure of New York State is designed to avoid or mitigate these types of events. 8.21 Blowouts 8c Venting Both New York State?s existing and prOposed regulations acknowledge the potential environmental damage caused by emissions of methane into the atmosphere. and the potential health. safety, and environmental hazards of blowouts. Consideration is given both to avoidance and mitigation. New York State?s regulatory emphasis is placed on avoiding uncontrolled emissions of hydrocar- bons. Since the 1992 GEIS, the state has required blowout preventers, equipment inspections. equipment testing. and permits to flare. The RDSGEIS and proposed regulations build on this by requiring advanced equipment, redundant systems, certified staff, and systematic equipment testing to avoid blowout preventer failure and reduce blowout severity: "The current DSGEIS requires pressure testing of blowout prevention equipment. the use of at least two mechanical barriers that can be tested. the use of specialized equipment designed for entering the wellbore when pressure is anticipated, and the on-site presence of a certified well control specialist.? (NYS DEC 2011A. p. ES-ZS) remote blowout preventer actuator, which is powered by a source other than rig hydraulics. shall be located at least 50 feet from the wellhead. All lines, valves and fittings between the blowout preventer and the remote actuator and any other actuator must be flame resistant and have an appropriate rated working pressure." (NYS DEC 20113) Rigorous testing may prevent problems with blowout preventers. Also, requiring properly certified staff and remote actuation also may limit the severity of a blowout. Berms and other secondary containment may help mitigate the impact. These types of systems may help prevent blowouts similar to those described in Appendix B. 8.22 Spills on Land Site design guidelines included in both the 1992 GEIS and subsequent supplemental drafts include detailed descriptions of site design, operations design. and containment technology to avoid and mitigate the impact of spills. Predrilling inspections by NYS DEC staff are and will continue to be required. In the RDSGEIS, it is clear that well design reviews will be a critical part of the permitting process: "Before a permit is issued, Department staff would review the proposed layout of the well site based on analysis of application materials and a site visit. Risky site plans would either not be approved or would be subject to enhanced site-specific construction requirements." (NYS DEC 2011A, p. ES-24) Also, the RDSGEIS requires testing of equipment used for hydraulic fracture stimulation: "Fracturing equipment components would be pressure tested with fresh water, mud or brine prior to the introduction of chemical additives." (NYS DEC 2011A, p. ES-25) With this approach, any faulty equipment should be identified prior to the commencement of com- pletion operations. The foregoing requirements are likely to have a positive impact in avoiding or reducing the occurrence of the impacts of the types of spills identified in Appendix B. 8.23 Gas Migration, and Casing 8c Cementing Gas migration issues were a concern before the GEIS was finalized in 1992. In the 19805, in order to avoid hydrocarbon migration into shallower zones. NYS DEC felt it important to require submission of a casing and cementing plan to help assess the appropriateness of the design, given the local geology. Ultimately, the regulation developed requires a minimum of two casing strings, except in aquifers where three are required. NYS DEC conducts inspections of the casing during operations. In the case of an aquifer area, NYS DEC must be on-site to witness the cement returning to the surface. The revised DSGEIS continues this practice. but adds a wellbore integrity review for wells proposing to use HVHF: ?The Department's staff reviews the proposed casing and cementing plan for each well prior to permit issuance. Permits are not issued for improperly designed wells, and in the case of high-volume hydraulic fracturing the as-built wellbore construction would be verified before the operation is allowed to proceed." (NYS DEC 2011A, p. ES-23- 24) In the proposed regulations, NYS DEC will also require extensive testing of the casing to make sure it can adequately ensure a sufficient margin of safety in HVHF operations, avoiding a casing breach, and potential migration of methane and fluids. These proposed regulations also set boundaries on how hard a well can be pushed during operations: "If hydraulic fracturing operations are performed down casing, prior to introducing hydraulic fracturing fluid into the well, the casing extending from the surface of the well to the top of the treatment interval must be tested with fresh water, mud or brine to at least the maximum anticipated treatment pressure for at least 30 minutes with less than a 5 percent pressure loss. This pressure test may not commence for at least 7 days after the primary cementing operations are completed on this casing string. A record of the pressure test must be maintained by the operator and made available to the department upon request. The actual hydraulic fracturing treatment pressure must not exceed the test pressure at any time during hydraulic fracturing operations." (NYS DEC 2011B) Under the prOposed regulations, the operator must sample water wells within a 1,000- to 2,000- foot radius before any site disturbance, and for a period after drilling and completion of a well using HVHF. If gas migration is detected, NYS DEC, like the PA DEP. can begin an enforcement action to force the operator to mitigate the problem. The proposed regulations also give NYS DEC the authority to revoke previously issued permits and approvals for noncompliance (as described in proposed regulations 750-35). 8.24 Site Restoration Existing and proposed regulations outline detailed site restoration requirements, including how to mitigate erosion, sedimentation, and general agricultural issues such as topsoil stockpiling. The RDSGEIS and proposed regulations are much more specific as to the impacts on site locations by identifying specific areas such as Grassland and Forest Focus Areas that require extensive prede- velopment studies. The proposed regulations are explicit in terms of site restoration after drilling. Partial site reclamation is defined as having occurred after: 1) all planned wells at the well pad have been completed, and a DEC inspector verifies that the drilling/fracturing equipment has been removed, 2) pits used for those operations have been reclaimed, and surface disturbances not asso- ciated with production activities have been scarified or ripped to alleviate compaction prior to replacement of topsoil, and 3) reclaimed areas are seeded and mulched after topsoil replacement, and vegetative cover reestablished that will ultimately return the site to pre-construction conditions (as described in proposed regulations 750-311 (1) As with the PA DEP's approach. an improperly restored site would subject the operator to fines and other enforcement actions. This enforcement power rests in statute and regulation. 8.25 Water Contamination Section 553.2 of the Environmental Conservation Law defines offsets from streams and other water bodies at a minimum of 50 feet and offsets from water wells at a minimum of 150 feet. In practice. proposed sites near water bodies usually trigger an enhanced review due to the presence of flood- plains. aquifers, and other sensitive areas. This approach allows the conditions on the ground to define locations. For non-stimulated and low-volume hydraulic fracture stimulations, this remains the case. Under the RDSGEIS and proposed regulations. wells proposing to use HVHF will be required to follow very strict ?bright line" setbacks from water bodies and aquifers. Surface locations. including drilling and ancillary equipment. are prohibited in the following areas: - within 2,000 feet of public drinking water supplies; - on the state's 18 primary aquifers and within 500 feet of their boundaries: - within 500 feet of private wells, unless waived by landowner; - in floodplains; - on principal aquifers without site-specific reviews; and - within the Syracuse and New York City watersheds. Looking at the incidences described in Appendix B, it is not clear that these offsets alone would necessarily eliminate contamination of streams or aquifers. Topography and the severity of the inci- dent played a role. it seems that improved site design and better containment. if used in conjunc- tion with ?bright line" setbacks, is likely to avoid or reduce the occurrence of these impacts. 8.26 Commentary New York State has the luxury of learning from the experience of As shown above. some of the strict procedures included in the and proposed regulations may indeed help avoid or mitigate the impact of well site events. Many others, however, might provide little extra protection, while creating restrictions that ultimately stifle industry and investment. The 1992 GEIS recognized the need for flexibility when complex engineered systems are involved. Only time will tell if this strict approach fares as well or better than the landmark 1992 GEIS. Below in Table 4 is a summary of some of the major environmental events discussed in Appendix if SGEIS requirements had been applied to the five polluting environmental categories. Blowouts Venting Spills on Land Spills Into Surface Water Incldent 3.12: Chief Oil and Gas - Bradford County uncontrolled flowback Incldent 3.13: EOG Resources - Clear?eld COUnty well blowout Incldent 3.17: Talisman Energy Tioga County blowout Incldent 3.23: Chesapeake Energy - Leroy Township blowout Incldent 3.7: Atlas Resources - Diesel spill Incident 3.12: Chief Oil and Gas Susquehanna County fluid spill Incident 3.11: Anadarko - Clinton County mud spill Incldent 3.14: JW Operating Company Mud spill Incldent 3.15: Cabot Oil Gas Susquehanna County hose failure Incldent 3.18: Talisman Jackson production fluid release Incident 3.19: Carrizo Monroe mud spill Incident 3.20: Carrizo Wyoming County drilling mud spill Incident 3.22: Ultra Resources - Flowback spill incident 3.2: PA General Energy Creek discharge incident 3.4: Cabot Oil Gas - Stevens Creek ?sh kill Incldent 3.5: Range Resources - Stream discharge into Brush Run Incldent 3.6: EOG Resources Clear?eld County stream discharge Incldent 3.8: Talisman Energy Armenia pit overflow incident 3.9: Atlas Resources Hopewell pit overflow into Dunkle Creek Incldent 3.16: Chief Oil and Gas - Susquehanna County ?uid spill Incldent 3.24: CNX Gas Company Mud spill Pressure testing of blowout prevention equipment Using at least two mechanical barriers that can be tested - Using specialized equipment designed for entering the wellbore when pressure is anticipated A certified well control specialist to be present during post-fracturing cleanout activities Requiring a remote blowout preventer actuator. which is powered by a source other than rig hydraulics Requiring that all lines. valves. and fittings between the blowout preventer and the remote actuator and any other actuator must be flame resistant. and have an appropriate rated working pressure Requiring a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan (SPCC) Completing a regulatory review of the proposed layout of the well site Requiring a site visit by DEC staff to make sure the site can be designed for adequate containment Prior to the initiation of HVHF operations. pressure test all fracturing equipment components Approval of risky site plans would be subject to enhanced site-specific construction requirements Bans surface access on most state lands The authority by regulators to revoke previously issued permits and approvals for noncompliance chemical spills) Require a State Pollutant Discharge Elimination Sys- tem (SPDES) permit covering HVHF operations Including restrictions on siting of surface locations will take Substantial acreage out of possible produc- tion. including (1) within 4.000 feet of. and including. the un?ltered surface water supply watersheds: (2) within 500 feet of. and including. a primary aquifer; (3) within loo-year ?oodplains; (4) within 2.000 feet of any public (municipal or otherwise) water supply. including wells. reservoirs. natural lakes. or man- made impoundments. and river or stream intakes; and (5) in the New York City and Skaneateles Lake watersheds Demonstrate a source to treat or otherwise legally dispose of wastewater associated with flowback and production water continued on next page Gas Migration, Casing 8 Cementing Site Restoration Incident 3.3: Cabot Oil Gas - Dimock gas migration Incident 3.10: Chesapeake Energy - Bradford County gas migration incident BJ: Atlas Resources - Major site restoration failure Incident 3.21: Chesapeake Energy - Washington County pit fire Incident 3.25: Ultra Resources Major site restoration failure Regulatory preapproval of casing and cementing plan Additional layers of cement and steel casing around each underground well Cement and steel casings to extend at least 75 feet below the deepest freshwater zone - going beyond regulations required in other natural gas producing states Require extensive testing of the casing to make sure it can adequately handle HVHF Operations Set hydraulic fracture stimulation operating bound- aries to never exceed test pressure to protect casing from excessive pressure Water samples within a 1.000- to 2.000-foot radius before any site disturbance for a period after drilling and completion of a well using HVHF Identify any abandoned wells within the proposed spacing unit and within one mile of the proposed surface location The authority by regulators to revoke previously issued permits and approvals for noncompliance Sites must be designed to mitigate erosion, sedimentation During operations. topsoil must be stockpiled Require partial site reclamation after all planned wells at the well pad have been completed Department inspectors must verify that the drilling/fracturing equipment has been removed; pits used for those operations have been reclaimed, and surface disturbances not associated with production activities have been scarified or ripped to alleviate compaction prior to replacement of topsoil Reclaimed areas must be seeded and mulched after topsoil replacement, and vegetative cover reestab- lished that will ultimately return the site to pre-con- struction conditions Conclusions Since 2008, more than 3,533 Marcellus wells have been drilled in from more than 100 drilling rigs. This study assesses the effectiveness of the state's regulations in mitigating environ- mental impacts associated with the development of Marcellus Shale in by surveying records of notices of violations from the Department of Environmental Protection (PA DEP) from January 2008 through August 2011. The major findings are as follows: - Of the 2,988 notices of environmental violations (NOVs). the majority (62 percent) are administrative violations or violations issued to prevent pollution from occurring. The remaining citations (38 percent) were in response to an event that impacted the surrounding environment. - Of the 845 incidents that caused measurable amounts of pollution. 820 were classified as non-major, and only 25 involved maior impacts to air, water, and land resources. This implies that over the 44 months surveyed, there was a 0.7 percent! propabiligy of a maior environ- mental event. Of the 2S problematic incidents that involved major environmental impacts, six cases did not have their environmental impacts c0mpletely mitigated. - Both the number of environmental violations and subsequent environmental events that caused some physical impact on the environment steadily declined over the past four years, in conjunction with action by state regulators. Notably, the percentage of wells resulting in a major environmental event declined significantly; an indicator that the attention of regulators was focused on the areas of greatest concern. The foregoing suggests that surface activity, rather than the drilling or development process itself, remains the greatest ongoing risk. The findings are significant as they illustrate how the PA DEP has been able to effectively manage the brisk pace of unconventional gas development, while preserving the economic opportunity that development has afforded the community. provides a strong metric to gauge the regulatory proposal being proposed for New York State. Our research classifying the 25 major events that occurred in with the 2011 New York SGEIS guidelines demonstrates that each of these specific events would be avoided or mitigated under New YOrk State's regulatory framework currently in place. References Considine, Timothy (2010) "The Economic Impacts of the Marcellus Shale: Implications for New York, and West Virginia," American Petroleum Institute, July, 38 pages. Considine. Timothy, R. Watson, and N. Considine (2011a) "The Economic Opportunities of Shale Energy Development," The Manhattan Institute, June. 28 pages. Considine, Timothy, R. Watson. and S. Blumsack (2011b) ?The Marcellus Shale Natural Gas Industry: Status, Economic Impacts, and Future Potential.? The State University, Department of Energy and Mineral Engineering, July 2011, 59 pages. Energy Information Administration (2011) "Review of Emerging Resources: US. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays," July, Koomey. Jonathan, and F. Krause (1997). "Introduction of Environmental Externality Costs." In CRC Handbook on Energy Efficiency, ed. Frank Kreith and Ronald E. West (Boca Raton, Fla.: CRC). Martin, John P. and F. Charles Dayter, "Developing Shale Resources in New York State: A Brief Review of Technical, Environmental and Legal Issues." Paper developed for the Drilling into Hydraulic Fracturing and Shale Gas Development: A 3-State Perspective (PA, TX and NY), a seminar sponsored by the ALI - ABA, October 18, 2011. New York State Department of Environmental Protection (2009) "Final Impact Assessment Report: Impact Assessment of Natural Gas Production in the New York City Water Supply Watershed" (December). New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (Lead Agency), Generic Environmental impact Statement on the Oil, Gas and Solution Mining Regulatory Program, September 1992 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (Lead Agency), Draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement on the Oil. Gas and Solution Mining Regulatory Program Well Permit issuance for Horizontal Drilling and High?Volume Hydraulic Fracturing to Develop the Marcellus Shale and Other Low-Permeability Gas Reservoirs, September 2009 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (Lead Agency). Revised Draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement on the Oil, Gas and Solution Mining Regulatory Program Well Permit issuance for Horizontal Drilling and High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing to Develop the Marcellus Shale and Other Low-Permeability Gas Reservoirs, September 2011A New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing Proposed Regulations 6 Parts 52, 190, 550-556, 560, and 750, September, 20118 North Dakota State Government, Department of Natural Resources, Oil and Gas Division, Fish and Boat Commission (2011) "Texas Company Pays $208,625 in Settlements for Polluting Creeks in Clearfield County" Railroad Commission of Texas, "Eagle Ford Information" Vaughan, A. (2010). ?Frac Attack: Risks, Hype, and Financial Reality of Hydraulic Fracturing in the Shale Plays.? Reservoir Research Partners; and Tudor, Pickering, Holt Co. (July 8). Sovas, Gregory, "Oil Gas Permitting and Regulation in presentation to the Marcellus Shale Lecture Series, University at Buffalo, Amherst, NY, April 21, 2011. Economic Impact Analysis The development path for New York shale energy will likely follow one similar to that experienced in northern During 2008. 52 Marcellus wells were drilled in five counties in northern McKean. Potter. Tioga, Bradford. and Susquehanna. The number of Marcellus wells drilled in the same five counties during 2009 was 296 (see Considine et al. 2011b). The New York counties due north of this zone include, from west to east: Allegany, Steuben. Chemung. Tioga, and Broome. As the Marcellus Shale formation extends northward into New York State, it comes closer to the surface, making it less attractive to drilling companies to exploit. Therefore. drilling would probably be concentrated in the southern half of the New York border counties mentioned above. The Utica shale is another promising natural gas resource extending into New York. but there is no evidence to date that the New York Utica shale is productive. Range Resources completed and tested a horizontal Utica well in western New York. but the results are confidential. Range's only comment is that it plans to drill additional Utica wells. Hence. prOSpects for the Utica shale in New York are promis- ing. but there is simply not enough evidence of commercial prospects that would justify its inclusion in the scenarios developed below. Leasing activity in the Utica shale in northeastern Ohio. however. is rather intense. given the prospects of rich deposits of oil and natural gas liquids. especially in Stark County. In light of these considerations. a safe assumption is that the Marcellus Shale will be the first formation to be developed in New York State if horizontal drilling with hydraulic fracturing is allowed. Hypothetical trajectory of future drilling appears in Table A1 (Considine. et al. 2011a). 2012 2016 2021 Total spending 172.6 1,899.9 2,209.9 Lease and bonus 66.6 502.2 502.2 Exploration 5.9 68.9 73.8 Drilling and completion 78.2 918.5 984 Pipeline and processing 19.1 224.5 240.5 Royalties 0 152.3 373.5 Other 2.9 33.5 35.9 Assumed Number of Wells? Horizontal 14 304 330 Vertical 28 9 10 Total 42 314 340 Gas Equivalents of Cubic Feet per Day Production 0.1 487.6 952.1 Under this scenario. 42 wells would be drilled in the first year. 314 wells four years later, and 340 wells in 2021. Horizontal drilling's share is based on the observed ratio in northern (Considine. et al. 2011a). Total spending under this scenario would start out at $172.6 million; increase eleven fold. to $1.9 billion by 2016; and reach $2.2 billion in 2021 (Table A1). The value added that such activity from direct. indirect, and induced effects would create is $1.7 billion in 2016 (see Table A2). Note that the impacts are spread across a broad array of industries, which reflects the stimulus that natural gas investments have on the supply chain, boosting output in key shale energy supply chain industries, such as construction, wholesale trade. truck transportation. and engineering and scientific services (see Table A2). Similar gains in employment are achieved with Marcellus development supporting more than 15,000 jobs in 2016 alone. Assuming a 3 percent discount rate, the accumulated value added from 2012 to 2021 would come to more than $11.4 billion. There would be more than 18,000 additional jobs in 2021 (see Table A2). And local and state tax revenues would have grown by more than $214 million in 2010 dollars by 2016 (Considine, et al. 2011a). 2012 2016 2021 Ag., forestry, fishing. and hunting 0.3 3.3 3.8 Mining 19.8 232.3 249.2 Utilities 3.5 38.1 448 Construction 14 163.4 175.7 Manufacturing 4 44.8 51.1 Wholesale trade 16.4 189.1 207 Retail trade 9.9 107.4 125.9 Transportation and warehousing 3.9 43.6 48.9 Information 4.9 53.9 629 Finance and insurance 12.5 136.9 158.6 Real estate and rental 21 224 268.3 Professional/scientific and tech services 13.2 150.1 166.5 Business management 2.3 25.9 28.8 Administrative and waste services 4.1 45.5 51.6 Educational services 3.1 32.1 40.6 Health and social services 10.6 112.1 135.3 Arts/entertainment and recreation 1.2 13.1 15.7 Hotel and food services 3.3 35 42.1 Other services 3.4 35.8 42.9 Government and misc. 1.7 18.4 21.6 Total 153 1,704.8 1,941.2 Detailed Discussion of Major Environmental Events The sections below explain the nature of the 25 major environmental events and their impacts. For each event, this discussion explains what went wrong, why, who was responsible, and what remedies were followed. B.l Atlas Resources Major site restoration failure On December 4, 2008, Atlas Resources was issued an NOV for failing to properly restore a site after drilling had been completed earlier that year (PA DEP 2008). This instance was considered major because Atlas allowed 15 acres of land to remain disturbed after drilling was completed (PA DEP 2008). This amount of land disturbance was the second-largest site restoration failure in the sample and for this reason is considered a major environmental event. After receiving the NOV, Atlas did eventually clean up the site and mitigate the impacts that the drilling had in the area. Atlas was fined $9,641 for the violation. and was at fault because there were no circumstances that prevented it from restoring the site (PA DEP 2008). B.2 PA General Energy Creek discharge On March 15, 2009. PA General Energy was cited for discharging Airfoam into a stream in Lycoming County, (Swift 2011). Airfoam is a substance used to help lift water and drill cuttings to the surface during drilling. The Airfoam escaped when snowmelt and rain washed over the well pad. causing the substance to migrate to a nearby stream (Swift 2011). The site was restored, and the impacts of the Airfoam runoff were mitigated. PA General Energy was fined $28,960 for the event because of impacts on the waters of the Commonwealth. The pollution caused by the event was difficult to avoid because the operator did not anticipate the level of snowmelt and rain that occurred. Preventing such events. however, is possible. Once the event happened. the operator was able to mitigate the impacts by placing a protective barrier around the stream that had been'contaminated by Airfoam. While barriers like this are not always feasible, they can be effective when used in such situations. B.3 Cabot Oil 8c Gas Dimock gas migration On May 13, 2009, the Department of Environmental Protection issued multiple environmental violations to Cabot Oil Gas because 19 families in Dimock had their water wells contaminated with methane. This contamination arose from gas migration that occurred after Cabot improperly cemented multiple gas wells in the area (PA DEP 2010a). Cabot was initially fined $120,000, but later was fined more than $500,000 by the PA DEP. In addition to the $500,000 fine, Cabot later settled for $4.1 million with the residents who had their water affected (PA DEP 2010a). This incident carried the largest fine of any environmental event in the Marcellus and. could be considered the most severe. The gas migration contaminated a large amount of drinking water. The three wells that were found to be the source of the migrating gas were plugged, and since then there has been a noticeable improvement in the water quality of the affected water wells. B.4 Cabot Oil 84: Gas Stevens Creek ?sh kill In Dimock. on September 16. 2009, the Department of Environmental Protection reported that approximately 8,000 gallons of produced fracturing fluids spilled into Stevens Creek (Lustgarten 2009). The cause of the spill was reportedly linked to the failure of a supply pipe near the creek and resulted in reports of fish swimming erratically in the affected area. Some fish were also found dead in the creek, and the PA DEP reported that the surrounding wet- land area was affected as well. Cabot Oil Gas eventually cleaned up the impacted area. but received a $56,650 fine for the spill. The Stevens Creek fish kill was considered to be a major event because of the large volume of frac- turing fluid that was spilled, and the incident was classified as water contamination. The environmen- tal impacts of this event were very severe. Equipment failure is a part of any industry. and natural gas drilling is no different. However, this event still had such a significant environmental impact that Cabot was still held responsible. The impacts of this event were not easily mitigated, and significant effort was required to restore the site, but eventually the area was restored. This event was severe and the regulatory actions of the PA DEP reflected this reality. B.5 Range Resources Stream discharge into Brush Run On October 10. 2009. Range Resources reported that a temporary aboveground water transfer line had a connection failure that resulted in the accidental release of 250 barrels, or 10,500 gallons. of partially recycled flowback water into Brush Run creek (PA DEP 2010b). Approximately 300 minnows were killed by the spill, but other aquatic life in the stream survived. Range was fined $141,175 for the spill (PA DEP 2010b), which resulted from equipment failure. The site was restored under supervision of the PA DEP, and the environmental impacts have been mitigated. This event was major due to its direct impact on waters of the Commonwealth and was classified as water contamination. Equipment failure is something that cannot be avoided in most cases, and Range Resources was able to quickly mitigate the impacts from this spill. The reason Range was fined so heavily for the event is twofold. The first reason is that the spill occurred in a high-quality watershed that fed multiple fisheries in the area, and the second is the fact that Range did not report the spill immediately (PA DEP 2010b). This event is interesting because while Range was not entirely responsible for the event, they failed to follow proper procedures for dealing with the spill. B.6 EOG Resources Clear?eld County stream discharge On October 12, 2009, an independent consultant found that a cap on a holding tank had gone bad and allowed approximately 190 barrels. or 7.980 gallons, of produced fluid to enter Little Laurel Creek (PA DEP 2009a). EOG Resowces was unaware of the leak until it was reported to the com- pany, and a quantity of a foamy substance was observed in the creek that the produced fluid had entered. EOG Resources was fined $99,125 for the incident but was able to mitigate some of the impacts by flushing the stream (PAFBC 2009). E06 Resources was at fault for this event and could have prevented it by better inspecting its storage tanks. This event was considered a water contamination event and is another example of a company being negligent. The area that was affected by this spill was also heavily used for fishing. so the Fish and Boat Commission was also present during the evaluation of this incident. The impacts from the incident were mitigated. but the area is still undergoing testing to ensure that water quality is normal. With better training of crews and the paying of more attention to details like storage containers, events like this one can easily be prevented in the future. B.7 Atlas Resources Diesel spill On October 30, 2009, Atlas Resources experienced a 790-gallon diesel fuel spill due to the improper connection of a fuel line at its drilling site in Westmoreland County (PA DEP 2009b). Atlas was able to recover 250 gallons of fuel from the spill, but the rest was unaccounted for (PA DEP 2009b). Atlas also placed other collection devices around the spill in hopes of mitigating the impacts further, but was unable to successfully clean up the entire spill. The PA DEP found Atlas at fault and fined the company $17,500 for the spill (PA DEP 2009b). This event could have been prevented by following procedures for equipment inspection. B.8 Talisman Energy Armenia pit over?ow On November 23. 2009, Talisman Energy experienced a pit overflow into a small un-named water- way in Bradford County (PA DEP 2010c). Between 4.200 to 6,300 gallons of fracturing fluid were spilled into the waterway, which is upstream from a fishery. The flowback was caused when a pump failed and sand collected around the valve, causing fluid to flow uncontrolled toward the waterway (PA DEP 2010c). Talisman Energy was fined $15,506 for the event and was able to clean up the spill (PA DEP 2010c). This event is considered a major water contamination event because it affected a high?quality watershed. Talisman was not at fault for this event because the equipment failure was not due to negligence and was unavoidable. Talisman also responded quickly to the spill and was able to miti- gate most of the impacts of the spill. B.9 Atlas Resources Hopewell pit over?ow into Dunkle Creek On December 5. 2009, the Department of Environmental Protection discovered multi- ple environmental violations that led to the contamination of a high-quality watershed in Hopewell County, (PA DEP 2010d). This event was severe due to the type of watershed that was affected. While the overflow of the pit had significant environmental effects, the pollution impacts were mitigated. Atlas Resources was fined $97,350 for allowing diluted fracturing fluids to overflow from a wastewater pit (PA DEP 2010d). This incident violated the Oil and Gas Act. as well as the Solid Waste Management Act, and although the impacts were mitigated, Atlas failed to notify the PA DEP (PA DEP 2010d). This event is considered a major water contamination because a significant amount of high-quality water was tainted by the spill. A large fine is usually indicative of a significant amount of pollution. A large amount of pit fluid flowed directly into Dunkle Creek and despite the ability of Atlas to clean up the spill. a large fine was assessed. This large fine was likely due to the fact that Atlas could have pre- vented this incident by better maintaining the storage pit that held the diluted fracturing fluid. Also, the situation was exacerbated by the fact that Atlas failed to report this event to the PA DEP. The cause of this event was considered negligence on the part of Atlas Resources and should have been prevented. This event is an example of what can go wrong when an operator fails to follow regula- tions and guidelines for pit construction. In conclusion. this event could have been avoided. B.10 Chesapeake Energy Bradford County gas migration incident On May 17. 2011, the PA DEP fined Chesapeake Energy $900,000 for violations related to natural gas drilling activities in Bradford County (PA DEP 20119). This was the largest fine issued by the PA DEP to date and was issued due to the severity of the gas migration. At various times throughout 2010, the PA DEP investigated private water well complaints from residents of Bradford County's Tuscarora. Terry. Monroe, Towanda, and Wilmot townships near Chesapeake's drilling operations (PA DEP 20119). Gas was also observed to have been bubbling up from the Susquehanna River during the initial investigation (Efstathiou 20109). The PA DEP determined that due to improper well casing and cementing in shallow zones. natural gas from non-shale shallow gas formations had experienced localized migration into groundwater and contaminated 16 families? drinking water supplies (PA DEP 20119). Chesapeake has agreed to take corrective action to mitigate the impacts of this migration and restore water supplies (PA DEP 20119). Currently, the impacts have yet to be fully mitigated, and the 16 families are currently receiving alternative water supplies from Chesapeake (PA DEP 20119). B.ll Anadarko Clinton County mud spill On April 23. 2010, Anadarko Resources spilled 9,300 gallons of drilling mud at its drilling site in Clinton County (PA DEP 2010a). The spill was restricted mostly to the well pad, and the effects were completely mitigated (PA DEP 2010e). The PA DEP confirmed that there was no impact on the land or water on or around the site. The cause of the spill was operator error. but even though there were no impacts on the surrounding water or land. Anadarko was fined $58,000 for the event (PA DEP 2010e). Events like this one can be avoided, but Anadarko did make the best of a bad situation and cleaned up the spill very quickly. B.l2 Chief Oil and Gas Bradford County uncontrolled ?owback On May 27. 2010, Chief Oil and Gas experienced an uncontrolled flow-back in Bradford County. (PA DEP 2010f). This flow-back caused more than 1,000 feet of dead vegetation adjacent to the well pad and was found to be major due to this impact on land (PA DEP 2010f). Uncontrolled flow-back falls under the category of blowouts and venting using our classification system, and thus is considered to be a serious event. This event, in particular, was interesting because of the amount of vegetation that was killed. Blowouts are typically caused when there is an excess amount of pressure in the well; however, no official report was filed on the cause of this event. Given the absence of a report of what caused the uncontrolled flow-back, it is difficult to determine if the operator was at fault or not. This event also caused the soil surrounding the well to be considered residual waste. which means that the same containment procedures had to be used for this soil as diluted fracturing flurds (PA DEP 2010f). There is no report of this event being resolved. and it is likely that it will be difficult for Chief to fully restore the site. B.13 EOG Resources Clear?eld County well blowout On June 3. 2010, E06 Resources experienced a well blowout at its Punxsutawney Hunting Club well in Clearfield County, (WJACTV 2010). The blowout lasted for 16 hours, and spewed both gas and produced chemicals Onto the surrounding (WJACTV 2010). The blowout was caused when blowout equipment failed due to lack of maintenance, and the spill went unchecked clue to excess pressure in the well. An estimated 1 million gallons of fracturing fluid were spilled, and fortunately the impacts have been mitigated (WJACTV 2010). Proper maintenance of well blowout equipment could have prevented this event. and E06 Resources was fined $353,419 for the event, making it the second-largest fine issued by the PA DEP to Marcellus operators. What makes the Clearfield well blowout such a significant event was the poor response by EOG Resources. The company was not able to get control of the situation for a significant period after the initial event occurred, and an evacuation of the area was required. Moreover, the impacts of this event were also very severe, with a large amount of forest contaminated by the fluids that were released. This event was entirely preventable and could have had a far less damaging effect on the area had it been properly handled by EOG. B.14JW Operating Company Mud spill On July 30, 2010, The JW Operating Company spilled 1,500 gallons of drilling mud at its site in Cameron County (PA DEP 20109). The impacts of the spill were mitigated, and JW was fined $8,000 for the event (PA DEP 2010g). The PA DEP records do not indicate the cause of the event. Due to the large volume of drilling mud spilled, this event is major. The JW Operating Company also failed to notify the PA DEP, who was notified by a contractor working on the site. B.15 Cabot Oil 8c Gas Susquehanna County hose failure On November 3. 2010, Cabot Oil and Gas reported a spill of 135 barrels, or 5,670 gallons, of drilling mud onto plastic (PA DEP 2010h). Cabot was quick to act and was able to vacuum up all of the drilling mud before any major environmental impacts occurred. This event was indeed Cabot's fault, so an NOV was issued, but since all environmental impacts were mitigated. no fine was issued. We consider this a major event given the large volume of drilling mud that was spilled. There was no environmental impact because remedial action was taken. B. 16 Chief Oil and Gas Susquehanna County ?uid spill On January 10. 2011, Chief Oil and Gas reported a release of production fluid at its drill site in Susquehanna County (PA DEP 20113). The PA DEP reported that 150 barrels of production fluid were spilled, but there is no information on whether the environmental impacts had been mitigated (PA DEP 2011a). The PA DEP conducted an Act 2 assessment of the site to determine if the polluted land should be considered solid waste and whether it should be removed from the site (PA DEP 2011a). This event was caused by a partially open valve and was the fault of Chief Oil and Gasassess a fine for this incident. Chief did follow the proper protocol for reporting the spill. B.17 Talisman Energy Tioga County blowout On January 17. 2011, Talisman Energy experienced a minor well blowout in Tioga County, The blowout lasted for several hours and spilled a large amount of fracturing fluids on the well pad located in a state forest (Levy 2011). The blowout was caused when blowout pre- venters failed due to excess pressure. This pressure buildup could have been avoided had Talisman properly monitored the well. The impacts of this spill were mitigated, and Talisman was able to clean up the well site. Talisman was fined $51,478 for the event, and was cited for an uncontrolled discharge and hazardous venting (Levy 2011). The root cause of this event was failure of blowout prevention equipment to contain the pressures that were encountered. This was preventable, and the reason that Talisman was at fault was the fact that the pressure buildup was allowed to continue as long as it did. leading to the blowout. B.18 Talisman Energy ?jackson production ?uid release On January 26. 2011. Talisman Energy released production fluid at its drilling site in Tioga County. Approximately 500 barrels. or 21.000 gallons. of production fluid were spilled into state forestland (PA DEP 2011b). PA DEP found that Talisman was responsible for this spill. Talisman complied with the PA investigation of the site and conducted sampling of the site to determine if the land that was affected needs to be removed (PA DEP 2011b). Due to the swift action of the PA DEP and Talisman, much of the possible impacts of this spill was avoided. This event is still considered serious clue to the large amount of fluid that was spilled and its proximity to state forestland. B.19 Carrizo Monroe mud spill On January 25. 2011, Carrizo. LLC experienced a mud spill at its drilling location in Washington County near the town of Monroe (PA DEP 2011c). Approximately 1,500 gallons of drilling mud and cuttings were spilled when mixing the substance. The spill was completely confined to plastic beneath the rig, so any potential impacts were mitigated (PA DEP 2011c). The spill was unavoidable and not the fault of Carrizo because it was following proper procedures. Carrizo also reported this spill to the PA DEP in a timely manner. and as of now, there has not been a fine issued to Carrizo. B.20 Carrizo Wyoming County drilling mud spill On February 14, 2011, Carrizo, LLC received an NOV for spilling 1,500 gallons of drilling mud outside of a containment area (PA DEP 20nd). Drilling mud can consist of many different things, but it is typically made of bentonite clay, water, and other drilling additives. This mud spill was considered major given the volume of mud released. Carrizo cleaned up the spill. but did not follow proper procedures for reporting it. The PA DEP found Carrizo responsible for the spill. but no information is yet available on the penalty or if the impacts of the spill have been mitigated. B.2l Chesapeake Energy Washington County pit ?re On February 23. 2011. while testing and collecting fluid from wells on a drill site in Washington County, three condensate separators caught fire. injuring three subcontractors working on the site (PA DEP 20119). The PA DEP conducted an investigation of the incident and determined that the cause was improper handling of condensate. which is a wet gas found only in certain geological areas. Chesapeake was fined $188,000 for the event. which was the maximum penalty that could be assessed for a fire of this type (PA DEP 20119). There was minimal environmental damage. according to the PA DEP. and the fire was contained (WTAE 2011). To ensure the fire was contained. approximately 20 acres of land was cleared and will need to be restored (WTAE 2011). The men who were injured in the fire were wearing flame-resistant clothing at the time the fire erupted. and it was stated that none of their injuries were life threatening (CBS 2011). B22 Ultra Resources Flowback spill On March 15, 2011. Ultra Resources left a valve to a storage tank open and allowed 5.300 gallons of produced fluid to spill (Myers 2011). This spill was cleaned up. but did present a high threat to a nearby high-quality water source in Tioga County. Ultra also waited two hours to contact the PA DEP. and although the impacts from this spill have been mitigated, Ultra was still issued an NOV for the event. due to negligence on its part. This event was major given its impact on the environment and the large amount of fluid spilled. Ultra also could have handled the situation much better, and events like this one should be easy to avoid. 3.23 Chesapeake Energy Leroy Township blowout On March 19. 2011. Chesapeake Energy experienced a well blowout in Bradford County, The cause of this incident was equipment failure and resulted in a large amount of produced water flowing into nearby Towanda Creek (Hamill 2011). The impacts of this event are still being monitored, but no aquatic life was harmed. and the water quality of the surrounding wetlands is still normal. Blowouts are significant events because they are indicative of both environmental damage. and a threat to human health and safety. ln some instances. blowouts can be prevented, but in this case, it was beyond the operator's control. Equipment failure was the cause of the blowout, and despite careful measures taken by Chesapeake. the equipment still failed. B.24 CNX Gas Company Mud spill On July 5. 2011, CNX Gas Company spilled 2,400 gallons of drilling mud into an unnamed tributary that feeds into Ten Mile Creek (PA DEP 2011e). This spill was significant given the size of the spill and the area affected. Any time a substance is leaked into water. serious environmental impacts are likely. In this case. the extent of the damage has yet to be fully reported. but water contamination has been cited. The cause of this spill is also still unknown, but the event was cited as a violation of the Clean Streams Act. and NOVs were issued. The impacts of this event have yet to be fully mitigated. and the PA DEP will be investigating this incident further to determine the extent of any damage. B25 Ultra Resources Major site restoration failure On August 16. 2011, Ultra Resources was issued an NOV for failing to restore 21 acres of land affected by drilling activity in Tioga County (PA DEP 2011f). This was the largest amount of land not restOred after drilling activities. Site restoration is important because it allows the local ecosystem to return to its natural condition. and if it is not completed. major erosion can take place and damage more land than was originally affected by drilling. Ultra did eventually clean the site. Given the large amount of land that was disturbed. Ultra was fined $58,000 for the incident (PA DEP 2011f). This event was both the fault of Ultra and preventable. and shows how seriously the PA DEP takes site restoration. B.26 References Hamill, James (2011) ?Gas Drilling Emergency in Bradford County" Levy, Marc (2011) "Talisman Cited for Gas Well Blowout? Lustgarten, Abraham (2009) "Frack Fluid Spill in Dimock Contaminates Stream, Killing Fish" Myers. Robert (2011) "Frac Record," August 24, The Express. Department of Environmental Protection (2008) ?Marcellus Shale inspections/viola- tions 2008 Inspection comment ID 1742054" Department of Environmental Protection (2009a) ?Marcellus Shale inspections/viola- tions 2009 Inspection comment ID 1836100" Department of Environmental Protection (2009b) "Marcellus Shale inspections/viola- tions 2009 lnspection comment ID 1843344" Department of Environmental Protection (PA "Dimock Residents to Share $4.1 Million, Receive Gas Mitigation Systems Under DEP?Negotiated Settlement with Cabot Oil and Gas; Additional $500,000 to Reimburse DEP for Investigative Costs DEP to Drop Montrose Water Line Plan Given Uncertain Prospects? Department of Environmental Protection (2010b), Penalizes Range Resources $141,175 for Spill in High-Quality Waterway," Newsroom Press Release May 14 Department of Environmental Protection (2010c) Fines Talisman Energy USA for Bradford County Drilling Wastewater Spill. Polluting Nearby Water Resource," Newsroom Press Release August 2, 2010 Department of Environmental Protection (2010d) Fines Atlas Resources for Drilling Wastewater Spill in Washington County." Newsroom Press Release August 17. 2010 Department of Environmental Protection (2010e) "Marcellus Shale inspections/viola- tions 2010 inspection comment ID 1872559" Department of Environmental Protection (2010f) ?Marcellus Shale inspections/viola- tions 2010 Inspection comment ID 1887635" Department of Environmental Protection (20109) ?Marcellus Shale inspections/viola- tions 2010 Inspection comment ID 1832875? Department of Environmental Protection (2010h) ?Marcellus Shale inspections/viola- tions 2010 Inspection comment ID 1926568? Department of Environmental Protection (2011a) ?Marcellus Shale inspections/viola? tions 2011 Inspection comment ID 1944136" Department of Environmental Protection (2011b) "Marcellus Shale inspections/viola- tions 2011 Inspection comment Department of Environmental Protection (2011c) "Marcellus Shale inspections/viola- tions 2011 Inspection comment 10 1946716" Department of Environmental Protection (2011d) "Marcellus Shale inspections/viola- tions 2011 inspection comment ID 1950300" Department of Environmental Protection (2011e) ?Marcellus Shale inspections/viola- tions 2011 Inspection comment ID 1989916" Department of Environmental Protection (2011f) "Marcellus Shale inspections/viola- tions 2011 Inspection comment ID 1974213" Department of Environment Protection (20119), Fines Chesapeake Energy More Than $1 Million; Penalties Address Violations in Bradford. Washington Counties" Swift, Robert (2011) "Driller Fined for Spill" WJAC TV (2010) "Gas Well Blowout Under Control in Clearfield County? count/nD4kX/ Jim Efstathiou (2010) "Chesapeake Gas Wells May Cause Susquehanna?s Bubbles, State Says," Bloomberg Says_Bioomberg_090710.pdf WTAE Pittsburg (2011) "Explosion, Fire At Marcellus Shale Gas Well Site Under Investigation? CBS Pittsburg (2011) "Authorities Identify Workers Injured in Gas Well Fire? DCEZQ Z>mnmEICm 0>m 03::[29 >20 4.30.2.2 nOZm=u_zm nmzamm now mmeO< >20 UCWCO MOIOOF m2m??< 2_nIO_u>m 002m_0_2m nm2._.mn .uOm m2m?0< mOOZOzznm >20 mwm? 324:2 mI>_um DmmOCmOmm >20 masz?gaaim?s O_n 2m<< wCIu>rO .. . Hydraulic Fracturing (HF) WASHINGTON, DC. MAY 14, 2012 Thank you to our_ Endorsmg Organizations. Adk American Gas Association an 9 a? A a Production I I Natural Gas AEIFance (ounn The INGAA Foundation, Inc. .4 '2 INSTITUTE FOR 218T CENTURY ENERGY us. CHAMBER or COMMERCE . INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA Manufacturers Natural Gas Supply Association 100 Years Standing Up for American Enterprise U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE . 1?0, ,234- '2 - Hl/draulic i- Recommended Practices 8:15 am. - 9:00 am. PROGRAM 9:00 am. - 9:20 am. 9:20 am. - 9:25 am. 9:25 am. - 9:45 am. 9:45 a.m. - 10:15 am. 10:15 am. - 10:30 am. 10:30 a.m. - 10:45 am. 10:45 am. - 11:30 am. 11:30 am. - 11:45 am. 12:00 pm. - 1:00 pm. 1:00 pm. Continental Breakfast Welcoming Remarks, Marty Durbin, Hydraulic Fracturing Video Standards Process Overview, David Miller; HF Standards and Guidance Documents, Glen Benge, Benge Consulting Questions Break HF Standards and Guidance Documents (Continued), Glen Benge, Benge Consulting Questions Lunch Speaker Introduction, Jack Gerard, Keynote Speaker, Heather Zichal Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change Adjourn 'it I in. ?1 Angry.? - Mme, . 'w-?nJZ-Ii -u Industry. working through organizations like the American Petroleum institute has a long history of developing consensus based ?best practices." These best practices are developed by industry experts in a variety of areas of technology and operations and go through a rigorous review process before being adopted. They are then evaluated regularly to incorporate evolving technology and operational practices. Building on existing API standards and practices pertaining to oil and gas extraction, we have developed a set of 5 documents which specifically address the risk management issues accompanying unconventional well construction and management. These robust practices help to protect the public by providing a blueprint for strong, carefully tended wells. They were created to meetor exceed federal requirements while remaining flexible enough to accommodate the variations in state regulatory frameworks that often occur due to fundamental differences in regional geology and other factors. Copies of the documents are available at I . AM ERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE copyright :Jn11 American Petroleum Institute, 4? trutr'lvml. 9011 118 I 10.21.11 Overview of Industry Guidance/ Best Practices on Hydraulic Fracturing (HF) HF1 - Hydraulic Fracturing Operations - Well Construction and integrity Guidelines, .?ist Edition, October 2009, (API) - Highlights industry practices for well construction and integrity for wells that will be hydraulically fractured. - The guidance identifies actions to protect shallow groundwater aquifers, while also enabling economically viable development of oil and natural gas resources. HF2 - Water Management Associated with Hydraulic Fracturing, 1st Edition, June 2010, (API) - identifies best practices used to minimize environmental and societal impacts associated with the acquisition, use, management, treatment, and disposal of water and other fluids associated with the process of hydraulic fracturing. - Focuses primarily on issues associated with hydraulic fracturing pursued in deep shale gas development, but also describes the important distinctions related to hydraulic fracturing in other applications. HF3 - Practices for Mitigating Surface impacts Associated with Hydraulic Fracturing, 1st Edition, February 2011, (API) - identifies the best practices for minimizing surface environmental impacts associated with hydraulic fracturing operations. - Focused on protecting surface water, soils, wildlife, other surface ecosystems, and nearby communities. - includes APl's policy on chemical disclosure: - API supports transparency regarding the disclosure of the chemical ingredients; - States are the proper authority to determine reporting requirements and formatting of reporting and public disclosure; - Proprietary information should be protected; and - Hydraulic fracturing is effectively regulated by numerous federal, state and local requirements. Hydraulic fracturing should not be placed exclusively under the purview of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) or any other federal statute. 65 Part 2 - isolating Potential Flow Zones During Well Construction, 2nd Edition, December 2010, (API) - Helps ensure the well is properly designed and constructed to contain the hydrocarbons through the well bore and isolate them from ground water aquifers. This is accomplished though the use of casing. cement, and mechanical barriers. - included is information on industry cementing practices. A welidesigned cement job optimizes cement placement through considerations such as laboratory- tested slurry design, honoring pore pressure/fracture gradient window, use of spacers/preflushes, proper density and rheological hierarchy, fluid compatibility and adequate centralization. RP 51R - Environmental Protection for Onshore Oil and Gas Production Operations and Leases, Edition, July 2009, (API) - Provides environmentally sound practices for domestic onshore oil and gas production operations, including fracturing. Applies to all production facilities, including produced water handling facilities. Operational coverage begins with the design and construction of access roads and well locations, and includes reclamation, abandonment, and restoration operations. - Annex A provides guidance for a company to consider as a ?Good Neighbor." Selected Industry Guide nce/ Best Practices on Hydraulic Fracturing(HF) Copies of the documents are available at 0 AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE Copyright 2011 - American Petroleum Institute, all rights reserved. 2011-118 10.21.11 APl's documents specific to hydraulic fracturing build on years of industry?s best practice work by incorporating and citing the following additional standards, recommended practices and technical reports: API RP 4G, Recommended Practice for Use and Procedures for inspection, Maintenance, and Repair of Drilling Well Service Structures API RP 5A3 13678, Recommended Practice on Thread Compounds for Casing Tubing, and Line Pipe RP 5A5 15463, Field inspection of New Casing, Tubing, and Plain-end Pipe RP 581, Gauging and inspection of Casing, Tubing, and Line Pipe Threads RP 501, Recommended Practice for Case and Use of Casing and Tubing API RP 505 ISO 13679, Recommended Practice on Procedures for Testing Casing and Tubing Connections RP 506, Welding Connections to Pipe RP 7011F, Recommended Practice for installation, Maintenance, and Operation of internal-Combustion Engines RP 11ER, Recommended Practice for Guarding of Pumping Units API RP 1082 ISO 10426-2, Recommended Practice for Testing Well Cements API RP 1083 10426-3. Recommended Practice on Testing of Deepwater Well Cement Formulations API RP 1084 104264, Recommended Practice on Preparation and Testing of Foams and Cement Siurries atAtmospherlc Pressure RP 1085 ISO 10426-5, Recommended Practice on Determination of Shrinkage and Expansion of Well Cement Formulations at Atmospheric Pressure API RP 1086 10426-6, Recommended Practice on Determining the Static Gel Strength of Cement Formulations API RP 1002 10427-2, Recommended Practice for Centralizer Placement and Stop Collar Testing RP 10F 1042 7-3, Recommended Practice for Performance Testing of Float Equipment RP 12N, Recommended Practice for the Operation, Maintenance, and Testing of Flame Arresters RP 12R1, Recommended Practice for Setting, Maintenance, inspection, Operation, and Repair of Tanks in Production Service API RP 1381 ISO 10414-1, Recommended Practice for Field Testing Water- Based Drilling Fiuids RP 1382 10414-2. Recommended Practice for Field Testing Oil-based Drilling Fluids RP 130, Recommended Practice on Drilling Fluid Processing Systems Evaluation Recommended Practice on the Rheology and Hydraulics of Oil-well Drilling Fiuids RP 13l 10416, Recommended Practice for Laboratory Testing Drilling Fluids API RP 13J 13503-3, Testing of Heavy Brines RP 13M 13503-1, Recommended Practice for the Measurement of Viscous Properties of Completion Fiuids RP 13M4 13503-4, Recommended Practice for Measuring Simulation and Gravel-pack Fluid Leakoff Under Static API RP 19B, Evaluation of Well Perforators RP 190 ISO 13503-2, Recommended Practice for Measurement of Properties of Proppants Used in Hydraulic Fracturing and Gravel-packing Operations API RP 190 13503-5, Recommended Practice for Measuring the Long-term Conductivity of Proppants RP 49, Recommended Practice for Drilling and Well Servicing Operations involving Hydrogen Sul?de RP 53, Recommended Practices for Blowout Prevention Equipment Systems for Drilling Operations API RP 54, Occupational Safety for Oil and Gas Well Drilling and Servicing Operations RP 55, Recommended Practices for Oil and Gas Producing and Gas Processing Operations involving Hydrogen Sul?de API RP 65, Cementing Shallow Water Flow Zones in Deep Water Wells API RP 67, Recommended Practice for Oilfield Explosives Study API RP 74, Occupational Safety for Oil and Gas Well Drilling and Servicing Operations API RP 75L, Guidance Document for the Development of a Safety and Environmental for Onshore Oil and Natural Gas Production Operation and Associated Activities - API RP 76, Contractor Safety Management for Oil and Gas Drilling and Production Operations sethed IndUStry . - API RP 90, Annular Casing Pressure Management for Offshore Wells nce/ Best Practices - API RP 2350, Overfiil Protection for Storage Tanks in Petroleum Facilities - . - API Spec 4F, Drilling and Well Servicing Structures on HydraUhC (HF) - Spec 5B, Speci?cation for Threading, Gauging, and Thread inspection of Casing, Tubing, and Line Pipe Threads Copies of the documents are API Spec 5CT ISO 11950, Specification for Casing and Tubing available at - API Spec 5A, Speci?cation for Wellhead and Christmas Tree Equipment - API Spec 73110, Speci?cation for internal Combustion Reciprocating Engines for Oil-Field Service - API Spec 10A 104261, Speci?cation for Cements and Materials for Well Cementing - API Spec loD 10427-1, Speci?cation for Bow Spring Casing Centralizers - Spec 10D2 10427-2, Speci?cation for Centralizer Placement and Stop Collar Tracing - API Spec 11N. Speci?cation for Lease Automatic Custody Transfer (LACD Equipment API Spec 12B, Speci?cation for Bolted Tanks for Storage of Production Liquids - Spec 12D, Speci?cation for Field Welded Tanks for Storage of Production Liquids - API Spec 12F, Speci?cation for Shop Welded Tanks for Storage of Production Liquids Spec 12J, Speci?cation for Oil and Gas Separators API Spec 12K, Speci?cation for indirect Type Oilfield Heaters Spec 12L, Speci?cation for Vertical and Horizontal Emulsion Treaters Spec 12P, Speci?cation for Fiberglass Reinforced Plastic Tanks Spec 13A, Speci?cation for Drilling Fluid Materials API TR 503, Technical Report on Equations and Calculations for Casing, Tubing, and Line Pipe Used as Casing or Tubing; and Performance Properties Tables for Casing and Tubing API TR 10TR1, Cement Sheath Evaluation API TR 10TR2, Shrinkage and Expansion in Oilweil Cements API TR 10TR3, Temperatures for API Cement Operating Thickening Time Tests API TR 10TR4, Technical Report on Considerations Regarding Selection of Centralizers for Primary Cementing Operations - API TR 10TR5, Technical Report on Methods for Testing of Solid and Rigid Centralizers - API Guidelines for Commercial Exploration and Production Waste Management Facilities - API Environmental Guidance Document E5, Waste Management in Exploration and Production Operations - API Bulletin E2, Bulletin on Management of Naturally Occurring Radioactive Waste Materials (NORM) in Oil and Gas Production - Bulletin E3, Environmental Guidance Document: Well Abandonment and inactive Well Practices for US. Exploration and Production Operations - Bulletin 11K, Data Sheet for Design of Air Exchange Coolers - API Bulletin 75L, Guidance Document for the Development of a Safety and Environmental Management System for Onshore Oil and Natural Gas Production Operations and Associated Activities - API Publication 4663, Remediation of Salt-Affected Soils at Oil and Gas Production in Facilities 0 AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE Copyright 2011 - American Petroleum Institute. all rights reserved. 2011-118 10.21.11 Evaluation of Geology and Water Well Data Associated with the EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Retrospective Case Study Bradford County, Pennsylvania Prepared for: Chesapeake Energy P.O. Box 18496 Oklahoma City, OK 73118 Prepared by: 1400 Weston Way P.O. Box 2653 West Chester, PA 19380 April 13, 2012 Evaluation of Geology and Water Well Data Associated with the EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Retrospective Case Study Bradford County, Pennsylvania 4/13/2012 Deborah M. Watkins, P.E. WESTON – Program/Project Manager Date 4/13/2012 Thomas S. Cornuet, P.G. WESTON- Professional Geologist PA State Registration No. PG003189G Date PROFESSIONAL SEAL CHK.REPORT_041312.DOCX i 4/13/2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY………………………………………………………………….ES-1 1. INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................... 1-1 2. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND GEOLOGY, HYDROGEOLOGY, HYDROGEOCHEMICAL SYSTEM AND WATER QUALITY FOR BRADFORD COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ............................................................... 2-1 2.1 GEOLOGY .......................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 HYDROGEOLOGY ............................................................................................ 2-1 2.3 HYDROGEOCHEMICAL SYSTEM ................................................................. 2-2 2.4 WATER QUALITY............................................................................................. 2-3 2.5 ARSENIC AND COLIFORM ............................................................................. 2-3 2.6 REFERENCES .................................................................................................... 2-4 3. GROUNDWATER DATABASES................................................................................ 3-1 3.1 NATIONAL WATER INFORMATION SYSTEM (NWIS) .............................. 3-1 3.2 NATIONAL URANIUM RESOURCE EVALUATION (NURE) ..................... 3-1 3.3 USGS WATER RESOURCES REPORT 68 (WILLIAMS 1998) ...................... 3-2 3.4 CHESAPEAKE ENERGY BASELINE DATA .................................................. 3-3 3.5 EVALUATION OF DATABASES ..................................................................... 3-3 3.6 GEOLOGIC CLASSIFICATION........................................................................ 3-4 4. EVALUATION OF EPA STUDY WELL WATER QUALITY ............................... 4-1 4.1 TIME PLOTS AND COMPARISON WITH HISTORIC STATISTICS ........... 4-2 4.2 COMPARISON OF EPA STUDY WELL DATA WITH SCREENING CRITERIA ........................................................................................................... 4-3 5. PRESENTATION OF DUROV AND PIPER DIAGRAMS ...................................... 5-1 5.1 PURPOSE OF DUROV AND PIPER DIAGRAMS ........................................... 5-1 5.2 GEOCHEMICAL SIGNATURES IN BRADFORD COUNTY ......................... 5-2 5.3 EPA STUDY WELLS ......................................................................................... 5-3 6. SUMMARY OF EPA STUDY WELL EVALUATION ............................................. 6-1 6.1 PROPERTY OWNER A (300-FT WELL) .......................................................... 6-4 6.2 PROPERTY OWNER B (SPRING) .................................................................... 6-9 6.3 PROPERTY OWNER C (260-FT WELL) ........................................................ 6-11 6.4 PROPERTY OWNER D (250-FT WELL) ........................................................ 6-14 6.5 PROPERTY OWNER E (115-FT WELL) ........................................................ 6-15 6.6 PROPERTY OWNER E (185-FT WELL) ........................................................ 6-17 6.7 PROPERTY OWNER F (200-FT WELL) ........................................................ 6-19 CHK.REPORT_041312.DOCX ii 4/13/2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT.) Section 6.8 6.9 6.10 6.11 6.12 6.13 6.14 6.15 7. Page PROPERTY OWNER G (WELL DEPTH UNKNOWN) ................................. 6-22 PROPERTY OWNER H (340-FT WELL) ........................................................ 6-25 PROPERTY OWNER I (142-FT WELL) ......................................................... 6-29 PROPERTY OWNER I (203-FT WELL) ......................................................... 6-31 PROPERTY OWNER J (WELL DEPTH UNKNOWN) .................................. 6-34 PROPERTY OWNER K (175-FT WELL) ........................................................ 6-36 PROPERTY OWNER L (225-FT WELL) ........................................................ 6-38 PROPERTY OWNER M (440-FT WELL) ....................................................... 6-39 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................ 7-1 LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A EPA STUDY WELL DATA APPENDIX B FIGURES APPENDIX C SUMMARY STATISTICS APPENDIX D TIME PLOTS APPENDIX E SCREENING CRITERIA APPENDIX F DUROV AND PIPER DIAGRAMS APPENDIX G ANALYTE LISTS LIST OF TABLES Table 3-1 Geologic Formations of EPA Study Wells ................................................................. 3-6 Table 6-1 Summary Statistics for Key Parameters – Chesapeake Energy Baseline Database ... 6-2 Table 7-1 Summary of Conclusions for EPA Study Wells......................................................... 7-2 CHK.REPORT_041312.DOCX iii 4/13/2012 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The EPA is conducting a retrospective study regarding the relationship, if any, between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water resources as described in EPA’s “Plan to Study the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources” dated November 2011 (EPA Study). The scope of this report includes the evaluation of analytical data collected by Chesapeake Energy contractors and analyzed by commercial laboratories from 14 water wells and 1 spring (EPA Study Wells) that were included in EPA’s October and November 2011 Bradford County, Pennsylvania sampling events and were located within the vicinity of Chesapeake Energy’s operating area. These 14 water wells and 1 spring are not inclusive of all EPA sample locations (37 total) but were limited to the sample locations at which Chesapeake Energy was permitted to collect split samples with the EPA in Bradford County. Chesapeake Energy requested that an evaluation be completed of the sample results for the Chesapeake Energy contractor-sampled locations by Weston Solutions, Inc. (WESTON®). EPA Study Well water quality data provided by Chesapeake Energy were assessed to meet the following objectives:  To determine whether any of the parameters of interest had experienced significant changes following Chesapeake Energy baseline sampling;  To compare EPA Study Well water quality with historic water-quality data obtained prior to the commencement of Marcellus Shale activities in Bradford County, PA (approximately 2007);  To identify any EPA Study Well exceedances of various screening criteria derived from EPA MCLs and SMCLs, PADEP Act 2 Land Recycling Program, and EPA Regional Screening Levels and contrast these EPA Study Well exceedances with historic water well exceedances; and  To provide general observations regarding the EPA Study Well water-quality data contrasted with historic water quality in Bradford County, and Chesapeake Energy’s baseline data for nearby water wells. Time series plots for each of the wells have been prepared for the following water-quality parameters: total barium, chloride, total iron, total manganese, dissolved methane, sodium, and TDS. Chloride, total barium, sodium, TDS, and methane were chosen as key indicator parameters that could indicate the presence of constituents from natural gas drilling or CHK.REPORT_041312.DOCX ES-1 4/13/2012 production operations. Total iron and total manganese were selected because they are commonly found in northeastern Pennsylvania groundwater at naturally-occurring levels that commonly exceed their respective water-quality screening criteria (e.g. EPA SMCL or PADEP Act 2). Two publically available USGS groundwater data sets - NWIS and NURE - were used to conduct a statistical analysis of historical pre-natural gas development groundwater quality in Bradford County, Pennsylvania between 1935 and 2007. The two groundwater data sets are both maintained by the USGS. In addition, data from a USGS and PGS report (William et al. 1998) and Chesapeake Energy’s Baseline Sampling Program for samples located in the vicinity of the EPA Study Wells under consideration were used to further develop the descriptive statistical summaries for the EPA Study Well area. The descriptive statistical summaries for these data sets were compared to screening criteria developed from the PADEP Act 2 Land Recycling Program, EPA MCLs and SMCLs, and EPA Regional Screening Levels for Tap Water (Chronic). Many of the parameters in these historical or background data sets (such as total manganese, total arsenic, chloride, total lead, total lithium, TDS, total aluminum, and total iron) exceed the screening criteria. The EPA Study Well analytical results were summarized and compared to these same screening criteria. As would be expected based on historic water quality in the region, these data demonstrate that many of the water samples collected from the EPA Study Wells exceed the screening criteria for both baseline and subsequent analyses for these same parameters. Durov and Piper diagrams were generated for each of the EPA Study Wells and the two primary aquifer formations (Catskill and Lock Haven) to graphically illustrate the chemical distribution of major cations and anions for baseline and subsequent sampling timeframes and to verify the formations that these wells were completed within. Formation-specific mean and median values of constituent concentrations were calculated from the historic water well quality databases (e.g., NURE, NWIS, Williams et al.) and were plotted on the Catskill and Lock Haven diagrams for comparison purposes. The plots show that the EPA Study Well water quality is relatively consistent over time, and that there is no significant deviation in water quality from baseline to post-drilling sampling. CHK.REPORT_041312.DOCX ES-2 4/13/2012 Based upon review of the analytical data for each of 14 water wells and one spring presented in this report, and subsequent comparison of these results with regional historical and baseline water-quality databases, this study concludes that these fifteen water sources do not appear to be impacted by natural gas drilling or production activities including hydraulic stimulation. With the few exceptions noted within the report, there are no significant increases in inorganic parameters when comparing current analyses with baseline conditions or from historical databases. None of the 14 wells or one spring show significant increases in dissolved methane when comparing current analyses with baseline conditions or area-wide baseline databases. Note that the Property Owner A, Property Owner I (142-feet), and Property Owner F wells showed levels of methane that could not be compared to baseline methane concentrations due to the absence of baseline samples. There were also a few detections of organic compounds in some of the wells, but these are not attributable to natural gas drilling, stimulation, or production activities including hydraulic stimulation. The analyses for each of the fifteen water sources demonstrated that most of the individual parameters fell within the ranges and were similar to the mean concentrations for the NURE, NWIS, Williams 1998, and Chesapeake Energy baseline analytical databases for selected areas in Bradford County (and selected areas in western Susquehanna County for the Chesapeake Energy baseline database). CHK.REPORT_041312.DOCX ES-3 4/13/2012 1. INTRODUCTION The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is conducting a retrospective study regarding the relationship, if any, between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water resources as described in EPA’s “Plan to Study the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources” dated November 2011 (EPA Study). The scope of this report includes the evaluation of data related to water samples collected by Chesapeake Energy contractors, and analysis of water samples by commercial laboratories from 14 water wells and one spring (EPA Study Wells) that were included in EPA’s October and November 2011 Bradford County, Pennsylvania (PA) sampling events and were located within the vicinity of Chesapeake Energy’s operating area. These 14 water wells and one spring are not inclusive of all EPA sample locations (37 total) but are limited to the sample locations at which Chesapeake Energy was permitted to collect split samples with the EPA in Bradford County, PA. The sample locations at which the property owner would not allow Chesapeake Energy to collect split samples, those EPA deemed confidential, or those that were outside Chesapeake Energy’s operating area are not discussed in this report, but their locations are provided on prepared maps within this report. Chesapeake Energy requested that an evaluation be completed of the sample results by Weston Solutions, Inc. (WESTON®) for the Chesapeake Energy contractor-sampled locations. All laboratory analyses were performed by Eurofins Lancaster Laboratories, Lancaster, Pennsylvania and TestAmerica Laboratory, Nashville, Tennessee. Both laboratories maintain National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (NELAP) accreditation. Chesapeake Energy provided the analytical data for each of the EPA Study Wells; these data are included in the data tables contained in Appendix A. The locations of the 14 water wells and one spring being evaluated in this report have been superimposed on maps of geologic formations, aerial imagery, shaded relief, and topography (Appendix B, Figures B-1 through B-4). This report contains the results of WESTON’s evaluation, and includes discussions of the following: CHK.REPORT_041312.DOCX 1-1 4/13/2012  The geological characteristics and impact of rural activities on groundwater quality in Bradford County (Section 2);  Evaluation of historic groundwater quality in Bradford County considering geological formations and conditions (Section 3) and exceedances of various screening criteria derived from EPA Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) and Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels (SMCLs), Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) Act 2 Land Recycling Program, and EPA Regional Screening Levels;  Assessment of the EPA Study Well water-quality data (Section 4) to establish: ­ Comparison of EPA Study Well water quality with historic water-quality data prior to the commencement of Marcellus Shale activities (approximately 2007) in Bradford County, PA; ­ Any significant changes in water quality following baseline sampling; ­ Exceedances of various screening criteria derived from EPA MCLs and SMCLs, PADEP Act 2 Land Recycling Program, and EPA Regional Screening Levels; and ­ General observations regarding the EPA Study Well water-quality data and historic groundwater quality in Bradford County, PA.  Preparation of Piper tri-linear and Durov diagrams to compare EPA Study Well general water quality with historical data collected from Bradford County to verify aquifers of completion and to determine any significant changes between sampling events (Section 5);  Summary of observations (Section 6); and  Conclusions (Section 7). CHK.REPORT_041312.DOCX 1-2 4/13/2012 2. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND GEOLOGY, HYDROGEOLOGY, HYDROGEOCHEMICAL SYSTEM AND WATER QUALITY FOR BRADFORD COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 2.1 GEOLOGY The data and information provided in this summary were developed from a review of the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and Pennsylvania Geological Survey (PGS) Water Resource Report 68, “Hydrogeology and Groundwater Quality of the Glaciated Valleys of Bradford, Tioga and Potter Counties, Pennsylvania” (Williams, 1998) and other significant documents as referenced in the following sections. The study area (Bradford County) is shown on Figure B-1 of Appendix B, which includes the locations of the 14 water wells and one spring of interest and the underlying surficial or bedrock geology. Bradford County lies within the Susquehanna River drainage basin. The vast majority of the water wells shown on Figure B-1 are completed in the Catskill Formation, Lock Haven Formation, and/or Glacial Stratified-Drift aquifer systems. The Catskill and Lock Haven Formations commonly consist of interbedded shale, siltstone, and sandstone of Devonian-Pennsylvanian-age, while the Stratified-Drift aquifer systems are glacial or post-glacial in origin and consist of unconsolidated sand and gravel of Pleistocene age that form extensive unconfined or confined aquifers in the valleys. The outwash is underlain in most major valleys by silt, clay and very fine sand of lacustrine origin that comprise extensive confining units. Bedrock and till are the basal confining units of the Stratified-Drift aquifer systems. The Lock Haven Formation underlies most of the major valleys. The Catskill Formation underlies some of the major valleys in the southern and eastern parts of the study area and much of the uplands. In general, the Catskill Formation is less calcareous and coarser grained than the Lock Haven Formation. 2.2 HYDROGEOLOGY According to Williams, 1998, the most productive sources of groundwater in Bradford County are the Stratified-Drift aquifers. Specific capacity data from 95 USGS-studied wells indicate that most wells that are completed in the Stratified-Drift aquifers have specific capacities an order of magnitude greater than those completed in till and bedrock. In general, the Stratified-Drift CHK.REPORT_041312.DOCX 2-1 4/13/2012 aquifers have the highest domestic well yields and bedrock aquifers (Catskill and Lock Haven Formations) have the lowest. Yields of most domestic wells completed in till are less than those completed in Stratified-Drift aquifers, but greater than those completed in bedrock. Most domestic well yields are greater in the Catskill Formation than in the Lock Haven Formation. The coarser grained Catskill Formation typically has larger, deeper, and more open natural fractures than the Lock Haven Formation. 2.3 HYDROGEOCHEMICAL SYSTEM There are two major hydrogeochemical systems within the glaciated valleys of the study area. The unrestricted groundwater flow zone is of the calcium bicarbonate type water, and is present within the unconfined and confined Stratified-Drift aquifers, and in the till and shallow bedrock systems. The restricted groundwater flow zone is of the sodium chloride type water, and is found in the bedrock, and occasionally in the till and confined Stratified-Drift aquifers. The restricted flow zone water wells identified in the Williams 1998 study are typically in major stream and river valleys. The restricted flow zone water wells containing naturally occurring sodium chloride type water, as identified in the Williams 1998 report for Bradford County, and are shown on Figure B-1 in Appendix B. In the restricted flow zones, the sulfate concentrations are low, allowing for naturally elevated concentrations of dissolved barium, strontium, and radium. It is hypothesized that anaerobic bacteria convert the sulfate to hydrogen sulfide and methane, which explains the observation of the presence of hydrogen sulfide and methane in water wells completed within the restricted flow zones (Williams 1998). The Williams 1998 study identified 44 water wells that were completed at relatively shallow depths (37 to 720 feet [ft] below ground surface [bgs]; median depth of 200 ft bgs) that contained naturally-occurring sodium chloride type groundwater. Of these 44 water wells, 38 were completed in bedrock formations (23 wells in the Lock Haven Formation and 15 wells in the Catskill Formation), and 6 wells were completed in the confined portions of the glacial stratified drift or till. CHK.REPORT_041312.DOCX 2-2 4/13/2012 2.4 WATER QUALITY Historic water samples from water wells that penetrate zones having restricted flow contain median concentrations for total dissolved solids (TDS), chloride, dissolved barium, and dissolved strontium, which are 840 milligrams per liter (mg/L), 350 mg/L, 2.1 mg/L, and 1.35 mg/L, respectively (Williams, 1998). Other than strontium, all of these historical median values exceed health-based screening criteria. The TDS and chloride exceed the EPA SMCLs of 500 mg/L and 250 mg/L, respectfully. Barium exceeds the PADEP Act 2 criterion of 2 mg/L for residential use aquifers, and the EPA MCL of 2.0 mg/L. About 50 percent of the wells included in the Williams 1998 report contain water having iron and manganese concentrations that exceed the EPA SCMLs of 0.3 mg/L and 0.05 mg/L, respectively (Williams, 1998). Only water in the unconfined Stratified-Drift aquifers and the Catskill Formation has median concentrations lower than these limits for iron and manganese. Wells completed in till typically yield water having the highest concentrations of both iron and manganese. Williams 1998 also states that “Wells that penetrate zones containing highly saline groundwater commonly produce hydrogen-sulfide and/or methane gas.” 2.5 ARSENIC AND COLIFORM A study of over 700 private water wells in Pennsylvania was conducted in 2006 and 2007 by The Center for Rural Pennsylvania titled “Drinking Water Quality in Rural Pennsylvania and the Effect of Management Practices” (Swistock 2009). Some of the key findings from this report as related to arsenic and coliform concentrations in the tested wells are summarized below.  Total coliform was present in 33% of the wells.  Total coliform concentrations correlated with elevated soil moisture associated with wetter periods.  E. coli was present in 14% of the wells.  E. coli was attributed to animal sources impacting surface water that in time reaches groundwater.  11% of the wells contained arsenic concentrations at or greater than 6 micrograms per liter (µg/L).  2% of wells exceeded an arsenic concentration of 10 µg/L. CHK.REPORT_041312.DOCX 2-3 4/13/2012  Wells with elevated arsenic concentrations occurred mostly in northern Pennsylvania.  41% of wells failed at least one safe drinking-water standard. The presence of arsenic in drinking-water supplies was described in the USGS publication, “A Retrospective Analysis on the Occurrence of Arsenic in Ground-Water Resources of the United States and Limitations in Drinking-Water-Supply Characterizations” (Focazio, 2000). This report presents the findings of the National Arsenic Occurrence Survey (NAOS; Frey and Edwards, 1997) that was completed in 1995, incorporating the results of stratified random sampling of 275 public water supplies. The report indicates that approximately 15% of the MidAtlantic region samples exceeded arsenic levels of 5 µg/L. “Reconnaissance of Arsenic Concentrations in Ground Water from Bedrock and Unconsolidated Aquifers in Eight Northern-Tier Counties of Pennsylvania” (Low, 2007) discusses a study that included the evaluation of 22 wells and one spring in Bradford County for the presence of arsenic. Total arsenic was detected above the quantitation limit of 0.004 mg/L in three of the wells at concentrations of 0.0053 mg/L, 0.0394 mg/L, and 0.117 mg/L. The latter two of these wells are completed within the Lock Haven Formation. For the eight studied counties in northeastern Pennsylvania, 20% of the wells within the Lock Haven Formation had detectable levels of arsenic and 7% of the wells within the Catskill Formation had detectable levels of arsenic. Where arsenic was detected in the Lock Haven Formation water wells, total arsenic concentrations ranged from 4.5 to 117 µg/L; the median was 14.2 µg/L (Low, 2006). Low, 2007 noted that total arsenic was found with statistically greater frequency if the water well was located in a valley, as compared to a slope or hilltop. Low, 2007 also stated that arsenic was detected with greater frequency in the water of wells completed in the Lock Haven Formation than in the water of wells completed in other formations in these 8 northeast Pennsylvania Counties, including Bradford County. Low, 2007 points out that the Lock Haven Formation is known for its brackish water or saline water and the presence of hydrogen sulfide, and that these waters represent areas where groundwater flow is controlled in part by low-permeability material where sodium and chloride are the dominant anions. 2.6 REFERENCES The following references were reviewed in the preparation of this document: CHK.REPORT_041312.DOCX 2-4 4/13/2012  Boyer, EW, Swistock, BR, Clark, J, Madden, M and DE Rizzo, 2011. The Impact of Marcellus Gas Drilling on Rural Drinking Water Supplies, Center for Rural Pennsylvania, March 2012.  Focazio, MJ, Welch, AH, Watkins, SA, Helsel, DR and MA Horn, 2000. A Retrospective Analysis on the Occurrence of Arsenic in Ground-Water Resources of the United States and Limitation in Drinking-Water-Supply Characterizations, Water Resources Investigations Report 99-4270, USGS.  Low, DJ. and DG Galeone, 2007. Reconnaissance of Arsenic Concentrations in Ground Water from Bedrock and Unconsolidated Aquifers in Eight Northern-Tier Counties of Pennsylvania, Open-File Report 2006-1376, USGS.  Swistock, BR, Clemens, S and WE Sharpe, 2009. Drinking Water Quality in Rural Pennsylvania and the Effect of Management Practices, Center for Rural Pennsylvania, January 2009.  Williams, JE, Taylor, LE and DJ Low, 1998. Hydrogeology and Groundwater Quality of the Glaciated Valleys of Bradford, Tioga, and Potter Counties, Pennsylvania, PA Geological Survey and USGS, Water Resources Report 68.  Williams, JH, 2010. Evaluation of Well Logs for Determining the Presence of Freshwater, Saltwater and Gas above the Marcellus Shale in Chemung, Tioga, and Broome Counties, New York, USGS, Scientific Investigations Report 2010-5224. CHK.REPORT_041312.DOCX 2-5 4/13/2012 3. GROUNDWATER DATABASES Two publically available groundwater databases were used to conduct the historical (pre-2007) statistical analysis of groundwater quality in the study area (Bradford County). The two groundwater databases are both maintained by the USGS and are the National Water Information System (NWIS) and National Uranium Resource Evaluation (NURE). In addition, data published in the USGS and PGS Water Resources Report 68 titled, “Hydrogeology and Groundwater Quality of the Glaciated Valleys of Bradford, Tioga, and Potter Counties, Pennsylvania” (Williams 1998) were also used to conduct a historical descriptive statistical analysis. The locations of the water wells evaluated in these databases are shown on the figures in Appendix B. Additionally, descriptive statistical analyses gathered from Chesapeake Energy’s Baseline Sampling Program were reviewed for samples located in the immediate vicinity of the wells under consideration. Descriptive statistical summaries for each of the four data sets are included in Appendix C. 3.1 NATIONAL WATER INFORMATION SYSTEM (NWIS) As part of the USGS’s program of disseminating water data to the public, the Water Resources Division (WRD) maintains a distributed network of computers and file servers for the storage and retrieval of water data collected through its activities at approximately 1.4 million sites. This system is called the NWIS. The NWIS trace metals and general water-quality parameters include alkalinity, ammonia, arsenic, barium, cadmium, calcium, chloride, chromium, iron, lead, lithium, magnesium, mercury, nitrate, nitrate/nitrite, potassium, silver, sodium, strontium, sulfate, and TDS. A total of 169 water wells were sampled in Bradford County, Pennsylvania between 1935 and 2006 in the Catskill and Lock Haven Formations. These data are available on line from the USGS. These well locations are plotted on the figures in Appendix B; data and descriptive statistics have been summarized in tabular form by geologic formation in Appendix C. 3.2 NATIONAL URANIUM RESOURCE EVALUATION (NURE) The NURE program, as a part of a program to identify domestic uranium resources, conducted analyses of groundwater samples from water wells for trace metals and general water-quality CHK.REPORT_041312.DOCX 3-1 4/13/2012 parameters, including alkalinity, bromide, chloride, magnesium, manganese, pH, and sodium. Out of the 164 water wells in this database for Bradford County, 19 or 11.6 percent of the water wells were reported to have hydrogen sulfide odors present at the time of sampling in October, 1977. As noted by Williams (1998) hydrogen sulfide is often associated with the restricted flow zones that contain sodium chloride type groundwater and methane. A total of 160 of the 164 water well samples collected in Bradford County, Pennsylvania during October 1977 were from the Catskill and Lock Haven Formations. These well locations are plotted on the figures in Appendix B; summary statistics for these data have been summarized in tabular form by geologic formation in Appendix C. 3.3 USGS WATER RESOURCES REPORT 68 (WILLIAMS 1998) As a part of a study of the hydrogeology and groundwater quality of the glaciated valleys of Bradford, Tioga, and Potter Counties, Pennsylvania, USGS, in cooperation with the PGS, evaluated historical groundwater quality collected from 1935 to 1986. These published data, referred to as the Williams 1998 report data, were used to prepare a database, allowing for plotting of the well locations on the figures (Appendix B) and development of descriptive statistical analyses for the various geologic formations (Appendix C). The data used for this evaluation were taken from the following tables in the Williams 1998 report and are summarized in tabular form in Appendix C:  Table 12 – Inventory of Well That Produce Water of the Sodium Chloride Type from Restricted-Flow Zones;  Table 20 – Chemical Analysis of Water from Selected Wells; and  Table 21 – Record of Wells and Test Holes. For Bradford County, there are 108 wells that were sampled. These wells were identified as being located in the Catskill Formation, Lock Haven Formation, Stratified Drift – confined, and Stratified Drift – unconfined. In addition, using the data in Table 12 of the Williams report, wells that are located within a restricted flow zone (containing sodium chloride type groundwater) were segregated for a descriptive statistical analysis. The parameters that are included in this database are pH, calcium, magnesium, sodium, potassium, alkalinity, sulfate, CHK.REPORT_041312.DOCX 3-2 4/13/2012 chloride, fluoride, TDS, nitrates, aluminum, arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, iron, lead, manganese, nickel, strontium, and zinc. 3.4 CHESAPEAKE ENERGY BASELINE DATA Chesapeake Energy has been conducting a baseline monitoring program to establish baseline water-quality conditions in nearby water wells prior to drilling and completing gas wells in Pennsylvania. There are nearly 2,000 samples collected in the selected areas considered in this evaluation between 9/17/2009 and 1/10/2012. For the purposes of this report, these well sample locations have been evaluated in three data groups based on geographic proximity to the EPA Study Wells that were allowed to be sampled by Chesapeake Energy’s independent contractor:  Central;  Eastern; and  Western. These areas are shown on a Chesapeake Energy baseline location map and in tabular form in Appendix C. 3.5 EVALUATION OF DATABASES A descriptive statistical analysis was performed on each of the four databases to determine for each parameter the number of detections and the minimum, maximum, median, and mean values. The results of this evaluation are included in Appendix C. There is one summary table for each database used. This evaluation included the following considerations:  The NURE, NWIS, and Williams 1998 evaluation only included groundwater from water wells;  The Chesapeake Energy baseline data was for groundwater water wells;  All water wells and springs are located in Bradford County (except some of the Chesapeake Energy baseline data were gathered from western Susquehanna County since some of the EPA Study Wells were near the county line); CHK.REPORT_041312.DOCX 3-3 4/13/2012  The NURE, NWIS, and Williams 1998 databases only included data collected prior to 2007 (before significant Marcellus Shale activity began in Bradford County);  The nitrate data from 1935 (NWIS) was not used since analytical methods and reporting conventions differ from those currently in use;  Only detected parameters were included in the descriptive statistical analyses;  Data for total metals and other parameters were used to the maximum extent possible to provide for a consistent comparison with data from the EPA Study Well analyses, which primarily included total metals and other parameters. Exceptions are noted below: ­ Dissolved chloride, lithium, and sulfate values were used from the NWIS database; and ­ All Williams 1998 metals data were reported as dissolved, including arsenic, barium, chloride, iron, manganese, and sodium. 3.6 GEOLOGIC CLASSIFICATION Geologic classification was performed for both the study wells and the NWIS and NURE database wells to which the study wells were compared. The classification was required for the purposes of developing geochemical statistics for the pertinent geologic units. All classification was based on the Bradford County portions of the following publicly available statewide geologic datasets described below.  Pennsylvania statewide groundwater information system (PAGWIS). This database contains information as to the geologic zone, or aquifer, of completion for many of the wells contained within; and  The PGS geologic coverage. The lateral extent of mapped bedrock and glacial deposits are available as shape files, which are an industry standard for sharing geospatial information. The geologic zone of completion was performed for the NWIS wells using the following procedure. 1. Obtained the PAGWIS aquifer code for 83% (122 of 146) of the NWIS wells present in the PAGWIS database. This was performed using a simple query that links the location identification fields in the two databases; CHK.REPORT_041312.DOCX 3-4 4/13/2012 2. Performed a spatial query for the remaining 17% of the NWIS wells using the bedrock shape file to obtain the bedrock unit within which the well is potentially completed; 3. For those locations having a well depth less than or equal to 120-ft below ground, performed a spatial query to determine if they fall within the footprint of the stratified drift polygon shape file and reassigned the tentative bedrock classification to stratified drift if they fall within the polygon; and 4. If the well depth was unknown or listed as zero or one in the NWIS database, then the well defaulted to the bedrock classification in the database. The geologic zone of completion for the study water wells and NURE database water wells was determined using steps 2 through 4 of this procedure since none of these wells could be identified in the PAGWIS database using either location identification or proximity. Eight of the 14 study water wells plus the Property Owner B spring were determined to be completed within the Catskill Formation, or likely obtained water from the Catskill Formation. The remaining six locations were classified as Lock Haven Formation wells. However, geochemical data suggests that the Property Owner C water well is actually completed within a restricted flow zone of the Lock Haven Formation identified by the USGS (Williams, 1998). Also, this well is within 2,000 ft of a well (Br-271) identified by the Williams 1998 report as being in a restricted flow zone, and both wells contain sodium chloride type water consistent with the restricted flow zone described by Williams, 1998. Water well Br-271 is 110 feet bgl in depth, and contained a chloride level of 3,500 mg/L and a TDS level of 6,100 mg/L in a July 20, 1982 sample. Despite the fact that none of the study water wells were determined conclusively to be completed within glacial units, identification of those NWIS and NURE locations suspected to be completed within glacial units was still required so that these wells could be excluded from statistical evaluations of the bedrock geochemistry. Information pertaining to completion formation and location within Bradford County (relative to the Chesapeake Energy baseline database) for the 14 study water wells and one spring are summarized in Table 3-1: CHK.REPORT_041312.DOCX 3-5 4/13/2012 Table 3-1 Geologic Formations of EPA Study Wells Property Owner Bedrock Formation Special Condition Location in Bradford Co.* Property Owner A (300-ft) Catskill - Central Property Owner B (spring) Catskill - Eastern Property Owner C (260-ft) Lock Haven Restricted Flow Zone Central Property Owner D (250-ft) Lock Haven - Central Property Owner F (200-ft) Lock Haven - Western Property Owner G (unknown) Catskill - Central Property Owner E (115-ft) Catskill - Central Property Owner E (185-ft) Catskill - Central Property Owner H (340-ft) Catskill - Central Property Owner I (142-ft) Catskill - Central Property Owner I (203-ft) Catskill - Central Property Owner J (unknown) Lock Haven - Central Property Owner K (175-ft) Lock Haven - Central Property Owner L (225-ft) Lock Haven - Central Property Owner M (440-ft) Catskill - Central *Per Chesapeake Energy map in Appendix C CHK.REPORT_041312.DOCX 3-6 4/13/2012 4. EVALUATION OF EPA STUDY WELL WATER QUALITY EPA Study Well water-quality data from samples collected by Chesapeake Energy’s independent contractors were assessed to meet the following objectives:  To determine whether any of the parameters of interest had experienced significant changes following Chesapeake Energy baseline sampling;  To compare EPA Study Well water quality with historic water-quality data obtained prior to the commencement of Marcellus Shale activities in Bradford County, PA (approximately 2007);  To identify any EPA Study Well exceedances of various screening criteria derived from EPA MCLs and SMCLs, PADEP Act 2 Land Recycling Program, and EPA Regional Screening Levels and contrast these EPA Study Well exceedances with historic water well exceedances; and  To provide general observations regarding the EPA Study Well water-quality data and historic groundwater quality in Bradford County. This section addresses the process used to complete the evaluation. Fourteen water wells and one spring were included in the evaluation. The property owners and their sources included:  Property Owner A (300-ft well);  Property Owner B (spring);  Property Owner C (260-ft well);  Property Owner D (250-ft well);  Property Owner E (115-ft and 185-ft wells);  Property Owner F (200-ft well);  Property Owner G (well, depth unknown);  Property Owner H (340-ft well);  Property Owner I (142-ft and 203-ft wells);  Property Owner J (well, depth unknown);  Property Owner K (175-ft well);  Property Owner L (225-ft well); and  Property Owner M (440-ft well). CHK.REPORT_041312.DOCX 4-1 4/13/2012 Study Well data were received from Chesapeake Energy in an Excel file format (Appendix A). The locations of the wells included in this evaluation are shown on the figures in Appendix B. Preprocessing of the data was performed to convert the data to file formats suitable for time versus concentration plotting (time plots) and descriptive statistical analysis using Microsoft Excel and geochemical analysis using AquaChem software. 4.1 TIME PLOTS AND COMPARISON WITH HISTORIC STATISTICS For the time plotting of key analytical parameters and associated descriptive statistical analysis, processing included separation of numeric concentration values from data qualifier flags and conversion of data qualifiers to non-detect and detected values; estimated values were recorded as detected values. Analytes that were not detected were recorded at their sample quantitation limits. Analytes not detected in any of the samples were excluded from further consideration. Post-treatment data were excluded from the data set since these data are not representative of naturally-occurring groundwater conditions. Time series plots for several water-quality parameters for each of the wells have been prepared and are included in Appendix D. Plots have been completed for:  Total Barium;  Chloride;  Total Iron;  Total Manganese;  Methane;  Sodium; and  TDS. Chloride, total barium, sodium, TDS, and methane were chosen as key indicator parameters that could indicate the presence of constituents potentially associated with natural gas operations. Total iron and total manganese were selected because they are commonly found in northeastern Pennsylvania groundwater at naturally-occurring levels that commonly exceed their respective water-quality screening parameters. The concentrations of total iron and total manganese were compared and contrasted with the key indicator parameters to determine if there was an associated change in these key parameters that could be related to the total iron and total CHK.REPORT_041312.DOCX 4-2 4/13/2012 manganese values. In addition, baseline data were available for these six analytical parameters. Baseline analytical data existed for eleven of the water wells and the Property Owner B spring split sampled by Chesapeake Energy’s contractor during the EPA retrospective sampling. The Property Owner A, Property Owner F, and Property Owner I (142 ft) water wells did not have baseline samples since they were not located within the baseline sampling distance for any Chesapeake Energy natural gas well at the time of their construction. The Center for Rural Pennsylvania study notes that the key indicator parameters commonly used to indicate impact from gas well drilling brines and waste fluids are chloride, barium, and total dissolved solids. This study also goes on to state that the high concentration of these 3 parameters in brines and waste fluids in relation to typical background concentrations in Pennsylvania groundwater make them useful indicator parameters. According to this study, the approximate median concentrations of chloride, TDS, and barium in Marcellus produced water are 41,850 mg/L, 67,300 mg/L, and 686 mg/L, respectively. The first data point on each time plot represents baseline conditions (with the exception of the Property Owner A, Property Owner F, and Property Owner I (142 ft) well plots). The plots also provide lines that portray the range of values and some descriptive statistics for each parameter from the NURE, NWIS, and Williams 1998 databases for comparison purposes. Each of the plots includes statistics from the various databases used for evaluation of historic groundwater-quality conditions in Bradford County, PA. Additionally, these plots also incorporate descriptive statistics derived from Chesapeake Energy’s baseline sampling program in Bradford County. These databases are described in Section 3 and statistics are summarized in Appendix C. 4.2 COMPARISON OF EPA STUDY WELL DATA WITH SCREENING CRITERIA The EPA Study Well analyses are summarized and compared to human health risk-based criteria developed from the PADEP Act 2 Land Recycling Program (Residential Used Wells < 2,500 mg/L TDS), EPA MCLs and SMCLs, and/or EPA Regional Screening Levels for Tap Water (Chronic). These criteria values are considered to be conservative risk-based concentrations CHK.REPORT_041312.DOCX 4-3 4/13/2012 which are protective of human health. These summaries are included in Appendix E and include the following tables:  Table E-1 (Summary of Inorganic Parameters in Chesapeake Energy Split Samples from the EPA Retrospective Study Wells that Exceed the Most Stringent of the Applicable Screening Levels);  Table E-2 (Summary of Organic Parameters Detected in Chesapeake Energy Split Samples from the EPA Retrospective Study Wells Compared to Applicable Screening Levels); and  Table E-3 (Summary of Dissolved Gases Detected in Chesapeake Energy Split Samples from the EPA Retrospective Study Wells). Table E-1 includes sample events and inorganic analytical results for the analytes that were detected above the most stringent of the applicable screening criteria for each analyte. For the analytes above the screening criteria for a given well, the baseline, pre-treatment, post-treatment, and dissolved results were also included as available. Parameters such as total barium and total strontium did not exceed the screening criteria for any of the wells, and thus were not included in this table. As would be expected, iron, manganese, and turbidity concentrations exceeded the more stringent screening criteria in a significant portion of the EPA Study Wells: this finding is consistent with the finding for the historical and Chesapeake baseline databases discussed in Section 3. Table E-2 includes all organic parameter detections, and the baseline, pre-treatment, and posttreatment results for that analyte and well. Of the organics detected, toluene is the only organic parameter that has an EPA or PADEP screening criterion. The PADEP Act 2 standard for toluene is 1,000 µg/L, the EPA MCL is 1,000 µg/L, and the EPA regional screening value (tap water) is 856 µg/L. The other organic chemical detections were all “K” or “JB” qualified data. Table E-3 includes all light gas detections with corresponding baseline data for each analyte and well. There are no EPA screening criteria for the light gases. The PADEP has a screening level of 7 mg/L (Title 25, Chapter 78.89 (d) 4) where if sustained dissolved methane readings greater than or equal to 7 mg/L are noted, then the PADEP and operator will notify the landowner, and appropriate measures would be undertaken. Four EPA Study Wells; Property Owner C, Property Owner E (115-ft), Property Owner F, and Property Owner I (203-ft); had dissolved methane CHK.REPORT_041312.DOCX 4-4 4/13/2012 concentrations in the baseline and/or subsequent samples which were over 20 mg/L. Two additional EPA Study Wells; Property Owner A and Property Owner E (185-ft); had dissolved methane concentrations in the baseline and/or subsequent samples which were over the PADEP 7 mg/L screening level, but below 20 mg/L. The Property Owner D water well had dissolved methane values present in baseline and/or subsequent samples greater than 3 mg/L but less than 7 mg/L. All of the remaining eight water supply samples had dissolved methane concentrations below 3 mg/L. The findings for individual EPA Study Wells are discussed in the appropriate section of Section 6. CHK.REPORT_041312.DOCX 4-5 4/13/2012 5. PRESENTATION OF DUROV AND PIPER DIAGRAMS 5.1 PURPOSE OF DUROV AND PIPER DIAGRAMS Piper and Durov diagrams are commonly used to evaluate groundwater quality and both analytical methods were used to evaluate the groundwater quality in the study area. The Piper diagram provides a simple visual method to present the cation and anion compositions of many different groundwater samples on a single graphic, which can be used to discern data groupings and patterns. The cation and anion concentrations are represented as percentages in order to illuminate the relative proportions of the ions of interest regardless of the total or absolute concentrations. Each sample result is represented by a single point allowing results from many samples to be plotted and evaluated on one graphic. Because the Piper diagram plot only utilizes concentrations represented as percentages, water samples with very different total concentrations can have the same percentage concentrations and plot on the identical location on the diagram. Durov diagrams were also used to evaluate the study area groundwater-quality data. The Durov diagrams are very similar to the Piper diagrams with the addition of a square and/or two rectangular scaled diagrams located adjacent to the base of two triangles similar to those used in the Piper diagrams. The purpose of the additional square and/or rectangular diagrams is to also present the total or absolute concentrations of two selected parameters such as total cation or ion concentration, total TDS or pH. The concentration of the two selected parameters is depicted on the Durov diagram by extending a straight line from the dot plotted on the triangle representing the relative percentage of three ions, to a line on the diagram representing a concentration of the selected parameter. In this manner, the Durov diagram can be used to present the relative percentage of cations and ions, present the pH values, and present the TDS concentration in mg/L of multiple samples on one graphic. When the geochemistry of large datasets is evaluated, groupings of samples may be observed which represent similar geochemical characteristics. Often times, there is a correlation between the sample groupings and the geologic regime from which the groundwater samples were collected. For example, groundwater samples collected from shallow unconfined flow zones may represent geochemistry affected by surface runoff, agriculture, and shallow soil chemistry. Whereas, groundwater samples collected from deeper confined and/or bedrock flow zones may CHK.REPORT_041312.DOCX 5-1 4/13/2012 represent geochemistry affected by the geochemistry of the bedrock formation and overlying confining unit. Geochemical properties and major inorganic ions are calcium, magnesium, sodium, potassium, bicarbonate, carbonate, chloride, and sulfate, which typically occur in natural water in concentrations of 1 mg/L or greater. These constituents exist in pairs of cations and anions, which are typically indicative of the mineralogy of the hydrogeologic setting through which the water has flowed. For instance, calcium-bicarbonate dominant groundwater is indicative of a limestone aquifer, calcium-magnesium bicarbonate dominant water may be indicative of a dolomite aquifer, and sodium-chloride dominant groundwater is typical of a sedimentary setting rich in evaporite salts. Geochemical characterization becomes more complex where the aquifer system consists of a mixture of rock types, if the groundwater has flowed through differing types of rock units, or if groundwater are of different ages and have differing recharge areas. Groundwater quality is largely affected by the composition of the rocks in the aquifer. 5.2 GEOCHEMICAL SIGNATURES IN BRADFORD COUNTY The study area encompasses two principal bedrock formations, the Devonian-age Lock Haven Formation and the Catskill Formation. The Lock Haven Formation is reported to contain shallow brackish or saline groundwater with the associated presence of hydrogen sulfide and methane in the restricted flow zones (Williams 1998). The Catskill Formation produces groundwater that is generally considered soft and acceptable for most uses, although there are occasions where elevated concentrations of iron, manganese, and TDS can be present in water wells (Williams 1998). The Catskill Formation can also contain naturally occurring sodiumchloride type water in the restricted-flow zones. Approximately 10% of the water wells (11 wells) sampled in the Williams 1998 study were found to be completed in part within the restricted flow zone that contain sodium chloride type water within Bradford County. There were seven other wells listed in the Williams 1998 study in Bradford County where the well was reported salty by the landowner, but no analyses were available. These 18 wells are provided in Table 12 of the Williams 1998 report. CHK.REPORT_041312.DOCX 5-2 4/13/2012 Based on the proportion and actual concentrations of the cations and anions, geochemical signatures for the primary bedrock aquifers underlying Bradford County consist of five general types:  Calcium-bicarbonate dominant groundwater type; indicative of the unrestricted groundwater flow zones in the Catskill and Lock Haven Formations, and in glacial stratified drift and till;  Sodium-bicarbonate dominant groundwater type; indicative of the unrestrictive and/or restrictive flow zones in the Catskill and Lock Haven Formations;  Mixed calcium-sodium bicarbonate groundwater type; indicative of mixtures of water from the restricted and unrestricted flow zones in the Catskill and Lock Haven Formations;  Calcium-magnesium bicarbonate dominant groundwater type; indicative of the unrestricted groundwater flow zones in the Catskill and Lock Haven Formations, and in glacial stratified drift and till; and  Sodium-chloride dominant groundwater type; indicative of groundwater within the restricted flow zones of the Lock Haven and Catskill Formations, and in some areas of the glacial stratified drift and till deposits. Geochemical characterization becomes more complex where the aquifer system consists of a mixture of rock types or if the groundwater has flowed through differing types of rock units. This is especially the case with the Catskill and Lock Haven Formations, which are highly heterogeneous and consist of interbeds of sandstone, conglomerates, siltstone, and shale of differing cementation, permeability, and fracturing. Groundwater quality is largely affected by composition and residence time within each of the rock types comprising the aquifer unit. 5.3 EPA STUDY WELLS Durov and Piper diagrams were generated for each of the EPA Study Wells to graphically illustrate the chemical distribution of major cations and anions for baseline and post-drilling timeframes. In addition, the wells within the Catskill Formation were plotted together, and the wells within the Lock Haven Formation were plotted together. Mean and median values of constituent concentrations for the historic water well quality databases were also plotted on each of these diagrams for comparison purposes. The Piper and Durov diagrams developed for the study area are included in Appendix F. CHK.REPORT_041312.DOCX 5-3 4/13/2012 Catskill Formation The Catskill Formation typically contains sodium or calcium bicarbonate type groundwater, or a mixed sodium or calcium bicarbonate type groundwater. The eight wells and one spring within the Catskill Formation show a relatively consistent water type (geochemical signature). The water types for the eight wells and one spring completed in the Catskill Formation are noted below:  Calcium-bicarbonate type (unrestricted): Property Owner G (unknown well depth),\ and Property Owner I (142-ft);  Calcium-magnesium bicarbonate type (unrestricted): Property Owner M (440-ft) and Property Owner B (spring); and  Mixed sodium or calcium bicarbonate type (unrestricted and/or restrictive mixture): Property Owner A (300-ft), Property Owner E (115-ft), Property Owner E (185-ft), Property Owner H (340-ft), and Property Owner I (203-ft). Overall, the groundwater quality in the Catskill Formation wells is typically good. As illustrated in the Piper and Durov plots, the samples collected from these wells are typically low in sulfate and chloride. The plots show that the water quality is relatively consistent over time as shown by the clustering of the samples and indicates there is no significant deviation in water quality from baseline to post-drilling sampling. There is also no significant deviation of the historical waterquality databases (NWIS and Williams, 1998) for the Catskill Formation in Bradford County. Lock Haven Formation The six wells within the Lock Haven Formation show a greater range of variability with respect to the water type (geochemical signature) ranging from water quality consistent with the groundwater quality of the Catskill Formation (sodium or calcium bicarbonate type groundwater, or mixed sodium and calcium bicarbonate type groundwater) to the more restrictive-flow type groundwater (sodium chloride) geochemical signatures identified by Williams 1998, as follows: • Sodium bicarbonate type groundwater (unrestrictive and/or restrictive flow zone): Property Owner D (250-ft) and Property Owner F (200-ft); • Calcium-magnesium bicarbonate type: (unrestricted flow zone groundwater): Property Owner L (225-ft); CHK.REPORT_041312.DOCX 5-4 4/13/2012 • Mixed sodium or calcium bicarbonate type (unrestricted and/or restricted groundwater flow zone): Property Owner K (175-ft) and Property Owner J (unknown well depth); and • Sodium-chloride type (restricted flow zone): Property Owner C (260-ft). Five of the water wells completed in the Lock Haven Formation (Property Owner J, Property Owner K, Property Owner F, Property Owner D, and Property Owner L) showed groundwater of good quality, nearly identical in constituent concentrations to wells located in the Catskill Formation. The sixth well, Property Owner C, contains high naturally occurring concentrations of chloride , sodium, and TDS, and this well is completed in the restrictive flow zone as described by Williams, 1998. As illustrated in the Piper and Durov plots, the samples collected from these wells are typically low in sulfate and chloride (except chloride in the Property Owner C well). The plots show that the EPA Study Well water quality is relatively consistent over time, and that there is no significant deviation in water quality from baseline to post-drilling sampling. There is also no significant deviation of the historical water quality databases (NWIS and Williams, 1998) for the Lock Haven Formation in Bradford County. However, the NWIS Lock Haven mean value on the Piper and Durov diagrams differs significantly from the NWIS median value. The median value is consistent with Lock Haven groundwater quality. The mean value is influenced significantly by approximately 4 data points that exhibit very high chloride values, and those values are more similar to the restrictive flow zone in the Lock Haven. These high chloride values skew the mean significantly for the NWIS Lock Haven data. The NWIS median value is more representative of the water quality present in the unrestrictive flow zone of the Lock Haven Formation. The Property Owner F and Property Owner D wells showed higher proportions of sodium and chloride compared to the Property Owner J, Property Owner K, and Property Owner L wells, indicating that these wells may be hydraulically connected to a restricted flow zone. As noted in Williams 1998, wells containing mixed groundwater of both the restricted and unrestricted flow zones are common to the Catskill and Lock Haven Formations. The plots show that the EPA Study Well water quality is relatively consistent over time, and that there is no significant deviation in water quality from baseline to post-drilling sampling. CHK.REPORT_041312.DOCX 5-5 4/13/2012 One sodium-chloride type well in the Lock Haven Formation (Property Owner C) exhibits high salinity with elevated concentrations of sodium and chloride for both baseline and post-drill samples compared to the other wells. The Property Owner C well groundwater quality indicates there is a primary contribution of groundwater from the restricted flow zone as described by Williams, 1998. The location of this well is within 2,000 feet of one of the restricted flow zone wells (Br-271) identified in the Williams 1998 report (Appendix B), which contains very high concentrations of sodium (2,000 mg/L) and chloride (3,500 mg/L) in a July 20, 1982 sample. The plots show that the EPA Study Well water quality is relatively consistent over time, and that there is no significant deviation in water quality from baseline to post-drilling sampling. CHK.REPORT_041312.DOCX 5-6 4/13/2012 6. SUMMARY OF EPA STUDY WELL EVALUATION Each EPA Study Well is discussed below to address:  Any significant changes in concentrations of key indicator parameters that include: methane, chloride, sodium, TDS, and total barium; plus total iron and total manganese that occur naturally throughout the area;  Any significant changes or differences in water quality since the baseline sample was collected;  Whether analytes are representative or within ranges of the local historical groundwater quality from various geological formations in the area; or within local baseline ranges for the areas of the retrospective wells sampled by Chesapeake Energy’s contractors;  Any exceedances of screening levels derived from EPA MCLs and SMCLs, PADEP Act 2 Land Recycling Program, and EPA Regional Screening Levels; and  General observations. The baseline sample parameters and the EPA retrospective study split sample parameters are listed in Appendix F. All analytical results for these water sources are included in Appendix A. Natural groundwater quality in the area of the retrospective EPA wells sampled by Chesapeake Energy’s contractors is variable and is principally dependent upon geological formation that the water well is completed within. As noted, Chesapeake Energy has conducted extensive baseline sampling in the area surrounding the EPA retrospective wells, and those data have been evaluated and compared to the retrospective analytical data, along with historical groundwaterquality data for Bradford County. A brief summary of the key baseline analytical data for the areas (Western-W, Central-C, and Eastern-E) surrounding the retrospective wells sampled by Chesapeake Energy’s contractors is noted in Table 6-1. CHK.REPORT_041312.DOCX 6-1 4/13/2012 Table 6-1 Summary Statistics for Key Parameters – Chesapeake Energy Baseline Database Parameter and Standard Area Number of Baseline Samples W C E Number of Detections W C Number Exceeding Standard E W C E Percent Exceeding Standard W C E Arsenic (0.010 mg/L) 1220 1953 542 83 71 10 83 70 10 6.8% 3.6% 1.8% Barium (2.0 mg/L) 1238 1961 562 1207 1926 557 89 100 15 7.2% 5.1% 2.7% Iron (0.3 mg/L) 1238 1961 562 843 1103 262 402 419 88 32.5% 21.4% 15.7% Manganese (0.05 mg/L) 1238 1961 562 880 936 262 663 644 143 53.6% 32.8% 25.4% Lead (0.005 mg/L) 1220 1953 542 155 179 60 152 174 60 12.5% 8.9% 11.1% Lithium (0.031 mg/L) 277 254 37 71 40 7 71 40 57 25.6% 15.7% 18.9% Methane 1238 1965 570 504 40.7% 526 26.8% 157 27.5% >3:149 >7:95 >20:30 >3:135 >7:73 >20:25 >3:15 >7:19 >20:11 >3:12.0% >7:7.7% >20:2.4% >3:6.9% >7:3.7% >20:1.3% >3:2.6% >7:3.3% >20:1.9% Chloride (250 mg/L) 1238 1960 562 1004 1440 392 54 32 4 4.4% 1.6% 0.7% TDS (500 mg/L) 1238 1961 562 1236 1961 562 141 54 6 11.4% 2.8% 1.1% Note: C: Central; W: Western; E: Eastern CHK.REPORT_041312.DOCX 6-2 4/13/2012 As noted in the summary table of key baseline parameters for the areas surrounding the EPA retrospective wells sampled by Chesapeake Energy’s contractors, the total arsenic, total barium, total iron, total manganese, total lead, total lithium, dissolved methane, chloride, and TDS are commonly found in groundwater from water wells in these areas at concentrations that naturally exceed applicable screening standards. As an example, naturally-occurring dissolved methane was found in detectable levels in groundwater in 1,187 of the 3,773 (31.5%) baseline sample analyzed collectively for the Western, Central, and Eastern areas evaluated in this study. Dissolved methane values over 3 mg/L were found in 299 of the 3,773 (7.9%) baseline samples from these 3 areas. In addition, dissolved methane over 7 mg/L were found in 187 of the 3,773 (5%) baseline samples, and dissolved methane over 20 mg/L were found in 66 of the 3,773 (1.75%) baseline samples for these 3 areas. Clearly, methane occurs in groundwater of the area, and at levels that frequently exceed 3 mg/L. It is important to point out that common key indicator parameters associated with produced water, drilling fluids, and/or hydraulic stimulation fluids are chloride, sodium, TDS, barium, strontium, bromide, and specific conductance. These parameters would have to be significantly elevated over baseline or regional historical levels to indicate an impact to groundwater sources from these fluids. The total iron and total manganese changes that do not correlate to associated changes with these key water-quality parameters noted above cannot be related to impacts that could be caused by produced water, drilling fluids, and/or hydraulic stimulation fluids. The presence of total iron and total manganese does not by itself indicate an impact from produced water, drilling fluids, or hydraulic stimulation fluids. Total iron and total manganese commonly occur naturally in groundwater from water wells in Bradford County above EPA SMCLs. Williams, 1998 states in the USGS/PGS report that 50% of the wells sampled yielded dissolved iron and dissolved manganese results that exceeded the EPA SMCL. Due to the variability in the sediment content of the individual samples, it is not uncommon to see a wide range in variability between individual sample results, especially total metals results compared to dissolved metals results for both iron and manganese. The variability in the sediment content of the individual samples could be caused by the sample collection methodology (i.e., excessive purge rates) and/or weather conditions (i.e., large storm events). CHK.REPORT_041312.DOCX 6-3 4/13/2012 A discussion of the water quality found in each of the EPA retrospective wells sampled by Chesapeake Energy’s contractors is provided in the following paragraphs. 6.1 PROPERTY OWNER A (300-FT WELL) The Property Owner A well is approximately 300 feet in depth and completed in the Devonianage Catskill Formation in southeastern Bradford County. Baseline sampling was not completed for this well due to the fact it was not within the baseline sampling boundary for any of the Chesapeake Energy gas wells drilled in the area. Therefore, due to lack of baseline data for this well, analytical results were compared and contrasted to historical values and local baseline values (from the Chesapeake baseline database) from water wells surrounding the Property Owner A water well. Analytical results were available for the extensive parameters list from the Chesapeake Energy split sample collected on November 4, 2011 in conjunction with the EPA retrospective study. Chesapeake Energy also collected samples from this same well on October 13, 2010 and July 18, 2011 and analyzed these samples for the standard Chesapeake Energy baseline parameter list. Three additional samples were collected for light gas analysis (including methane, ethane, and propane) on August 4, 2011, August 18, 2011, and September 1, 2011. Analytical results were compared to NURE, NWIS, and Williams 1998 databases for the Catskill Formation and the Chesapeake Energy baseline analytical database for the Central core drilling region. In a review of the figures in Appendix D-1, which are time plots of key inorganic parameters and dissolved methane, the detected concentrations of these parameters were evaluated. The November 4, 2011 sample exhibited extremely high turbidity (865 Nephelometric Turbidity Units [NTU]) and total suspended solids (TSS) (1,430 mg/L and 312 mg/L). It was noted by the sampling contractor that the flow (estimated at 10 gallons per minute [gpm]) could not be regulated and the turbidity varied between 4 and 1,200 NTU during the purging. Also, the pump was not operating properly as evidenced by the well pump quitting and a noticeable burning smell. In previous samples, the turbidity readings were noted at 33 NTU (October 13, 2010) and 36 NTU (July 18, 2011). The EPA MCL for turbidity is 5 NTU for finished public drinkingwater supplies. More importantly, high turbidity and TSS values can affect the total metal CHK.REPORT_041312.DOCX 6-4 4/13/2012 results. The evaluation presented below indicates that the high turbidity and TSS significantly impacted the concentration of other parameters of interest. Total barium and total manganese concentrations are higher in the November 4, 2011 sample as compared to the October 13, 2010 sample. Especially for barium and to a lesser extent for manganese, these higher values on November 4, 2011 appear to be associated with high turbidity. For the November 4, 2011 sample, the total barium and total manganese concentrations were measured at 0.616 mg/L (total barium) and 1.15 and 1.34 mg/L (total manganese). Dissolved barium and dissolved manganese were measured at 0.354 mg/L (dissolved barium) and 0.959 and 1.02 and 1.03 mg/L (dissolved manganese), respectively. Total iron was measured at 6.19 mg/L (October 13, 2010), 0.786 mg/L (July 18, 2011), and 3.88 mg/L and 14.5 mg/L (November 4, 2011). Dissolved iron was measured at <0.05 mg/L (July 18, 2011) and 0.0845 mg/L (November 4, 2011), indicating that most of the iron is in the suspended solids associated with the high turbidity. The total manganese and total iron results are generally higher than the historical background data mean value available from the NURE, NWIS, Williams 1998, and Chesapeake Energy baseline analytical databases. However, the total iron and total manganese values are still well within the baseline ranges for these parameters for the Central core area. The total barium results also fall within the range of concentrations in the Chesapeake Energy baseline database. As noted, the higher levels of total iron, and to a lesser extent, total manganese are likely due to the suspended sediment in those samples. Total metals analyses are performed on raw samples that have been preserved with nitric acid; the preservation process causes the metals that occur naturally in the suspended solids to dissolve into the aqueous phase. Correspondingly, dissolved metals are measured on a sample that is filtered in the field to remove suspended sediment prior to field preservation with nitric acid. Due to the variability in the sediment content of the individual samples, it is not unexpected to see variability between individual sample results, especially total metals results compared to dissolved metals results for iron and manganese. Based upon the analytical data presented in this report this well does not appear to be impacted from natural gas drilling and production activities including hydraulic stimulation. CHK.REPORT_041312.DOCX 6-5 4/13/2012 The concentrations for chloride and TDS were stable over the three sampling events. Sodium showed a slight decline in concentration over time. The time plots in Appendix D-1 show that the concentrations of these parameters generally fall well within the range of concentrations for each of these parameters as compared to the historical background data available from the NURE, NWIS, Williams 1998, and Chesapeake Energy baseline analytical databases for Bradford County. Total aluminum, total arsenic, total iron, total lead, total manganese, and turbidity exceeded the screening criteria (Table E-1) for this well. Total and dissolved aluminum analyses were only available for the November 4, 2011 sample, which had unusually high turbidity and TSS. It was apparent, upon evaluation of the total aluminum (1.44 and 6.26 mg/L) and dissolved aluminum (0.0566 mg/L) results, a majority of the aluminum was associated with suspended solids in the November 4, 2011 sample. The dissolved aluminum concentration was found to be well below the most stringent screening criterion (EPA MCL) of 0.2 mg/L; however, the total aluminum concentration caused by high turbidity exceeded this value. It should be noted that, based on the Williams 1998 database containing data from 1935 through 1986, 67% of the wells located in the Catskill Formation had aluminum concentrations that exceeded the EPA SMCL for aluminum. Total arsenic was analyzed for the Chesapeake Energy and EPA split samples collected on October 13, 2010 and November 4, 2011, respectively. The October 13, 2010 sample indicated a concentration of 0.01 mg/L, which is above the most stringent criterion (EPA regional screening value) of 0.000045 mg/L, and at the MCL for arsenic of 0.01 mg/L. The November 4, 2011 sample contained 0.0122 mg/L total arsenic and 0.00416 mg/L dissolved arsenic when the turbidity and TSS were unusually high, which are also above the EPA regional screening value, but the dissolved arsenic value was below the EPA MCL. Based on the NWIS, Williams 1998, and Chesapeake Energy baseline databases, 100% of the wells with detected arsenic exceeded the EPA regional screening value for arsenic. Based on the Chesapeake Energy baseline database, 99% of the wells with detected arsenic exceeded the EPA MCL, and for baseline water wells sampled in the Central area, 70 of 1,953 (3.6%) baseline samples had arsenic levels that naturally exceeded the EPA MCL. CHK.REPORT_041312.DOCX 6-6 4/13/2012 Total iron exceeded the most stringent criterion (EPA SMCL) of 0.3 mg/L on all three samples, with concentrations of 6.19 mg/L (October 13, 2010), 0.786 mg/L (July 18, 2011), and 3.88 and 14.5 mg/L (November 4, 2011). The latter two samples had significantly lower dissolved iron concentrations, which were below the detection limit of 0.05 mg/L (July 18, 2011 sample) and at 0.0845 mg/L (November 4, 2011 sample), both well below the EPA SMCL. Based on the NWIS, Williams 1998, and Chesapeake Energy baseline databases, 40%, 50%, and 38% of the wells with detected iron exceeded the EPA SMCL for iron, respectively. Total lead was analyzed for the samples collected on October 13, 2010 and November 4, 2011. Total lead in the October 13, 2010 sample was below the detection limit of 0.005 mg/L. The November 4, 2011 sample contained 0.0353 and 0.0377 mg/L total lead when the turbidity and TSS were unusually high, which is above the most stringent screening criterion (Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection [PADEP] Act 2) of 0.005 mg/L and the EPA action level of 0.015 mg/L. However, dissolved lead was below the detection level of 0.002 mg/L for this November 4, 2011 sample. Based on the Williams 1998 and Chesapeake Energy baseline databases, 100% and 97% of the wells with detected lead exceeded the PADEP Act 2 value for lead, respectively. In the Chesapeake Energy baseline database, approximately 36.9% of wells with detected lead exceeded the EPA action level of 0.015 mg/L. Out of the 1,953 baseline water well samples in the central core area, 66 total lead values exceeded the EPA action level of 0.015 mg/L or approximately 3.4% of the baseline samples collected in this area. Total manganese exceeded the most stringent criterion (EPA SMCL) of 0.05 mg/L on all three samples, with concentrations of 0.369 mg/L (October 13, 2010), 0.912 mg/L (July 18, 2011), and 1.15 and 1.34 mg/L (November 4, 2011). The July 18, 2011 sample contained 0.788 mg/L dissolved manganese and the November 4, 2011 sampled contained 0.959, 1.02, and 1.03 mg/L dissolved manganese. The sodium, TDS, and chloride do not correspond with the apparent change in total manganese concentration, suggesting that the change in manganese levels are not related to natural gas drilling or production activities including hydraulic stimulation. Based on the NURE, NWIS, Williams 1998, and Chesapeake Energy baseline databases, 100%, 47%, 50%, and 69% of the wells with detected manganese exceeded the EPA SMCL for manganese, respectively. Out of the 1,961 baseline water well samples in the Central core area, 644 total CHK.REPORT_041312.DOCX 6-7 4/13/2012 manganese values exceeded the EPA SMCL of 0.050 mg/L or approximately 32.8% of the baseline samples collected in this area. Turbidity has exceeded the EPA MCL of 5 NTU on all three sampling events. The turbidity results for these three events are 33 NTU (October 13, 2010), 36 NTU (July 18, 2011), and 865 NTU (November 4, 2011). Based on the Chesapeake Energy baseline database, 29% of the wells with measureable turbidity exceeded the EPA MCL for turbidity. The Piper and Durov diagrams for this well in Appendix F indicate the water is of a calciumsodium bicarbonate type. These diagrams confirm that the water quality in the Property Owner A well is consistent between the individual samples of the well and is also of a type consistent with the background water quality from the NWIS, Williams 1998, and Chesapeake Energy baseline databases. Light gases were measured six times as indicated in Table E-3. Methane concentrations steadily declined from the October 13, 2010 value of 8.36 mg/L to a value of 1.86 mg/L in the November 4, 2011 sample (see figure in Appendix D-1). Ethane followed a similar decline from its October 13, 2010 value of 0.192 mg/L to a value of 0.0117 mg/L in the November 4, 2011 sample. No other light gases were detected in the Property Owner A well samples. The light gases detected in these samples are likely naturally occurring, and, based on the analytical data presented in this report, this well does not appear to be impacted from natural gas drilling or production activities including hydraulic stimulation when compared to Chesapeake baseline data for the Central core area. Tests for the presence of fecal coliform and total coliform bacteria were positive for the one sample that was analyzed for this consistuent (November 4, 2011). This is not unusual for rural wells in Pennsylvania as discussed in Section 2. Total coliform was reported to be present in 33% of Pennsylvania rural drinking water wells (Swistock 2009). E. coli was not detected in the well sample. No glycols, pesticides, purgeable or extractable petroleum hydrocarbons, dissolved organic carbon (DOC), or low molecular weight acids were detected in the November 4, 2011 EPA retrospective split sample. Dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) was detected at a concentration of CHK.REPORT_041312.DOCX 6-8 4/13/2012 25.9 mg/L. Toluene, the only volatile organic compound detected, was measured in the October 13, 2010 sample at a concentration of 100 µg/L, but was not detected in the EPA retrospective split sample. Toluene is a common laboratory contaminant and is not generally utilized in hydraulic stimulations. Squalene, the only semi-volatile organic compound detected, was measured at an estimated concentration of 6 J mg/L in the EPA retrospective split sample. Squalene is not used in hydraulic stimulation formulations. Squalene is a pharmaceutical and naturally-occurring substance in plants and animals as part of the cholesterol synthesis process. It is also present in cosmetics. Because no baseline data were available for this water well, other data were reviewed and contrasted with the analytical data collected from the Property Owner A water well. Based on the analytical data presented in this report and review of the historical and baseline data sets, and comparison to other parameters present in the water well (such as sodium, chloride, and TDS levels), it is considered unlikely that there has been impact to this water well from natural gas drilling and production activities including hydraulic stimulation. The two organics detected are not associated with natural gas operations. 6.2 PROPERTY OWNER B (SPRING) The Property Owner B spring is located within the Catskill Formation in southeastern Bradford County. Analytical results for the Chesapeake Energy baseline parameter list were available for a baseline sample collected on October 14, 2010 from this spring. Analytical results were also available for the more extensive parameters list from the Chesapeake Energy split sample collected on November 4, 2011 in conjunction with the EPA retrospective study. Analytical results were compared to NURE, NWIS, and Williams 1998 databases for the Catskill Formation and the Chesapeake Energy baseline analytical database for the Eastern core drilling region. The analytical results for the inorganics and total metals were consistent between the two sampling events. Total iron and total manganese were not detected in these samples. As can be noted from a review of the figures in Appendix D-2, which are time plots of key inorganic parameters and methane, the concentrations for chloride, TDS, sodium, and total barium were stable over the two sampling events. Time plots show that the concentrations of these parameters are very similar to the baseline sample concentrations collected from this spring. The analytical CHK.REPORT_041312.DOCX 6-9 4/13/2012 results for this spring also fall well within the range of concentrations for each of these parameters as compared to the historical background data available from the NURE, NWIS, Williams 1998, and Chesapeake Energy baseline analytical databases. All metals and other inorganic constituents found in water from this spring are naturally occurring, and based on the analytical data presented in this report; this spring does not appear to be impacted by natural gas drilling, and production activities including hydraulic stimulation. The only metals or general water-quality parameter that was not within the screening criteria was pH. The pH was measured at 6.3 (baseline) and 6.1 (EPA retrospective study split sample). The EPA SMCL for pH is between 6.5 and 8.5 pH units. The pH values associated with wells in Bradford County have been observed as low as 6.2 (NURE - Catskill), 6.5 (Williams 1998 Catskill), and 5.6 (Chesapeake Energy baseline – Eastern region). The Piper and Durov diagrams for this spring are provided in Appendix F and indicate the water is of a calcium-magnesium bicarbonate type.. These diagrams confirm that the water quality of the Property Owner B spring is consistent between the individual samples of the spring and is also consistent with the background water quality from the NWIS (Bradford County), Williams 1998 (Bradford County), and Chesapeake Energy baseline (selected samples from Bradford and western Susquehanna Counties) databases. No light gases were detected in any of the samples from this spring. Tests for the presence of E. coli, fecal coliform, and total coliform bacteria were positive for the one sample analyzed (the EPA retrospective well split sample). The E. coli and total coliform were confirmed present and the fecal coliform was measured at 5/100 ml. This is not unusual for surface waters or springs. No glycols, pesticides, purgeable or extractable petroleum hydrocarbons, low molecular weight acids, semi-volatile organic compounds, or volatile organic compounds were detected in the November 4, 2011 EPA retrospective split sample. DIC was detected at a concentration of 5.24 mg/L. DOC was detected at a concentration of 1.08 mg/L. Based on the analytical data presented in this report, this spring does not appear to be impacted by natural gas drilling or production activities including hydraulic stimulation. CHK.REPORT_041312.DOCX 6-10 4/13/2012 6.3 PROPERTY OWNER C (260-FT WELL) The Property Owner C well is approximately 260 feet in depth and completed in the Devonianage Lock Haven Formation in southeastern Bradford County. Based on its groundwater quality and location (within 2,000 feet of one of the restricted flow zone wells identified in the Williams 1998 report), it is believed to be screened within the restricted flow zone described in Section 2. This well is within 2000 feet of Br-271 as described in the Williams 1998 report, which contained high levels of sodium (2,000 mg/L) and chloride (3,500 mg/L) in a July 20, 1982 sample. Analytical results for the Chesapeake Energy baseline parameter list were available for a baseline sample collected on April 29, 2011 from this water well. Analytical results were also available for the more extensive parameters list from the Chesapeake Energy split sample collected on October 27, 2011 in conjunction with the EPA retrospective study. Analytical results were compared to NURE and NWIS databases for the Lock Haven Formation and the Chesapeake Energy baseline analytical database for the Central core drilling region. Analytical results were also compared to the restricted flow zone well analytical results from the Williams 1998 database, and even more specifically to analytical results for nearby well Br-271 in the Williams 1998 database, which is also located in the restricted flow zone. As can be noted from a review of the figures in Appendix D-3, which are time plots of key inorganic parameters and methane, the concentrations for chloride, TDS, sodium, total iron, total manganese, and total barium were stable over the two sampling events. Time plots show that the concentrations of these parameters are very similar to the baseline sample concentrations collected from this well. The analytical results for this well also generally fall well within the range of concentrations for each of these parameters as compared to the historical background data available from the NURE, NWIS, Williams 1998, and Chesapeake Energy baseline analytical databases. Sodium and chloride concentrations for this well are outside the NURE range of concentrations because the Property Owner C well is located within a restricted flow zone, but do fall within the NWIS, Williams restricted flow zone and Chesapeake baseline databases. The descriptive statistics for the Williams 1998 database used for the Property Owner C well (which exclusively incorporated wells in a restrictive flow zone) are most appropriate for comparison, especially for total barium, sodium, chloride, and TDS. The total and dissolved metals results for the October 27, 2011 sample were consistent with baseline levels. All metals CHK.REPORT_041312.DOCX 6-11 4/13/2012 and other inorganic constituents found in groundwater from this well are naturally occurring, and based on the analytical data presented in this report, this well does not appear to be impacted from natural gas drilling or production activities including hydraulic stimulation. The total aluminum, total arsenic, chloride, total iron, and TDS exceeded the screening criteria (Table E-1). Total aluminum was measured once on October 27, 2011 and exceeded the most stringent screening criterion (EPA SMCL) of 0.2 mg/L. Total aluminum was measured at 0.262 mg/L and dissolved aluminum was not detected at <0.02 mg/L, indicating that most of the aluminum is associated with the suspended solids in the sample. The dissolved aluminum is well below the EPA SMCL value. Note that the sample from nearby well Br-271 contained 0.16 mg/L of dissolved aluminum (Williams 1998). Samples collected on April 29, 2011 (baseline) and October 27, 2011 were analyzed for total arsenic. Total arsenic was not detected in the baseline sample (<0.010 mg/L), but the October 27, 2011 sample contained 0.0076 mg/L total arsenic and 0.00456 mg/L dissolved arsenic, which are above the most stringent criterion (EPA regional screening value) of 0.000045 mg/L, but both were below the EPA MCL of 0.01 mg/L, and also below the baseline detection limit of 0.010 mg/L. Based on the NWIS, Williams 1998, and Chesapeake Energy baseline databases, 100% of the wells with detected arsenic exceeded the EPA regional screening value for arsenic. Based on the NWIS, Williams 1998, and Chesapeake Energy baseline databases, 78%, 67%, and 99% of the wells with detected arsenic exceeded the EPA MCL. Arsenic results were not available for nearby well Br-271 (Williams 1998). Both samples were analyzed for chloride, which was detected at 413 mg/L in the baseline sample and 351 mg/L in the October 27, 2011 sample. These values exceed the SMCL value of 250 mg/L for chloride. Based on the Williams 1998 database (restricted flow zone), 64% of the wells exceeded the SMCL for chloride for wells completed in this restricted flow zone. Chloride was measured at 3,500 mg/L for nearby well Br-271 (Williams 1998). Both samples were analyzed for TDS, which was detected at 842 mg/L in the baseline sample and 726 mg/L in the October 27, 2011 sample. These values exceed the SMCL value of 500 mg/L for TDS. Based on the Williams 1998 database (restricted flow zone), 78% of the wells CHK.REPORT_041312.DOCX 6-12 4/13/2012 exceeded the SMCL for TDS for wells completed in the restricted flow zone. TDS was measured at 6,100 mg/L for nearby well Br-271 (Williams 1998). Total iron exceeded the most stringent criterion (EPA SMCL) of 0.3 mg/L in the October 27, 2011 sample. It was detected at 0.285 mg/L (baseline) and 0.368 mg/L (October 27, 2011). The dissolved iron concentration for the October 27, 2011 sample was below the detection limit of <0.05 mg/L. Based on the NWIS, Williams 1998 (restricted flow zone), and Chesapeake Energy baseline databases, 61%, 67%, and 38% of the wells with detected iron exceeded the EPA SMCL for iron. Dissolved iron was measured at 0.8 mg/L for nearby well Br-271 (Williams 1998). The Piper and Durov diagrams for this well are provided in Appendix F and indicate the water is of a sodium-chloride type. These diagrams confirm that the water quality in the Property Owner C well is consistent between the individual samples of the well and is also consistent with the background water quality from the Williams 1998 restricted flow zone well data for Bradford County. Light gases were measured two times as indicated in Table E-3. Methane was detected in both samples (see figure in Appendix D-3) at 21.5 mg/L (baseline) and 22.5 mg/L (October 27, 2011). No other light gases were detected in the Property Owner C well samples. As noted in Williams 1998, elevated levels of methane and hydrogen sulfide are associated with the restricted flow zone groundwater. The light gases detected in these samples are naturally occurring, and, based on the analytical data presented in this report, this well does not appear to be impacted from natural gas drilling or production activities including hydraulic stimulation. In addition, naturally-occurring dissolved methane values >20 mg/L have been detected in 25 of the baseline samples in the Central core area evaluated. Tests for the presence of E. coli, fecal coliform and total coliform bacteria were negative for the one sample that was analyzed (October 27, 2011). No volatile organic compounds, semi-volatile compounds, glycols, pesticides, purgeable or extractable petroleum hydrocarbons, DOC, or low molecular weight acids were detected in the October 27, 2011 EPA retrospective split sample. DIC was detected at a concentration of 36.4 mg/L. CHK.REPORT_041312.DOCX 6-13 4/13/2012 6.4 PROPERTY OWNER D (250-FT WELL) The Property Owner D well is approximately 250 feet in depth and completed in the Devonianage Lock Haven Formation in southeastern Bradford County. Analytical results for the Chesapeake Energy baseline parameter list were available for a baseline sample collected on January 10, 2010 from this water well. Analytical results were also available for the more extensive parameters list from the Chesapeake Energy split sample collected on October 28, 2011 in conjunction with the EPA retrospective study. Chesapeake Energy also collected a sample from this same well on June 10, 2011 and analyzed that sample for the standard Chesapeake Energy baseline parameter list. Analytical results were compared to NURE, NWIS, and Williams 1998 databases for the Lock Haven Formation and the Chesapeake Energy baseline analytical database for the Central core drilling region. The analytical results for the inorganics, dissolved methane, and total metals were consistent between the three sampling events. As can be noted from a review of the figures in Appendix D-4, which are time plots of key inorganic parameters and dissolved methane, the concentrations for total barium, chloride, TDS, total iron, total manganese, and sodium were stable over the three sampling events. Time plots show that the concentrations of these parameters are very similar to the baseline sample concentrations collected from this well. The analytical results for this well also fall well within the range of concentrations for each of these parameters as compared to the historical background data available from the NURE, NWIS, Williams 1998, and Chesapeake Energy baseline analytical databases for Bradford County. All metals and other inorganic constituents found in groundwater from this well are naturally occurring, and, based on the analytical data presented in this report, this well does not appear to be impacted from natural gas drilling or production activities including hydraulic stimulation. The only metals or general water-quality parameter that was not within the screening criteria was pH. The pH was measured at 8.2 (baseline) and 8.8 (June 10, 2011). The EPA SMCL for pH is between 6.5 and 8.5 pH units. Note that pH values associated with wells in Bradford County have been observed as high as 8.8 (NURE – Lock Haven), 8.6 (Williams 1998 – Lock Haven), and 8.5 (Chesapeake Energy baseline – Central region). CHK.REPORT_041312.DOCX 6-14 4/13/2012 The Piper and Durov diagrams for this well in Appendix F indicate the water is of a mixed calcium-sodium bicarbonate type. These diagrams confirm that the water quality of the Property Owner D is consistent between the individual samples from this well, but is also influenced to some extent by water coming from a restricted flow zone as seen by higher proportions of sodium as compared with calcium. Light gases were measured three times as indicated in Table E-3. Methane was detected in all samples (see figure in Appendix D-4) at concentrations of 3.55 mg/L (baseline), 4.81 mg/L (June 10, 2011), and 2.11 mg/L (October 28, 2011), showing no significant change from baseline. No other light gases were detected in the Property Owner D well samples. The light gases detected in these samples are naturally occurring, and, based on the analytical data presented in this report, this well does not appear to be impacted from natural gas drilling or production activities including hydraulic stimulation. The test for the presence of total coliform bacteria was positive for the one sample that was analyzed (EPA retrospective study split sample). This is not unusual for rural wells in Pennsylvania as discussed in Section 2. Total coliform was reported to be present in 33% of Pennsylvania rural drinking water wells (Swistock 2009). E. coli and fecal coliform were not detected in the well sample. No glycols, pesticides, purgeable or extractable petroleum hydrocarbons, DOC, low molecular weight acids, semi-volatile organic compounds, or volatile organic compounds were detected in the October 28, 2011 EPA retrospective split sample. DIC was detected at a concentration of 50.6 mg/L. 6.5 PROPERTY OWNER E (115-FT WELL) The shallower of the two Property Owner E wells is approximately 115 feet in depth and completed in the Devonian-age Catskill Formation in southeastern Bradford County. Analytical results for the Chesapeake Energy baseline parameter list were available for a baseline sample collected on April 1, 2010 from this water well. Analytical results were also available for the more extensive parameters list from the Chesapeake Energy split sample collected on November 4, 2011 in conjunction with the EPA retrospective study. Chesapeake Energy also collected two CHK.REPORT_041312.DOCX 6-15 4/13/2012 additional samples from this same well on August 12, 2010 and January 8, 2011, and analyzed the samples for the standard Chesapeake Energy baseline parameter list. Analytical results were compared to NURE, NWIS, and Williams 1998 databases for the Catskill Formation and the Chesapeake Energy baseline analytical database for the Central core drilling region. The analytical results for the inorganics, dissolved methane, and total metals were consistent between the four sampling events. As can be noted from a review of the figures in Appendix D5, which are time plots of key inorganic parameters and dissolved methane, the concentrations for total barium, chloride, total manganese, total iron, TDS, and sodium were stable over the four sampling events. Time plots show that the concentrations of these parameters are very similar to the baseline sample concentrations collected from this well. The analytical results for this well also fall well within the range of concentrations for each of these parameters as compared to the historical background data available from the NURE, NWIS, Williams 1998, and Chesapeake Energy baseline analytical databases for Bradford County. All metals and other inorganic constituents found in groundwater from this well are naturally occurring, and, based on the analytical data presented in this report, this well does not appear to be impacted from natural gas drilling or production activities including hydraulic stimulation. The only metals or general water-quality parameter that was not within the screening criteria was total manganese. Total manganese exceeded the most stringent criterion (EPA SMCL) of 0.05 mg/L for all of the samples. It was detected at 0.118 mg/L (baseline), 0.127 mg/L (August 12, 2010), 0.133 mg/L (January 8, 2011), and 0.116 mg/L (November 4, 2011). The last sample was also analyzed at 0.113 mg/L for dissolved manganese. There was no significant change noted in total manganese between baseline and the samples collected afterwards. Based on the NURE, NWIS, Williams 1998, and Chesapeake Energy baseline databases, 100%, 47%, 50%, and 69% of the wells with detected manganese exceeded the EPA SMCL, respectively. The Piper and Durov diagrams for this well in Appendix F indicate the water is of a mixed sodium-calcium bicarbonate type. These diagrams confirm that the water quality of the Property Owner E 115-ft well is consistent between the individual samples of the well and is also consistent with the background water quality from the NWIS, Williams 1998, and Chesapeake Energy baseline databases for Bradford County. CHK.REPORT_041312.DOCX 6-16 4/13/2012 Methane and ethane are the only two light gases that have been detected in the well water. Methane has stayed consistent at measurements of 33.8 mg/L (baseline), 34.7 mg/L (August 12, 2010), 35.8 mg/L (January 8, 2011), and 37.1 mg/L (November 4, 2011). This is shown on the methane figure in Appendix D-5. Ethane has been detected at low concentrations of 0.49 mg/L (baseline), 0.0495 mg/L (August 12, 2010), 0.0838 mg/L (January 8, 2011), and 0.0816 mg/L (November 4, 2011). The light gases detected in these samples are naturally occurring, and based on the analytical data presented in this report, this well does not appear to be impacted from natural gas drilling or production activities including hydraulic stimulation. Tests for the presence of E. coli, fecal coliform and total coliform bacteria were negative for the one sample that was analyzed (November 4, 2011). No pesticides, purgeable or extractable petroleum hydrocarbons, DOC, low molecular weight acids, semi-volatile organic compounds, or volatile organic compounds were detected in the November 4, 2011 EPA retrospective split sample. DIC was detected at a concentration of 25.5 mg/L. Diethylene, tetraethylene, and triethylene glycols were reported in the November 4, 2011 sample at the estimated values of 13J mg/L, 26J mg/L, and 20J mg/L, respectively. These compounds were also found in the laboratory blanks, indicating analytical laboratory contamination. Thus, there is concern regarding the validity of these results. Note that glycols were not found in the deeper Property Owner E well. Chesapeake Energy conducted a review of hydraulic stimulation materials used in this area and has determined that diethylene, triethylene, and tetraethylene glycol were not used as hydraulic stimulation additives on well sites in this area. Glycols are utilized in numerous industrial and consumer products. The estimated detections of these compounds are believed to be an analytical contamination issue. 6.6 PROPERTY OWNER E (185-FT WELL) The deeper of the two Property Owner E wells is approximately 185 feet in depth and completed in the Devonian-age Catskill Formation in southeastern Bradford County. Analytical results for the Chesapeake Energy baseline parameter list were available for a baseline sample collected on April 1, 2010 from this water well. Analytical results were also available for the more extensive parameters list from the Chesapeake Energy split sample collected on November 4, 2011 in conjunction with the EPA retrospective study. Chesapeake Energy also collected two additional CHK.REPORT_041312.DOCX 6-17 4/13/2012 samples from this same well on August 12, 2010 and January 8, 2011, and analyzed the samples for the standard Chesapeake Energy baseline analytical parameter list. Analytical results were compared to NURE, NWIS, and Williams 1998 databases for the Catskill Formation and the Chesapeake Energy baseline analytical database for the Central core drilling region. The analytical results for the inorganics and total metals were consistent between the four sampling events. As can be noted from a review of the figures in Appendix D-6, which are time plots of key inorganic parameters and dissolved methane, the concentrations for total barium, chloride, total manganese, total iron, TDS, and sodium were stable over the four sampling events. Time plots show that the concentrations of these parameters are very similar to the baseline sample concentrations collected from this well. The analytical results for this well also fall well within the range of concentrations for each of these parameters as compared to the historical background data available from the NURE, NWIS, Williams 1998, and Chesapeake Energy baseline analytical databases for Bradford County. All metals and other inorganic constituents found in groundwater from this well are naturally occurring, and based on the analytical data presented in this report, this well does not appear to be impacted from natural gas drilling or production activities including hydraulic stimulation. The only metals or general water-quality parameter that was not within the screening criteria was total manganese. Total manganese exceeded the most stringent criterion (EPA SMCL) of 0.05 mg/L for two of the samples. It was detected at 0.0647 mg/L (baseline) and 0.0788 mg/L (August 12, 2010). There is no significant change in total manganese levels from baseline. Based on the NURE, NWIS, Williams 1998, and Chesapeake Energy baseline databases, 100%, 47%, 50%, and 69% of the wells with detected manganese exceeded the EPA SMCL, respectively. The Piper and Durov diagrams for this well in Appendix F indicate the water is of a mixed calcium-sodium bicarbonate type. These diagrams confirm that the water quality of the Property Owner E 185-ft well is consistent between the individual samples of the well and is also consistent with the background water quality from the NWIS, Williams 1998, and Chesapeake Energy baseline analytical databases for Bradford County. CHK.REPORT_041312.DOCX 6-18 4/13/2012 Methane is the only light gas that has been detected in the well water. Methane has shown a significant decline from baseline conditions with measurements of 8.88 mg/L (baseline), 9.68 mg/L (August 12, 2010), 0.239 mg/L (January 8, 2011), and 0.609 mg/L (November 4, 2011). The change in methane values noted may be due to natural variability or sample variability, and also may be related to well use. Well use can considerably change the dissolved methane content in groundwater, due to changes in head during prior well use or during sampling events. This is shown on the methane figure in Appendix D-6. The light gases detected in these samples are naturally occurring, and based on the analytical data presented in this report, this well does not appear to be impacted from natural gas drilling or production activities including hydraulic stimulation. Tests for the presence of E. coli, fecal coliform and total coliform bacteria were negative for the one sample that was analyzed (November 4, 2011). No glycols, pesticides, purgeable or extractable petroleum hydrocarbons, DOC, low molecular weight acids, semi-volatile organic compounds, or volatile organic compounds were detected in the November 4, 2011 EPA retrospective split sample. DIC was detected at a concentration of 27.9 mg/L. 6.7 PROPERTY OWNER F (200-FT WELL) The Property Owner F well is approximately 200 feet in depth and completed in the Devonianage Lock Haven Formation in southwestern Bradford County. No baseline sample is available from this well since it was located outside of the standard baseline sampling radius. Therefore, evaluation of analytical data from this water well was made by contrasting data from this well with historical databases; review of other parameters such as chloride, TDS, and sodium from this well; and review of the local Chesapeake Energy baseline database surrounding this water well. Analytical results were available for the extensive parameters list from the Chesapeake Energy split sample collected on October 25, 2011 in conjunction with the EPA retrospective study. Chesapeake Energy collected samples from this same well on March 10, 2011 and November 11, 2011 and analyzed these samples for the standard Chesapeake Energy baseline analytical parameter list. Analytical results were compared to NURE, NWIS, and Williams 1998 CHK.REPORT_041312.DOCX 6-19 4/13/2012 databases for the Lock Haven Formation and the Chesapeake Energy baseline analytical database for the Western core drilling region. The analytical results for the inorganics, dissolved methane, and total metals were consistent between the three sampling events. As can be noted from a review of the figures in Appendix D-7, which are time plots of key inorganic parameters and dissolved methane, the concentrations for chloride, TDS, sodium, total iron, total manganese, and total barium were stable over the three sampling events. Time plots show that the concentrations of these parameters show little change with time. The analytical results for this well also generally fall well within the range of concentrations for each of these parameters as compared to the historical background data available from the NURE, NWIS, Williams 1998, and Chesapeake Energy baseline analytical databases for Bradford County. Barium concentrations within the water well were higher than the Williams 1998 range of values for the Lock Haven Formation unrestrictive flow zone. However, it is believed based upon the water-quality from this well, that this well is completed in both the restricted flow zone and unrestrictive flow zones as described by Williams, and therefore, is a mixture of water from these flow zones. Other than total lithium (described below), none of the metals or general water-quality parameters exceed an EPA MCL or SMCL or PADEP Act 2 drinking water standard. All metals and other inorganic constituents found in groundwater from this well appear to be naturally occurring, and based on the analytical data presented in this report, this well does not appear to be impacted from natural gas drilling or production activities including hydraulic stimulation. The Piper and Durov diagrams for this well in Appendix F indicate the water is of a sodium bicarbonate type. These diagrams confirm that the water quality of the Property Owner F well is consistent between the individual samples of the well, but is also influenced to some extent by water coming from a restricted flow zone as seen by higher proportions of sodium as compared with calcium. Methane concentrations were relatively high but very stable over the three sampling events (see figure in Appendix D-7). The concentrations of dissolved methane were 53.4 mg/L, 55.3 mg/L, and 51.8 mg/L on March 10, 2011, October 25, 2011, and November 11, 2011, respectively. Ethane was not detected (<0.026 mg/L) in the sample collected on March 10, 2011. The CHK.REPORT_041312.DOCX 6-20 4/13/2012 dissolved ethane result for the sample collected on October 25, 2011 was 0.0202 mg/L and the result for the November 11, 2011 sample was 0.202 mg/L. No other light gases were detected in the October 25, 2011 sample. Since the dissolved methane and ethane results have been consistent, the analytical result for ethane in the November 11, 2011 sample is suspected to be an outlier due to laboratory error. The light gases detected in these samples are likely naturally occurring, and, based on the analytical data presented in this report, this well does not appear to be impacted from natural gas drilling or production activities including hydraulic stimulation. In addition, naturally-occurring dissolved methane values >20 mg/L have been detected in 30 of the baseline samples in the Western core area evaluated. Tests for the presence of E. coli, fecal coliform, and total coliform bacteria were negative. No pesticides, purgeable or extractable petroleum hydrocarbons, DOC, low molecular weight acids, semi-volatile organic compounds, or volatile organic compounds were detected in the October 25, 2011 EPA retrospective split sample. DIC was detected at a concentration of 63.2 mg/L and diethylene and triethylene glycols were not detected in the October 25, 2011 sample. An estimated (J value) detection of tetraethylene glycol, 11J mg/L, was noted in the October 25, 2011 sample. This value is only slightly above the analytical detection limit of 10 mg/L. Due to issues with analytical laboratory blank contamination with several other samples for glycol analyses from this sampling event, there is concern regarding the validity of this result. Chesapeake Energy conducted a review of hydraulic stimulation materials used in this area and has determined that tetraethylene glycol was not used as a hydraulic stimulation additive on well sites in this area. Tetraethylene glycol is utilized in numerous industrial and consumer products. The estimated detection of this compound is believed to be an analytical laboratory contamination issue. As noted in Table E-1, the total lithium result for the November 11, 2011 sample (0.10 mg/L) exceeded the PADEP Act 2 criteria for groundwater of 0.073 mg/L and the EPA regional screening value of 0.031 mg/L. Based on the results from 277 Chesapeake Energy baseline samples collected in the general area of the Property Owner F well, total lithium was detected in 71 (25.6%) of these samples. Total lithium detected in the baseline samples in this area have been found to range between 0.0501 mg/L to 0.398 mg/L (mean 0.12 mg/L, median 0.09 mg/L). CHK.REPORT_041312.DOCX 6-21 4/13/2012 Further, total lithium was found to exceed the EPA regional screening criterion in 25.6 percent of these 277 baseline samples, and in 100 percent of the 71 samples where lithium was detected. Compared to the PADEP Act 2 standard of 0.073 mg/L, 48 of the 71 samples (67.6%) where total lithium was detected exceeded this PADEP standard. Therefore, the total lithium results for the Property Owner F well fall within this area-wide background range. Based on available data, this total lithium value is believed to be naturally occurring and not related to natural gas drilling or production activities including hydraulic stimulation. There were no other exceedances of any other drinking water standard, as noted previously. 6.8 PROPERTY OWNER G (WELL DEPTH UNKNOWN) The Property Owner G well, depth unknown, is completed in the Devonian-age Catskill Formation in southeastern Bradford County. Analytical results for the Chesapeake Energy baseline parameter list were available for a baseline sample collected on April 2, 2010 from this water well. Analytical results were also available for the more extensive parameters list from the Chesapeake Energy split sample collected on October 27, 2011 in conjunction with the EPA retrospective study. Chesapeake Energy also collected six additional samples from this same well, including one post-treatment sample, and analyzed the samples for the standard Chesapeake Energy baseline analytical parameter list. Analytical results were compared to NURE, NWIS, and Williams 1998 databases for the Catskill Formation and the Chesapeake Energy baseline analytical database for the Central core drilling region. The analytical results for total barium, chloride, and sodium were relatively consistent for the various sampling events, as can be noted from a review of the figures in Appendix D-8, which are time plots of key inorganic parameters and dissolved methane. Time plots show that the concentrations of these parameters are very similar to the baseline sample concentrations collected from this well. The October 1, 2010 and November 10, 2010 samples showed temporary increases in TDS, total iron, and total manganese. The TDS value of 274 mg/L on October 1, 2010 appears to be an outlier. The specific conductance and major ion concentrations are too low to provide for a TDS concentration of 274 mg/L. This is based on: 1) this sample had a similar specific conductance as compared to other samples from this well (specific conductance is proportional to the TDS concentration), and 2) the cation and anion CHK.REPORT_041312.DOCX 6-22 4/13/2012 concentrations for the major geochemistry parameters (calcium, magnesium, sodium, bicarbonate, chloride, and sulfate) are similar for this sample as compared to other samples from this well. Thus, the TDS would be expected to be similar for the October 1, 2010 sampling event. Total iron continued to be elevated in the June 28, 2011, September 1, 2011, and October 13, 2011 samples. All of these parameters were measured at concentrations similar to baseline concentrations for the last sample event (October 27, 2011). With the exception of the high total iron value on October 1, 2010, the analytical results for this well fall well within the range of concentrations for each of these parameters as compared to the historical background data available from the NURE, NWIS, Williams 1998, and Chesapeake Energy baseline analytical databases for Bradford County. Note that a significant storm event occurred immediately prior to the 10/1/2010 sampling event resulting in 3.9 inches of rainfall. All metals and other inorganic constituents found in groundwater from this well are naturally occurring, and based on the analytical data presented in this report, this well does not appear to be impacted from natural gas drilling, or production activities including hydraulic stimulation. However, there is indication of some variability in water quality during 2010 and 2011 related to the total iron and total manganese concentrations, which was likely due to the presence of sediment in the samples, as the dissolved analyses for manganese and iron are much lower than the total iron values. The key indicator parameters of barium, sodium, chloride, and TDS were stable during this time period, and at very low levels, further suggesting that the variability in total iron and total manganese were related to sediment in the samples. For the October 1, 2010 sampling event, the TSS concentration was measured at 157 mg/L, indicating that the higher levels of total iron and total manganese are likely due to the suspended sediment in those samples. The metals or general water-quality parameters that were not within the screening criteria include total iron, total lead, total manganese, and turbidity. Turbidity exceeded the EPA MCL on numerous occasions and impacted the metals values discussed in the following paragraphs. Turbidity was measured at <1 NTU (baseline), 24 NTU (November 10, 2010), 91.2 NTU (June 28, 2011), 16.1 NTU (September 1, 2011), 37.1 NTU (October 13, 2011 pretreatment), and 13 NTU (October 27, 2011). Based on the Chesapeake Energy baseline analytical database, 29% of the wells with measureable turbidity exceeded the EPA MCL for turbidity. CHK.REPORT_041312.DOCX 6-23 4/13/2012 Total iron exceeded the most stringent screening criteria of 0.3 mg/L (EPA SMCL) on several occasions, measured at 10.6 mg/L (October 1, 2010), 3.58 mg/L (November 10, 2010), 2.68 mg/L (June 28, 2011), 3.08 mg/L (September 1, 2011), 4.13 mg/L (October 13, 2011 pretreatment), and 0.343 mg/L (October 27, 2011). Dissolved iron was below the screening criteria, measured at <0.05 mg/L (November 10, 2010), 0.109 mg/L (September 1, 2011), 0.0549 mg/L (October 13, 2011 pretreatment), and <0.05 mg/L (October 27, 2011), indicating that iron was present mostly in the suspended solids associated with these samples. Based on the NWIS, Williams 1998, and Chesapeake Energy baseline analytical databases, 40%, 50%, and 38% of the wells with detected iron exceeded the EPA SMCL for iron, respectively. Total lead was detected once at a concentration above the screening criteria. It was measured at 0.0061 mg/L in the sample collected on October 13, 2011 (pretreatment). This value exceeds the PADEP Act 2 standard of 0.005 mg/L, but is below the EPA action level of 0.015 mg/L. Based on the Williams 1998 and Chesapeake Energy baseline analytical databases, 100% and 97% of the wells, respectively, with detected lead exceeded the PADEP Act 2 value for lead. Total manganese exceeded the most stringent criterion (EPA SMCL) of 0.05 mg/L for two of the samples. It was detected at 0.153 mg/L (October 1, 2010) and 0.123 mg/L (November 10, 2010). The dissolved manganese concentration was below the quantitation limit, measured at <0.015 mg/L for the November 10, 2010 sample, indicating that manganese was present mostly in the suspended solids associated with this sample. No dissolved analysis for manganese was conducted on the October 1, 2010 sample. Based on the NURE, NWIS, Williams 1998, and Chesapeake Energy baseline analytical databases, 100%, 47%, 50%, and 69% of the wells with detected manganese exceeded the EPA SMCL, respectively. The Piper and Durov diagrams for this well in Appendix F indicate the water is of a calcium bicarbonate type. These diagrams confirm that the water quality of the Property Owner G well is consistent between the individual samples of the well and is also consistent with the background water quality from the NWIS, Williams 1998, and Chesapeake Energy baseline analytical databases for Bradford County. Methane is the only light gas that has been detected in the well water. Methane has been detected at concentrations of 0.035 mg/L (baseline) and 0.0126 mg/L (September 1, 2011) which CHK.REPORT_041312.DOCX 6-24 4/13/2012 is slightly lower than the baseline value. All other methane values were below the detection limit. This is shown on the methane figure in Appendix D-8. The light gases detected in these samples are naturally occurring, and based on the analytical data presented in this report, this well does not appear to be impacted from natural gas drilling or production activities including hydraulic stimulation. Tests for the presence of E. coli, fecal coliform and total coliform bacteria were positive for the one sample analyzed (the EPA retrospective well split sample). The E. coli and total coliform were confirmed present and the fecal coliform was measured at 2/100 ml. This is not unusual for rural wells in Pennsylvania as discussed in Section 2. Total coliform was reported to be present in 33% of Pennsylvania rural drinking water wells (Swistock 2009). No glycols, pesticides, purgeable or extractable petroleum hydrocarbons, DOC, low molecular weight acids, semi-volatile organic compounds, or volatile organic compounds were detected in the October 27, 2011 EPA retrospective split sample. DIC was detected at a concentration of 18.1 mg/L. 6.9 PROPERTY OWNER H (340-FT WELL) The Property Owner H well is approximately 340 feet in depth and is completed in the Devonian-age Catskill Formation in southeastern Bradford County. Analytical results for the Chesapeake Energy baseline parameter list were available for a baseline sample collected on April 1, 2010 from this water well. Analytical results were also available for the more extensive parameters list from the Chesapeake Energy split sample collected on October 28, 2011 in conjunction with the EPA retrospective study. Chesapeake Energy also collected ten additional samples from this same well, including three post-treatment samples, and analyzed the samples for the standard Chesapeake Energy baseline parameter list. Analytical results were compared to NURE, NWIS, and Williams 1998 databases for the Catskill Formation and the Chesapeake Energy baseline analytical database for the Central core drilling region. The analytical results for the inorganics, dissolved methane, and total metals were relatively consistent for the various sample events. The October 1, 2010, November 10, 2010, and December 2, 2010 samples showed temporary changes in total iron, total manganese and TDS, CHK.REPORT_041312.DOCX 6-25 4/13/2012 and variability in the sodium concentrations. However, as can be noted from a review of the figures in Appendix D-9, which are time plots of key inorganic parameters, the concentrations for total barium, chloride, total manganese, total iron, and TDS were stable otherwise. Time plots show that the concentrations of these parameters are very similar to the baseline sample concentrations collected from this well. The analytical results for this well also fall well within the range of concentrations for each of these parameters as compared to the historical background data available from the NURE, NWIS, Williams 1998, and Chesapeake Energy baseline analytical databases for Bradford County. All metals and other inorganic constituents found in groundwater from this well are naturally occurring, and based on the analytical data presented in this report, this well does not appear to be impacted from natural gas drilling or production activities including hydraulic stimulation. However, there is indication of some variability in water quality during 2010 related to the total iron and total manganese concentrations, which was likely due to the presence of sediment in the samples, as the dissolved analyses for manganese and iron are much lower than the total iron values. The key indicator parameters of barium, sodium, chloride, and TDS were generally stable during this time period, and at very low levels, further suggesting that the variability in total iron and total manganese were related to sediment in the samples. The metals or general water-quality parameters that were not within the screening criteria include total aluminum, total iron, total lead, total manganese, and turbidity. Turbidity exceeded the EPA MCL on numerous occasions and impacted the metals values discussed in the following paragraphs. Turbidity was measured at 2 NTU (April 2, 2010 - baseline), 31.2 NTU (October 1, 2010), 26.4 NTU (November 10, 2010), 11.7 NTU (December 2, 2010), 7.3 NTU (May 10, 2011 pretreatment), and 6.8 NTU (October 28, 2011). Based on the Chesapeake Energy baseline analytical database, 29% of the wells with measureable turbidity exceeded the EPA MCL for turbidity. Total aluminum was measured once on October 28, 2011 and exceeded the most stringent screening criterion (EPA SMCL) of 0.2 mg/L. Total aluminum was measured at 0.322 mg/L (October 28, 2011) and dissolved aluminum on this date was below the detection limit of <0.02 mg/L, indicating that the aluminum is associated with the suspended solids in the sample. The CHK.REPORT_041312.DOCX 6-26 4/13/2012 dissolved aluminum is well below the SMCL value. Based on the Williams 1998 database, 67% of the wells located in Catskill formation exceeded the SMCL for aluminum. Total iron exceeded the most stringent screening criteria of 0.3 mg/L (EPA SMCL) on several occasions, measured at 0.0546 mg/L (April 2, 2010 - baseline), 2.54 mg/L (October 1, 2010), 0.982 mg/L (November 10, 2010), and 0.829 mg/L (December 2, 2010). Dissolved iron was below the screening criteria, measured at <0.05 mg/L on both October 1, 2010 and November 10, 2010, indicating that iron was present mostly in the suspended solids associated with this sample. Note that the highest total iron and total manganese results were detected in the sample collected on 10/1/2010 and a significant storm event occurred immediately prior to that sampling event resulting in 3.9 inches of rainfall. No dissolved metal analyses for iron were conducted on the December 2, 2010 sample. Based on the NWIS, Williams 1998, and Chesapeake Energy baseline databases, 40%, 50%, and 38% of the wells with detected iron exceeded the EPA SMCL for iron, respectively. Total lead was detected on three occasions at a concentration above the screening criteria. It was measured at 0.0089 mg/L (November 10, 2010), 0.0076 mg/L (March 1, 2011 pretreatment), and 0.0738 mg/L (May 10, 2011 pretreatment). These values exceed the PADEP Act 2 standard of 0.005 mg/L. The November 10, 2010 and March 1, 2011 results were below the EPA Action Level of 0.015 mg/L; however, the May 10, 2011 pretreatment result was above this action level. The November 10, 2010 sample was also analyzed for dissolved lead, which was below the detection limit of <0.005 mg/L. Based on the Williams 1998 and Chesapeake Energy baseline databases, respectively, 100% and 97% of the wells with detected lead exceeded the PADEP Act 2 value for lead. Total manganese exceeded the most stringent criterion (EPA SMCL) of 0.05 mg/L for three of the samples. It was detected at 0.214 mg/L (October 1, 2010), 0.0607 mg/L (November 10, 2010), and 0.095 mg/L (December 2, 2010). The dissolved manganese concentration was measured at 0.0213 mg/L for the November 10, 2010 sample, indicating that manganese was present mostly in the suspended solids associated with this sample. No analyses for dissolved manganese were conducted on the October 1, 2010 or December 2, 2010 samples. Based on the CHK.REPORT_041312.DOCX 6-27 4/13/2012 NURE, NWIS, Williams 1998, and Chesapeake Energy baseline databases, 100%, 47%, 50%, and 69% of the wells with detected manganese exceeded the EPA SMCL, respectively. The Piper and Durov diagrams for this well in Appendix F indicate the water is of a mixed sodium-calcium bicarbonate type. These diagrams confirm that the water quality of the Property Owner H well is consistent between the individual samples of the well and is also consistent with the background water quality from the NWIS, Williams 1998, and Chesapeake Energy baseline analytical databases for Bradford County. Methane is the only light gas that has been detected in the well water. Methane has been detected at concentrations of 0.045 mg/L (baseline), 0.0535 mg/L (September 13, 2010), 0.183 mg/L (November 10, 2010), 0.00607 mg/L (October 28, 2011), 0.0655 mg/L (November 8, 2011 pretreatment), and 0.0258 mg/L (November 8, 2011 post-treatment). This is shown on the methane figure in Appendix D-9. These detections of methane have been relatively consistent and similar to baseline. The light gases detected in these samples are naturally occurring, and based on the analytical data presented in this report, this well does not appear to be impacted from natural gas drilling and production activities including hydraulic stimulation. Tests for the presence of total coliform bacteria were positive for the one sample analyzed (the EPA retrospective well split sample). This is not unusual for rural wells in Pennsylvania as discussed in Section 2. Total coliform was reported to be present in 33% of Pennsylvania rural drinking water wells (Swistock 2009). The E. coli and fecal coliform were not found. No pesticides, purgeable or extractable petroleum hydrocarbons, DOC, low molecular weight acids, or semi-volatile organic compounds were detected in the October 28, 2011 EPA retrospective split sample. DIC was detected at a concentration of 17.1 mg/L. Toluene was the only volatile organic compound detected in the sample. It was measured at 1.13 µg/L. Toluene is a common laboratory contaminant and is not generally utilized in hydraulic stimulations. Because toluene was not found in the first three samples and the last sample, it is believed to be a laboratory contaminant. Tetraethylene and triethylene glycol were the only glycols reported for the October 28, 2011 sample. An estimated (J value) detection of tetraethylene glycol, 20J mg/L, and an estimated CHK.REPORT_041312.DOCX 6-28 4/13/2012 detection of triethylene glycol, 12J mg/L, were noted. The triethylene glycol value is only slightly above the analytical detection limit of 10 mg/L. Due to issues with analytical laboratory blank contamination with several other samples for glycol analyses from this sampling event, there is concern regarding the validity of this result. The estimated detections of these compounds are believed to be an analytical laboratory contamination issue. Chesapeake Energy conducted a review of hydraulic stimulation materials used in this area and has determined that triethylene and tetraethylene glycol were not used as hydraulic stimulation additives on well sites in this area. Glycols are utilized in numerous industrial and consumer products. 6.10 PROPERTY OWNER I (142-FT WELL) The shallower of the two Property Owner I wells is approximately 142 feet in depth and is completed in the Catskill Formation in southeastern Bradford County. No baseline sample was available for this water well since it fell outside of the baseline sampling radius for Chesapeake natural gas wells. Therefore, evaluation of analytical data from this water well was made by contrasting data from this well with historical databases; review of other parameters such as chloride, TDS, and sodium from this well; and review of the local Chesapeake baseline database surrounding this water well. Analytical results were available for the extensive parameters list from the Chesapeake Energy split sample collected on October 31, 2011 in conjunction with the EPA retrospective study. Chesapeake Energy also collected samples from this same well on August 10, 2010 and September 15, 2010 and analyzed these samples for the standard Chesapeake Energy baseline parameter list. Two additional samples were collected for light gas analysis on October 6, 2010 and October 20, 2010. Analytical results were compared to NURE, NWIS, and Williams 1998 databases for the Catskill Formation and the Chesapeake Energy baseline analytical database for the Central core drilling region. The analytical results for the inorganics and total metals were consistent between the three sampling events. Total manganese was not detected in these samples. As can be noted from a review of the figures in Appendix D-10, which are time plots of key inorganic parameters and dissolved methane, the concentrations for total iron, chloride, TDS, sodium, and total barium were stable over the three sampling events. Time plots show that the concentrations of these parameters are very similar and relatively stable over time. The analytical results for this well CHK.REPORT_041312.DOCX 6-29 4/13/2012 also fall well within the range of concentrations for each of these parameters as compared to the historical background data available from the NURE, NWIS, Williams 1998, and Chesapeake Energy baseline analytical databases for Bradford County. All metals and other inorganic constituents found in groundwater from this well are naturally occurring, and based on the analytical data presented in this report, this well does not appear to be impacted from natural gas drilling or production activities including hydraulic stimulation. The only metals or general water-quality parameter that was not within the screening criteria was pH. The pH was measured at 6.4 (August 3, 2010) and 6.4 (October 31, 2011). The EPA SMCL for pH is between 6.5 and 8.5 pH units. Note that pH values associated with wells in Bradford County have been observed as low as 6.2 (NURE - Catskill), 6.5 (Williams 1998 - Catskill), and 5.4 (Chesapeake Energy baseline – Central region). The Piper and Durov diagrams for this well in Appendix F indicate the water is of a calciumbicarbonate type. These diagrams confirm that the water quality of the Property Owner I 142-ft well is consistent between the individual samples of the well and is also consistent with the background water quality from the NWIS, Williams 1998, and Chesapeake Energy baseline analytical databases for Bradford County. Methane and ethane were the only light gases detected in the samples. Methane was detected at 0.0957 mg/L (August 3, 2010), 1.41 mg/L (September 15, 2010), 2.78 J mg/L (October 6, 2010), and 1.78 mg/L (October 20, 2010). Methane was not detected (<0.005 mg/L) in the last sample date on October 31, 2011. Ethane was detected at 0.0953 mg/L (September 15, 2010), 0.195 mg/L (October 6, 2010), and 0.103 mg/L (October 20, 2010). It was not detected in the August 3, 2010 or the October 31, 2011 sample. This is shown on the methane figure in Appendix D10. These detections of methane have been relatively consistent, and some variability in sample results is expected, as noted earlier. The light gases detected in these samples are likely naturally occurring, and based on the analytical data presented in this report, this well does not appear to be impacted from natural gas drilling or production activities including hydraulic stimulation. Testing for the presence of total coliform bacteria was positive for the one sample analyzed (the EPA retrospective well split sample). This is not unusual for rural wells in Pennsylvania as CHK.REPORT_041312.DOCX 6-30 4/13/2012 discussed in Section 2. Total coliform was reported to be present in 33% of Pennsylvania rural drinking water wells (Swistock 2009). E. coli and fecal coliform testing was negative. No glycols, pesticides, purgeable or extractable petroleum hydrocarbons, DOC, low molecular weight acids, semi-volatile organic compounds, or volatile organic compounds were detected in the October 31, 2011 EPA retrospective split sample. DIC was detected at a concentration of 19 mg/L. 6.11 PROPERTY OWNER I (203-FT WELL) The deeper of the two Property Owner I wells is approximately 203 feet in depth and is completed in the Catskill Formation in southeastern Bradford County. Analytical results for the Chesapeake Energy baseline parameter list were available for a baseline sample collected on September 14, 2010 from this water well, shortly after it was drilled. There are no Chesapeake Energy gas wells located within the baseline sampling radius, so upon completion of this water well, a baseline sample was collected. Analytical results were also available for the more extensive parameters list from the Chesapeake Energy split sample collected on October 31, 2011 in conjunction with the EPA retrospective study. Chesapeake Energy also collected an additional seven samples (from 4 sample events) from this same well on November 18, 2010, March 1, 2011 (pretreatment and post-treatment), April 7, 2011 (pretreatment and posttreatment), and May 23, 2011 (pretreatment and post-treatment), and analyzed the samples for the standard Chesapeake Energy baseline analytical parameter list. Seventeen additional samples were collected for light gas analyses during 2010 and 2011. Analytical results were compared to NURE, NWIS, and Williams 1998 databases for the Catskill Formation and the Chesapeake Energy baseline analytical database for the Central core drilling region. The analytical results for the inorganics, dissolved methane, and total metals were consistent between the six sampling events. As can be noted from a review of the figures in Appendix D11, which are time plots of key inorganic parameters and dissolved methane, the concentrations for total iron, total manganese, chloride, TDS, and total barium were steady or slightly declining over the six sampling events. Time plots show that the concentrations of these parameters are very similar to the baseline sample concentrations collected from this well. Sodium showed a small increase during the sampling time period. However, the analytical results for all of these CHK.REPORT_041312.DOCX 6-31 4/13/2012 parameters fall well within the range of concentrations for each of these parameters as compared to the historical background data available from the NURE, NWIS, Williams 1998, and Chesapeake Energy baseline analytical databases for Bradford County. The analytical data indicates that the detected inorganic parameters are naturally occurring, and based on the analytical data presented in this report, this well does not appear to be impacted from natural gas drilling or production activities including hydraulic stimulation. The metals or general water-quality parameters that were not below the most stringent screening criteria include total aluminum, total iron, total lead, total manganese, and turbidity. Turbidity exceeded the EPA MCL on numerous occasions and impacted the metals values discussed in the following paragraphs. Turbidity was measured at 68 NTU (baseline), 5.1 NTU (March 1, 2011 pretreatment), 7.2 NTU (March 1, 2011 post-treatment), 12.2 NTU (April 7, 2011 pretreatment), 6.6 NTU (May 23, 2011 pretreatment), and 5.4 NTU (October 31, 2011). Based on the Chesapeake Energy baseline database, 29% of the wells with measureable turbidity exceeded the EPA MCL for turbidity. Total aluminum was measured once on October 31, 2011 and exceeded the most stringent screening criterion (EPA SMCL) of 0.2 mg/L. Total aluminum was measured at 0.31 mg/L and 0.112 mg/L and dissolved aluminum was not detected (<0.02 mg/L), indicating that most of the aluminum is associated with the suspended solids in the sample. The dissolved aluminum is well below the EPA SMCL value. Based on the Williams 1998 database, 67% of the wells located in Catskill Formation exceeded the EPA SMCL for aluminum. Total iron exceeded the most stringent screening criteria of 0.3 mg/L (SMCL) on several occasions, measured at 2.29 J mg/L (baseline), 0.434 mg/L (November 18, 2010), 2.18 mg/L (March 1, 2011 pretreatment), and 1.05 mg/L (April 7, 2011 pretreatment). Dissolved iron was below the screening criteria, measured at <0.05 mg/L on September 14, 2010 (baseline) and 0.148 mg/L on November 18, 2010. Based on the NWIS, Williams 1998, and Chesapeake Energy baseline databases, 40%, 50%, and 38% of the wells with detected iron exceeded the EPA SMCL for iron, respectively. Total lead was detected twice at concentrations above the PADEP Act 2 screening criteria. It was measured at 0.0075 mg/L (April 7, 2011 pretreatment) and 0.0051 mg/L (April 7, 2011 postCHK.REPORT_041312.DOCX 6-32 4/13/2012 treatment). These values exceed the PADEP Act 2 standard of 0.005 mg/L, but are below the EPA Action Level of 0.015 mg/L. No dissolved lead analyses are available for this sample date. Based on the Williams 1998 and Chesapeake Energy baseline databases, 100% and 97% of the wells with detected lead exceeded the PADEP Act 2 value for lead, respectively. Total manganese exceeded the most stringent criterion (EPA SMCL) of 0.05 mg/L for three of the samples. It was detected at 0.145 mg/L (March 1, 2011 pretreatment), 0.0992 mg/L (April 7, 2011 pretreatment), and 0.0662 mg/L (May 23, 2011 post-treatment). Total manganese was detected at 0.0429 mg/L in the September 14, 2010 baseline sample with the dissolved manganese concentration measuring 0.0214 mg/L, indicating that manganese was present mostly in the suspended solids associated with this sample. Based on the NURE, NWIS, Williams 1998, and Chesapeake Energy baseline databases, 100%, 47%, 50%, and 69% of the wells with detected manganese exceeded the EPA SMCL, respectively The Piper and Durov diagrams for this well in Appendix F indicate the water is of a mixed sodium-calcium bicarbonate type. These diagrams confirm that the water quality of the Property Owner I 203-ft well is consistent between the individual samples of the well and is also consistent with the background water quality from the NWIS, Williams 1998, and Chesapeake Energy baseline analytical databases for Bradford County. Methane, ethane, and propane were the only light gases detected in the samples (Table E-3). Dissolved methane was detected at 10.9 mg/L (baseline), 25.4 mg/L (October 6, 2010), and 20.6 mg/L (October 13, 2010) before steadily decreasing to 3.6 mg/L (December 7, 2011). This is shown on the methane figure in Appendix D-11. Ethane was found at 1.59 mg/L (baseline), 1.84 mg/L (October 6, 2010), and 1.47 mg/L (October 13, 2010), followed by a sharp decline in concentration in subsequent sampling events. Propane was detected in the baseline sample at 0.101 mg/L, and subsequently at levels of 0.117 mg/L (October 6, 2010), 0.0841 mg/L (October 13, 2010), and 0.0388 mg/L (October 20, 2010 post-treatment). As noted previously, it is not uncommon to see variability in methane values due to several factors discussed in earlier sections. The light gases detected in these samples are naturally occurring, and based on the analytical data presented in this report, this well does not appear to be impacted by natural gas drilling or production activities including hydraulic stimulation. CHK.REPORT_041312.DOCX 6-33 4/13/2012 Tests for the presence of E. coli, fecal coliform, and total coliform bacteria were negative. No glycols, pesticides, purgeable or extractable petroleum hydrocarbons, DOC, DIC, low molecular weight acids, or semi-volatile organic compounds were detected in the November 4, 2011 EPA retrospective split sample. Toluene was the only volatile organic compound detected. It was detected at 1.71 µg/L in the March 1, 2011 pretreatment sample, and at 0.95 µg/L in the April 7, 2011 pretreatment sample. Toluene is a common laboratory contaminant and may have been present in materials utilized in the installation of the new well and pump. 6.12 PROPERTY OWNER J (WELL DEPTH UNKNOWN) The Property Owner J well, depth unknown, is likely completed in the Devonian-age Lock Haven Formation in central Bradford County. Analytical results for the Chesapeake Energy baseline parameter list were available for a baseline sample collected on July 2, 2010 from this water well. Analytical results were also available for the more extensive parameters list from the Chesapeake Energy split sample collected on November 3, 2011 in conjunction with the EPA retrospective study. Chesapeake Energy also collected a sample from this same well on February 8, 2011 and analyzed that sample for the standard Chesapeake Energy baseline analytical parameter list. Analytical results were compared to NURE, NWIS, and Williams 1998 databases for the Lock Haven Formation and the Chesapeake Energy baseline analytical database for the Central core drilling region. The analytical results for the inorganics, dissolved methane, and total metals were consistent between the three sampling events. As can be noted from a review of the figures in Appendix D-12, which are time plots of key inorganic parameters and dissolved methane, the concentrations for total iron, total manganese, chloride, sodium, TDS, and total barium were steady or slightly declining over the three sampling events. Time plots show that the concentrations of these parameters are very similar to the baseline sample concentrations collected from this well. The analytical results for all of these parameters fall well within the range of concentrations for each of these parameters as compared to the historical background data available from the NURE, NWIS, Williams 1998, and Chesapeake Energy baseline analytical databases for Bradford County. All metals and other inorganic constituents found in groundwater from this well are naturally occurring, and based on the analytical data presented in CHK.REPORT_041312.DOCX 6-34 4/13/2012 this report, this well does not appear to be impacted from natural gas drilling or production activities including hydraulic stimulation. The metals or general water-quality parameters that were not within the screening criteria include total iron, total lead, total manganese, and turbidity. Turbidity exceeded the EPA MCL of 5 NTU on two occasions and may have impacted the metals values discussed in the following paragraphs. Turbidity was measured at 5.7 NTU (baseline) and 9.8 NTU (February 8, 2011). Based on the Chesapeake Energy baseline database, 29% of the wells with measureable turbidity exceeded the EPA MCL for turbidity. Total iron exceeded the most stringent screening criteria of 0.3 mg/L (SMCL) in the 3 samples collected from this well, measured at 0.676 mg/L (baseline), 0.888 mg/L (February 8, 2011), and 0.583 mg/L (November 3, 2011). Dissolved iron was measured at 0.316 mg/L on November 3, 2011. Based on the NWIS, Williams 1998, and Chesapeake Energy baseline databases, 40%, 50%, and 38% of the wells with detected iron exceeded the EPA SMCL for iron, respectively. Total lead was detected two times at a concentration above the PADEP Act 2 screening criteria of 0.005 mg/L, but below the EPA Action Level of 0.015 mg/L. It was measured at 0.0114 mg/L (baseline) and 0.009 mg/L (February 8, 2011). Based on the Williams 1998 and Chesapeake Energy baseline databases, respectively, 100% and 97% of the wells with detected lead exceeded the PADEP Act 2 value for lead. Total manganese exceeded the most stringent criterion (EPA SMCL) of 0.05 mg/L for all three samples. It was detected at 0.249 mg/L (baseline), 0.29 mg/L (February 8, 2011), and 0.22 mg/L (November 3, 2011). The dissolved manganese concentration was measured at 0.216 mg/L for the latter sample. Based on the NURE, NWIS, Williams 1998, and Chesapeake Energy baseline databases, 100%, 47%, 50%, and 69% of the wells with detected manganese exceeded the EPA SMCL, respectively. The Piper and Durov diagrams for this well in Appendix F indicate the water is of a mixed calcium-sodium bicarbonate type. These diagrams confirm that the water quality of the Property Owner J well is consistent between the individual samples of the well and is also consistent with CHK.REPORT_041312.DOCX 6-35 4/13/2012 the background water quality from the NWIS, Williams 1998, and Chesapeake Energy baseline analytical databases for Bradford County. No light gases were detected in any of the samples. Tests for the presence of E. coli, fecal coliform, and total coliform bacteria were negative. No glycols, pesticides, purgeable or extractable petroleum hydrocarbons, DOC, low molecular weight acids, volatile organic compounds, or semi-volatile organic compounds were detected in the November 3, 2011 EPA retrospective split sample. DIC was detected at 46.9 mg/L. 6.13 PROPERTY OWNER K (175-FT WELL) The Property Owner K well is approximately 175 feet in depth and is completed in the Devonian-age Lock Haven Formation in southeastern Bradford County. Analytical results for the Chesapeake Energy baseline parameter list were available for a baseline sample collected on January 7, 2010 from this water well. Analytical results were also available for the more extensive parameters list from the Chesapeake Energy split sample collected on October 27, 2011 in conjunction with the EPA retrospective study. Chesapeake Energy also collected a sample from this same well on May 31, 2011 (post-treatment) and analyzed that sample for the standard Chesapeake Energy baseline analytical parameter list. Analytical results were compared to NURE, NWIS, and Williams 1998 databases for the Lock Haven Formation and the Chesapeake Energy baseline database for the Central core drilling region. The analytical results for the inorganics, dissolved methane, and total metals were consistent between the two sampling events. As can be noted from a review of the figures in Appendix D13, which are time plots of key inorganic parameters and dissolved methane, the concentrations for total iron, chloride, sodium, TDS, and total barium were steady over the three sampling events. Time plots show that the concentrations of these parameters are very similar to the baseline sample concentrations collected from this well. The total manganese concentration increased slightly from baseline. However, the analytical results for all of these parameters fall well within the range of concentrations for each of these parameters as compared to the historical background data available from the NURE, NWIS, Williams 1998, and Chesapeake Energy baseline analytical databases for Bradford County. All metals and other inorganic constituents CHK.REPORT_041312.DOCX 6-36 4/13/2012 found in groundwater from this well are naturally occurring, and based on the analytical data presented in this report, this well has not been impacted from natural gas drilling or production activities including hydraulic stimulation. The only metals or general water-quality parameter that was not within the screening criteria was total manganese. Total manganese exceeded the most stringent criterion (EPA SMCL) of 0.05 mg/L for the two samples. It was detected at 0.102 mg/L (May 31, 2011 post-treatment) and 0.168 mg/L (October 27, 2011). The dissolved manganese concentration was measured at 0.119 mg/L for the latter sample, similar to baseline. Based on the NURE, NWIS, Williams 1998, and Chesapeake Energy baseline analytical databases, 96%, 65%, 65%, and 69% of the wells with detected manganese exceeded the EPA SMCL, respectively. The Piper and Durov diagrams for this well in Appendix F indicate the water is of a mixed calcium-sodium bicarbonate type. These diagrams confirm that the water quality of the Property Owner K well is consistent between the individual samples of the well and is also consistent with the background water quality from the NWIS, Williams 1998, and Chesapeake Energy baseline analytical databases for Bradford County. Methane was the only light gas that was detected in samples from the Property Owner K well. It was measured at 0.00674 mg/L in the October 27, 2011 sample. Methane may have been present in the earlier baseline sample; however, the limit of quantitation for that sample was 0.0260 mg/L. The light gases detected in this sample are naturally occurring, and based on the analytical data presented in this report, this well does not appear to be impacted from natural gas drilling or production activities including hydraulic stimulation. Testing for the presence of total coliform bacteria was positive for the one sample analyzed (the EPA retrospective well split sample). This is not unusual for rural wells in Pennsylvania as discussed in Section 2. Total coliform was reported to be present in 33% of Pennsylvania rural drinking water wells (Swistock 2009). E. coli and fecal coliform testing was negative. No glycols, pesticides, purgeable or extractable petroleum hydrocarbons, DOC, low molecular weight acids, volatile organic compounds, or semi-volatile organic compounds were detected in the November 3, 2011 EPA retrospective split sample. DIC was detected at 43.7 mg/L. CHK.REPORT_041312.DOCX 6-37 4/13/2012 6.14 PROPERTY OWNER L (225-FT WELL) The Property Owner L well is approximately 225 feet in depth and is completed in the Devonianage Lock Haven Formation in central Bradford County. Analytical results for the Chesapeake Energy baseline parameter list were available for a baseline sample collected on April 18, 2010 from this water well. Analytical results were also available for the more extensive parameters list from the Chesapeake Energy split sample collected on November 3, 2011 in conjunction with the EPA retrospective study. Analytical results were compared to NURE, NWIS, and Williams 1998 databases for the Lock Haven Formation and the Chesapeake Energy baseline analytical database for the Central core drilling region. The analytical results for the inorganics, dissolved methane, and total metals were consistent between the two sampling events. As can be noted from a review of the figures in Appendix D14, which are time plots of key inorganic parameters and dissolved methane, the concentrations for chloride, sodium, TDS, and total barium were steady over the two sampling events. Total iron and total manganese were not detected in either of the samples. Time plots show that the concentrations of these parameters are very similar to the baseline sample concentrations collected from this well. The analytical results for all of these parameters fall well within the range of concentrations for each of these parameters as compared to the historical background data available from the NURE, NWIS, Williams 1998, and Chesapeake Energy baseline analytical databases for Bradford County. All metals and other inorganic constituents found in groundwater from this well are naturally occurring, and based on the analytical data presented in this report, this well does not appear to be impacted from natural gas drilling or production activities including hydraulic stimulation. All metals and general water-quality parameters were within the screening criteria as listed in Table E-1. The Piper and Durov diagrams for this well in Appendix F indicate the water is of a calciummagnesium bicarbonate type. These diagrams confirm that the water quality of the Property Owner L well is consistent between the individual samples of the well and is also consistent with the background water quality from the NWIS, Williams 1998, and Chesapeake Energy baseline analytical databases for Bradford County. CHK.REPORT_041312.DOCX 6-38 4/13/2012 Methane was the only light gas that was detected in samples from the Property Owner L well. It was measured at 0.048 mg/L in the baseline sample. The methane detected in this sample is naturally occurring, and based on the analytical data presented in this report, this well does not appear to be impacted from natural gas drilling and production activities including hydraulic stimulation. Testing for the presence of total coliform bacteria was positive for the one sample analyzed (the EPA retrospective well split sample). This is not unusual for rural wells in Pennsylvania as discussed in Section 2. Total coliform was reported to be present in 33% of Pennsylvania rural drinking water wells (Swistock 2009). E. coli and fecal coliform testing was negative. No pesticides, purgeable or extractable petroleum hydrocarbons, DOC, low molecular weight acids, volatile organic compounds, or semi-volatile organic compounds were detected in the November 3, 2011 EPA retrospective split sample. DIC was detected at 38.9 mg/L. Tetraethylene glycol was the only glycol reported for the EPA retrospective split sample. It was reported as an estimated value at 15J mg/L, but was also detected in the laboratory blank. Due to issues with analytical laboratory blank contamination with several other samples for glycol analyses from this sampling event, there is concern regarding the validity of this result. The estimated detection of this compound is believed to be an analytical laboratory contamination issue. To the best of Chesapeake Energy’s knowledge, tetraethylene glycol was not utilized in any of the hydraulic stimulation formulations used in the study area. Chesapeake Energy conducted a review of hydraulic stimulation materials used in this area and has determined that tetraethylene glycol was not used as a hydraulic stimulation additive on well sites in this area. Tetraethylene glycol is utilized in numerous industrial and consumer products. 6.15 PROPERTY OWNER M (440-FT WELL) The Property Owner M well is approximately 440 feet in depth and is completed in the Devonian-age Catskill Formation in southeastern Bradford County. Analytical results for the Chesapeake Energy baseline parameter list were available for a baseline sample collected on January 6, 2010 from this water well. Analytical results were also available for the more extensive parameters list from the Chesapeake Energy split sample collected on October 28, 2011 in conjunction with the EPA retrospective study. Chesapeake Energy also collected two CHK.REPORT_041312.DOCX 6-39 4/13/2012 additional samples: a sample from this same well on December 2, 2010 analyzed for the standard Chesapeake Energy baseline parameter list, and another sample on April 11, 2011 analyzed for total lead. Analytical results were compared to NURE, NWIS, and Williams 1998 databases for the Catskill Formation and the Chesapeake Energy baseline analytical database for the Central core drilling region. The analytical results for the inorganics, dissolved methane, and total metals were consistent between the four sampling events. As can be noted from a review of the figures in Appendix D15, which are time plots of key inorganic parameters and dissolved methane, the concentrations for total iron, total manganese, chloride, sodium, TDS, and total barium were steady over the four sampling events. Time plots show that the concentrations of these parameters are very similar to the baseline sample concentrations collected from this well. The analytical results for all of these parameters fall well within the range of concentrations for each of these parameters as compared to the historical background data available from the NURE, NWIS, Williams 1998, and Chesapeake Energy baseline analytical databases for Bradford County. All metals and other inorganic constituents found in groundwater from this well are naturally occurring, and based on the analytical data presented in this report, this well does not appear to be impacted from natural gas drilling or production activities including hydraulic stimulation. All metals and general water-quality parameters were within the screening criteria as listed in Table E-1 with the exception of total lead. Total lead was detected above the most stringent criteria of 0.005 mg/L (PADEP Act 2) for two of the sampling events, but below the EPA Action Level of 0.015 mg/L. Total lead concentrations of 0.011 mg/L (December 2, 2010) and 0.0124 mg/L (April 11, 2011) were detected. No dissolved lead analysis was conducted on these two samples. Based on the Williams 1998 and Chesapeake Energy baseline databases, respectively, 100% and 97% of the wells with detected lead exceeded the PADEP Act 2 value for lead. The Piper and Durov diagrams for this well in Appendix F indicate the water is of a calciummagnesium bicarbonate type. These diagrams confirm that the water quality of the Property Owner M well is consistent between the individual samples of the well and is also consistent with the background water quality from the NWIS, Williams 1998, and Chesapeake Energy baseline analytical databases for Bradford County. CHK.REPORT_041312.DOCX 6-40 4/13/2012 No light gases were detected in any of the samples. Tests for the presence of E. coli, fecal coliform, and total coliform bacteria were positive for the one sample analyzed (the EPA retrospective well split sample). The E. coli and total coliform were confirmed present and the fecal coliform was measured at 3/100 ml. This is not unusual for rural wells in Pennsylvania as discussed in Section 2. Total coliform was reported to be present in 33% of Pennsylvania rural drinking water wells (Swistock 2009). No glycols, pesticides, purgeable or extractable petroleum hydrocarbons, DOC, low molecular weight acids, volatile organic compounds, or semi-volatile organic compounds were detected in the October 28, 2011 EPA retrospective split sample. DIC was detected at 34.6 mg/L. CHK.REPORT_041312.DOCX 6-41 4/13/2012 7. CONCLUSIONS Based upon review of the analytical data for each of the 14 water wells and one spring presented in this report, and subsequent comparison of these results with regional historical and baseline water-quality databases, this study concludes that these fifteen water sources do not appear to be impacted by natural gas drilling or production activities including hydraulic stimulation. A summary of conclusions for these water sources is included in Table 7-1. With the few exceptions noted herein, there are no significant increases in inorganic parameters when comparing current analyses with baseline conditions or from historical databases. None of the wells show significant increases in dissolved methane when comparing current analyses with baseline conditions or area-wide baseline databases. Note that the Property Owner A, Property Owner I (142-feet), and Property Owner F wells showed levels of methane that could not be compared to baseline methane concentrations due to the absence of baseline samples. Therefore, methane data from those wells were compared to the Chesapeake Energy baseline databases. There were also a few detections of organic compounds in some of the wells, but these are not attributable to natural gas drilling, or production activities including hydraulic stimulation. The analyses for each of the fifteen water sources demonstrated that most of the individual parameters fell within the ranges and were similar to the mean concentrations for the NURE, NWIS, Williams 1998, and Chesapeake Energy baseline analytical databases for selected areas in Bradford County (and selected areas in western Susquehanna County for the Chesapeake Energy baseline database). The Property Owner A water well was possibly over-stressed during the EPA retrospective sampling or purging activities, resulting in very high turbidity levels. Review of the field notes indicate that the turbidity changed or increased with time of pumping. The Property Owner I 203-ft well has demonstrated a slight increase in sodium from baseline sample results; however, the sodium level remains low and stable, indicating that it is naturally occurring. The Property Owner K well has demonstrated a slight increase in total manganese from baseline conditions; however, the total manganese level is below typical values for the formation, indicating that it is naturally occurring. CHK.REPORT_041312.DOCX 7-1 4/13/2012 Table 7-1 Summary of Conclusions for EPA Study Wells Water Source Inorganics Observations Dissolved Methane Observations Regional Comparison Conclusion Property Owner A Total iron and total manganese concentrations are variable and the variability is partly due to excessive sediment in the samples. Sodium declined slightly with time. Barium, chloride, and TDS were relatively stable with time. Baseline sampling was not completed for this well. Methane concentration declined significantly during the sampling period. Total manganese and total iron results are somewhat higher than the historical background data mean values available from the NURE, NWIS, Williams 1998, and Chesapeake Energy baseline analytical databases, likely due to high sediment content in samples. Barium, sodium, chloride, and TDS mostly fall within documented ranges in NURE, NWIS, Williams 1998, and Chesapeake Energy analytical databases. Baseline sampling was not completed for this well. Based on the analytical data presented in this report water well does not appear to be impacted by natural gas drilling and production activities including hydraulic stimulation. Property Owner B (spring) No significant increases or decreases from baseline are observed. No methane has been observed. Parameters fall within documented ranges in NURE, NWIS, Williams 1998, and Chesapeake Energy analytical databases. Based on the analytical data presented in this report, spring does not appear to be impacted by natural gas drilling and production activities including hydraulic stimulation. CHK.REPORT_041312.DOCX 4/13/2012 7-2 Table 7-1 (Cont.) Summary of Conclusions for EPA Study Wells Water Source Inorganics Observations Dissolved Methane Observations Regional Comparison Conclusion Property Owner C No significant increases from baseline are observed. Slight decreases from baseline observed for barium, chloride, manganese, TDS, and sodium. Groundwater is from restricted flow zone. No significant increase or change from baseline is observed. Parameters generally fall within documented ranges in NURE, NWIS, Williams 1998, and Chesapeake Energy analytical databases. Sodium and chloride fall outside the NURE range due to well location within restricted flow zone. Based on the analytical data presented in this report, water well does not appear to be impacted by natural gas drilling and production activities including hydraulic stimulation. Property Owner D No significant increases from baseline are observed. Slight decrease in sodium observed. No significant increase or change from baseline is observed. Parameters fall within documented ranges in NURE, NWIS, Williams 1998, and Chesapeake Energy analytical databases. Based on the analytical data presented in this report, water well does not appear to be impacted by natural gas drilling and production activities including hydraulic stimulation. Property Owner E (115-ft well) No significant increases or decreases from baseline are observed. Slight but insignificant increase from baseline is observed. Parameters fall within documented ranges in NURE, NWIS, Williams 1998, and Chesapeake Energy analytical databases. Based on the analytical data presented in this report, water well does not appear to be impacted by natural gas drilling and production activities including hydraulic stimulation. CHK.REPORT_041312.DOCX 4/13/2012 7-3 Table 7-1 (Cont.) Summary of Conclusions for EPA Study Wells Water Source Inorganics Observations Dissolved Methane Observations Property Owner E (185-ft well) No significant increases from baseline are observed. Slight decreases from baseline are noted for sodium, TDS, and manganese. Methane declined significantly from baseline to current conditions. Parameters fall within documented ranges in NURE, NWIS, Williams 1998, and Chesapeake Energy analytical databases. Based on the analytical data presented in this report, water well does not appear to be impacted by natural gas drilling or production activities including hydraulic stimulation. Property Owner F All parameters are stable and no significant increases or decreases are noted in the data. Well likely completed in both the restricted flow zone and unrestricted flow zone as evidenced by higher sodium and chloride levels found in this well. Baseline sampling was not completed for this well. Methane concentration remained high and constant, during the sampling period. Parameters generally fall within documented ranges in NURE, NWIS, Williams 1998, and Chesapeake Energy analytical databases. Barium concentrations exceed the range in the Williams 1998 database for unrestricted flow zone. Baseline sampling was not completed for this well. Based on the analytical data presented in this report, it does not appear that this water well was impacted by natural gas drilling and production activities including hydraulic stimulation. Property Owner G Total iron and total manganese concentrations are variable and the variability is due to excessive sediment in the samples. A significant storm event occurred immediately prior to the 10/1/2010 sampling event resulting in 3.9 inches rainfall. Note that the TDS value of 274 mg/L on October 1, 2010 is considered an outlier. No significant increase or change from baseline is observed. Parameters generally fall within documented ranges in NURE, NWIS, Williams 1998, and Chesapeake Energy analytical databases. The iron concentration from the October 1, 2010 sample was higher than the ranges of the NWIS and Williams 1998 data, but likely due to sediment in sample. Based on the analytical available data presented in this report, water well does not appear to be impacted by natural gas drilling and production activities including hydraulic stimulation. CHK.REPORT_041312.DOCX Regional Comparison Conclusion 4/13/2012 7-4 Table 7-1 (Cont.) Summary of Conclusions for EPA Study Wells Water Source Inorganics Observations Dissolved Methane Observations Regional Comparison Conclusion Property Owner H Total iron and total manganese concentrations are variable and the variability is due to excessive sediment in the samples. A significant storm event occurred immediately prior to the 10/1/2010 sampling event resulting in 3.9 inches rainfall. Sodium has fluctuated during the various sampling events, but is currently at a slightly lower concentration than baseline. No significant increase or change from baseline is observed. Parameters fall within documented ranges in NURE, NWIS, Williams 1998, and Chesapeake Energy analytical databases. Based on the analytical data presented in this report, water well does not appear to be impacted by natural gas drilling and production activities including hydraulic stimulation. Property Owner I (142-ft well) Some minor variability in analytical data but no significant increases are observed. Baseline sampling was not completed for this well. Slight variability in methane values observed, however no significant increase is observed. Parameters fall within documented ranges in NURE, NWIS, Williams 1998, and Chesapeake Energy analytical databases. Baseline sampling was not completed for this well. Based on the analytical data presented in this report, water well does not appear to be impacted by natural gas drilling and production activities including hydraulic stimulation. CHK.REPORT_041312.DOCX 4/13/2012 7-5 Table 7-1 (Cont.) Summary of Conclusions for EPA Study Wells Water Source Inorganics Observations Dissolved Methane Observations Property Owner I (203-ft well) Total iron and total manganese concentrations are variable and the variability is due to excessive sediment in the samples. Sodium has shown a small increase in concentration from baseline to current conditions. However, the sodium level remains low and stable. Chloride levels have show a small decrease from baseline, but are also stable. Methane is variable but overall has declined slightly from baseline to current conditions. Parameters fall within documented ranges in NURE, NWIS, Williams 1998, and Chesapeake Energy analytical databases. Based on the analytical data presented in this report, water well does not appear to be impacted by natural gas drilling and production activities including hydraulic stimulation. Property Owner J No significant increases from baseline are observed. Sodium, chloride, and TDS declined from baseline. No significant increase or change from baseline is observed. Parameters fall within documented ranges in NURE, NWIS, Williams 1998, and Chesapeake Energy analytical databases. Based on the analytical data presented in this report, water well is not impacted by natural gas drilling or production activities including hydraulic stimulation Property Owner K No significant increases or decreases from baseline are observed. Total manganese concentrations are variable and the variability is due to excessive sediment in the samples, Dissolved result similar to baseline. No significant increase or change from baseline is observed. Parameters fall within documented ranges in NURE, NWIS, Williams 1998, and Chesapeake Energy analytical databases. Based on the analytical data presented in this report, water well does not appear to be impacted by natural gas drilling and production activities including hydraulic stimulation. CHK.REPORT_041312.DOCX Regional Comparison Conclusion 4/13/2012 7-6 Table 7-1 (Cont.) Summary of Conclusions for EPA Study Wells Water Source Inorganics Observations Dissolved Methane Observations Regional Comparison Conclusion Property Owner L No significant increases or decreases from baseline are observed. Slight but insignificant decrease from baseline is observed. Parameters fall within documented ranges in NURE, NWIS, Williams 1998, and Chesapeake Energy analytical databases. Based on the analytical data presented in this report, water well does not appear to be impacted by natural gas drilling and production activities including hydraulic stimulation. Property Owner M No significant increases or decreases from baseline are observed. No significant increase or change from baseline is observed. Parameters fall within documented ranges in NURE, NWIS, Williams 1998, and Chesapeake Energy analytical databases. Based on the analytical data presented in this report, water well does not appear to be impacted by natural gas drilling and production activities including hydraulic stimulation. CHK.REPORT_041312.DOCX 4/13/2012 7-7 APPENDIX A EPA STUDY WELLS 4/13/2012 APPENDIX A-1 EPA STUDY WELL DATA PROPERTY OWNER A SUMMARY TABLE OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER A Property Owner PROPERTY OWNER A PROPERTY OWNER A PROPERTY OWNER A PROPERTY OWNER A PROPERTY OWNER A PROPERTY OWNER A ON WATER SUPPLY, BYPASSED ON WATER SUPPLY, BYPASSED ON WATER SUPPLY, BYPASSED ON WATER SUPPLY, BYPASSED ON WATER SUPPLY, BYPASSED ON WATER SUPPLY, BYPASSED PRESSURE TANK, SAMPLED WATER PRESSURE TANK, SAMPLED WATER PRESSURE TANK, SAMPLED WATER PRESSURE TANK, SAMPLED WATER PRESSURE TANK, SAMPLED WATER PRESSURE TANK, SAMPLED WATER DIRECTLY FROM WELL DIRECTLY FROM WELL DIRECTLY FROM WELL DIRECTLY FROM WELL DIRECTLY FROM WELL DIRECTLY FROM WELL Location Description Parameter and units Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date WELL 300 Pre-Treatment 1013201000201 10/13/2010 WELL 300 NA 0718201120201 7/18/2011 WELL 300 NA 0804201122804 8/4/2011 WELL 300 NA 0818201120203 8/18/2011 WELL 300 NA 0901201120201 9/1/2011 WELL 300 NA 1104201120202 11/4/2011 UG/L --- --- --- --- --- --- colonies/100ml colonies/100ml ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- Absent Present Present UG/L --- --- --- --- --- < 0.1003 U UG/L --- --- --- --- --- < 95.2 U MG/L ----108 --< 10.0 U 10.2 ------< 0.0500 U ------< 6.85 U 7.20 J --230 15.3 21.4 J 145 123 J 33 ----101 --< 10.0 U < 5.00 U ------< 0.0500 U ------< 6.33 U 7.10 H --251 15.3 21.3 H 142 144 36 --------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- --0.192 --8.36 --< 0.0340 U --0.0861 --5.21 --< 0.0340 U --0.0904 --4.82 --< 0.0340 U --0.0964 --4.95 --< 0.0340 U --0.0556 --1.51 --< 0.00500 U ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- Aldehydes Gluteraldehyde Bacteria E. coli Fecal coliform bacteria Total Coliform Bacteria colonies/100ml DBCP 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane Ex tractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons Diesel General Chem istry Alkalinity, Total (CaCO3) Ammonia as N Bicarbonate Alkalinity as CaCO3 Bromide Carbonate as CaCO3 Chloride CO2 by Headspace Cyanide Fluoride MBAS Nitrate Nitrate Nitrogen Nitrite Nitrogen Oil & Grease HEM pH Phosphorus Specific conductance Sulfate Temperature of pH determination Total Dissolved Solids Total Suspended Solids Turbidity MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L UG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L pH UNITS MG/L UMHO/CM MG/L CELSIUS MG/L MG/L NTU 118 1.32 118 < 2.5 U < 10.0 U 6.3 < 12000 U --< 0.50 U < 0.12 U --< 0.50 U < 0.50 U < 4.71 U 6.80 H 0.249 255 14 22.0 H 157 1430, 312 H 865 Glycols 1,2-Propylene Glycol Diethylene Glycol Ethylene Glycol Tetraethylene glycol Triethylene glycol MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L --< 10 U --< 10 UJ < 10 U Light Gases Acetylene Ethane Ethene Methane n-Butane Propane MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L < 0.00500 0.0117 < 0.00500 1.86 < 0.00500 < 0.00500 U U U U Low M olecular W eight Acids Acetic Acid Butyric Acid Formic Acid Isobutyric acid Lactic acid Propionic Acid NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L Appendix A-1 < 10000 U < 10000 U < 10000 U < 10000 U < 5000 U < 13000 U Page 1 of 6 SUMMARY TABLE OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER A Property Owner PROPERTY OWNER A PROPERTY OWNER A PROPERTY OWNER A PROPERTY OWNER A PROPERTY OWNER A PROPERTY OWNER A ON WATER SUPPLY, BYPASSED ON WATER SUPPLY, BYPASSED ON WATER SUPPLY, BYPASSED ON WATER SUPPLY, BYPASSED ON WATER SUPPLY, BYPASSED ON WATER SUPPLY, BYPASSED PRESSURE TANK, SAMPLED WATER PRESSURE TANK, SAMPLED WATER PRESSURE TANK, SAMPLED WATER PRESSURE TANK, SAMPLED WATER PRESSURE TANK, SAMPLED WATER PRESSURE TANK, SAMPLED WATER DIRECTLY FROM WELL DIRECTLY FROM WELL DIRECTLY FROM WELL DIRECTLY FROM WELL DIRECTLY FROM WELL DIRECTLY FROM WELL Location Description Parameter and units Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date WELL 300 Pre-Treatment 1013201000201 10/13/2010 WELL 300 NA 0718201120201 7/18/2011 WELL 300 NA 0804201122804 8/4/2011 WELL 300 NA 0818201120203 8/18/2011 WELL 300 NA 0901201120201 9/1/2011 WELL 300 NA 1104201120202 11/4/2011 --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- < 0.1 U < 0.1 U < 100 U < 100 U < 12500 U < 2500 U <2U <2U <1U <1U ----0.01 0.388 ----< 0.00100 U 24.5 < 0.00500 U ------6.19 < 0.00500 U --5.18 0.369 < 0.000200 U ----2.25 < 0.0100 U < 0.00500 U 35.3 --10 --------- ----< 0.0100 U 0.262 ----< 0.00100 U 26.9 < 0.00500 U ------0.786 < 0.00500 U --5.19 0.912 < 0.000200 U ----1.74 < 0.0100 U < 0.00500 U 17.3 0.657 4.44 --------- ------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- 1.44, 6.26 < 0.00200 U 0.0122 0.616 < 0.00200 U 0.055 < 0.00100 U 24.6 0.00247 0.00922 0.0486 --3.88, 14.5 0.0353, 0.0377 --6.7 1.15, 1.34 < 0.000200 U < 0.00500 U 0.0137 1.83 < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U 19.6 0.641 3.82 < 0.00200 U 0.00415 0.00451 0.0616 --------------------------- ------0.234 ------27.5 ------< 0.0500 U --- --------------------------- --------------------------- --------------------------- 0.0566 < 0.00200 0.00416 0.354 < 0.00200 0.0671 < 0.00100 24.4 < 0.00200 < 0.00200 < 0.00500 0.0845 < 0.00200 M etals, 6020x Cesium Cesium, Dissolved Potassium Potassium, Dissolved Silicon Silicon, Dissolved Thorium Thorium, Dissolved Uranium Uranium, Dissolved MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L M etals, Total Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Boron Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Hardness, CaCO3 Iron Lead Lithium Magnesium Manganese Mercury Molybdenum Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Strontium Sulfur Thallium Titanium Vanadium Zinc MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L M etals, Dissolved Aluminum, Dissolved Antimony, Dissolved Arsenic, Dissolved Barium, Dissolved Beryllium, Dissolved Boron, Dissolved Cadmium, Dissolved Calcium, Dissolved Chromium, Dissolved Cobalt, Dissolved Copper, Dissolved Iron, Dissolved Lead, Dissolved NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L Appendix A-1 U U U U U U U Page 2 of 6 SUMMARY TABLE OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER A Property Owner PROPERTY OWNER A PROPERTY OWNER A PROPERTY OWNER A PROPERTY OWNER A PROPERTY OWNER A PROPERTY OWNER A ON WATER SUPPLY, BYPASSED ON WATER SUPPLY, BYPASSED ON WATER SUPPLY, BYPASSED ON WATER SUPPLY, BYPASSED ON WATER SUPPLY, BYPASSED ON WATER SUPPLY, BYPASSED PRESSURE TANK, SAMPLED WATER PRESSURE TANK, SAMPLED WATER PRESSURE TANK, SAMPLED WATER PRESSURE TANK, SAMPLED WATER PRESSURE TANK, SAMPLED WATER PRESSURE TANK, SAMPLED WATER DIRECTLY FROM WELL DIRECTLY FROM WELL DIRECTLY FROM WELL DIRECTLY FROM WELL DIRECTLY FROM WELL DIRECTLY FROM WELL Location Description Parameter and units Magnesium, Dissolved Manganese, Dissolved Mercury, Dissolved Molybdenum, Dissolved Nickel, Dissolved Potassium, Dissolved Selenium, Dissolved Silver, Dissolved Sodium, Dissolved Strontium, Dissolved Sulfur, Dissolved Thallium, Dissolved Titanium, Dissolved Vanadium, Dissolved Zinc, Dissolved Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date WELL 300 Pre-Treatment 1013201000201 10/13/2010 ------------------------------- WELL 300 NA 0718201120201 7/18/2011 5.25 0.788 ------1.53 ----18.2 0.671 ----------- WELL 300 NA 0804201122804 8/4/2011 ------------------------------- WELL 300 NA 0818201120203 8/18/2011 ------------------------------- WELL 300 NA 0901201120201 9/1/2011 ------------------------------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 25.9 < 1.00 U UG/L ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- < 0.0238 U < 0.0238 U < 0.0238 U < 0.0238 U < 0.0238 U < 0.95 U < 0.0238 U < 6.0 U < 0.0238 U < 0.95 U < 0.0238 U < 0.95 U < 0.0238 U < 0.0238 U < 0.0238 U < 0.0238 U < 0.0238 U < 0.0238 U < 0.0238 U < 0.0238 U < 0.0238 U < 0.95 U < 0.0238 U < 0.95 U UG/L --- --- --- --- --- < 100 U UG/L ------------------------- ------------------------- ------------------------- ------------------------- ------------------------- < 0.9 U <5U < 0.9 U <5U <5U <5U < 0.9 U < 0.9 U < 0.9 U < 0.9 U < 0.9 U < 0.9 U MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L WELL 300 NA 1104201120202 11/4/2011 4.9 0.959, 1.02, 1.03 < 0.000200 U 0.00578 < 0.00500 U 1.51 < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U 23.8 0.665 3.77 < 0.00200 U 0.00294 < 0.00400 U < 0.0500 U M iscellaneous Organics Inorganic Carbon, Dissolved Organic Carbon, Dissolved MG/L MG/L Pesticides and PCBs 4,4'-DDD 4,4'-DDE 4,4'-DDT Aldrin alpha-BHC Azinphos-methyl beta-BHC Carbaryl delta-BHC Dichlorvos Dieldrin Disulfoton Endosulfan I Endosulfan II Endosulfan sulfate Endrin Endrin aldehyde Endrin ketone gamma-BHC (Lindane) Heptachlor Heptachlor epoxide Malathion Methoxychlor Mevinphos UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L Purgeable Petroleum Hydrocarbons GRO as Gasoline Sem ivolatile Organics 1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene 1,2-Dinitrobenzene 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine 1,3-Dimethyl adamatane 1,3-Dinitrobenzene 1,4-Dinitrobenzene 1-Chloronaphthalene 2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 2,4-Dichlorophenol 2,4-Dimethylphenol NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L Appendix A-1 Page 3 of 6 SUMMARY TABLE OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER A Property Owner PROPERTY OWNER A PROPERTY OWNER A PROPERTY OWNER A PROPERTY OWNER A PROPERTY OWNER A PROPERTY OWNER A ON WATER SUPPLY, BYPASSED ON WATER SUPPLY, BYPASSED ON WATER SUPPLY, BYPASSED ON WATER SUPPLY, BYPASSED ON WATER SUPPLY, BYPASSED ON WATER SUPPLY, BYPASSED PRESSURE TANK, SAMPLED WATER PRESSURE TANK, SAMPLED WATER PRESSURE TANK, SAMPLED WATER PRESSURE TANK, SAMPLED WATER PRESSURE TANK, SAMPLED WATER PRESSURE TANK, SAMPLED WATER DIRECTLY FROM WELL DIRECTLY FROM WELL DIRECTLY FROM WELL DIRECTLY FROM WELL DIRECTLY FROM WELL DIRECTLY FROM WELL Location Description Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date Parameter and units 2,4-Dinitrophenol 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 2,6-Dichlorophenol 2,6-Dinitrotoluene 2-Butoxyethanol 2-Chloronaphthalene 2-Chlorophenol 2-Methylnaphthalene 2-Methylphenol 2-Nitroaniline 2-Nitrophenol 3,3-Dichlorobenzidine 3-Nitroaniline 4,4'-Methylenebis(2-chloroaniline) 4,4'-Methylenebis(N,N-dimethylanilin 4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether 4-Chloro-3-methylphenol 4-Chloroaniline 4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether 4-Methylphenol 4-Nitroaniline 4-Nitrophenol Acenaphthene Acenaphthylene Acetophenone Adamantane Aniline Anthracene Benzo (a) anthracene Benzo (a) pyrene Benzo (b) fluoranthene Benzo (g,h,i) perylene Benzo (k) fluoranthene Benzoic acid Benzyl alcohol Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate Butyl benzyl phthalate Carbazole Chlorobenzilate Chrysene Diallate (cis or trans) Dibenz (a,h) anthracene Dibenzofuran Diethyl phthalate Dimethyl phthalate Di-n-butyl phthalate Di-n-octyl phthalate Dinoseb Disulfoton d-Limonene Fluoranthene Fluorene Hexachlorobenzene Hexachlorobutadiene Hexachlorocyclopentadiene Hexachloroethane NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L WELL 300 Pre-Treatment 1013201000201 10/13/2010 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WELL 300 NA 0718201120201 7/18/2011 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WELL 300 NA 0804201122804 8/4/2011 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Appendix A-1 WELL 300 NA 0818201120203 8/18/2011 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WELL 300 NA 0901201120201 9/1/2011 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WELL 300 NA 1104201120202 11/4/2011 < 28 U <5U < 0.9 U < 0.9 U < 5 UJ < 0.9 U < 0.9 U < 0.5 U < 0.9 U < 0.9 U < 0.9 U <5U < 0.9 U < 14 UJ < 14 UJ < 14 U < 0.9 U < 0.9 UJ < 0.9 U < 0.9 U < 0.9 U < 0.9 U < 28 U < 0.5 U < 0.5 U < 0.9 U <5U < 0.9 U < 0.5 U < 0.5 UJ < 0.5 U < 0.5 U < 0.5 U < 0.5 U < 14 UJ < 14 U < 0.9 U < 0.9 U < 0.9 U < 5 UJ < 5 UJ < 0.9 U <9U < 0.5 UJ <5U < 0.5 U < 0.9 U <5U <5U <5U <5U <5U < 47 U <5U < 0.5 U < 0.5 U < 0.5 U < 0.9 U < 14 U <5U Page 4 of 6 SUMMARY TABLE OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER A Property Owner PROPERTY OWNER A PROPERTY OWNER A PROPERTY OWNER A PROPERTY OWNER A PROPERTY OWNER A PROPERTY OWNER A ON WATER SUPPLY, BYPASSED ON WATER SUPPLY, BYPASSED ON WATER SUPPLY, BYPASSED ON WATER SUPPLY, BYPASSED ON WATER SUPPLY, BYPASSED ON WATER SUPPLY, BYPASSED PRESSURE TANK, SAMPLED WATER PRESSURE TANK, SAMPLED WATER PRESSURE TANK, SAMPLED WATER PRESSURE TANK, SAMPLED WATER PRESSURE TANK, SAMPLED WATER PRESSURE TANK, SAMPLED WATER DIRECTLY FROM WELL DIRECTLY FROM WELL DIRECTLY FROM WELL DIRECTLY FROM WELL DIRECTLY FROM WELL DIRECTLY FROM WELL Location Description Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date Parameter and units Indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene Isophorone Naphthalene Nitrobenzene N-Nitrosodiethylamine N-Nitrosodimethylamine N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine N-Nitrosodiphenylamine N-Nitrosomethylethylamine Parathion-ethyl Parathion-methyl Pentachlorobenzene Pentachlorophenol Phenanthrene Phenol Phorate Pronamide Pyrene Pyridine Squalene Terbufos Terpineol Tributoxyethyl phosphate Trifluralin UG/L WELL 300 Pre-Treatment 1013201000201 10/13/2010 --------------------------------------------------- WELL 300 NA 0718201120201 7/18/2011 --------------------------------------------------- WELL 300 NA 0804201122804 8/4/2011 --------------------------------------------------- WELL 300 NA 0818201120203 8/18/2011 --------------------------------------------------- WELL 300 NA 0901201120201 9/1/2011 --------------------------------------------------- WELL 300 NA 1104201120202 11/4/2011 < 0.5 U < 0.9 U < 0.5 U < 0.9 U < 0.9 U <5U <5U < 0.9 U < 0.9 U <5U <5U <5U < 0.9 U <5U < 0.5 U < 0.9 U < 0.9 U < 0.9 U < 0.5 U <5U 6J < 5 UJ <5U <5U < 5 UJ UG/L --- --- --- --- --- --- UG/L ------------------------------< 0.500 U ----------------< 0.500 U ------------- ------------------------------< 0.500 U ----------------< 0.500 U ------------- --------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------- UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L TICs 1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene Volatile Organics 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 1,1-Dichloroethane 1,1-Dichloroethene 1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 1,2-Dichloroethane 1,2-Dichloropropane 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 1,4-Dichlorobenzene Acetone Benzene Carbon disulfide Carbon Tetrachloride Chlorobenzene Chloroform cis-1,2-Dichloroethene Diisopropyl Ether Ethanol Ethyl tert-Butyl Ether Ethylbenzene Hexachlorobutadiene Isopropyl alcohol Isopropylbenzene m,p-Xylene Methoxychlor Methyl tert-Butyl Ether NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L Appendix A-1 < < < < < 1.00 U 1.00 U 1.00 U 1.00 U 1.00 U --< 1.00 U < 0.1003 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U --< 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 50.0 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 100 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 0.9 U < 50.0 U < 1.00 U < 2.00 U < 0.0238 U < 1.00 U Page 5 of 6 SUMMARY TABLE OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER A Property Owner PROPERTY OWNER A PROPERTY OWNER A PROPERTY OWNER A PROPERTY OWNER A PROPERTY OWNER A PROPERTY OWNER A ON WATER SUPPLY, BYPASSED ON WATER SUPPLY, BYPASSED ON WATER SUPPLY, BYPASSED ON WATER SUPPLY, BYPASSED ON WATER SUPPLY, BYPASSED ON WATER SUPPLY, BYPASSED PRESSURE TANK, SAMPLED WATER PRESSURE TANK, SAMPLED WATER PRESSURE TANK, SAMPLED WATER PRESSURE TANK, SAMPLED WATER PRESSURE TANK, SAMPLED WATER PRESSURE TANK, SAMPLED WATER DIRECTLY FROM WELL DIRECTLY FROM WELL DIRECTLY FROM WELL DIRECTLY FROM WELL DIRECTLY FROM WELL DIRECTLY FROM WELL Location Description Parameter and units Methylene Chloride Naphthalene o-Xylene Styrene Tert-Amyl Methyl Ether Tertiary Butyl Alcohol Tetrachloroethene Tetrahydrofuran Toluene trans-1,2-Dichloroethene Trichloroethene Vinyl chloride Xylenes, total Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L WELL 300 Pre-Treatment 1013201000201 10/13/2010 ----------------100 ------< 0.500 U WELL 300 NA 0718201120201 7/18/2011 ----------------< 0.500 U ------< 0.500 U WELL 300 NA 0804201122804 8/4/2011 --------------------------- WELL 300 NA 0818201120203 8/18/2011 --------------------------- WELL 300 NA 0901201120201 9/1/2011 --------------------------- WELL 300 NA 1104201120202 11/4/2011 < 5.00 U < 5.00 U < 1.00 U --< 1.00 U < 10.0 U < 1.00 U < 20.0 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 3.00 U Notes: U : Parameter not detected at posted limit < : Parameter not detected at posted limit ND : Parameter not detected H : Parameter analyzed beyond method recommended holding time J : Estimated value --- : Parameter not analyzed. B : Blank qualified ug/L : Micrograms per liter mg/L : Milligrams per liter NA : Not Available NTU : Nephelometric Turbidity Unit umho/cm : Micromhos per centimeter colonies/100 ml : Colonies per 100 millileters NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx Appendix A-1 Page 6 of 6 APPENDIX A-2 EPA STUDY WELL DATA PROPERTY OWNER SUMMARY TABLE OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER B Property Owner PROPERTY OWNER B THE SPRING IS LOCATED NORTHWEST OF THE HOUSE; THE OWNER RECENTLY SHOCKED THE SPRING TWO WEEKS AGO WITH CHLORINE; IT HAS A CONCRETE SLAB USED AS A COVER THAT WAS INSTALLED TWO WEEKS AGO. Location Description Parameter and units Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date PROPERTY OWNER B SPRING Not Applicable NA 1014201012005 10/14/2010 (Baseline) SPRING Not Applicable Pre-Treatment 1104201120201 11/4/2011 UG/L --- --- colonies/100ml colonies/100ml ------- Present 5 Present UG/L --- < 0.1000 U UG/L --- < 95.2 U MG/L ----21.2 --< 10.0 U < 5.00 UH ------0.0611 ------< 6.41 U 6.30 H --82.6 11.0 H 21.1 H 64 < 1.00 U < 1.00 U 25.2 1.22 25.2 < 2.5 U < 10.0 U 2.8 24000 --< 0.50 U < 0.12 U --1.6 < 0.50 U < 5.13 U 6.10 H < 0.100 U 92.3 12.3 22.0 H 61.0 J < 1.00 U 0.89 ----------- --< 10 U --< 10 UJ < 10 U Aldehydes Gluteraldehyde Bacteria E. coli Fecal coliform bacteria Total Coliform Bacteria colonies/100ml DBCP 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane Ex tractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons Diesel General Chem istry Alkalinity, Total (CaCO3) Ammonia as N Bicarbonate Alkalinity as CaCO3 Bromide Carbonate as CaCO3 Chloride CO2 by Headspace Cyanide Fluoride MBAS Nitrate Nitrate Nitrogen Nitrite Nitrogen Oil & Grease HEM pH Phosphorus Specific conductance Sulfate Temperature of pH determination Total Dissolved Solids Total Suspended Solids Turbidity MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L UG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L pH UNITS MG/L UMHO/CM MG/L CELSIUS MG/L MG/L NTU Glycols 1,2-Propylene Glycol Diethylene Glycol Ethylene Glycol Tetraethylene glycol Triethylene glycol MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L Light Gases Acetylene Ethane Ethene Methane n-Butane Propane --< 0.0260 U --< 0.0260 U --< 0.0340 U MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L < < < < < < 0.00500 0.00500 0.00500 0.00500 0.00500 0.00500 U U U U U U Low M olecular W eight Acids Acetic Acid Butyric Acid Formic Acid Isobutyric acid Lactic acid NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx ----------- UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L Appendix A-2 < 10000 U < 10000 U < 10000 U < 10000 U < 5000 U Page 1 of 6 SUMMARY TABLE OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER B Property Owner PROPERTY OWNER B THE SPRING IS LOCATED NORTHWEST OF THE HOUSE; THE OWNER RECENTLY SHOCKED THE SPRING TWO WEEKS AGO WITH CHLORINE; IT HAS A CONCRETE SLAB USED AS A COVER THAT WAS INSTALLED TWO WEEKS AGO. Location Description Parameter and units Propionic Acid Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date UG/L PROPERTY OWNER B SPRING Not Applicable NA 1014201012005 10/14/2010 (Baseline) --- SPRING Not Applicable Pre-Treatment 1104201120201 11/4/2011 < 13000 U --------------------- < 0.1 U < 0.1 U < 100 U < 100 U < 2500 U < 2500 U <2U <2U <1U <1U ----< 0.0100 U 0.144 ----< 0.00100 U 9.34 < 0.00500 U ------< 0.0500 U < 0.00500 U --2.72 < 0.0150 U < 0.000200 U ----< 1.00 U < 0.0100 U < 0.00500 U 2 --3.1 --------- < 0.0200 U < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U 0.14 < 0.00200 U < 0.0500 U < 0.00100 U 9.04 < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U < 0.00500 U --< 0.0500 U < 0.00200 U --2.49 < 0.00500 U < 0.000200 U < 0.00500 U < 0.00500 U < 1.00 U < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U 2 < 0.0500 U 2.96 < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U < 0.00400 U < 0.0500 U ----------------- < 0.0200 U < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U 0.14 < 0.00200 U < 0.0500 U < 0.00100 U 10.2 M etals, 6020x Cesium Cesium, Dissolved Potassium Potassium, Dissolved Silicon Silicon, Dissolved Thorium Thorium, Dissolved Uranium Uranium, Dissolved MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L M etals, Total Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Boron Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Hardness, CaCO3 Iron Lead Lithium Magnesium Manganese Mercury Molybdenum Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Strontium Sulfur Thallium Titanium Vanadium Zinc MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L M etals, Dissolved Aluminum, Dissolved Antimony, Dissolved Arsenic, Dissolved Barium, Dissolved Beryllium, Dissolved Boron, Dissolved Cadmium, Dissolved Calcium, Dissolved NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L Appendix A-2 Page 2 of 6 SUMMARY TABLE OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER B Property Owner PROPERTY OWNER B THE SPRING IS LOCATED NORTHWEST OF THE HOUSE; THE OWNER RECENTLY SHOCKED THE SPRING TWO WEEKS AGO WITH CHLORINE; IT HAS A CONCRETE SLAB USED AS A COVER THAT WAS INSTALLED TWO WEEKS AGO. Location Description Parameter and units Chromium, Dissolved Cobalt, Dissolved Copper, Dissolved Iron, Dissolved Lead, Dissolved Magnesium, Dissolved Manganese, Dissolved Mercury, Dissolved Molybdenum, Dissolved Nickel, Dissolved Potassium, Dissolved Selenium, Dissolved Silver, Dissolved Sodium, Dissolved Strontium, Dissolved Sulfur, Dissolved Thallium, Dissolved Titanium, Dissolved Vanadium, Dissolved Zinc, Dissolved Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date PROPERTY OWNER B SPRING Not Applicable NA 1014201012005 10/14/2010 (Baseline) ----------------------------------------- SPRING Not Applicable Pre-Treatment 1104201120201 11/4/2011 < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U < 0.00500 U < 0.0500 U < 0.00200 U 2.86 < 0.00500 U < 0.000200 U < 0.00500 U < 0.00500 U < 1.00 U < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U 3.04 < 0.0500 U 3.32 < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U < 0.00400 U < 0.0500 U ----- 5.24 1.08 UG/L ------------------------------------------------- < 0.0240 U < 0.0240 U < 0.0240 U < 0.024 U < 0.0240 U < 0.96 U < 0.0240 U < 6.0 U < 0.0240 U < 0.96 U < 0.0240 U < 0.96 U < 0.0240 U < 0.0240 U < 0.0240 U < 0.0240 U < 0.0240 U < 0.0240 U < 0.0240 U < 0.0240 U < 0.0240 U < 0.96 U < 0.0240 U < 0.96 U UG/L --- < 100 U UG/L ------- <1U <5U <1U MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L M iscellaneous Organics Inorganic Carbon, Dissolved Organic Carbon, Dissolved MG/L MG/L Pesticides and PCBs 4,4'-DDD 4,4'-DDE 4,4'-DDT Aldrin alpha-BHC Azinphos-methyl beta-BHC Carbaryl delta-BHC Dichlorvos Dieldrin Disulfoton Endosulfan I Endosulfan II Endosulfan sulfate Endrin Endrin aldehyde Endrin ketone gamma-BHC (Lindane) Heptachlor Heptachlor epoxide Malathion Methoxychlor Mevinphos UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L Purgeable Petroleum Hydrocarbons GRO as Gasoline Sem ivolatile Organics 1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene 1,2-Dinitrobenzene 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx UG/L UG/L Appendix A-2 Page 3 of 6 SUMMARY TABLE OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER B Property Owner PROPERTY OWNER B THE SPRING IS LOCATED NORTHWEST OF THE HOUSE; THE OWNER RECENTLY SHOCKED THE SPRING TWO WEEKS AGO WITH CHLORINE; IT HAS A CONCRETE SLAB USED AS A COVER THAT WAS INSTALLED TWO WEEKS AGO. Location Description Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date Parameter and units 1,3-Dimethyl adamatane 1,3-Dinitrobenzene 1,4-Dinitrobenzene 1-Chloronaphthalene 2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 2,4-Dichlorophenol 2,4-Dimethylphenol 2,4-Dinitrophenol 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 2,6-Dichlorophenol 2,6-Dinitrotoluene 2-Butoxyethanol 2-Chloronaphthalene 2-Chlorophenol 2-Methylnaphthalene 2-Methylphenol 2-Nitroaniline 2-Nitrophenol 3,3-Dichlorobenzidine 3-Nitroaniline 4,4'-Methylenebis(2-chloroaniline) 4,4'-Methylenebis(N,N-dimethylanilin 4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether 4-Chloro-3-methylphenol 4-Chloroaniline 4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether 4-Methylphenol 4-Nitroaniline 4-Nitrophenol Acenaphthene Acenaphthylene Acetophenone Adamantane Aniline Anthracene Benzo (a) anthracene Benzo (a) pyrene Benzo (b) fluoranthene Benzo (g,h,i) perylene Benzo (k) fluoranthene Benzoic acid Benzyl alcohol Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate Butyl benzyl phthalate Carbazole Chlorobenzilate Chrysene Diallate (cis or trans) Dibenz (a,h) anthracene Dibenzofuran NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L PROPERTY OWNER B SPRING Not Applicable NA 1014201012005 10/14/2010 (Baseline) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Appendix A-2 SPRING Not Applicable Pre-Treatment 1104201120201 11/4/2011 <5U <5U <5U <1U <1U <1U <1U <1U <1U < 29 U <5U <1U <1U < 5 UJ <1U <1U < 0.5 U <1U <1U <1U <5U <1U < 15 UJ < 15 UJ < 15 U <1U < 1 UJ <1U <1U <1U <1U < 29 U < 0.5 U < 0.5 U <1U <5U <1U < 0.5 U < 0.5 UJ < 0.5 U < 0.5 U < 0.5 U < 0.5 U < 15 UJ < 15 U <1U <1U <1U < 5 UJ < 5 UJ <1U < 10 U < 0.5 UJ <5U < 0.5 U <1U Page 4 of 6 SUMMARY TABLE OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER B Property Owner PROPERTY OWNER B THE SPRING IS LOCATED NORTHWEST OF THE HOUSE; THE OWNER RECENTLY SHOCKED THE SPRING TWO WEEKS AGO WITH CHLORINE; IT HAS A CONCRETE SLAB USED AS A COVER THAT WAS INSTALLED TWO WEEKS AGO. Location Description Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date Parameter and units Diethyl phthalate Dimethyl phthalate Di-n-butyl phthalate Di-n-octyl phthalate Dinoseb Disulfoton d-Limonene Fluoranthene Fluorene Hexachlorobenzene Hexachlorobutadiene Hexachlorocyclopentadiene Hexachloroethane Indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene Isophorone Naphthalene Nitrobenzene N-Nitrosodiethylamine N-Nitrosodimethylamine N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine N-Nitrosodiphenylamine N-Nitrosomethylethylamine Parathion-ethyl Parathion-methyl Pentachlorobenzene Pentachlorophenol Phenanthrene Phenol Phorate Pronamide Pyrene Pyridine Squalene Terbufos Terpineol Tributoxyethyl phosphate Trifluralin PROPERTY OWNER B UG/L SPRING Not Applicable NA 1014201012005 10/14/2010 (Baseline) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- SPRING Not Applicable Pre-Treatment 1104201120201 11/4/2011 <5U <5U <5U <5U <5U < 48 U <5U < 0.5 U < 0.5 U < 0.5 U <1U < 15 U <5U < 0.5 U <1U < 0.5 U <1U <1U <5U <5U <1U <1U <5U <5U <5U <1U <5U < 0.5 U <1U <1U <1U < 0.5 U <5U < 5 UJ < 5 UJ <5U <5U < 5 UJ UG/L --- --- UG/L ----------------------------- UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L TICs 1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene Volatile Organics 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 1,1-Dichloroethane 1,1-Dichloroethene 1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 1,2-Dichloroethane 1,2-Dichloropropane 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 1,4-Dichlorobenzene NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L Appendix A-2 < < < < < 1.00 U 1.00 U 1.00 U 1.00 U 1.00 U --< 1.00 U < 0.1000 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U --< 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U Page 5 of 6 SUMMARY TABLE OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER B Property Owner PROPERTY OWNER B THE SPRING IS LOCATED NORTHWEST OF THE HOUSE; THE OWNER RECENTLY SHOCKED THE SPRING TWO WEEKS AGO WITH CHLORINE; IT HAS A CONCRETE SLAB USED AS A COVER THAT WAS INSTALLED TWO WEEKS AGO. Location Description Parameter and units Acetone Benzene Carbon disulfide Carbon Tetrachloride Chlorobenzene Chloroform cis-1,2-Dichloroethene Diisopropyl Ether Ethanol Ethyl tert-Butyl Ether Ethylbenzene Hexachlorobutadiene Isopropyl alcohol Isopropylbenzene m,p-Xylene Methoxychlor Methyl tert-Butyl Ether Methylene Chloride Naphthalene o-Xylene Styrene Tert-Amyl Methyl Ether Tertiary Butyl Alcohol Tetrachloroethene Tetrahydrofuran Toluene trans-1,2-Dichloroethene Trichloroethene Vinyl chloride Xylenes, total Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L PROPERTY OWNER B SPRING Not Applicable NA 1014201012005 10/14/2010 (Baseline) --< 0.500 U ----------------< 0.500 U ----------------------------< 0.500 U ------< 0.500 U SPRING Not Applicable Pre-Treatment 1104201120201 11/4/2011 < 50.0 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 100 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U <1U < 50.0 U < 1.00 U < 2.00 U < 0.0240 U < 1.00 U < 5.00 U < 5.00 U < 1.00 U --< 1.00 U < 10.0 U < 1.00 U < 20.0 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 3.00 U Notes: U : Parameter not detected at posted limit < : Parameter not detected at posted limit ND : Parameter not detected H : Parameter analyzed beyond method recommended holding time J : Estimated value --- : Parameter not analyzed. B : Blank qualified ug/L : Micrograms per liter mg/L : Milligrams per liter NA : Not Available NTU : Nephelometric Turbidity Unit umho/cm : Micromhos per centimeter colonies/100 ml : Colonies per 100 millileters NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx Appendix A-2 Page 6 of 6 APPENDIX A-3 EPA STUDY WELL DATA PROPERTY OWNER SUMMARY TABLE OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER C Property Owner PROPERTY OWNER C PROPERTY OWNER C WELL LOCATED 5 FEET OFF OF NE WELL LOCATED 5 FEET OFF OF NE CORNER OF HOUSE; CORNER OF HOUSE; INACCESSIBLE-WELL HEAD IS INACCESSIBLE-WELL HEAD IS BURIED; SAMPLED FROM BURIED; SAMPLED FROM BASEMENT SPIGOT Location Description BASEMENT SPIGOT Parameter and units Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date WELL 260 Pre-Treatment 0429201113403 4/29/2011 (Baseline) WELL 260 Pre-Treatment 1027201120201 10/27/2011 UG/L --- --- colonies/100ml colonies/100ml ------- Absent <1U Absent UG/L --- < 0.1009 U UG/L --- < 94.3 U MG/L ----161 --< 10.0 U 413 ------< 0.0500 U ------< 5.0 U 8.50 H --1780 10.3 21.1 H 842 2 3 166 0.131 156 3.3 12.2 351 < 12000 U --0.68 < 0.12 U --< 0.50 U < 0.50 U < 4.94 U 8.30 H < 0.100 U 1270 21.4 J 21.0 H 726 2.8 5 ----------- --< 10 U --< 10 UJ < 10 U --< 0.0260 U --21.5 --< 0.0340 U < 0.00500 U < 0.00500 U < 0.00500 U 22.5 < 0.00500 U < 0.00500 U ------------- < 10000 U < 10000 U < 10000 U < 10000 U < 5000 U < 13000 U Aldehydes Gluteraldehyde Bacteria E. coli Fecal coliform bacteria Total Coliform Bacteria colonies/100ml DBCP 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane Ex tractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons Diesel General Chem istry Alkalinity, Total (CaCO3) Ammonia as N Bicarbonate Alkalinity as CaCO3 Bromide Carbonate as CaCO3 Chloride CO2 by Headspace Cyanide Fluoride MBAS Nitrate Nitrate Nitrogen Nitrite Nitrogen Oil & Grease HEM pH Phosphorus Specific conductance Sulfate Temperature of pH determination Total Dissolved Solids Total Suspended Solids Turbidity MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L UG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L pH UNITS MG/L UMHO/CM MG/L CELSIUS MG/L MG/L NTU Glycols 1,2-Propylene Glycol Diethylene Glycol Ethylene Glycol Tetraethylene glycol Triethylene glycol MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L Light Gases Acetylene Ethane Ethene Methane n-Butane Propane MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L Low M olecular W eight Acids Acetic Acid Butyric Acid Formic Acid Isobutyric acid Lactic acid Propionic Acid NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L Appendix A-3 Page 1 of 6 SUMMARY TABLE OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER C Property Owner PROPERTY OWNER C PROPERTY OWNER C WELL LOCATED 5 FEET OFF OF NE WELL LOCATED 5 FEET OFF OF NE CORNER OF HOUSE; CORNER OF HOUSE; INACCESSIBLE-WELL HEAD IS INACCESSIBLE-WELL HEAD IS BURIED; SAMPLED FROM BURIED; SAMPLED FROM BASEMENT SPIGOT Location Description BASEMENT SPIGOT Parameter and units Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date WELL 260 Pre-Treatment 0429201113403 4/29/2011 (Baseline) WELL 260 Pre-Treatment 1027201120201 10/27/2011 --------------------- 0.0013 0.00071 2.96 2.68 3.64 3.27 < 0.002 U < 0.002 U < 0.001 U < 0.001 U ----< 0.0100 U 1.95 ----< 0.00100 U 14.2 < 0.00500 U ------0.285 < 0.00500 U --2.8 0.0249 < 0.000200 U ----3.57 < 0.0100 U < 0.00500 U 312 --0.746 --------- 0.262 < 0.00200 U 0.00746 1.58 < 0.00200 U 0.334 < 0.00100 U 11.7 < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U < 0.00500 U --0.368 < 0.00200 U --2.38 0.0106 < 0.000200 U < 0.00500 U < 0.00500 U 2.84 < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U 268 1.67 < 0.500 U < 0.00200 U 0.00475 < 0.00400 U < 0.0500 U ----------------------- < 0.0200 U < 0.00200 U 0.00456 1.28 < 0.00200 U 0.328 < 0.00100 U 9.14 < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U < 0.00500 U M etals, 6020x Cesium Cesium, Dissolved Potassium Potassium, Dissolved Silicon Silicon, Dissolved Thorium Thorium, Dissolved Uranium Uranium, Dissolved MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L M etals, Total Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Boron Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Hardness, CaCO3 Iron Lead Lithium Magnesium Manganese Mercury Molybdenum Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Strontium Sulfur Thallium Titanium Vanadium Zinc MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L M etals, Dissolved Aluminum, Dissolved Antimony, Dissolved Arsenic, Dissolved Barium, Dissolved Beryllium, Dissolved Boron, Dissolved Cadmium, Dissolved Calcium, Dissolved Chromium, Dissolved Cobalt, Dissolved Copper, Dissolved NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L Appendix A-3 Page 2 of 6 SUMMARY TABLE OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER C Property Owner PROPERTY OWNER C PROPERTY OWNER C WELL LOCATED 5 FEET OFF OF NE WELL LOCATED 5 FEET OFF OF NE CORNER OF HOUSE; CORNER OF HOUSE; INACCESSIBLE-WELL HEAD IS INACCESSIBLE-WELL HEAD IS BURIED; SAMPLED FROM BURIED; SAMPLED FROM BASEMENT SPIGOT Location Description BASEMENT SPIGOT Parameter and units Iron, Dissolved Lead, Dissolved Magnesium, Dissolved Manganese, Dissolved Mercury, Dissolved Molybdenum, Dissolved Nickel, Dissolved Potassium, Dissolved Selenium, Dissolved Silver, Dissolved Sodium, Dissolved Strontium, Dissolved Sulfur, Dissolved Thallium, Dissolved Titanium, Dissolved Vanadium, Dissolved Zinc, Dissolved Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date WELL 260 Pre-Treatment 0429201113403 4/29/2011 (Baseline) ----------------------------------- WELL 260 Pre-Treatment 1027201120201 10/27/2011 < 0.0500 U < 0.00200 U 1.9 0.0118 < 0.000200 U < 0.00500 U < 0.00500 U 2.5 < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U 244 1.37 < 0.500 U < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U < 0.00400 U < 0.0500 U ----- 36.4 < 1.00 U UG/L ------------------------------------------------- < 0.0472 U < 0.0472 U < 0.0472 U < 0.0472 U < 0.0472 U < 0.94 U < 0.0472 U < 6.0 U < 0.0472 U < 0.94 U < 0.0472 U < 0.94 U < 0.0472 U < 0.0472 U < 0.0472 U < 0.0472 U < 0.0472 U < 0.0472 U < 0.0472 U < 0.0472 U < 0.0472 U < 0.94 U < 0.0472 U < 0.94 U UG/L --- < 100 U UG/L ----------------- MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L M iscellaneous Organics Inorganic Carbon, Dissolved Organic Carbon, Dissolved MG/L MG/L Pesticides and PCBs 4,4'-DDD 4,4'-DDE 4,4'-DDT Aldrin alpha-BHC Azinphos-methyl beta-BHC Carbaryl delta-BHC Dichlorvos Dieldrin Disulfoton Endosulfan I Endosulfan II Endosulfan sulfate Endrin Endrin aldehyde Endrin ketone gamma-BHC (Lindane) Heptachlor Heptachlor epoxide Malathion Methoxychlor Mevinphos UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L Purgeable Petroleum Hydrocarbons GRO as Gasoline Sem ivolatile Organics 1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene 1,2-Dinitrobenzene 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine 1,3-Dimethyl adamatane 1,3-Dinitrobenzene 1,4-Dinitrobenzene 1-Chloronaphthalene 2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L Appendix A-3 < < < < < < < < 1 5 1 5 5 5 1 1 U U U U U U U U Page 3 of 6 SUMMARY TABLE OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER C Property Owner PROPERTY OWNER C PROPERTY OWNER C WELL LOCATED 5 FEET OFF OF NE WELL LOCATED 5 FEET OFF OF NE CORNER OF HOUSE; CORNER OF HOUSE; INACCESSIBLE-WELL HEAD IS INACCESSIBLE-WELL HEAD IS BURIED; SAMPLED FROM BURIED; SAMPLED FROM BASEMENT SPIGOT Location Description BASEMENT SPIGOT Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date Parameter and units 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 2,4-Dichlorophenol 2,4-Dimethylphenol 2,4-Dinitrophenol 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 2,6-Dichlorophenol 2,6-Dinitrotoluene 2-Butoxyethanol 2-Chloronaphthalene 2-Chlorophenol 2-Methylnaphthalene 2-Methylphenol 2-Nitroaniline 2-Nitrophenol 3,3-Dichlorobenzidine 3-Nitroaniline 4,4'-Methylenebis(2-chloroaniline) 4,4'-Methylenebis(N,N-dimethylanilin 4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether 4-Chloro-3-methylphenol 4-Chloroaniline 4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether 4-Methylphenol 4-Nitroaniline 4-Nitrophenol Acenaphthene Acenaphthylene Acetophenone Adamantane Aniline Anthracene Benzo (a) anthracene Benzo (a) pyrene Benzo (b) fluoranthene Benzo (g,h,i) perylene Benzo (k) fluoranthene Benzoic acid Benzyl alcohol Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate Butyl benzyl phthalate Carbazole Chlorobenzilate Chrysene Diallate (cis or trans) Dibenz (a,h) anthracene Dibenzofuran Diethyl phthalate Dimethyl phthalate Di-n-butyl phthalate Di-n-octyl phthalate Dinoseb Disulfoton d-Limonene Fluoranthene NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L WELL 260 Pre-Treatment 0429201113403 4/29/2011 (Baseline) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Appendix A-3 WELL 260 Pre-Treatment 1027201120201 10/27/2011 <1U <1U <1U <1U < 29 U <5U <1U <1U <5U <1U <1U < 0.5 U <1U <1U <1U <5U <1U < 14 UJ < 14 U < 14 U <1U <1U <1U <1U <1U <1U < 29 U < 0.5 U < 0.5 U <1U <5U <1U < 0.5 U < 0.5 U < 0.5 U < 0.5 U < 0.5 U < 0.5 U < 14 U < 14 U <1U <1U <1U <5U <5U <1U < 10 U < 0.5 U <5U < 0.5 U <1U <5U <5U <5U <5U <5U < 48 U <5U < 0.5 U Page 4 of 6 SUMMARY TABLE OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER C Property Owner PROPERTY OWNER C PROPERTY OWNER C WELL LOCATED 5 FEET OFF OF NE WELL LOCATED 5 FEET OFF OF NE CORNER OF HOUSE; CORNER OF HOUSE; INACCESSIBLE-WELL HEAD IS INACCESSIBLE-WELL HEAD IS BURIED; SAMPLED FROM BURIED; SAMPLED FROM BASEMENT SPIGOT Location Description BASEMENT SPIGOT Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date Parameter and units Fluorene Hexachlorobenzene Hexachlorobutadiene Hexachlorocyclopentadiene Hexachloroethane Indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene Isophorone Naphthalene Nitrobenzene N-Nitrosodiethylamine N-Nitrosodimethylamine N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine N-Nitrosodiphenylamine N-Nitrosomethylethylamine Parathion-ethyl Parathion-methyl Pentachlorobenzene Pentachlorophenol Phenanthrene Phenol Phorate Pronamide Pyrene Pyridine Squalene Terbufos Terpineol Tributoxyethyl phosphate Trifluralin UG/L WELL 260 Pre-Treatment 0429201113403 4/29/2011 (Baseline) ------------------------------------------------------------- WELL 260 Pre-Treatment 1027201120201 10/27/2011 < 0.5 U < 0.5 U <1U < 14 U <5U < 0.5 U <1U < 0.5 U <1U <1U <5U <5U <1U <1U <5U <5U <5U <1U <5U < 0.5 U <1U <1U <1U < 0.5 U <5U <5U <5U <5U <5U <5U UG/L --- < 100 U UG/L ------------------------------< 0.500 U ----------------< 0.500 U UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L TICs 1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene Volatile Organics 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 1,1-Dichloroethane 1,1-Dichloroethene 1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 1,2-Dichloroethane 1,2-Dichloropropane 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 1,4-Dichlorobenzene Acetone Benzene Carbon disulfide Carbon Tetrachloride Chlorobenzene Chloroform cis-1,2-Dichloroethene Diisopropyl Ether Ethanol Ethyl tert-Butyl Ether Ethylbenzene NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L Appendix A-3 < < < < < 1.00 U 1.00 U 1.00 U 1.00 U 1.00 U --< 1.00 U < 0.1009 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U --< 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 50.0 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 100 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U Page 5 of 6 SUMMARY TABLE OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER C Property Owner PROPERTY OWNER C PROPERTY OWNER C WELL LOCATED 5 FEET OFF OF NE WELL LOCATED 5 FEET OFF OF NE CORNER OF HOUSE; CORNER OF HOUSE; INACCESSIBLE-WELL HEAD IS INACCESSIBLE-WELL HEAD IS BURIED; SAMPLED FROM BURIED; SAMPLED FROM BASEMENT SPIGOT Location Description BASEMENT SPIGOT Parameter and units Hexachlorobutadiene Isopropyl alcohol Isopropylbenzene m,p-Xylene Methoxychlor Methyl tert-Butyl Ether Methylene Chloride Naphthalene o-Xylene Styrene Tert-Amyl Methyl Ether Tertiary Butyl Alcohol Tetrachloroethene Tetrahydrofuran Toluene trans-1,2-Dichloroethene Trichloroethene Vinyl chloride Xylenes, total Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L WELL 260 Pre-Treatment 0429201113403 4/29/2011 (Baseline) ----------------------------< 0.500 U ------< 0.500 U WELL 260 Pre-Treatment 1027201120201 10/27/2011 <1U < 50.0 U < 1.00 U < 2.00 U < 0.0472 U < 1.00 U < 5.00 U < 5.00 U < 1.00 U --< 1.00 U < 10.0 U < 1.00 U --< 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 3.00 U Notes: U : Parameter not detected at posted limit < : Parameter not detected at posted limit ND : Parameter not detected H : Parameter analyzed beyond method recommended holding time J : Estimated value --- : Parameter not analyzed. B : Blank qualified ug/L : Micrograms per liter mg/L : Milligrams per liter NA : Not Available NTU : Nephelometric Turbidity Unit umho/cm : Micromhos per centimeter colonies/100 ml : Colonies per 100 millileters NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx Appendix A-3 Page 6 of 6 APPENDIX A-4 EPA STUDY WELL DATA PROPERTY OWNER SUMMARY TABLE OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER D PROPERTY OWNER D PROPERTY OWNER D PROPERTY OWNER D WELL 250 NA NTA0535-01102010-1600 1/10/2010 (Baseline) WELL 250 Pre-Treatment 0610201124603 6/10/2011 WELL 250 Pre-Treatment 1028201120201 10/28/2011 UG/L --- --- --- colonies/100ml colonies/100ml ------- ------- Absent <1U Present UG/L --- --- < 0.1014 U UG/L --- --- < 95.2 U MG/L ----248 --21.2 13.2 E ------0.0985 ------< 5.81 U 8.20 H --532 7.79 21.2 H 310 < 1.00 U < 1.00 U ----216 --55.7 22.3 J ------< 0.0500 U ------< 6.02 U 8.80 H --614 5.23 23.0 H 335 < 1.00 U 1.74 226 < 0.100 U 221 < 2.5 U < 10.0 U 12.6 J < 12000 U --0.66 < 0.12 U --< 0.50 U < 0.50 UJ < 4.30 U 8.10 H < 0.100 U 462 12.1 J 21.0 H 277 < 1.00 U 0.89 ----------- ----------- --< 10 U --< 10 UJ < 10 U --< 0.0260 U --3.55 --< 0.0340 U --< 0.0260 U --4.81 --< 0.0340 U < 0.00500 U < 0.00500 U < 0.00500 U 2.11 J < 0.00500 U < 0.00500 U ------------- ------------- < 10000 U < 10000 U < 10000 U < 10000 U < 5000 U < 13000 U Property Owner Location Description Parameter and units Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date Aldehydes Gluteraldehyde Bacteria E. coli Fecal coliform bacteria Total Coliform Bacteria colonies/100ml DBCP 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane Ex tractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons Diesel General Chem istry Alkalinity, Total (CaCO3) Ammonia as N Bicarbonate Alkalinity as CaCO3 Bromide Carbonate as CaCO3 Chloride CO2 by Headspace Cyanide Fluoride MBAS Nitrate Nitrate Nitrogen Nitrite Nitrogen Oil & Grease HEM pH Phosphorus Specific conductance Sulfate Temperature of pH determination Total Dissolved Solids Total Suspended Solids Turbidity MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L UG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L pH UNITS MG/L UMHO/CM MG/L CELSIUS MG/L MG/L NTU Glycols 1,2-Propylene Glycol Diethylene Glycol Ethylene Glycol Tetraethylene glycol Triethylene glycol MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L Light Gases Acetylene Ethane Ethene Methane n-Butane Propane MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L Low M olecular W eight Acids Acetic Acid Butyric Acid Formic Acid Isobutyric acid Lactic acid Propionic Acid NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L Appendix A-4 Page 1 of 6 SUMMARY TABLE OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER D Property Owner PROPERTY OWNER D PROPERTY OWNER D PROPERTY OWNER D WELL 250 NA NTA0535-01102010-1600 1/10/2010 (Baseline) WELL 250 Pre-Treatment 0610201124603 6/10/2011 WELL 250 Pre-Treatment 1028201120201 10/28/2011 --------------------- --------------------- 0.00023 0.00022 1.9 1.8 5.1 5 < 0.002 U < 0.002 U < 0.001 U < 0.001 U ----< 0.0100 U 0.327 ----< 0.00100 U 8.3 < 0.00500 U ------0.0534 < 0.00500 U --3.72 < 0.0150 U < 0.000200 U ----1.93 < 0.0100 U < 0.00500 U 109 --< 5.000 U --------- ----< 0.0100 U 0.297 ----< 0.00100 U 11.2 < 0.00500 U ------< 0.0500 U < 0.00500 U --3.64 < 0.0150 U < 0.000200 U ----1.53 < 0.0100 U < 0.00500 U 114 0.672 8.09 --------- < 0.0200 U < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U 0.291 < 0.00200 U 0.234 < 0.00100 U 26.8 < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U < 0.00500 U --< 0.0500 U < 0.00200 U --8.48 0.0127 < 0.000200 U < 0.00500 U < 0.00500 U 1.7 < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U 65.6 0.705 3.39 < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U < 0.00400 U < 0.0500 U ----------------------------- ----------------------------- < 0.0200 U < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U 0.288 < 0.00200 U 0.239 < 0.00100 U 26.2 < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U < 0.00500 U < 0.0500 U < 0.00200 U 8.24 Location Description Parameter and units Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date M etals, 6020x Cesium Cesium, Dissolved Potassium Potassium, Dissolved Silicon Silicon, Dissolved Thorium Thorium, Dissolved Uranium Uranium, Dissolved MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L M etals, Total Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Boron Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Hardness, CaCO3 Iron Lead Lithium Magnesium Manganese Mercury Molybdenum Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Strontium Sulfur Thallium Titanium Vanadium Zinc MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L M etals, Dissolved Aluminum, Dissolved Antimony, Dissolved Arsenic, Dissolved Barium, Dissolved Beryllium, Dissolved Boron, Dissolved Cadmium, Dissolved Calcium, Dissolved Chromium, Dissolved Cobalt, Dissolved Copper, Dissolved Iron, Dissolved Lead, Dissolved Magnesium, Dissolved NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L Appendix A-4 Page 2 of 6 SUMMARY TABLE OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER D PROPERTY OWNER D PROPERTY OWNER D PROPERTY OWNER D WELL 250 NA NTA0535-01102010-1600 1/10/2010 (Baseline) ----------------------------- WELL 250 Pre-Treatment 0610201124603 6/10/2011 ----------------------------- WELL 250 Pre-Treatment 1028201120201 10/28/2011 0.0112 < 0.000200 U < 0.00500 U < 0.00500 U 1.69 < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U 64.6 0.694 3.46 < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U < 0.00400 U < 0.0500 U ----- ----- 50.6 < 1.00 U UG/L ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- < 0.0481 U < 0.0481 U < 0.0481 U < 0.0481 U < 0.0481 U < 1.0 UHJ < 0.0481 U < 6.0 U < 0.0481 U < 1.0 UHJ < 0.0481 U < 1.0 UHJ < 0.0481 U < 0.0481 U < 0.0481 U < 0.0481 U < 0.0481 U < 0.0481 U < 0.0481 U < 0.0481 U < 0.0481 U < 1.0 UHJ < 0.0481 U < 1.0 UHJ UG/L --- --- < 100 U UG/L ----------------------------- ----------------------------- <1U <5U <1U <5U <5U <5U <1U <1U <1U <1U <1U <1U < 29 U <5U Property Owner Location Description Parameter and units Manganese, Dissolved Mercury, Dissolved Molybdenum, Dissolved Nickel, Dissolved Potassium, Dissolved Selenium, Dissolved Silver, Dissolved Sodium, Dissolved Strontium, Dissolved Sulfur, Dissolved Thallium, Dissolved Titanium, Dissolved Vanadium, Dissolved Zinc, Dissolved Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L M iscellaneous Organics Inorganic Carbon, Dissolved Organic Carbon, Dissolved MG/L MG/L Pesticides and PCBs 4,4'-DDD 4,4'-DDE 4,4'-DDT Aldrin alpha-BHC Azinphos-methyl beta-BHC Carbaryl delta-BHC Dichlorvos Dieldrin Disulfoton Endosulfan I Endosulfan II Endosulfan sulfate Endrin Endrin aldehyde Endrin ketone gamma-BHC (Lindane) Heptachlor Heptachlor epoxide Malathion Methoxychlor Mevinphos UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L Purgeable Petroleum Hydrocarbons GRO as Gasoline Sem ivolatile Organics 1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene 1,2-Dinitrobenzene 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine 1,3-Dimethyl adamatane 1,3-Dinitrobenzene 1,4-Dinitrobenzene 1-Chloronaphthalene 2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 2,4-Dichlorophenol 2,4-Dimethylphenol 2,4-Dinitrophenol 2,4-Dinitrotoluene NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L Appendix A-4 Page 3 of 6 SUMMARY TABLE OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER D Property Owner PROPERTY OWNER D PROPERTY OWNER D PROPERTY OWNER D WELL 250 NA NTA0535-01102010-1600 1/10/2010 (Baseline) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WELL 250 Pre-Treatment 0610201124603 6/10/2011 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WELL 250 Pre-Treatment 1028201120201 10/28/2011 <1U <1U < 5 UJ <1U <1U < 0.5 U <1U <1U <1U <5U <1U < 14 U < 14 UJ < 14 U <1U <1U <1U <1U <1U < 1 UJ < 29 U < 0.5 U < 0.5 U <1U <5U <1U < 0.5 U < 0.5 U < 0.5 U < 0.5 U < 0.5 U < 0.5 U < 14 U < 14 U <1U <1U <1U <5U <5U <1U < 10 U < 0.5 U <5U < 0.5 U <1U <5U <5U <5U <5U <5U < 48 U <5U < 0.5 U < 0.5 U < 0.5 U <1U < 14 U <5U < 0.5 U <1U < 0.5 U Location Description Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date Parameter and units 2,6-Dichlorophenol 2,6-Dinitrotoluene 2-Butoxyethanol 2-Chloronaphthalene 2-Chlorophenol 2-Methylnaphthalene 2-Methylphenol 2-Nitroaniline 2-Nitrophenol 3,3-Dichlorobenzidine 3-Nitroaniline 4,4'-Methylenebis(2-chloroaniline) 4,4'-Methylenebis(N,N-dimethylanilin 4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether 4-Chloro-3-methylphenol 4-Chloroaniline 4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether 4-Methylphenol 4-Nitroaniline 4-Nitrophenol Acenaphthene Acenaphthylene Acetophenone Adamantane Aniline Anthracene Benzo (a) anthracene Benzo (a) pyrene Benzo (b) fluoranthene Benzo (g,h,i) perylene Benzo (k) fluoranthene Benzoic acid Benzyl alcohol Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate Butyl benzyl phthalate Carbazole Chlorobenzilate Chrysene Diallate (cis or trans) Dibenz (a,h) anthracene Dibenzofuran Diethyl phthalate Dimethyl phthalate Di-n-butyl phthalate Di-n-octyl phthalate Dinoseb Disulfoton d-Limonene Fluoranthene Fluorene Hexachlorobenzene Hexachlorobutadiene Hexachlorocyclopentadiene Hexachloroethane Indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene Isophorone Naphthalene NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L Appendix A-4 Page 4 of 6 SUMMARY TABLE OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER D PROPERTY OWNER D PROPERTY OWNER D PROPERTY OWNER D UG/L WELL 250 NA NTA0535-01102010-1600 1/10/2010 (Baseline) --------------------------------------------- WELL 250 Pre-Treatment 0610201124603 6/10/2011 --------------------------------------------- WELL 250 Pre-Treatment 1028201120201 10/28/2011 <1U <1U <5U <5U <1U <1U <5U <5U <5U <1U < 5 UJ < 0.5 U <1U <1U <1U < 0.5 U <5U < 5 UJ <5U <5U < 5 UJ <5U UG/L --- --- --- UG/L ------------------------------< 0.500 U ----------------< 0.500 U --------------------- ------------------------------< 0.500 U ----------------< 0.500 U --------------------- Property Owner Location Description Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date Parameter and units Nitrobenzene N-Nitrosodiethylamine N-Nitrosodimethylamine N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine N-Nitrosodiphenylamine N-Nitrosomethylethylamine Parathion-ethyl Parathion-methyl Pentachlorobenzene Pentachlorophenol Phenanthrene Phenol Phorate Pronamide Pyrene Pyridine Squalene Terbufos Terpineol Tributoxyethyl phosphate Trifluralin UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L TICs 1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene Volatile Organics 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 1,1-Dichloroethane 1,1-Dichloroethene 1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 1,2-Dichloroethane 1,2-Dichloropropane 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 1,4-Dichlorobenzene Acetone Benzene Carbon disulfide Carbon Tetrachloride Chlorobenzene Chloroform cis-1,2-Dichloroethene Diisopropyl Ether Ethanol Ethyl tert-Butyl Ether Ethylbenzene Hexachlorobutadiene Isopropyl alcohol Isopropylbenzene m,p-Xylene Methoxychlor Methyl tert-Butyl Ether Methylene Chloride Naphthalene o-Xylene Styrene NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L Appendix A-4 < < < < < 1.00 U 1.00 U 1.00 U 1.00 U 1.00 U --< 1.00 U < 0.1014 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U --< 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 50.0 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 100 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U <1U < 50.0 U < 1.00 U < 2.00 U < 0.0481 U < 1.00 U < 5.00 U < 5.00 U < 1.00 U --- Page 5 of 6 SUMMARY TABLE OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER D Property Owner PROPERTY OWNER D PROPERTY OWNER D PROPERTY OWNER D WELL 250 NA NTA0535-01102010-1600 1/10/2010 (Baseline) --------< 0.500 U ------< 0.500 U WELL 250 Pre-Treatment 0610201124603 6/10/2011 --------< 0.500 U ------< 0.500 U WELL 250 Pre-Treatment 1028201120201 10/28/2011 < 1.00 U < 10.0 U < 1.00 U --< 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 3.00 U Location Description Parameter and units Tert-Amyl Methyl Ether Tertiary Butyl Alcohol Tetrachloroethene Tetrahydrofuran Toluene trans-1,2-Dichloroethene Trichloroethene Vinyl chloride Xylenes, total Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L Notes: U : Parameter not detected at posted limit < : Parameter not detected at posted limit ND : Parameter not detected H : Parameter analyzed beyond method recommended holding time J : Estimated value --- : Parameter not analyzed. B : Blank qualified ug/L : Micrograms per liter mg/L : Milligrams per liter NA : Not Available NTU : Nephelometric Turbidity Unit umho/cm : Micromhos per centimeter colonies/100 ml : Colonies per 100 millileters NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx Appendix A-4 Page 6 of 6 APPENDIX A-5 EPA STUDY WELL DATA PROPERTY OWNER SUMMARY TABLE OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER E Parameter and units Property Owner PROPERTY OWNER E Location Description WELL IS LOCATED NORTH OF BARN. Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date PROPERTY OWNER E PROPERTY OWNER E PROPERTY OWNER E PROPERTY OWNER E WELL IS LOCATED NORTH OF BARN. WELL IS LOCATED NORTH OF BARN. WELL IS LOCATED NORTH OF BARN. PROPERTY OWNER E PROPERTY OWNER E PROPERTY OWNER E WELL IS LOCATED IN BUSHES IN FRONT OF HOUSE. WELL IS LOCATED IN BUSHES IN FRONT OF HOUSE. WELL 115 NA NTD0308-04012010-1625 4/1/2010 (Baseline) WELL 115 NA NTH1162-PROPERTY OWNER E 002 8/12/2010 WELL 115 NA 0108201150103 1/8/2011 WELL 115 NA 1104201120206 11/4/2011 WELL 185 NA NTD0293-04012010-1545 4/1/2010 (Baseline) WELL 185 NA NTH1160-PROPERTY OWNER E 001 8/12/2010 WELL 185 Pre-Treatment 0108201150101 1/8/2011 WELL 185 Pre-Treatment 1104201120204 11/4/2011 UG/L --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- colonies/100ml colonies/100ml ------- ------- ------- Absent <1U Absent ------- ------- ------- Absent <1U Absent UG/L --- --- --- < 0.1012 U --- --- --- < 0.1003 U UG/L --- --- --- < 94.3 U --- --- --- < 94.3 U MG/L ----134 --< 10.0 U 31.4 ------< 0.0500 U ------< 5.75 U 7.70 H --331 < 1.00 U 23.1 H 194 < 1.00 U < 1.00 U ----125 --ND 32.4 ------ND ------ND 7.90 HTI --329 ND 22.8 HTI 182 ND ND ----118 --< 10 U 30.2 ------< 0.05 UJH ------< 5.56 U 8.3 JH --375 <5U 22.3 H 178 <1U < 1 UJH 119 1.09 118 < 2.5 U < 10.0 U 30.8 J < 12000 U --< 0.50 U < 0.12 U --< 0.50 U < 0.50 U < 5.56 U 7.90 H < 0.100 U 319 < 5.0 U 21.0 H 176 < 1.00 U < 0.30 U ----147 --< 10.0 U 20.1 ------< 0.0500 U ------< 5.75 U 7.70 H --328 5.43 22.9 H 192 < 1.00 U 1.7 ----131 H2 --ND H2 21.2 ------ND ------ND 7.80 HTI --321 6.26 22.8 HTI 178 ND 1.4 ----128 --< 10 U 8.4 ------< 0.05 UJH ------< 6.33 U 8.1 JH --334 13.8 22 H 171 1.1 1.8 JH 129 0.503 126 < 2.5 U < 10.0 U 17.4 J < 12000 U --< 0.50 U < 0.12 U --2.3 < 0.50 U < 5.00 U 7.50 H < 0.100 U 306 12.1 21.0 H 152 J 2.2 4.9 ----------- ----------- ----------- --13 JB --26 JBJ 20 JB ----------- ----------- ----------- --< 10 U --< 10 UJ < 10 U --0.049 --33.8 --< 0.0340 U --0.0495 --34.7 --ND --0.0838 --35.8 --< 0.034 U --< 0.0260 U --8.88 --< 0.0340 U --ND --9.68 --ND --< 0.026 U --0.239 --< 0.034 U < 0.00500 U < 0.00500 U < 0.00500 U 0.609 < 0.00500 U < 0.00500 U ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- < 10000 U < 10000 U < 10000 U < 10000 U < 5000 U < 13000 U Aldehydes Gluteraldehyde Bacteria E. coli Fecal coliform bacteria Total Coliform Bacteria colonies/100ml DBCP 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane Ex tractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons Diesel General Chem istry Alkalinity, Total (CaCO3) Ammonia as N Bicarbonate Alkalinity as CaCO3 Bromide Carbonate as CaCO3 Chloride CO2 by Headspace Cyanide Fluoride MBAS Nitrate Nitrate Nitrogen Nitrite Nitrogen Oil & Grease HEM pH Phosphorus Specific conductance Sulfate Temperature of pH determination Total Dissolved Solids Total Suspended Solids Turbidity MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L UG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L pH UNITS MG/L UMHO/CM MG/L CELSIUS MG/L MG/L NTU Glycols 1,2-Propylene Glycol Diethylene Glycol Ethylene Glycol Tetraethylene glycol Triethylene glycol MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L Light Gases Acetylene Ethane Ethene Methane n-Butane Propane MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L < 0.00500 0.0816 < 0.00500 37.1 J < 0.00500 < 0.00500 U U U U Low M olecular W eight Acids Acetic Acid Butyric Acid Formic Acid Isobutyric acid Lactic acid Propionic Acid NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L < 10000 U < 10000 U < 10000 U < 10000 U < 5000 U < 13000 U Appendix A-5 Page 1 of 6 SUMMARY TABLE OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER E Parameter and units Property Owner PROPERTY OWNER E Location Description WELL IS LOCATED NORTH OF BARN. Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date PROPERTY OWNER E PROPERTY OWNER E PROPERTY OWNER E PROPERTY OWNER E WELL IS LOCATED NORTH OF BARN. WELL IS LOCATED NORTH OF BARN. WELL IS LOCATED NORTH OF BARN. PROPERTY OWNER E PROPERTY OWNER E PROPERTY OWNER E WELL IS LOCATED IN BUSHES IN FRONT OF HOUSE. WELL IS LOCATED IN BUSHES IN FRONT OF HOUSE. WELL 115 NA NTD0308-04012010-1625 4/1/2010 (Baseline) WELL 115 NA NTH1162-PROPERTY OWNER E 002 8/12/2010 WELL 115 NA 0108201150103 1/8/2011 WELL 115 NA 1104201120206 11/4/2011 WELL 185 NA NTD0293-04012010-1545 4/1/2010 (Baseline) WELL 185 NA NTH1160-PROPERTY OWNER E 001 8/12/2010 WELL 185 Pre-Treatment 0108201150101 1/8/2011 WELL 185 Pre-Treatment 1104201120204 11/4/2011 --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- < 0.1 U < 0.1 U < 100 U < 100 U < 2500 U < 2500 U <2U <2U <1U <1U --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- < 0.1 U < 0.1 U < 100 U < 100 U < 2500 U < 2500 U <2U <2U <1U <1U ----< 0.0100 U 0.965 ----< 0.00100 U 28.7 < 0.00500 U ------0.0629 < 0.00500 U --2.92 0.118 < 0.000200 U ----1.09 < 0.0100 U < 0.00500 U 34 --< 5.000 U --------- ----ND 1 ----ND 28.4 ND ------0.106 ND --3.02 0.127 ND ----1.2 ND ND 36.2 --ND --------- ----< 0.01 U 1.04 ----< 0.001 U 29.7 < 0.005 U ------< 0.05 U < 0.005 U --3.15 0.133 < 0.0002 U ----1.32 < 0.01 U < 0.005 U 37.1 --< 0.5 U --------- < 0.0200 U < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U 0.947 < 0.00200 U 0.063 < 0.00100 U 30.2 < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U < 0.00500 U --< 0.0500 U < 0.00200 U --3.16 0.116 < 0.000200 U < 0.00500 U < 0.00500 U 1.16 < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U 35.5 0.857 < 0.500 U < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U < 0.00400 U < 0.0500 U ----< 0.0100 U 0.36 ----< 0.00100 U 30.6 < 0.00500 U ------< 0.0500 U < 0.00500 U --4.01 0.0647 < 0.000200 U ----< 1.00 U < 0.0100 U < 0.00500 U 27.7 --< 5.000 U --------- ----ND 0.352 ----ND 30.1 ND ------ND ND --4.17 0.0788 ND ----1.02 ND ND 32.9 MHA --6.4 --------- ----< 0.01 U 0.278 ----< 0.001 U 41.6 < 0.005 U ------< 0.05 U < 0.005 U --5.58 < 0.015 U < 0.0002 U ----1.03 < 0.01 U < 0.005 U 15.6 --2.99 --------- 0.0424 < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U 0.28 < 0.00200 U < 0.0500 U < 0.00100 U 43.9 < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U 0.00776 --0.069 < 0.00200 U --5.73 0.021 < 0.000200 U < 0.00500 U < 0.00500 U < 1.00 U < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U 15 0.577 3.03 < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U < 0.00400 U < 0.0500 U ----------------------------- ----------------------------- ----------------------------- < 0.0200 U < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U 0.938 < 0.00200 U 0.0636 < 0.00100 U 28.7 < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U < 0.00500 U < 0.0500 U < 0.00200 U 2.98 ----------------------------- ----------------------------- ----------------------------- < 0.0200 U < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U 0.273 < 0.00200 U < 0.0500 U < 0.00100 U 42.6 < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U < 0.00500 U < 0.0500 U < 0.00200 U 5.51 M etals, 6020x Cesium Cesium, Dissolved Potassium Potassium, Dissolved Silicon Silicon, Dissolved Thorium Thorium, Dissolved Uranium Uranium, Dissolved MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L M etals, Total Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Boron Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Hardness, CaCO3 Iron Lead Lithium Magnesium Manganese Mercury Molybdenum Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Strontium Sulfur Thallium Titanium Vanadium Zinc MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L M etals, Dissolved Aluminum, Dissolved Antimony, Dissolved Arsenic, Dissolved Barium, Dissolved Beryllium, Dissolved Boron, Dissolved Cadmium, Dissolved Calcium, Dissolved Chromium, Dissolved Cobalt, Dissolved Copper, Dissolved Iron, Dissolved Lead, Dissolved Magnesium, Dissolved NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L Appendix A-5 Page 2 of 6 SUMMARY TABLE OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER E Parameter and units Manganese, Dissolved Mercury, Dissolved Molybdenum, Dissolved Nickel, Dissolved Potassium, Dissolved Selenium, Dissolved Silver, Dissolved Sodium, Dissolved Strontium, Dissolved Sulfur, Dissolved Thallium, Dissolved Titanium, Dissolved Vanadium, Dissolved Zinc, Dissolved Property Owner PROPERTY OWNER E Location Description WELL IS LOCATED NORTH OF BARN. Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date PROPERTY OWNER E PROPERTY OWNER E PROPERTY OWNER E PROPERTY OWNER E WELL IS LOCATED NORTH OF BARN. WELL IS LOCATED NORTH OF BARN. WELL IS LOCATED NORTH OF BARN. PROPERTY OWNER E PROPERTY OWNER E PROPERTY OWNER E WELL IS LOCATED IN BUSHES IN FRONT OF HOUSE. WELL IS LOCATED IN BUSHES IN FRONT OF HOUSE. WELL 115 NA NTD0308-04012010-1625 4/1/2010 (Baseline) ----------------------------- WELL 115 NA NTH1162-PROPERTY OWNER E 002 8/12/2010 ----------------------------- WELL 115 NA 0108201150103 1/8/2011 ----------------------------- WELL 115 NA 1104201120206 11/4/2011 0.113 < 0.000200 U < 0.00500 U < 0.00500 U 1.14 < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U 34.5 J 0.806 < 0.500 U < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U < 0.00400 U < 0.0500 U WELL 185 NA NTD0293-04012010-1545 4/1/2010 (Baseline) ----------------------------- WELL 185 NA NTH1160-PROPERTY OWNER E 001 8/12/2010 ----------------------------- WELL 185 Pre-Treatment 0108201150101 1/8/2011 ----------------------------- WELL 185 Pre-Treatment 1104201120204 11/4/2011 0.017 < 0.000200 U < 0.00500 U < 0.00500 U < 1.00 U < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U 15 0.559 2.94 < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U < 0.00400 U < 0.0500 U ----- ----- ----- 25.5 < 1.00 U ----- ----- ----- 27.9 < 1.00 U UG/L ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- < 0.0236 U < 0.0236 U < 0.0236 U < 0.0236 U < 0.0236 U < 0.96 U < 0.0236 U < 6.0 U < 0.0236 U < 0.96 U < 0.0236 U < 0.96 U < 0.0236 U < 0.0236 U < 0.0236 U < 0.0236 U < 0.0236 U < 0.0236 U < 0.0236 U < 0.0236 U < 0.0236 U < 0.96 U < 0.0236 U < 0.96 U ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- < 0.0236 U < 0.0236 U < 0.0236 U < 0.0236 U < 0.0236 U < 0.96 U < 0.0236 U < 6.0 U < 0.0236 U < 0.96 U < 0.0236 U < 0.96 U < 0.0236 U < 0.0236 U < 0.0236 U < 0.0236 U < 0.0236 U < 0.0236 U < 0.0236 U < 0.0236 U < 0.0236 U < 0.96 U < 0.0236 U < 0.96 U UG/L --- --- --- < 100 U --- --- --- < 100 U UG/L ----------------------------- ----------------------------- ----------------------------- <1U <5U <1U <5U <5U <5U <1U <1U <1U <1U <1U <1U < 29 U <5U ----------------------------- ----------------------------- ----------------------------- < 0.9 U <5U < 0.9 U <5U <5U <5U < 0.9 U < 0.9 U < 0.9 U < 0.9 U < 0.9 U < 0.9 U < 28 U <5U MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L M iscellaneous Organics Inorganic Carbon, Dissolved Organic Carbon, Dissolved MG/L MG/L Pesticides and PCBs 4,4'-DDD 4,4'-DDE 4,4'-DDT Aldrin alpha-BHC Azinphos-methyl beta-BHC Carbaryl delta-BHC Dichlorvos Dieldrin Disulfoton Endosulfan I Endosulfan II Endosulfan sulfate Endrin Endrin aldehyde Endrin ketone gamma-BHC (Lindane) Heptachlor Heptachlor epoxide Malathion Methoxychlor Mevinphos UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L Purgeable Petroleum Hydrocarbons GRO as Gasoline Sem ivolatile Organics 1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene 1,2-Dinitrobenzene 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine 1,3-Dimethyl adamatane 1,3-Dinitrobenzene 1,4-Dinitrobenzene 1-Chloronaphthalene 2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 2,4-Dichlorophenol 2,4-Dimethylphenol 2,4-Dinitrophenol 2,4-Dinitrotoluene NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L Appendix A-5 Page 3 of 6 SUMMARY TABLE OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER E Property Owner PROPERTY OWNER E Location Description WELL IS LOCATED NORTH OF BARN. Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date Parameter and units 2,6-Dichlorophenol 2,6-Dinitrotoluene 2-Butoxyethanol 2-Chloronaphthalene 2-Chlorophenol 2-Methylnaphthalene 2-Methylphenol 2-Nitroaniline 2-Nitrophenol 3,3-Dichlorobenzidine 3-Nitroaniline 4,4'-Methylenebis(2-chloroaniline) 4,4'-Methylenebis(N,N-dimethylanilin 4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether 4-Chloro-3-methylphenol 4-Chloroaniline 4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether 4-Methylphenol 4-Nitroaniline 4-Nitrophenol Acenaphthene Acenaphthylene Acetophenone Adamantane Aniline Anthracene Benzo (a) anthracene Benzo (a) pyrene Benzo (b) fluoranthene Benzo (g,h,i) perylene Benzo (k) fluoranthene Benzoic acid Benzyl alcohol Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate Butyl benzyl phthalate Carbazole Chlorobenzilate Chrysene Diallate (cis or trans) Dibenz (a,h) anthracene Dibenzofuran Diethyl phthalate Dimethyl phthalate Di-n-butyl phthalate Di-n-octyl phthalate Dinoseb Disulfoton d-Limonene Fluoranthene Fluorene Hexachlorobenzene Hexachlorobutadiene Hexachlorocyclopentadiene Hexachloroethane Indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene Isophorone Naphthalene NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L WELL 115 NA NTD0308-04012010-1625 4/1/2010 (Baseline) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PROPERTY OWNER E WELL 115 NA NTH1162-PROPERTY OWNER E 002 8/12/2010 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PROPERTY OWNER E PROPERTY OWNER E PROPERTY OWNER E WELL IS LOCATED NORTH OF BARN. WELL IS LOCATED NORTH OF BARN. WELL IS LOCATED NORTH OF BARN. WELL 115 NA 0108201150103 1/8/2011 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WELL 115 NA 1104201120206 11/4/2011 <1U <1U < 5 UJ <1U <1U < 0.5 U <1U <1U <1U <5U <1U < 14 UJ < 14 UJ < 14 U <1U < 1 UJ <1U <1U <1U <1U < 29 U < 0.5 U < 0.5 U <1U <5U <1U < 0.5 U < 0.5 UJ < 0.5 U < 0.5 U < 0.5 U < 0.5 U < 14 UJ < 14 U <1U <1U <1U < 5 UJ < 5 UJ <1U < 10 U < 0.5 UJ <5U < 0.5 U <1U <5U <5U <5U <5U <5U < 48 U <5U < 0.5 U < 0.5 U < 0.5 U <1U < 14 U <5U < 0.5 U <1U < 0.5 U WELL 185 NA NTD0293-04012010-1545 4/1/2010 (Baseline) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Appendix A-5 PROPERTY OWNER E WELL 185 NA NTH1160-PROPERTY OWNER E 001 8/12/2010 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PROPERTY OWNER E PROPERTY OWNER E WELL IS LOCATED IN BUSHES IN FRONT OF HOUSE. WELL IS LOCATED IN BUSHES IN FRONT OF HOUSE. WELL 185 Pre-Treatment 0108201150101 1/8/2011 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WELL 185 Pre-Treatment 1104201120204 11/4/2011 < 0.9 U < 0.9 U < 5 UJ < 0.9 U < 0.9 U < 0.5 U < 0.9 U < 0.9 U < 0.9 U <5U < 0.9 U < 14 UJ < 14 UJ < 14 U < 0.9 U < 0.9 UJ < 0.9 U < 0.9 U < 0.9 U < 0.9 U < 28 U < 0.5 U < 0.5 U < 0.9 U <5U < 0.9 U < 0.5 U < 0.5 UJ < 0.5 U < 0.5 U < 0.5 U < 0.5 U < 14 UJ < 14 U < 0.9 U < 0.9 U < 0.9 U < 5 UJ < 5 UJ < 0.9 U <9U < 0.5 UJ <5U < 0.5 U < 0.9 U <5U <5U <5U <5U <5U < 47 U <5U < 0.5 U < 0.5 U < 0.5 U < 0.9 U < 14 U <5U < 0.5 U < 0.9 U < 0.5 U Page 4 of 6 SUMMARY TABLE OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER E Property Owner PROPERTY OWNER E Location Description WELL IS LOCATED NORTH OF BARN. Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date Parameter and units Nitrobenzene N-Nitrosodiethylamine N-Nitrosodimethylamine N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine N-Nitrosodiphenylamine N-Nitrosomethylethylamine Parathion-ethyl Parathion-methyl Pentachlorobenzene Pentachlorophenol Phenanthrene Phenol Phorate Pronamide Pyrene Pyridine Squalene Terbufos Terpineol Tributoxyethyl phosphate Trifluralin PROPERTY OWNER E PROPERTY OWNER E PROPERTY OWNER E PROPERTY OWNER E WELL IS LOCATED NORTH OF BARN. WELL IS LOCATED NORTH OF BARN. WELL IS LOCATED NORTH OF BARN. PROPERTY OWNER E PROPERTY OWNER E PROPERTY OWNER E WELL IS LOCATED IN BUSHES IN FRONT OF HOUSE. WELL IS LOCATED IN BUSHES IN FRONT OF HOUSE. UG/L WELL 115 NA NTD0308-04012010-1625 4/1/2010 (Baseline) --------------------------------------------- WELL 115 NA NTH1162-PROPERTY OWNER E 002 8/12/2010 --------------------------------------------- WELL 115 NA 0108201150103 1/8/2011 --------------------------------------------- WELL 115 NA 1104201120206 11/4/2011 <1U <1U <5U <5U <1U <1U <5U <5U <5U <1U <5U < 0.5 U <1U <1U <1U < 0.5 U <5U < 5 UJ < 5 UJ <5U <5U < 5 UJ WELL 185 NA NTD0293-04012010-1545 4/1/2010 (Baseline) --------------------------------------------- WELL 185 NA NTH1160-PROPERTY OWNER E 001 8/12/2010 --------------------------------------------- WELL 185 Pre-Treatment 0108201150101 1/8/2011 --------------------------------------------- WELL 185 Pre-Treatment 1104201120204 11/4/2011 < 0.9 U < 0.9 U <5U <5U < 0.9 U < 0.9 U <5U <5U <5U < 0.9 U <5U < 0.5 U < 0.9 U < 0.9 U < 0.9 U < 0.5 U <5U < 5 UJ < 5 UJ <5U <5U < 5 UJ UG/L --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- UG/L ------------------------------< 0.500 U ----------------< 0.500 U --------------------- ------------------------------ND ----------------ND --------------------- ------------------------------< 0.5 U ----------------< 0.5 UJH --------------------- 1.00 U 1.00 U 1.00 U 1.00 U 1.00 U --< 1.00 U < 0.1012 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U --< 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 50.0 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 100 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U <1U < 50.0 U < 1.00 U < 2.00 U < 0.0236 U < 1.00 U < 5.00 U < 5.00 U < 1.00 U --- ------------------------------< 0.500 U ----------------< 0.500 U --------------------- ------------------------------ND ----------------ND --------------------- ------------------------------< 0.5 U ----------------< 0.5 U --------------------- UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L TICs 1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene Volatile Organics 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 1,1-Dichloroethane 1,1-Dichloroethene 1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 1,2-Dichloroethane 1,2-Dichloropropane 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 1,4-Dichlorobenzene Acetone Benzene Carbon disulfide Carbon Tetrachloride Chlorobenzene Chloroform cis-1,2-Dichloroethene Diisopropyl Ether Ethanol Ethyl tert-Butyl Ether Ethylbenzene Hexachlorobutadiene Isopropyl alcohol Isopropylbenzene m,p-Xylene Methoxychlor Methyl tert-Butyl Ether Methylene Chloride Naphthalene o-Xylene Styrene NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L < < < < < Appendix A-5 < < < < < 1.00 U 1.00 U 1.00 U 1.00 U 1.00 U --< 1.00 U < 0.1003 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U --< 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 50.0 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 100 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 0.9 U < 50.0 U < 1.00 U < 2.00 U < 0.0236 U < 1.00 U < 5.00 U < 5.00 U < 1.00 U --- Page 5 of 6 SUMMARY TABLE OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER E Parameter and units Tert-Amyl Methyl Ether Tertiary Butyl Alcohol Tetrachloroethene Tetrahydrofuran Toluene trans-1,2-Dichloroethene Trichloroethene Vinyl chloride Xylenes, total Property Owner PROPERTY OWNER E Location Description WELL IS LOCATED NORTH OF BARN. Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L WELL 115 NA NTD0308-04012010-1625 4/1/2010 (Baseline) --------< 0.500 U ------< 0.500 U PROPERTY OWNER E WELL 115 NA NTH1162-PROPERTY OWNER E 002 8/12/2010 --------ND ------ND PROPERTY OWNER E PROPERTY OWNER E PROPERTY OWNER E WELL IS LOCATED NORTH OF BARN. WELL IS LOCATED NORTH OF BARN. WELL IS LOCATED NORTH OF BARN. WELL 115 NA 0108201150103 1/8/2011 --------< 0.5 U ------< 0.5 U WELL 115 NA 1104201120206 11/4/2011 < 1.00 U < 10.0 U < 1.00 U --< 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 3.00 U WELL 185 NA NTD0293-04012010-1545 4/1/2010 (Baseline) --------< 0.500 U ------< 0.500 U PROPERTY OWNER E WELL 185 NA NTH1160-PROPERTY OWNER E 001 8/12/2010 --------ND ------ND PROPERTY OWNER E PROPERTY OWNER E WELL IS LOCATED IN BUSHES IN FRONT OF HOUSE. WELL IS LOCATED IN BUSHES IN FRONT OF HOUSE. WELL 185 Pre-Treatment 0108201150101 1/8/2011 --------< 0.5 U ------< 0.5 U WELL 185 Pre-Treatment 1104201120204 11/4/2011 < 1.00 U < 10.0 U < 1.00 U --< 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 3.00 U Notes: U : Parameter not detected at posted limit < : Parameter not detected at posted limit ND : Parameter not detected H : Parameter analyzed beyond method recommended holding time J : Estimated value --- : Parameter not analyzed. B : Blank qualified ug/L : Micrograms per liter mg/L : Milligrams per liter NA : Not Available NTU : Nephelometric Turbidity Unit umho/cm : Micromhos per centimeter colonies/100 ml : Colonies per 100 millileters NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx Appendix A-5 Page 6 of 6 APPENDIX A-6 EPA STUDY WELL DATA PROPERTY OWNER SUMMARY TABLE OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER F Property Owner PROPERTY OWNER F PROPERTY OWNER F PROPERTY OWNER F WELL LOCATED NORTH OF HOUSE. WELL LOCATED NORTH OF HOUSE. WELL LOCATED NORTH OF HOUSE. PADEP ON SITE TO COLLECT PADEP ON SITE TO COLLECT PADEP ON SITE TO COLLECT SAMPLE. Location Description SAMPLE. SAMPLE. Parameter and units Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date WELL 200 NA 0310201150104 3/10/2011 WELL 200 NA 1025201120201 10/25/2011 WELL 200 NA 1111201124301 11/11/2011 UG/L --- --- --- colonies/100ml colonies/100ml ------- Absent <1U Absent ------- UG/L --- < 0.1036 U --- UG/L --- < 94.3 U --- MG/L ----221 --11.3 45 ------< 0.05 U ------< 6.02 U 8.3 J --600 <5U 21.2 346 <1U 1.3 231 0.981 231 < 2.5 U < 10.0 U 56.0 J < 12000 U --< 0.50 U < 0.12 U --< 0.50 U < 0.50 U < 4.71 U 7.90 H < 0.100 U 641 < 5.0 UJ 21.5 H 348 < 1.00 U 0.54 ----220 < 5.00 U 25.2 44 ------< 0.0500 U ------< 6.10 U 8.30 H --609 < 5.00 U 21.4 H 340 < 1.00 U < 1.00 U ----------- --< 10 U --11 J < 10 U ----------- Aldehydes Gluteraldehyde Bacteria E. coli Fecal coliform bacteria Total Coliform Bacteria colonies/100ml DBCP 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane Ex tractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons Diesel General Chem istry Alkalinity, Total (CaCO3) Ammonia as N Bicarbonate Alkalinity as CaCO3 Bromide Carbonate as CaCO3 Chloride CO2 by Headspace Cyanide Fluoride MBAS Nitrate Nitrate Nitrogen Nitrite Nitrogen Oil & Grease HEM pH Phosphorus Specific conductance Sulfate Temperature of pH determination Total Dissolved Solids Total Suspended Solids Turbidity MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L UG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L pH UNITS MG/L UMHO/CM MG/L CELSIUS MG/L MG/L NTU Glycols 1,2-Propylene Glycol Diethylene Glycol Ethylene Glycol Tetraethylene glycol Triethylene glycol MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L Light Gases Acetylene Ethane Ethene Methane n-Butane Propane MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L --< 0.026 U --53.4 --< 0.034 U < 0.00500 0.0202 < 0.00500 55.3 < 0.00500 < 0.00500 U U U U --0.202 --51.8 --< 0.00500 U Low M olecular W eight Acids Acetic Acid Butyric Acid Formic Acid Isobutyric acid Lactic acid Propionic Acid NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L ------------- Appendix A-6 < 10000 U < 10000 U < 10000 U < 10000 U < 5000 U < 13000 U ------------- Page 1 of 6 SUMMARY TABLE OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER F Property Owner PROPERTY OWNER F PROPERTY OWNER F PROPERTY OWNER F WELL LOCATED NORTH OF HOUSE. WELL LOCATED NORTH OF HOUSE. WELL LOCATED NORTH OF HOUSE. PADEP ON SITE TO COLLECT PADEP ON SITE TO COLLECT PADEP ON SITE TO COLLECT SAMPLE. Location Description SAMPLE. SAMPLE. Parameter and units Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date WELL 200 NA 0310201150104 3/10/2011 WELL 200 NA 1025201120201 10/25/2011 WELL 200 NA 1111201124301 11/11/2011 --------------------- 0.00074 0.0007 1.88 1.85 4 0.404 < 0.002 U < 0.002 U < 0.001 U < 0.001 U --------------------- ----< 0.01 U 0.944 ----< 0.001 U 12.5 < 0.005 U ------0.0542 < 0.005 U --1.98 < 0.015 U < 0.0002 U ----1.93 < 0.01 U < 0.005 U 122 --< 0.5 U --------- < 0.0200 U < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U 0.937 < 0.00200 U 0.551 < 0.00100 U 12.8 < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U 0.0482 --0.113 < 0.00200 U --2.05 0.00749 < 0.000200 U < 0.00500 U < 0.00500 U 1.83 < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U 122 J 1.74 < 0.500 U < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U < 0.00400 U < 0.0500 U ----< 0.0100 U 0.924 ----< 0.00100 U 12.7 < 0.00500 U ------0.0707 < 0.00500 U 0.1 2.23 < 0.0150 U < 0.000200 U ----1.87 < 0.0100 U < 0.00500 U 118 1.76 < 0.500 U --------- --------------------------- < 0.0200 U < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U 0.843 < 0.00200 U 0.578 < 0.00100 U 12.8 < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U < 0.00500 U 0.0715 < 0.00200 U --------------------------- M etals, 6020x Cesium Cesium, Dissolved Potassium Potassium, Dissolved Silicon Silicon, Dissolved Thorium Thorium, Dissolved Uranium Uranium, Dissolved MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L M etals, Total Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Boron Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Hardness, CaCO3 Iron Lead Lithium Magnesium Manganese Mercury Molybdenum Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Strontium Sulfur Thallium Titanium Vanadium Zinc MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L M etals, Dissolved Aluminum, Dissolved Antimony, Dissolved Arsenic, Dissolved Barium, Dissolved Beryllium, Dissolved Boron, Dissolved Cadmium, Dissolved Calcium, Dissolved Chromium, Dissolved Cobalt, Dissolved Copper, Dissolved Iron, Dissolved Lead, Dissolved NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L Appendix A-6 Page 2 of 6 SUMMARY TABLE OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER F Property Owner PROPERTY OWNER F PROPERTY OWNER F PROPERTY OWNER F WELL LOCATED NORTH OF HOUSE. WELL LOCATED NORTH OF HOUSE. WELL LOCATED NORTH OF HOUSE. PADEP ON SITE TO COLLECT PADEP ON SITE TO COLLECT PADEP ON SITE TO COLLECT SAMPLE. Location Description SAMPLE. SAMPLE. Parameter and units Magnesium, Dissolved Manganese, Dissolved Mercury, Dissolved Molybdenum, Dissolved Nickel, Dissolved Potassium, Dissolved Selenium, Dissolved Silver, Dissolved Sodium, Dissolved Strontium, Dissolved Sulfur, Dissolved Thallium, Dissolved Titanium, Dissolved Vanadium, Dissolved Zinc, Dissolved Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date WELL 200 NA 0310201150104 3/10/2011 ------------------------------- WELL 200 NA 1025201120201 10/25/2011 2.15 0.00698 < 0.000200 U < 0.00500 U < 0.00500 U 1.75 < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U 118 1.75 < 0.500 U < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U < 0.00400 U < 0.0500 U WELL 200 NA 1111201124301 11/11/2011 ------------------------------- ----- 63.2 < 1.00 U ----- UG/L ------------------------------------------------- < 0.0472 U < 0.0472 U < 0.0472 U < 0.0472 U < 0.0472 U < 0.94 UH < 0.0472 U < 6.0 U < 0.0472 U < 0.94 UH < 0.0472 U < 0.94 UH < 0.0472 U < 0.0472 U < 0.0472 U < 0.0472 U < 0.0472 U < 0.0472 U < 0.0472 U < 0.0472 U < 0.0472 U < 0.94 UH < 0.0472 U < 0.94 UH ------------------------------------------------- UG/L --- < 100 U --- UG/L ------------------------- MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L M iscellaneous Organics Inorganic Carbon, Dissolved Organic Carbon, Dissolved MG/L MG/L Pesticides and PCBs 4,4'-DDD 4,4'-DDE 4,4'-DDT Aldrin alpha-BHC Azinphos-methyl beta-BHC Carbaryl delta-BHC Dichlorvos Dieldrin Disulfoton Endosulfan I Endosulfan II Endosulfan sulfate Endrin Endrin aldehyde Endrin ketone gamma-BHC (Lindane) Heptachlor Heptachlor epoxide Malathion Methoxychlor Mevinphos UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L Purgeable Petroleum Hydrocarbons GRO as Gasoline Sem ivolatile Organics 1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene 1,2-Dinitrobenzene 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine 1,3-Dimethyl adamatane 1,3-Dinitrobenzene 1,4-Dinitrobenzene 1-Chloronaphthalene 2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 2,4-Dichlorophenol 2,4-Dimethylphenol NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L Appendix A-6 < < < < < < < < < < < < 1 5 1 5 5 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 U U U U U U U U U U U U ------------------------- Page 3 of 6 SUMMARY TABLE OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER F Property Owner PROPERTY OWNER F PROPERTY OWNER F PROPERTY OWNER F WELL LOCATED NORTH OF HOUSE. WELL LOCATED NORTH OF HOUSE. WELL LOCATED NORTH OF HOUSE. PADEP ON SITE TO COLLECT PADEP ON SITE TO COLLECT PADEP ON SITE TO COLLECT SAMPLE. Location Description SAMPLE. SAMPLE. Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date Parameter and units 2,4-Dinitrophenol 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 2,6-Dichlorophenol 2,6-Dinitrotoluene 2-Butoxyethanol 2-Chloronaphthalene 2-Chlorophenol 2-Methylnaphthalene 2-Methylphenol 2-Nitroaniline 2-Nitrophenol 3,3-Dichlorobenzidine 3-Nitroaniline 4,4'-Methylenebis(2-chloroaniline) 4,4'-Methylenebis(N,N-dimethylanilin 4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether 4-Chloro-3-methylphenol 4-Chloroaniline 4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether 4-Methylphenol 4-Nitroaniline 4-Nitrophenol Acenaphthene Acenaphthylene Acetophenone Adamantane Aniline Anthracene Benzo (a) anthracene Benzo (a) pyrene Benzo (b) fluoranthene Benzo (g,h,i) perylene Benzo (k) fluoranthene Benzoic acid Benzyl alcohol Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate Butyl benzyl phthalate Carbazole Chlorobenzilate Chrysene Diallate (cis or trans) Dibenz (a,h) anthracene Dibenzofuran Diethyl phthalate Dimethyl phthalate Di-n-butyl phthalate Di-n-octyl phthalate Dinoseb Disulfoton d-Limonene Fluoranthene Fluorene Hexachlorobenzene Hexachlorobutadiene Hexachlorocyclopentadiene Hexachloroethane NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L WELL 200 NA 0310201150104 3/10/2011 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Appendix A-6 WELL 200 NA 1025201120201 10/25/2011 < 29 U <5U <1U <1U <5U <1U <1U < 0.5 U <1U <1U <1U <5U <1U < 14 UJ < 14 U < 14 U <1U <1U <1U <1U <1U <1U < 29 U < 0.5 U < 0.5 U <1U <5U <1U < 0.5 U < 0.5 U < 0.5 U < 0.5 U < 0.5 U < 0.5 U < 14 U < 14 U <1U <1U <1U <5U <5U <1U < 10 U < 0.5 U <5U < 0.5 U <1U <5U <5U <5U <5U <5U < 48 U <5U < 0.5 U < 0.5 U < 0.5 U <1U < 14 U <5U WELL 200 NA 1111201124301 11/11/2011 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 4 of 6 SUMMARY TABLE OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER F Property Owner PROPERTY OWNER F PROPERTY OWNER F PROPERTY OWNER F WELL LOCATED NORTH OF HOUSE. WELL LOCATED NORTH OF HOUSE. WELL LOCATED NORTH OF HOUSE. PADEP ON SITE TO COLLECT PADEP ON SITE TO COLLECT PADEP ON SITE TO COLLECT SAMPLE. Location Description SAMPLE. SAMPLE. Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date Parameter and units Indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene Isophorone Naphthalene Nitrobenzene N-Nitrosodiethylamine N-Nitrosodimethylamine N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine N-Nitrosodiphenylamine N-Nitrosomethylethylamine Parathion-ethyl Parathion-methyl Pentachlorobenzene Pentachlorophenol Phenanthrene Phenol Phorate Pronamide Pyrene Pyridine Squalene Terbufos Terpineol Tributoxyethyl phosphate Trifluralin UG/L WELL 200 NA 0310201150104 3/10/2011 --------------------------------------------------- WELL 200 NA 1025201120201 10/25/2011 < 0.5 U <1U < 0.5 U <1U <1U <5U <5U <1U <1U <5U <5U <5U <1U <5U < 0.5 U <1U <1U <1U < 0.5 U <5U <5U <5U <5U <5U <5U WELL 200 NA 1111201124301 11/11/2011 --------------------------------------------------- UG/L --- < 100 U --- UG/L ------------------------------< 0.5 U ----------------< 0.5 U ------------- UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L TICs 1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene Volatile Organics 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 1,1-Dichloroethane 1,1-Dichloroethene 1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 1,2-Dichloroethane 1,2-Dichloropropane 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 1,4-Dichlorobenzene Acetone Benzene Carbon disulfide Carbon Tetrachloride Chlorobenzene Chloroform cis-1,2-Dichloroethene Diisopropyl Ether Ethanol Ethyl tert-Butyl Ether Ethylbenzene Hexachlorobutadiene Isopropyl alcohol Isopropylbenzene m,p-Xylene Methoxychlor Methyl tert-Butyl Ether NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L Appendix A-6 < < < < < 1.00 U 1.00 U 1.00 U 1.00 U 1.00 U --< 1.00 U < 0.1036 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U --< 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 50.0 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 100 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U <1U < 50.0 U < 1.00 U < 2.00 U < 0.0472 U < 1.00 U ------------------------------< 0.500 U ----------------< 0.500 U ------------- Page 5 of 6 SUMMARY TABLE OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER F Property Owner PROPERTY OWNER F PROPERTY OWNER F PROPERTY OWNER F WELL LOCATED NORTH OF HOUSE. WELL LOCATED NORTH OF HOUSE. WELL LOCATED NORTH OF HOUSE. PADEP ON SITE TO COLLECT PADEP ON SITE TO COLLECT PADEP ON SITE TO COLLECT SAMPLE. Location Description SAMPLE. SAMPLE. Parameter and units Methylene Chloride Naphthalene o-Xylene Styrene Tert-Amyl Methyl Ether Tertiary Butyl Alcohol Tetrachloroethene Tetrahydrofuran Toluene trans-1,2-Dichloroethene Trichloroethene Vinyl chloride Xylenes, total Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L WELL 200 NA 0310201150104 3/10/2011 ----------------< 0.5 U ------< 0.5 U WELL 200 NA 1025201120201 10/25/2011 < 5.00 U < 5.00 U < 1.00 U --< 1.00 U < 10.0 U < 1.00 U --< 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 3.00 U WELL 200 NA 1111201124301 11/11/2011 ----------------< 0.500 U ------< 0.500 U Notes: U : Parameter not detected at posted limit < : Parameter not detected at posted limit ND : Parameter not detected H : Parameter analyzed beyond method recommended holding time J : Estimated value --- : Parameter not analyzed. B : Blank qualified ug/L : Micrograms per liter mg/L : Milligrams per liter NA : Not Available NTU : Nephelometric Turbidity Unit umho/cm : Micromhos per centimeter colonies/100 ml : Colonies per 100 millileters NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx Appendix A-6 Page 6 of 6 APPENDIX A-7 EPA STUDY WELL DATA PROPERTY OWNER SUMMARY TABLE OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER G Parameter and units Property Owner PROPERTY OWNER G PROPERTY OWNER G PROPERTY OWNER G PROPERTY OWNER G PROPERTY OWNER G PROPERTY OWNER G PROPERTY OWNER G PROPERTY OWNER G Location Description THE WELL IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE. THE WELL IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE. THE WELL IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE. THE WELL IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE. THE WELL IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE. THE WELL IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE. THE WELL IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE. THE WELL IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE. Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date WELL UNKNOWN NA NTD0310-04022010-0840 4/2/2010 (Baseline) WELL UNKNOWN NA 1001201021403 10/1/2010 WELL UNKNOWN NA 1110201020203 11/10/2010 WELL UNKNOWN NA 0628201122901 6/28/2011 WELL UNKNOWN NA 0901201120204 9/1/2011 WELL UNKNOWN Pre-Treatment 1013201120201 10/13/2011 WELL UNKNOWN Post-Treatment 1013201120202 10/13/2011 WELL UNKNOWN Pre-Treatment 1027201120204 10/27/2011 UG/L --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- colonies/100ml colonies/100ml ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- Present 2 Present UG/L --- --- --- --- --- --- --- < 0.1014 U UG/L --- --- --- --- --- --- --- < 94.3 U MG/L ----47.8 --< 10.0 U 1.23 ------0.142 ------< 5.75 U 6.60 H --107 13.7 23.1 H 77 < 1.00 U < 1.00 U ----39.5 --< 10.0 U < 5.00 U ------< 0.0500 U ------< 6.85 U 6.60 H --107 12.2 21.4 H 274 157 4.6 ----43.6 HJ --< 10.0 U < 5.00 U --< 0.0500 U --0.0611 ------< 5.81 U 6.50 HJ --117 15 21.9 HJ 88 15.8 24 ----48.2 --< 10.0 U < 5.00 U ------< 0.0500 U ------< 5.88 U 6.70 H --142 12.4 21.0 H 111 58 91.2 ----58.5 --< 10.0 U < 5.00 U ------< 0.0500 U ------< 6.49 U 6.90 H --170 15.6 24.6 H 96 4.9 16.1 ----54.1 --< 10.0 U < 5.00 U ------< 0.0500 UH ------< 7.04 U 7.00 H --149 16.3 21.6 H 90.9 13.8 37.1 H ----57.4 --< 10.0 U < 5.00 U ------< 0.0500 UH ------< 5.95 U 6.50 H --154 16.1 21.6 H 68 < 1.00 U 1.18 H 43.6 < 0.100 U 42.6 < 2.5 U < 10.0 U 2.2 25000 --< 0.50 U < 0.12 U --0.84 < 0.50 U < 4.82 U 6.50 H < 0.100 U 127 19.1 J 21.0 H 68.1 J 2.8 13 ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- --< 10 U --< 10 UJ < 10 U --< 0.0260 U --0.035 --< 0.0340 U --< 0.0260 U --< 0.0260 U --< 0.0340 U --< 0.0260 U --< 0.0260 U --< 0.0340 U --< 0.0260 U < 0.0260 U < 0.0260 U --< 0.0340 U --< 0.00500 U < 0.00500 U 0.0126 --< 0.00500 U --< 0.00500 U --< 0.00500 U --< 0.00500 U --< 0.00500 U --< 0.00500 U --< 0.00500 U ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- Aldehydes Gluteraldehyde Bacteria E. coli Fecal coliform bacteria Total Coliform Bacteria colonies/100ml DBCP 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane Ex tractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons Diesel General Chem istry Alkalinity, Total (CaCO3) Ammonia as N Bicarbonate Alkalinity as CaCO3 Bromide Carbonate as CaCO3 Chloride CO2 by Headspace Cyanide Fluoride MBAS Nitrate Nitrate Nitrogen Nitrite Nitrogen Oil & Grease HEM pH Phosphorus Specific conductance Sulfate Temperature of pH determination Total Dissolved Solids Total Suspended Solids Turbidity MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L UG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L pH UNITS MG/L UMHO/CM MG/L CELSIUS MG/L MG/L NTU Glycols 1,2-Propylene Glycol Diethylene Glycol Ethylene Glycol Tetraethylene glycol Triethylene glycol MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L Light Gases Acetylene Ethane Ethene Methane n-Butane Propane MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L < < < < < < 0.00500 0.00500 0.00500 0.00500 0.00500 0.00500 U U U U U U Low M olecular W eight Acids Acetic Acid Butyric Acid Formic Acid Isobutyric acid Lactic acid Propionic Acid NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L Appendix A-7 < 10000 U < 10000 U < 10000 U < 10000 U < 5000 U < 13000 U Page 1 of 6 SUMMARY TABLE OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER G Parameter and units Property Owner PROPERTY OWNER G PROPERTY OWNER G PROPERTY OWNER G PROPERTY OWNER G PROPERTY OWNER G PROPERTY OWNER G PROPERTY OWNER G PROPERTY OWNER G Location Description THE WELL IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE. THE WELL IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE. THE WELL IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE. THE WELL IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE. THE WELL IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE. THE WELL IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE. THE WELL IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE. THE WELL IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE. Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date WELL UNKNOWN NA NTD0310-04022010-0840 4/2/2010 (Baseline) WELL UNKNOWN NA 1001201021403 10/1/2010 WELL UNKNOWN NA 1110201020203 11/10/2010 WELL UNKNOWN NA 0628201122901 6/28/2011 WELL UNKNOWN NA 0901201120204 9/1/2011 WELL UNKNOWN Pre-Treatment 1013201120201 10/13/2011 WELL UNKNOWN Post-Treatment 1013201120202 10/13/2011 WELL UNKNOWN Pre-Treatment 1027201120204 10/27/2011 --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- < 0.0001 U < 0.0001 U 0.966 0.924 4.43 4.78 < 0.002 U < 0.002 U < 0.001 U < 0.001 U ----< 0.0100 U 0.116 ----< 0.00100 U 13.6 < 0.00500 U ------0.281 < 0.00500 U --2.19 < 0.0150 U < 0.000200 U ----< 1.00 U < 0.0100 U < 0.00500 U 1.71 --< 5.000 U --------- ----< 0.0100 U 0.296 ----< 0.00100 U 17.3 0.0054 ------10.6 0.005 --4.07 0.153 < 0.000200 U ----2.16 < 0.0100 U < 0.00500 U 2.14 --3.7 --------- ----< 0.0100 U 0.168 ----< 0.00100 U 17.6 < 0.00500 U ------3.58 < 0.00500 U --3.07 0.123 < 0.000200 U ----1.33 < 0.0100 U < 0.00500 U 2.55 --4.7 --------- ----< 0.0100 U 0.156 ----< 0.00100 U 18.3 < 0.00500 U ------2.68 < 0.00500 U --3.43 0.0343 < 0.000200 U ----1.84 < 0.0100 U < 0.00500 U 3.87 0.0933 1740 --------- ----< 0.0100 U 0.162 ----< 0.00100 U 22.3 < 0.00500 U ------3.08 < 0.00500 U --3.58 < 0.0150 U < 0.000200 U ----< 1.00 U < 0.0100 U < 0.00500 U 3.49 0.126 4.3 --------- ----< 0.0100 U 0.177 ----< 0.00100 U 19.6 < 0.00500 U ------4.13 0.0061 --3.24 0.0218 < 0.000200 U ----< 1.00 U < 0.0100 U < 0.00500 U 3.13 0.121 4.23 --------- ----< 0.0100 U 0.0616 ----< 0.00100 U 21.6 < 0.00500 U ------0.185 < 0.00500 U --3.47 < 0.0150 U < 0.000200 U ----1.06 < 0.0100 U < 0.00500 U 3.52 0.137 4.44 --------- 0.0633 < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U 0.145 < 0.00200 U < 0.0500 U < 0.00100 U 16.6 < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U 0.00519 --0.343 < 0.00200 U --2.84 < 0.00500 U < 0.000200 U < 0.00500 U < 0.00500 U < 1.00 U < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U 2.38 0.0883 3.96 < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U < 0.00400 U < 0.0500 U ----------------------------- ----------------------------- ----< 0.0100 U 0.147 ----< 0.00100 U 17.9 < 0.00500 U ----< 0.0500 U < 0.00500 U 3.05 ----------------------------- ----------------------0.109 ----- ----------------------0.0549 ----- ----------------------------- < 0.0200 U < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U 0.145 < 0.00200 U < 0.0500 U < 0.00100 U 16.7 < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U < 0.00500 U < 0.0500 U < 0.00200 U 2.75 M etals, 6020x Cesium Cesium, Dissolved Potassium Potassium, Dissolved Silicon Silicon, Dissolved Thorium Thorium, Dissolved Uranium Uranium, Dissolved MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L M etals, Total Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Boron Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Hardness, CaCO3 Iron Lead Lithium Magnesium Manganese Mercury Molybdenum Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Strontium Sulfur Thallium Titanium Vanadium Zinc MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L M etals, Dissolved Aluminum, Dissolved Antimony, Dissolved Arsenic, Dissolved Barium, Dissolved Beryllium, Dissolved Boron, Dissolved Cadmium, Dissolved Calcium, Dissolved Chromium, Dissolved Cobalt, Dissolved Copper, Dissolved Iron, Dissolved Lead, Dissolved Magnesium, Dissolved NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L Appendix A-7 Page 2 of 6 SUMMARY TABLE OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER G Parameter and units Manganese, Dissolved Mercury, Dissolved Molybdenum, Dissolved Nickel, Dissolved Potassium, Dissolved Selenium, Dissolved Silver, Dissolved Sodium, Dissolved Strontium, Dissolved Sulfur, Dissolved Thallium, Dissolved Titanium, Dissolved Vanadium, Dissolved Zinc, Dissolved Property Owner PROPERTY OWNER G PROPERTY OWNER G PROPERTY OWNER G PROPERTY OWNER G PROPERTY OWNER G PROPERTY OWNER G PROPERTY OWNER G PROPERTY OWNER G Location Description THE WELL IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE. THE WELL IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE. THE WELL IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE. THE WELL IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE. THE WELL IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE. THE WELL IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE. THE WELL IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE. THE WELL IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE. WELL UNKNOWN NA NTD0310-04022010-0840 4/2/2010 (Baseline) ----------------------------- WELL UNKNOWN NA 1001201021403 10/1/2010 ----------------------------- WELL UNKNOWN NA 1110201020203 11/10/2010 < 0.0150 U < 0.000200 U ----< 1.00 U < 0.0100 U < 0.00500 U 2.77 ------------- WELL UNKNOWN NA 0628201122901 6/28/2011 ----------------------------- WELL UNKNOWN NA 0901201120204 9/1/2011 0.02 --------------------------- WELL UNKNOWN Pre-Treatment 1013201120201 10/13/2011 < 0.0150 U --------------------------- WELL UNKNOWN Post-Treatment 1013201120202 10/13/2011 ----------------------------- WELL UNKNOWN Pre-Treatment 1027201120204 10/27/2011 < 0.00500 U < 0.000200 U < 0.00500 U < 0.00500 U < 1.00 U < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U 2.38 0.0897 4.12 < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U < 0.00400 U < 0.0500 U ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 18.1 < 1.00 U UG/L ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- < 0.0472 U < 0.0472 U < 0.0472 U < 0.0472 U < 0.0472 U < 0.94 U < 0.0472 U < 6.0 U < 0.0472 U < 0.94 U < 0.0472 U < 0.94 U < 0.0472 U < 0.0472 U < 0.0472 U < 0.0472 U < 0.0472 U < 0.0472 U < 0.0472 U < 0.0472 U < 0.0472 U < 0.94 U < 0.0472 U < 0.94 U UG/L --- --- --- --- --- --- --- < 100 U UG/L ----------------------------- ----------------------------- ----------------------------- ----------------------------- ----------------------------- ----------------------------- ----------------------------- <1U <5U <1U <5U <5U <5U <1U <1U <1U <1U <1U <1U < 29 U <5U Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L M iscellaneous Organics Inorganic Carbon, Dissolved Organic Carbon, Dissolved MG/L MG/L Pesticides and PCBs 4,4'-DDD 4,4'-DDE 4,4'-DDT Aldrin alpha-BHC Azinphos-methyl beta-BHC Carbaryl delta-BHC Dichlorvos Dieldrin Disulfoton Endosulfan I Endosulfan II Endosulfan sulfate Endrin Endrin aldehyde Endrin ketone gamma-BHC (Lindane) Heptachlor Heptachlor epoxide Malathion Methoxychlor Mevinphos UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L Purgeable Petroleum Hydrocarbons GRO as Gasoline Sem ivolatile Organics 1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene 1,2-Dinitrobenzene 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine 1,3-Dimethyl adamatane 1,3-Dinitrobenzene 1,4-Dinitrobenzene 1-Chloronaphthalene 2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 2,4-Dichlorophenol 2,4-Dimethylphenol 2,4-Dinitrophenol 2,4-Dinitrotoluene NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L Appendix A-7 Page 3 of 6 SUMMARY TABLE OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER G Property Owner PROPERTY OWNER G PROPERTY OWNER G PROPERTY OWNER G PROPERTY OWNER G PROPERTY OWNER G PROPERTY OWNER G PROPERTY OWNER G PROPERTY OWNER G Location Description THE WELL IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE. THE WELL IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE. THE WELL IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE. THE WELL IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE. THE WELL IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE. THE WELL IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE. THE WELL IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE. THE WELL IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE. WELL UNKNOWN NA NTD0310-04022010-0840 4/2/2010 (Baseline) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WELL UNKNOWN NA 1001201021403 10/1/2010 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WELL UNKNOWN NA 1110201020203 11/10/2010 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WELL UNKNOWN NA 0628201122901 6/28/2011 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WELL UNKNOWN NA 0901201120204 9/1/2011 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WELL UNKNOWN Pre-Treatment 1013201120201 10/13/2011 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WELL UNKNOWN Post-Treatment 1013201120202 10/13/2011 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WELL UNKNOWN Pre-Treatment 1027201120204 10/27/2011 <1U <1U <5U <1U <1U < 0.5 U <1U <1U <1U <5U <1U < 14 UJ < 14 U < 14 U <1U <1U <1U <1U <1U <1U < 29 U < 0.5 U < 0.5 U <1U <5U <1U < 0.5 U < 0.5 U < 0.5 U < 0.5 U < 0.5 U < 0.5 U < 14 U < 14 U <1U <1U <1U <5U <5U <1U < 10 U < 0.5 U <5U < 0.5 U <1U <5U <5U <5U <5U <5U < 48 U <5U < 0.5 U < 0.5 U < 0.5 U <1U < 14 U <5U < 0.5 U <1U < 0.5 U Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date Parameter and units 2,6-Dichlorophenol 2,6-Dinitrotoluene 2-Butoxyethanol 2-Chloronaphthalene 2-Chlorophenol 2-Methylnaphthalene 2-Methylphenol 2-Nitroaniline 2-Nitrophenol 3,3-Dichlorobenzidine 3-Nitroaniline 4,4'-Methylenebis(2-chloroaniline) 4,4'-Methylenebis(N,N-dimethylanilin 4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether 4-Chloro-3-methylphenol 4-Chloroaniline 4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether 4-Methylphenol 4-Nitroaniline 4-Nitrophenol Acenaphthene Acenaphthylene Acetophenone Adamantane Aniline Anthracene Benzo (a) anthracene Benzo (a) pyrene Benzo (b) fluoranthene Benzo (g,h,i) perylene Benzo (k) fluoranthene Benzoic acid Benzyl alcohol Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate Butyl benzyl phthalate Carbazole Chlorobenzilate Chrysene Diallate (cis or trans) Dibenz (a,h) anthracene Dibenzofuran Diethyl phthalate Dimethyl phthalate Di-n-butyl phthalate Di-n-octyl phthalate Dinoseb Disulfoton d-Limonene Fluoranthene Fluorene Hexachlorobenzene Hexachlorobutadiene Hexachlorocyclopentadiene Hexachloroethane Indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene Isophorone Naphthalene NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L Appendix A-7 Page 4 of 6 SUMMARY TABLE OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER G Property Owner PROPERTY OWNER G PROPERTY OWNER G PROPERTY OWNER G PROPERTY OWNER G PROPERTY OWNER G PROPERTY OWNER G PROPERTY OWNER G PROPERTY OWNER G Location Description THE WELL IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE. THE WELL IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE. THE WELL IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE. THE WELL IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE. THE WELL IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE. THE WELL IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE. THE WELL IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE. THE WELL IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE. UG/L WELL UNKNOWN NA NTD0310-04022010-0840 4/2/2010 (Baseline) --------------------------------------------- WELL UNKNOWN NA 1001201021403 10/1/2010 --------------------------------------------- WELL UNKNOWN NA 1110201020203 11/10/2010 --------------------------------------------- WELL UNKNOWN NA 0628201122901 6/28/2011 --------------------------------------------- WELL UNKNOWN NA 0901201120204 9/1/2011 --------------------------------------------- WELL UNKNOWN Pre-Treatment 1013201120201 10/13/2011 --------------------------------------------- WELL UNKNOWN Post-Treatment 1013201120202 10/13/2011 --------------------------------------------- WELL UNKNOWN Pre-Treatment 1027201120204 10/27/2011 <1U <1U <5U <5U <1U <1U <5U <5U <5U <1U <5U < 0.5 U <1U <1U <1U < 0.5 U <5U <5U <5U <5U <5U <5U UG/L --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- UG/L ------------------------------< 0.500 U ----------------< 0.500 U --------------------- ------------------------------< 0.500 U ----------------< 0.500 U --------------------- ------------------------------< 0.500 U ----------------< 0.500 U --------------------- ------------------------------< 0.500 U ----------------< 0.500 U --------------------- ------------------------------< 0.500 U ----------------< 0.500 U --------------------- ------------------------------< 0.500 U ----------------< 0.500 U --------------------- ------------------------------< 0.500 U ----------------< 0.500 U --------------------- Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date Parameter and units Nitrobenzene N-Nitrosodiethylamine N-Nitrosodimethylamine N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine N-Nitrosodiphenylamine N-Nitrosomethylethylamine Parathion-ethyl Parathion-methyl Pentachlorobenzene Pentachlorophenol Phenanthrene Phenol Phorate Pronamide Pyrene Pyridine Squalene Terbufos Terpineol Tributoxyethyl phosphate Trifluralin UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L TICs 1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene Volatile Organics 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 1,1-Dichloroethane 1,1-Dichloroethene 1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 1,2-Dichloroethane 1,2-Dichloropropane 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 1,4-Dichlorobenzene Acetone Benzene Carbon disulfide Carbon Tetrachloride Chlorobenzene Chloroform cis-1,2-Dichloroethene Diisopropyl Ether Ethanol Ethyl tert-Butyl Ether Ethylbenzene Hexachlorobutadiene Isopropyl alcohol Isopropylbenzene m,p-Xylene Methoxychlor Methyl tert-Butyl Ether Methylene Chloride Naphthalene o-Xylene Styrene NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L Appendix A-7 < < < < < 1.00 U 1.00 U 1.00 U 1.00 U 1.00 U --< 1.00 U < 0.1014 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U --< 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 50.0 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 100 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U <1U < 50.0 U < 1.00 U < 2.00 U < 0.0472 U < 1.00 U < 5.00 U < 5.00 U < 1.00 U --- Page 5 of 6 SUMMARY TABLE OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER G Parameter and units Tert-Amyl Methyl Ether Tertiary Butyl Alcohol Tetrachloroethene Tetrahydrofuran Toluene trans-1,2-Dichloroethene Trichloroethene Vinyl chloride Xylenes, total Property Owner PROPERTY OWNER G PROPERTY OWNER G PROPERTY OWNER G PROPERTY OWNER G PROPERTY OWNER G PROPERTY OWNER G PROPERTY OWNER G PROPERTY OWNER G Location Description THE WELL IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE. THE WELL IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE. THE WELL IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE. THE WELL IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE. THE WELL IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE. THE WELL IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE. THE WELL IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE. THE WELL IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE. WELL UNKNOWN NA NTD0310-04022010-0840 4/2/2010 (Baseline) --------< 0.500 U ------< 0.500 U WELL UNKNOWN NA 1001201021403 10/1/2010 --------< 0.500 U ------< 0.500 U WELL UNKNOWN NA 1110201020203 11/10/2010 --------< 0.500 U ------< 0.500 U WELL UNKNOWN NA 0628201122901 6/28/2011 --------< 0.500 U ------< 0.500 U WELL UNKNOWN NA 0901201120204 9/1/2011 --------< 0.500 U ------< 0.500 U WELL UNKNOWN Pre-Treatment 1013201120201 10/13/2011 --------< 0.500 U ------< 0.500 U WELL UNKNOWN Post-Treatment 1013201120202 10/13/2011 --------< 0.500 U ------< 0.500 U WELL UNKNOWN Pre-Treatment 1027201120204 10/27/2011 < 1.00 U < 10.0 U < 1.00 U --< 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 3.00 U Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L Notes: U : Parameter not detected at posted limit < : Parameter not detected at posted limit ND : Parameter not detected H : Parameter analyzed beyond method recommended holding time J : Estimated value --- : Parameter not analyzed. B : Blank qualified ug/L : Micrograms per liter mg/L : Milligrams per liter NA : Not Available NTU : Nephelometric Turbidity Unit umho/cm : Micromhos per centimeter colonies/100 ml : Colonies per 100 millileters NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx Appendix A-7 Page 6 of 6 APPENDIX A-8 EPA STUDY WELL DATA PROPERTY OWNER SUMMARY TABLE OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER H Property Owner PROPERTY OWNER H Location Description 907691-PROPERTY OWNER H-001 Parameter and units Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date PROPERTY OWNER H PROPERTY OWNER H PROPERTY OWNER H PROPERTY OWNER H PROPERTY OWNER H PROPERTY OWNER H PROPERTY OWNER H PROPERTY OWNER H WELL IS LOCATED TO THE SOUTH WELL IS LOCATED TO THE SOUTH WELL IS LOCATED TO THE SOUTH WELL IS LOCATED TO THE SOUTH WELL IS LOCATED TO THE SOUTH WELL IS LOCATED TO THE SOUTH WELL IS LOCATED TO THE SOUTH WELL IS LOCATED TO THE SOUTH OF THE RESIDENCE. OF THE RESIDENCE. OF THE RESIDENCE. OF THE RESIDENCE. OF THE RESIDENCE. OF THE RESIDENCE. OF THE RESIDENCE. OF THE RESIDENCE. WELL 340 NA NTD0189-04012010-1125 4/1/2010 (Baseline) WELL 340 NA 0913201020201 9/13/2010 WELL 340 Pre-Treatment 1001201021405 10/1/2010 WELL 340 NA 1110201020201 11/10/2010 WELL 340 NA 1202201020201 12/2/2010 WELL 340 Pre-Treatment 0301201124902 3/1/2011 WELL 340 Post-Treatment 0301201124903 3/1/2011 WELL 340 Pre-Treatment 0510201120201 5/10/2011 WELL 340 Post-Treatment 0510201120202 5/10/2011 UG/L --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- colonies/100ml colonies/100ml ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- UG/L --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- UG/L --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- MG/L ----101 --< 10.0 U 1.52 ------< 0.0500 U ------< 5.49 U 7.70 H --191 13.7 23.0 H 118 < 1.00 U 2 ----141 --< 10.0 U 10.2 ------< 0.0500 U ------< 5.43 U 8.20 HJ --325 15.9 22.4 HJ 176 27.5 2.7 ----60.2 --< 10.0 U < 5.00 UJ ------< 0.0500 U ------< 6.10 U 6.80 HJ --112 10.8 J 21.4 HJ 250 46 31.2 ----93.6 --< 10.0 U 8.34 --< 0.0500 U --0.0516 ------< 5.49 U 6.80 HJ --189 17.1 21.9 HJ 107 88.3 26.4 ----75.8 --< 10.0 U 12.4 ------< 0.0500 U ------< 6.10 U 6.70 H --124 21.5 22.5 H 76 33.4 11.7 ----35.2 --< 10.0 U 5 ------< 0.0500 U ------< 5.95 U 7.40 HJ --107 17.1 21.0 HJ 70 2.1 5 ----36.5 --< 10.0 U 5.08 ------< 0.0500 U ------< 6.02 U 7.20 HJ --108 19 21.4 HJ 76 < 1.00 U 4.5 ----42.3 --< 10.0 U < 5.00 U ------< 0.0500 U ------< 5.81 U 7.80 HJ --129 17.2 23.9 HJ 82 1.70 J 7.3 ----44.9 --< 10.0 U < 5.00 UJ ------< 0.0500 U ------< 6.49 U 7.00 HJ --133 17.4 J 23.5 HJ 65 1.1 3.6 ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- --< 0.0260 U --0.045 --< 0.0340 U --< 0.0260 U --0.0535 --< 0.0340 U --< 0.0260 U --< 0.0260 U --< 0.0340 U --< 0.0260 U --0.183 --< 0.0340 U --< 0.0260 U --< 0.0260 U --< 0.0340 U --< 0.0260 U --< 0.0260 U --< 0.0340 U --< 0.0260 U --< 0.0260 U --< 0.0340 U --< 0.0260 U --< 0.0260 U --< 0.0340 U --< 0.0260 U --< 0.0260 U --< 0.0340 U ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- Aldehydes Gluteraldehyde Bacteria E. coli Fecal coliform bacteria Total Coliform Bacteria colonies/100ml DBCP 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane Ex tractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons Diesel General Chem istry Alkalinity, Total (CaCO3) Ammonia as N Bicarbonate Alkalinity as CaCO3 Bromide Carbonate as CaCO3 Chloride CO2 by Headspace Cyanide Fluoride MBAS Nitrate Nitrate Nitrogen Nitrite Nitrogen Oil & Grease HEM pH Phosphorus Specific conductance Sulfate Temperature of pH determination Total Dissolved Solids Total Suspended Solids Turbidity MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L UG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L pH UNITS MG/L UMHO/CM MG/L CELSIUS MG/L MG/L NTU Glycols 1,2-Propylene Glycol Diethylene Glycol Ethylene Glycol Tetraethylene glycol Triethylene glycol MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L Light Gases Acetylene Ethane Ethene Methane n-Butane Propane MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L Low M olecular W eight Acids Acetic Acid Butyric Acid Formic Acid Isobutyric acid Lactic acid Propionic Acid UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx Appendix A-8 Page 1 of 12 SUMMARY TABLE OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER H Property Owner PROPERTY OWNER H Location Description 907691-PROPERTY OWNER H-001 Parameter and units Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date PROPERTY OWNER H PROPERTY OWNER H PROPERTY OWNER H PROPERTY OWNER H PROPERTY OWNER H PROPERTY OWNER H PROPERTY OWNER H PROPERTY OWNER H WELL IS LOCATED TO THE SOUTH WELL IS LOCATED TO THE SOUTH WELL IS LOCATED TO THE SOUTH WELL IS LOCATED TO THE SOUTH WELL IS LOCATED TO THE SOUTH WELL IS LOCATED TO THE SOUTH WELL IS LOCATED TO THE SOUTH WELL IS LOCATED TO THE SOUTH OF THE RESIDENCE. OF THE RESIDENCE. OF THE RESIDENCE. OF THE RESIDENCE. OF THE RESIDENCE. OF THE RESIDENCE. OF THE RESIDENCE. OF THE RESIDENCE. WELL 340 NA NTD0189-04012010-1125 4/1/2010 (Baseline) WELL 340 NA 0913201020201 9/13/2010 WELL 340 Pre-Treatment 1001201021405 10/1/2010 WELL 340 NA 1110201020201 11/10/2010 WELL 340 NA 1202201020201 12/2/2010 WELL 340 Pre-Treatment 0301201124902 3/1/2011 WELL 340 Post-Treatment 0301201124903 3/1/2011 WELL 340 Pre-Treatment 0510201120201 5/10/2011 WELL 340 Post-Treatment 0510201120202 5/10/2011 --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- ----< 0.0100 U 0.214 ----< 0.00100 U 12.4 < 0.00500 U ------0.0546 < 0.00500 U --1.97 < 0.0150 U < 0.000200 U ----< 1.00 U < 0.0100 U < 0.00500 U 28 --5.1 --------- ----< 0.0100 U 0.31 ----< 0.00100 U 24.3 < 0.00500 U ------0.275 < 0.00500 U --3.56 0.0209 < 0.000200 U ----1.41 < 0.0100 U < 0.00500 U 40.4 --3.7 --------- ----< 0.0100 U 0.263 ----< 0.00100 U 15.1 < 0.00500 U ------2.54 < 0.00500 U --2.64 0.214 < 0.000200 U ----1.31 < 0.0100 U < 0.00500 U 6.84 --3.4 --------- ----< 0.0100 U 0.27 ----< 0.00100 U 14.8 < 0.00500 U ------0.982 0.0089 --2.2 0.0607 < 0.000200 U ----1.16 < 0.0100 U < 0.00500 U 20.8 --6 --------- ----< 0.0100 U 0.17 ----< 0.00100 U 31.3 < 0.00500 U ------0.829 < 0.00500 U --4.21 0.095 < 0.000200 U ----1.47 < 0.0100 U < 0.00500 U 7.24 --4.5 --------- ----< 0.0100 U 0.168 ----< 0.00100 U 13.3 < 0.00500 U ------0.228 0.0076 --1.95 < 0.0150 U < 0.000200 U ----< 1.00 U < 0.0100 U < 0.00500 U 5.02 --4.66 --------- ----< 0.0100 U 0.142 ----< 0.00100 U 13.7 < 0.00500 U ------0.0971 < 0.00500 U --1.99 < 0.0150 U < 0.000200 U ----< 1.00 U < 0.0100 U < 0.00500 U 5.21 --4.59 --------- ----< 0.0100 U 0.162 ----< 0.00100 U 14.7 < 0.00500 U ------0.149 0.0738 --2.41 < 0.0150 U < 0.000200 U ----< 1.00 U < 0.0100 U < 0.00500 U 5.56 --4.36 --------- ----< 0.0100 U 0.164 ----< 0.00100 U 15.1 < 0.00500 U ------0.0756 < 0.00500 U --2.48 < 0.0150 U < 0.000200 U ----< 1.00 U < 0.0100 U < 0.00500 U 5.35 --4.42 --------- ----------------------------- ----------------------------- ----------------------< 0.0500 U ----- ----< 0.0100 U 0.218 ----< 0.00100 U 17.1 < 0.00500 U ----< 0.0500 U < 0.00500 U 2.56 ----------------------------- ----------------------------- ----------------------------- ----------------------------- ----------------------------- M etals, 6020x Cesium Cesium, Dissolved Potassium Potassium, Dissolved Silicon Silicon, Dissolved Thorium Thorium, Dissolved Uranium Uranium, Dissolved MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L M etals, Total Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Boron Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Hardness, CaCO3 Iron Lead Lithium Magnesium Manganese Mercury Molybdenum Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Strontium Sulfur Thallium Titanium Vanadium Zinc MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L M etals, Dissolved Aluminum, Dissolved Antimony, Dissolved Arsenic, Dissolved Barium, Dissolved Beryllium, Dissolved Boron, Dissolved Cadmium, Dissolved Calcium, Dissolved Chromium, Dissolved Cobalt, Dissolved Copper, Dissolved Iron, Dissolved Lead, Dissolved Magnesium, Dissolved MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx Appendix A-8 Page 2 of 12 SUMMARY TABLE OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER H Property Owner PROPERTY OWNER H Location Description 907691-PROPERTY OWNER H-001 Parameter and units Manganese, Dissolved Mercury, Dissolved Molybdenum, Dissolved Nickel, Dissolved Potassium, Dissolved Selenium, Dissolved Silver, Dissolved Sodium, Dissolved Strontium, Dissolved Sulfur, Dissolved Thallium, Dissolved Titanium, Dissolved Vanadium, Dissolved Zinc, Dissolved Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date PROPERTY OWNER H PROPERTY OWNER H PROPERTY OWNER H PROPERTY OWNER H PROPERTY OWNER H PROPERTY OWNER H PROPERTY OWNER H PROPERTY OWNER H WELL IS LOCATED TO THE SOUTH WELL IS LOCATED TO THE SOUTH WELL IS LOCATED TO THE SOUTH WELL IS LOCATED TO THE SOUTH WELL IS LOCATED TO THE SOUTH WELL IS LOCATED TO THE SOUTH WELL IS LOCATED TO THE SOUTH WELL IS LOCATED TO THE SOUTH OF THE RESIDENCE. OF THE RESIDENCE. OF THE RESIDENCE. OF THE RESIDENCE. OF THE RESIDENCE. OF THE RESIDENCE. OF THE RESIDENCE. OF THE RESIDENCE. WELL 340 NA NTD0189-04012010-1125 4/1/2010 (Baseline) ----------------------------- WELL 340 NA 0913201020201 9/13/2010 ----------------------------- WELL 340 Pre-Treatment 1001201021405 10/1/2010 ----------------------------- WELL 340 NA 1110201020201 11/10/2010 0.0213 < 0.000200 U ----1.26 < 0.0100 U < 0.00500 U 21.9 ------------- WELL 340 NA 1202201020201 12/2/2010 ----------------------------- WELL 340 Pre-Treatment 0301201124902 3/1/2011 ----------------------------- WELL 340 Post-Treatment 0301201124903 3/1/2011 ----------------------------- WELL 340 Pre-Treatment 0510201120201 5/10/2011 ----------------------------- WELL 340 Post-Treatment 0510201120202 5/10/2011 ----------------------------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- UG/L ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- UG/L --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- UG/L ----------------------------- ----------------------------- ----------------------------- ----------------------------- ----------------------------- ----------------------------- ----------------------------- ----------------------------- ----------------------------- MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L M iscellaneous Organics Inorganic Carbon, Dissolved Organic Carbon, Dissolved MG/L MG/L Pesticides and PCBs 4,4'-DDD 4,4'-DDE 4,4'-DDT Aldrin alpha-BHC Azinphos-methyl beta-BHC Carbaryl delta-BHC Dichlorvos Dieldrin Disulfoton Endosulfan I Endosulfan II Endosulfan sulfate Endrin Endrin aldehyde Endrin ketone gamma-BHC (Lindane) Heptachlor Heptachlor epoxide Malathion Methoxychlor Mevinphos UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L Purgeable Petroleum Hydrocarbons GRO as Gasoline Sem ivolatile Organics 1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene 1,2-Dinitrobenzene 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine 1,3-Dimethyl adamatane 1,3-Dinitrobenzene 1,4-Dinitrobenzene 1-Chloronaphthalene 2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 2,4-Dichlorophenol 2,4-Dimethylphenol 2,4-Dinitrophenol 2,4-Dinitrotoluene UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx Appendix A-8 Page 3 of 12 SUMMARY TABLE OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER H Property Owner PROPERTY OWNER H Location Description 907691-PROPERTY OWNER H-001 Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date Parameter and units 2,6-Dichlorophenol 2,6-Dinitrotoluene 2-Butoxyethanol 2-Chloronaphthalene 2-Chlorophenol 2-Methylnaphthalene 2-Methylphenol 2-Nitroaniline 2-Nitrophenol 3,3-Dichlorobenzidine 3-Nitroaniline 4,4'-Methylenebis(2-chloroaniline) 4,4'-Methylenebis(N,N-dimethylanilin 4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether 4-Chloro-3-methylphenol 4-Chloroaniline 4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether 4-Methylphenol 4-Nitroaniline 4-Nitrophenol Acenaphthene Acenaphthylene Acetophenone Adamantane Aniline Anthracene Benzo (a) anthracene Benzo (a) pyrene Benzo (b) fluoranthene Benzo (g,h,i) perylene Benzo (k) fluoranthene Benzoic acid Benzyl alcohol Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate Butyl benzyl phthalate Carbazole Chlorobenzilate Chrysene Diallate (cis or trans) Dibenz (a,h) anthracene Dibenzofuran Diethyl phthalate Dimethyl phthalate Di-n-butyl phthalate Di-n-octyl phthalate Dinoseb Disulfoton d-Limonene Fluoranthene Fluorene Hexachlorobenzene Hexachlorobutadiene Hexachlorocyclopentadiene Hexachloroethane Indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene Isophorone Naphthalene UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx WELL 340 NA NTD0189-04012010-1125 4/1/2010 (Baseline) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PROPERTY OWNER H PROPERTY OWNER H PROPERTY OWNER H PROPERTY OWNER H PROPERTY OWNER H PROPERTY OWNER H PROPERTY OWNER H PROPERTY OWNER H WELL IS LOCATED TO THE SOUTH WELL IS LOCATED TO THE SOUTH WELL IS LOCATED TO THE SOUTH WELL IS LOCATED TO THE SOUTH WELL IS LOCATED TO THE SOUTH WELL IS LOCATED TO THE SOUTH WELL IS LOCATED TO THE SOUTH WELL IS LOCATED TO THE SOUTH OF THE RESIDENCE. OF THE RESIDENCE. OF THE RESIDENCE. OF THE RESIDENCE. OF THE RESIDENCE. OF THE RESIDENCE. OF THE RESIDENCE. OF THE RESIDENCE. WELL 340 NA 0913201020201 9/13/2010 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WELL 340 Pre-Treatment 1001201021405 10/1/2010 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WELL 340 NA 1110201020201 11/10/2010 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Appendix A-8 WELL 340 NA 1202201020201 12/2/2010 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WELL 340 Pre-Treatment 0301201124902 3/1/2011 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WELL 340 Post-Treatment 0301201124903 3/1/2011 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WELL 340 Pre-Treatment 0510201120201 5/10/2011 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WELL 340 Post-Treatment 0510201120202 5/10/2011 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 4 of 12 SUMMARY TABLE OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER H Property Owner PROPERTY OWNER H Location Description 907691-PROPERTY OWNER H-001 Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date Parameter and units Nitrobenzene N-Nitrosodiethylamine N-Nitrosodimethylamine N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine N-Nitrosodiphenylamine N-Nitrosomethylethylamine Parathion-ethyl Parathion-methyl Pentachlorobenzene Pentachlorophenol Phenanthrene Phenol Phorate Pronamide Pyrene Pyridine Squalene Terbufos Terpineol Tributoxyethyl phosphate Trifluralin PROPERTY OWNER H PROPERTY OWNER H PROPERTY OWNER H PROPERTY OWNER H PROPERTY OWNER H PROPERTY OWNER H PROPERTY OWNER H PROPERTY OWNER H WELL IS LOCATED TO THE SOUTH WELL IS LOCATED TO THE SOUTH WELL IS LOCATED TO THE SOUTH WELL IS LOCATED TO THE SOUTH WELL IS LOCATED TO THE SOUTH WELL IS LOCATED TO THE SOUTH WELL IS LOCATED TO THE SOUTH WELL IS LOCATED TO THE SOUTH OF THE RESIDENCE. OF THE RESIDENCE. OF THE RESIDENCE. OF THE RESIDENCE. OF THE RESIDENCE. OF THE RESIDENCE. OF THE RESIDENCE. OF THE RESIDENCE. UG/L WELL 340 NA NTD0189-04012010-1125 4/1/2010 (Baseline) --------------------------------------------- WELL 340 NA 0913201020201 9/13/2010 --------------------------------------------- WELL 340 Pre-Treatment 1001201021405 10/1/2010 --------------------------------------------- WELL 340 NA 1110201020201 11/10/2010 --------------------------------------------- WELL 340 NA 1202201020201 12/2/2010 --------------------------------------------- WELL 340 Pre-Treatment 0301201124902 3/1/2011 --------------------------------------------- WELL 340 Post-Treatment 0301201124903 3/1/2011 --------------------------------------------- WELL 340 Pre-Treatment 0510201120201 5/10/2011 --------------------------------------------- WELL 340 Post-Treatment 0510201120202 5/10/2011 --------------------------------------------- UG/L --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- UG/L ------------------------------< 0.500 U ----------------< 0.500 U --------------------- ------------------------------< 0.500 U ----------------< 0.500 U --------------------- ------------------------------< 0.500 U ----------------< 0.500 U --------------------- ------------------------------< 0.500 U ----------------< 0.500 U --------------------- ------------------------------< 0.500 U ----------------< 0.500 U --------------------- ------------------------------< 0.500 U ----------------< 0.500 U --------------------- ------------------------------< 0.500 U ----------------< 0.500 U --------------------- ------------------------------< 0.500 U ----------------< 0.500 U --------------------- ------------------------------< 0.500 U ----------------< 0.500 U --------------------- UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L TICs 1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene Volatile Organics 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 1,1-Dichloroethane 1,1-Dichloroethene 1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 1,2-Dichloroethane 1,2-Dichloropropane 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 1,4-Dichlorobenzene Acetone Benzene Carbon disulfide Carbon Tetrachloride Chlorobenzene Chloroform cis-1,2-Dichloroethene Diisopropyl Ether Ethanol Ethyl tert-Butyl Ether Ethylbenzene Hexachlorobutadiene Isopropyl alcohol Isopropylbenzene m,p-Xylene Methoxychlor Methyl tert-Butyl Ether Methylene Chloride Naphthalene o-Xylene Styrene UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx Appendix A-8 Page 5 of 12 SUMMARY TABLE OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER H Property Owner PROPERTY OWNER H Location Description 907691-PROPERTY OWNER H-001 Parameter and units Tert-Amyl Methyl Ether Tertiary Butyl Alcohol Tetrachloroethene Tetrahydrofuran Toluene trans-1,2-Dichloroethene Trichloroethene Vinyl chloride Xylenes, total Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L WELL 340 NA NTD0189-04012010-1125 4/1/2010 (Baseline) --------< 0.500 U ------< 0.500 U PROPERTY OWNER H PROPERTY OWNER H PROPERTY OWNER H PROPERTY OWNER H PROPERTY OWNER H PROPERTY OWNER H PROPERTY OWNER H PROPERTY OWNER H WELL IS LOCATED TO THE SOUTH WELL IS LOCATED TO THE SOUTH WELL IS LOCATED TO THE SOUTH WELL IS LOCATED TO THE SOUTH WELL IS LOCATED TO THE SOUTH WELL IS LOCATED TO THE SOUTH WELL IS LOCATED TO THE SOUTH WELL IS LOCATED TO THE SOUTH OF THE RESIDENCE. OF THE RESIDENCE. OF THE RESIDENCE. OF THE RESIDENCE. OF THE RESIDENCE. OF THE RESIDENCE. OF THE RESIDENCE. OF THE RESIDENCE. WELL 340 NA 0913201020201 9/13/2010 --------< 0.500 U ------< 0.500 U WELL 340 Pre-Treatment 1001201021405 10/1/2010 --------< 0.500 U ------< 0.500 U WELL 340 NA 1110201020201 11/10/2010 --------1.13 ------< 0.500 U WELL 340 NA 1202201020201 12/2/2010 --------< 0.500 U ------< 0.500 U WELL 340 Pre-Treatment 0301201124902 3/1/2011 --------< 0.500 U ------< 0.500 U WELL 340 Post-Treatment 0301201124903 3/1/2011 --------< 0.500 U ------< 0.500 U WELL 340 Pre-Treatment 0510201120201 5/10/2011 --------< 0.500 U ------< 0.500 U WELL 340 Post-Treatment 0510201120202 5/10/2011 --------< 0.500 U ------< 0.500 U Notes: U : Parameter not detected at posted limit < : Parameter not detected at posted limit ND : Parameter not detected H : Parameter analyzed beyond method recommended holding time J : Estimated value --- : Parameter not analyzed. B : Blank qualified ug/L : Micrograms per liter mg/L : Milligrams per liter NA : Not Available NTU : Nephelometric Turbidity Unit umho/cm : Micromhos per centimeter colonies/100 ml : Colonies per 100 millileters NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx Appendix A-8 Page 6 of 12 SUMMARY TABLE OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER H Property Owner PROPERTY OWNER H PROPERTY OWNER H PROPERTY OWNER H WELL IS LOCATED TO THE SOUTH WELL IS LOCATED TO THE SOUTH WELL IS LOCATED TO THE SOUTH OF THE RESIDENCE. OF THE RESIDENCE. OF THE RESIDENCE. Location Description Parameter and units WELL 340 Pre-Treatment 1028201120204 10/28/2011 WELL 340 Pre-Treatment 1108201120208 11/8/2011 WELL 340 Post-Treatment 1108201120209 11/8/2011 UG/L --- --- --- colonies/100ml colonies/100ml Absent <1U Present ------- ------- UG/L < 0.1017 U --- --- UG/L < 94.3 U --- --- MG/L 62.3 < 0.100 U 63.9 < 2.5 U < 10.0 U 9.8 J 16000 --< 0.50 U < 0.12 U --0.52 < 0.50 UJ < 5.48 U 6.80 H < 0.100 U 162 16.0 J 22.0 H 67 5.4 6.8 ----86.6 < 5.00 U < 10.0 U < 5.00 U ------< 0.0500 UH ------< 6.41 U 6.80 H --177 9.3 21.0 H 111 < 1.00 U 1.92 H ----55 < 5.00 U < 10.0 U < 5.00 U ------< 0.0500 UH ------< 6.76 U 6.50 H --141 10.3 21.0 H 88 < 1.00 U 1.10 H --< 10 U --20 J 12 J ----------- ----------- < 0.00500 U < 0.00500 U < 0.00500 U 0.00607 < 0.00500 U < 0.00500 U --< 0.00500 U --0.0655 --< 0.00500 U --< 0.00500 U --0.0258 --< 0.00500 U < 10000 U < 10000 U < 10000 U < 10000 U < 5000 U < 13000 U ------------- ------------- Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date Aldehydes Gluteraldehyde Bacteria E. coli Fecal coliform bacteria Total Coliform Bacteria colonies/100ml DBCP 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane Ex tractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons Diesel General Chem istry Alkalinity, Total (CaCO3) Ammonia as N Bicarbonate Alkalinity as CaCO3 Bromide Carbonate as CaCO3 Chloride CO2 by Headspace Cyanide Fluoride MBAS Nitrate Nitrate Nitrogen Nitrite Nitrogen Oil & Grease HEM pH Phosphorus Specific conductance Sulfate Temperature of pH determination Total Dissolved Solids Total Suspended Solids Turbidity MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L UG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L pH UNITS MG/L UMHO/CM MG/L CELSIUS MG/L MG/L NTU Glycols 1,2-Propylene Glycol Diethylene Glycol Ethylene Glycol Tetraethylene glycol Triethylene glycol MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L Light Gases Acetylene Ethane Ethene Methane n-Butane Propane MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L Low M olecular W eight Acids Acetic Acid Butyric Acid Formic Acid Isobutyric acid Lactic acid Propionic Acid NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L Appendix A-8 Page 7 of 12 SUMMARY TABLE OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER H Property Owner PROPERTY OWNER H PROPERTY OWNER H PROPERTY OWNER H WELL IS LOCATED TO THE SOUTH WELL IS LOCATED TO THE SOUTH WELL IS LOCATED TO THE SOUTH OF THE RESIDENCE. OF THE RESIDENCE. OF THE RESIDENCE. Location Description Parameter and units Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date WELL 340 Pre-Treatment 1028201120204 10/28/2011 WELL 340 Pre-Treatment 1108201120208 11/8/2011 WELL 340 Post-Treatment 1108201120209 11/8/2011 < 0.25 U < 0.25 U < 250 U < 250 U < 6250 U < 6250 U <5U <5U < 2.5 U < 2.5 U --------------------- --------------------- 0.322 < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U 0.213 < 0.00200 U 0.0556 < 0.00100 U 16.3 < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U 0.0143 --0.267 < 0.00200 U --2.4 0.0216 < 0.000200 U < 0.00500 U < 0.00500 U 1.05 < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U 13.5 0.212 4.07 < 0.00200 U 0.00602 < 0.00400 U < 0.0500 U ----< 0.0100 U 0.19 ----< 0.00100 U 12.2 < 0.00500 U ------0.0582 < 0.00500 U --1.85 < 0.0150 U < 0.000200 U ----< 1.00 U < 0.0100 U < 0.00500 U 25.8 0.173 3.6 --------- ----< 0.0100 U 0.21 ----< 0.00100 U 15.4 < 0.00500 U ------< 0.0500 U < 0.00500 U --2.36 < 0.0150 U < 0.000200 U ----< 1.00 U < 0.0100 U < 0.00500 U 9.2 0.204 4.04 --------- < 0.0200 U < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U 0.195 < 0.00200 U < 0.0500 U < 0.00100 U 15.7 < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U 0.0102 < 0.0500 U < 0.00200 U 2.26 ----------------------------- ----------------------------- M etals, 6020x Cesium Cesium, Dissolved Potassium Potassium, Dissolved Silicon Silicon, Dissolved Thorium Thorium, Dissolved Uranium Uranium, Dissolved MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L M etals, Total Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Boron Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Hardness, CaCO3 Iron Lead Lithium Magnesium Manganese Mercury Molybdenum Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Strontium Sulfur Thallium Titanium Vanadium Zinc MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L M etals, Dissolved Aluminum, Dissolved Antimony, Dissolved Arsenic, Dissolved Barium, Dissolved Beryllium, Dissolved Boron, Dissolved Cadmium, Dissolved Calcium, Dissolved Chromium, Dissolved Cobalt, Dissolved Copper, Dissolved Iron, Dissolved Lead, Dissolved Magnesium, Dissolved NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L Appendix A-8 Page 8 of 12 SUMMARY TABLE OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER H Property Owner PROPERTY OWNER H PROPERTY OWNER H PROPERTY OWNER H WELL IS LOCATED TO THE SOUTH WELL IS LOCATED TO THE SOUTH WELL IS LOCATED TO THE SOUTH OF THE RESIDENCE. OF THE RESIDENCE. OF THE RESIDENCE. Location Description Parameter and units Manganese, Dissolved Mercury, Dissolved Molybdenum, Dissolved Nickel, Dissolved Potassium, Dissolved Selenium, Dissolved Silver, Dissolved Sodium, Dissolved Strontium, Dissolved Sulfur, Dissolved Thallium, Dissolved Titanium, Dissolved Vanadium, Dissolved Zinc, Dissolved WELL 340 Pre-Treatment 1028201120204 10/28/2011 < 0.00500 U < 0.000200 U < 0.00500 U < 0.00500 U < 1.00 U < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U 12.6 0.203 3.81 < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U < 0.00400 U < 0.0500 U WELL 340 Pre-Treatment 1108201120208 11/8/2011 ----------------------------- WELL 340 Post-Treatment 1108201120209 11/8/2011 ----------------------------- 17.1 < 1.00 U ----- ----- ------- ------- UG/L < 0.0236 U < 0.0236 U < 0.0236 U < 0.0236 U < 0.0236 U < 0.94 U < 0.0236 U < 6.0 U < 0.0236 U < 0.94 U < 0.0236 U < 0.94 U < 0.0236 U < 0.0236 U < 0.0236 U < 0.0236 U < 0.0236 U < 0.0236 U < 0.0236 U < 0.0236 U < 0.0236 U < 0.94 U < 0.0236 U < 0.94 U ----------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------- UG/L < 100 U --- --- UG/L <1U <5U <1U <5U <5U <5U <1U <1U <1U <1U <1U <1U < 29 U <5U ----------------------------- ----------------------------- Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L M iscellaneous Organics Inorganic Carbon, Dissolved Organic Carbon, Dissolved MG/L MG/L Pesticides and PCBs 4,4'-DDD 4,4'-DDE 4,4'-DDT Aldrin alpha-BHC Azinphos-methyl beta-BHC Carbaryl delta-BHC Dichlorvos Dieldrin Disulfoton Endosulfan I Endosulfan II Endosulfan sulfate Endrin Endrin aldehyde Endrin ketone gamma-BHC (Lindane) Heptachlor Heptachlor epoxide Malathion Methoxychlor Mevinphos UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L Purgeable Petroleum Hydrocarbons GRO as Gasoline Sem ivolatile Organics 1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene 1,2-Dinitrobenzene 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine 1,3-Dimethyl adamatane 1,3-Dinitrobenzene 1,4-Dinitrobenzene 1-Chloronaphthalene 2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 2,4-Dichlorophenol 2,4-Dimethylphenol 2,4-Dinitrophenol 2,4-Dinitrotoluene NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L Appendix A-8 Page 9 of 12 SUMMARY TABLE OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER H Property Owner PROPERTY OWNER H PROPERTY OWNER H PROPERTY OWNER H WELL IS LOCATED TO THE SOUTH WELL IS LOCATED TO THE SOUTH WELL IS LOCATED TO THE SOUTH OF THE RESIDENCE. OF THE RESIDENCE. OF THE RESIDENCE. Location Description Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date Parameter and units 2,6-Dichlorophenol 2,6-Dinitrotoluene 2-Butoxyethanol 2-Chloronaphthalene 2-Chlorophenol 2-Methylnaphthalene 2-Methylphenol 2-Nitroaniline 2-Nitrophenol 3,3-Dichlorobenzidine 3-Nitroaniline 4,4'-Methylenebis(2-chloroaniline) 4,4'-Methylenebis(N,N-dimethylanilin 4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether 4-Chloro-3-methylphenol 4-Chloroaniline 4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether 4-Methylphenol 4-Nitroaniline 4-Nitrophenol Acenaphthene Acenaphthylene Acetophenone Adamantane Aniline Anthracene Benzo (a) anthracene Benzo (a) pyrene Benzo (b) fluoranthene Benzo (g,h,i) perylene Benzo (k) fluoranthene Benzoic acid Benzyl alcohol Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate Butyl benzyl phthalate Carbazole Chlorobenzilate Chrysene Diallate (cis or trans) Dibenz (a,h) anthracene Dibenzofuran Diethyl phthalate Dimethyl phthalate Di-n-butyl phthalate Di-n-octyl phthalate Dinoseb Disulfoton d-Limonene Fluoranthene Fluorene Hexachlorobenzene Hexachlorobutadiene Hexachlorocyclopentadiene Hexachloroethane Indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene Isophorone Naphthalene NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L WELL 340 Pre-Treatment 1028201120204 10/28/2011 <1U <1U < 5 UJ <1U <1U < 0.5 U <1U <1U <1U <5U <1U < 14 U < 14 UJ < 14 U <1U <1U <1U <1U <1U < 1 UJ < 29 U < 0.5 U < 0.5 U <1U <5U <1U < 0.5 U < 0.5 U < 0.5 U < 0.5 U < 0.5 U < 0.5 U < 14 U < 14 U <1U <1U <1U <5U <5U <1U < 10 U < 0.5 U <5U < 0.5 U <1U <5U <5U <5U <5U <5U < 48 U <5U < 0.5 U < 0.5 U < 0.5 U <1U < 14 U <5U < 0.5 U <1U < 0.5 U Appendix A-8 WELL 340 Pre-Treatment 1108201120208 11/8/2011 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WELL 340 Post-Treatment 1108201120209 11/8/2011 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 10 of 12 SUMMARY TABLE OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER H Property Owner PROPERTY OWNER H PROPERTY OWNER H PROPERTY OWNER H WELL IS LOCATED TO THE SOUTH WELL IS LOCATED TO THE SOUTH WELL IS LOCATED TO THE SOUTH OF THE RESIDENCE. OF THE RESIDENCE. OF THE RESIDENCE. Location Description UG/L WELL 340 Pre-Treatment 1028201120204 10/28/2011 <1U <1U <5U <5U <1U <1U <5U <5U <5U <1U < 5 UJ < 0.5 U <1U <1U <1U < 0.5 U <5U < 5 UJ <5U <5U < 5 UJ <5U WELL 340 Pre-Treatment 1108201120208 11/8/2011 --------------------------------------------- WELL 340 Post-Treatment 1108201120209 11/8/2011 --------------------------------------------- UG/L --- --- --- 1.00 U 1.00 U 1.00 U 1.00 U 1.00 U --< 1.00 U < 0.1017 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U --< 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 50.0 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 100 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U <1U < 50.0 U < 1.00 U < 2.00 U < 0.0236 U < 1.00 U < 5.00 U < 5.00 U < 1.00 U --- ------------------------------< 0.500 U ----------------< 0.500 U --------------------- ------------------------------< 0.500 U ----------------< 0.500 U --------------------- Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date Parameter and units Nitrobenzene N-Nitrosodiethylamine N-Nitrosodimethylamine N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine N-Nitrosodiphenylamine N-Nitrosomethylethylamine Parathion-ethyl Parathion-methyl Pentachlorobenzene Pentachlorophenol Phenanthrene Phenol Phorate Pronamide Pyrene Pyridine Squalene Terbufos Terpineol Tributoxyethyl phosphate Trifluralin UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L TICs 1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene Volatile Organics 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 1,1-Dichloroethane 1,1-Dichloroethene 1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 1,2-Dichloroethane 1,2-Dichloropropane 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 1,4-Dichlorobenzene Acetone Benzene Carbon disulfide Carbon Tetrachloride Chlorobenzene Chloroform cis-1,2-Dichloroethene Diisopropyl Ether Ethanol Ethyl tert-Butyl Ether Ethylbenzene Hexachlorobutadiene Isopropyl alcohol Isopropylbenzene m,p-Xylene Methoxychlor Methyl tert-Butyl Ether Methylene Chloride Naphthalene o-Xylene Styrene NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L < < < < < Appendix A-8 Page 11 of 12 SUMMARY TABLE OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER H Property Owner PROPERTY OWNER H PROPERTY OWNER H PROPERTY OWNER H WELL IS LOCATED TO THE SOUTH WELL IS LOCATED TO THE SOUTH WELL IS LOCATED TO THE SOUTH OF THE RESIDENCE. OF THE RESIDENCE. OF THE RESIDENCE. Location Description Parameter and units Tert-Amyl Methyl Ether Tertiary Butyl Alcohol Tetrachloroethene Tetrahydrofuran Toluene trans-1,2-Dichloroethene Trichloroethene Vinyl chloride Xylenes, total Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L WELL 340 Pre-Treatment 1028201120204 10/28/2011 < 1.00 U < 10.0 U < 1.00 U --< 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 3.00 U WELL 340 Pre-Treatment 1108201120208 11/8/2011 --------< 0.500 U ------< 0.500 U WELL 340 Post-Treatment 1108201120209 11/8/2011 --------< 0.500 U ------< 0.500 U Notes: U : Parameter not detected at posted limit < : Parameter not detected at posted limit ND : Parameter not detected H : Parameter analyzed beyond method recommended holding time J : Estimated value --- : Parameter not analyzed. B : Blank qualified ug/L : Micrograms per liter mg/L : Milligrams per liter NA : Not Available NTU : Nephelometric Turbidity Unit umho/cm : Micromhos per centimeter colonies/100 ml : Colonies per 100 millileters NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx Appendix A-8 Page 12 of 12 APPENDIX A-9 EPA STUDY WELL DATA PROPERTY OWNER I SUMMARY TABLE OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER I Property Owner PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 OLD WELL OLD WELL OLD WELL OLD WELL OLD WELL NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 WELL 142 Pre-Treatment NTH0172-08032010-1100 8/3/2010 WELL 142 Pre-Treatment 0915201000103 9/15/2010 WELL 142 Pre-Treatment 1006201000902 10/6/2010 WELL 142 Pre-Treatment 1020201000102 10/20/2010 WELL 142 NA 1031201120202 10/31/2011 WELL 203 NA 0914201000105 9/14/2010 (Baseline) WELL 203 NA 1006201000901 10/6/2010 WELL 203 NA 1013201000901 10/13/2010 WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 1013201000902 10/13/2010 UG/L --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- colonies/100ml colonies/100ml ------- ------- ------- ------- Absent <1U Present ------- ------- ------- ------- UG/L --- --- --- --- < 0.1017 U --- --- --- --- UG/L --- --- --- --- < 94.3 U --- --- --- --- MG/L ----121 --< 10.0 U 44.3 ------< 0.0500 U ------< 5.43 U 6.40 J --340 16.6 22.0 J 214 < 1.00 U < 1.00 U ----68.5 --< 10.0 U 57.3 ------< 0.0500 U ------< 5.81 U 6.70 J --398 18 23.0 J 264 < 1.00 U 3.8 --------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------- 67.4 < 0.100 U 69.5 < 2.5 UJ < 10.0 U 26.2 J 20000 --< 0.50 UJ < 0.12 U --0.75 < 0.50 UJ < 4.60 U 6.40 H < 0.100 U 265 26.3 J 21.6 H 156 < 1.00 U < 0.30 U ----113 --< 10.0 U 28.8 ------< 0.0500 U ------< 5.95 U 7.60 J --327 13.4 23.1 J 166 41.2 68 --------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- --< 10 U --< 10 UJ < 10 U ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- --< 0.0260 U --0.0957 --< 0.0340 U --0.0953 --1.41 --< 0.0340 U --0.195 --2.78 J --< 0.0340 U --0.103 --1.78 --< 0.0340 U --1.59 --10.9 --0.101 --1.84 --25.4 --0.117 --1.47 --20.6 --0.0841 --0.254 --4.58 --< 0.0340 U ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- Location Description Parameter and units PROPERTY OWNER I Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date Aldehydes Gluteraldehyde Bacteria E. coli Fecal coliform bacteria Total Coliform Bacteria colonies/100ml DBCP 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane Ex tractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons Diesel General Chem istry Alkalinity, Total (CaCO3) Ammonia as N Bicarbonate Alkalinity as CaCO3 Bromide Carbonate as CaCO3 Chloride CO2 by Headspace Cyanide Fluoride MBAS Nitrate Nitrate Nitrogen Nitrite Nitrogen Oil & Grease HEM pH Phosphorus Specific conductance Sulfate Temperature of pH determination Total Dissolved Solids Total Suspended Solids Turbidity MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L UG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L pH UNITS MG/L UMHO/CM MG/L CELSIUS MG/L MG/L NTU Glycols 1,2-Propylene Glycol Diethylene Glycol Ethylene Glycol Tetraethylene glycol Triethylene glycol MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L Light Gases Acetylene Ethane Ethene Methane n-Butane Propane MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L < < < < < < 0.00500 0.00500 0.00500 0.00500 0.00500 0.00500 U U U U U U Low M olecular W eight Acids Acetic Acid Butyric Acid Formic Acid Isobutyric acid Lactic acid Propionic Acid UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx Appendix A-9 < 10000 U < 10000 U < 10000 U < 10000 U < 5000 U < 13000 U Page 1 of 24 SUMMARY TABLE OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER I Property Owner Location Description Parameter and units Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 OLD WELL OLD WELL OLD WELL OLD WELL OLD WELL NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 WELL 142 Pre-Treatment NTH0172-08032010-1100 8/3/2010 WELL 142 Pre-Treatment 0915201000103 9/15/2010 WELL 142 Pre-Treatment 1006201000902 10/6/2010 WELL 142 Pre-Treatment 1020201000102 10/20/2010 WELL 142 NA 1031201120202 10/31/2011 WELL 203 NA 0914201000105 9/14/2010 (Baseline) WELL 203 NA 1006201000901 10/6/2010 WELL 203 NA 1013201000901 10/13/2010 WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 1013201000902 10/13/2010 --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- < 0.1 U < 0.1 U < 100 U < 100 U < 2500 U < 2500 U <2U <2U <1U <1U --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- ----< 0.0100 U 0.116 ----< 0.00100 U 44.1 < 0.00500 U ------< 0.0500 U < 0.00500 U --6.1 < 0.0150 U < 0.000200 U ----< 1.00 U < 0.0100 U < 0.00500 U 12.2 --5.3 --------- ----< 0.0100 U 0.136 ----< 0.00100 U 51.6 < 0.00500 U ------0.0537 < 0.00500 U --7.17 < 0.0150 U < 0.000200 U ----1.05 < 0.0100 U < 0.00500 U 14.8 --5.5 --------- ------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- < 0.0200 U < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U 0.0856 < 0.00200 U < 0.0500 U < 0.00100 U 35.4 < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U < 0.00500 U --< 0.0500 U < 0.00200 U --4.95 < 0.00500 U < 0.000200 U < 0.00500 U < 0.00500 U < 1.00 U < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U 7.68 0.0576 4.68 < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U < 0.00400 U < 0.0500 U ----< 0.0100 U 0.297 ----< 0.00100 U 41 < 0.00500 U ------2.29 J < 0.00500 U --6.43 0.0429 < 0.000200 U ----2.48 < 0.0100 U < 0.00500 U 14.6 --3.7 --------- ------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------- ----------------------------- ----------------------------- ----------------------------- < 0.0200 U < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U 0.0868 < 0.00200 U < 0.0500 U < 0.00100 U 34.6 < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U < 0.00500 U < 0.0500 U < 0.00200 U 4.91 ----< 0.0100 U 0.256 ----< 0.00100 U 41.6 < 0.00500 U ----< 0.0500 U < 0.00500 U 6.25 ----------------------------- ----------------------------- ----------------------------- M etals, 6020x Cesium Cesium, Dissolved Potassium Potassium, Dissolved Silicon Silicon, Dissolved Thorium Thorium, Dissolved Uranium Uranium, Dissolved MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L M etals, Total Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Boron Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Hardness, CaCO3 Iron Lead Lithium Magnesium Manganese Mercury Molybdenum Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Strontium Sulfur Thallium Titanium Vanadium Zinc MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L M etals, Dissolved Aluminum, Dissolved Antimony, Dissolved Arsenic, Dissolved Barium, Dissolved Beryllium, Dissolved Boron, Dissolved Cadmium, Dissolved Calcium, Dissolved Chromium, Dissolved Cobalt, Dissolved Copper, Dissolved Iron, Dissolved Lead, Dissolved Magnesium, Dissolved MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx Appendix A-9 Page 2 of 24 SUMMARY TABLE OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER I Property Owner PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 OLD WELL OLD WELL OLD WELL OLD WELL OLD WELL NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 WELL 142 Pre-Treatment NTH0172-08032010-1100 8/3/2010 ----------------------------- WELL 142 Pre-Treatment 0915201000103 9/15/2010 ----------------------------- WELL 142 Pre-Treatment 1006201000902 10/6/2010 ----------------------------- WELL 142 Pre-Treatment 1020201000102 10/20/2010 ----------------------------- WELL 142 NA 1031201120202 10/31/2011 < 0.00500 U < 0.000200 U < 0.00500 U < 0.00500 U < 1.00 U < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U 7.4 0.0567 4.47 < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U < 0.00400 U < 0.0500 U WELL 203 NA 0914201000105 9/14/2010 (Baseline) 0.0214 < 0.000200 U ----1.68 < 0.0100 U < 0.00500 U 15.1 ------------- WELL 203 NA 1006201000901 10/6/2010 ----------------------------- WELL 203 NA 1013201000901 10/13/2010 ----------------------------- WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 1013201000902 10/13/2010 ----------------------------- ----- ----- ----- ----- 19 < 1.00 U ----- ----- ----- ----- UG/L ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- < 0.0236 U < 0.0236 U < 0.0236 U < 0.0236 U < 0.0236 U < 0.94 U < 0.0236 U < 6.0 U < 0.0236 U < 0.94 U < 0.0236 U < 0.94 U < 0.0236 U < 0.0236 U < 0.0236 U < 0.0236 U < 0.0236 U < 0.0236 U < 0.0236 U < 0.0236 U < 0.0236 U < 0.94 U < 0.0236 U < 0.94 U ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- UG/L --- --- --- --- < 100 U --- --- --- --- UG/L ----------------------------- ----------------------------- ----------------------------- ----------------------------- <1U <5U <1U <5U <5U <5U <1U <1U <1U <1U <1U <1U < 29 U <5U ----------------------------- ----------------------------- ----------------------------- ----------------------------- Location Description Parameter and units Manganese, Dissolved Mercury, Dissolved Molybdenum, Dissolved Nickel, Dissolved Potassium, Dissolved Selenium, Dissolved Silver, Dissolved Sodium, Dissolved Strontium, Dissolved Sulfur, Dissolved Thallium, Dissolved Titanium, Dissolved Vanadium, Dissolved Zinc, Dissolved PROPERTY OWNER I Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L M iscellaneous Organics Inorganic Carbon, Dissolved Organic Carbon, Dissolved MG/L MG/L Pesticides and PCBs 4,4'-DDD 4,4'-DDE 4,4'-DDT Aldrin alpha-BHC Azinphos-methyl beta-BHC Carbaryl delta-BHC Dichlorvos Dieldrin Disulfoton Endosulfan I Endosulfan II Endosulfan sulfate Endrin Endrin aldehyde Endrin ketone gamma-BHC (Lindane) Heptachlor Heptachlor epoxide Malathion Methoxychlor Mevinphos UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L Purgeable Petroleum Hydrocarbons GRO as Gasoline Sem ivolatile Organics 1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene 1,2-Dinitrobenzene 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine 1,3-Dimethyl adamatane 1,3-Dinitrobenzene 1,4-Dinitrobenzene 1-Chloronaphthalene 2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 2,4-Dichlorophenol 2,4-Dimethylphenol 2,4-Dinitrophenol 2,4-Dinitrotoluene UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx Appendix A-9 Page 3 of 24 SUMMARY TABLE OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER I Property Owner Location Description Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date Parameter and units 2,6-Dichlorophenol 2,6-Dinitrotoluene 2-Butoxyethanol 2-Chloronaphthalene 2-Chlorophenol 2-Methylnaphthalene 2-Methylphenol 2-Nitroaniline 2-Nitrophenol 3,3-Dichlorobenzidine 3-Nitroaniline 4,4'-Methylenebis(2-chloroaniline) 4,4'-Methylenebis(N,N-dimethylanilin 4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether 4-Chloro-3-methylphenol 4-Chloroaniline 4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether 4-Methylphenol 4-Nitroaniline 4-Nitrophenol Acenaphthene Acenaphthylene Acetophenone Adamantane Aniline Anthracene Benzo (a) anthracene Benzo (a) pyrene Benzo (b) fluoranthene Benzo (g,h,i) perylene Benzo (k) fluoranthene Benzoic acid Benzyl alcohol Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate Butyl benzyl phthalate Carbazole Chlorobenzilate Chrysene Diallate (cis or trans) Dibenz (a,h) anthracene Dibenzofuran Diethyl phthalate Dimethyl phthalate Di-n-butyl phthalate Di-n-octyl phthalate Dinoseb Disulfoton d-Limonene Fluoranthene Fluorene Hexachlorobenzene Hexachlorobutadiene Hexachlorocyclopentadiene Hexachloroethane Indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene Isophorone Naphthalene UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 WELL 203 NA 1006201000901 10/6/2010 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WELL 203 NA 1013201000901 10/13/2010 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 1013201000902 10/13/2010 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OLD WELL OLD WELL OLD WELL OLD WELL OLD WELL NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 WELL 142 Pre-Treatment NTH0172-08032010-1100 8/3/2010 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WELL 142 Pre-Treatment 0915201000103 9/15/2010 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WELL 142 Pre-Treatment 1006201000902 10/6/2010 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WELL 142 Pre-Treatment 1020201000102 10/20/2010 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WELL 142 NA 1031201120202 10/31/2011 <1U <1U < 5 UJ <1U <1U < 0.5 U <1U <1U <1U <5U <1U < 14 U < 14 UJ < 14 U <1U <1U <1U <1U <1U < 1 UJ < 29 U < 0.5 U < 0.5 U <1U <5U <1U < 0.5 U < 0.5 U < 0.5 U < 0.5 U < 0.5 U < 0.5 U < 14 U < 14 U <1U <1U <1U <5U <5U <1U < 10 U < 0.5 U <5U < 0.5 U <1U <5U <5U <5U <5U <5U < 48 U <5U < 0.5 U < 0.5 U < 0.5 U <1U < 14 U <5U < 0.5 U <1U < 0.5 U WELL 203 NA 0914201000105 9/14/2010 (Baseline) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Appendix A-9 Page 4 of 24 SUMMARY TABLE OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER I Property Owner PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 OLD WELL OLD WELL OLD WELL OLD WELL OLD WELL NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 UG/L WELL 142 Pre-Treatment NTH0172-08032010-1100 8/3/2010 --------------------------------------------- WELL 142 Pre-Treatment 0915201000103 9/15/2010 --------------------------------------------- WELL 142 Pre-Treatment 1006201000902 10/6/2010 --------------------------------------------- WELL 142 Pre-Treatment 1020201000102 10/20/2010 --------------------------------------------- WELL 142 NA 1031201120202 10/31/2011 <1U <1U <5U <5U <1U <1U <5U <5U <5U <1U < 5 UJ < 0.5 U <1U <1U <1U < 0.5 U <5U < 5 UJ <5U <5U < 5 UJ <5U WELL 203 NA 0914201000105 9/14/2010 (Baseline) --------------------------------------------- WELL 203 NA 1006201000901 10/6/2010 --------------------------------------------- WELL 203 NA 1013201000901 10/13/2010 --------------------------------------------- WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 1013201000902 10/13/2010 --------------------------------------------- UG/L --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- UG/L ------------------------------< 0.500 U ----------------< 0.500 U --------------------- ------------------------------< 0.500 U ----------------< 0.500 U --------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.00 U 1.00 U 1.00 U 1.00 U 1.00 U --< 1.00 U < 0.1017 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U --< 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 50.0 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 100 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U <1U < 50.0 U < 1.00 U < 2.00 U < 0.0236 U < 1.00 U < 5.00 U < 5.00 U < 1.00 U --- ------------------------------< 0.500 U ----------------< 0.500 U --------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Location Description Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date Parameter and units Nitrobenzene N-Nitrosodiethylamine N-Nitrosodimethylamine N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine N-Nitrosodiphenylamine N-Nitrosomethylethylamine Parathion-ethyl Parathion-methyl Pentachlorobenzene Pentachlorophenol Phenanthrene Phenol Phorate Pronamide Pyrene Pyridine Squalene Terbufos Terpineol Tributoxyethyl phosphate Trifluralin PROPERTY OWNER I UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L TICs 1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene Volatile Organics 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 1,1-Dichloroethane 1,1-Dichloroethene 1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 1,2-Dichloroethane 1,2-Dichloropropane 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 1,4-Dichlorobenzene Acetone Benzene Carbon disulfide Carbon Tetrachloride Chlorobenzene Chloroform cis-1,2-Dichloroethene Diisopropyl Ether Ethanol Ethyl tert-Butyl Ether Ethylbenzene Hexachlorobutadiene Isopropyl alcohol Isopropylbenzene m,p-Xylene Methoxychlor Methyl tert-Butyl Ether Methylene Chloride Naphthalene o-Xylene Styrene UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx Appendix A-9 < < < < < Page 5 of 24 SUMMARY TABLE OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER I Property Owner Location Description Parameter and units Tert-Amyl Methyl Ether Tertiary Butyl Alcohol Tetrachloroethene Tetrahydrofuran Toluene trans-1,2-Dichloroethene Trichloroethene Vinyl chloride Xylenes, total Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 WELL 203 NA 1006201000901 10/6/2010 ------------------- WELL 203 NA 1013201000901 10/13/2010 ------------------- WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 1013201000902 10/13/2010 ------------------- OLD WELL OLD WELL OLD WELL OLD WELL OLD WELL NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 WELL 142 Pre-Treatment NTH0172-08032010-1100 8/3/2010 --------< 0.500 U ------< 0.500 U WELL 142 Pre-Treatment 0915201000103 9/15/2010 --------< 0.500 U ------< 0.500 U WELL 142 Pre-Treatment 1006201000902 10/6/2010 ------------------- WELL 142 Pre-Treatment 1020201000102 10/20/2010 ------------------- WELL 142 NA 1031201120202 10/31/2011 < 1.00 U < 10.0 U < 1.00 U --< 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 3.00 U WELL 203 NA 0914201000105 9/14/2010 (Baseline) --------< 0.500 U ------< 0.500 U Notes: U : Parameter not detected at posted limit < : Parameter not detected at posted limit ND : Parameter not detected H : Parameter analyzed beyond method recommended holding time J : Estimated value --- : Parameter not analyzed. B : Blank qualified ug/L : Micrograms per liter mg/L : Milligrams per liter NA : Not Available NTU : Nephelometric Turbidity Unit umho/cm : Micromhos per centimeter colonies/100 ml : Colonies per 100 millileters NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx Appendix A-9 Page 6 of 24 SUMMARY TABLE OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER I Parameter and units Property Owner PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I Location Description NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 WELL 203 NA 1020201000101 10/20/2010 WELL 203 NA 1118201000301 11/18/2010 WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 0301201124001 3/1/2011 WELL 203 Post-Treatment 0301201124002 3/1/2011 WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 0407201120201 4/7/2011 WELL 203 Post-Treatment 0407201120202 4/7/2011 WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 0523201120205 5/23/2011 WELL 203 Post-Treatment 0523201120206 5/23/2011 WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 0608201120203 6/8/2011 UG/L --- --- --- --- --- --- < 50.0 U < 50.0 U --- colonies/100ml colonies/100ml ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- UG/L --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- UG/L --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- MG/L --------------------------------------------- ----111 --< 10.0 U 35.5 ------< 0.0500 U ------< 5.56 U 7.30 J --326 18 21.5 J 201 < 1.00 U 3.4 ----132 --< 10.0 U 18.6 ------< 0.0500 U ------< 5.95 U 8.10 HJ --311 15.8 21.0 HJ 200 45.6 5.1 ----117 --23.5 16.4 ------0.0764 ------< 6.02 U 8.40 HJ --338 13.2 21.0 HJ 204 1.9 7.2 ----134 --< 10.0 U 11.2 ------< 0.0500 U ------< 6.17 U 8.00 HJ --325 7.95 22.8 HJ 194 1.8 12.2 ----133 --< 10.0 U 13.5 ------< 0.0500 U ------< 6.49 U 8.30 HJ --334 7.8 22.8 HJ 183 1.2 2.7 ----135 --< 10.0 U 13.5 ------< 0.0500 U < 0.100 U ----< 5.75 U 7.90 H ----15.2 21.9 H 173 4.3 6.6 ----132 --< 10.0 U 12.1 ------< 0.0500 U < 0.100 U ----< 5.88 U 7.70 H ----14.9 21.9 H 174 1.5 4 --------------------------------------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- < 10.0 U --< 10.0 U ----- < 10.0 U --< 10.0 U ----- ----------- --0.754 --8.82 --0.0388 --0.593 --7.47 --< 0.0340 U --0.959 J --17.1 --< 0.0340 U --< 0.0260 U --1.76 --< 0.0340 U --0.613 --14.2 --< 0.0340 U --0.048 --2.82 --< 0.0340 U --0.624 --9.21 --< 0.0340 U --0.0625 --1.2 --< 0.0340 U --0.437 --3.09 --< 0.0340 U ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date Aldehydes Gluteraldehyde Bacteria E. coli Fecal coliform bacteria Total Coliform Bacteria colonies/100ml DBCP 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane Ex tractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons Diesel General Chem istry Alkalinity, Total (CaCO3) Ammonia as N Bicarbonate Alkalinity as CaCO3 Bromide Carbonate as CaCO3 Chloride CO2 by Headspace Cyanide Fluoride MBAS Nitrate Nitrate Nitrogen Nitrite Nitrogen Oil & Grease HEM pH Phosphorus Specific conductance Sulfate Temperature of pH determination Total Dissolved Solids Total Suspended Solids Turbidity MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L UG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L pH UNITS MG/L UMHO/CM MG/L CELSIUS MG/L MG/L NTU Glycols 1,2-Propylene Glycol Diethylene Glycol Ethylene Glycol Tetraethylene glycol Triethylene glycol MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L Light Gases Acetylene Ethane Ethene Methane n-Butane Propane MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L Low M olecular W eight Acids Acetic Acid Butyric Acid Formic Acid Isobutyric acid Lactic acid Propionic Acid UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx Appendix A-9 Page 7 of 24 SUMMARY TABLE OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER I Parameter and units Property Owner PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I Location Description NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 WELL 203 NA 1020201000101 10/20/2010 WELL 203 NA 1118201000301 11/18/2010 WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 0301201124001 3/1/2011 WELL 203 Post-Treatment 0301201124002 3/1/2011 WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 0407201120201 4/7/2011 WELL 203 Post-Treatment 0407201120202 4/7/2011 WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 0523201120205 5/23/2011 WELL 203 Post-Treatment 0523201120206 5/23/2011 WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 0608201120203 6/8/2011 --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- ----< 0.0100 U 0.208 ----< 0.00100 U 50.5 < 0.00500 U ------0.434 < 0.00500 U --7.76 0.0383 < 0.000200 U ----1.54 < 0.0100 U < 0.00500 U 8.15 --4.3 --------- ----< 0.0100 U 0.331 ----< 0.00100 U 34 < 0.00500 U ------2.18 < 0.00500 U --5.11 0.145 < 0.000200 U ----2.22 < 0.0100 U < 0.00500 U 29.8 --3.01 --------- ----< 0.0100 U 0.0358 ----< 0.00100 U 30.1 < 0.00500 U ------0.179 < 0.00500 U --5.57 < 0.0150 U < 0.000200 U ----16.7 < 0.0100 U < 0.00500 U 26.7 J --2.96 --------- ----< 0.0100 U 0.291 ----< 0.00100 U 31.4 < 0.00500 U ------1.05 0.0075 --4.76 0.0992 < 0.000200 U ----2.01 < 0.0100 U < 0.00500 U 33.7 --2.87 --------- ----< 0.0100 U 0.229 ----< 0.00100 U 32.6 < 0.00500 U ------0.0937 0.0051 --4.55 < 0.0150 U < 0.000200 U ----1.8 < 0.0100 U < 0.00500 U 32.5 --2.81 --------- ----< 0.002 U 0.252 ------32.4 ------99.8 0.171 ----4.58 0.0391 ------1.88 ----31.7 1.45 ----------- ----< 0.002 U 0.239 ------32.4 ------99.4 < 0.0500 U ----4.48 0.0662 ------1.7 ----31.3 1.39 ----------- ------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------- ----------------------0.148 ----- ----------------------------- ----------------------------- ----------------------------- ----------------------------- ----------------------------- ----------------------------- ----------------------------- Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date M etals, 6020x Cesium Cesium, Dissolved Potassium Potassium, Dissolved Silicon Silicon, Dissolved Thorium Thorium, Dissolved Uranium Uranium, Dissolved MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L M etals, Total Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Boron Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Hardness, CaCO3 Iron Lead Lithium Magnesium Manganese Mercury Molybdenum Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Strontium Sulfur Thallium Titanium Vanadium Zinc MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L M etals, Dissolved Aluminum, Dissolved Antimony, Dissolved Arsenic, Dissolved Barium, Dissolved Beryllium, Dissolved Boron, Dissolved Cadmium, Dissolved Calcium, Dissolved Chromium, Dissolved Cobalt, Dissolved Copper, Dissolved Iron, Dissolved Lead, Dissolved Magnesium, Dissolved MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx Appendix A-9 Page 8 of 24 SUMMARY TABLE OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER I Parameter and units Manganese, Dissolved Mercury, Dissolved Molybdenum, Dissolved Nickel, Dissolved Potassium, Dissolved Selenium, Dissolved Silver, Dissolved Sodium, Dissolved Strontium, Dissolved Sulfur, Dissolved Thallium, Dissolved Titanium, Dissolved Vanadium, Dissolved Zinc, Dissolved Property Owner PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I Location Description NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 WELL 203 NA 1020201000101 10/20/2010 ----------------------------- WELL 203 NA 1118201000301 11/18/2010 0.0406 --------------------------- WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 0301201124001 3/1/2011 ----------------------------- WELL 203 Post-Treatment 0301201124002 3/1/2011 ----------------------------- WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 0407201120201 4/7/2011 ----------------------------- WELL 203 Post-Treatment 0407201120202 4/7/2011 ----------------------------- WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 0523201120205 5/23/2011 ----------------------------- WELL 203 Post-Treatment 0523201120206 5/23/2011 ----------------------------- WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 0608201120203 6/8/2011 ----------------------------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- --< 1.00 U --< 1.00 U ----- UG/L ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- UG/L --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- UG/L ----------------------------- ----------------------------- ----------------------------- ----------------------------- ----------------------------- ----------------------------- ----------------------------- ----------------------------- ----------------------------- Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L M iscellaneous Organics Inorganic Carbon, Dissolved Organic Carbon, Dissolved MG/L MG/L Pesticides and PCBs 4,4'-DDD 4,4'-DDE 4,4'-DDT Aldrin alpha-BHC Azinphos-methyl beta-BHC Carbaryl delta-BHC Dichlorvos Dieldrin Disulfoton Endosulfan I Endosulfan II Endosulfan sulfate Endrin Endrin aldehyde Endrin ketone gamma-BHC (Lindane) Heptachlor Heptachlor epoxide Malathion Methoxychlor Mevinphos UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L Purgeable Petroleum Hydrocarbons GRO as Gasoline Sem ivolatile Organics 1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene 1,2-Dinitrobenzene 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine 1,3-Dimethyl adamatane 1,3-Dinitrobenzene 1,4-Dinitrobenzene 1-Chloronaphthalene 2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 2,4-Dichlorophenol 2,4-Dimethylphenol 2,4-Dinitrophenol 2,4-Dinitrotoluene UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx Appendix A-9 Page 9 of 24 SUMMARY TABLE OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER I Property Owner PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I Location Description NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 WELL 203 NA 1020201000101 10/20/2010 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WELL 203 NA 1118201000301 11/18/2010 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 0301201124001 3/1/2011 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WELL 203 Post-Treatment 0301201124002 3/1/2011 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 0407201120201 4/7/2011 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WELL 203 Post-Treatment 0407201120202 4/7/2011 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 0523201120205 5/23/2011 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WELL 203 Post-Treatment 0523201120206 5/23/2011 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 0608201120203 6/8/2011 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date Parameter and units 2,6-Dichlorophenol 2,6-Dinitrotoluene 2-Butoxyethanol 2-Chloronaphthalene 2-Chlorophenol 2-Methylnaphthalene 2-Methylphenol 2-Nitroaniline 2-Nitrophenol 3,3-Dichlorobenzidine 3-Nitroaniline 4,4'-Methylenebis(2-chloroaniline) 4,4'-Methylenebis(N,N-dimethylanilin 4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether 4-Chloro-3-methylphenol 4-Chloroaniline 4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether 4-Methylphenol 4-Nitroaniline 4-Nitrophenol Acenaphthene Acenaphthylene Acetophenone Adamantane Aniline Anthracene Benzo (a) anthracene Benzo (a) pyrene Benzo (b) fluoranthene Benzo (g,h,i) perylene Benzo (k) fluoranthene Benzoic acid Benzyl alcohol Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate Butyl benzyl phthalate Carbazole Chlorobenzilate Chrysene Diallate (cis or trans) Dibenz (a,h) anthracene Dibenzofuran Diethyl phthalate Dimethyl phthalate Di-n-butyl phthalate Di-n-octyl phthalate Dinoseb Disulfoton d-Limonene Fluoranthene Fluorene Hexachlorobenzene Hexachlorobutadiene Hexachlorocyclopentadiene Hexachloroethane Indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene Isophorone Naphthalene UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx Appendix A-9 Page 10 of 24 SUMMARY TABLE OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER I Property Owner PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I Location Description NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 UG/L WELL 203 NA 1020201000101 10/20/2010 --------------------------------------------- WELL 203 NA 1118201000301 11/18/2010 --------------------------------------------- WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 0301201124001 3/1/2011 --------------------------------------------- WELL 203 Post-Treatment 0301201124002 3/1/2011 --------------------------------------------- WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 0407201120201 4/7/2011 --------------------------------------------- WELL 203 Post-Treatment 0407201120202 4/7/2011 --------------------------------------------- WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 0523201120205 5/23/2011 --------------------------------------------- WELL 203 Post-Treatment 0523201120206 5/23/2011 --------------------------------------------- WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 0608201120203 6/8/2011 --------------------------------------------- UG/L --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- UG/L ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------< 0.500 U ----------------< 0.500 U --------------------- ------------------------------< 0.500 U ----------------< 0.500 U --------------------- ------------------------------< 0.500 U ----------------< 0.500 U --------------------- ------------------------------< 0.500 U ----------------< 0.500 U --------------------- ------------------------------< 0.500 U ----------------< 0.500 U --------------------- < 0.500 U < 0.500 U --< 0.500 U --< 0.500 U ----< 0.500 U < 0.500 U < 0.500 U ----< 0.500 U --< 0.500 U --< 0.500 U < 0.500 U --< 0.500 U ------< 0.500 U ------< 0.500 U --< 0.500 U < 5.00 U --< 0.500 U < 0.500 U < 0.500 U < 0.500 U --< 0.500 U --< 0.500 U ----< 0.500 U < 0.500 U < 0.500 U ----< 0.500 U --< 0.500 U --< 0.500 U < 0.500 U --< 0.500 U ------< 0.500 U ------< 0.500 U --< 0.500 U < 5.00 U --< 0.500 U < 0.500 U ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date Parameter and units Nitrobenzene N-Nitrosodiethylamine N-Nitrosodimethylamine N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine N-Nitrosodiphenylamine N-Nitrosomethylethylamine Parathion-ethyl Parathion-methyl Pentachlorobenzene Pentachlorophenol Phenanthrene Phenol Phorate Pronamide Pyrene Pyridine Squalene Terbufos Terpineol Tributoxyethyl phosphate Trifluralin UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L TICs 1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene Volatile Organics 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 1,1-Dichloroethane 1,1-Dichloroethene 1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 1,2-Dichloroethane 1,2-Dichloropropane 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 1,4-Dichlorobenzene Acetone Benzene Carbon disulfide Carbon Tetrachloride Chlorobenzene Chloroform cis-1,2-Dichloroethene Diisopropyl Ether Ethanol Ethyl tert-Butyl Ether Ethylbenzene Hexachlorobutadiene Isopropyl alcohol Isopropylbenzene m,p-Xylene Methoxychlor Methyl tert-Butyl Ether Methylene Chloride Naphthalene o-Xylene Styrene UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx Appendix A-9 Page 11 of 24 SUMMARY TABLE OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER I Parameter and units Tert-Amyl Methyl Ether Tertiary Butyl Alcohol Tetrachloroethene Tetrahydrofuran Toluene trans-1,2-Dichloroethene Trichloroethene Vinyl chloride Xylenes, total Property Owner PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I Location Description NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 WELL 203 NA 1020201000101 10/20/2010 ------------------- WELL 203 NA 1118201000301 11/18/2010 --------< 0.500 U ------< 0.500 U WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 0301201124001 3/1/2011 --------1.71 ------< 0.500 U WELL 203 Post-Treatment 0301201124002 3/1/2011 --------< 0.500 U ------< 0.500 U WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 0407201120201 4/7/2011 --------0.95 ------< 0.500 U WELL 203 Post-Treatment 0407201120202 4/7/2011 --------< 0.500 U ------< 0.500 U WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 0523201120205 5/23/2011 ----< 0.500 U --< 0.500 U < 0.500 U < 0.500 U < 0.500 U < 0.500 U WELL 203 Post-Treatment 0523201120206 5/23/2011 ----< 0.500 U --< 0.500 U < 0.500 U < 0.500 U < 0.500 U < 0.500 U WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 0608201120203 6/8/2011 ------------------- Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L Notes: U : Parameter not detected at posted limit < : Parameter not detected at posted limit ND : Parameter not detected H : Parameter analyzed beyond method recommended holding time J : Estimated value --- : Parameter not analyzed. B : Blank qualified ug/L : Micrograms per liter mg/L : Milligrams per liter NA : Not Available NTU : Nephelometric Turbidity Unit umho/cm : Micromhos per centimeter colonies/100 ml : Colonies per 100 millileters NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx Appendix A-9 Page 12 of 24 SUMMARY TABLE OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER I Parameter and units Property Owner PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I Location Description NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 0622201124401 6/22/2011 WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 0706201124303 7/6/2011 WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 0720201120201 7/20/2011 WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 0803201122803 8/3/2011 WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 0817201120203 8/17/2011 WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 0902201120206 9/2/2011 WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 0914201120201 9/14/2011 WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 0929201120202 9/29/2011 WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 1012201122103 10/12/2011 UG/L --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- colonies/100ml colonies/100ml ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- UG/L --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- UG/L --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- MG/L --------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- --0.543 --10.4 --< 0.0340 U --0.6 --10.8 --< 0.0340 U --0.511 --6.65 --< 0.0340 U --0.364 --10.4 --< 0.0340 U --0.421 --8.88 --< 0.0340 U --0.424 --6.23 --< 0.00500 U --0.467 --9.87 J --< 0.00500 U --0.445 --9.62 --< 0.00500 U --0.19 --4.1 --< 0.00500 U ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date Aldehydes Gluteraldehyde Bacteria E. coli Fecal coliform bacteria Total Coliform Bacteria colonies/100ml DBCP 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane Ex tractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons Diesel General Chem istry Alkalinity, Total (CaCO3) Ammonia as N Bicarbonate Alkalinity as CaCO3 Bromide Carbonate as CaCO3 Chloride CO2 by Headspace Cyanide Fluoride MBAS Nitrate Nitrate Nitrogen Nitrite Nitrogen Oil & Grease HEM pH Phosphorus Specific conductance Sulfate Temperature of pH determination Total Dissolved Solids Total Suspended Solids Turbidity MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L UG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L pH UNITS MG/L UMHO/CM MG/L CELSIUS MG/L MG/L NTU Glycols 1,2-Propylene Glycol Diethylene Glycol Ethylene Glycol Tetraethylene glycol Triethylene glycol MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L Light Gases Acetylene Ethane Ethene Methane n-Butane Propane MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L Low M olecular W eight Acids Acetic Acid Butyric Acid Formic Acid Isobutyric acid Lactic acid Propionic Acid UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx Appendix A-9 Page 13 of 24 SUMMARY TABLE OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER I Parameter and units Property Owner PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I Location Description NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 0622201124401 6/22/2011 WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 0706201124303 7/6/2011 WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 0720201120201 7/20/2011 WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 0803201122803 8/3/2011 WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 0817201120203 8/17/2011 WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 0902201120206 9/2/2011 WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 0914201120201 9/14/2011 WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 0929201120202 9/29/2011 WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 1012201122103 10/12/2011 --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------- ----------------------------- ----------------------------- ----------------------------- ----------------------------- ----------------------------- ----------------------------- ----------------------------- ----------------------------- Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date M etals, 6020x Cesium Cesium, Dissolved Potassium Potassium, Dissolved Silicon Silicon, Dissolved Thorium Thorium, Dissolved Uranium Uranium, Dissolved MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L M etals, Total Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Boron Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Hardness, CaCO3 Iron Lead Lithium Magnesium Manganese Mercury Molybdenum Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Strontium Sulfur Thallium Titanium Vanadium Zinc MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L M etals, Dissolved Aluminum, Dissolved Antimony, Dissolved Arsenic, Dissolved Barium, Dissolved Beryllium, Dissolved Boron, Dissolved Cadmium, Dissolved Calcium, Dissolved Chromium, Dissolved Cobalt, Dissolved Copper, Dissolved Iron, Dissolved Lead, Dissolved Magnesium, Dissolved MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx Appendix A-9 Page 14 of 24 SUMMARY TABLE OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER I Parameter and units Manganese, Dissolved Mercury, Dissolved Molybdenum, Dissolved Nickel, Dissolved Potassium, Dissolved Selenium, Dissolved Silver, Dissolved Sodium, Dissolved Strontium, Dissolved Sulfur, Dissolved Thallium, Dissolved Titanium, Dissolved Vanadium, Dissolved Zinc, Dissolved Property Owner PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I Location Description NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 0622201124401 6/22/2011 ----------------------------- WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 0706201124303 7/6/2011 ----------------------------- WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 0720201120201 7/20/2011 ----------------------------- WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 0803201122803 8/3/2011 ----------------------------- WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 0817201120203 8/17/2011 ----------------------------- WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 0902201120206 9/2/2011 ----------------------------- WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 0914201120201 9/14/2011 ----------------------------- WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 0929201120202 9/29/2011 ----------------------------- WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 1012201122103 10/12/2011 ----------------------------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- UG/L ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- UG/L --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- UG/L ----------------------------- ----------------------------- ----------------------------- ----------------------------- ----------------------------- ----------------------------- ----------------------------- ----------------------------- ----------------------------- Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L M iscellaneous Organics Inorganic Carbon, Dissolved Organic Carbon, Dissolved MG/L MG/L Pesticides and PCBs 4,4'-DDD 4,4'-DDE 4,4'-DDT Aldrin alpha-BHC Azinphos-methyl beta-BHC Carbaryl delta-BHC Dichlorvos Dieldrin Disulfoton Endosulfan I Endosulfan II Endosulfan sulfate Endrin Endrin aldehyde Endrin ketone gamma-BHC (Lindane) Heptachlor Heptachlor epoxide Malathion Methoxychlor Mevinphos UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L Purgeable Petroleum Hydrocarbons GRO as Gasoline Sem ivolatile Organics 1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene 1,2-Dinitrobenzene 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine 1,3-Dimethyl adamatane 1,3-Dinitrobenzene 1,4-Dinitrobenzene 1-Chloronaphthalene 2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 2,4-Dichlorophenol 2,4-Dimethylphenol 2,4-Dinitrophenol 2,4-Dinitrotoluene UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx Appendix A-9 Page 15 of 24 SUMMARY TABLE OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER I Property Owner PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I Location Description NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 0622201124401 6/22/2011 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 0706201124303 7/6/2011 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 0720201120201 7/20/2011 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 0803201122803 8/3/2011 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 0817201120203 8/17/2011 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 0902201120206 9/2/2011 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 0914201120201 9/14/2011 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 0929201120202 9/29/2011 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 1012201122103 10/12/2011 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date Parameter and units 2,6-Dichlorophenol 2,6-Dinitrotoluene 2-Butoxyethanol 2-Chloronaphthalene 2-Chlorophenol 2-Methylnaphthalene 2-Methylphenol 2-Nitroaniline 2-Nitrophenol 3,3-Dichlorobenzidine 3-Nitroaniline 4,4'-Methylenebis(2-chloroaniline) 4,4'-Methylenebis(N,N-dimethylanilin 4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether 4-Chloro-3-methylphenol 4-Chloroaniline 4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether 4-Methylphenol 4-Nitroaniline 4-Nitrophenol Acenaphthene Acenaphthylene Acetophenone Adamantane Aniline Anthracene Benzo (a) anthracene Benzo (a) pyrene Benzo (b) fluoranthene Benzo (g,h,i) perylene Benzo (k) fluoranthene Benzoic acid Benzyl alcohol Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate Butyl benzyl phthalate Carbazole Chlorobenzilate Chrysene Diallate (cis or trans) Dibenz (a,h) anthracene Dibenzofuran Diethyl phthalate Dimethyl phthalate Di-n-butyl phthalate Di-n-octyl phthalate Dinoseb Disulfoton d-Limonene Fluoranthene Fluorene Hexachlorobenzene Hexachlorobutadiene Hexachlorocyclopentadiene Hexachloroethane Indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene Isophorone Naphthalene UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx Appendix A-9 Page 16 of 24 SUMMARY TABLE OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER I Property Owner PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I Location Description NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 UG/L WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 0622201124401 6/22/2011 --------------------------------------------- WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 0706201124303 7/6/2011 --------------------------------------------- WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 0720201120201 7/20/2011 --------------------------------------------- WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 0803201122803 8/3/2011 --------------------------------------------- WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 0817201120203 8/17/2011 --------------------------------------------- WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 0902201120206 9/2/2011 --------------------------------------------- WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 0914201120201 9/14/2011 --------------------------------------------- WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 0929201120202 9/29/2011 --------------------------------------------- WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 1012201122103 10/12/2011 --------------------------------------------- UG/L --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- UG/L ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date Parameter and units Nitrobenzene N-Nitrosodiethylamine N-Nitrosodimethylamine N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine N-Nitrosodiphenylamine N-Nitrosomethylethylamine Parathion-ethyl Parathion-methyl Pentachlorobenzene Pentachlorophenol Phenanthrene Phenol Phorate Pronamide Pyrene Pyridine Squalene Terbufos Terpineol Tributoxyethyl phosphate Trifluralin UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L TICs 1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene Volatile Organics 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 1,1-Dichloroethane 1,1-Dichloroethene 1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 1,2-Dichloroethane 1,2-Dichloropropane 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 1,4-Dichlorobenzene Acetone Benzene Carbon disulfide Carbon Tetrachloride Chlorobenzene Chloroform cis-1,2-Dichloroethene Diisopropyl Ether Ethanol Ethyl tert-Butyl Ether Ethylbenzene Hexachlorobutadiene Isopropyl alcohol Isopropylbenzene m,p-Xylene Methoxychlor Methyl tert-Butyl Ether Methylene Chloride Naphthalene o-Xylene Styrene UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx Appendix A-9 Page 17 of 24 SUMMARY TABLE OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER I Parameter and units Tert-Amyl Methyl Ether Tertiary Butyl Alcohol Tetrachloroethene Tetrahydrofuran Toluene trans-1,2-Dichloroethene Trichloroethene Vinyl chloride Xylenes, total Property Owner PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I Location Description NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 0622201124401 6/22/2011 ------------------- WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 0706201124303 7/6/2011 ------------------- WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 0720201120201 7/20/2011 ------------------- WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 0803201122803 8/3/2011 ------------------- WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 0817201120203 8/17/2011 ------------------- WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 0902201120206 9/2/2011 ------------------- WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 0914201120201 9/14/2011 ------------------- WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 0929201120202 9/29/2011 ------------------- WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 1012201122103 10/12/2011 ------------------- Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L Notes: U : Parameter not detected at posted limit < : Parameter not detected at posted limit ND : Parameter not detected H : Parameter analyzed beyond method recommended holding time J : Estimated value --- : Parameter not analyzed. B : Blank qualified ug/L : Micrograms per liter mg/L : Milligrams per liter NA : Not Available NTU : Nephelometric Turbidity Unit umho/cm : Micromhos per centimeter colonies/100 ml : Colonies per 100 millileters NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx Appendix A-9 Page 18 of 24 SUMMARY TABLE OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER I Parameter and units Property Owner PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I Location Description NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 1031201120201 10/31/2011 WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 1109201124303 11/9/2011 WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 1122201124301 11/22/2011 WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 1207201122202 12/7/2011 UG/L --- --- --- --- colonies/100ml colonies/100ml Absent <1U Absent ------- ------- ------- UG/L < 0.1014 U --- --- --- UG/L < 95.2 U --- --- --- MG/L 137 < 0.100 U 137 < 2.5 UJ < 10.0 U 13.5 J < 12000 U --< 0.50 UJ < 0.12 U --< 0.50 U < 0.50 UJ < 5.33 U 7.50 H < 0.100 U 318 12.3 J 21.6 H 172 3.5 5.4 --------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------- --< 10 U --< 10 UJ < 10 U ----------- ----------- ----------- --0.395 --4.94 --< 0.00500 U --0.418 --5.51 --< 0.00500 U --0.118 --3.6 --< 0.00500 U ------------- ------------- ------------- Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date Aldehydes Gluteraldehyde Bacteria E. coli Fecal coliform bacteria Total Coliform Bacteria colonies/100ml DBCP 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane Ex tractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons Diesel General Chem istry Alkalinity, Total (CaCO3) Ammonia as N Bicarbonate Alkalinity as CaCO3 Bromide Carbonate as CaCO3 Chloride CO2 by Headspace Cyanide Fluoride MBAS Nitrate Nitrate Nitrogen Nitrite Nitrogen Oil & Grease HEM pH Phosphorus Specific conductance Sulfate Temperature of pH determination Total Dissolved Solids Total Suspended Solids Turbidity MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L UG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L pH UNITS MG/L UMHO/CM MG/L CELSIUS MG/L MG/L NTU Glycols 1,2-Propylene Glycol Diethylene Glycol Ethylene Glycol Tetraethylene glycol Triethylene glycol MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L Light Gases Acetylene Ethane Ethene Methane n-Butane Propane MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L < 0.00500 0.402 < 0.00500 6.09 < 0.00500 < 0.00500 U U U U Low M olecular W eight Acids Acetic Acid Butyric Acid Formic Acid Isobutyric acid Lactic acid Propionic Acid NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L < 10000 U < 10000 U < 10000 U < 10000 U < 5000 U < 13000 U Appendix A-9 Page 19 of 24 SUMMARY TABLE OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER I Parameter and units Property Owner PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I Location Description NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 1031201120201 10/31/2011 WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 1109201124303 11/9/2011 WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 1122201124301 11/22/2011 WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 1207201122202 12/7/2011 < 0.25 U < 0.1 U < 250 U < 100 U < 6250 U < 2500 U <5U <2U < 2.5 U <1U --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- 0.310, 0.112 < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U 0.227 < 0.00200 U 0.0918 < 0.00100 U 30.6 < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U < 0.00500 U --0.184 < 0.00200 U --4.29 0.019 < 0.000200 U < 0.00500 U < 0.00500 U 1.62 < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U 33.7 1.32 2.74 < 0.00200 U 0.00773 < 0.00400 U < 0.0500 U ------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- < 0.0200 U < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U 0.223 < 0.00200 U 0.0839 < 0.00100 U 28.6 < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U < 0.00500 U < 0.0500 U < 0.00200 U 4.04 ----------------------------- ----------------------------- ----------------------------- Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date M etals, 6020x Cesium Cesium, Dissolved Potassium Potassium, Dissolved Silicon Silicon, Dissolved Thorium Thorium, Dissolved Uranium Uranium, Dissolved MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L M etals, Total Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Boron Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Hardness, CaCO3 Iron Lead Lithium Magnesium Manganese Mercury Molybdenum Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Strontium Sulfur Thallium Titanium Vanadium Zinc MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L M etals, Dissolved Aluminum, Dissolved Antimony, Dissolved Arsenic, Dissolved Barium, Dissolved Beryllium, Dissolved Boron, Dissolved Cadmium, Dissolved Calcium, Dissolved Chromium, Dissolved Cobalt, Dissolved Copper, Dissolved Iron, Dissolved Lead, Dissolved Magnesium, Dissolved NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L Appendix A-9 Page 20 of 24 SUMMARY TABLE OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER I Parameter and units Manganese, Dissolved Mercury, Dissolved Molybdenum, Dissolved Nickel, Dissolved Potassium, Dissolved Selenium, Dissolved Silver, Dissolved Sodium, Dissolved Strontium, Dissolved Sulfur, Dissolved Thallium, Dissolved Titanium, Dissolved Vanadium, Dissolved Zinc, Dissolved Property Owner PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I Location Description NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 1031201120201 10/31/2011 < 0.00500 U < 0.000200 U < 0.00500 U < 0.00500 U 1.49 < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U 34.8 1.24 2.47 < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U < 0.00400 U < 0.0500 U WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 1109201124303 11/9/2011 ----------------------------- WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 1122201124301 11/22/2011 ----------------------------- WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 1207201122202 12/7/2011 ----------------------------- 31.4 < 1.00 U ----- ----- ----- UG/L < 0.0236 U < 0.0236 U < 0.0236 U < 0.0236 U < 0.0236 U < 0.94 U < 0.0236 U < 6.0 U < 0.0236 U < 0.94 U < 0.0236 U < 0.94 U < 0.0236 U < 0.0236 U < 0.0236 U < 0.0236 U < 0.0236 U < 0.0236 U < 0.0236 U < 0.0236 U < 0.0236 U < 0.94 U < 0.0236 U < 0.94 U ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- UG/L < 100 U --- --- --- UG/L <1U <5U <1U <5U <5U <5U <1U <1U <1U <1U <1U <1U < 29 U <5U ----------------------------- ----------------------------- ----------------------------- Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L M iscellaneous Organics Inorganic Carbon, Dissolved Organic Carbon, Dissolved MG/L MG/L Pesticides and PCBs 4,4'-DDD 4,4'-DDE 4,4'-DDT Aldrin alpha-BHC Azinphos-methyl beta-BHC Carbaryl delta-BHC Dichlorvos Dieldrin Disulfoton Endosulfan I Endosulfan II Endosulfan sulfate Endrin Endrin aldehyde Endrin ketone gamma-BHC (Lindane) Heptachlor Heptachlor epoxide Malathion Methoxychlor Mevinphos UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L Purgeable Petroleum Hydrocarbons GRO as Gasoline Sem ivolatile Organics 1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene 1,2-Dinitrobenzene 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine 1,3-Dimethyl adamatane 1,3-Dinitrobenzene 1,4-Dinitrobenzene 1-Chloronaphthalene 2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 2,4-Dichlorophenol 2,4-Dimethylphenol 2,4-Dinitrophenol 2,4-Dinitrotoluene NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L Appendix A-9 Page 21 of 24 SUMMARY TABLE OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER I Property Owner PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I Location Description NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 1031201120201 10/31/2011 <1U <1U < 5 UJ <1U <1U < 0.5 U <1U <1U <1U <5U <1U < 14 U < 14 UJ < 14 U <1U <1U <1U <1U <1U < 1 UJ < 29 U < 0.5 U < 0.5 U <1U <5U <1U < 0.5 U < 0.5 U < 0.5 U < 0.5 U < 0.5 U < 0.5 U < 14 U < 14 U <1U <1U <1U <5U <5U <1U < 10 U < 0.5 U <5U < 0.5 U <1U <5U <5U <5U <5U <5U < 48 U <5U < 0.5 U < 0.5 U < 0.5 U <1U < 14 U <5U < 0.5 U <1U < 0.5 U WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 1109201124303 11/9/2011 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 1122201124301 11/22/2011 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 1207201122202 12/7/2011 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date Parameter and units 2,6-Dichlorophenol 2,6-Dinitrotoluene 2-Butoxyethanol 2-Chloronaphthalene 2-Chlorophenol 2-Methylnaphthalene 2-Methylphenol 2-Nitroaniline 2-Nitrophenol 3,3-Dichlorobenzidine 3-Nitroaniline 4,4'-Methylenebis(2-chloroaniline) 4,4'-Methylenebis(N,N-dimethylanilin 4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether 4-Chloro-3-methylphenol 4-Chloroaniline 4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether 4-Methylphenol 4-Nitroaniline 4-Nitrophenol Acenaphthene Acenaphthylene Acetophenone Adamantane Aniline Anthracene Benzo (a) anthracene Benzo (a) pyrene Benzo (b) fluoranthene Benzo (g,h,i) perylene Benzo (k) fluoranthene Benzoic acid Benzyl alcohol Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate Butyl benzyl phthalate Carbazole Chlorobenzilate Chrysene Diallate (cis or trans) Dibenz (a,h) anthracene Dibenzofuran Diethyl phthalate Dimethyl phthalate Di-n-butyl phthalate Di-n-octyl phthalate Dinoseb Disulfoton d-Limonene Fluoranthene Fluorene Hexachlorobenzene Hexachlorobutadiene Hexachlorocyclopentadiene Hexachloroethane Indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene Isophorone Naphthalene NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L Appendix A-9 Page 22 of 24 SUMMARY TABLE OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER I Property Owner PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I Location Description NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 UG/L WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 1031201120201 10/31/2011 <1U <1U <5U <5U <1U <1U <5U <5U <5U <1U < 5 UJ < 0.5 U <1U <1U <1U < 0.5 U <5U < 5 UJ <5U <5U < 5 UJ <5U WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 1109201124303 11/9/2011 --------------------------------------------- WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 1122201124301 11/22/2011 --------------------------------------------- WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 1207201122202 12/7/2011 --------------------------------------------- UG/L --- --- --- --- 1.00 U 1.00 U 1.00 U 1.00 U 1.00 U --< 1.00 U < 0.1014 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U --< 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 50.0 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 100 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U <1U < 50.0 U < 1.00 U < 2.00 U < 0.0236 U < 1.00 U < 5.00 U < 5.00 U < 1.00 U --- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date Parameter and units Nitrobenzene N-Nitrosodiethylamine N-Nitrosodimethylamine N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine N-Nitrosodiphenylamine N-Nitrosomethylethylamine Parathion-ethyl Parathion-methyl Pentachlorobenzene Pentachlorophenol Phenanthrene Phenol Phorate Pronamide Pyrene Pyridine Squalene Terbufos Terpineol Tributoxyethyl phosphate Trifluralin UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L TICs 1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene Volatile Organics 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 1,1-Dichloroethane 1,1-Dichloroethene 1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 1,2-Dichloroethane 1,2-Dichloropropane 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 1,4-Dichlorobenzene Acetone Benzene Carbon disulfide Carbon Tetrachloride Chlorobenzene Chloroform cis-1,2-Dichloroethene Diisopropyl Ether Ethanol Ethyl tert-Butyl Ether Ethylbenzene Hexachlorobutadiene Isopropyl alcohol Isopropylbenzene m,p-Xylene Methoxychlor Methyl tert-Butyl Ether Methylene Chloride Naphthalene o-Xylene Styrene NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L < < < < < Appendix A-9 Page 23 of 24 SUMMARY TABLE OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER I Parameter and units Tert-Amyl Methyl Ether Tertiary Butyl Alcohol Tetrachloroethene Tetrahydrofuran Toluene trans-1,2-Dichloroethene Trichloroethene Vinyl chloride Xylenes, total Property Owner PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY OWNER I Location Description NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 NEW WELL-SAMPLE TAKEN AT 1715 WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 1031201120201 10/31/2011 < 1.00 U < 10.0 U < 1.00 U --< 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 3.00 U WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 1109201124303 11/9/2011 ------------------- WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 1122201124301 11/22/2011 ------------------- WELL 203 Pre-Treatment 1207201122202 12/7/2011 ------------------- Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L Notes: U : Parameter not detected at posted limit < : Parameter not detected at posted limit ND : Parameter not detected H : Parameter analyzed beyond method recommended holding time J : Estimated value --- : Parameter not analyzed. B : Blank qualified ug/L : Micrograms per liter mg/L : Milligrams per liter NA : Not Available NTU : Nephelometric Turbidity Unit umho/cm : Micromhos per centimeter colonies/100 ml : Colonies per 100 millileters NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx Appendix A-9 Page 24 of 24 APPENDIX A-10 EPA STUDY WELL DATA PROPERTY OWNER SUMMARY TABLE OF ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER J PROPERTY OWNER J PROPERTY OWNER J WELL LOCATED 5 FEET WEST OF PORCH; NO HOT WATER WELL LOCATED 5 FEET WEST OF PORCH; NO HOT WATER WELL UNKNOWN NA NTG0332-PROPERTY OWNER J-001 7/2/2010 (Baseline) WELL UNKNOWN Pre-Treatment 0208201112301 2/8/2011 WELL UNKNOWN Pre-Treatment 1103201120202 11/3/2011 UG/L --- --- --- colonies/100ml colonies/100ml ------- ------- Absent <1U Absent UG/L --- --- < 0.1026 U UG/L --- --- < 94.3 U MG/L ----247 --ND 37.9 ------ND ------ND 7.40 HTI --590 38.2 22.2 HTI 336 1.5 5.7 ----217 --< 10.0 U < 5.00 U ------< 0.0500 U ------< 5.95 U 7.80 H --505 36.8 21.7 H 259 2.2 9.8 211 < 0.100 U 224 < 2.5 U < 10.0 U 2.2 J < 12000 U --< 0.50 U < 0.12 U --< 0.50 U < 0.50 U < 5.00 U 7.40 H < 0.100 U 460 42.2 21.0 H 269 3.5 5 ----------- ----------- --< 10 U --< 10 UJ < 10 U --ND --ND --ND --< 0.0260 U --< 0.0260 U --< 0.0340 U ------------- ------------- Property Owner PROPERTY OWNER J Location Description Parameter and units Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date Aldehydes Gluteraldehyde Bacteria E. coli Fecal coliform bacteria Total Coliform Bacteria colonies/100ml DBCP 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane Ex tractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons Diesel General Chem istry Alkalinity, Total (CaCO3) Ammonia as N Bicarbonate Alkalinity as CaCO3 Bromide Carbonate as CaCO3 Chloride CO2 by Headspace Cyanide Fluoride MBAS Nitrate Nitrate Nitrogen Nitrite Nitrogen Oil & Grease HEM pH Phosphorus Specific conductance Sulfate Temperature of pH determination Total Dissolved Solids Total Suspended Solids Turbidity MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L UG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L pH UNITS MG/L UMHO/CM MG/L CELSIUS MG/L MG/L NTU Glycols 1,2-Propylene Glycol Diethylene Glycol Ethylene Glycol Tetraethylene glycol Triethylene glycol MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L Light Gases Acetylene Ethane Ethene Methane n-Butane Propane MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L < < < < < < 0.00500 0.00500 0.00500 0.00500 0.00500 0.00500 U U U U U U Low M olecular W eight Acids Acetic Acid Butyric Acid Formic Acid Isobutyric acid Lactic acid Propionic Acid NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L Appendix A-10 < 10000 U < 10000 U < 10000 U < 10000 U < 5000 U < 13000 U Page 1 of 6 SUMMARY TABLE OF ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER J Property Owner PROPERTY OWNER J PROPERTY OWNER J PROPERTY OWNER J WELL LOCATED 5 FEET WEST OF PORCH; NO HOT WATER WELL LOCATED 5 FEET WEST OF PORCH; NO HOT WATER WELL UNKNOWN NA NTG0332-PROPERTY OWNER J-001 7/2/2010 (Baseline) WELL UNKNOWN Pre-Treatment 0208201112301 2/8/2011 WELL UNKNOWN Pre-Treatment 1103201120202 11/3/2011 --------------------- --------------------- < 0.0001 U < 0.0001 U 1.2 1.3 5.5 5.5 < 0.002 U < 0.002 U 0.0032 0.0031 ----ND 0.0651 ----ND 53.8 ND ------0.676 0.0114 --14.3 0.249 ND ----1.13 ND ND 39 --13 --------- ----< 0.0100 U 0.068 ----< 0.00100 U 55.5 < 0.00500 U ------0.888 0.009 --15.6 0.29 < 0.000200 U ----1.17 < 0.0100 U < 0.00500 U 22.6 --11.6 --------- < 0.0200 U < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U 0.0673 < 0.00200 U 0.055 < 0.00100 U 55.4 < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U < 0.00500 U --0.583 < 0.00200 U --15.2 0.22 < 0.000200 U < 0.00500 U < 0.00500 U 1.17 < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U 22.8 0.575 12 < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U < 0.00400 U 0.237 ----------------------------- ----------------------------- < 0.0200 U < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U 0.0649 < 0.00200 U 0.0575 < 0.00100 U 59.4 < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U < 0.00500 U 0.316 < 0.00200 U 16.2 Location Description Parameter and units Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date M etals, 6020x Cesium Cesium, Dissolved Potassium Potassium, Dissolved Silicon Silicon, Dissolved Thorium Thorium, Dissolved Uranium Uranium, Dissolved MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L M etals, Total Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Boron Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Hardness, CaCO3 Iron Lead Lithium Magnesium Manganese Mercury Molybdenum Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Strontium Sulfur Thallium Titanium Vanadium Zinc MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L M etals, Dissolved Aluminum, Dissolved Antimony, Dissolved Arsenic, Dissolved Barium, Dissolved Beryllium, Dissolved Boron, Dissolved Cadmium, Dissolved Calcium, Dissolved Chromium, Dissolved Cobalt, Dissolved Copper, Dissolved Iron, Dissolved Lead, Dissolved Magnesium, Dissolved NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L Appendix A-10 Page 2 of 6 SUMMARY TABLE OF ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER J PROPERTY OWNER J PROPERTY OWNER J WELL LOCATED 5 FEET WEST OF PORCH; NO HOT WATER WELL LOCATED 5 FEET WEST OF PORCH; NO HOT WATER WELL UNKNOWN NA NTG0332-PROPERTY OWNER J-001 7/2/2010 (Baseline) ----------------------------- WELL UNKNOWN Pre-Treatment 0208201112301 2/8/2011 ----------------------------- WELL UNKNOWN Pre-Treatment 1103201120202 11/3/2011 0.216 < 0.000200 U < 0.00500 U < 0.00500 U 1.35 < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U 26.2 0.623 13 < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U < 0.00400 U 0.0592 ----- ----- 46.9 < 1.00 U UG/L ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- < 0.0236 U < 0.0236 U < 0.0236 U < 0.0236 U < 0.0236 U < 0.94 U < 0.0236 U < 6.0 U < 0.0236 U < 0.94 U < 0.0236 U < 0.94 U < 0.0236 U < 0.0236 U < 0.0236 U < 0.0236 U < 0.0236 U < 0.0236 U < 0.0236 U < 0.0236 U < 0.0236 U < 0.94 U < 0.0236 U < 0.94 U UG/L --- --- < 100 U UG/L ----------------------------- ----------------------------- < 0.9 U <5U < 0.9 U <5U <5U <5U < 0.9 U < 0.9 U < 0.9 U < 0.9 U < 0.9 U < 0.9 U < 28 U <5U Property Owner PROPERTY OWNER J Location Description Parameter and units Manganese, Dissolved Mercury, Dissolved Molybdenum, Dissolved Nickel, Dissolved Potassium, Dissolved Selenium, Dissolved Silver, Dissolved Sodium, Dissolved Strontium, Dissolved Sulfur, Dissolved Thallium, Dissolved Titanium, Dissolved Vanadium, Dissolved Zinc, Dissolved Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L M iscellaneous Organics Inorganic Carbon, Dissolved Organic Carbon, Dissolved MG/L MG/L Pesticides and PCBs 4,4'-DDD 4,4'-DDE 4,4'-DDT Aldrin alpha-BHC Azinphos-methyl beta-BHC Carbaryl delta-BHC Dichlorvos Dieldrin Disulfoton Endosulfan I Endosulfan II Endosulfan sulfate Endrin Endrin aldehyde Endrin ketone gamma-BHC (Lindane) Heptachlor Heptachlor epoxide Malathion Methoxychlor Mevinphos UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L Purgeable Petroleum Hydrocarbons GRO as Gasoline Sem ivolatile Organics 1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene 1,2-Dinitrobenzene 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine 1,3-Dimethyl adamatane 1,3-Dinitrobenzene 1,4-Dinitrobenzene 1-Chloronaphthalene 2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 2,4-Dichlorophenol 2,4-Dimethylphenol 2,4-Dinitrophenol 2,4-Dinitrotoluene NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L Appendix A-10 Page 3 of 6 SUMMARY TABLE OF ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER J Property Owner PROPERTY OWNER J Location Description Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date Parameter and units 2,6-Dichlorophenol 2,6-Dinitrotoluene 2-Butoxyethanol 2-Chloronaphthalene 2-Chlorophenol 2-Methylnaphthalene 2-Methylphenol 2-Nitroaniline 2-Nitrophenol 3,3-Dichlorobenzidine 3-Nitroaniline 4,4'-Methylenebis(2-chloroaniline) 4,4'-Methylenebis(N,N-dimethylanilin 4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether 4-Chloro-3-methylphenol 4-Chloroaniline 4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether 4-Methylphenol 4-Nitroaniline 4-Nitrophenol Acenaphthene Acenaphthylene Acetophenone Adamantane Aniline Anthracene Benzo (a) anthracene Benzo (a) pyrene Benzo (b) fluoranthene Benzo (g,h,i) perylene Benzo (k) fluoranthene Benzoic acid Benzyl alcohol Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate Butyl benzyl phthalate Carbazole Chlorobenzilate Chrysene Diallate (cis or trans) Dibenz (a,h) anthracene Dibenzofuran Diethyl phthalate Dimethyl phthalate Di-n-butyl phthalate Di-n-octyl phthalate Dinoseb Disulfoton d-Limonene Fluoranthene Fluorene Hexachlorobenzene Hexachlorobutadiene Hexachlorocyclopentadiene Hexachloroethane Indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene Isophorone Naphthalene NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L WELL UNKNOWN NA NTG0332-PROPERTY OWNER J-001 7/2/2010 (Baseline) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Appendix A-10 PROPERTY OWNER J PROPERTY OWNER J WELL LOCATED 5 FEET WEST OF PORCH; NO HOT WATER WELL LOCATED 5 FEET WEST OF PORCH; NO HOT WATER WELL UNKNOWN Pre-Treatment 0208201112301 2/8/2011 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WELL UNKNOWN Pre-Treatment 1103201120202 11/3/2011 < 0.9 U < 0.9 U < 5 UJ < 0.9 U < 0.9 U < 0.5 U < 0.9 U < 0.9 U < 0.9 U <5U < 0.9 U < 14 UJ < 14 UJ < 14 U < 0.9 U < 0.9 UJ < 0.9 U < 0.9 U < 0.9 U < 0.9 U < 28 U < 0.5 U < 0.5 U < 0.9 U <5U < 0.9 U < 0.5 U < 0.5 UJ < 0.5 U < 0.5 U < 0.5 U < 0.5 U < 14 UJ < 14 U < 0.9 U < 0.9 U < 0.9 U < 5 UJ < 5 UJ < 0.9 U <9U < 0.5 UJ <5U < 0.5 U < 0.9 U <5U <5U <5U <5U <5U < 47 U <5U < 0.5 U < 0.5 U < 0.5 U < 0.9 U < 14 U <5U < 0.5 U < 0.9 U < 0.5 U Page 4 of 6 SUMMARY TABLE OF ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER J PROPERTY OWNER J PROPERTY OWNER J WELL LOCATED 5 FEET WEST OF PORCH; NO HOT WATER WELL LOCATED 5 FEET WEST OF PORCH; NO HOT WATER UG/L WELL UNKNOWN NA NTG0332-PROPERTY OWNER J-001 7/2/2010 (Baseline) --------------------------------------------- WELL UNKNOWN Pre-Treatment 0208201112301 2/8/2011 --------------------------------------------- WELL UNKNOWN Pre-Treatment 1103201120202 11/3/2011 < 0.9 U < 0.9 U <5U <5U < 0.9 U < 0.9 U <5U <5U <5U < 0.9 U <5U < 0.5 U < 0.9 U < 0.9 U < 0.9 U < 0.5 U <5U < 5 UJ < 5 UJ <5U <5U < 5 UJ UG/L --- --- --- UG/L ------------------------------ND ----------------ND --------------------- ------------------------------< 0.500 U ----------------< 0.500 U --------------------- Property Owner PROPERTY OWNER J Location Description Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date Parameter and units Nitrobenzene N-Nitrosodiethylamine N-Nitrosodimethylamine N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine N-Nitrosodiphenylamine N-Nitrosomethylethylamine Parathion-ethyl Parathion-methyl Pentachlorobenzene Pentachlorophenol Phenanthrene Phenol Phorate Pronamide Pyrene Pyridine Squalene Terbufos Terpineol Tributoxyethyl phosphate Trifluralin UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L TICs 1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene Volatile Organics 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 1,1-Dichloroethane 1,1-Dichloroethene 1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 1,2-Dichloroethane 1,2-Dichloropropane 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 1,4-Dichlorobenzene Acetone Benzene Carbon disulfide Carbon Tetrachloride Chlorobenzene Chloroform cis-1,2-Dichloroethene Diisopropyl Ether Ethanol Ethyl tert-Butyl Ether Ethylbenzene Hexachlorobutadiene Isopropyl alcohol Isopropylbenzene m,p-Xylene Methoxychlor Methyl tert-Butyl Ether Methylene Chloride Naphthalene o-Xylene Styrene NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L Appendix A-10 < < < < < 1.00 U 1.00 U 1.00 U 1.00 U 1.00 U --< 1.00 U < 0.1026 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U --< 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 50.0 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 100 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 0.9 U < 50.0 U < 1.00 U < 2.00 U < 0.0236 U < 1.00 U < 5.00 U < 5.00 U < 1.00 U --- Page 5 of 6 SUMMARY TABLE OF ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER J Property Owner PROPERTY OWNER J Location Description Parameter and units Tert-Amyl Methyl Ether Tertiary Butyl Alcohol Tetrachloroethene Tetrahydrofuran Toluene trans-1,2-Dichloroethene Trichloroethene Vinyl chloride Xylenes, total Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L WELL UNKNOWN NA NTG0332-PROPERTY OWNER J-001 7/2/2010 (Baseline) --------ND ------ND PROPERTY OWNER J PROPERTY OWNER J WELL LOCATED 5 FEET WEST OF PORCH; NO HOT WATER WELL LOCATED 5 FEET WEST OF PORCH; NO HOT WATER WELL UNKNOWN Pre-Treatment 0208201112301 2/8/2011 --------< 0.500 U ------< 0.500 U WELL UNKNOWN Pre-Treatment 1103201120202 11/3/2011 < 1.00 U < 10.0 U < 1.00 U --< 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 3.00 U Notes: U : Parameter not detected at posted limit < : Parameter not detected at posted limit ND : Parameter not detected H : Parameter analyzed beyond method recommended holding time J : Estimated value --- : Parameter not analyzed. B : Blank qualified ug/L : Micrograms per liter mg/L : Milligrams per liter NA : Not Available NTU : Nephelometric Turbidity Unit umho/cm : Micromhos per centimeter colonies/100 ml : Colonies per 100 millileters NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx Appendix A-10 Page 6 of 6 APPENDIX A-11 EPA STUDY WELL DATA PROPERTY OWNER SUMMARY TABLE OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER K Property Owner PROPERTY OWNER K PROPERTY OWNER K PROPERTY OWNER K THE WELL IS LOCATED ON THE THE WELL IS LOCATED ON THE THE WELL IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE MILK HOUSE; SOUTH SIDE OF THE MILK HOUSE; SOUTH SIDE OF THE MILK HOUSE; IT FEEDS BOTH THE MILK HOUSE IT FEEDS BOTH THE MILK HOUSE IT FEEDS BOTH THE MILK HOUSE AND THE RESIDENCE. Location Description AND THE RESIDENCE. AND THE RESIDENCE. Parameter and units WELL 175 NA NTA0354-01072010-0855 1/7/2010 (Baseline) WELL 175 Post-Treatment 0531201120201 5/31/2011 WELL 175 Pre-Treatment 1027201120202 10/27/2011 UG/L --- --- --- colonies/100ml colonies/100ml ------- ------- Absent <1U Present UG/L --- --- < 0.1003 U UG/L --- --- < 94.3 U MG/L ----194 --< 10.0 U 4.57 ------< 0.0500 U ------< 5.43 U 7.10 H --400 17.6 21.7 H 225 < 1.00 U < 1.00 U ----188 --< 10.0 U 6.13 ------< 0.0500 U ------< 5.95 U 7.70 H --411 19.8 21.8 H 223 1.1 < 1.00 U 194 0.107 189 < 2.5 U < 10.0 U 4.8 < 12000 U --< 0.50 U < 0.12 U --< 0.50 U < 0.50 U < 4.94 U 7.60 H < 0.100 U 389 20.7 J 21.0 H 215 1.7 0.48 ----------- ----------- --< 10 U --< 10 UJ < 10 U --< 0.0260 U --< 0.0260 U --< 0.0340 U --< 0.0260 U --< 0.0260 U --< 0.0340 U < 0.00500 U < 0.00500 U < 0.00500 U 0.00674 < 0.00500 U < 0.00500 U ------------- ------------- < 10000 U < 10000 U < 10000 U < 10000 U < 5000 U < 13000 U Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date Aldehydes Gluteraldehyde Bacteria E. coli Fecal coliform bacteria Total Coliform Bacteria colonies/100ml DBCP 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane Ex tractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons Diesel General Chem istry Alkalinity, Total (CaCO3) Ammonia as N Bicarbonate Alkalinity as CaCO3 Bromide Carbonate as CaCO3 Chloride CO2 by Headspace Cyanide Fluoride MBAS Nitrate Nitrate Nitrogen Nitrite Nitrogen Oil & Grease HEM pH Phosphorus Specific conductance Sulfate Temperature of pH determination Total Dissolved Solids Total Suspended Solids Turbidity MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L UG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L pH UNITS MG/L UMHO/CM MG/L CELSIUS MG/L MG/L NTU Glycols 1,2-Propylene Glycol Diethylene Glycol Ethylene Glycol Tetraethylene glycol Triethylene glycol MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L Light Gases Acetylene Ethane Ethene Methane n-Butane Propane MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L Low M olecular W eight Acids Acetic Acid Butyric Acid Formic Acid Isobutyric acid Lactic acid Propionic Acid NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L Appendix A-11 Page 1 of 6 SUMMARY TABLE OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER K Property Owner PROPERTY OWNER K PROPERTY OWNER K PROPERTY OWNER K THE WELL IS LOCATED ON THE THE WELL IS LOCATED ON THE THE WELL IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE MILK HOUSE; SOUTH SIDE OF THE MILK HOUSE; SOUTH SIDE OF THE MILK HOUSE; IT FEEDS BOTH THE MILK HOUSE IT FEEDS BOTH THE MILK HOUSE IT FEEDS BOTH THE MILK HOUSE AND THE RESIDENCE. Location Description AND THE RESIDENCE. AND THE RESIDENCE. Parameter and units Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date WELL 175 NA NTA0354-01072010-0855 1/7/2010 (Baseline) WELL 175 Post-Treatment 0531201120201 5/31/2011 WELL 175 Pre-Treatment 1027201120202 10/27/2011 --------------------- --------------------- 0.00014 0.00011 1.45 1.5 6.22 6.42 < 0.002 U < 0.002 U < 0.001 U < 0.001 U ----< 0.0100 U 0.111 ----< 0.00100 U 36.9 < 0.00500 U ------< 0.0500 U < 0.00500 U --14.1 0.0321 < 0.000200 U ----1.46 < 0.0100 U < 0.00500 U 20.2 --8.04 --------- ----< 0.0100 U 0.126 ----< 0.00100 U 40 < 0.00500 U ------< 0.0500 U < 0.00500 U --15 0.102 < 0.000200 U ----1.39 < 0.0100 U < 0.00500 U 22.8 --5.3 --------- < 0.0200 U < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U 0.125 < 0.00200 U 0.0941 < 0.00100 U 41.6 < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U < 0.00500 U --0.0514 < 0.00200 U --15.3 0.168 < 0.000200 U < 0.00500 U < 0.00500 U 1.46 < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U 21.1 1.14 5.43 < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U < 0.00400 U < 0.0500 U ----------------------- ----------------------- < 0.0200 U < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U 0.124 < 0.00200 U 0.09 < 0.00100 U 39.9 < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U < 0.00500 U M etals, 6020x Cesium Cesium, Dissolved Potassium Potassium, Dissolved Silicon Silicon, Dissolved Thorium Thorium, Dissolved Uranium Uranium, Dissolved MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L M etals, Total Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Boron Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Hardness, CaCO3 Iron Lead Lithium Magnesium Manganese Mercury Molybdenum Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Strontium Sulfur Thallium Titanium Vanadium Zinc MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L M etals, Dissolved Aluminum, Dissolved Antimony, Dissolved Arsenic, Dissolved Barium, Dissolved Beryllium, Dissolved Boron, Dissolved Cadmium, Dissolved Calcium, Dissolved Chromium, Dissolved Cobalt, Dissolved Copper, Dissolved NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L Appendix A-11 Page 2 of 6 SUMMARY TABLE OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER K Property Owner PROPERTY OWNER K PROPERTY OWNER K PROPERTY OWNER K THE WELL IS LOCATED ON THE THE WELL IS LOCATED ON THE THE WELL IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE MILK HOUSE; SOUTH SIDE OF THE MILK HOUSE; SOUTH SIDE OF THE MILK HOUSE; IT FEEDS BOTH THE MILK HOUSE IT FEEDS BOTH THE MILK HOUSE IT FEEDS BOTH THE MILK HOUSE AND THE RESIDENCE. Location Description AND THE RESIDENCE. AND THE RESIDENCE. Parameter and units Iron, Dissolved Lead, Dissolved Magnesium, Dissolved Manganese, Dissolved Mercury, Dissolved Molybdenum, Dissolved Nickel, Dissolved Potassium, Dissolved Selenium, Dissolved Silver, Dissolved Sodium, Dissolved Strontium, Dissolved Sulfur, Dissolved Thallium, Dissolved Titanium, Dissolved Vanadium, Dissolved Zinc, Dissolved WELL 175 NA NTA0354-01072010-0855 1/7/2010 (Baseline) ----------------------------------- WELL 175 Post-Treatment 0531201120201 5/31/2011 ----------------------------------- WELL 175 Pre-Treatment 1027201120202 10/27/2011 < 0.0500 U < 0.00200 U 14.6 0.119 < 0.000200 U < 0.00500 U < 0.00500 U 1.41 < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U 19.9 1.11 5.36 < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U < 0.00400 U < 0.0500 U ----- ----- 43.7 < 1.00 U UG/L ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- < 0.0472 U < 0.0472 U < 0.0472 U < 0.0472 U < 0.0472 U < 0.94 U < 0.0472 U < 6.0 U < 0.0472 U < 0.94 U < 0.0472 U < 0.94 U < 0.0472 U < 0.0472 U < 0.0472 U < 0.0472 U < 0.0472 U < 0.0472 U < 0.0472 U < 0.0472 U < 0.0472 U < 0.94 U < 0.0472 U < 0.94 U UG/L --- --- < 100 U UG/L ----------------- ----------------- Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L M iscellaneous Organics Inorganic Carbon, Dissolved Organic Carbon, Dissolved MG/L MG/L Pesticides and PCBs 4,4'-DDD 4,4'-DDE 4,4'-DDT Aldrin alpha-BHC Azinphos-methyl beta-BHC Carbaryl delta-BHC Dichlorvos Dieldrin Disulfoton Endosulfan I Endosulfan II Endosulfan sulfate Endrin Endrin aldehyde Endrin ketone gamma-BHC (Lindane) Heptachlor Heptachlor epoxide Malathion Methoxychlor Mevinphos UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L Purgeable Petroleum Hydrocarbons GRO as Gasoline Sem ivolatile Organics 1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene 1,2-Dinitrobenzene 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine 1,3-Dimethyl adamatane 1,3-Dinitrobenzene 1,4-Dinitrobenzene 1-Chloronaphthalene 2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L Appendix A-11 < < < < < < < < 1 5 1 5 5 5 1 1 U U U U U U U U Page 3 of 6 SUMMARY TABLE OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER K Property Owner PROPERTY OWNER K PROPERTY OWNER K PROPERTY OWNER K THE WELL IS LOCATED ON THE THE WELL IS LOCATED ON THE THE WELL IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE MILK HOUSE; SOUTH SIDE OF THE MILK HOUSE; SOUTH SIDE OF THE MILK HOUSE; IT FEEDS BOTH THE MILK HOUSE IT FEEDS BOTH THE MILK HOUSE IT FEEDS BOTH THE MILK HOUSE AND THE RESIDENCE. Location Description AND THE RESIDENCE. AND THE RESIDENCE. Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date Parameter and units 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 2,4-Dichlorophenol 2,4-Dimethylphenol 2,4-Dinitrophenol 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 2,6-Dichlorophenol 2,6-Dinitrotoluene 2-Butoxyethanol 2-Chloronaphthalene 2-Chlorophenol 2-Methylnaphthalene 2-Methylphenol 2-Nitroaniline 2-Nitrophenol 3,3-Dichlorobenzidine 3-Nitroaniline 4,4'-Methylenebis(2-chloroaniline) 4,4'-Methylenebis(N,N-dimethylanilin 4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether 4-Chloro-3-methylphenol 4-Chloroaniline 4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether 4-Methylphenol 4-Nitroaniline 4-Nitrophenol Acenaphthene Acenaphthylene Acetophenone Adamantane Aniline Anthracene Benzo (a) anthracene Benzo (a) pyrene Benzo (b) fluoranthene Benzo (g,h,i) perylene Benzo (k) fluoranthene Benzoic acid Benzyl alcohol Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate Butyl benzyl phthalate Carbazole Chlorobenzilate Chrysene Diallate (cis or trans) Dibenz (a,h) anthracene Dibenzofuran Diethyl phthalate Dimethyl phthalate Di-n-butyl phthalate Di-n-octyl phthalate Dinoseb Disulfoton d-Limonene Fluoranthene NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L WELL 175 NA NTA0354-01072010-0855 1/7/2010 (Baseline) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Appendix A-11 WELL 175 Post-Treatment 0531201120201 5/31/2011 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WELL 175 Pre-Treatment 1027201120202 10/27/2011 <1U <1U <1U <1U < 30 U <5U <1U <1U <5U <1U <1U < 0.5 U <1U <1U <1U <5U <1U < 15 UJ < 15 U < 15 U <1U <1U <1U <1U <1U <1U < 30 U < 0.5 U < 0.5 U <1U <5U <1U < 0.5 U < 0.5 U < 0.5 U < 0.5 U < 0.5 U < 0.5 U < 15 U < 15 U <1U <1U <1U <5U <5U <1U < 10 U < 0.5 U <5U < 0.5 U <1U <5U <5U <5U <5U <5U < 50 U <5U < 0.5 U Page 4 of 6 SUMMARY TABLE OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER K Property Owner PROPERTY OWNER K PROPERTY OWNER K PROPERTY OWNER K THE WELL IS LOCATED ON THE THE WELL IS LOCATED ON THE THE WELL IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE MILK HOUSE; SOUTH SIDE OF THE MILK HOUSE; SOUTH SIDE OF THE MILK HOUSE; IT FEEDS BOTH THE MILK HOUSE IT FEEDS BOTH THE MILK HOUSE IT FEEDS BOTH THE MILK HOUSE AND THE RESIDENCE. Location Description AND THE RESIDENCE. AND THE RESIDENCE. UG/L WELL 175 NA NTA0354-01072010-0855 1/7/2010 (Baseline) ------------------------------------------------------------- WELL 175 Post-Treatment 0531201120201 5/31/2011 ------------------------------------------------------------- WELL 175 Pre-Treatment 1027201120202 10/27/2011 < 0.5 U < 0.5 U <1U < 15 U <5U < 0.5 U <1U < 0.5 U <1U <1U <5U <5U <1U <1U <5U <5U <5U <1U <5U < 0.5 U <1U <1U <1U < 0.5 U <5U <5U <5U <5U <5U <5U UG/L --- --- --- UG/L ------------------------------< 0.500 U ----------------< 0.500 U ------------------------------< 0.500 U ----------------< 0.500 U Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date Parameter and units Fluorene Hexachlorobenzene Hexachlorobutadiene Hexachlorocyclopentadiene Hexachloroethane Indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene Isophorone Naphthalene Nitrobenzene N-Nitrosodiethylamine N-Nitrosodimethylamine N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine N-Nitrosodiphenylamine N-Nitrosomethylethylamine Parathion-ethyl Parathion-methyl Pentachlorobenzene Pentachlorophenol Phenanthrene Phenol Phorate Pronamide Pyrene Pyridine Squalene Terbufos Terpineol Tributoxyethyl phosphate Trifluralin UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L TICs 1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene Volatile Organics 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 1,1-Dichloroethane 1,1-Dichloroethene 1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 1,2-Dichloroethane 1,2-Dichloropropane 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 1,4-Dichlorobenzene Acetone Benzene Carbon disulfide Carbon Tetrachloride Chlorobenzene Chloroform cis-1,2-Dichloroethene Diisopropyl Ether Ethanol Ethyl tert-Butyl Ether Ethylbenzene NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L Appendix A-11 < < < < < 1.00 U 1.00 U 1.00 U 1.00 U 1.00 U --< 1.00 U < 0.1003 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U --< 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 50.0 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 100 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U Page 5 of 6 SUMMARY TABLE OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER K Property Owner PROPERTY OWNER K PROPERTY OWNER K PROPERTY OWNER K THE WELL IS LOCATED ON THE THE WELL IS LOCATED ON THE THE WELL IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE MILK HOUSE; SOUTH SIDE OF THE MILK HOUSE; SOUTH SIDE OF THE MILK HOUSE; IT FEEDS BOTH THE MILK HOUSE IT FEEDS BOTH THE MILK HOUSE IT FEEDS BOTH THE MILK HOUSE AND THE RESIDENCE. Location Description AND THE RESIDENCE. AND THE RESIDENCE. Parameter and units Hexachlorobutadiene Isopropyl alcohol Isopropylbenzene m,p-Xylene Methoxychlor Methyl tert-Butyl Ether Methylene Chloride Naphthalene o-Xylene Styrene Tert-Amyl Methyl Ether Tertiary Butyl Alcohol Tetrachloroethene Tetrahydrofuran Toluene trans-1,2-Dichloroethene Trichloroethene Vinyl chloride Xylenes, total Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L WELL 175 NA NTA0354-01072010-0855 1/7/2010 (Baseline) ----------------------------< 0.500 U ------< 0.500 U WELL 175 Post-Treatment 0531201120201 5/31/2011 ----------------------------< 0.500 U ------< 0.500 U WELL 175 Pre-Treatment 1027201120202 10/27/2011 <1U < 50.0 U < 1.00 U < 2.00 U < 0.0472 U < 1.00 U < 5.00 U < 5.00 U < 1.00 U --< 1.00 U < 10.0 U < 1.00 U --< 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 3.00 U Notes: U : Parameter not detected at posted limit < : Parameter not detected at posted limit ND : Parameter not detected H : Parameter analyzed beyond method recommended holding time J : Estimated value --- : Parameter not analyzed. B : Blank qualified ug/L : Micrograms per liter mg/L : Milligrams per liter NA : Not Available NTU : Nephelometric Turbidity Unit umho/cm : Micromhos per centimeter colonies/100 ml : Colonies per 100 millileters NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx Appendix A-11 Page 6 of 6 APPENDIX A-12 EPA STUDY WELL DATA PROPERTY OWNER SUMMARY TABLE OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER L PROPERTY OWNER L PROPERTY OWNER L WELL 225 NA NTD1742-04182010-1910 4/18/2010 (Baseline) WELL 225 Pre-Treatment 1103201120201 11/3/2011 UG/L --- --- colonies/100ml colonies/100ml ------- Absent <1U Present UG/L --- < 0.1012 U UG/L --- < 94.3 U MG/L ----184 --< 10.0 U 6.62 ------< 0.0500 U ------< 6.10 U 7.50 H --398 22.6 21.0 H 233 < 1.00 U < 1.00 U 177 0.629 179 < 2.5 U < 10.0 U 7.6 J < 12000 U --< 0.50 U < 0.12 U --1.1 < 0.50 U < 4.82 U 7.50 H < 0.100 U 393 22.4 21.0 H 229 < 1.00 U < 0.30 U ----------- --< 10 U --15 JBJ < 10 U Property Owner Location Description Parameter and units Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date Aldehydes Gluteraldehyde Bacteria E. coli Fecal coliform bacteria Total Coliform Bacteria colonies/100ml DBCP 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane Ex tractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons Diesel General Chem istry Alkalinity, Total (CaCO3) Ammonia as N Bicarbonate Alkalinity as CaCO3 Bromide Carbonate as CaCO3 Chloride CO2 by Headspace Cyanide Fluoride MBAS Nitrate Nitrate Nitrogen Nitrite Nitrogen Oil & Grease HEM pH Phosphorus Specific conductance Sulfate Temperature of pH determination Total Dissolved Solids Total Suspended Solids Turbidity MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L UG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L pH UNITS MG/L UMHO/CM MG/L CELSIUS MG/L MG/L NTU Glycols 1,2-Propylene Glycol Diethylene Glycol Ethylene Glycol Tetraethylene glycol Triethylene glycol MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L Light Gases Acetylene Ethane Ethene Methane n-Butane Propane --< 0.0260 U --0.048 --< 0.0340 U MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L < < < < < < 0.00500 0.00500 0.00500 0.00500 0.00500 0.00500 U U U U U U Low M olecular W eight Acids Acetic Acid Butyric Acid Formic Acid Isobutyric acid Lactic acid Propionic Acid NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx ------------- UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L Appendix A-12 < 10000 U < 10000 U < 10000 U < 10000 U < 5000 U < 13000 U Page 1 of 6 SUMMARY TABLE OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER L Property Owner PROPERTY OWNER L PROPERTY OWNER L WELL 225 NA NTD1742-04182010-1910 4/18/2010 (Baseline) WELL 225 Pre-Treatment 1103201120201 11/3/2011 --------------------- < 0.0001 U < 0.0001 U 1.6 1.5 4.6 4.5 < 0.002 U < 0.002 U 0.0014 0.0014 ----< 0.0100 U 0.165 ----< 0.00100 U 47.3 < 0.00500 U ------< 0.0500 U < 0.00500 U --15.5 < 0.0150 U < 0.000200 U ----1.93 < 0.0100 U < 0.00500 U 14.6 --7.6 --------- < 0.0200 U < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U 0.168 < 0.00200 U < 0.0500 U < 0.00100 U 47 < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U < 0.00500 U --< 0.0500 U < 0.00200 U --15.2 < 0.00500 U < 0.000200 U < 0.00500 U < 0.00500 U 1.45 < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U 14 0.987 6.23 < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U < 0.00400 U < 0.0500 U ------------------------------- < 0.0200 U < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U 0.166 < 0.00200 U 0.0525 < 0.00100 U 51.8 < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U < 0.00500 U < 0.0500 U < 0.00200 U 16.5 < 0.00500 U Location Description Parameter and units Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date M etals, 6020x Cesium Cesium, Dissolved Potassium Potassium, Dissolved Silicon Silicon, Dissolved Thorium Thorium, Dissolved Uranium Uranium, Dissolved MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L M etals, Total Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Boron Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Hardness, CaCO3 Iron Lead Lithium Magnesium Manganese Mercury Molybdenum Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Strontium Sulfur Thallium Titanium Vanadium Zinc MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L M etals, Dissolved Aluminum, Dissolved Antimony, Dissolved Arsenic, Dissolved Barium, Dissolved Beryllium, Dissolved Boron, Dissolved Cadmium, Dissolved Calcium, Dissolved Chromium, Dissolved Cobalt, Dissolved Copper, Dissolved Iron, Dissolved Lead, Dissolved Magnesium, Dissolved Manganese, Dissolved NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L Appendix A-12 Page 2 of 6 SUMMARY TABLE OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER L PROPERTY OWNER L PROPERTY OWNER L WELL 225 NA NTD1742-04182010-1910 4/18/2010 (Baseline) --------------------------- WELL 225 Pre-Treatment 1103201120201 11/3/2011 < 0.000200 U < 0.00500 U < 0.00500 U 1.69 < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U 15.5 1.1 6.96 < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U < 0.00400 U < 0.0500 U ----- 38.9 < 1.00 U UG/L ------------------------------------------------- < 0.0236 U < 0.0236 U < 0.0236 U < 0.0236 U < 0.0236 U < 0.94 U < 0.0236 U < 6.0 U < 0.0236 U < 0.94 U < 0.0236 U < 0.94 U < 0.0236 U < 0.0236 U < 0.0236 U < 0.0236 U < 0.0236 U < 0.0236 U < 0.0236 U < 0.0236 U < 0.0236 U < 0.94 U < 0.0236 U < 0.94 U UG/L --- < 100 U UG/L --------------------------------- <1U <5U <1U <5U <5U <5U <1U <1U <1U <1U <1U <1U < 29 U <5U <1U <1U Property Owner Location Description Parameter and units Mercury, Dissolved Molybdenum, Dissolved Nickel, Dissolved Potassium, Dissolved Selenium, Dissolved Silver, Dissolved Sodium, Dissolved Strontium, Dissolved Sulfur, Dissolved Thallium, Dissolved Titanium, Dissolved Vanadium, Dissolved Zinc, Dissolved Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L M iscellaneous Organics Inorganic Carbon, Dissolved Organic Carbon, Dissolved MG/L MG/L Pesticides and PCBs 4,4'-DDD 4,4'-DDE 4,4'-DDT Aldrin alpha-BHC Azinphos-methyl beta-BHC Carbaryl delta-BHC Dichlorvos Dieldrin Disulfoton Endosulfan I Endosulfan II Endosulfan sulfate Endrin Endrin aldehyde Endrin ketone gamma-BHC (Lindane) Heptachlor Heptachlor epoxide Malathion Methoxychlor Mevinphos UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L Purgeable Petroleum Hydrocarbons GRO as Gasoline Sem ivolatile Organics 1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene 1,2-Dinitrobenzene 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine 1,3-Dimethyl adamatane 1,3-Dinitrobenzene 1,4-Dinitrobenzene 1-Chloronaphthalene 2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 2,4-Dichlorophenol 2,4-Dimethylphenol 2,4-Dinitrophenol 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 2,6-Dichlorophenol 2,6-Dinitrotoluene NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L Appendix A-12 Page 3 of 6 SUMMARY TABLE OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER L Property Owner PROPERTY OWNER L PROPERTY OWNER L WELL 225 NA NTD1742-04182010-1910 4/18/2010 (Baseline) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WELL 225 Pre-Treatment 1103201120201 11/3/2011 < 5 UJ <1U <1U < 0.5 U <1U <1U <1U <5U <1U < 14 UJ < 14 UJ < 14 U <1U < 1 UJ <1U <1U <1U <1U < 29 U < 0.5 U < 0.5 U <1U <5U <1U < 0.5 U < 0.5 UJ < 0.5 U < 0.5 U < 0.5 U < 0.5 U < 14 UJ < 14 U <1U <1U <1U < 5 UJ < 5 UJ <1U < 10 U < 0.5 UJ <5U < 0.5 U <1U <5U <5U <5U <5U <5U < 48 U <5U < 0.5 U < 0.5 U < 0.5 U <1U < 14 U <5U < 0.5 U <1U < 0.5 U <1U <1U <5U Location Description Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date Parameter and units 2-Butoxyethanol 2-Chloronaphthalene 2-Chlorophenol 2-Methylnaphthalene 2-Methylphenol 2-Nitroaniline 2-Nitrophenol 3,3-Dichlorobenzidine 3-Nitroaniline 4,4'-Methylenebis(2-chloroaniline) 4,4'-Methylenebis(N,N-dimethylanilin 4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether 4-Chloro-3-methylphenol 4-Chloroaniline 4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether 4-Methylphenol 4-Nitroaniline 4-Nitrophenol Acenaphthene Acenaphthylene Acetophenone Adamantane Aniline Anthracene Benzo (a) anthracene Benzo (a) pyrene Benzo (b) fluoranthene Benzo (g,h,i) perylene Benzo (k) fluoranthene Benzoic acid Benzyl alcohol Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate Butyl benzyl phthalate Carbazole Chlorobenzilate Chrysene Diallate (cis or trans) Dibenz (a,h) anthracene Dibenzofuran Diethyl phthalate Dimethyl phthalate Di-n-butyl phthalate Di-n-octyl phthalate Dinoseb Disulfoton d-Limonene Fluoranthene Fluorene Hexachlorobenzene Hexachlorobutadiene Hexachlorocyclopentadiene Hexachloroethane Indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene Isophorone Naphthalene Nitrobenzene N-Nitrosodiethylamine N-Nitrosodimethylamine NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L Appendix A-12 Page 4 of 6 SUMMARY TABLE OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER L PROPERTY OWNER L PROPERTY OWNER L UG/L WELL 225 NA NTD1742-04182010-1910 4/18/2010 (Baseline) --------------------------------------- WELL 225 Pre-Treatment 1103201120201 11/3/2011 <5U <1U <1U <5U <5U <5U <1U <5U < 0.5 U <1U <1U <1U < 0.5 U <5U < 5 UJ < 5 UJ <5U <5U < 5 UJ UG/L --- --- UG/L ------------------------------< 0.500 U ----------------< 0.500 U ----------------------------- Property Owner Location Description Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date Parameter and units N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine N-Nitrosodiphenylamine N-Nitrosomethylethylamine Parathion-ethyl Parathion-methyl Pentachlorobenzene Pentachlorophenol Phenanthrene Phenol Phorate Pronamide Pyrene Pyridine Squalene Terbufos Terpineol Tributoxyethyl phosphate Trifluralin UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L TICs 1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene Volatile Organics 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 1,1-Dichloroethane 1,1-Dichloroethene 1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 1,2-Dichloroethane 1,2-Dichloropropane 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 1,4-Dichlorobenzene Acetone Benzene Carbon disulfide Carbon Tetrachloride Chlorobenzene Chloroform cis-1,2-Dichloroethene Diisopropyl Ether Ethanol Ethyl tert-Butyl Ether Ethylbenzene Hexachlorobutadiene Isopropyl alcohol Isopropylbenzene m,p-Xylene Methoxychlor Methyl tert-Butyl Ether Methylene Chloride Naphthalene o-Xylene Styrene Tert-Amyl Methyl Ether Tertiary Butyl Alcohol Tetrachloroethene Tetrahydrofuran NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L Appendix A-12 < < < < < 1.00 U 1.00 U 1.00 U 1.00 U 1.00 U --< 1.00 U < 0.1012 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U --< 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 50.0 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 100 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U <1U < 50.0 U < 1.00 U < 2.00 U < 0.0236 U < 1.00 U < 5.00 U < 5.00 U < 1.00 U --< 1.00 U < 10.0 U < 1.00 U --- Page 5 of 6 SUMMARY TABLE OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER L Property Owner PROPERTY OWNER L PROPERTY OWNER L WELL 225 NA NTD1742-04182010-1910 4/18/2010 (Baseline) < 0.500 U ------< 0.500 U WELL 225 Pre-Treatment 1103201120201 11/3/2011 < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 3.00 U Location Description Parameter and units Toluene trans-1,2-Dichloroethene Trichloroethene Vinyl chloride Xylenes, total Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L Notes: U : Parameter not detected at posted limit < : Parameter not detected at posted limit ND : Parameter not detected H : Parameter analyzed beyond method recommended holding time J : Estimated value --- : Parameter not analyzed. B : Blank qualified ug/L : Micrograms per liter mg/L : Milligrams per liter NA : Not Available NTU : Nephelometric Turbidity Unit umho/cm : Micromhos per centimeter colonies/100 ml : Colonies per 100 millileters NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx Appendix A-12 Page 6 of 6 APPENDIX A-13 EPA STUDY WELL DATA PROPERTY OWNER SUMMARY TABLE OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER M Property Owner PROPERTY OWNER M PROPERTY OWNER M PROPERTY OWNER M PROPERTY OWNER M THE WELL IS LOCATED NORTH OF THE WELL IS LOCATED NORTH OF THE WELL IS LOCATED NORTH OF THE WELL IS LOCATED NORTH OF THE HOUSE. THE HOUSE. THE HOUSE. THE HOUSE. Location Description Parameter and units Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date WELL 440 NA NTA0325-01062010-1605 1/6/2010 (Baseline) WELL 440 Pre-Treatment 1202201012501 12/2/2010 WELL 440 Pre-Treatment 0411201112403 4/11/2011 WELL 440 Pre-Treatment 1028201120202 10/28/2011 UG/L --- --- --- --- colonies/100ml colonies/100ml ------- ------- ------- Present 3 Present UG/L --- --- --- < 0.1020 U UG/L --- --- --- < 95.2 U MG/L ----159 --< 10.0 U 4.3 ------< 0.0500 U ------< 5.49 U 7.00 H --340 14.7 21.7 H 198 < 1.00 U < 1.00 U ----142 --< 10.0 U 7.31 ------< 0.0500 U ------< 6.02 U 7.60 H --336 15.7 21.8 H 173 1 1.1 --------------------------------------------- 150 < 0.100 U 150 < 2.5 U < 10.0 U 8.6 J < 12000 U --< 0.50 U < 0.12 U --1.4 < 0.50 UJ < 4.76 U 7.40 H < 0.100 U 330 12.6 J 21.0 H 176 < 1.00 U 1.9 ----------- ----------- ----------- --< 10 U --< 10 UJ < 10 U --< 0.0260 U --< 0.0260 U --< 0.0340 U --< 0.0260 U --< 0.0260 U --< 0.0340 U ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- Aldehydes Gluteraldehyde Bacteria E. coli Fecal coliform bacteria Total Coliform Bacteria colonies/100ml DBCP 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane Ex tractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons Diesel General Chem istry Alkalinity, Total (CaCO3) Ammonia as N Bicarbonate Alkalinity as CaCO3 Bromide Carbonate as CaCO3 Chloride CO2 by Headspace Cyanide Fluoride MBAS Nitrate Nitrate Nitrogen Nitrite Nitrogen Oil & Grease HEM pH Phosphorus Specific conductance Sulfate Temperature of pH determination Total Dissolved Solids Total Suspended Solids Turbidity MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L UG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L pH UNITS MG/L UMHO/CM MG/L CELSIUS MG/L MG/L NTU Glycols 1,2-Propylene Glycol Diethylene Glycol Ethylene Glycol Tetraethylene glycol Triethylene glycol MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L Light Gases Acetylene Ethane Ethene Methane n-Butane Propane MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L < < < < < < 0.00500 0.00500 0.00500 0.00500 0.00500 0.00500 U U U U U U Low M olecular W eight Acids Acetic Acid Butyric Acid Formic Acid Isobutyric acid Lactic acid Propionic Acid NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L Appendix A-13 < 10000 U < 10000 U < 10000 U < 10000 U < 5000 U < 13000 U Page 1 of 6 SUMMARY TABLE OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER M Property Owner PROPERTY OWNER M PROPERTY OWNER M PROPERTY OWNER M PROPERTY OWNER M THE WELL IS LOCATED NORTH OF THE WELL IS LOCATED NORTH OF THE WELL IS LOCATED NORTH OF THE WELL IS LOCATED NORTH OF THE HOUSE. THE HOUSE. THE HOUSE. THE HOUSE. Location Description Parameter and units Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date WELL 440 NA NTA0325-01062010-1605 1/6/2010 (Baseline) WELL 440 Pre-Treatment 1202201012501 12/2/2010 WELL 440 Pre-Treatment 0411201112403 4/11/2011 WELL 440 Pre-Treatment 1028201120202 10/28/2011 --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- < 0.0001 U < 0.0001 U 1.2 1.14 4.46 4.25 < 0.002 U < 0.002 U < 0.001 U < 0.001 U ----< 0.0100 U 0.17 ----< 0.00100 U 44.6 < 0.00500 U ------0.103 < 0.00500 U --12.6 < 0.0150 U < 0.000200 U ----1.13 < 0.0100 U < 0.00500 U 3.65 --7.27 --------- ----< 0.0100 U 0.18 ----< 0.00100 U 46.7 < 0.00500 U ------0.235 0.011 --12 < 0.0150 U < 0.000200 U ----1.12 < 0.0100 U < 0.00500 U 3.36 --3.5 --------- --------------------------0.0124 --------------------------------- 0.0295 < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U 0.171 < 0.00200 U < 0.0500 U < 0.00100 U 48.8 < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U 0.025 --0.143 0.003 --11.9 0.00754 < 0.000200 U < 0.00500 U < 0.00500 U 1.03 < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U 2.72 0.194 3.23 < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U < 0.00400 U < 0.0500 U ----------------------------- ----------------------------- ----------------------------- < 0.0200 U < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U 0.172 < 0.00200 U < 0.0500 U < 0.00100 U 48.4 < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U 0.0197 < 0.0500 U < 0.00200 U 11.6 M etals, 6020x Cesium Cesium, Dissolved Potassium Potassium, Dissolved Silicon Silicon, Dissolved Thorium Thorium, Dissolved Uranium Uranium, Dissolved MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L M etals, Total Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Boron Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Hardness, CaCO3 Iron Lead Lithium Magnesium Manganese Mercury Molybdenum Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Strontium Sulfur Thallium Titanium Vanadium Zinc MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L M etals, Dissolved Aluminum, Dissolved Antimony, Dissolved Arsenic, Dissolved Barium, Dissolved Beryllium, Dissolved Boron, Dissolved Cadmium, Dissolved Calcium, Dissolved Chromium, Dissolved Cobalt, Dissolved Copper, Dissolved Iron, Dissolved Lead, Dissolved Magnesium, Dissolved NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L Appendix A-13 Page 2 of 6 SUMMARY TABLE OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER M Property Owner PROPERTY OWNER M PROPERTY OWNER M PROPERTY OWNER M PROPERTY OWNER M THE WELL IS LOCATED NORTH OF THE WELL IS LOCATED NORTH OF THE WELL IS LOCATED NORTH OF THE WELL IS LOCATED NORTH OF THE HOUSE. THE HOUSE. THE HOUSE. THE HOUSE. Location Description Parameter and units Manganese, Dissolved Mercury, Dissolved Molybdenum, Dissolved Nickel, Dissolved Potassium, Dissolved Selenium, Dissolved Silver, Dissolved Sodium, Dissolved Strontium, Dissolved Sulfur, Dissolved Thallium, Dissolved Titanium, Dissolved Vanadium, Dissolved Zinc, Dissolved Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date WELL 440 NA NTA0325-01062010-1605 1/6/2010 (Baseline) ----------------------------- WELL 440 Pre-Treatment 1202201012501 12/2/2010 ----------------------------- WELL 440 Pre-Treatment 0411201112403 4/11/2011 ----------------------------- WELL 440 Pre-Treatment 1028201120202 10/28/2011 < 0.00500 U < 0.000200 U < 0.00500 U < 0.00500 U 1.08 < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U 2.65 0.195 3.31 < 0.00200 U < 0.00200 U < 0.00400 U < 0.0500 U ----- ----- ----- 34.6 < 1.00 U UG/L ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- < 0.0476 U < 0.0476 U < 0.0476 U < 0.0476 U < 0.0476 U < 0.95 U < 0.0476 U < 6.0 U < 0.0476 U < 0.95 U < 0.0476 U < 0.95 U < 0.0476 U < 0.0476 U < 0.0476 U < 0.0476 U < 0.0476 U < 0.0476 U < 0.0476 U < 0.0476 U < 0.0476 U < 0.95 U < 0.0476 U < 0.95 U UG/L --- --- --- < 100 U UG/L ----------------------------- ----------------------------- ----------------------------- < 0.9 U <5U < 0.9 U <5U <5U <5U < 0.9 U < 0.9 U < 0.9 U < 0.9 U < 0.9 U < 0.9 U < 28 U <5U MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L M iscellaneous Organics Inorganic Carbon, Dissolved Organic Carbon, Dissolved MG/L MG/L Pesticides and PCBs 4,4'-DDD 4,4'-DDE 4,4'-DDT Aldrin alpha-BHC Azinphos-methyl beta-BHC Carbaryl delta-BHC Dichlorvos Dieldrin Disulfoton Endosulfan I Endosulfan II Endosulfan sulfate Endrin Endrin aldehyde Endrin ketone gamma-BHC (Lindane) Heptachlor Heptachlor epoxide Malathion Methoxychlor Mevinphos UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L Purgeable Petroleum Hydrocarbons GRO as Gasoline Sem ivolatile Organics 1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene 1,2-Dinitrobenzene 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine 1,3-Dimethyl adamatane 1,3-Dinitrobenzene 1,4-Dinitrobenzene 1-Chloronaphthalene 2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 2,4-Dichlorophenol 2,4-Dimethylphenol 2,4-Dinitrophenol 2,4-Dinitrotoluene NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L Appendix A-13 Page 3 of 6 SUMMARY TABLE OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER M Property Owner PROPERTY OWNER M PROPERTY OWNER M PROPERTY OWNER M PROPERTY OWNER M THE WELL IS LOCATED NORTH OF THE WELL IS LOCATED NORTH OF THE WELL IS LOCATED NORTH OF THE WELL IS LOCATED NORTH OF THE HOUSE. THE HOUSE. THE HOUSE. THE HOUSE. Location Description Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date Parameter and units 2,6-Dichlorophenol 2,6-Dinitrotoluene 2-Butoxyethanol 2-Chloronaphthalene 2-Chlorophenol 2-Methylnaphthalene 2-Methylphenol 2-Nitroaniline 2-Nitrophenol 3,3-Dichlorobenzidine 3-Nitroaniline 4,4'-Methylenebis(2-chloroaniline) 4,4'-Methylenebis(N,N-dimethylanilin 4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether 4-Chloro-3-methylphenol 4-Chloroaniline 4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether 4-Methylphenol 4-Nitroaniline 4-Nitrophenol Acenaphthene Acenaphthylene Acetophenone Adamantane Aniline Anthracene Benzo (a) anthracene Benzo (a) pyrene Benzo (b) fluoranthene Benzo (g,h,i) perylene Benzo (k) fluoranthene Benzoic acid Benzyl alcohol Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate Butyl benzyl phthalate Carbazole Chlorobenzilate Chrysene Diallate (cis or trans) Dibenz (a,h) anthracene Dibenzofuran Diethyl phthalate Dimethyl phthalate Di-n-butyl phthalate Di-n-octyl phthalate Dinoseb Disulfoton d-Limonene Fluoranthene Fluorene Hexachlorobenzene Hexachlorobutadiene Hexachlorocyclopentadiene Hexachloroethane Indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene Isophorone Naphthalene NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L WELL 440 NA NTA0325-01062010-1605 1/6/2010 (Baseline) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Appendix A-13 WELL 440 Pre-Treatment 1202201012501 12/2/2010 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WELL 440 Pre-Treatment 0411201112403 4/11/2011 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WELL 440 Pre-Treatment 1028201120202 10/28/2011 < 0.9 U < 0.9 U < 5 UJ < 0.9 U < 0.9 U < 0.5 U < 0.9 U < 0.9 U < 0.9 U <5U < 0.9 U < 14 U < 14 UJ < 14 U < 0.9 U < 0.9 U < 0.9 U < 0.9 U < 0.9 U < 0.9 UJ < 28 U < 0.5 U < 0.5 U < 0.9 U <5U < 0.9 U < 0.5 U < 0.5 U < 0.5 U < 0.5 U < 0.5 U < 0.5 U < 14 U < 14 U < 0.9 U < 0.9 U < 0.9 U <5U <5U < 0.9 U <9U < 0.5 U <5U < 0.5 U < 0.9 U <5U <5U <5U <5U <5U < 47 U <5U < 0.5 U < 0.5 U < 0.5 U < 0.9 U < 14 U <5U < 0.5 U < 0.9 U < 0.5 U Page 4 of 6 SUMMARY TABLE OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER M Property Owner PROPERTY OWNER M PROPERTY OWNER M PROPERTY OWNER M PROPERTY OWNER M THE WELL IS LOCATED NORTH OF THE WELL IS LOCATED NORTH OF THE WELL IS LOCATED NORTH OF THE WELL IS LOCATED NORTH OF THE HOUSE. THE HOUSE. THE HOUSE. THE HOUSE. Location Description Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date Parameter and units Nitrobenzene N-Nitrosodiethylamine N-Nitrosodimethylamine N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine N-Nitrosodiphenylamine N-Nitrosomethylethylamine Parathion-ethyl Parathion-methyl Pentachlorobenzene Pentachlorophenol Phenanthrene Phenol Phorate Pronamide Pyrene Pyridine Squalene Terbufos Terpineol Tributoxyethyl phosphate Trifluralin UG/L WELL 440 NA NTA0325-01062010-1605 1/6/2010 (Baseline) --------------------------------------------- WELL 440 Pre-Treatment 1202201012501 12/2/2010 --------------------------------------------- WELL 440 Pre-Treatment 0411201112403 4/11/2011 --------------------------------------------- WELL 440 Pre-Treatment 1028201120202 10/28/2011 < 0.9 U < 0.9 U <5U <5U < 0.9 U < 0.9 U <5U <5U <5U < 0.9 U < 5 UJ < 0.5 U < 0.9 U < 0.9 U < 0.9 U < 0.5 U <5U < 5 UJ <5U <5U < 5 UJ <5U UG/L --- --- --- --- UG/L ------------------------------< 0.500 U ----------------< 0.500 U --------------------- ------------------------------< 0.500 U ----------------< 0.500 U --------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L TICs 1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene Volatile Organics 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 1,1-Dichloroethane 1,1-Dichloroethene 1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 1,2-Dichloroethane 1,2-Dichloropropane 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 1,4-Dichlorobenzene Acetone Benzene Carbon disulfide Carbon Tetrachloride Chlorobenzene Chloroform cis-1,2-Dichloroethene Diisopropyl Ether Ethanol Ethyl tert-Butyl Ether Ethylbenzene Hexachlorobutadiene Isopropyl alcohol Isopropylbenzene m,p-Xylene Methoxychlor Methyl tert-Butyl Ether Methylene Chloride Naphthalene o-Xylene Styrene NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L Appendix A-13 < < < < < 1.00 U 1.00 U 1.00 U 1.00 U 1.00 U --< 1.00 U < 0.1020 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U --< 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 50.0 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 100 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 0.9 U < 50.0 U < 1.00 U < 2.00 U < 0.0476 U < 1.00 U < 5.00 U < 5.00 U < 1.00 U --- Page 5 of 6 SUMMARY TABLE OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA FOR THE CHESAPEAKE SPLIT SAMPLE FROM EPA RETROSPECTIVE WELL PROPERTY OWNER M Property Owner PROPERTY OWNER M PROPERTY OWNER M PROPERTY OWNER M PROPERTY OWNER M THE WELL IS LOCATED NORTH OF THE WELL IS LOCATED NORTH OF THE WELL IS LOCATED NORTH OF THE WELL IS LOCATED NORTH OF THE HOUSE. THE HOUSE. THE HOUSE. THE HOUSE. Location Description Parameter and units Tert-Amyl Methyl Ether Tertiary Butyl Alcohol Tetrachloroethene Tetrahydrofuran Toluene trans-1,2-Dichloroethene Trichloroethene Vinyl chloride Xylenes, total Source Type Well Depth Sampled Before Treatment? Sample ID Sample Date UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L WELL 440 NA NTA0325-01062010-1605 1/6/2010 (Baseline) --------< 0.500 U ------< 0.500 U WELL 440 Pre-Treatment 1202201012501 12/2/2010 --------< 0.500 U ------< 0.500 U WELL 440 Pre-Treatment 0411201112403 4/11/2011 ------------------- WELL 440 Pre-Treatment 1028201120202 10/28/2011 < 1.00 U < 10.0 U < 1.00 U --< 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 1.00 U < 3.00 U Notes: U : Parameter not detected at posted limit < : Parameter not detected at posted limit ND : Parameter not detected H : Parameter analyzed beyond method recommended holding time J : Estimated value --- : Parameter not analyzed. B : Blank qualified ug/L : Micrograms per liter mg/L : Milligrams per liter NA : Not Available NTU : Nephelometric Turbidity Unit umho/cm : Micromhos per centimeter colonies/100 ml : Colonies per 100 millileters NPC_Datatable_EPA BRADFORD Split Draft Rev 06Apr2012.xlsx Appendix A-13 Page 6 of 6 APPENDIX FIGURES 4/13/2012 " ) " ) Br-132 Br-643 # * X Y ) " # * X Y # * Y X # * ) Y X # * " Y X Br-687 Br-689 Br-691 ) " # * " ) X Y * # # *# Y X Y*") X Y X Y#* X ) " # * Y X Y X # * Y X X # * Y Y X Br-633 Br-673 Br-627 Br-710 Br-639 Br-637 " ) Br-677 " ) " ) " ) Br-621 # * Br-435 # * Br-242 ) " " ) " ) " ) ) " Br-663 X # ") Y * Y Y#*X X " ) Br-657 " ) X#* Y Br-655 " ) Br-212 " ) Br-752 " ) Br-650 Y X Br-20 Br-21 Br-675 X Y # * Y # * # ) " *X Y X ) " # * X Y " ) Br-202 Br-209 Br-205 Y X # * " ) # * X Y # * " ) Br-703 " ) " ) " ) " ) # * " ) Property Owner F TIOGA COUNTY " ) Not Split Sampled Wells Covered by Split Sampled Well ^^ _ _ # *" ) X Y Br-357 " ) Br-318 Br-303 " ) _ _ ^ ^ # * # * " ) Y X # * # * " ) # * X Y Br-270 ) " # * ) " Br-92 * Br-697 ## * " ) ^ _ Br-273 # * Br-134 X Y # * # * Y X # * Y X Br-723 Br-152 ) " " ) Y X X Y Br-721 # * LY C O M I N G COUNTY File: Y:\Chesapeake\Data\SpecialProjects\Wells\Glacial_Geology_11x17_pub.mxd, 4/5/2012 12:02:28 PM, zieglera " ) SU LLIVAN COUNTY ) " _ ^ ^ _ # Br-529 * Y X " ) # * Y X Y X X _Y ^ Br-272 # * Br-112 Br-808 Glacial Stratified Drift _ ^ ) " Br-249 Property Owner E ) " ) Br-809 " ) " # * WYOMING COUNTY X#* Y Br-167 1 2 4 6 8 Data Source(s): Glacial Data: PADCNR, 1997 Geologic Data: USGS PA Geological Survey, 1980 Base Map: ESRI World Street Map Service # * * ## * 0 Miles Property Owner I " ) ® X#* Y Br-810 " ) Allegheny and Pottsville Formations, undivided Pottsville Formation Br-79 Not Split Sampled Wells ) Covered by Split Sampled Well " ) " " ) " ) Y X Y X ^ _ _ X ^ Y # * Y X Y X # * Property Owner B " ) # * Br-250 Property Owner G ) Br-513 " ) " # * " ) X#* Y Y X Property Owner H ^ _ " ) # Br-256 * Br-528 # *# * Br-387 Property Owner M ) " Property Owner K ) " X Y Y X ) " Br-390 " ) Property Owner C Br-275 ) " " ) Property Owner A ) " " ) " ) Ç Br-271 " ) ^ _ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ " ) Pocono Formation Ç Ç Ç ÇÇ Ç ÇÇ Ç Ç Ç ÇÇ Ç ÇÇ Ç Ç Ç Ç Ç ÇÇ ÇÇ Ç ÇÇ Ç Ç ÇÇ Ç Ç ÇÇ Ç ÇÇÇ Ç Ç Ç Ç Ç Ç ÇÇ ) " _^ ^ X Y _ # * X Y * # *# _ ^ Y#*X X Y _ # *^ _ ^ " ) NURE Database Well Location Mauch Chunk Formation # * " ) ) " Property Owner J Property Owner L ) " # * " ) " ) NWIS Database Well Location Burgoon Sandstone _ ^ ^ _ Br-274 Williams ’98 Unrestricted Flow Zone Wells Huntley Mountain Formation ) " # * ) " Williams ’98 Restricted Flow Zone Wells Lock Haven Formation ) " " # ) * EPA Retrospective Study Well Not Split Sampled by CHK Catskill Formation Br-818 " ) Property Owner D Br-378 Br-376 ) " Br-377 " ) ) " CHK Split Samples from EPA Retrospective Study Wells Geologic Formation Br-807 ) " Br-620 Br-85 Br-630 ) Br-302 " # * X Y Br-632 * *# * *# # *# *# ## * # * " ) X#*") Y # * ) " ) " Br-622 Br-604 Y X Y Y X XX YY ) " )X " # * Y X Y#* YX X # * Y X BRADFORD COUNTY # * Y X X Y Y X " ) " ) # Br-496 * Br-606 " ) " Br-612 ) Br-634 Br-747 # * ) # " * Br-552 X YY X ) " " ) " ) ) " " ) # * ) " Br-350 " ) Y X Br-557 " ) Br-695 # * " ) # * # Br-316 * # Br-7 * # * _ ^ # * ^^ _ _ Y X # * " ) Y") X # * Br-664 # * " ) # * ) " " ) " ) # * # * " ) Br-806 X#* Y " ) X Y Y") X # * X Y ) " # * X Y ) " SUSQUEHANNA COUNTY " ) " ) Br-713 Br-715 Br-22 " ) # * # * # * # * Br-652 " ) " ) # * Br-237 #" * ) " ) Br-648 X Y Y X " ) " ) " ) " ) Br-32 # * " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) # * " ) ^ _ _ ^ # * " ) " ) # * X Y # * # * Y X Y )X " # * " ) " ) # * Y X " ) Br-705 X#*#* Y Y X X # * Y YX " ) Br-659 # * # * " ) " ) # * Legend * Br-476 " # ) Br-779 Br-732 Br-238 " ) Br-707 Br-764 Br-47 Y X # # * * " ) Br-768 Br-230 # * # * " ) Br-767 Br-232 " ) " ) Br-726 Br-666 Br-672 Br-235 " ) Br-651 Br-757 Br-700 Br-694 Br-692 Br-684 " ) Br-686 Br-766 # # *# * * * # * # *# X#* Y Y X Y X Y X X Y # * # * Y X # * Y X Y X Y X Y#* # * X Y#* #* X ) " Y Y#*#* X X ) YX X # * " *# Y # * Y X ) " # * ) " Y X Figure B-1 PA Glacial Deposits and Bedrock Geology with NURE, NWIS, and CHK Split Samples from EPA Retrospective Study Wells " ) " ) Br-132 Br-643 # * X Y ) " # * X Y # * Y X # * ) Y X # * " Y X Br-687 Br-689 Br-691 ) " # * " ) X Y * # # *# Y X Y*") X Y X Y#* X ) " # * Y X Y X # * Y X X # * Y Y X Br-633 Br-673 Br-627 Br-710 Br-639 Br-637 " ) Br-677 " ) " ) " ) Br-621 # * Br-435 # * Br-242 ) " " ) " ) X#* X # ") Y Y ) " * Y Y#*X X " ) ) " Br-663 " ) Br-657 Br-655 " ) " ) " ) Br-752 " ) Y X " ) Br-20 Br-21 Br-650 Y X # * Y X #*X Y Br-675 ) # * " ) " # * X Y " ) Br-209 Br-205 # * X Y # * X Y " ) # * X Y ) " Br-713 # * X Y ) " # * " ) Br-703 " ) " ) " ) # * " ) Property Owner F TIOGA COUNTY " ) ^^ _ _ # *" ) X Y Br-357 " ) _ ^ # * ^^ _ _ Y X # * " ) Y") X # * " ) " Br-612 ) Br-634 Br-747 # * ) # " * Br-552 _ _ ^ ^ # * # * " ) Y X X Y Y X # * " ) # * X Y " ) Br-270 ) " ) " Br-92 " ) ^ _ X Y # * # * Y X # * Y X Br-723 Br-152 " ) ) " Br-271 # * _ ^ X Y _ ^ # * X Y * # *# _ ^ Y#*X X Y _ # *^ _ ^ Y X X Y Br-721 # * LY C O M I N G COUNTY File: Y:\Chesapeake\Data\SpecialProjects\Wells\Aerial_11x17_pub.mxd, 4/11/2012 2:13:04 PM, zieglera " ) SU LLIVAN COUNTY ) " Br-274 # * X Y Br-529 " ) X Y Y X " ) X#* Y Y X Property Owner H Y X # * Y X Br-272 # * Y X Y ^X _ Br-79 Br-112 Br-808 _ ^ ) " Y X ^ _ _ X ^ Y # * Y X Y X # * Property Owner B " ) # * Br-250 Property Owner G ) Br-513 " ^ _ Br-249 ) " ) Br-809 " Property Owner E # * 2 4 6 8 # * WYOMING COUNTY * ## * ) " 1 Data Source(s): Base Map: ESRI Bing Aerial Imagery Service, 2011 Property Owner I " ) 0 Miles Not Split Sampled Wells ) Covered by Split Sampled Well " ) " ® X#* Y Br-810 " ) ) " " ) " ) Br-387 Property Owner M ) " Property Owner K ) " " ) # * _ ^ ^ _ Br-390 " ) Property Owner C " ) # Br-256 * Br-528 # *# * NURE Database Well Location _ ^ ^ _ ) " ) " NWIS Database Well Location # * " ) ) " Property Owner J Property Owner L ) " Br-275 ) " " ) Property Owner A ) " Br-134 Williams ’98 Unrestricted Flow Zone Wells Br-818 ) " ^ _ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ " ) Williams ’98 Restricted Flow Zone Wells " ) " # ) * " ) EPA Retrospective Study Well Not Split Sampled by CHK ) " # * " ) " ) ) " CHK Split Samples from EPA Retrospective Study Wells Br-807 ) " ) " ) " Br-273 # * " ) " ) # * Property Owner D Br-378 Br-376 ) " Br-377 # * " ) X") Y # * Br-620 Br-85 Br-630 " ) * Br-697 ## * # * X Y Br-632 * *# * *# # *# *# ## * ) Br-302 # " * X YY X " ) Br-496 ) " Br-622 Br-604 Y X Y Y X XX YY ) " )X " # * Y X Y#* YX X # * Y X BRADFORD COUNTY # * # * X Y Br-606 " ) # * Br-350 ) " # * Br-303 ) " ) " " ) " ) " ) Br-557 " ) Br-695 " ) Y X Br-318 # * " ) # * # Br-316 * # Br-7 * # * # * X Y Y X ) " " ) Br-664 # * " ) " ) Br-806 X#* Y " ) " ) # * # * SUSQUEHANNA COUNTY " ) " ) " ) Not Split Sampled Well Covered by Split Sampled Well # * # * X Y # * # * Y X ) " Br-652 Br-202 Br-715 Br-22 " ) Br-237 #" * ) " ) Br-648 " ) " ) # * " ) # * " ) " ) " ) " ) Br-32 " ) # * " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) Br-705 Br-212 " ) Y X ^ _ _ ^ # * " ) " ) # * X Y # * # * Y X Y )X " # * " ) Br-659 # * # * " ) " ) Y#*#* X # * X Y # * Y XX Y Legend " ) # * * Br-476 " # ) Br-779 Br-732 Br-238 " ) Br-707 Br-764 Br-47 Y X # # * * " ) Br-768 Br-230 # * # * " ) Br-232 " ) " ) Br-726 Br-666 Br-672 Br-767 Br-235 " ) Br-651 Br-757 Br-700 Br-694 Br-692 Br-684 " ) Br-686 Br-766 # # *# * * * # * # *# X#* Y Y X Y X Y X X Y # * # * Y X # * Y X Y X Y X Y#* # * X Y#* #* X ) " Y Y#*#* X X ) YX X # * " *# Y # * Y X ) " # * ) " Y X X#* Y Br-167 Figure B-2 Aerial Imagery with NURE, NWIS, and CHK Split Samples from EPA Retrospective Study Wells " ) " ) Br-132 Br-643 # * X Y ) " # * X Y # * Y X # * ) Y X # * " Y X Br-687 Br-689 Br-691 ) " # * " ) X Y * # # *# Y X Y*") X Y X Y#* X ) " # * Y X Y X # * Y X X # * Y Y X Br-633 Br-673 Br-627 Br-710 Br-639 Br-637 " ) Br-677 " ) " ) " ) Br-621 # * Br-435 # * Br-242 ) " " ) " ) X#* X # ") Y Y ) " * Y Y#*X X " ) ) " Br-663 " ) Br-657 Br-655 " ) " ) " ) Br-752 " ) Br-650 Y X Br-20 Br-21 Y X # * Y X #*X Y Br-675 ) # * " ) " # * X Y " ) Br-209 Br-205 # * X Y " ) # * X Y # * X Y ) " # * X Y ) " # * Br-703 " ) " ) Not Split Sampled Well Covered by Split Sampled Well " ) " ) # * " ) Property Owner F TIOGA COUNTY " ) ^^ _ _ # *" ) X Y Br-357 " ) _ ^ # * ^^ _ _ Y X # * " ) Y") X # * " ) _ _ ^ ^ # * # * " ) Y X # * # * " ) # * X Y Br-270 ) " ) " Br-92 Br-378 Br-376 ) " Br-377 " ) * Br-697 ## * " ) ^ _ Br-723 Br-152 ) " " ) ) " Br-271 # * _ ^ X Y _ ^ # * X Y * # *# _ ^ Y#*X X Y _ # *^ _ ^ Y X X Y Br-721 # * LY C O M I N G COUNTY File: Y:\Chesapeake\Data\SpecialProjects\Wells\ShadedRelief_11x17_pub.mxd, 4/11/2012 2:08:07 PM, zieglera " ) SU LLIVAN COUNTY ) " Br-274 # * X Y Br-529 " ) X Y Y X " ) X#* Y Y X Property Owner H Y X # * Y X Br-272 # * Y X Y ^X _ Br-79 Br-112 Br-808 _ ^ ) " Y X ^ _ _ X ^ Y # * Y X Y X # * Property Owner B " ) # * Br-250 Property Owner G ) Br-513 " ^ _ Br-249 ) " ) Br-809 " Property Owner E # * 2 4 6 8 # * WYOMING COUNTY * ## * ) " 1 Data Source(s): Base Map: ESRI World Street Map Service Property Owner I " ) 0 Miles Not Split Sampled Wells ) Covered by Split Sampled Well " ) " ® X#* Y Br-810 " ) ) " " ) " ) Br-387 Property Owner M ) " Property Owner K ) " " ) # * _ ^ ^ _ Br-390 " ) Property Owner C " ) # Br-256 * Br-528 # *# * NURE Database Well Location # * " ) ) " Property Owner J Property Owner L ) " Br-275 ) " " ) Property Owner A ) " Br-134 NWIS Database Well Location _ ^ ^ _ ^ _ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ " ) Williams ’98 Unrestricted Flow Zone Wells Br-818 ) " " # ) * " ) Williams ’98 Restricted Flow Zone Wells ) " # * " ) EPA Retrospective Study Well Not Split Sampled by CHK " ) ) " Br-273 # * " ) ) " CHK Split Samples from EPA Retrospective Study Wells Br-807 ) " ) " ) " X Y # * # * Y X # * Y X # * Property Owner D " ) " ) X") Y # * Br-620 Br-85 Br-630 ) Br-302 # " * # * X Y Br-632 * *# * *# # *# *# ## * # * " ) " ) Br-496 ) " Br-622 Br-604 Y X Y Y X XX YY ) " )X " # * Y X Y#* YX X # * Y X BRADFORD COUNTY # * # * X Y Br-606 " ) X Y Y X " ) ) " # * " Br-612 ) Br-634 Br-747 # * ) # " * Br-552 X YY X ) " " ) " ) " ) Br-303 ) " Br-350 " ) Br-318 # * " ) # * Y X Br-557 " ) Br-695 # * X Y Y X ) " # Br-316 * # Br-7 * # * " ) Br-806 X#* Y " ) Br-664 # * " ) SUSQUEHANNA COUNTY " ) " ) # * # * " ) " ) " ) " ) Br-713 Br-715 Br-22 # * # * # * X Y # * # * Y X ) " Br-652 Br-202 " ) " ) Br-237 #" * ) " ) Br-648 " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) # * " ) " ) " ) " ) Br-32 " ) " ) " ) ^ _ _ ^ # * " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) # * # * Y X " ) Br-705 Br-212 " ) " ) # * X Y # * # * Y X Y )X " # * " ) Br-659 # * # * " ) " ) Y#*#* X # * X Y # * Y XX Y Legend * Br-476 " # ) Br-779 Br-732 Br-238 " ) Br-707 Br-764 Br-47 Y X # # * * " ) Br-768 Br-230 # * # * " ) Br-767 Br-232 " ) " ) Br-726 Br-666 Br-672 Br-235 " ) Br-651 Br-757 Br-700 Br-694 Br-692 Br-684 " ) Br-686 Br-766 # # *# * * * # * # *# X#* Y Y X Y X Y X X Y # * # * Y X # * Y X Y X Y X Y#* # * X Y#* #* X ) " Y Y#*#* X X ) YX X # * " *# Y # * Y X ) " # * ) " Y X X#* Y Br-167 Figure B-3 Shaded Relief with NURE, NWIS, and CHK Split Samples from EPA Retrospective Study Wells " ) " ) Br-132 Br-643 # * X Y ) " # * X Y # * Y X # * ) Y X # * " Y X Br-687 Br-689 Br-691 ) " # * " ) X Y * # # *# Y X Y*") X Y X Y#* X ) " # * Y X Y X # * Y X X # * Y Y X Br-633 Br-673 Br-627 Br-710 Br-639 Br-637 " ) Br-677 " ) " ) " ) Br-621 # * Br-435 # * Br-242 ) " " ) " ) X#* X # ") Y Y ) " * Y Y#*X X " ) ) " Br-663 " ) Br-657 Br-655 " ) " ) " ) Br-752 " ) Y X " ) Br-20 Br-21 Br-650 Y X # * Y X #*X Y Br-675 ) # * " ) " # * X Y " ) Br-209 Br-205 # * X Y " ) # * X Y # * X Y ) " Br-713 # * X Y ) " # * " ) Br-703 " ) " ) " ) # * " ) Property Owner F TIOGA COUNTY " ) ^^ _ _ # *" ) X Y Br-357 " ) _ ^ # * ^^ _ _ Y X # * " ) Y") X # * " ) " Br-612 ) Br-634 Br-747 # * ) # " * Br-552 _ _ ^ ^ # * # * " ) Y X X Y Y X # * " ) # * X Y * Br-697 ## * ) " " ) X Y # * # * Y X # * Y X Br-723 Br-152 ) " " ) Br-528 Br-721 " ) # * Br-256 Y X # *# * X Y ) " ) " Br-271 # * _ ^ X Y _ ^ # * X Y * # *# _ ^ Y#*X X Y _ # *^ _ ^ # * LY C O M I N G COUNTY File: Y:\Chesapeake\Data\SpecialProjects\Wells\Topo_11x17_pub.mxd, 4/11/2012 2:09:53 PM, zieglera " ) SU LLIVAN COUNTY # * X Y Br-529 " ) Br-274 Br-387 " ) X#* Y Y X Property Owner M ) " Property Owner K ) " " ) X Y Y X Property Owner H Y X # * Y X Br-272 # * Y X Y ^X _ Br-79 Br-112 Br-808 _ ^ ) " Y X ^ _ _ X ^ Y # * Y X Y X # * Property Owner B " ) # * Br-250 Property Owner G ) Br-513 " ^ _ Br-249 ) " ) Br-809 " Property Owner E 2 4 6 8 # * WYOMING COUNTY * ## * ) " 1 Data Source(s): Base Map: ESRI USA Topo Maps Service i-cubed eTOPO 1:250,000 # * Property Owner I " ) 0 Miles Not Split Sampled Wells ) Covered by Split Sampled Well " ) " ® X#* Y Br-810 " ) ) " " ) " ) Br-390 " ) Property Owner C # * _ ^ ^ _ NURE Database Well Location _ ^ ^ _ ) " Br-134 NWIS Database Well Location # * " ) ) " Property Owner J Property Owner L ) " Br-275 ) " " ) Property Owner A ) " " ) Williams ’98 Unrestricted Flow Zone Wells Br-818 ) " ^ _ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ " ) Williams ’98 Restricted Flow Zone Wells " ) " # ) * " ) EPA Retrospective Study Well Not Split Sampled by CHK ) " # * " ) " ) ) " CHK Split Samples from EPA Retrospective Study Wells Br-807 ) " ) " ) " Br-273 # * # * " ) # * Property Owner D Br-378 Br-376 ) " Br-377 " ) ^ _ Br-270 ) " " ) " ) X") Y # * Br-620 Br-85 Br-630 Br-92 # * X Y Br-632 * *# * *# # *# *# ## * ) Br-302 # " * X YY X " ) Br-496 ) " Br-622 Br-604 Y X Y Y X XX YY ) " )X " # * Y X Y#* YX X # * Y X BRADFORD COUNTY # * # * X Y Br-606 " ) # * Br-350 ) " # * Br-303 ) " ) " " ) " ) " ) Br-557 " ) Br-695 " ) Y X Br-318 # * " ) # * # Br-316 * # Br-7 * # * # * X Y Y X ) " " ) Br-664 # * " ) " ) Br-806 X#* Y " ) " ) # * # * SUSQUEHANNA COUNTY " ) " ) " ) Not Split Sampled Well Covered by Split Sampled Well # * # * X Y # * # * Y X ) " Br-652 Br-202 Br-715 Br-22 " ) Br-237 #" * ) " ) Br-648 " ) " ) # * " ) # * " ) " ) " ) " ) Br-32 " ) # * " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) Br-705 Br-212 " ) Y X ^ _ _ ^ # * " ) " ) # * X Y # * # * Y X Y )X " # * " ) Br-659 # * # * " ) " ) Y#*#* X # * X Y # * Y XX Y Legend " ) # * * Br-476 " # ) Br-779 Br-732 Br-238 " ) Br-707 Br-764 Br-47 Y X # # * * " ) Br-768 Br-230 # * # * " ) Br-232 " ) " ) Br-726 Br-666 Br-672 Br-767 Br-235 " ) Br-651 Br-757 Br-700 Br-694 Br-692 Br-684 " ) Br-686 Br-766 # # *# * * * # * # *# X#* Y Y X Y X Y X X Y # * # * Y X # * Y X Y X Y X Y#* # * X Y#* #* X ) " Y Y#*#* X X ) YX X # * " *# Y # * Y X ) " # * ) " Y X X#* Y Br-167 Figure B-4 Topographic Map with NURE, NWIS, and CHK Split Samples from EPA Retrospective Study Wells APPENDIX SUMMARY STATISTICS 4/13/2012 Summary of Sample Count, Minimum, Maximum, Mean, Median, and Standard Deviation of Parameters in Various Formations  using USGS NURE Historical (Sept. ‐ Oct. 1977) Water Well Data Base for Bradford County, PA Constituent Name Alkalinity, Total (CaCO3) Alkalinity, Total (CaCO3) Alkalinity, Total (CaCO3) Bromide Bromide Bromide Chloride Chloride Chloride Magnesium Manganese Manganese Manganese pH pH pH Sodium Sodium Sodium Geology Catskill LockHaven StratDrift Catskill LockHaven StratDrift Catskill LockHaven StratDrift LockHaven Catskill LockHaven StratDrift Catskill LockHaven StratDrift Catskill LockHaven StratDrift Fraction T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T Count 51 92 17 28 53 9 51 91 17 1 51 90 16 51 92 17 51 91 17 Min 0.3 0.36 0.55 0.0097 0.0098 0.0148 3.2 0.1 4.2 0.44 0.0502 0.0386 0.0463 6.2 6 6 2.77 1.18 4.91 Max 5.36 5.6 4.4 2.9 2.214 0.3508 87.5 228.4 98.6 0.44 0.2549 0.7955 0.2484 8.8 8.8 9.1 144.58 137.16 76.22 Mean 2.30 2.79 2.34 0.15 0.13 0.08 11.57 15.97 14.98 0.44 0.10 0.18 0.11 7.31 7.25 7.50 14.0 19.19 20.10 Median 2.20 2.80 2.25 0.03 0.03 0.05 7.20 8.80 8.20 0.44 0.10 0.14 0.10 7.30 7.25 7.50 8.58 9.27 13.47 StDev 1.14 1.30 1.17 0.54 0.34 0.11 13.49 28.54 22.43 0.04 0.14 0.05 0.52 0.54 0.76 20.90 22.10 18.76 Screening Level ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 250 250 250 ‐ 0.05 0.05 0.05 6.5‐8.5 6.5‐8.5 6.5‐8.5 ‐ ‐ ‐ Unit mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L pH Units pH Units pH Units mg/L mg/L mg/L ND > SC ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0 0 0 ‐ 51 86 15 5 10 4 ‐ ‐ ‐ PD > SC ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0% 0% 0% ‐ 100% 96% 94% 10% 11% 24% ‐ ‐ ‐ T = Total mg/L = Milligrams per Liter StDev = Standard Deviation ND > SC = Number of Detections Above Screening Criteria PD > SC = Percent of Detections Above Screening Criteria Screening Criteria Include MCLs, SMCLs, EPA Regional Screening Values (Tap Water), and PADEP Act 2 Values (Groundwater) Appendix C Page 1 of 12 Summary of Sample Count, Minimum, Maximum, Mean, Median, and Standard Deviation of Parameters in Various Formations  using USGS NWIS Historical (Pre‐2007) Water Well Data Base for Bradford County, PA Constituent Name Alkalinity, Total (CaCO3) Alkalinity, Total (CaCO3) Alkalinity, Total (CaCO3) Alkalinity, Total (CaCO3) Ammonia as N Ammonia as N Ammonia as N Ammonia as N Ammonia as N Ammonia as N Ammonia as N Ammonia as N Arsenic Arsenic Arsenic Arsenic Arsenic Arsenic Arsenic Arsenic Barium Barium Barium Barium Calcium Calcium Calcium Calcium Calcium Calcium Calcium Chloride Chloride Chloride Chloride Chromium Chromium Chromium Chromium Chromium Iron Iron Iron Iron Iron Iron Iron Lead Lead Lithium Appendix C Geology Catskill LockHaven StratDrift Till Catskill Catskill LockHaven LockHaven StratDrift StratDrift Till Till Catskill Catskill LockHaven LockHaven StratDrift StratDrift Till Till LockHaven StratDrift StratDrift Till Catskill LockHaven LockHaven StratDrift StratDrift Till Till Catskill LockHaven StratDrift Till Catskill LockHaven LockHaven StratDrift StratDrift Catskill LockHaven LockHaven StratDrift StratDrift Till Till LockHaven StratDrift StratDrift Fraction T T T T D T D T D T D T D T D T D T D T T D T T D D T D T D T D D D D D D T D T D D T D T D T D T D Count 17 21 3 2 17 1 21 7 3 5 2 2 1 3 4 5 1 7 1 2 10 1 15 3 19 29 14 9 39 4 11 20 43 43 14 6 8 7 3 12 20 23 20 6 38 2 12 1 1 1 Min 42 104 70 180 0.01 0.08 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.1 0.06 0.008 0.004 0.022 0.009 0.003 0.004 0.009 0.023 0.2 0.05 0.1 0.3 2.9 10 8.2 20 0.5 13 13.8 2 1 1 2 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.05 Max 300 350 160 260 0.68 0.08 3.2 1.87 0.05 0.32 0.37 0.09 0.008 0.0053 0.178 0.117 0.003 0.072 0.009 0.026 98 0.05 3.9 1.9 135 235 349 101 199 69 59.9 408 5050 224 336 0.02 0.02 0.12 0.03 0.11 5.6 3.4 1.08 12.9 56.4 15.9 3.55 0.1 0.5 0.05 Mean 145 182 127 220 0.10 0.08 0.30 0.44 0.02 0.13 0.24 0.08 0.01 0 0.07 0.04 0 0.03 0.01 0.02 11.94 0.05 0.63 1.07 42.42 56.72 66.41 50 46.89 45.35 37.05 43.38 318 28.95 55.36 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.62 0.88 0.37 2.41 2.56 8.20 1.28 0.10 0.50 0.05 Median 132 170 150 220 0.02 0.08 0.12 0.23 0.01 0.15 0.24 0.08 0.01 0 0.03 0.04 0 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.45 0.05 0.20 1.0 36 44 36.20 48 40.40 49.70 35.50 12 6 12 6.50 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.12 0.56 0.25 0.25 0.36 8.20 0.77 0.10 0.50 0.05 StDev 61.11 58.62 49.33 56.57 0.17 0.69 0.64 0.02 0.12 0.19 0.02 0 0.07 0.04 0.03 0.00 30.69 1.02 0.80 34.33 45.84 86.42 26.42 34.84 24.15 12.99 89.99 940 47.66 116 0 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.04 1.30 0.98 0.32 5.15 9.19 10.89 1.14 Screening Level ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.000045 0.000045 0.000045 0.000045 0.000045 0.000045 0.000045 0.000045 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 250 250 250 250 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.005 0.005 0.031 Unit mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L ND > SC ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 3 4 5 1 7 1 2 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 7 0 2 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 8 14 7 3 21 2 9 1 1 1 PD > SC ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 5% 16% 0% 14% ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 40% 61% 35% 50% 55% 100% 75% 100% 100% 100% Page 2 of 12 Summary of Sample Count, Minimum, Maximum, Mean, Median, and Standard Deviation of Parameters in Various Formations  using USGS NWIS Historical (Pre‐2007) Water Well Data Base for Bradford County, PA Constituent Name Magnesium Magnesium Magnesium Magnesium Magnesium Magnesium Magnesium Manganese Manganese Manganese Manganese Manganese Manganese Manganese Nitrate as N Nitrate as N Nitrate as N Nitrate as N Nitrate as N Nitrate/Nitrite as N Nitrate/Nitrite as N Nitrate/Nitrite as N Potassium Potassium Potassium Potassium Potassium Potassium Potassium Sodium Sodium Sodium Sodium Sodium Sodium Sodium Strontium Strontium Strontium Sulfate Sulfate Sulfate Sulfate Appendix C Geology Catskill LockHaven LockHaven StratDrift StratDrift Till Till Catskill LockHaven LockHaven StratDrift StratDrift Till Till Catskill LockHaven LockHaven StratDrift Till LockHaven StratDrift Till Catskill LockHaven LockHaven StratDrift StratDrift Till Till Catskill LockHaven LockHaven StratDrift StratDrift Till Till LockHaven StratDrift Till Catskill LockHaven StratDrift Till Fraction D D T D T D T D D T D T D T D D T D D D D D D D T D T D T D D T D T D T T T T D D D D Count 18 29 14 10 38 4 11 15 17 17 4 29 2 9 19 42 2 41 10 19 35 8 17 22 20 5 42 2 13 17 22 20 5 42 2 13 13 34 11 18 40 47 15 Min 0.6 2.4 2.4 4.3 0.1 2.7 3.5 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.25 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.02 0.019 0.48 0.009 0.019 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.2 2 0.6 1.1 0.4 2 0.4 4 6.1 3.2 6.4 2.1 16 5.3 0.08 0.02 0.03 2 1 8 10 Max 46 35 45.8 27 39.3 22 16.4 0.3 2.6 0.41 2.36 7.37 0.41 0.69 2.4 4.4 8.35 13.9 1.55 4.4 13.9 1.55 13 25 19.8 2 6 4 3.1 829 2000 2510 21 112 143 252 80 0.92 0.98 250 210 77 85 Mean 10.38 13.84 13.97 13.03 9.03 12.00 8.73 0.09 0.29 0.13 0.91 0.46 0.22 0.34 0.48 0.36 4.42 1.72 0.40 0.54 1.53 0.49 3.30 3.79 3.21 1.74 1.31 3 1.28 85.09 126 248 12.36 25.52 79.50 61.57 7.68 0.20 0.31 25.56 28.40 26.17 29.27 Median 5.75 12 8.30 9.70 8.10 11.65 8.60 0.03 0.09 0.10 0.52 0.14 0.22 0.26 0.09 0.04 4.42 0.41 0.14 0.04 0.41 0.22 3 3 1.45 2 1.05 3 1.10 23 23 35.20 11 11.35 79.50 27 0.45 0.12 0.18 12.50 15 25 25 StDev 12.27 8.78 13.62 8.31 6.42 7.97 4.35 0.10 0.61 0.10 0.98 1.35 0.28 0.23 0.77 0.85 5.56 2.95 0.53 1.18 2.69 0.56 2.92 4.79 4.49 0.40 0.99 1.41 0.71 197 421 560 6.12 28.68 89.80 79.34 22.05 0.21 0.32 56.55 36.58 14.90 19.52 Screening Level ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Unit mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L ND > SC ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 7 11 13 4 23 1 9 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ PD > SC ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 47% 65% 76% 100% 79% 50% 100% ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Page 3 of 12 Summary of Sample Count, Minimum, Maximum, Mean, Median, and Standard Deviation of Parameters in Various Formations  using USGS NWIS Historical (Pre‐2007) Water Well Data Base for Bradford County, PA Constituent Name Total Dissolved Solids Total Dissolved Solids Total Dissolved Solids Total Dissolved Solids Geology Catskill LockHaven StratDrift Till Fraction D D D D Count 35 65 52 17 Min 76 134 64 112 Max 4050 9200 1130 846 Mean 362 676 268 360 Median 212 246 221 266 StDev 661 1504 181 201 Screening Level 500 500 500 500 Unit mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L ND > SC 4 14 3 3 PD > SC 11% 22% 6% 18% T = Total D = Dissolved mg/L = Milligrams per Liter StDev = Standard Deviation ND > SC = Number of Detections Above Screening Criteria PD > SC = Percent of Detections Above Screening Criteria Screening Criteria Include MCLs, SMCLs, EPA Regional Screening Values (Tap Water), and PADEP Act 2 Values (Groundwater) Appendix C Page 4 of 12 Summary of Sample Count, Minimum, Maximum, Mean, Median, and Standard Deviation of Parameters in Various Formations  using Williams 1998 Historical (1935‐1986) Water Well Data Base for Bradford County, PA Constituent Name Aluminum Aluminum Aluminum Aluminum Aluminum Arsenic Arsenic Arsenic Arsenic Arsenic Barium Barium Barium Barium Calcium Calcium Calcium Calcium Calcium Cadium Cadium Cadium Chloride Chloride Chloride Chloride Chloride Chromium Chromium Chromium Chromium Chromium Iron Iron Iron Iron Iron Bicarbonate Alk (CaCO3) Bicarbonate Alk (CaCO3) Bicarbonate Alk (CaCO3) Bicarbonate Alk (CaCO3) Bicarbonate Alk (CaCO3) Potassium Potassium Potassium Potassium Potassium Appendix C Geology Catskill Lockhaven RestrictedFlow StratifiedDrift Till Catskill Lockhaven RestrictedFlow StratifiedDrift Till Lockhaven RestrictedFlow StratifiedDrift Till Catskill Lockhaven RestrictedFlow StratifiedDrift Till Lockhaven StratifiedDrift Till Catskill Lockhaven RestrictedFlow StratifiedDrift Till Catskill Lockhaven RestrictedFlow StratifiedDrift Till Catskill Lockhaven RestrictedFlow StratifiedDrift Till Catskill Lockhaven RestrictedFlow StratifiedDrift Till Catskill Lockhaven RestrictedFlow StratifiedDrift Till Fraction D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D Count 9 19 6 29 5 1 3 3 7 2 8 7 32 3 11 20 10 52 12 4 10 1 12 18 11 47 11 4 6 2 14 1 12 20 9 47 11 3 12 9 50 11 10 20 9 52 12 Min 0.05 0.05 0.02 0.04 0.05 0.008 0.005 0.009 0.004 0.009 0.03 0.56 0.02 0.06 2.9 8.2 10 9.2 14 0.001 0.001 0.001 2 1 125 1 2 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 40 40 150 10 40 148 82 184 20 62 0.2 0.58 1.7 0.38 0.8 Max 3.8 1.3 0.16 1.55 0.2 0.008 0.025 0.067 0.072 0.026 0.46 98 0.62 0.34 54 87 235 199 95 0.002 0.001 0.001 74 132 3500 224 15 0.01 0.12 0.02 0.11 0.01 5600 1400 3550 11200 15900 172 292 258 308 240 5 7 25 6 3.2 Mean 1.22 0.21 0.08 0.18 0.09 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.23 15.40 0.16 0.16 35.26 42.51 64.90 47.89 48.42 0 0 0 25.13 16.56 693 27.19 5.45 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.01 833 393 1293 1043 2417 159 165 214 133 168 2.49 2.18 5.80 1.25 1.33 Median 0.74 0.14 0.07 0.10 0.06 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.20 1.62 0.12 0.09 39.00 40.50 29.00 40.50 46.50 0 0 0 13 5.50 336 14 4 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 315 245 670 340 770 158 156 208 124 170 2.50 2 3.10 1.05 1.15 StDev 1.31 0.28 0.05 0.29 0.06 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.15 36.44 0.14 0.15 13.97 21.76 76.35 31.67 20.82 0 0 24.33 30.81 979 43.32 4.61 0 0.04 0.01 0.04 1634 359 1403 2011 4572 12.06 75.79 24.80 68.48 54.60 1.54 1.56 7.47 0.88 0.68 Screening Level 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.000045 0.000045 0.000045 0.000045 0.000045 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 250 250 250 250 250 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Units mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L ND > SC 6 5 0 4 0 1 3 3 7 2 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0 0 7 0 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 6 8 6 24 9 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ PD > SC 67% 26% 0% 14% 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0% 0% 64% 0% 0% ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 50% 40% 67% 51% 82% ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Page 5 of 12 Summary of Sample Count, Minimum, Maximum, Mean, Median, and Standard Deviation of Parameters in Various Formations  using Williams 1998 Historical (1935‐1986) Water Well Data Base for Bradford County, PA Constituent Name Magnesium Magnesium Magnesium Magnesium Magnesium Manganese Manganese Manganese Manganese Manganese Sodium Sodium Sodium Sodium Sodium Nickel Nickel Nickel Nickel Nickel Nitrate‐N Nitrate‐N Nitrate‐N Nitrate‐N Nitrate‐N Lead Lead Lead Lead Lead pH pH pH pH pH Sulfate Sulfate Sulfate Sulfate Sulfate Strontium Strontium Strontium Strontium TDS TDS TDS TDS TDS Appendix C Geology Catskill Lockhaven RestrictedFlow StratifiedDrift Till Catskill Lockhaven RestrictedFlow StratifiedDrift Till Catskill Lockhaven RestrictedFlow StratifiedDrift Till Catskill Lockhaven RestrictedFlow StratifiedDrift Till Catskill Lockhaven RestrictedFlow StratifiedDrift Till Catskill Lockhaven RestrictedFlow StratifiedDrift Till Catskill Lockhaven RestrictedFlow StratifiedDrift Till Catskill Lockhaven RestrictedFlow StratifiedDrift Till Lockhaven RestrictedFlow StratifiedDrift Till Catskill Lockhaven RestrictedFlow StratifiedDrift Till Fraction D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D Count 11 20 10 52 12 10 17 8 35 7 10 20 10 52 12 3 10 6 18 2 7 13 2 36 7 4 6 4 15 5 11 20 8 52 12 11 19 8 52 12 9 8 37 9 10 20 9 52 12 Min 0.6 2.4 2.4 2.1 3.5 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.13 5 3.2 90 2.1 5.3 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.1 0.006 0.005 0.005 0.004 0.004 6.5 5.2 6.6 6.2 6.6 5 10 1 10 10 0.08 0.14 0.02 0.03 100 142 400 64 112 Max 12 41 33 39 22 0.3 2.6 0.44 1.03 0.69 132 165 2000 112 89 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.14 0.02 2.38 46 0.04 13.9 6.38 0.016 0.02 0.007 0.023 0.031 8.8 8.6 8.4 8.6 8.1 35 85 22 77 55 1.58 80 0.92 0.52 680 512 6100 1130 620 Mean 6.77 11.61 12.10 9.90 10.90 0.08 0.26 0.12 0.24 0.38 41.95 38.65 431 20.55 28.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.69 4.28 0.03 1.68 1.46 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 7.51 7.17 7.80 7.28 7.61 13.45 28.53 9.63 26.17 28.50 0.46 12.45 0.18 0.17 263 275 1510 260 308 Median 6 10 8.05 8.10 12 0.06 0.10 0.07 0.14 0.35 18.50 22 249 8.95 23 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.42 0.22 0.03 0.90 0.82 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 7.40 7.15 8.10 7.20 7.80 10 20 10.50 23.50 29 0.29 1.04 0.12 0.11 208 227 760 229 263 StDev 3.49 9.06 11.07 6.74 5.42 0.09 0.61 0.14 0.27 0.23 47.44 43.78 565 25 23 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.83 12.61 0.01 2.54 2.23 0 0.01 0 0.01 0.01 0.61 0.70 0.65 0.55 0.52 9.07 23.29 6.97 14.51 12.18 0.49 27.68 0.18 0.14 177 120 1831 174 146 Screening Level ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 6.5‐8.5 6.5‐8.5 6.5‐8.5 6.5‐8.5 6.5‐8.5 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 500 500 500 500 500 Units mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l pH units pH units pH units pH units pH units mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L ND > SC ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 5 11 5 27 7 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 4 4 3 13 2 1 2 0 3 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 1 7 2 2 PD > SC ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 50% 65% 63% 77% 100% ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 100% 67% 75% 87% 40% 9% 10% 0% 6% 0% ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 10% 5% 78% 4% 17% Page 6 of 12 Summary of Sample Count, Minimum, Maximum, Mean, Median, and Standard Deviation of Parameters in Various Formations  using Williams 1998 Historical (1935‐1986) Water Well Data Base for Bradford County, PA Constituent Name Zinc Zinc Zinc Zinc Zinc Geology Catskill Lockhaven RestrictedFlow StratifiedDrift Till Fraction D D D D D Count 10 20 8 46 12 Min 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 Max 1.23 0.08 0.67 0.47 0.11 Mean 0.30 0.02 0.15 0.05 0.04 Median 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.03 StDev 0.48 0.02 0.24 0.08 0.03 Screening Level ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Units mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l ND > SC ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ PD > SC ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ D = Dissolved ug/L = Micrograms per Liter mg/L = Milligrams per Liter StDev = Standard Deviation ND > SC = Number of Detections Above Screening Criteria PD > SC = Percent of Detections Above Screening Criteria Screening Criteria Include MCLs, SMCLs, EPA Regional Screening Values (Tap Water), and PADEP Act 2 Values (Groundwater) Appendix C Page 7 of 12 ± Legend Retrospective Sampling List ^ _ _ ^ ! CHK Split Samples from EPA Retrospective Study Wells EPA Restrospective Study Well Not Split Sampled by CHK Baseline Samples ! ! ! !!! ! !!! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !!!!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! !!!! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! Property ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! Owner ! J! !Property ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Owner L! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! SUSQUEHANNA ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! !!!! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !!! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !!! ! ! !! !! ! !!! !!!! ! !!! !!! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !Property ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!!!! !! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Property ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! !! !! ! !!!! !! ! ! Owner C ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !!!! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! Owner! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !B !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! BRADFORD !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! !!!! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! !! !! !!! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!!!!!!! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! !! !! !! Property !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !!!! ! ! !!!!! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! !!!!! ! !! ! ! ! ! M ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! Owner!!! !! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! Property ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!! ! ! !! !!!! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !!! ! Property ! !! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! Owner ! !! ! !! !! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! !! !! !!! ! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! D ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Owner K ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !!!! ! !! !! !! !! ! !! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! !!! ! !!!!!!!! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! Property !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! !! ! !!! !! !! ! !! !! !!!! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! !!!! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! Owner H !! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !!!!!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! !!!! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! Property ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! !!!! ! ! !! ! !!!! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! G !! Owner ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!!!! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! !! !! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! !! ! Property ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! !! ! ! ! Owner A ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! Property !!! !!!! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! Owner ! I ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! !! (203-ft) ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! Property ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Owner I ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! (142-ft)! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! !!! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !!! !!! ! !!! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! !!!! !!!! ! !! ! !Property ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! E! !! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! Owner ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! !!! (115-ft) ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Property ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! Owner !E ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! (185-ft) ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !!! !! !! !! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! !! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! !!! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! WYOMING ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !!!!! ! !! !!!! !!! !! !! ! ! ! ! Updated: 4/10/2012 ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! !! !! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! Scale: 1 inch = 3 miles ! !! ! ! Areas States _ ^ ^ _ ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !!!! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! !!!! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! !! !! ! !! ! !! !! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! !!! !! ! !!! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! !! ! !!!!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !!! !!! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! !! !!!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! !! ! !! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! !! ! ! !!! !!!!! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! Property! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! !!! ! !!! !! !! !!! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! !!! !!! !! ! ! ! ! Owner F ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! !!!!! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! !! ! !!!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! !! !! !! ! !!!!! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! !! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! !! !! !!! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !!! ! !!!! ! !! !! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!!!! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! !!!! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !!!!!!! !!! !!! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! !!! ! !! ! !!! ! ! !!! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !!! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !!! !!!! ! !! ! !!!!! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !!!!! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! _ ^ _ _^ ^ Western _ ^ ! _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ Eastern _ ^ ^^ _ _ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ Central _ _ ^^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ ^ _ Regulatory Baseline Sampling Program Baseline Samples Near EPA Sites Author: Shea Shelby Projection: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N 0 LYCOMING 0.5 1 2 3 4 SULLIVAN Miles Appendix C Page 8 of 12 Regional Baseline Summary, Groundwater (WESTERN) Southside Road Area Sample Date Range Property Owners Unique sources tested Total Tests 8/11/2009 1004 1196 1238 1/9/2012 42 sources were tested more than once as baseline Source Type Wells Dug Wells Artesian Wells Total Tests Parameter Arsenic Barium Benzene Bicarbonate Alkalinity as CaCO3 Bromide Cadmium Calcium Carbonate as CaCO3 Chloride Chromium Ethane Ethyl-benzene Iron Lead Lithium Magnesium Manganese MBAS (mol.wt 320) Mercury Oil & Grease HEM pH Potassium Propane Selenium Silver Sodium Specific conductance Strontium Sulfate Sulfur Temp of pH determ. Toluene TDS TSS Turbidity Xylenes, total Parameter Methane Appendix C Count 1180 42 16 1238 Units Standard Standard Limit mg/L Primary 0.01 mg/L Primary 2 µg/L Primary 5 Primary 0.005 mg/L Secondary 250 mg/L Primary 0.1 700 mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L µg/L Primary mg/L Secondary 0.3 mg/L Action Level 0.015 mg/L Action Level 0.073 mg/L Secondary 0.05 mg/L Secondary 0.5 mg/L Primary 0.002 Secondary 6.5-8.5 mg/L Primary 0.05 mg/L Secondary 0.1 Secondary 250 µg/L Primary 1000 mg/L Secondary 500 mg/L mg/L pH units mg/L mg/L mg/L umho/cm mg/L mg/L mg/L Deg C mg/L NTU CHK Arbitrary 5 µg/L Primary 10000 Units Standard Standard Limit mg/L CHK 3, 7, 20 Number of Samples 1220 1238 1238 1238 299 1220 1238 1238 1238 1220 1238 1238 1238 1220 277 1238 1238 1238 1220 1237 1238 1238 1238 1220 1220 1238 1238 676 1238 1220 1238 1238 1238 1238 1238 1238 Number of Detections 83 1207 2 1226 19 6 1212 47 1004 11 41 0 843 155 71 1179 880 191 0 6 1238 1046 0 2 0 1208 1238 627 1095 1091 1238 14 1236 559 766 1 Number of Samples 1238 Methane Detections 504 Minimum Detected Value 0.0101 0.0101 0.79 11 1.04 0.0011 1.06 10.2 1.06 0.005 0.00506 0 0.05 0.005 0.0501 1 0.015 0.0501 0 1.5 4.3 1 0 0.0466 0 1 23.2 0.0501 1 0.52 21 0.5 14 1 1 1.13 Maximum Detected Value 0.371 46.7 1.33 446 8.75 0.0088 420 70.6 2200 0.0235 0.477 0 350 0.131 0.398 135 10.2 63 0 118 9 11.3 0 0.169 0 1120 12300 64.4 1070 362 25 8.75 4600 2360 553 1.13 Mean Detected Value 0.05 0.75 1.06 173.32 3.35 0.00 50.34 27.84 66.03 0.01 0.10 N/A 1.81 0.02 0.12 11.82 0.35 0.44 N/A 38.35 7.67 2.08 N/A 0.11 N/A 52.22 584.85 1.55 30.13 10.17 21.91 1.53 317.08 14.19 11.48 1.13 Median Detected Count Exceeding Value Standard 0.03 83 0.16 89 1.06 0 174.00 --2.62 --0.00 1 46.10 --23.60 --15.85 54 0.01 0 0.06 --N/A 0 0.27 402 0.01 38 0.09 48 10.20 --0.13 663 0.08 4 N/A 0 23.40 --7.70 --1.73 --N/A --0.11 1 N/A 0 27.40 --457.00 --0.76 --18.50 14 6.09 --21.70 --0.93 0 248.00 141 2.20 --3.10 283 1.13 0 Percent Methane Maximum Detections Detected Value 40.7 72.1 Mean Detected Value 4.12 Median Detected Value 0.703 Number over 3 mg/L 149 Percent of Samples Over Standard 6.8 7.2 N/A ----0.1 ----4.4 N/A --N/A 32.5 3.1 17.3 --53.6 0.3 N/A --------0.1 N/A ------1.1 ----N/A 11.4 ----N/A Number Over 7 mg/L 95 Number over 20 mg/L 30 Page 9 of 12 Regional Baseline Summary, Groundwater (EASTERN) 5 Mile Radius of Brotzman's Cistern Sample Date Range 6/24/2009 Property Owners 502 Unique sources tested 570 Source Type Wells Dug Wells Artesian Wells Total Tests Parameter Arsenic Barium Benzene Bicarbonate Alkalinity as CaCO3 Bromide Cadmium Calcium Carbonate as CaCO3 Chloride Chromium Ethane Ethyl-benzene Iron Lead Lithium Magnesium Manganese MBAS (mol.wt 320) Mercury Oil & Grease HEM pH Potassium Propane Selenium Silver Sodium Specific conductance Strontium Sulfate Sulfur Temp of pH determ. Toluene TDS TSS Turbidity Xylenes, total Parameter Methane Appendix C 1/4/2012 Count 552 15 3 570 Units Standard Standard Li mg/L Primary mg/L Primary 0.01 2 µg/L Primary 5 Primary 0.005 mg/L Secondary 250 mg/L Primary 0.1 700 mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L µg/L Primary mg/L Secondary 0.3 mg/L Action Level 0.015 mg/L Action Level 0.073 mg/L Secondary 0.05 mg/L Secondary 0.5 mg/L Primary 0.002 Secondary 6.5-8.5 mg/L Primary 0.05 mg/L Secondary 0.1 Secondary 250 µg/L Primary 1000 mg/L Secondary 500 mg/L mg/L pH units mg/L mg/L mg/L umho/cm mg/L mg/L mg/L Deg C mg/L NTU CHK Arbitrary 5 µg/L Primary 10000 Units Standard Standard Limit mg/L CHK 3, 7, 20 Number of Samples 542 562 562 562 39 542 562 562 562 542 570 562 562 542 37 562 562 562 542 561 562 562 570 542 542 562 562 104 562 528 562 562 562 562 562 562 Number of Detections 10 557 1 560 1 2 555 23 392 6 7 0 262 60 7 548 262 94 1 2 562 487 0 0 0 560 562 100 513 480 562 1 562 172 214 1 Minimum Detected Value 0.0103 0.0217 0.61 11.3 11.1 0.0012 1.07 10.1 1.11 0.0056 0.0281 0 0.0512 0.0051 0.0613 1.01 0.0152 0.0501 0.00027 109 5.6 1 0 0 0 1.19 31.2 0.0573 1.22 0.55 21 1.64 12 0.4 1 0.81 Maximum Detected Value 0.199 6.46 0.61 303 11.1 0.0013 82.7 81.4 848 0.0748 0.123 0 91.4 0.589 0.381 27.4 124 5.42 0.00027 110 9.4 86.8 0 0 0 732 3440 3.21 77.9 24.8 25 1.64 1760 339 204 0.81 Mean Detected Value 0.04 0.40 0.61 134.52 11.10 0.00 31.23 28.37 22.46 0.03 0.08 N/A 1.07 0.03 0.17 8.98 0.66 0.15 0.00 109.50 7.64 1.86 N/A N/A N/A 27.17 347.49 0.76 16.11 5.17 21.96 1.64 187.22 13.09 8.85 0.81 Median Detected Count Exceeding Value Standard 0.02 10 0.18 15 0.61 0 140.00 --11.10 --0.00 0 29.70 --19.00 --8.58 4 0.02 0 0.09 --N/A 0 0.16 88 0.01 18 0.13 5 8.22 --0.06 143 0.07 1 0.00 0 109.50 --7.70 --1.53 --N/A --N/A 0 N/A 0 15.90 --324.00 --0.58 --14.70 0 4.40 --21.85 --1.64 0 176.00 6 2.30 --2.20 55 0.81 0 Percent of Samples Over Standard 1.8 2.7 N/A ----N/A ----0.7 N/A --N/A 15.7 3.3 13.5 --25.4 0.2 N/A --------N/A N/A ------N/A ----N/A 1.1 ----N/A Number of Samples 570 Methane Detections 157 Methane Percent Detections 27.5 Maximum Detected Value 40.7 Mean Detected Value 4.14 Median Detected Value 0.518 Number Over 7 mg/L 19 Number over 3 mg/L 15 Number over 20 mg/L 11 Page 10 of 12 Regional Baseline Summary, Groundwater (CENTRAL) 3 Mile Buffer around Terry Twp EPA Split Sampling Residents Sample Date Range 9/17/2009 1/10/2012 Property Owners 1686 Unique sources tested 1933 32 sources were tested more than once as baseline Source Type Wells Dug Wells Artesian Wells Total Tests Parameter Arsenic Barium Benzene Bicarbonate Alkalinity as CaCO3 Bromide Cadmium Calcium Carbonate as CaCO3 Chloride Chromium Ethane Ethyl-benzene Iron Lead Lithium Magnesium Manganese MBAS (mol.wt 320) Mercury Oil & Grease HEM pH Potassium Propane Selenium Silver Sodium Specific conductance Strontium Sulfate Sulfur Temp of pH determ. Toluene TDS TSS Turbidity Xylenes, total Parameter Methane Appendix C Count 1886 58 21 1965 Units Standard Standard Limit mg/L Primary 0.01 mg/L Primary 2 µg/L Primary 5 Primary 0.005 mg/L Secondary 250 mg/L Primary 0.1 700 mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L µg/L Primary mg/L Secondary 0.3 mg/L Action Level 0.015 mg/L Action Level 0.073 mg/L Secondary 0.05 mg/L Secondary 0.5 mg/L Primary 0.002 Secondary 6.5-8.5 mg/L Primary 0.05 mg/L Secondary 0.1 Secondary 250 µg/L Primary 1000 mg/L Secondary 500 mg/L mg/L pH units mg/L mg/L mg/L umho/cm mg/L mg/L mg/L Deg C mg/L NTU CHK Arbitrary 5 µg/L Primary 10000 Units Standard Standard Limit mg/L CHK 3, 7, 20 Number of Samples 1953 1961 1960 1961 304 1953 1961 1960 1960 1953 1965 1960 1961 1953 254 1961 1961 1960 1953 1961 1961 1961 1965 1953 1953 1961 1961 775 1961 1935 1961 1960 1961 1961 1961 1960 Number of Detections 71 1926 0 1956 5 8 1923 73 1440 10 25 1 1103 179 40 1873 936 269 1 5 1961 1446 3 2 0 1958 1961 722 1825 1821 1961 11 1961 662 963 3 Minimum Detected Value 0.01 0.0104 0 11.5 1.96 0.0012 1.09 10 1.04 0.0054 0.00525 0.6 0.05 0.005 0.0505 1 0.015 0.0503 0.000224 1.4 5.4 1 0.0204 0.0218 0 1 49.7 0.05 1.05 0.5 21 0.56 17 1 1 0.61 Maximum Detected Value 0.166 32.5 0 367 8.54 0.0266 229 77.9 1980 0.0228 0.484 0.6 65 0.46 0.99 41.4 4.01 0.608 0.000224 452 9.3 21 0.038 0.169 0 1610 9200 13.4 350 120 211 18.8 5410 1370 977 2.95 Mean Detected Value 0.04 0.47 N/A 148.41 6.63 0.01 39.88 27.01 33.46 0.01 0.10 0.60 0.93 0.03 0.12 8.50 0.23 0.12 0.00 191.46 7.63 1.77 0.03 0.10 N/A 33.14 409.02 0.78 17.65 5.78 21.96 4.89 222.73 13.17 9.64 1.67 Median Detected Value 0.02 0.17 N/A 151.00 7.55 0.00 40.20 24.40 9.07 0.01 0.07 0.60 0.21 0.01 0.09 7.49 0.10 0.09 0.00 97.90 7.70 1.50 0.03 0.10 N/A 14.00 355.00 0.46 14.90 4.66 21.70 1.30 195.00 2.40 2.60 1.44 Number of Samples 1965 Methane Detections 526 Percent Methane Detections 26.8 Maximum Detected Value 43.3 Mean Detected Value 3.27 Median Detected Value 0.3585 Count Exceeding Standard 70 100 0 ----1 ----32 0 --0 419 66 25 --644 4 0 --------1 0 ------2 ----0 54 --280 0 Percent of Samples Over Standard 3.6 5.1 N/A ----0.1 ----1.6 N/A --N/A 21.4 3.4 9.8 --32.8 0.2 N/A --------0.1 N/A ------0.1 ----N/A 2.8 ----N/A Number over Number Over Number over 3 mg/L 7 mg/L 20 mg/L 135 73 25 Page 11 of 12 Central Parameter Lead Lithium Standard 0.005 0.031 Count Exceeeding Standard 174 40 Percent of Detections 8.9 15.7 Eastern Count Exceeeding Standard 60 7 Percent of Detections 11.1 18.9 Western Count Exceeeding Standard 152 71 Percent of Detections 12.5 25.6 Groundwater only Bradford county Appendix C Page 12 of 12 APPENDIX TIME PLOTS 4/13/2012 APPENDIX D-1 TIME PLOTS PROPERTY OWNER A Property Owner A Well Barium Cuncentratiens vs. Time Compared to NURE, NWIS, Williams '98, and Baseline Data 5 5 Ba -Catsliill NURE NWIS Williams '98 Baseline l[neutral 32.5 45 Count NA NA NA 1926 45 Std. Dev. NA NA NA NA Mil'l NA NA 0.010 4 Mail NA NA NA 32.5 4 Mean NA NA NA 0.4? 3.5 Median NA NA N?i 0.1? 3.5 3 3 BariumTurbidity 365 NTU 5 TBS 1,430 and 312 5 I Dissolved Barium H.354 -- Uni? - "Ii? laflajztilti Tf18f2011 11f4j2011 NUBE NWIS Williams '98 Baseline Sample Dates, Data Ranges, and Means Appendix D-1 Page 1 of 7 Property Owner A Well Chloride Concentrations vs. Time Compared to NURE, NWIS, Williams '93, and Baseline Data 150 150 NURE HWIS Williams '98 Baseline Central 140 Cnunt 51 2D 12 144:) 14g 130 Std. Dev. 13.5 an 24.3 NA 1343 Min 3.: 2 .1 1.04 120 Max 37.5 as 133D 12a Mean 11.6 33.5 110 Median 7.2 13 9.lensiznla Ir'fl?fz?ll ?reman NURE Williams '93 Baseline Sample Dates.r Data Flanges, and Means Appendix Page 2 of 7 Property Owner A Well Iron Concentrations us. Time Compared to NURE, NWIS, Williams '93, and Baseline Data 1D Fe -l:atsli.ill NURE NWIS Williams '93 Baseline Central ?55 9 Count NA 20 12 1103 9 Std. DEV. NA 1.3 1.63 NA Min NA 3.04 0.04 0.05 -- Mall: NA 5.6 5.5 65 El Mean NA 0.516 0.833- 0.93 Median NA 0.115 0.315 n.21 i 6 Eh int 5 Turbidity 865 NTLI 1.430 and 312 mgi'L 4 Dissolved Iron 2 DEBAS 4 a 3 2 2 0.333 ?33 1 0.516 ii a if ?if l?fl?fl?l? Ulisjzoll llfd??ll NURE NWIS Williams '93 Baseline Sample Dates.r Data Ranges, and Means Appendix D-1 Page 3 of 7 Property Owner A Well Manganese Concentrations 05. Time Compared to NURE, NWIS, Williams '98, and Baseline Data 9 5 Mn {atskill MUHE NWIS Williams '93 Baseline Central 4 Count 51 15 10 995 510.020. 0.09? 0.095 0.09? NA 3-5 [1.050 0.01 0.01 {1.015 3-5 13.255 0.3 0.3 4.01 mean 0.103 0.099 0.059 0.29 medias 0.093 0.09 0.05 0.1 2 2 El: 1.5 1.5 Turbidity=865 NTLJ T55 1,490 and 512 Dissolved Manganese {1.959 mg!L.1.02 mgfL, and 1.33 mgi0.25 0.105 .1033 0 . 0 10.03.0010 1119:2011 1002011 Williams '99 Baseline Sample Dates, Data Ranges]r and Means Appendix D-1 Page 4 of 7 Property Owner A Well Methane Concentrations vs. Time Compared to NURE, NWIS Data, Williams '93, and Baseline Data 25 25 (Ha-Catskill MUHE MWIE Williams '93 Baseline ?Central Count MA MA MIA 526 Std. Davwill. will ELDEIE 20 Max MA on an 43.3 2D Mean HA ?will. an 3.2? Median NA ?th 0.359 l?fla??l? ?,i15,i'2011 afn?oll 5:113:11 llfa?oll NWIS Williams "55 Baseline Sample Dates, Data Flanges, and Means Appendix D-1 Page 5 of 7 Property Owner A Well Sodium Concentrations vs. Time Compared to NURE, NWIS, Williams '98, and Baseline Data HUHE NWIS Williams '93 Central 90 51 1? It 1953 Sid. DEV. 20.9 15? 42.4 NA Min 2.7? 11 5 1 3.3 Max 1:15 329 132 Mean 35.1 42.0 Mecian 3.53 23 13Tf18f2011 lull-[21311 NURE NWIS Williams "38 Baseline Sample Dates, Data Ranges, and Means Appendix D-1 Page 6 of 7 EDD 45D 35D 31]] TDS. mgIL EDD 15Dl 51] Appendix D-1 Property Owner A Well TDS Concentratiens us. Time Compared to NURE, NWIS, Williams '98, and Baseline Data TDE -Eatsltill 1011311010 NUHE Count NA mane-.1. NA Min MA 4131) Ma}: NA Mean NA Medan NA 111311011 NHUIS 35 551 4BSU 361 212 Williams ?93 Baseline Eentral 10 100 630 253 208 111411011 Sample Dates, Date Flanges,r and Means 1951 l? 223 NUHE NWIS Ba5eHne EDD 450 35E) EDD 250 EDD 15E) IUD 5D Page 7 of 7 APPENDIX D-2 TIME PLOTS PROPERTY OWNER       Property Owner B Brotzman Spring Barium Concentrations vs. Time  Compared to NURE, NWIS, Williams '98, and Baseline Data 5 5 6.46 4.5 4.5 4 4 3.5 Barium, mg/L 3.5 3 3 2.5 2.5 2 2 1.5 1.5 1 1 0.5 0.4 Baseline 0.5 0 0 10/14/2010 11/4/2011 NURE NWIS Williams '98 Baseline Sample Dates, Data Ranges, and Means Appendix D‐2    Page 1 of 5        Property Owner B Brotzman Spring Chloride Concentrations vs. Time Compared to NURE, NWIS, Williams '98, and Baseline Data 150 150 408 140 Chloride, mg/L 848 140 130 130 120 120 110 110 100 100 90 90 80 80 70 70 60 60 50 50 43.4 40 40 30 30 25.1 20 10 22.5 11.6 Baseline 20 10 0 0 10/14/2010 11/4/2011 NURE NWIS Williams '98 Baseline Sample Dates, Data Ranges, and Means Appendix D‐2    Page 2 of 5        Brotzman Spring Methane Concentrations  vs. Time Property Owner B Compared to NURE, NWIS Data, Williams '98, and Baseline Data 25 25 Methane, mg/L 40.7 20 20 15 15 10 10 5 5 4.14 Baseline 0 0 10/14/2010 11/4/2011 NURE NWIS Williams '98 Baseline Sample Dates, Data Ranges, and Means Appendix D‐2    Page 3 of 5        Property Owner B Brotzman Spring Sodium Concentrations vs. Time Compared to NURE, NWIS, Williams '98, and Baseline Data 100 100 145 829 132 1610 90 90 Sodium, mg/L 85.1 80 80 70 70 60 60 50 50 42.0 40 40 30 30 27.2 20 20 14.0 10 10 Baseline 0 0 10/14/2010 11/4/2011 NURE NWIS Williams '98 Baseline Sample Dates, Data Ranges, and Means Appendix D‐2    Page 4 of 5        Property Owner B Brotzman Spring TDS Concentrations vs. Time Compared to NURE, NWIS, Williams '98, and Baseline Data 500 500 4050 680 1760 450 450 400 400 362 350 350 TDS, mg/L 300 300 263 250 250 200 200 187 150 150 100 100 Baseline 50 50 0 0 10/14/2010 11/4/2011 NURE NWIS Williams '98 Baseline Sample Dates, Data Ranges, and Means Appendix D‐2    Page 5 of 5  APPENDIX D-3 TIME PLOTS PROPERTY OWNER     5   Property Owner C Brown Well Barium Concentrations vs. Time  Compared to NURE, NWIS, Williams '98, and Baseline Data 98 Max 11.9 Mean 4.5 98 Max 15.4 Mean 5 32.5 4.5 4 4 3.5 3.5 Barium, mg/L 3 3 2.5 2.5 2 2 Baseline 1.5 1.5 1 1 0.5 0.47 0 0.5 0 4/29/2011 10/27/2011 NURE NWIS Williams '98 Restricted Baseline Sample Dates, Data Ranges, and Means   Appendix D‐3    Page 1 of 7        Property Owner C Brown Well Chloride Concentrations vs. Time  Compared to NURE, NWIS, Williams '98, and Baseline Data 1000 5050 950 1000 1980 950 900 900 850 850 800 800 750 750 700 Chloride, mg/L 3500 700 693 650 650 600 600 550 550 500 500 450 450 400 400 350 Baseline 350 318 300 300 250 250 200 200 150 150 100 100 50 33.5 16.0 0 4/29/2011 10/27/2011 NURE 0 NWIS Sample Dates, Data Ranges, and Means Appendix D‐3    50 Williams '98 Restricted Baseline   Page 2 of 7        Property Owner C Brown Well Iron Concentrations vs. Time  Compared to NURE, NWIS, Williams '98, and Baseline Data 5 5 65 4 3 3 2 2 Iron, mg/L 4 1.29 1 0.93 Baseline Dissolved Iron <0.05 mg/L U 0.368 0 0 4/29/2011 10/27/2011 NURE NWIS Sample Dates, Data Ranges, and Means Appendix D‐3  1   Williams '98 Restricted Baseline   Page 3 of 7      1   Property Owner C Brown Well Manganese Concentrations vs. Time  Compared to NURE, NWIS, Williams '98, and Baseline Data 1 Manganese, mg/L 4.01 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.23 0.2 0.2 0.182 0.128 0.1 0.123 0.1 Baseline 0 0 4/29/2011 10/27/2011 NURE NWIS Williams '98 Restricted Baseline Sample Dates, Data Ranges, and Means   Appendix D‐3    Page 4 of 7        Methane, mg/L Property Owner C Brown Well Methane Concentrations vs. Time Compared to NURE, NWIS, Williams '98, and Baseline Data 100 100 90 90 80 80 70 70 60 60 50 50 40 40 30 30 Baseline 20 20 10 10 3.27 0 0 4/29/2011 10/27/2011 NURE NWIS Sample Dates, Data Ranges, and Means Appendix D‐3    Williams '98 Restricted Baseline   Page 5 of 7      500   Property Owner C Brown Well Sodium Concentrations vs. Time Compared to NURE, NWIS, Williams '98, and Baseline Data 2510 2000 500 1610 450 450 Sodium, mg/L 431 400 400 350 350 300 300 Baseline 250 250 248 200 200 150 150 100 100 50 50 33.1 19.2 0 0 4/29/2011 10/27/2011 NURE NWIS Sample Dates, Data Ranges, and Means Appendix D‐3    Williams '98 Restricted Baseline   Page 6 of 7        Property Owner C Brown Well TDS Concentrations vs. Time Compared to NURE, NWIS, Williams '98, and Baseline Data 2500 2500 9200 6100 5410 2000 2000 1510 1500 TDS, mg/L 1500 1000 1000 Baseline 676 500 500 223 0 0 4/29/2011 10/27/2011 NURE NWIS Williams '98 Restricted Baseline Sample Dates, Data Ranges, and Means Appendix D‐3    Page 7 of 7  APPENDIX D-4 TIME PLOTS PROPERTY OWNER       Property Owner D Davenport Well Barium Concentrations vs. Time  Compared to NURE, NWIS, Williams '98, and Baseline Data 5 5 98 Max 11.9 Mean 32.5 4.5 4.5 4 4 Barium, mg/L 3.5 3.5 3 3 2.5 2.5 2 2 1.5 1.5 1 1 0.5 0 0.47 0.227 Baseline 1/10/2010 0.5 0 6/10/2011 10/28/2011 NURE NWIS Williams '98 Baseline Sample Dates, Data Ranges, and Means   Appendix D‐4    Page 1 of 7        Property Owner D Davenport Well Chloride Concentrations vs. Time Compared to NURE, NWIS, Williams '98, and Baseline Data 150 150 228 Chloride, mg/L 140 1980 5050 Max 318 Mean 140 130 130 120 120 110 110 100 100 90 90 80 80 70 70 60 60 50 50 40 40 33.5 30 20 10 20 16.6 16.0 30 10 Baseline 0 0 1/10/2010 6/10/2011 10/28/2011 NURE NWIS Williams '98 Baseline Sample Dates, Data Ranges, and Means   Appendix D‐4    Page 2 of 7        Davenport Well Iron Concentrations vs. Time  Property Owner D Compared to NURE, NWIS, Williams '98, and Baseline Data 5 5 65 4 3 3 2 2 Iron, mg/L 4 1 0.93 Baseline 0.368 0.393 0 0 1/10/2010 6/10/2011 10/28/2011 NURE NWIS Sample Dates, Data Ranges, and Means Appendix D‐4  1   Williams '98 Baseline   Page 3 of 7        Property Owner D Davenport Well Manganese Concentrations vs. Time Compared to NURE, NWIS, Williams '98, and Baseline Data 1 1 Manganese, mg/L 2.6 4.01 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.264 0.23 0.2 0.2 0.182 0.128 0.1 0.1 Baseline 0 0 1/10/2010 6/10/2011 10/28/2011 NURE NWIS Williams '98 Baseline Sample Dates, Data Ranges, and Means   Appendix D‐4    Page 4 of 7        Property Owner D Davenport Well Methane Concentrations vs. Time Compared to NURE,NWIS, Williams '98, and Baseline Data 25 25 Methane, mg/L 43.3 20 20 15 15 10 10 5 5 3.27 Baseline 0 0 1/10/2010 6/10/2011 10/28/2011 NURE NWIS Williams '98 Baseline Sample Dates, Data Ranges, and Means   Appendix D‐4    Page 5 of 7        Property Owner D Davenport Well Sodium Concentrations vs. Time Compared to NURE, NWIS, Williams '98, and Baseline Data 200 200 2510 Max 248 Mean Sodium, mg/L 180 1610 180 160 160 140 140 120 120 100 100 Baseline 80 80 60 60 40 40 38.6 33.1 20 20 19.2 0 0 1/10/2010 6/10/2011 10/28/2011 NURE NWIS Williams '98 Baseline Sample Dates, Data Ranges, and Means Appendix D‐4    Page 6 of 7        Davenport Well TDS Concentrations vs. Time Property Owner D Compared to NURE, NWIS, Williams '98, and Baseline Data 1000 1000 9200 5410 900 900 800 800 700 700 TDS, mg/L 676 600 600 500 500 400 400 300 300 275 Baseline 223 200 100 200 100 0 0 1/10/2010 6/10/2011 10/28/2011 NURE NWIS Williams '98 Baseline Sample Dates, Data Ranges, and Means Appendix D‐4    Page 7 of 7  APPENDIX D-5 TIME PLOTS PROPERTY OWNER (115-FT)       Property Owner E Davis‐Egge (115 ft.) Well Barium Concentrations vs. Time  Compared to NURE, NWIS, Williams '98, and Baseline Data 5 5 32.5 4.5 4.5 4 4 Barium, mg/L 3.5 3.5 3 3 2.5 2.5 2 2 1.5 1.5 1 1 Baseline 0.5 0.47 0 0.5 0 4/1/2010 8/12/2010 1/8/2011 11/4/2011 NURE NWIS Williams '98 Baseline Sample Dates, Data Ranges, and Means   Appendix D‐5    Page 1 of 7        Property Owner E Davis‐Egge (115 ft.) Well Chloride Concentrations vs. Time  Compared to NURE, NWIS, Williams '98, and Baseline Data 150 150 Chloride, mg/L 1980 408 140 140 130 130 120 120 110 110 100 100 90 90 80 80 70 70 60 60 50 50 43.4 40 40 33.5 30 20 30 25.1 Baseline 20 11.6 10 10 0 0 4/1/2010 8/12/2010 1/8/2011 11/4/2011 NURE NWIS Williams '98 Baseline Sample Dates, Data Ranges, and Means   Appendix D‐5    Page 2 of 7        Property Owner E Davis‐Egge (115 ft.) Well Iron Concentrations vs. Time  Compared to NURE, NWIS, Williams '98, and Baseline Data 5 5 Iron, mg/L 5.6 5.6 65 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 0.833 0.93 1 0.616 Baseline 0 0 4/1/2010 8/12/2010 1/8/2011 11/4/2011 NURE NWIS Williams '98 Baseline Sample Dates, Data Ranges, and Means   Appendix D‐5    Page 3 of 7        Property Owner E Davis‐Egge (115 ft.) Well Manganese Concentrations vs. Time  Compared to NURE, NWIS, Williams '98, and Baseline Data 1 1 Manganese, mg/L 4.01 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.23 0.2 0.2 0.103 0.1 0.093 Baseline 0.1 0.083 0 0 4/1/2010 8/12/2010 1/8/2011 11/4/2011 NURE NWIS Williams '98 Baseline Sample Dates, Data Ranges, and Means   Appendix D‐5    Page 4 of 7        Methane, mg/L Property Owner E Davis‐Egge (115 ft.) Well Methane Concentrations vs. Time Compared to NURE, NWIS, Williams '98, and Baseline Data 100 100 90 90 80 80 70 70 60 60 50 50 40 40 Baseline 30 30 20 20 10 10 3.27 0 0 4/1/2010 8/12/2010 1/8/2011 11/4/2011 NURE NWIS Williams '98 Baseline Sample Dates, Data Ranges, and Means   Appendix D‐5    Page 5 of 7        Property Owner E Davis‐Egge (115 ft.) Well Sodium Concentrations vs. Time Compared to NURE, NWIS, Williams '98, and Baseline Data 100 100 145 829 132 1610 90 90 Sodium, mg/L 85.1 80 80 70 70 60 60 50 50 42.0 40 40 33.1 30 30 Baseline 20 20 14.0 10 10 0 0 4/1/2010 8/12/2010 1/8/2011 11/4/2011 NURE NWIS Williams '98 Baseline Sample Dates, Data Ranges, and Means   Appendix D‐5    Page 6 of 7        Property Owner E Davis‐Egge (115 ft.) Well TDS Concentrations vs. Time Compared to NURE, NWIS, Williams '98, and Baseline Data 1000 1000 5410 TDS, mg/L 4050 900 900 800 800 700 700 600 600 500 500 400 400 362 300 300 263 223 200 200 Baseline 100 100 0 0 4/1/2010 8/12/2010 1/8/2011 11/4/2011 NURE NWIS Williams '98 Baseline Sample Dates, Data Ranges, and Means Appendix D‐5    Page 7 of 7  APPENDIX D-6 TIME PLOTS PROPERTY OWNER (185-FT)       Davis‐Egge (185 ft.) Well Barium Concentrations vs. Time  Property Owner E Compared to NURE, NWIS, Williams '98, and Baseline Data 5 5 32.5 4.5 4.5 4 4 Barium, mg/L 3.5 3.5 3 3 2.5 2.5 2 2 1.5 1.5 1 1 0.5 0 0.47 Baseline 4/1/2010 0.5 0 8/12/2010 1/8/2011 11/4/2011 NURE NWIS Williams '98 Baseline Sample Dates, Data Ranges, and Means   Appendix D‐6    Page 1 of 7        Property Owner E Davis‐Egge (185 ft.) Well Chloride Concentrations vs. Time Compared to NURE, NWIS, Williams '98, and Baseline Data 150 150 408 1980 Chloride, mg/L 140 140 130 130 120 120 110 110 100 100 90 90 80 80 70 70 60 60 50 50 43.4 40 40 33.5 30 30 25.1 20 10 20 Baseline 11.6 10 0 0 4/1/2010 8/12/2010 1/8/2011 11/4/2011 NURE NWIS Williams '98 Baseline Sample Dates, Data Ranges, and Means   Appendix D‐6    Page 2 of 7        Property Owner E Davis‐Egge (185 ft.) Well Iron Concentrations vs. Time  Compared to NURE, NWIS, Williams '98, and Baseline Data 10 10 Iron, mg/L 65 9 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 0.616 Baseline 0.833 0.93 0 1 0 4/1/2010 1/8/2011 11/4/2011 NURE NWIS Williams '98 Baseline Sample Dates, Data Ranges, and Means   Appendix D‐6    Page 3 of 7        Property Owner E Davis‐Egge (185 ft.) Well Manganese Concentrations vs. Time  Compared to NURE, NWIS, Williams '98, and Baseline Data 1 1 Manganese, mg/L 4.01 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.23 0.2 0.2 0.103 0.1 0 0.093 0.1 0.083 Baseline 4/1/2010 0 8/12/2010 1/8/2011 11/4/2011 NURE NWIS Williams '98 Baseline Sample Dates, Data Ranges, and Means   Appendix D‐6    Page 4 of 7        Property Owner E Davis‐Egge (185 ft.) Well Methane Concentrations vs. Time Compared to NURE, NWIS, Williams '98, and Baseline Data 25 25 Methane, mg/L 43.3 20 20 15 15 10 10 Baseline 5 5 3.27 0 0 4/1/2010 8/12/2010 1/8/2011 11/4/2011 NURE NWIS Williams '98 Baseline Sample Dates, Data Ranges, and Means   Appendix D‐6    Page 5 of 7        Property Owner E Davis‐Egge (185 ft.) Well Sodium Concentrations vs. Time Compared to NURE, NWIS, Williams '98, and Baseline Data 100 100 145 829 132 1610 90 90 Sodium, mg/L 85.1 80 80 70 70 60 60 50 50 42.0 40 40 33.1 30 20 30 Baseline 20 14.0 10 10 0 0 4/1/2010 8/12/2010 1/8/2011 11/4/2011 NURE NWIS Williams '98 Baseline Sample Dates, Data Ranges, Means   Appendix D‐6    Page 6 of 7        Property Owner E Davis‐Egge (185 ft.) Well TDS Concentrations vs. Time Compared to NURE, NWIS, Williams '98, and Baseline Data 1000 1000 5410 TDS, mg/L 4050 900 900 800 800 700 700 600 600 500 500 400 400 362 300 300 263 223 200 200 Baseline 100 100 0 0 4/1/2010 8/12/2010 1/8/2011 11/4/2011 NURE Sample Dates, Data Ranges, and Means Appendix D‐6    NWIS Williams '98 Baseline   Page 7 of 7  APPENDIX D-7 TIME PLOTS PROPERTY OWNER Property Owner Well Barium Concentrations vs. Time Compared to NURE, NWIS, Williams and Baseline Data 5 5 Ba- Lock Haven NUHE MWIS Williams '00 Baseline Western 93 45-7" 45 Count N4 10 120? 113 45 Std. 0e~.r. N4 30.2 0.140 N4 Mm MA 0.2 0.03 0.010 .4 Max r44 00 0.45 40.2 .4 Mean 414 11.9 0.222 0.25 Median N4 0.45 0.102 0.0.?5 13.5 [1.5 l" 0.222 . 33'102'2011 111032011 ll?l??ll MURE NWIS Williams '98 Baseline Sample Dates.r Data Ranges, and Means Appendix D-7 Page 1 of 7 Property Owner Well Chloride Concentrations '05. Time Compared to NURE, NWIS, Williams '98, and Baseline Data 15:] [l-letkHauen MUHE Williams '93 BaselineWestem 223 5050 Max 2200 14? Conn: 51 05 10 1004 215 Mean 510.550. 25.5 000 20LEIE 12:, 02151 222 5050 152 2200 12B Mean 15.0 210 15.5 50.0 115 Median 0.5 5 5.5 155515.5 15-5 1D 11] I I I NUHE NWIS Williams '98 Sample Dates, Data Ranges, and Means Appendix D-7 Page 2 of 7 Property Owner Well Iron Concentrations vs. Time Compared to NURE, NWIS, Williams '98, and Baseline Data 10 5 Fe - Lock Haven HURE NWIS Williams '95 Baseline Western 350 9 Count 20 ED 9.43 Bid. Dew. N15. 0.31? [1.359 NA Min 0.03 [1.04 [3.05 3 Max NA 1.03 1.4 35D 4 Mean Ha [1.363 0.393 1.31 Median NA [1.245 {1.245 [5.1.51 I [3.363 0.393 a a ?10,120 11 10j25f2011 11j11j2011 UR NWIS Willia ms '98 Baseline Sample Dates, Data Ranges, and Means Appendix D-7 Page 3 of 7 Property Owner Well Manganese Concentrations vs. Time Compared to NURE, NWIS, Williams '93, and Baseline Data 1 Mn-LockHaUen HWIE Williams'QB Dig Count 1? 1? BED Std. Elev. Min ELEIE H.015 118 Ma: 0.4.1 2J3 1E.2 Mear H.123 0.26:1 0.35 Mediar Ill 0.1 [1.13 Manganese, e- 112 ill BIlDfl?ll lDfEEfEDll NUHE NWIS Williams "33 Baseline Sample Dates, Data Ranges, and Means Appendix D-7 Page 4 of 7 Property Owner Well Methane Concentrations vs. Time Compared to NURE, NWIS, Williams '93, and Baseline Data 15:] 15:] Lock Haven Williams '93 aseline Western [taunt NA 504 Std. DevMean NA Median Na. 1m] 104.12 a a lDfZEfZ?ll 1H11f2011 NUHE NWIS Williams '93 Baseline Sample Dates, Data Flangesr and Means Appendix Page 5 of 7 Property Owner Well Sudium Concentrations vs. Time Compared to NURE, NWIS, Williams '98, and Baseline Data Na- Lock Haven NURE Williams ?93 Baseline Western I 2510 Max Count 91 20 HUB 243 Mean 18D 51d. Des. 22.1 43.3 NA Min 1.18 3.2 3.2 1 Max 13? 251i] 155 Mean 13.2 243 33.6 Median 5.2? 35.2 22 EDD EDD lErlIl' 14D 14B 126 1213 113D Sodium, ED 81] ?ll] 4D 2D 2D Sfl?fl? ll 11 RE NWIS Williams '98 Baseline Sample Dates]r Data Ranges, and Means Appendix D-7 Page 6 of 7 Property Owner Well TDS Concentrations us. Time Compared to NURE, NWIS, Williams '98, and Baseline Data l??U TDS Luck Haven NURE HWIS Williams '93 Baseline Western Count NA [55 12345 90?] Std. Dev. NA 1504 120 30;] Mail NA 512 am Mean NA 61% 215 Median NA 246 22? Iii?ll] KID EDD ?rm] E5500 sea El 400 4?00 30B 3100 EDD EDD [l a?afzml 1alzsf2011 11,!1112011 NURE NWIS Williams '93 Baseline Sample [latestr Data Flanges, and Means Appendix Page 7 of 7 APPENDIX D-8 TIME PLOTS PROPERTY OWNER       Property Owner G Otis Well Barium Concentrations vs. Time  Compared to NURE, NWIS, Williams '98, and Baseline Data 5 5 32.5 4.5 4.5 4 4 3.5 3.5 3 Barium, mg/L 3 2.5 2.5 2 2 1.5 1.5 1 1 0.47 0.5 0.5 Baseline 0 0 4/2/2010 10/1/2010 11/10/2010 6/28/2011 9/1/2011 10/13/2011 10/27/2011 NURE NWIS Williams '98 Baseline Sample Dates, Data Ranges, and Means   Appendix D‐8    Page 1 of 7        Property Owner G Otis Well Chloride Concentrations vs. Time Compared to NURE, NWIS, Williams '98, and Baseline Data 150 150 1980 408 140 140 130 120 120 110 110 100 100 90 90 80 80 70 70 60 60 50 50 Chloride, mg/L 130 43.4 40 40 33.5 30 30 25.1 20 20 10 11.6 Baseline 10 0 0 4/2/2010 10/1/2010 11/10/2010 6/28/2011 9/1/2011 10/13/2011 10/27/2011 Sample Dates, Data Ranges, and Means Appendix D‐8    NURE NWIS Williams '98 Baseline   Page 2 of 7        Property Owner G Otis Well Iron Concentrations vs. Time  Compared to NURE, NWIS, Williams '98, and Baseline Data 25 25 Iron, mg/L 65 20 20 15 15 10 10 5 5 Baseline 0.616 0 4/2/2010 10/1/2010 11/10/2010 6/28/2011 9/1/2011 10/13/2011 10/27/2011 NURE NWIS 0.833 Williams '98 0.93 0 Baseline Sample Dates, Data Ranges, and Means   Appendix D‐8    Page 3 of 7        Otis Well Manganese Concentrations vs. Time  Property Owner G Compared to NURE, NWIS, Williams '98, and Baseline Data 1 1 Manganese, mg/L 4.01 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.23 0.2 0.2 0.103 0.1 0.093 Baseline 0.1 0.083 0 0 4/2/2010 10/1/2010 11/10/2010 6/28/2011 9/1/2011 10/13/2011 10/27/2011 Sample Dates, Data Ranges, and Means Appendix D‐8    NURE NWIS Williams '98 Bseline   Page 4 of 7        Property Owner G Otis Well Methane Concentrations vs. Time  Compared to NURE, NWIS, Williams '98, and Baseline Data 1 1 43.3 Max 3.27 Mean Methane, mg/L 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 Baseline 0 0 4/2/2010 10/1/2010 11/10/2010 6/28/2011 9/1/2011 10/13/2011 10/27/2011 Sample Dates, Data Ranges, and Means Appendix D‐8    NURE NWIS Williams '98 Baseline   Page 5 of 7        Property Owner G Otis Well Sodium Concentrations vs. Time Compared to NURE, NWIS, Williams '98, and Baseline Data 100 100 145 829 132 1610 90 90 Sodium, mg/L 85.1 80 80 70 70 60 60 50 50 42.0 40 40 33.1 30 30 20 20 14.0 10 10 Baseline 0 0 4/2/2010 10/1/2010 11/10/2010 6/28/2011 9/1/2011 10/13/2011 10/27/2011 Sample Dates, Data Ranges, and Means Appendix D‐8    NURE NWIS Williams '98 Baseline   Page 6 of 7        Property Owner G Otis Well TDS Concentrations vs. Time Compared to NURE, NWIS, Williams '98, and Baseline Data 1000 1000 TDS, mg/L 4050 5410 900 900 800 800 700 700 600 600 500 500 400 400 362 300 300 263 223 200 100 200 100 Baseline 0 0 4/2/2010 10/1/2010 11/10/2010 6/28/2011 9/1/2011 10/13/2011 10/27/2011 NURE NWIS Williams '98 Baseline Sample Dates, Data Ranges, and Means Appendix D‐8    Page 7 of 7  APPENDIX D-9 TIME PLOTS PROPERTY OWNER       Property Owner H Pauliny Well Barium Concentrations vs. Time  Compared to NURE, NWIS, Williams '98, and Baseline Data 5 5 32.5 4.5 4.5 4 4 3.5 Barium, mg/L 3.5 3 3 2.5 2.5 2 2 1.5 1.5 1 1 0.5 0.47 0.5 Baseline 0 0 Sample Dates, Data Ranges, and Means   Appendix D‐9    Page 1 of 7        Property Owner H Pauliny  Well Chloride Concentrations vs. Time  Compared to NURE, NWIS, Williams '98, and Baseline Data 150 150 Chloride,  mg/L 1980 408 140 140 130 130 120 120 110 110 100 100 90 90 80 80 70 70 60 60 50 50 43.4 40 40 33.5 30 30 25.1 20 10 20 11.6 Baseline 0 10 0 Sample Dates, Data Ranges, and Means   Appendix D‐9    Page 2 of 7        Property Owner H Pauliny Well Iron Concentrations vs. Time  Compared to NURE, NWIS, Williams '98, and Baseline Data 10 10 Iron, mg/L 65 9 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 0.616 Baseline 0.833 0.93 1 0 0 Sample Dates, Data Ranges, and Means   Appendix D‐9    Page 3 of 7        Property Owner H Pauliny Well Manganese Concentrations vs. Time  Compared to NURE, NWIS, Williams '98, and Baseline Data 1 1 Manganese, mg/L 4.01 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.23 0.2 0.2 0.103 0.1 0.093 0.083 0.1 Baseline 0 0 Sample Dates, Data Ranges, and Means Appendix D‐9      Page 4 of 7        Property Owner H Pauliny Well Methane Concentrations vs. Time Compared to NURE, NWIS, Williams '98, and Baseline Data 2 2 43.3 Max 3.27 Mean Methane, mg/L 1.5 1.5 1 1 0.5 0.5 Baseline 0 0 Sample Dates, Data Ranges, and Means   Appendix D‐9    Page 5 of 7        Pauliny Well Sodium Concentrations vs. Time Property Owner H Compared to NURE, NWIS, Williams '98, and Baseline Data 100 100 145 829 132 1610 90 90 Sodium, mg/L 85.1 80 80 70 70 60 60 50 50 42.0 40 40 33.1 30 30 Baseline 20 20 14.0 10 10 0 0 Sample Dates, Data Ranges, and Means   Appendix D‐9    Page 6 of 7        Property Owner H Pauliny Well TDS Concentrations vs. Time Compared to NURE, NWIS, Williams '98, and Baseline Data 1000 1000 TDS, mg/L 4050 5410 900 900 800 800 700 700 600 600 500 500 400 400 362 300 300 263 223 200 200 100 100 Baseline 0 0 Sample Dates, Data Ranges, and Means Appendix D‐9    Page 7 of 7  APPENDIX D-10 TIME PLOTS PROPERTY OWNER I (142-FT) Barium, MUHE NA NA NA NA NA NA HWIS NA NA NA NA NA NA Property Owner I (142 ft.) Well Barium Concentrations vs. Time Compared to NURE, NWIS, Williams '98, and Baseline Data Williams '93 Baseline Central NA 1926 NA NA NA 0.1310 NA 32.5 NA 0.4? NA 0.1? ll] l?f?lf??ll NURE NWIS Sample Dates, Data Flanges, and Means Appendix LI I I 1Williams '93 Page 1 of 6 Property Owner (142 ft.) Well Chleride Concentrations vs. Time Compared to NURE, NWIS, Williams '98, and Baseline Data 15+] 15Dl El -Eat5ll:ill NURE NWIS Williams '93 Baseline Central 14? team 51 2:1 13 14411 13D Std. Dev. 13.5 511 141.04 121] Max 315 403 Tril- 121) Mean 11.6 413.41 1113 Median 3.2 13 13 11*? 3+1 an an 81] 311 7'1] Tl] 6+1 an 51] 51] 4+1 4+1 31] 31] 21:! 213 ID ID 3131141111 91151211111 1:1;31121111 NURE Williams '93 Baseline Sample Datee.r Data Ranges, and Means Appendix D-10 Page 2 of 6 Property Owner I {142 ft.) Well Iren Concentrations vs. Time Compared to NURE, NWIS, Williams '98, and Baseline Data 10 1a Fe -Catslli l NURE HWIS Williams '93 Baseline central 9 Count 11 1103 9 51d. DEV. 1.3 1.53 NA llii'll'r?l HA 5.54 EH35 ?u?lax ?415. 5.5 5.5 55 8 0.515 0.333 5.93 ?Media-i ?ll?'i 0.115 5.315 5.21 5 5 "ifa?eizala lD?lelIIll NURE NWIS Williams '95 Baseline Sample [latee.,r Data Flanges, and Means Appendix D-10 Page 3 of 6 25 ?Cat5ki l HURE Count NA Std. DevMean NA Median NA Methane, CI SHIRE ll] lUf?fEDl203' 21310 Williams 'IDES 13' 2011 Baseline Central 526 NA Goof. 43.3- 3.2? [1353 NURE Sample [hatesJr Data Ranges, and Means NWIS Property Owner (1112 ft.] Well Methane Concentrations vs. Time Compared to NURE, NWIS, Williams '98, and Baseline Data Williams '98 Baaeline Appendix D-10 Page 4 of 6 Property Owner (142 ft.) Well Sodium Concentrations we. Time Cum pared to NURE, NWIS, Williams '98, and Baseline Data Ma {alekill MURE HWIS Baseline Central 145 9D Count 51 1? 10 ?958 Std. Dev. 20.9 19? 414- Hi!- Min 4 5 l. El) Max 145 325 131 Mean 14.0 35.1 41.0 Median 3.53 23 13.5 61] 5a .a U1 4-D 31] 21] 9115:2010 l?f31f2?11 NURE NWIS Williams '95 Baseline Sample Dates, Data Ranges, and Means Appendix D-10 Page 5 of 6 Property Owner I (142 ft.) Well TDS Concentrations vs. Time Compared to NURE, NWIS, Williams '98, and Baseline Data TDS ?Eat5l:i l MUHE NWIS Williame '93 Baseline Central 9m Count w. 35 1a 1961 Sid. Devd?S? Mean NA 362 Median 3DD EDD NURE NWIS Williams. "38 Baseline Sample Dates, Data Ranges, and Means Appendix D-10 Page 6 of 6 APPENDIX D-11 TIME PLOTS PROPERTY OWNER I (203-FT)       Property Owner I Phillips (203 ft.) Well Barium Concentrations vs. Time  Compared to NURE, NWIS, Williams '98, and Baseline Data 5 5 32.5 4.5 4.5 4 4 Barium, mg/L 3.5 3.5 3 3 2.5 2.5 2 2 1.5 1.5 1 1 0.5 0 0.47 0.5 Baseline 9/14/2010 0 11/18/2010 3/1/2011 4/7/2011 5/23/2011 10/31/2011 NURE NWIS Williams '98 Baseline Sample Dates, Data Ranges, and Means   Appendix D‐11    Page 1 of 7        Property Owner I Phillips (203 ft.)  Well Chloride Concentrations vs. Time  Compared to NURE, NWIS, Williams '98, and Baseline Data 150 150 408 140 Chloride, mg/L 1980 140 130 130 120 120 110 110 100 100 90 90 80 80 70 70 60 60 50 50 43.4 40 40 33.5 30 20 30 25.1 Baseline 20 11.6 10 10 0 0 9/14/2010 11/18/2010 3/1/2011 4/7/2011 5/23/2011 10/31/2011 NURE NWIS Williams '98 Baseline Sample Dates, Data Ranges, and Means   Appendix D‐11    Page 2 of 7        Phillips (203 ft) Well Iron Concentrations vs. Time  Property Owner I Compared to NURE, NWIS, Williams '98, and Baseline Data 10 10 Iron, mg/L 65 9 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 Baseline 1 0.616 0.833 0.93 1 0 0 9/14/2010 11/18/2010 3/1/2011 4/7/2011 5/23/2011 10/31/2011 NURE NWIS Williams '98 Baseline Sample Dates, Data Ranges, and Means   Appendix D‐11    Page 3 of 7        Property Owner I  Phillips (203 ft.) Well Manganese Concentrations vs. Time  Compared to NURE, NWIS, Williams '98, and Baseline Data 1 1 Manganese, mg/L 4.01 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.23 0.2 0.2 0.103 0.1 0.093 Baseline 0.1 0.083 0 0 9/14/2010 11/18/2010 3/1/2011 4/7/2011 5/23/2011 10/31/2011 NURE NWIS Williams '98 Baseline Sample Dates, Data Ranges, and Means   Appendix D‐11    Page 4 of 7        Methane, mg/L Property Owner I Phillips (203 ft.) Well Methane Concentrations vs. Time Compared to NURE, NWIS, Williams '98, and Baseline Data 100 100 90 90 80 80 70 70 60 60 50 50 40 40 30 30 20 20 10 3.27 Baseline 10 0 0 Sample Dates, Data Ranges, and Means   Appendix D‐11    Page 5 of 7        Property Owner I Phillips (203 ft.) Well Sodium Concentrations vs. Time Compared to NURE, NWIS, Williams '98, and Baseline Data 100 100 145 829 132 1610 90 90 Sodium, mg/L 85.1 80 80 70 70 60 60 50 50 42.0 40 40 33.1 30 20 30 20 Baseline 14.0 10 10 0 0 9/14/2010 11/18/2010 3/1/2011 4/7/2011 5/23/2011 10/31/2011 NURE NWIS Williams '98 Baseline Sample Dates, Data Ranges, and Means   Appendix D‐11    Page 6 of 7        Property Owner I Phillips (203 ft.) Well TDS Concentrations vs. Time Compared to NURE, NWIS, Williams '98, and Baseline Data 1000 1000 5410 TDS, mg/L 4050 900 900 800 800 700 700 600 600 500 500 400 400 362 300 300 263 223 200 100 Baseline 200 100 0 0 9/14/2010 11/18/2010 3/1/2011 4/7/2011 5/23/2011 10/31/2011 NURE NWIS Williams '98 Baseline Sample Dates, Data Ranges, and Means   Appendix D‐11    Page 7 of 7  APPENDIX D-12 TIME PLOTS PROPERTY OWNER       Property Owner J Shoemaker Well Barium Concentrations vs. Time  Compared to NURE, NWIS, Williams '98, and Baseline Data 5 32.5 98 Max 11.9 Mean 4.5 5 4.5 4 4 3.5 Barium, mg/L 3.5 3 3 2.5 2.5 2 2 1.5 1.5 1 1 0.5 0.47 0.5 0.227 Baseline 0 0 7/2/2010 2/8/2011 11/3/2011 NURE NWIS Williams '98 Baseline Sample Dates, Data Ranges, and Means   Appendix D‐12    Page 1 of 6      150   Property Owner J Shoemaker Well Chloride Concentrations vs. Time Compared to NURE, NWIS, Williams '98, and Baseline Data 228 Chloride, mg/L 140 5050 Max 318 Mean 150 1980 140 130 130 120 120 110 110 100 100 90 90 80 80 70 70 60 60 50 50 40 Baseline 40 33.5 30 20 20 16.6 16.0 30 10 10 0 0 7/2/2010 2/8/2011 11/3/2011 NURE NWIS Williams '98 Baseline Sample Dates, Data Ranges, and Means   Appendix D‐12    Page 2 of 6        Property Owner J Shoemaker Well Iron Concentrations vs. Time  Compared to NURE, NWIS, Williams '98, and Baseline Data 5 5 65 4 3 3 2 2 Iron, mg/L 4 1 0.93 Baseline 0.368 0.393 0 0 7/2/2010 2/8/2011 11/3/2011 NURE NWIS Sample Dates, Data Ranges, and Means Appendix D‐12  1   Williams '98 Baseline   Page 3 of 6        Property Owner J Shoemaker Well Iron Concentrations vs. Time  Compared to NURE, NWIS, Williams '98, and Baseline Data 5 5 65 4 3 3 2 2 Iron, mg/L 4 1 0.93 Baseline 0.368 0.393 0 0 7/2/2010 2/8/2011 11/3/2011 NURE NWIS Sample Dates, Data Ranges, and Means Appendix D‐12  1   Williams '98 Baseline   Page 4 of 6        Property Owner J Shoemaker Well Methane Concentrations vs. Time Compared to NURE,NWIS, Williams '98, and Baseline Data 1 1 43.3 Max 3.27 Mean Methane, mg/L 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 Baseline 0 0 7/2/2010 2/8/2011 11/3/2011 NURE NWIS Williams '98 Baseline Sample Dates, Data Ranges, and Means   Appendix D‐12    Page 5 of 6         Property Owner J Property Owner J Shoemaker Well TDS Concentrations vs. Time Compared to NURE, NWIS, Williams '98, and Baseline Data 1000 1000 5410 9200 900 900 800 800 700 700 TDS, mg/L 676 600 600 500 500 400 400 Baseline 300 300 275 223 200 200 100 100 0 0 7/2/2010 2/8/2011 11/3/2011 NURE NWIS Williams '98 Baseline Sample Dates, Data Ranges, and Means Appendix D‐12    Page 6 of 6  APPENDIX D-13 TIME PLOTS PROPERTY OWNER       Property Owner K Solowiej Well Barium Concentrations vs. Time  Compared to NURE, NWIS, Williams '98, and Baseline Data 5 5 98 Max 11.9 Mean 32.5 4.5 4.5 4 4 3.5 3.5 3 Barium, mg/L 3 2.5 2.5 2 2 1.5 1.5 1 0.5 1 0.47 Baseline 0.5 0.227 0 0 1/7/2010 10/27/2011 NURE NWIS Sample Dates, Data Ranges, and Means Appendix D‐13    Williams '98 Baseline   Page 1 of 7        Solowiej Well Chloride Concentrations vs. Time Property Owner K Compared to NURE, NWIS, Williams '98, and Baseline Data 150 228 Chloride, mg/L 140 150 5050 Max 318 Mean 1980 140 130 130 120 120 110 110 100 100 90 90 80 80 70 70 60 60 50 50 40 40 33.5 30 20 10 Baseline 20 16.6 16.0 30 10 0 0 1/7/2010 10/27/2011 NURE NWIS Williams '98 Baseline Sample Dates, Data Ranges, and Means   Appendix D‐13    Page 2 of 7        Solowiej Well Iron Concentrations vs. Time  Property Owner K Compared to NURE, NWIS, Williams '98, and Baseline Data 5 5 65 4 3 3 2 2 Iron, mg/L 4 1 0.93 0.368 Baseline 1 0.393 0 0 1/7/2010 10/27/2011 NURE NWIS Williams '98 Baseline Sample Dates, Data Ranges, and Means   Appendix D‐13    Page 3 of 7        Property Owner K Solowiej Well Manganese Concentrations vs. Time  Compared to NURE, NWIS, Williams '98, and Baseline Data 3 3 4.01 2.5 2.5 Manganese, mg/L 2 2 1.5 1.5 1 1 0.5 0.5 0.264 Baseline 0.182 0.23 0.128 0 0 1/7/2010 10/27/2011 NURE NWIS Williams '98 Baseline Sample Dates, Data Ranges,  and Means Appendix D‐13    Page 4 of 7        Solowiej Well Methane Concentrations  vs. Time Property Owner K Compared to NURE, NWIS Data, Williams '98, and Baseline Data Methane, mg/L 2 43.3 Max 3.27 Mean 2 1.8 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.4 1.4 1.2 1.2 1 1 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 Baseline 0 0 1/7/2010 10/27/2011 NURE NWIS Williams '98 Baseline Sample Dates, Data Ranges, and Means   Appendix D‐13    Page 5 of 7        Solowiej Well Sodium Concentrations vs. Time Property Owner K Compared to NURE, NWIS, Williams '98, and Baseline Data 100 100 137 Sodium, mg/L 90 2510 Max 248 Mean 165 1610 90 80 80 70 70 60 60 50 50 40 40 38.6 33.1 30 30 Baseline 20 20 19.2 10 10 0 0 1/7/2010 10/27/2011 NURE NWIS Williams '98 Baseline Sample Dates, Data Ranges, and Means   Appendix D‐13    Page 6 of 7        Property Owner K Solowiej Well TDS Concentrations vs. Time Compared to NURE, NWIS, Williams '98, and Baseline Data 1000 1000 9200 5410 900 900 800 800 700 700 TDS, mg/L 676 600 600 500 500 400 400 300 300 275 223 200 200 Baseline 100 100 0 0 1/7/2010 10/27/2011 NURE NWIS Williams '98 Baseline Sample Dates, Data Ranges, and Means Appendix D‐13    Page 7 of 7  APPENDIX D-14 TIME PLOTS PROPERTY OWNER       Property Owner L Ward Well Barium Concentrations vs. Time  Compared to NURE, NWIS, Williams '98, and Baseline Data 5 5 98 Max 11.9 Mean 4.5 32.5 4.5 4 4 Barium, mg/L 3.5 3.5 3 3 2.5 2.5 2 2 1.5 1.5 1 1 0.5 0.47 Baseline 0.5 0.227 0 0 4/18/2010 11/3/2011 NURE NWIS Williams '98 Baseline Sample Dates, Data Ranges, and Means Appendix D‐14    Page 1 of 5        Property Owner L Ward Well Chloride Concentrations vs. Time  Compared to NURE, NWIS, Williams '98, and Baseline Data 150 150 228 Chloride, mg/L 140 1980 5050 Max 318 Mean 140 130 130 120 120 110 110 100 100 90 90 80 80 70 70 60 60 50 50 40 40 33.5 30 20 10 Baseline 20 16.6 16.0 30 10 0 0 4/18/2010 11/3/2011 NURE NWIS Williams '98 Baseline Sample Dates, Data Ranges, and Means   Appendix D‐14    Page 2 of 5        Property Owner L Ward Well Methane Concentrations vs. Time Compared to NURE,NWIS, Williams '98, and Baseline Data 1 1 43.3 Max 3.27 Mean Methane, mg/L 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 Baseline 0 0 4/18/2010 11/3/2011 NURE NWIS Williams '98 Baseline Sample Dates, Data Ranges, and Means   Appendix D‐14    Page 3 of 5        Property Owner L Ward Well Sodium Concentrations vs. Time Compared to NURE, NWIS, Williams '98, and Baseline Data 100 100 137 Sodium, mg/L 90 2510  Max 248 Mean 165 1610 90 80 80 70 70 60 60 50 50 40 40 38.6 33.1 30 30 20 20 19.2 Baseline 10 10 0 0 4/18/2010 11/3/2011 NURE NWIS Williams '98 Baseline Sample Dates, Data Ranges, and Means Appendix D‐14    Page 4 of 5        Property Owner L Ward Well TDS Concentrations vs. Time Compared to NURE, NWIS, Williams '98, and Baseline Data 1000 1000 9200 5410 900 900 800 800 700 700 TDS, mg/L 676 600 600 500 500 400 400 300 300 275 Baseline 223 200 100 200 100 0 0 4/18/2010 11/3/2011 NURE NWIS Williams '98 Baseline Sample Dates, Data Ranges, and Means Appendix D‐14    Page 5 of 5  APPENDIX D-15 TIME PLOTS PROPERTY OWNER       Property Owner M Westover Well Barium Concentrations vs. Time  Compared to NURE, NWIS, Williams '98, and Baseline Data 5 5 32.5 4.5 4.5 4 4 3.5 3.5 Barium, mg/L 3 3 2.5 2.5 2 2 1.5 1.5 1 0.5 1 0.47 Baseline 0 0 1/6/2010 12/2/2010 10/28/2011 NURE NWIS Sample Dates, Data Ranges, and Means Appendix D‐15  0.5   Williams '98 Baseline   Page 1 of 7        Westover Well Chloride Concentrations vs. Time Property Owner M Compared to NURE, NWIS, Williams '98, and Baseline Data 150 150 408 Chloride, mg/L 140 1980 140 130 130 120 120 110 110 100 100 90 90 80 80 70 70 60 60 50 50 43.4 40 40 33.5 30 30 25.1 20 20 10 Baseline 11.6 10 0 0 1/6/2010 12/2/2010 10/28/2011 NURE NWIS Williams '98 Baseline Sample Dates, Data Ranges, and Means   Appendix D‐15    Page 2 of 7        Property Owner M Westover Well Iron Concentrations vs. Time  Compared to NURE, NWIS, Williams '98, and Baseline Data 5 5 5.6 5.6 65 4 3 3 2 2 Iron, mg/L 4 1 0.833 0.93 1 0.616 Baseline 0 0 1/6/2010 12/2/2010 10/28/2011 NURE NWIS Williams '98 Baseline Sample Dates, Data Ranges, and Means   Appendix D‐15    Page 3 of 7        Property Owner M Westover Well Manganese Concentrations vs. Time  Compared to NURE, NWIS, Williams '98, and Baseline Data 3 3 4.01 2.5 2.5 Manganese, mg/L 2 2 1.5 1.5 1 1 0.5 0.5 Baseline 0.23 0.103 0.093 0.083 0 0 1/6/2010 12/2/2010 10/28/2011 NURE NWIS Williams '98 Baseline Sample Dates, Data Ranges,  and Means   Appendix D‐15    Page 4 of 7        Westover Well Methane Concentrations  vs. Time Property Owner M Compared to NURE, NWIS Data, Williams '98, and Baseline Data 2 2 43.3 Max 3.27 Mean Methane, mg/L 1.8 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.4 1.4 1.2 1.2 1 1 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 Baseline 0 0 1/6/2010 12/2/2010 10/28/2011 NURE NWIS Williams '98 Baseline Sample Dates, Data Ranges, and Means   Appendix D‐15    Page 5 of 7        Property Owner M Westover Well Sodium Concentrations vs. Time Compared to NURE, NWIS, Williams '98, and Baseline Data 100 100 829 145 132 1610 90 90 Sodium, mg/L 85.1 80 80 70 70 60 60 50 50 42.0 40 40 33.1 30 30 20 20 14.0 10 10 Baseline 0 0 1/6/2010 12/2/2010 10/28/2011 NURE NWIS Williams '98 Baseline Sample Dates, Data Ranges, and Means   Appendix D‐15    Page 6 of 7        Property Owner M Westover Well TDS Concentrations vs. Time Compared to NURE, NWIS, Williams '98, and Baseline Data 1000 1000 TDS, mg/L 4050 5410 900 900 800 800 700 700 600 600 500 500 400 400 362 300 300 263 223 200 200 Baseline 100 100 0 0 1/6/2010 12/2/2010 10/28/2011 NURE NWIS Sample Dates, Data Ranges, and Means Appendix D‐15    Williams '98 Baseline   Page 7 of 7  APPENDIX SCREENING CRITERIA 4/13/2012 Table E‐1 Summary of Inorganic Parameters in Chesapeake Energy Split Samples from the EPA Retrospective Study Wells that Exceed the Most Stringent of the Applicable Screening Levels ITEM Date SCREENING LEVELS PADEP Act 2* EPA MCLs EPA SMCLs EPA Regional** WELLS & SPRING (well depth) Property Owner A (300‐ft) 10/13/2010 Aluminum (mg/L) ‐ ‐ 0.2 15.5 Arsenic (mg/L) 0.01 0.01 ‐ 0.000045 NA 0.01 Chloride (mg/L) ‐ ‐ 250 ‐ 7/18/2011 Property Owner B (spring) Property Owner C (260‐ft) Property Owner D (250‐ft) Property Owner E (115‐ft) Property Owner E (185‐ft) Property Owner F (200‐ft) Property Owner G (unknown) 11/4/2011 10/14/2010 (baseline) 11/4/2011 4/29/2011 (baseline) 10/27/2011 1/10/2010 (baseline) 6/10/2011 10/28/2011 4/1/2010 (baseline) 8/12/2010 1/8/2011 1.44, 6.26                   (0.0566 D) 0.0122 (0.00416 D) Iron (mg/L) ‐ ‐ 0.3 10.9 Lead (mg/L) 0.005 0.015*** ‐ ‐ 6.19 0.786 (<0.05 U D) 3.88, 14.5 (0.0845 D) <0.005 U Lithium (mg/L) 0.073 ‐ ‐ 0.031 Manganese (mg/L) 0.3 ‐ 0.05 0.322 pH (pH units) ‐ ‐ 6.5‐8.5 ‐ TDS (mg/L) ‐ ‐ 500 ‐ 0.369 0.912 (0.788 D) 1.15, 1.34 (0.959 D, 1.02 D, 1.03 D) 0.0353, 0.0377 (<0.002 U D) Turbidity NTU ‐ 5 ‐ ‐ Total Coliform # positives/mo ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ 33 NA 36 865 6.3 6.1 NA 0.262 (<0.02 U D) <0.01 U 0.00746 (0.00456 D) 413 351 0.285 0.368 (<0.05 U D) Present NA Present 842 726 8.2 8.8 NA Present 0.118 0.127 0.133 0.116 (0.113 D) 0.0647 0.0788 11/4/2011 4/1/2010 (baseline) 8/12/2010 3/10/2011 11/11/2011 4/2/2010 (baseline) 10/1/2010 NA 0.1 0.281 10.6 3.58                        (< 0.05 U D) 2.68 3.08                        (0.109 D) 4.13 (0.0549 D) 11/10/2010 6/28/2011 9/1/2011 10/13/2011 (pre‐treatment) <0.005 U <0.015 U 0.153 0.123 (< 0.015 D) <1 U NA 24 91.2 16.1 0.0061 37.1 10/13/2011 (post‐treatment) 10/27/2011 Property Owner H (340‐ft) 4/1/2010 (baseline) NA 10/1/2010 11/10/2010 12/2/2010 3/1/2011 (pre‐treatment) 3/1/2011 (post‐treatment) 5/10/2011 (pre‐treatment) 5/10/2011 (post‐treatment) Property Owner I (142‐ft) Property Owner I (203‐ft) 10/28/2011 11/8/2011 (post‐treatment) 8/3/2010 10/31/2011 9/14/2010  (baseline) 11/3/2011 Appendix E <0.015 U 0.0089 (<0.005 U D) 0.214 0.0607 (0.0213 D) 0.095 13 2 Present NA 31.2 26.4 11.7 0.0738 7.3 0.322  (<0.02 U D) 6.8 6.4 J 6.4 NA 11/18/2010 Property Owner J (unkown) <0.005 U 0.0076 3/1/2011 (pre‐treatment) 3/1/2011 (post‐treatment) 4/7/2011 (pre‐treatment) 4/7/2011 (post‐treatment) 5/23/2011 (pre‐treatment) 5/23/2011 (post‐treatment) 10/31/2011 7/2/2010 (baseline) 2/8/2011 0.343 (<0.05 U D) 0.0546 2.54 (<0.05 U D) 0.982 (<0.05 U D) 0.829 2.29 J (<0.05 U D) 0.434 (0.148 D) 2.18 1.05 <0.005 U 0.0429 (0.0214 D) 0.145 0.0075 0.0051 0.0992 Present NA Present 68 5.1 7.2 12.2 6.6 0.0662 0.31, 0.112 (<0.02 U D) 0.676 0.888 0.583 (0.316 D) 0.0114 0.009 0.249 0.29 0.22 (0.216 D) 5.4 5.7 9.8 Page 1 of 5 Table E‐1 Summary of Inorganic Parameters in Chesapeake Energy Split Samples from the EPA Retrospective Study Wells that Exceed the Most Stringent of the Applicable Screening Levels ITEM Date SCREENING LEVELS PADEP Act 2* EPA MCLs EPA SMCLs EPA Regional** WELLS & SPRING (well depth) Property Owner K (175‐ft) Aluminum (mg/L) ‐ ‐ 0.2 15.5 Arsenic (mg/L) 0.01 0.01 ‐ 0.000045 Chloride (mg/L) ‐ ‐ 250 ‐ Iron (mg/L) ‐ ‐ 0.3 10.9 Lead (mg/L) 0.005 0.015*** ‐ ‐ Property Owner M (440‐ft) 4/18/2010 (baseline) 11/3/2011 1/6/2010 (baseline) 12/2/2010 4/11/2011 10/28/2011 Manganese (mg/L) 0.3 ‐ 0.05 0.322 0.0321 0.102 0.168                       (0.119 D) 1/7/2010 (baseline) 5/31/2011 (post‐treatment) 10/27/2011 Property Owner L (225‐ft) Lithium (mg/L) 0.073 ‐ ‐ 0.031 <0.005 U 0.011 0.0124 pH (pH units) ‐ ‐ 6.5‐8.5 ‐ TDS (mg/L) ‐ ‐ 500 ‐ Turbidity NTU ‐ 5 ‐ ‐ Total Coliform # positives/mo ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ Present NA Present NA Present *Residential used Wells <2,500 mg/l TDS ** Screening Levels for Tap Water (chronic) *** Action Level NA = Not Analyzed U = Less Than Detection Limit D = Dissolved (all metals are total unless marked with D) mg/L = Milligrams per Liter NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units Appendix E Page 2 of 5 Table E‐2 Summary of Organic Parameters Detected in Chesapeake Energy Split Samples from the EPA Retrospective Study Wells Compared to Applicable Screening Levels ITEM Date SCREENING LEVELS PADEP Act 2* EPA MCLs EPA SMCLs EPA Regional** WELLS & SPRING (well depth) Property Owner A (300‐ft) Property Owner B (spring) Property Owner C (260‐ft) Property Owner D (250‐ft) Property Owner E (115‐ft) Property Owner E (185‐ft) Property Owner F (200‐ft) Property Owner G (unknown) Property Owner H (340‐ft) Property Owner I (142‐ft) Property Owner I (203‐ft) Property Owner J (unkown) Property Owner K (175‐ft) Property Owner L (225‐ft) Diethylene Glycol (ug/L) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Tetraethylene Glycol (ug/L) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Triethylene Glycol  (ug/L) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 10/13/2010 11/4/2011 4/1/2010 (baseline) 11/4/2011 NA 13 JB NA 26 JB Toluene (ug/L) 1000 1000 ‐ 856 NA 6 J 100 NA 20 JB 3/10/2011 10/25/2011 NA 11 J 4/1/2010 (baseline) 11/10/2010 10/28/2011 NA NA 20 J 12 J <0.5 U 1.13 <0.5 U 1.71 0.95 9/14/2010  (baseline) 3/1/2011 (pre‐treatment) 4/7/2011 (pre‐treatment) 4/18/2010 (baseline) 11/3/2011 Squalene (ug/L) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ NA 15 JB Property Owner M (440‐ft) *Residential used Wells <2,500 mg/l TDS ** Screening Levels for Tap Water (chronic) NA = Not Analyzed U = Less Than Detection Limit J = Estimated Value B = Blank Contained Analyte ug/L = Micrograms per Liter Appendix E Page 3 of 5 Table E‐ 3 Summary of Dissolved Gases Detected in Chesapeake Energy Split Samples from the EPA Retrospective Study Wells ITEM WELLS & SPRING (well depth) Property Owner A (300‐ft) Property Owner B (spring) Property Owner C (260‐ft) Property Owner D (250‐ft) Property Owner E (115‐ft) Property Owner E (185‐ft) Property Owner F (200‐ft) Property Owner G (unknown) Property Owner H (340‐ft) Property Owner I (142‐ft) Appendix E Date Ethane (mg/L) Methane (mg/L) 10/13/2010 7/18/2011 8/4/2011 8/18/2011 9/1/2011 11/4/2011 0.192 0.0861 0.0904 0.0964 0.0556 0.0117 8.36 5.21 4.82 4.95 1.51 1.86 4/29/2011 (baseline) 10/27/2011 1/10/2010 (baseline) 6/10/2011 10/28/2011 4/1/2010 (baseline) 8/12/2010 1/8/2011 11/4/2011 4/1/2010 (baseline) 8/12/2010 1/8/2011 11/4/2011 3/10/2011 10/25/2011 11/11/2011 4/2/2010 (baseline) 9/1/2011 4/1/2010 (baseline) 9/13/2010 11/10/2010 10/28/2011 11/8/2011 (pre‐treatment) 11/8/2011 (post‐treatment) 8/3/2010 9/15/2010 10/6/2010 10/20/2010 0.049 0.0495 0.0838 0.0816 < 0.026 U 0.0202 0.202 < 0.0260 U 0.0953 0.195 0.103 Propane (mg/L) 21.5 22.5 3.55 4.81 2.11 J 33.8 34.7 35.8 37.1 J 8.88 9.68 0.239 0.609 53.4 55.3 51.8 0.035 0.0126 0.045 0.0535 0.183 0.00607 0.0655 0.0258 0.0957 1.41 2.78 J 1.78 Page 4 of 5 Table E‐ 3 Summary of Dissolved Gases Detected in Chesapeake Energy Split Samples from the EPA Retrospective Study Wells ITEM WELLS & SPRING (well depth) Property Owner I (203‐ft) Property Owner J (unkown) Property Owner K (175‐ft) Property Owner L (225‐ft) Property Owner M (440‐ft) Date Ethane (mg/L) Methane (mg/L) Propane (mg/L) 9/14/2010  (baseline) 10/6/2010 10/13/2010 10/13/2010 (pre‐treatment) 10/20/2010 11/18/2010 3/1/2011 (pre‐treatment) 3/1/2011 (post‐treatment) 4/7/2011 (pre‐treatment) 4/7/2011 (post‐treatment) 5/23/2011 (pre‐treatment) 5/23/2011 (post‐treatment) 6/8/2011 6/22/2011 7/6/2011 7/20/2011 8/3/2011 8/17/2011 9/2/2011 9/14/2011 9/29/2011 10/12/2011 10/31/2011 11/9/2011 11/22/2011 12/7/2011 1.59 1.84 1.47 0.254 0.754 0.593 0.959 J 10.9 25.4 20.6 4.58 8.82 7.47 17.1 1.76 14.2 2.82 9.21 1.2 3.09 10.4 10.8 6.65 10.4 8.88 6.23 9.87 J 9.62 4.1 6.09 4.94 5.51 3.6 0.101 0.117 0.0841 1/7/2010 (baseline) 10/27/2011 4/18/2010 (baseline) 0.613 0.048 0.624 0.0625 0.437 0.543 0.6 0.511 0.364 0.421 0.424 0.467 0.445 0.19 0.402 0.395 0.418 0.118 0.0388 <0.026 U 0.00674 0.048 U = Less Than Detection Limit J = Estimated Value mg/L = Milligrams per Liter Appendix E Page 5 of 5 APPENDIX DUROV AND PIPER DIAGRAMS 4/13/2012 Legend Legend Study Well Baseline Study Well Special Sample Study Well CHK/EPA Split Sample Williams98 Catskill_Mean Williams98 Catskill_Median NWIS Catskill_Mean NWIS Catskill_Median CHK Bradford Co. Baseline Central_Mean CHK Bradford Co. Baseline Central_Median 20 SO4 40 80 A B E A BB A 20 A AA A A E A EA A B E B Mg U AA C B OA LAB D B A E JEA A B A A A 80 A A E 60 40 60 40 20 Mg EA AA D JEA B A AB A E A B BC AL OA A U A BA BEEA AA A AB A BA EB AEA 40 A 20 20 40 60 E A DA AA A J E B B A A A E A BCB A L A O A A UE A E BA B A AB A B A E A E A BA 20 40 60 Ca 20 SO4 80 60 B BA AE EA AA A A B A B A D A EB A B A A A A A A U E EA L B B JC O A A A E B E EE A B AB B AE A B E U A C AA B A A OA A LB B JA AD A A A E B E B A AA E 80 Ca 40 Na+K 40 20 A 80 Cl 60 A 60 40 80 60 80 20 40 B BA AE A A A 20 EA A B AB A D HCO3 EA A A B A A A A U A EB EA L B B JC O A Na+K EA A B E 80 80 60 60 80 E A B J O D L C U HCO3 Durov & Piper Diagrams of Catskill Wells Compared to Means/Medians from Bradford Co. Regional Water Quality Databases - Catskill PROJECT: Hydraulic Fracturing Retrospective Study PROJECT NO: 14610.011.004 CLIENT: Chesapeake Energy DATE: March 22, 2012 Cl Legend Legend Study Well Baseline Study Well Special Sample Study Well CHK/EPA Split Sample Williams98 Lock Haven_Mean Williams98 Lock Haven_Median NWIS Lock Haven_Mean NWIS Lock Haven_Median CHK Bradford Co. Baseline Central_Mean CHK Bradford Co. Baseline Central_Median 40 20 B Mg 20 Mg D B JL C E E BO A B E U B 20 60 E E B A BB U OECJ L B D EE A B A B 20 40 Ca 60 80 Ca 80 60 B A A E 20 40 20 SO4 B 60 40 E B L 80 L J C E E B O B A E B U D BA E B E U BO JC E Na+K 40 20 B A O B JEC E B E L BUA AB E HCO3 DBE 80 D 40 60 60 40 40 Cl 40 B E E A EA AB B A DBE BE 20 80 60 80 B A J O B E B U EC E L B E A AB 80 60 20 HCO3 Na+K 80 60 60 40 80 20 SO4 80 E A B J O D L C U Cl Durov & Piper Diagrams of Lock Haven Wells Compared to Means/Medians from Bradford Co. Regional Water Quality Databases - Lock Haven PROJECT: Hydraulic Fracturing Retrospective Study PROJECT NO: 14610.011.004 CLIENT: Chesapeake Energy DATE: March 22, 2012 Legend Legend Study Well Special Sample Study Well CHK/EPA Split Sample Williams98 Catskill_Mean Williams98 Catskill_Median NWIS Catskill_Mean NWIS Catskill_Median CHK Bradford Co. Baseline Central_Mean CHK Bradford Co. Baseline Central_Median 40 80 20 SO4 40 60 40 Cl 60 Mg D 20 80 80 60 60 B UOA LC JA D Na+K HCO3 80 20 40 60 80 Ca 20 AA C D B U LJ O 20 40 40 60 60 40 20 Ca SO4 U C OA L B J D A 40 Mg A J B C AL O U 40 20 40 D A J BC A L O U 60 20 AA D B U LJC O 80 20 80 80 20 HCO3 Na+K 80 60 60 80 A B J O D L C U Cl Durov & Piper Diagrams of Property Owner A Well Compared to Means/Medians from Bradford Co. Regional Water Quality Databases - Catskill PROJECT: Hydraulic Fracturing Retrospective Study PROJECT NO: 14610.011.004 CLIENT: Chesapeake Energy DATE: March 22, 2012 Legend Legend Study Well Baseline Study Well CHK/EPA Split Sample Williams98 Catskill_Mean Williams98 Catskill_Median NWIS Catskill_Mean NWIS Catskill_Median CHK Bradford Co. Baseline Eastern_Mean CHK Bradford Co. Baseline Eastern_Median 40 80 20 SO4 40 Cl 20 80 Mg D J Mg C L UO E B 80 J C SO4 D 60 40 BE 20 20 20 U C D LJ O 20 40 60 Ca 40 BE E U B C OL J D 80 Ca 80 60 40 60 L U O U C O L J 20 Na+K HCO3 60 D 40 E B 80 60 40 20 60 40 C D U LJ O 60 20 20 HCO3 Na+K BE 80 80 40 80 60 60 80 E B J O D L C U Cl Durov & Piper Diagrams of Property Owner B Spring Compared to Means/Medians from Bradford Co. Regional Water Quality Databases - Catskill PROJECT: Hydraulic Fracturing Retrospective Study PROJECT NO: 14610.011.004 CLIENT: Chesapeake Energy DATE: March 22, 2012 Legend Legend Study Well Baseline Study Well CHK/EPA Split Sample Williams98 Restricted Flow_Mean Williams98 Restricted Flow_Median NWIS Lock Haven_Mean NWIS Lock Haven_Median CHK Bradford Co. Baseline Central_Mean CHK Bradford Co. Baseline Central_Median 40 80 20 40 Cl 20 Mg L C L OB E L SO4 80 60 40 U 40 U 20 CL D JO E B 20 40 20 20 40 Ca 60 80 Ca D J C 60 C 60 U 20 U 80 Mg 40 Na+K LU HCO3 C DBEJ O 80 60 DBEJ O BE O J D 60 C 40 LU B E O J D 40 60 20 80 80 60 20 HCO3 Na+K 80 60 60 40 80 20 SO4 80 E B J O D L C U Cl Durov & Piper Diagrams of Property Owner C Well Compared to Means/Medians from Bradford Co. Regional Water Quality Databases - Lock Haven PROJECT: Hydraulic Fracturing Retrospective Study PROJECT NO: 14610.011.004 CLIENT: Chesapeake Energy DATE: March 22, 2012 Legend Legend Study Well Baseline Study Well Special Sample Study Well CHK/EPA Split Sample Williams98 Lock Haven_Mean Williams98 Lock Haven_Median NWIS Lock Haven_Mean NWIS Lock Haven_Median CHK Bradford Co. Baseline Central_Mean CHK Bradford Co. Baseline Central_Median 40 80 40 Cl 20 20 B Mg D B JL C O U 80 B 60 40 U O CJ L B 20 40 60 40 A E D E A 20 40 60 80 Ca SO4 L 60 20 D U C O J 80 L J C O U Ca 20 Na+K 20 OJ L BUA C E HCO3 D 80 D 40 60 60 Mg D 40 J O U C L B E A E A EA 40 60 20 80 80 60 20 HCO3 Na+K 80 60 60 40 80 20 SO4 80 E A B J O D L C U Cl Durov & Piper Diagrams of Property Owner D Well Compared to Means/Medians from Bradford Co. Regional Water Quality Databases - Lock Haven PROJECT: Hydraulic Fracturing Retrospective Study PROJECT NO: 14610.011.004 CLIENT: Chesapeake Energy DATE: March 22, 2012 Legend Legend Study Well Baseline Study Well Special Sample Study Well CHK/EPA Split Sample Williams98 Catskill_Mean Williams98 Catskill_Median NWIS Catskill_Mean NWIS Catskill_Median CHK Bradford Co. Baseline Central_Mean CHK Bradford Co. Baseline Central_Median 40 40 Cl 20 60 Mg 80 60 40 20 40 20 40 UOLC J D B A E 20 U L J CD O A B E 20 40 Ca 60 80 Ca 80 60 60 L O U SO4 U C OL B AD JE Na+K HCO3 80 Mg D A JEB C 20 60 D A JB E C L O U 40 40 U L J CD O A B E 40 20 60 20 80 60 80 80 20 HCO3 Na+K 80 60 60 40 80 20 SO4 80 E A B J O D L C U Cl Durov & Piper Diagrams of Property Owner E (115 ft) Well Compared to Means/Medians from Bradford Co. Regional Water Quality Databases - Catskill PROJECT: Hydraulic Fracturing Retrospective Study PROJECT NO: 14610.011.004 CLIENT: Chesapeake Energy DATE: March 22, 2012 Legend Legend Study Well Baseline Study Well Special Sample Study Well CHK/EPA Split Sample Williams98 Catskill_Mean Williams98 Catskill_Median NWIS Catskill_Mean NWIS Catskill_Median CHK Bradford Co. Baseline Central_Mean CHK Bradford Co. Baseline Central_Median 40 80 20 SO4 40 60 40 Cl 20 60 D 60 J A E C L O U AB 80 60 60 40 20 40 20 40 UOLC A B EAJ D 20 A U LB J CD O EA 20 40 Ca 60 80 Ca D Na+K HCO3 80 Mg 80 SO4 60 JA CE L O UA B 20 B U A C OL EA J Mg D 40 40 D A U LB JC O EA 40 20 60 20 80 80 80 20 HCO3 Na+K 80 60 60 80 E A B J O D L C U Cl Durov & Piper Diagrams of Property Owner E (185 ft) Well Compared to Means/Medians from Bradford Co. Regional Water Quality Databases - Catskill PROJECT: Hydraulic Fracturing Retrospective Study PROJECT NO: 14610.011.004 CLIENT: Chesapeake Energy DATE: March 22, 2012 Legend Legend Study Well Special Sample Study Well CHK/EPA Split Sample Williams98 Lock Haven_Mean Williams98 Lock Haven_Median NWIS Lock Haven_Mean NWIS Lock Haven_Median CHK Bradford Co. Baseline Western_Mean CHK Bradford Co. Baseline Western_Median 40 80 20 SO4 40 40 Cl C Mg D 20 L 60 O U J L C 20 40 D A B 20 40 60 80 Ca 60 B A 40 20 Ca 80 Na+K 40 20 OUJ C L AB HCO3 D 80 C 60 L J OU SO4 60 C JL OU D OU J 80 Mg 40 20 AB D 20 D 40 60 40 80 OUJ C L AB A B 60 20 80 80 60 20 HCO3 Na+K 80 60 60 80 A B J O D L C U Cl Durov & Piper Diagrams of Property Owner F Well Compared to Means/Medians from Bradford Co. Regional Water Quality Databases - Lock Haven PROJECT: Hydraulic Fracturing Retrospective Study PROJECT NO: 14610.011.004 CLIENT: Chesapeake Energy DATE: March 22, 2012 Legend Legend Study Well Baseline Study Well Special Sample Study Well CHK/EPA Split Sample Williams98 Catskill_Mean Williams98 Catskill_Median NWIS Catskill_Mean NWIS Catskill_Median CHK Bradford Co. Baseline Central_Mean CHK Bradford Co. Baseline Central_Median 40 80 20 SO4 80 60 60 40 Cl 20 80 Mg D J C L O U AA A A B E Mg 20 SO4 D 60 40 20 20 20 40 60 Ca 40 B EA AA A A U L J CD O A AAU C B E A OL J D 80 Ca 80 60 C L O U AA A BA EA 40 60 U C OL J 80 J B A A A E A Na+K HCO3 20 60 D 40 80 60 40 20 60 40 B A A 20 EA AA HCO3 U L J CD O Na+K 80 40 80 20 60 80 E A B J O D L C U Cl Durov & Piper Diagrams of Property Owner G Well Compared to Means/Medians from Bradford Co. Regional Water Quality Databases - Catskill PROJECT: Hydraulic Fracturing Retrospective Study PROJECT NO: 14610.011.004 CLIENT: Chesapeake Energy DATE: March 22, 2012 Legend Legend Study Well Baseline Study Well Special Sample Study Well CHK/EPA Split Sample Williams98 Catskill_Mean Williams98 Catskill_Median NWIS Catskill_Mean NWIS Catskill_Median CHK Bradford Co. Baseline Central_Mean CHK Bradford Co. Baseline Central_Median 60 Mg 80 60 40 20 20 40 60 EA AA D J BC L OA AA U A 20 40 60 Ca 80 60 40 AA A B A EA A U L J CD O CJ D AA AU OLB AAA E 80 Ca SO4 UA C B OL J D A A A E Na+K HCO3 20 80 Mg 20 AAA 40 60 40 60 20 40 E A DA A J CB L A O A A U A 60 40 Cl 80 20 80 20 AA 20 A B HCO3 EAA D A U L J O C Na+K 60 40 80 80 60 40 80 20 SO4 80 E A B J O D L C U Cl Durov & Piper Diagrams of Property Owner H Well Compared to Means/Medians from Bradford Co. Regional Water Quality Databases - Catskill PROJECT: Hydraulic Fracturing Retrospective Study PROJECT NO: 14610.011.004 CLIENT: Chesapeake Energy DATE: March 22, 2012 Legend Legend Study Well Special Sample Study Well CHK/EPA Split Sample Williams98 Catskill_Mean Williams98 Catskill_Median NWIS Catskill_Mean NWIS Catskill_Median CHK Bradford Co. Baseline Central_Mean CHK Bradford Co. Baseline Central_Median 20 SO4 40 80 60 B D U LJC A O 80 A 40 Cl 20 80 60 Mg 40 D J C L O U A B Mg L O U 80 20 SO4 D 80 60 C AB 60 40 A 20 40 B D A U C LJ O BAUOLC J D 20 40 60 J U C OL J 40 20 40 Ca 60 80 Ca Na+K HCO3 20 A 60 D A 40 20 B A 60 20 20 80 80 40 HCO3 Na+K 80 60 60 80 A B J O D L C U Cl Durov & Piper Diagrams of Property Owner I (142 ft) Well Compared to Means/Medians from Bradford Co. Regional Water Quality Databases - Catskill PROJECT: Hydraulic Fracturing Retrospective Study PROJECT NO: 14610.011.004 CLIENT: Chesapeake Energy DATE: March 22, 2012 Legend Legend Study Well Baseline Study Well Special Sample Study Well CHK/EPA Split Sample Williams98 Catskill_Mean Williams98 Catskill_Median NWIS Catskill_Mean NWIS Catskill_Median CHK Bradford Co. Baseline Central_Mean CHK Bradford Co. Baseline Central_Median 40 80 20 SO4 40 60 40 Cl 20 60 Mg D Mg 80 60 40 20 20 40 UOLC A E J D A A A B 20 A AA U ED L B JC O A 20 40 Ca 60 80 Ca D 60 40 60 J AB AA C L O E U A SO4 Na+K HCO3 80 J B A A CA L O UE A U C OL A A BJ A 80 20 E 60 D 40 A 40 A AA U ED L B JC O A 40 20 60 20 80 80 80 20 HCO3 Na+K 80 60 60 80 E A B J O D L C U Cl Durov & Piper Diagrams of Property Owner I (203 ft) Well Compared to Means/Medians from Bradford Co. Regional Water Quality Databases - Catskill PROJECT: Hydraulic Fracturing Retrospective Study PROJECT NO: 14610.011.004 CLIENT: Chesapeake Energy DATE: March 22, 2012 Legend Legend Study Well Baseline Study Well Special Sample Study Well CHK/EPA Split Sample Williams98 Lock Haven_Mean Williams98 Lock Haven_Median NWIS Lock Haven_Mean NWIS Lock Haven_Median CHK Bradford Co. Baseline Central_Mean CHK Bradford Co. Baseline Central_Median 40 40 Cl 20 60 D 20 Mg D 20 A B EC U O J JL EC O A BU L J C E O B A U 80 60 60 60 40 40 A B U OECJ L 20 40 60 80 Ca 20 B A J O U EC L D 20 40 20 Ca SO4 L 80 Mg D Na+K HCO3 D 80 40 40 60 D 40 80 60 20 B A J O U EC L 80 80 60 20 HCO3 Na+K 80 60 60 40 80 20 SO4 80 E A B J O D L C U Cl Durov & Piper Diagrams of Property Owner J Well Compared to Means/Medians from Bradford Co. Regional Water Quality Databases - Lock Haven PROJECT: Hydraulic Fracturing Retrospective Study PROJECT NO: 14610.011.004 CLIENT: Chesapeake Energy DATE: March 22, 2012 Legend Legend Study Well Baseline Study Well CHK/EPA Split Sample Williams98 Lock Haven_Mean Williams98 Lock Haven_Median NWIS Lock Haven_Mean NWIS Lock Haven_Median CHK Bradford Co. Baseline Central_Mean CHK Bradford Co. Baseline Central_Median 40 80 40 Cl 20 60 D 20 Mg D 20 JL C E BO U L J C E B O U 80 60 60 40 60 40 E B U O CJ L 20 40 60 80 Ca O B U E L D 20 40 20 Ca SO4 L 80 Mg D U BO JC E Na+K J HCO3 20 C D 80 40 40 60 D 40 80 60 20 J O B U C E L 80 60 20 HCO3 Na+K 80 60 60 40 80 20 SO4 80 E B J O D L C U Cl Durov & Piper Diagrams of Property Owner K Well Compared to Means/Medians from Bradford Co. Regional Water Quality Databases - Lock Haven PROJECT: Hydraulic Fracturing Retrospective Study PROJECT NO: 14610.011.004 CLIENT: Chesapeake Energy DATE: March 22, 2012 Legend Legend Study Well Baseline Study Well CHK/EPA Split Sample Williams98 Lock Haven_Mean Williams98 Lock Haven_Median NWIS Lock Haven_Mean NWIS Lock Haven_Median CHK Bradford Co. Baseline Central_Mean CHK Bradford Co. Baseline Central_Median 40 40 Cl 20 60 D 20 Mg D 20 B E U C O J JL C O E U B L J C O E B U 80 60 60 40 60 40 E B U O CJ L 20 40 60 80 Ca 20 J O B E U C L D 20 40 20 Ca SO4 L 80 Mg D Na+K HCO3 D 80 40 40 60 D 40 80 60 20 J O B E U C L 80 80 60 20 HCO3 Na+K 80 60 60 40 80 20 SO4 80 E B J O D L C U Cl Durov & Piper Diagrams of Property Owner L Well Compared to Means/Medians from Bradford Co. Regional Water Quality Databases - Lock Haven PROJECT: Hydraulic Fracturing Retrospective Study PROJECT NO: 14610.011.004 CLIENT: Chesapeake Energy DATE: March 22, 2012 Legend Legend Study Well Baseline Study Well Special Sample Study Well CHK/EPA Split Sample Williams98 Catskill_Mean Williams98 Catskill_Median NWIS Catskill_Mean NWIS Catskill_Median CHK Bradford Co. Baseline Central_Mean CHK Bradford Co. Baseline Central_Median 40 80 20 SO4 40 40 Cl 60 Mg D SO4 D 60 C 60 40 40 UOLC J D 20 40 60 Ca 20 A U EB L J CD O Na+K HCO3 80 20 E A B 80 Ca 80 60 E A B U C OL J 20 40 60 L O U EB A 80 20 40 Mg J A B E 20 D 40 20 40 J C L O U 60 80 A U EB L J CD O 80 20 80 60 20 HCO3 Na+K 80 60 60 80 E A B J O D L C U Cl Durov & Piper Diagrams of Property Owner M Well Compared to Means/Medians from Bradford Co. Regional Water Quality Databases - Catskill PROJECT: Hydraulic Fracturing Retrospective Study PROJECT NO: 14610.011.004 CLIENT: Chesapeake Energy DATE: March 22, 2012 APPENDIX ANALYTE LISTS 4/13/2012 ANALYTE LISTS Parameter Aldehydes Gluteraldehyde Bacteria E. coli Fecal coliform bacteria Total Coliform Bacteria DBCP 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane Ex tractable P etroleum Hydrocarbons Diesel General Chem istry Alkalinity, Total (CaCO3) Ammonia as N Bicarbonate Alkalinity as CaCO3 Bromide Carbonate as CaCO3 Chloride CO2 by Headspace Cyanide Fluoride MBAS Nitrate Nitrate Nitrogen Nitrite Nitrogen Oil & Grease HEM pH Phosphorus Specific conductance Sulfate Temperature of pH determination Total Dissolved Solids Total Suspended Solids Turbidity Glycols 1,2-Propylene Glycol Diethylene Glycol Ethylene Glycol Tetraethylene glycol Triethylene glycol Light Gases Acetylene Ethane Ethene Methane n-Butane Propane Appendix G Chesapeake Energy Baseline Parameter List EPA Retrospective Study Parameter List --- X ------- X X X --- X --- X ----X --X X ------X ------X X --X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X ----------- X X X --X --X --X X X X X X X X X X X Page 1 of 7 ANALYTE LISTS Parameter Low M olecular W eight Acids Acetic Acid Butyric Acid Formic Acid Isobutyric acid Lactic acid Propionic Acid M etals, 6020x Cesium Cesium Dissolved Potassium Potassium, Dissolved Silicon Silicon Dissolved Thorium Thorium, Dissolved Uranium Uranium, Dissolved M etals, Total Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Boron Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Hardness, CaCO3 Iron Lead Lithium Magnesium Manganese Mercury Molybdenum Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Strontium Sulfur Thallium Titanium Vanadium Zinc Appendix G Chesapeake Energy Baseline Parameter List EPA Retrospective Study Parameter List ------------- X X X X X X --------------------- X X X X X X X X X X ----X X ----X X X ------X X --X X X ----X X X X --X --------- X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Page 2 of 7 ANALYTE LISTS Parameter M etals, Dissolved Aluminum, Dissolved Antimony, Dissolved Arsenic, Dissolved Barium, Dissolved Beryllium, Dissolved Boron, Dissolved Cadmium, Dissolved Calcium, Dissolved Chromium, Dissolved Cobalt, Dissolved Copper, Dissolved Iron, Dissolved Lead, Dissolved Magnesium, Dissolved Manganese, Dissolved Mercury, Dissolved Molybdenum, Dissolved Nickel, Dissolved Potassium, Dissolved Selenium, Dissolved Silver, Dissolved Sodium, Dissolved Strontium, Dissolved Sulfur, Dissolved Thallium, Dissolved Titanium, Dissolved Vanadium, Dissolved Zinc, Dissolved M iscellaneous Organics Inorganic Carbon, Dissolved Organic Carbon, Dissolved P esticides and P CBs 4,4'-DDD 4,4'-DDE 4,4'-DDT alpha-BHC Azinphos-methyl beta-BHC Carbaryl delta-BHC Dichlorvos Dieldrin Disulfoton Endosulfan I Endosulfan II Endosulfan sulfate Endrin Endrin aldehyde Appendix G Chesapeake Energy Baseline Parameter List EPA Retrospective Study Parameter List --------------------------------------------------------- X X X X X X X X X X X X X X ----- X X --------------------------------- X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Page 3 of 7 ANALYTE LISTS Parameter Endrin ketone gamma-BHC (Lindane) Heptachlor Heptachlor epoxide Malathion Methoxychlor Mevinphos P urgeable P etroleum Hydrocarbons GRO as Gasoline Sem ivolatile Organics 1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene 1,2-Dinitrobenzene 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine 1,3-Dimethyl adamatane 1,3-Dinitrobenzene 1,4-Dinitrobenzene 1-Chloronaphthalene 2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 2,4-Dichlorophenol 2,4-Dimethylphenol 2,4-Dinitrophenol 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 2,6-Dichlorophenol 2,6-Dinitrotoluene 2-Butoxyethanol 2-Chloronaphthalene 2-Chlorophenol 2-Methylnaphthalene 2-Methylphenol 2-Nitroaniline 2-Nitrophenol 3,3-Dichlorobenzidine 3-Nitroaniline 4,4'-Methylenebis(2-chloroaniline) 4,4'-Methylenebis(N,N-dimethylaniline) 4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether 4-Chloro-3-methylphenol 4-Chloroaniline 4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether 4-Methylphenol 4-Nitroaniline 4-Nitrophenol Acenaphthene Acenaphthylene Acetophenone Adamantane Appendix G Chesapeake Energy Baseline Parameter List EPA Retrospective Study Parameter List --------------- X X X X X X X --- X ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Page 4 of 7 ANALYTE LISTS Parameter Aniline Anthracene Benzo (a) anthracene Benzo (a) pyrene Benzo (b) fluoranthene Benzo (g,h,i) perylene Benzo (k) fluoranthene Benzoic acid Benzyl alcohol Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate Butyl benzyl phthalate Carbazole Chlorobenzilate Chrysene Diallate (cis or trans) Dibenz (a,h) anthracene Dibenzofuran Diethyl phthalate Dimethyl phthalate Di-n-butyl phthalate Di-n-octyl phthalate Dinoseb Disulfoton d-Limonene Fluoranthene Fluorene Hexachlorobenzene Hexachlorobutadiene Hexachlorocyclopentadiene Hexachloroethane Indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene Isophorone Naphthalene Nitrobenzene N-Nitrosodiethylamine N-Nitrosodimethylamine N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine N-Nitrosodiphenylamine N-Nitrosomethylethylamine Parathion-ethyl Parathion-methyl Pentachlorobenzene Pentachlorophenol Phenanthrene Phenol Appendix G Chesapeake Energy Baseline Parameter List EPA Retrospective Study Parameter List --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Page 5 of 7 ANALYTE LISTS Parameter Phorate Pronamide Pyrene Pyridine Squalene Terbufos Terpineol Tributoxyethyl phosphate Trifluralin Chesapeake Energy Baseline Parameter List EPA Retrospective Study Parameter List ------------------- X X X X X X X X X --- X ------------------------------X ----------------X ------------------------- X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X TI Cs 1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene Volatile Organics 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 1,1-Dichloroethane 1,1-Dichloroethene 1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 1,2-Dichloroethane 1,2-Dichloropropane 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 1,4-Dichlorobenzene Acetone Benzene Carbon disulfide Carbon Tetrachloride Chlorobenzene Chloroform cis-1,2-Dichloroethene Diisopropyl Ether Ethanol Ethyl tert-Butyl Ether Ethylbenzene Hexachlorobutadiene Isopropyl alcohol Isopropylbenzene m,p-Xylene Methoxychlor Methyl tert-Butyl Ether Methylene Chloride Naphthalene o-Xylene Styrene Tert-Amyl Methyl Ether Tertiary Butyl Alcohol Appendix G Page 6 of 7 ANALYTE LISTS Parameter Tetrachloroethene Tetrahydrofuran Toluene trans-1,2-Dichloroethene Trichloroethene Vinyl chloride Xylenes, total Appendix G Chesapeake Energy Baseline Parameter List EPA Retrospective Study Parameter List ----X ------X X X X X X X X Page 7 of 7