DERR-2024-008628

Appendix I
Screening-Level Ecological Risk Assessment

Appendix I - Final Screening-Level Ecological Risk Assessment

700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Site
Salt Lake City, Utah

CONTRACT NO.: W912DQ-18-D-3008
DELIVERY ORDER: W912DQ19F3048

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Kansas City District Department of Veterans Affairs Veterans Health Administration Salt Lake City Health Care System

September 19,
2022

ii

This page intentionally left blank.

i
Table of Contents
Section 1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Overview of Eight-Step Ecological Risk Assessment Process ................................................................ 1-1 1.2 Site Setting and History .......................................................................................................................................... 1-2 1.3 Summary of Accelerated Operable Unit 1 SLERA ....................................................................................... 1-2 1.4 Document Purpose and Organization .............................................................................................................. 1-3
Section 2 Screening-Level Problem Formulation ................................................................ 2-1 2.1 Conceptual Site Exposure Model ........................................................................................................................ 2-1 2.1.1 Primary Source of Contamination ....................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1.2 Transport in the Environment .............................................................................................................. 2-2 2.1.3 Receptors of Interest ................................................................................................................................. 2-2 2.1.4 Potential Exposure Pathways of Concern ......................................................................................... 2-4 2.1.4.1 Aquatic Receptors ......................................................................................................................... 2-4 2.1.4.2 Terrestrial Receptors .................................................................................................................. 2-5 2.2 Assessment and Measurement Endpoints ..................................................................................................... 2-5 2.2.1 Assessment Endpoints .............................................................................................................................. 2-6 2.2.2 Measures of Effect ....................................................................................................................................... 2-7
Section 3 Screening-Level Risk Characterization ................................................................ 3-1 3.1 Basic Approach .......................................................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1.1 Selection of Chemicals of Potential Ecological Concern ............................................................. 3-1 3.1.2 Evaluation of Detection Limits .............................................................................................................. 3-2 3.1.3 Risk Calculation Approach ...................................................................................................................... 3-3 3.2 Data Summary ............................................................................................................................................................ 3-3 3.2.1 Investigation Overview ............................................................................................................................ 3-3 3.2.2 Data Usability Evaluation ........................................................................................................................ 3-4 3.3 Evaluation of Groundwater and Surface Water ........................................................................................... 3-5 3.3.1 Data Summary for Surface Water ........................................................................................................ 3-6 3.3.2 Data Summary for Groundwater .......................................................................................................... 3-6 3.3.2.1 AOU1 Groundwater Sampling (2015–2016) ..................................................................... 3-7 3.3.2.2 OU2 Groundwater Sampling (2017–2019) ........................................................................ 3-7 3.3.2.3 Phase 1 OU2 Groundwater Sampling (2019–2020) ....................................................... 3-7 3.3.2.4 Phase 2 OU1 Groundwater Sampling (2020–2021) ....................................................... 3-7 3.3.3 Exposure Assessment................................................................................................................................ 3-8 3.3.4 Toxicity Assessment .................................................................................................................................. 3-8 3.3.5 Results ............................................................................................................................................................. 3-9 3.4 Evaluation of Sediment and Soil ....................................................................................................................... 3-11 3.4.1 Data Summary ............................................................................................................................................ 3-11 3.4.1.1 Sediment ......................................................................................................................................... 3-11 3.4.1.2 Soil ..................................................................................................................................................... 3-12 3.4.2 Exposure Assessment.............................................................................................................................. 3-12 3.4.3 Toxicity Assessment ................................................................................................................................ 3-12 3.4.4 Results ........................................................................................................................................................... 3-12 3.5 Evaluation of Soil Gas ............................................................................................................................................ 3-14
Table of Contents
ii
3.5.1 Data Summary ........................................................................................................................................... 3-14 3.5.1.1 East Side Springs Sampling .................................................................................................... 3-14 3.5.1.2 Source Area Sampling ............................................................................................................... 3-15 3.5.2 Exposure Assessment ............................................................................................................................. 3-15 3.5.3 Toxicity Assessment ................................................................................................................................ 3-16 3.5.4 Results ........................................................................................................................................................... 3-16 3.6 Uncertainty Assessment ...................................................................................................................................... 3-16 3.6.1 Nature and Extent of Contamination ............................................................................................... 3-16 3.6.1.1 Accuracy of Analytical Measurements ............................................................................... 3-16 3.6.1.2 Data Adequacy ............................................................................................................................. 3-17 3.6.2 Exposure Assessment ............................................................................................................................. 3-17 3.6.2.1 Exposure Pathways Not Evaluated ..................................................................................... 3-17 3.6.2.2 Detection Limit Adequacy ....................................................................................................... 3-18 3.6.2.3 Exposure Point Concentrations ............................................................................................ 3-18 3.6.3 Toxicity Assessment ................................................................................................................................ 3-19 3.6.3.1 Receptors Evaluated.................................................................................................................. 3-19 3.6.3.2 Selected Toxicity Values .......................................................................................................... 3-19 3.6.3.3 Absence of Toxicity Data ......................................................................................................... 3-19 3.6.4 Risk Characterization ............................................................................................................................. 3-20 3.6.4.1 Interactions Among Chemicals ............................................................................................. 3-20 3.6.4.2 Estimation of Population-Level Impacts .......................................................................... 3-20 3.7 Screening-Level Risk Conclusions .................................................................................................................. 3-20 3.7.1 Evaluation of Groundwater and Surface Water .......................................................................... 3-20 3.7.2 Evaluation of Sediment and Soil ........................................................................................................ 3-21 3.7.3 Evaluation of Soil Gas ............................................................................................................................. 3-22
Section 4 References ......................................................................................................... 4-1
Table of Contents
iii
List of Attachments Attachment I.1 Screening-Level Risk Evaluation for Metal COPECs in Surface Water and Groundwater Attachment I.2 Screening-Level Risk Evaluation for Metal COPECs in Soil and Sediment

List of Figures Figure I.1-1 Eight-Step Process Recommended in Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Process Diagram Figure I.2-1 Conceptual Site Exposure Model for Ecological Receptors List of Tables Table I.2-1 Screening-Level Assessment and Measures of Effect for the Ecological Receptor Groups of Interest Table I.3-1 Surface Water COPEC Selection for Ecological Receptors Table I.3-2 Groundwater COPEC Selection for Ecological Receptors Table I.3-3 Surface Water/Groundwater Screening Levels for Ecological Receptors Table I.3-4 Refined Organic COPEC Evaluation for Surface Water Table I.3-5 Refined Organic COPEC Evaluation for Groundwater Table I.3-6 Soil/Sediment COPEC Selection for Ecological Receptors Table I.3-7 Soil/Sediment Screening Levels for Ecological Receptors Table I.3-8 Refined Organic COPEC Evaluation for Soil/Sediment Table I.3-9 Soil Gas COPEC Selection for Ecological Receptors Table I.3-10 Soil Gas Screening Levels for Ecological Receptors
Table of Contents
iv
Acronyms and Abbreviations % percent 95UCL 95 percent upper confidence limit AOU accelerated operable unit bgs below ground surface CDM Smith CDM Federal Programs Corporation CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act cis-1,2-DCE cis-1,2-dichloroethene CLP Contract Laboratory Program COPEC chemical of potential ecological concern CSEM conceptual site exposure model DCE dichloroethene DO dissolved oxygen DSR data summary report EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ERA ecological risk assessment ESS East Side Springs ESV ecological screening value ESL ecological screening level GW groundwater HRS Hazard Ranking System HQ hazard quotient HQmax HQ based on the maximum concentration LANL Los Alamos National Laboratory LOAEL lowest-observed-adverse-effect level MDL method detection limit mg/L milligrams per liter NOAEL no-observed-adverse-effect level NPL National Priorities List ORNL Oak Ridge National Laboratory ORP oxidation reduction potential OU operable unit PCE tetrachloroethene PQL practical quantitation limit RI remedial investigation RL reporting limit site 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Superfund Site SLC Salt Lake City SLCDPU Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities SLERA screening level ecological risk assessment SVOC semivolatile organic compounds SVP soil vapor probe SW surface water TCE trichloroethene TDS total dissolved solids TOC total organic carbon UBLM Utah Bureau of Land Management UDEQ Utah Department of Environmental Quality
Table of Contents
v
VAMC Veterans Affairs Medical Center VC vinyl chloride VHA Veterans Health Administration VI vapor intrusion VOC volatile organic compounds
Table of Contents
vi

This page intentionally left blank.

1-1
Section 1
Introduction
This screening level ecological risk assessment (SLERA) is for the 700 South 1600 East Tetrachloroethene (PCE) Plume Superfund Site located near the George E. Wahlen Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC) in Salt Lake City, Utah. CDM Federal Programs Corporation (CDM Smith) developed this SLERA as directed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Kansas City District under Contract No. W912DQ-18-D-3008, Task Order No. W912DQ19F3048. The VAMC operated a part-time dry-cleaning operation in Building 7 that used PCE over a 6-year period in the late 1970s and early 1980s. During this period, dry-cleaning residuals were likely disposed of into the sanitary sewer. PCE-contaminated groundwater is present beneath the VAMC property and in areas hydraulically downgradient, extending to the East Side Springs (ESS) neighborhood in Salt Lake City. This SLERA is an appendix to the remedial investigation (RI) for Operable Unit 1 (OU1) of the site. As such, information presented in the RI will not be repeated, but the SLERA will summarize relevant information and cross-reference to the appropriate sections, tables, and figures within the RI for further details. The information from this SLERA, along with other relevant site information, will be used by risk managers to make decisions on whether remedial actions may be needed to protect the environment from site-related releases.
1.1 Overview of Eight-Step Ecological Risk Assessment Process The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) developed specific methods and procedures for completing ecological risk assessments (ERAs) at hazardous waste sites (EPA 1998, 1997, 1992).
Figure I.1-1 shows the eight-step process recommended for conducting ecological risk assessments at Superfund sites under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) (EPA 1997). The eight steps shown in Figure I.1-1 are not intended to represent a linear sequence of mandatory tasks. Rather, some tasks may proceed in parallel, some tasks may be performed in a phased or iterative fashion, and some tasks may be judged to be unnecessary at certain sites. Steps 1 and 2 of the ERA process (Figure I.1-1) provide a screening-level risk evaluation to identify the contaminants, pathways, and receptors of potential concern. These steps are intentionally simplified and conservative, and usually tend to overestimate the amount of potential risk. This conservatism allows for the elimination of those factors that are not associated with risk, permitting subsequent efforts to focus on factors that are of potential concern. This document includes an initial screen to identify the chemicals of potential ecological concern (COPECs) for each receptor using the existing site data. The results of this assessment are used to quantify the screening-level risk estimates, identify the chemicals that are likely to be key risk drivers, and determine if a more refined assessment as part of a baseline ERA is necessary.
Section 1 • Introduction
1-2
1.2 Site Setting and History The site is in Salt Lake City, near the University of Utah and the front (west side) of the Wasatch Mountains (RI Figure 1-1). The site is in a mixed commercial and residential area, and the major streets that bound it include 500 South to the north, Michigan Avenue to the south, 1100 East to the west, and Foothill Drive to the east (RI Figure 1-2). The VAMC was constructed in the late 1940s on property that was formerly part of the Fort Douglas (U.S. Army) military post. A dry-cleaning facility on the VAMC property was operational in Building 7 from approximately 1976 through 1984. A single “closed loop” dry-cleaning system was operated, meaning the system contained a distillation process for the recovery of PCE at the end of each cycle. The condensate from the distillation process was likely emptied into a vitrified clay drain line attached to the sanitary sewer. This method of disposal was common practice in the 1980s (EPA 2012). Section 2.3 of the RI provides a detailed description of past sampling investigations. In brief, PCE was first detected in 1990 during sampling of the Mount Olivet Cemetery irrigation well (Utah Department of Environmental Quality [UDEQ] 2000). A follow-up site inspection, conducted by UDEQ’s Division of Environmental Response and Remediation, found PCE at Salt Lake City Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities (SLCDPU) Drinking Water Well No. 18 (SLC-18). Several springs and seeps emanate along the East Bench fault within the ESS residential neighborhood west of 1300 East Street. PCE was detected in several of the springs and seeps within the downgradient portion of the PCE plume. As a result of these PCE detections, the site was placed in the CERCLA Information System in January 2011 (EPA 2012). A preliminary assessment/site inspection was conducted by UDEQ’s Division of Environmental Response and Remediation in 2011, which determined that PCE and its breakdown products are present in spring water, and shallow groundwater posed a potential human health threat (UDEQ 2011). The Mount Olivet Cemetery, several parks, schools, businesses, and residential neighborhoods are within the site. In September 2012, EPA released the Hazard Ranking System (HRS) site score and determined the site was eligible for National Priorities List (NPL) designation. HRS documentation identified the sewer line originating from the VAMC campus as the source of the groundwater contamination and determined there was insufficient evidence to identify additional potential sources (EPA 2012). The site was listed on the NPL on May 24, 2013, with the VAMC named as a potential responsible party (EPA 2014).
1.3 Summary of Accelerated Operable Unit 1 SLERA Historically, the site was divided into two operable units (OUs) to investigate potential impacts to the environment and downgradient receptors. Accelerated Operable Unit 1 (AOU1) was primarily focused on the immediate public health concerns related to vapor intrusion (VI) in the ESS area, a residential area generally bounded by 500 South and Michigan Avenue (north to south) and between 1300 East and 900 East (east to west). Following the AOU1 RI, OU2 was designated for investigation and delineation of the groundwater PCE plume and source area. In 2019, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determined that AOU1 and OU2 would be combined into a single OU, OU1.
Section 1 • Introduction
1-3
The AOU1 RI (EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. [EA] 2019) provided an accelerated evaluation of VI arising from shallow groundwater contamination in the ESS area. The investigation activities associated with the AOU1 RI were completed from 2014 through 2017. This investigation included indoor air sampling, soil gas sampling, surface water sampling of ESS seeps and springs and in Red Butte Creek, installation of monitoring wells within ESS, and groundwater sampling. A preliminary list of site-related chemicals was developed during completion of the AOU1 RI. This list included PCE and its degradation products: trichloroethene (TCE), cis-1,2-dichloroethene (cis-1,2-DCE), and vinyl chloride (VC). The chemical 1,4-dioxane was also included as a preliminary chemical of interest at the request of the EPA. Other analytes were not included in the AOU1 SLERA because they were deemed as not site attributable. A SLERA was completed as part of the AOU1 RI. The scope of AOU1 RI was primarily to assess the VI pathway for residents in the ESS neighborhood to determine the need for interim actions to mitigate exposures from VI. The AOU1 SLERA was intentionally limited, focusing only on potential ecological exposures to surface water and groundwater and the site-related chemicals of interest (i.e., PCE and its degradation products). The AOU1 SLERA concluded that exposure of aquatic organisms, plants, wildlife (bird and mammals), and domestic dogs to site-related contaminants in groundwater and surface water will not result in unacceptable risks. The AOU1 SLERA also concluded that potential ecological risks to aquatic receptors in the Jordan River, which is located several miles west of the site and could be potentially affected because of discharges to the river through the Salt Lake City storm drain system, would be significantly lower than exposures at the site.
1.4 Document Purpose and Organization While the AOU1 SLERA provided an initial risk characterization of potential exposures at the site, this accelerated risk assessment was intentionally limited in that it was focused on a specific subarea of the site (i.e., the ESS neighborhood), one environmental medium (i.e., surface water/groundwater), those exposure pathways that were likely to be key risk drivers, and only those chemicals that were site attributable to identify where prompt action was necessary prior to completion of the final record of decision (ROD). Since the completion of the AOU1 SLERA, additional data have been collected that further inform the exposure assessment and support decisions on the need for remedial action. This SLERA will build upon what was done as part of the AOU1 SLERA and provide a comprehensive risk characterization in support of the OU1 RI to evaluate potential ecological risks from exposures due to contaminated groundwater. This SLERA evaluates the full list of COPECs, assess the exposure scenarios that were not included in the AOU1 SLERA, and re-evaluates exposure scenarios where more recent data have been collected. The purpose of this document is to explain how the ecological risk calculations were performed, present the risk calculations, and provide an interpretation of the risk conclusions. In addition to this introduction, this report is organized into the following sections:
Section 1 • Introduction
1-4
 Section 2, Screening-Level Problem Formulation, presents the conceptual site exposure model (CSEM), identifies the ecological receptors of interest, and discusses the exposure pathways of concern. This section also presents the site management goal and the assessment and measurement endpoints evaluated in the risk characterization.
 Section 3, Screening-Level Risk Characterization, provides information on the basic approach used to identify COPECs, evaluate detection limit adequacy, and perform risk calculations. This section also provides an overview of the available data used in the SLERA. Each environmental medium is evaluated separately. As part of each medium-specific evaluation, there is a summary of available data, a description of how these data were used to assess exposures, a summary of the toxicity values that were used to estimate risks, and a discussion of the estimated risks. This section also provides a discussion of the uncertainties in the risk assessment and describes the impact on these uncertainties on the risk interpretation. The overall risk conclusions are presented at the end of this section.
 Section 4, References, provides citations for guidance documents, studies, and reports referenced in this SLERA. All SLERA-specific tables, figures, and attachments referenced within the following sections are provided at the end of the document. The SLERA-specific tables, figures, and attachments are denoted by an “I” prefix (e.g., Figure I.2-1).

2-1
Section 2
Screening-Level Problem Formulation
Problem formulation is a systematic planning step that identifies the major concerns and issues considered in the SLERA and provides a description of the basic approach used to identify the potential risks that may exist (EPA 1997). Problem formulation usually begins by developing a CSEM that identifies the source(s) of contaminant released into the environment, the fate and transport of contaminants in the environment, and exposure pathways of potential concern for ecological receptors. Based on the CSEM, ecological goals (i.e., assessment endpoints and measures of effect) are identified that form the basis of the ERA.
2.1 Conceptual Site Exposure Model
Figure I.2-1 presents the screening-level ecological CSEM for the site. As indicated in the CSEM, there are several complete exposure pathways by which ecological receptors may come into contact with site-related contaminants. However, not all are likely to be of equal concern. For the purposes of this SLERA, each exposure pathway was classified into one the following categories:
 Pathway is complete and may be an important contributor to exposures. These pathways will be evaluated quantitatively in the risk assessment and are indicated by boxes containing a solid circle ().
 Pathway is complete but is likely to be a minor contributor to exposures. These pathways will be discussed qualitatively in the risk assessment and are indicated by boxes containing an open circle ().
 Pathway is not complete (i.e., not thought to occur); thus, no evaluation is needed in the risk assessment. These pathways are shown by boxes containing an ‘X.’ The following sections describe the source of contamination, how the contamination was transported in the environment, and the ecological receptors of interest that could be potentially exposed.
2.1.1 Primary Source of Contamination The site is affected by PCE, which was historically disposed into the sanitary sewer in the 1980s by a dry-cleaning facility in Building 7 on the VAMC property. PCE was likely released from the sewer line into the surrounding soil via cracks in the line. It is also possible that there were spills on the ground surface in the vicinity of the building. These releases resulted in contaminated groundwater, which migrated over time from beneath the VAMC property along with the alluvial flow into downgradient areas, including the ESS neighborhood. PCE and its degradation products, including TCE, cis-1,2-DCE, and VC, are the primary contaminants of interest at the site. However, in accordance with EPA guidance (EPA 2002), the SLERA will evaluate exposures for all identified COPECs, regardless of their source, to fully characterize potential ecological risks.
Section 2 • Screening-Level Problem Formulation
2-2
2.1.2 Transport in the Environment As illustrated in the CSEM (Figure I.2-1), site contaminants can migrate in the environment by several processes:
 Contaminants in groundwater can flow and migrate to downgradient and cross-gradient locations (depending upon the hydraulic gradients of the aquifer).
 Deep groundwater can be used for nonpotable uses (e.g., irrigation).
 Volatile chemicals in shallow groundwater can volatilize into the interstitial spaces between the soil particles, thus resulting in soil gas.
 Soil gas can volatilize at the ground surface and be released to outdoor air or can migrate into burrows of wildlife that reside in subterranean burrows.
 Shallow groundwater can daylight 1 in the form of seeps and springs.
 Chemicals in shallow groundwater can adsorb to shallow soil and sediment particles in seeps/springs.
 Chemicals can be taken up into tissues of ecological receptor food items (e.g., plants, invertebrates) if they are grown in contaminated soil or watered with contaminated groundwater.
 Fine-grained soil/sediment particulates can be released into air by either wind erosion and/or soil disturbances (e.g., animals digging burrows).
2.1.3 Receptors of Interest As described in Section 1.1, the site is in Salt Lake City, in a mixed commercial and residential area, and the major streets that bound it include 500 South to the north, Michigan Avenue to the south, 1100 East to the west, and Foothill Drive to the east (RI Figure 1-2). The site is located in an urban, mostly developed area, thus, the ecological receptors of interest include plants and wildlife species that are common in urban areas, as well as residential pets. Less than about 10 percent (%) of the site is publicly owned rights of way or parkland. Future land uses are expected to be consistent with current uses. Most terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems support a variety of ecological organisms that can be exposed to chemicals in the environment. It is not feasible to perform risk evaluations for all species potentially exposed. Such an effort would also be duplicative because of the similarity of exposure patterns among closely related species and those with similar feeding guilds. For these reasons, representative receptor groups were selected for evaluation. These receptors groups are intended to be representative of entire classes of organisms (i.e., functional groups). The rationale for selecting each receptor group is discussed below. ___________________________________ 1 In this context, “daylight” refers to shallow groundwater discharging at ground surface.
Section 2 • Screening-Level Problem Formulation
2-3
 Fish. The fish community lives in constant and direct contact with surface water that may be impacted by contaminants. Exposures are also possible from incidental ingestion of sediment and via the food chain (i.e., secondary consumers). The fish community often dominates the aquatic ecosystem in terms of biomass, and fish serve as a prey base for piscivorous (fish-eating) wildlife. However, given the site surface water conditions, which is primarily present in small seeps and springs that can be used to create residential water features, robust and reproducing fish populations are not expected.
 Amphibians. Because of their life cycle, amphibians are often associated with ponds and transient water bodies that do not support fish, such as emergent wetlands. The early life stages of amphibians (e.g., tadpoles) are in constant and direct contact with surface water. Amphibians serve as prey for higher-trophic-level organisms. It is assumed that screening levels designed to be protective of the aquatic community would also be adequately protective of tadpoles.
 Invertebrates. The terrestrial and aquatic invertebrate communities live in constant and direct contact with surface soil and surface water and/or sediment, respectively, that may be impacted by contaminants. Invertebrates have vital functions within the ecosystem, including serving as a prey base for higher-trophic-level organisms and cycling of nutrients.
 Plants. Plant roots are in constant and direct contact with soil, sediment, and shallow groundwater that may be impacted by contaminants. At the site, aquatic plants have the potential to be more impacted than terrestrial plants, because aquatic plants could be directly exposed to water from seeps/springs. Plant communities provide food for herbivores and essential habitat for many wildlife species.
 Birds and mammals. Wildlife are exposed to chemicals primarily through ingestion of dietary items, ingestion of drinking water, and incidental ingestion of soil/sediment while feeding. As higher-trophic-level species, birds and mammals are susceptible to contaminants that bioaccumulate through the food chain. Individual foraging strategies and prey choices may also promote incidental soil/sediment ingestion (e.g., mammals that ingest soil invertebrates tend to have a higher incidental soil ingestion rate because of adhering soil particles on prey items). For the site, burrowing animals are of particular interest because soil vapors derived from volatiles in groundwater have the potential to impact air within burrows. Representative species of birds and mammals are considered in the screening-level assessment and are expected to be adequately protective of domestic pets. As noted above, the site setting is primarily a suburban environment. Most of the areas of the site have been substantially developed and are no longer natural conditions. The exceptions to this are parts of Dry Gulch and streamside areas of Red Butte Creek, which are outside of the site boundary, and very small private woodland properties. The Utah Bureau of Land Management (UBLM) maintains lists of sensitive wildlife and plant species for the state (UBLM 2018). Within Salt Lake County, there are no identified sensitive plant species. The following sensitive wildlife species have been identified within Salt Lake County;
Section 2 • Screening-Level Problem Formulation
2-4
however, as the site is significantly developed, presence of the species listed below is likely limited:
 Fish: Least chub (Iotichthys phlegethontis)
 Amphibians: Columbia spotted frog (Rana luteiventris), western (boreal) toad (Anaxyrus
boreas)
 Reptiles: Smooth green snake (Opheodrys vernalis)
 Birds: American three-toed woodpecker (Picoides dorsalis), bald eagle (Haliaeetus
leucocephalus), black swift (Cypseloides niger), bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorous), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis)
2.1.4 Potential Exposure Pathways of Concern
2.1.4.1 Aquatic Receptors The aquatic receptors of primary concern for the site are aquatic organisms (i.e., fish, aquatic plants and invertebrates, and early-life-stage amphibians) that could reside in the seeps, springs, ponds, and other water features within the ESS area. Although these seeps/springs tend to be ephemeral in nature, when present, it is possible they could provide temporary habitat for aquatic invertebrates and plants, and seep/spring water could be used by wildlife and pets as a drinking water source. Indeed, because the Salt Lake City region is generally dry, terrestrial wildlife may be attracted to the daylighting seeps/springs ESS area as a drinking water source. The aquatic organisms that reside in these site waters can also be a food source for aquatic-feeding wildlife. For fish, aquatic plants, water-column-dwelling invertebrates, and early-life-stage amphibians, the primary exposure pathway of concern is direct contact with surface water that has been impacted by site-related releases. For sediment-dwelling invertebrates, direct contact with sediment is also an exposure pathway of concern. These pathways were selected for quantitative evaluation. For sediment-dwelling invertebrates, sediment benchmarks and toxicity studies are likely to capture exposure from both direct contact with the sediment and ingestion of detritus and sediment particles, so oral exposure of invertebrates was not considered separately from direct contact with sediment. Another pathway of potential concern to fish and other aquatic predators is ingestion of contaminants that have been taken up into aquatic prey items such as periphyton, smaller fish, and emerging aquatic insects. The ingestion of aquatic prey items can also result in incidental ingestion of sediment while feeding. Ingestion of aquatic food web items by fish is a pathway of potential concern, but quantitative evaluation of oral exposures is limited by a lack of oral toxicity values for this class of aquatic receptors. In addition, large fish are not expected to be present in seeps/springs. Therefore, fish ingestion was not selected as an exposure pathway for quantitative evaluation.
Section 2 • Screening-Level Problem Formulation
2-5
Likewise, some aquatic receptors (mainly amphibians) may be exposed by dermal contact with contaminated sediments, but this pathway is suspected to be relatively minor compared to oral or direct contact with water exposures. Methods are not available to support reliable quantitative evaluation of the dermal contact pathway for sediment for either fish or amphibians. In addition to ingestion of aquatic food items, aquatic wildlife may also be exposed to chemicals via ingestion of surface water and from incidental ingestion of sediment while feeding.
2.1.4.2 Terrestrial Receptors At the site, the expectation is that, outside of the seep/spring areas, shallow soil (0 to 10 feet below ground surface [bgs]) contamination is likely to be negligible, with the possible exception of near VAMC Buildings 6 and 7 where historical spills of PCE may have occurred. Direct contact with contaminated soil is a primary exposure pathway for terrestrial receptors such as plants and soil invertebrates. Most soil exposures are likely to occur within the top 25 to 30 centimeters of the ground surface (10 to 12 inches bgs) (EPA 2015); however, some larger plants, such as bushes and trees, could have roots that extend into deeper subsurface soils. This exposure pathway was selected for quantitative evaluation for these terrestrial receptors. For terrestrial plants, exposure may also occur because of deposition of dust on foliar (leaf) surfaces; however, this pathway is believed to be small compared to root exposures in surface soils. Given the shallow depth to groundwater (i.e., groundwater can be present at the ground surface or only a few feet bgs in some areas), it is possible that plant roots could take up shallow groundwater via root exposure. Contact with shallow groundwater is assumed to occur within the top 10 feet bgs. Thus, this exposure pathway was also selected for quantitative evaluation. Terrestrial wildlife are primarily exposed to chemicals in the environment through the ingestion pathway. Wildlife can be exposed via ingestion of terrestrial food items such as plants, small mammals, reptiles, and soil invertebrates; ingestion of surface water as drinking water; and incidental ingestion of soil while feeding. For most wildlife, this contact occurs within the top 6 inches of soil. For some wildlife, such as burrowing mammals, burrowing owls, and reptiles, exposures to chemicals can occur deeper in soil (up to 10 feet bgs). Additionally, terrestrial wildlife may be attracted to the daylighting seeps/springs ESS area as a drinking water source given the dryness of the region. Direct contact (i.e., dermal exposure) of wildlife to soils may occur in some cases, and inhalation exposure to airborne dusts in air is possible for all birds and mammals, but these exposures are usually considered to be minor in comparison to exposures from ingestion (EPA 2005). However, for burrowing animals, it is possible that animals could be exposed to relatively high concentrations of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) via inhalation if concentrations accumulate inside their burrows. Thus, exposure to soil gas was also selected for quantitative evaluation.
2.2 Assessment and Measurement Endpoints Management goals are descriptions of the basic objectives that the risk manager at a site wants to achieve. The overall management goal identified for ecological health for the site is:
Section 2 • Screening-Level Problem Formulation
2-6
 Ensure adequate protection of ecological receptors within the impacted areas of the site by protecting them from the deleterious effects of acute and chronic exposures to site-related contaminants of concern. “Adequate protection” is generally defined as the protection of growth, reproduction, and survival of local populations and communities. An assessment population is a “group of conspecific organisms occupying an area that has been defined as relevant to an ecological risk assessment” (EPA 2003). An assessment community is composed of a “multispecies group of organisms occupying an area that has been defined as relevant to an ecological risk assessment” (EPA 2003), with the composition of species differing based on the surrounding ecosystem. In ERAs, for most receptors, the focus is on ensuring sustainability of the collective population rather than on protection of every individual in the population or community. However, when site receptors include federally listed species or other species of special concern, adequate protection of individual organisms of listed species is also an important management goal.
2.2.1 Assessment Endpoints An assessment endpoint is defined in Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment (EPA 1998) as “an explicit expression of the environmental value to be protected, operationally defined as an ecological entity and its attributes.” Assessment endpoints identify the ecological values to be protected (e.g., abundance and diversity of aquatic receptors). Assessment endpoints are directly related to the management goals and objectives determined for a site. Appropriate assessment endpoints are developed by risk assessors and often consider guidance from relevant regulatory agencies. Ecological risk-related remedial goals and objectives for the site include (EPA 2003):
 Protection of aquatic receptor populations, such as small fish, aquatic invertebrates, and aquatic plants, from site-related adverse exposures in ponds or water features fed by springs/seeps
 Protection of terrestrial plant and invertebrate populations from site-related adverse exposures in soils near springs/seeps and buildings where PCE releases and spills may have occurred
 Protection of wildlife populations from site-related adverse exposures to contaminated media within the PCE plume extent
 Protection of domestic pets from site-related adverse exposures to contaminated media on residential properties Assessment endpoints differ from management goals in that they are intentionally neutral and specific. Assessment endpoints are measurable attributes that are used to evaluate a dose-response relationship. For example, taxa richness would be an appropriate assessment endpoint for evaluating effects on the community of sediment-dwelling aquatic invertebrates in a stream.
Table I.2-1 presents the selected assessment endpoints for the receptors of interest for the site.
Section 2 • Screening-Level Problem Formulation
2-7
2.2.2 Measures of Effect Measures of effect 2 represent quantifiable ecological characteristics that can be measured, interpreted, and related to the valued ecological components chosen as the assessment endpoints (EPA 1997, 1992). In general, there are four basic categories of measures of effect that are useful in evaluating the assessment endpoints at a site:
 Predicted risks based on a comparison of measured concentrations of contaminants in site media to levels believed to be safe
 Site-specific toxicity studies, where test organisms (e.g., fish, invertebrates, plants) are exposed to site media
 In situ measures of exposure and effects provide direct observations of potential impacts for field receptors, such as elevated tissue burdens or visible abnormalities (e.g., lesions, deformities)
 Site-specific community surveys of ecological receptor density and diversity and comparison to a suitable background or reference area In general, each of these measures of effect categories has advantages and limitations. The most reliable risk assessments use information from all four types and use a weight-of-evidence approach. However, because SLERAs typically are performed at an early stage of a site investigation, the measures of effect used in screening-level assessments are generally restricted to the predicted risks approach.
Table I.2-1 summarizes the assessment endpoints and measures of effect for aquatic and terrestrial receptors that will be used to inform the risk characterization for ecological receptors for the site. As shown, the measures of effect in the SLERA rely upon a comparison of measured chemical concentrations in surface water, groundwater, soil gas, sediment, and soil relative to literature-based ecological screening levels that are protective of broad ecological receptor groups. If predicted screening-level risk estimates show the potential for unacceptable exposures for a receptor group, additional measures of effect may be needed to inform and refine risk conclusions for that receptor group.
___________________________________ 2 The term “measurement endpoint” was replaced by “measures of effect” and supplemented by two other measurement categories: measures of exposure and measures of ecosystem and receptor characteristics (EPA 1998).

3-1
Section 3
Screening-Level Risk Characterization
EPA established an eight-step process (Figure I.1-1) for conducting ERAs at Superfund sites (EPA 1997). Per this process, the initial screen for a site represents the first two steps in the eight-step process. The purpose of the initial screen is to identify the contaminants, pathways, and receptors of potential concern. The results of this assessment are used to quantify the screening-level risk estimates, identify the chemicals that are likely to be key risk drivers, and determine if a more refined risk assessment is needed.
3.1 Basic Approach
3.1.1 Selection of Chemicals of Potential Ecological Concern The first step in the initial screen is to compile measurements of chemical concentrations that have been collected for site media. The next step is to assemble relevant conservative ecological screening values (ESVs) for each chemical in each exposure medium that are protective of the ecological receptors of interest. Measured chemical concentrations are then compared to their respective ESV to determine if the chemical will be retained as a COPEC or excluded from further evaluation. The ESVs used in the COPEC selection were purposefully chosen to ensure the process is inherently conservative. This means a larger number of chemicals may be retained for further evaluation than are likely to pose significant ecological risks. The COPEC selection procedure classifies each chemical into one of five categories:
 Quant. – COPEC for quantitative evaluation; these are chemicals with maximum detected concentrations greater than the screening level that will be assessed quantitatively in the risk assessment.
 Qual. 1 – Chemical requires a qualitative evaluation; these are chemicals that are infrequently detected but have an inadequate detection limit and will be discussed qualitatively in the uncertainty assessment.
 Qual. 2 – Chemical requires a qualitative evaluation; these are chemicals that are not detected, but they do not have screening levels to assess detection limit adequacy and will be discussed qualitatively in the uncertainty assessment.
 Bkg. – These are detected chemicals that do not have screening levels; thus, the only way to assess if they may be site-related or elevated is to make comparisons between site samples and background (or reference) locations in the uncertainty assessment.
 No further evaluation – These are either detected chemicals with maximum detected concentrations below the screening level or chemicals that were not detected, and the achieved method detection limit (MDL) is adequate relative to the screening level; thus, risks from these chemicals are likely to be negligible and they are not evaluated further in the SLERA.
Section 3 • Screening-Level Risk Characterization
3-2
Separate COPEC selections are performed for each environmental medium—groundwater, surface water, soil/sediment, and soil gas. In addition, separate COPEC selections are performed for ecological receptors where exposures are via direct contact (e.g., aquatic invertebrate direct contact with sediment and terrestrial plant direct contact with soil), and for wildlife receptors where the primary exposure route is ingestion. Wildlife ESVs are derived using default tissue uptake factors from environmental media. Hence, ESVs used in the selection of COPECs are protective of both ingestion of the environmental medium (e.g., incidental ingestion of soil and ingestion of drinking water) and ingestion of biota in food or prey items, and these wildlife ESVs account for potential bioaccumulation into dietary items.
3.1.2 Evaluation of Detection Limits The COPEC selection procedure focuses on detected chemicals. Excluding chemicals that are not detected is appropriate if samples were analyzed using analytical methods with adequate detection limits (i.e., the analytical instrument would have detected the chemical if it were present at a concentration of concern). Therefore, to ensure analytical detection limits were adequate to support risk management decision-making, method-specific limits for each non-detected analyte in each medium were compared to the screening level ESVs. Usually, there are three different types of laboratory limits identified in laboratory deliverables: an MDL, a practical quantitation limit (PQL), and a reporting limit (RL). The MDL is defined as the minimum concentration of a chemical that can be detected and reported with 99% confidence that it is present. The PQL is normally about 3 to 10 times higher than the MDL and considered the lowest concentration that can be accurately measured and quantified, as opposed to detected. The RL is set by the laboratory based on contractual requirements and is usually set equal to, or slightly higher than, the PQL. Typically, the detect/non-detect status for a chemical is determined based on the MDL. If the chemical is not present at a level above the MDL, the result is reported as non-detect (i.e., U-qualified). When the chemical is present at a concentration between the MDL and the PQL (or RL), the result is reported as an estimated concentration (i.e., J-qualified). When the chemical is present at a concentration above the PQL (or RL), there is usually no qualifier assigned to the reported concentration, unless there are other potential data quality issues being flagged for the result. As mentioned previously, J-qualified results are acceptable for use in risk assessment. U-qualified results are also acceptable for use in risk assessment, but their utility depends upon the adequacy of the achieved MDL. The adequacy of the MDL for each chemical was determined by comparing the maximum MDL (across all non-detect samples) to its respective ESV. For those chemicals where the maximum MDL is higher than the ESV and there is a low detection frequency (less than 10%), the MDL was deemed to be inadequate. These chemicals are discussed further as part of the uncertainty assessment (Section 3.6).
Section 3 • Screening-Level Risk Characterization
3-3
3.1.3 Risk Calculation Approach The initial screen includes a risk prediction approach, referred to as the hazard quotient (HQ) approach. In the HQ approach, the estimated exposure from the site is compared to an ESV that may be without significant risk of unacceptable adverse effect: HQ = Exposure / ESV Exposure is expressed as the concentration of a contaminant in an environmental medium. In all cases, the site exposure and the ESV must be expressed in the same units of measure. For example, surface water concentrations expressed as milligrams per liter (mg/L) must be compared to ESVs expressed as mg/L. Ideally, the ESV is selected to represent the threshold for a toxicity endpoint that is relevant to the assessment endpoint of interest (e.g., mortality, growth, and reproduction effects are usually selected for population sustainability endpoints). If the value of an HQ is less than 1, then it is assumed that the risk of unacceptable adverse effects to the receptor is acceptable. If the HQ is greater than or equal to 1, the risk of adverse effects to the receptor may be of concern. It also is assumed that the probability or severity of adverse effects increase as the value of the HQ increases. Screening-level HQ values are predictions and subject to the uncertainties inherent in the estimates of exposure and the ESVs. Therefore, HQ values above 1 should be interpreted as indicators of potential risk and the need for further evaluation rather than definitive evidence that adverse ecological effects are occurring.
3.2 Data Summary
3.2.1 Investigation Overview Because of the initial detection of PCE in 1990, numerous investigations have been conducted to characterize the source of contamination and the potential threats to human health and the environment. Section 2.3 of the RI provides a detailed summary of the historical investigations prior to the AOU1 and the OU2 investigations. The OU1 RI for the site was initiated in 2015 to characterize the nature and extent of contaminants. Historically, the site was divided into two OUs to investigate potential impacts to the environment and downgradient receptors. AOU1 was designated based on the immediate public health concerns for residents of the ESS area related to indoor air inhalation exposure to PCE and its breakdown products. OU2 was designated for investigation and delineation of the groundwater PCE plume and source area. In 2019, AOU1 and OU2 were combined into OU1. Section 3 of the RI describes the study area objectives, investigative approach, and investigative activities completed for studies performed in support of the RI. In brief, the RI investigative approach included:
 Monitoring well installation and groundwater sampling
• Logging lithology during drilling completed at the site and the collection of geotechnical data to determine the hydrostratigraphic framework
Section 3 • Screening-Level Risk Characterization
3-4
• Installation of the monitoring well network to laterally and vertically delineate the PCE groundwater plume
• Installation of monitoring wells along plume transects for the evaluation of mass flux/discharge
• Time-discrete sampling of monitoring wells to evaluate concentration trends across the site
• Measurement of water levels at all wells, including multilevel wells, to determine groundwater flow direction, horizontal gradients, and vertical gradients
• Collection of multiple lines of evidence to evaluate natural attenuation, including concentration trends, geochemical parameters, concentrations of degradation products, compound-specific isotopic analysis, fraction of organic carbon, magnetic susceptibility, and ferrous iron minerals
 Hydrogeologic testing, specifically slug testing, to measure hydraulic conductivity and determine groundwater velocity
 Soil and soil vapor sampling in the suspected source areas to evaluate the suspected release points and determine if an ongoing source to groundwater is present
 Shallow groundwater, surface water, and soil gas sampling in the ESS area to delineate the area of the site that could be susceptible to VI
 Indoor air sampling of buildings to determine the risks to occupants due to VI The environmental samples collected during the RI are also the basis for quantifying exposures in the SLERA and are described briefly below. In the RI, investigation activities are summarized by investigation type. Thus, the same convention is retained herein. Investigative activities completed for the former AOU1 are described first, followed by the former OU2, and then the combined OU1. Detailed information on each investigation, including the governing plans, study designs, sampling procedures, and analytical results is presented in Section 3 of the RI. A summary of this information is presented in Sections 3.3 to 3.5, focusing on the studies and results that are used to inform exposures for the SLERA.
3.2.2 Data Usability Evaluation All groundwater, surface water, soil gas, soil, and sediment samples collected during the RI investigations (AOU1, OU2, Phase 1 OU2, and Phase 2 OU1) were considered for use in the SLERA. These samples have been collected in accordance with approved sampling plans and the resulting data have undergone data validation. Section 3.13 of the RI discusses any deviations from the governing plans and any implications arising from these deviations. Individual data summary reports (DSRs) as well as the investigation-specific data usability evaluations and data validation reports are provided as appendices to the RI (Appendix A [AOU1 DSR Reports], Appendix B
Section 3 • Screening-Level Risk Characterization
3-5
[OU2 DSRs], Appendix C [Phase 1 DSRs], and Appendix D [Phase 2 DSRs]). All results are included in the selection of COPCs and exposure estimates, with the following exclusions:
 Results rejected by the data validator (R-qualified) were excluded. J-qualified results were retained, although it is recognized results are estimated and could be potentially biased high or low. Non-detect results (U-qualified) were also retained.
 During the AOU1 RI (EA 2019), some of the HAPSITE soil gas data collected in 2015 was qualified during data validation because field data collection was not completed in compliance with the QAPP. In addition to the data validation, a third-party QA assessment was conducted by an independent contractor to determine usability of the data due to field and laboratory documentation discrepancies. The data evaluation for usability determined these data were not usable quantitatively for the risk assessment. Section 3.5 provides specific information on these samples.
 Field quality control (QC) samples (e.g., field, trip, and equipment rinsate blanks, and field duplicates) and laboratory QC samples (e.g., matrix spikes, internal standards, and laboratory duplicates) were excluded.
 Soil gas sample results were retained for use regardless of the sampling/analysis method (i.e., HAPSITE and SUMMA).
 Results for soil samples collected at depths below 10 feet bgs were excluded as it is not expected that the ecological receptors of interest would encounter soils below this depth cutoff.
3.3 Evaluation of Groundwater and Surface Water This section presents the screening-level evaluation of ecological exposures to chemicals in site groundwater and surface water. As described previously, several springs and seeps emanate along the East Bench fault within the ESS residential neighborhood west of 1300 East Street. PCE was detected in several of the springs and seeps within the downgradient portion of the PCE plume. Red Butte Creek also flows along the southern extent of the site. The SLERA evaluated the following water exposure scenarios: direct contact exposures by aquatic organisms residing in the seeps, springs, ponds, and other water features within the ESS area; direct contact (root) exposures by terrestrial plants near seeps/springs; and ingestion exposures by wildlife and domestic pets that drink or feed from these water features. Ecological receptor exposures under current conditions were assessed based on surface water data. Potential future ecological exposures were assessed based on groundwater data, as this data represents groundwater that could potentially daylight in the future. The following sections describe the surface water and groundwater datasets that were used in the SLERA, explain how these data were used to evaluate ecological exposures, identify the sources of the toxicity values used in the screen, summarize the COPECs, and discuss the screening-level risk results.
Section 3 • Screening-Level Risk Characterization
3-6
3.3.1 Data Summary for Surface Water Surface water sampling was completed during the RI to determine the extent of VOCs in groundwater emanating from seeps and springs in the ESS area. Section 3.7 of the RI describes the surface water investigative activities, which are summarized briefly below. Table I.3-1 presents chemical concentration summary statistics for surface water across all RI sampling activities. The surface water sample results were used to identify COPECs under current site conditions. In 2016, surface water samples were collected from identified and accessible seeps, springs, sumps, and Red Butte Creek during the AOU1 investigation. Several of the springs discharge to the municipal stormwater system; therefore, water samples were also collected from selected Salt Lake City stormwater sewer manholes, located in and downgradient of AOU1, to determine if groundwater seepage and discharge from foundation drains is conveying VOC-impacted water to stormwater lines. Surface water and stormwater sampling locations are presented in RI Figure 3-5. Samples were analyzed for VOCs and semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs), total metals, anions, and total dissolved solids (TDS). In October and December 2018, during the OU2 investigation, nine surface water locations were sampled, including six locations previously sampled and three new locations (one new spring discharge location and two locations in Red Butte Creek) (see RI Figure 3-5). Samples were analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs, metals, pesticides, total organic carbon (TOC), TDS, anions, and alkalinity. Between December 2019 and March 2020, seven surface water locations were sampled during the Phase 1 OU2 investigation activities (RI Figure 3-5). Grab samples were collected at each location and analyzed for VOCs. In April 2021, 11 surface water locations were sampled, including eight locations previously sampled and three new locations during the Phase 2 OU1 investigation activities (RI Figure 3-5). Surface water sampling consisted of flow rate measurements, water quality field parameter measurements, and collection and shipment of samples for analytical testing. Water quality parameters included pH, specific conductivity, temperature, oxidation reduction potential (ORP), dissolved oxygen (DO), and turbidity. Analytical samples were collected for VOCs, total metals, dissolved gasses, anions, nitrate/nitrite, TOC, and alkalinity.
3.3.2 Data Summary for Groundwater Numerous groundwater sampling activities were conducted during the RI to determine the extent of VOCs in groundwater associated with the former dry-cleaning operation on the VAMC campus. Section 3.5 of the RI describes the groundwater investigation activities that are summarized briefly below. Table I.3-2 presents chemical concentration summary statistics for groundwater across all RI sampling activities. The groundwater sample results were used to identify COPECs for a future condition scenario (i.e., where shallow groundwater daylights in the future).
Section 3 • Screening-Level Risk Characterization
3-7
3.3.2.1 AOU1 Groundwater Sampling (2015–2016) During the AOU1 sampling activities, temporary groundwater monitoring points (referred to as GW- prefix locations in RI Figure 3-1) were installed with a Geoprobe direct-push probe rig to assess the nature and extent of VOCs in shallow groundwater in the ESS area. Groundwater sampling was conducted at the 44 temporary well points between February and April 2016. Ten temporary monitoring points (GW-10, GW-11, GW-16, GW-20, GW-49, GW-50, GW-52, GW-53, GW-59, and GW-61) were left in place as temporary piezometers to allow future groundwater sampling. The piezometers were sampled during three additional events that occurred in July 2016, September 2016, and August 2019. Groundwater samples were submitted for analysis of VOCs, SVOCs (including 1,4-dioxane), metals (total and dissolved), TDS, anions, pH, and total alkalinity.
3.3.2.2 OU2 Groundwater Sampling (2017–2019) During the OU2 sampling activities, groundwater samples were collected from the newly installed monitoring wells (MW- prefix well identifiers in RI Figure 3-2) in September–October and November–December 2018. Several existing wells were also sampled in November–December 2018. All existing wells were sampled again in March and April 2019. Collected groundwater samples were analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs, 1,4-dioxane, metals, mercury, pesticides, TOC, TDS, anions, and alkalinity.
3.3.2.3 Phase 1 OU2 Groundwater Sampling (2019–2020) Phase 1 OU2 groundwater sampling activities were conducted to assist in further characterization of the hydrogeology, temporal trends, and nature and extent of contamination. Three groundwater sampling events were conducted in December 2019, June 2020, and September–October 2020. RI Figure 3-2 summarizes the groundwater sampling locations. Collected groundwater samples were submitted for analysis of VOCs, total metals (unfiltered), TOC, TDS, anions (sulfate, chloride), alkalinity, nitrate and nitrite, and dissolved gasses (methane, ethane, ethene). A subset of samples was submitted for 1,4-dioxane.
3.3.2.4 Phase 2 OU1 Groundwater Sampling (2020–2021) Phase 2 OU1 groundwater sampling activities were conducted to assist in the further characterization of the hydrogeology, temporal trends, and nature and extent of contamination. Two groundwater sampling events were conducted under Phase 2 OU1 and were completed in December 2020 and March 2021. Collected groundwater samples were submitted for analysis of VOCs, total metals (unfiltered), TOC, anions (sulfate, chloride), alkalinity, nitrate and nitrite, and dissolved gasses (methane, ethane, ethene). A subset of samples was submitted for 1,4-dioxane. In addition, the replaced piezometers (designated “RG-” for residential groundwater; RI Figure 3-3) were sampled in April 2021. Samples were analyzed for VOCs and water quality parameters (temperature, DO, pH, specific conductance, ORP, and turbidity) and recorded if there was sufficient volume.
Section 3 • Screening-Level Risk Characterization
3-8
3.3.3 Exposure Assessment When performing the initial screen for ecological receptor exposures to surface water and groundwater, the exposure concentration was based on the maximum concentration of each analyte across all samples (Tables I.3-1 and I.3-2, respectively). The COPEC selection was performed separately for surface water and groundwater.
3.3.4 Toxicity Assessment ESVs for the protection of aquatic receptors from direct contact exposures to chemicals in surface water have been developed by various regulatory agencies and derived from published scientific literature and experimental studies. The surface water ESVs for ecological receptors were compiled from the following sources:
 UDEQ water quality standards for state waters (UDEQ 2020)
 EPA national ambient water quality criteria for aquatic life (EPA 2020)
 Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) ECORISK Database ecological screening levels (ESLs) for aquatic community organisms and wildlife ingestion (LANL 2021; version 4.2)
 Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) soil solution benchmarks for plant roots (Efroymson et al. 1997) ESVs for the protection of aquatic receptors (including fish, aquatic plants and invertebrates, and amphibians) from direct contact with chemicals in surface water are available from several sources. In general, two different types of aquatic toxicity benchmark are identified: acute and chronic. The acute toxicity benchmark is intended to protect against short-term lethality, while the chronic toxicity benchmark is intended to protect against long-term effects on growth, reproduction, and survival. In the initial screen, the selection of COPECs and initial HQ calculations used chronic toxicity benchmarks. For many metals and metalloids, the aquatic receptor ESVs are dependent upon the hardness of the water (i.e., the precise value of the ESV is calculated from the water hardness). In the initial screen, the ESVs for hardness-dependent metals were calculated based on a hardness of 100 mg/L, which is the basis of the water quality standards reported by Utah DEQ. The LANL ECORISK Database water ESLs include values for both aquatic community organisms (i.e., fish, aquatic invertebrates, aquatic plants) as well as wildlife. The wildlife ESLs for surface water are protective of water ingestion and ingestion of aquatic food items. LANL derives both no-effect ESLs and low-effect ESLs. In the initial screen, the no-effect water ESLs are used to identify COPECs and compute initial HQ estimates. As illustrated in the CSEM (Figure I.2-1), terrestrial plants have the potential to be exposed to surface water in seeps/springs and shallow groundwater via root exposure. Limited toxicity data are available to evaluate this potential exposure scenario. ORNL provides benchmarks for a small set of chemicals to evaluate root exposures.
Section 3 • Screening-Level Risk Characterization
3-9
Table I.3-3 presents the surface water ESVs for each source. The lowest ESV across all sources was selected for use in identifying COPECs for surface water and groundwater.
3.3.5 Results
Table I.3-1 presents the initial screen for surface water exposures by ecological receptors. For each chemical analyzed in surface water, this table shows a comparison of the maximum detected concentration to the lowest ESV and summarizes the outcome of the screen. This table also presents the HQmax, which is the HQ based on the ratio of the maximum concentration to the lowest ESV. As shown, the COPECs identified for further quantitative assessment in surface water and/or groundwater include:
 Metals: aluminum, arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, cobalt, copper, iron, lead, manganese, nickel, selenium, silver, thallium, vanadium, and zinc
 SVOCs: bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate and dimethyl phthalate
 VOCs: chloroform, PCE, and toluene
Exclusion of Metals from Risk Characterization Several metals were identified as COPECs in surface water and groundwater. Metals are naturally present in the Earth’s crust and expected to be detected in water. Based on the site history, there is no expectation that elevated metal concentrations would be attributable to site-related impacts. Even so, in accordance with EPA guidance (EPA 2002), which states that COPECs that have both release-related and background-related sources should be included in the risk assessment, potential risks from exposures to metals are discussed in Attachment I.1 to inform risk management decisions, but metals in water have not been retained for further characterization in the SLERA.
Refined Evaluation of Organic COPECs Five organic chemicals were identified as COPECs in groundwater (bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, dimethyl phthalate, chloroform, PCE, and toluene) and HQmax values ranged up to 7. Two organic chemicals were identified as COPECs in surface water (bis[2-ethylhexyl]phthalate and chloroform) and HQmax values ranged up to 4. When selecting COPECs, maximum surface water concentrations were compared to the lowest water ESLs, regardless of their basis. Therefore, a refined evaluation was performed to determine which types of ESLs were exceeded and the likelihood for potential unacceptable ecological risks.
Tables I.3-4 and I.3-5 present the refined evaluation for surface water and groundwater, respectively. In these tables, summary statistics are presented for each COPEC along with the receptor-specific ESLs. The chronic and acute ESLs are shown for aquatic community organisms (e.g., fish, aquatic invertebrates), the screening-level benchmarks are shown for terrestrial plant root exposures, and the no-effect and low-effect ESLs are shown for wildlife (i.e., representative
Section 3 • Screening-Level Risk Characterization
3-10
bird and mammal species of various feeding guilds). Maximum concentrations above the ESL are shaded.
Table I.3-4 shows that the maximum surface water concentrations of bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate and chloroform were above the chronic ESL for aquatic community organisms, but did not exceed the acute ESL. Maximum concentrations were also well below the no-effect ESLs for all wildlife. The following bullets discuss the chronic ESL exceedances for surface water for each COPEC:
 For bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, only a single surface water sample (collected from SW47 in Red Butte Creek on October 10, 2018) was above the chronic ESL. This single exceedance appears to be anomalous because all surface water samples from this location collected prior to and since the October 2018 sampling event have been non-detect for bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate. Additionally, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate is not expected to be associated with the PCE groundwater plume (i.e., it is not a site-related contaminant).
 For chloroform, there were 25 surface water samples above the chronic ESL, but no samples exceeded the acute ESL. Chloroform is frequently detected in site surface water (71 of 100 surface water samples reported detected concentrations of chloroform). Chloroform is a disinfection by-product commonly produced during the water chlorination process and its presence could potentially be associated with discharges of chlorinated water, such as during lawn irrigation or leaking water lines (Ivahnenko and Zogorski 2006). Inspection of the groundwater data for two wells upgradient of the site (MW-05R and MW-06) shows that chloroform was detected in all groundwater samples with concentrations ranging from 0.5 to 6.9 ug/L. The site surface water concentrations are within this range, which suggests the presence of chloroform is likely attributable to anthropogenic, but not site-related, sources. The refined results for groundwater (Table I.3-5) are similar to surface water. Maximum groundwater concentrations of all COPECs, including bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, chloroform, dimethyl phthalate, PCE, and toluene, were above the chronic ESL for aquatic community organisms but did not exceed the acute ESL. Maximum COPEC concentrations were well below the no-effect ESLs for all wildlife and the available screening-level benchmarks for terrestrial plant roots. With the exception of PCE, these COPECs are not expected to be associated with the PCE groundwater plume (i.e., they are not site-related contaminants and likely have other anthropogenic sources). Inspection of the PCE data for groundwater shows the chronic ESL exceedances occurred in three wells (MW-01S, MW-02, and MW-03RB) that are screened at depths greater than 175 feet bgs and located outside the ESS neighborhood where seeps/springs daylight (RI Figure 3-2). Thus, while there is the potential PCE exposures in the future if this groundwater were to daylight as seeps/springs, it is anticipated groundwater concentrations would attenuate below the chronic ESL prior to daylighting. The assumption is supported by the fact that PCE was not identified as a COPEC for surface water (i.e., the maximum PCE concentration in surface water was below the chronic ESL). These results support the conclusion that exposures to seeps/springs, both now and in the future, will not result in unacceptable risks to wildlife or to domestic pets that drink the water or feed on
Section 3 • Screening-Level Risk Characterization
3-11
aquatic organisms. No unacceptable risks are expected for terrestrial plants from root exposures to organic chemicals in seeps/springs. Seep/spring water could be used to create aquatic features in residential yards (e.g., small ponds). These features are unlikely to represent pristine natural aquatic habitats (i.e., native fish communities are unlikely to be present), but could support aquatic invertebrates, emerging insects, and domestic fish (e.g., koi). Acute impacts to aquatic organisms from exposures to COPECs seep/spring water are not expected. There is the potential for aquatic organisms to have unacceptable chronic exposures; however, most of COPECs associated with these chronic exposures are not site-related contaminants. PCE concentrations in surface water did not result in unacceptable risks, and PCE concentrations in groundwater would be expected to attenuate below the chronic ESL prior to daylighting.
3.4 Evaluation of Sediment and Soil This section presents the screening-level evaluation of ecological exposures to chemicals in site sediment and soil. In the SLERA, the term “sediment” is used when describing materials that have been collected within seep/spring features and from the bottom of creek beds. The term “soil” is used when describing all other materials (e.g., collected from boreholes). The SLERA evaluated the following sediment and soil exposure scenarios: direct contact sediment exposures by aquatic invertebrates residing in the seeps, springs, ponds, and other water features within the ESS area, direct contact soil exposures by terrestrial plants, and ingestion exposures by wildlife and domestic pets (including both incidental ingestion of sediment and soil and ingestion of aquatic and terrestrial food items). The following sections describe the sediment and soil datasets that were used in the SLERA, explain how these data were used to evaluate ecological exposures, identify the sources of the toxicity values used in the screen, summarize the COPECs, and discuss the screening-level risk results.
3.4.1 Data Summary Drilling investigations at the site have been completed for grab groundwater sampling, soil sampling, monitoring well installation, and soil gas probe installation. During these investigations, soil/sediment samples were collected for the analysis of VOCs, geotechnical parameters, and geochemical parameters, and lithologic logs were completed to delineate VOC contamination and provide geologic and hydrogeologic site information. A summary of the soil/sediment sampling efforts conducted during the RI is presented in Section 3.3 of the RI. Investigations for each medium are summarized briefly below. Table I.3-6 presents chemical concentration summary statistics for soil/sediment. These results were used to identify COPCs in soil/sediment for further evaluation in the risk calculations.
3.4.1.1 Sediment During the AOU1 sampling activities, three sediment samples were collected in May 2016 in conjunction with surface water sampling locations (RI Figure 3-1). Two sediment samples (SS-09
Section 3 • Screening-Level Risk Characterization
3-12
and SS-26), collocated with surface water sampling locations along Sunnyside Avenue, were collected from seeps and springs with known detections of PCE (SW-09 and SW-26). The third sediment sample (SS-01) was collocated with a surface water sample (SW-01), which was placed in a location where PCE was not detected in the shallow groundwater. Sediment samples were analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs, and metals.
3.4.1.2 Soil The RI summarizes results for all collected soil samples. In brief, 298 soil samples have been collected from 44 locations on the VAMC campus, in Sunnyside Park, and near the Mount Olivet Cemetery, as presented in RI Figure 5-1. All soil samples were analyzed for VOCs. These soil samples were collected from depths ranging from less than 1 foot to 355 feet bgs. However, the SLERA only includes those soil samples collected from a depth interval that could potentially be encountered by the ecological receptor populations of potential concern (i.e., 0 to 10 feet bgs); the SLERA refers to samples within this depth interval as “shallow soils.” A total of 41 shallow soil samples have been collected (collocated with soil gas sampling performed in 2018 and 2019 during the OU2 sampling activities). These shallow soil samples were collected near VAMC Buildings 6 and 7 and along the sanitary sewer line, which are the areas where shallow soil contamination has the potential to be highest.
3.4.2 Exposure Assessment When performing the initial screen for ecological receptor exposures to soil/sediment, the exposure concentration was based on the maximum concentration of each analyte across all samples (Table I.3-6). The COPEC selection was performed together for soil and sediment samples.
3.4.3 Toxicity Assessment ESVs for the protection of ecological receptors from exposures to chemicals in soil and sediment have been derived from published scientific literature and experimental studies and compiled in the LANL ECORISK Database (LANL 2021). The LANL ECORISK Database includes both sediment ESLs for the protection of aquatic invertebrates and aquatic invertebrate-feeding wildlife (i.e., bats and swallows) and soil ESLs for terrestrial plants, invertebrates, and terrestrial-feeding wildlife. The wildlife ESLs are protective of incidental soil/sediment ingestion and ingestion of food items. LANL derives both no-effect ESLs and low-effect ESLs. In the initial screen, the no-effect soil/sediment ESLs are used to identify COPECs and compute initial HQ estimates.
Table I.3-7 presents the soil/sediment ESVs. The lowest ESV across both media types was selected for use in identifying COPECs for soil/sediment.
3.4.4 Results
Table I.3-6 presents the initial screen for soil/sediment exposures by ecological receptors. For each chemical analyzed in soil/sediment, this table shows a comparison of the maximum detected concentration to the lowest ESV and summarizes the outcome of the screen. This table also
Section 3 • Screening-Level Risk Characterization
3-13
presents the HQmax. As shown, the COPECs identified for further quantitative assessment in soil/sediment include:
 Metals: antimony, arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, thallium, vanadium, and zinc
 SVOCs: benzo(b)fluoranthene
 VOCs: acetone and PCE
Exclusion of Metals from Risk Characterization Several metals were identified as COPECs in soil/sediment. As noted above, metals are naturally present in the Earth’s crust and expected to be detected in soil/sediment. Based on the site history, there is no expectation that elevated metal concentrations would be attributable to site-related impacts. Even so, in accordance with EPA guidance (EPA 2002), which states that COPECs that have both release-related and background-related sources should be included in the risk assessment, potential risks from exposures to metals are discussed in Attachment I.2 to inform risk management decisions, but metals in soil/sediment have not been retained for further characterization in the SLERA.
Refined Evaluation of Organic COPECs Three organic chemicals were identified as COPECs in soil/sediment (acetone, benzo[b]fluoranthene, and PCE) and HQmax values were only 1 to 2 for benzo(b)fluoranthene and acetone, respectively, and ranged up to 10 for PCE. When selecting COPECs, maximum concentrations were compared to the lowest soil/sediment ESLs, regardless of their basis. Therefore, a refined evaluation was performed to determine which types of ESLs were exceeded and the likelihood for potential unacceptable ecological risks.
Table I.3-8 presents the refined evaluation for soil/sediment. In this table, summary statistics are presented for each COPEC along with the receptor-specific no-effect and low-effect ESLs. Maximum concentrations above the ESL are shaded. Table I.3-8 shows that the maximum soil/sediment concentrations of acetone and benzo(b)fluoranthene were above the no-effect ESL for aquatic community organisms (i.e., aquatic invertebrates), but did not exceed the low-effect ESL. Maximum concentrations were also below the no-effect ESLs for all wildlife receptors and terrestrial plants. For acetone, only a single sediment sample (A-SS-01_05042016 from seep SW-01) was detected above the no effect ESL. For benzo(b)fluoranthene, the achieved MDLs were not adequate relative to no-effect ESL; however, all three sediment samples were below the low-effect ESL. Neither acetone nor benzo(b)fluoranthene are expected to be associated with the PCE groundwater plume (i.e., they are not site-related contaminants). For PCE, maximum concentrations were below the no-effect ESLs for all wildlife receptors. There were 37 non-detect samples with inadequate MDLs relative to the no-effect ESL for aquatic community organisms; however, all samples had adequate MDLs relative to the low-effect ESL. Only one sediment sample (A-SS-26_05032016 from seep SW-26; RI Figure 3-5) had detected PCE concentrations slightly above the low-effect ESL for aquatic community organisms. However,
Section 3 • Screening-Level Risk Characterization
3-14
given the magnitude of the exceedance (i.e., PCE sediment concentration in this seep is 0.022 mg/kg and the low-effect ESL is 0.02 mg/kg), any adverse effects would likely be minor. These results support the conclusion that exposures to soils/sediments will not result in unacceptable risks to wildlife or to domestic pets that incidentally ingest soil/sediment or feed on aquatic and terrestrial organisms. No unacceptable risks are expected for terrestrial plants from exposures to organic chemicals in soil. There is the potential for aquatic organisms to have unacceptable exposures due to PCE and other non-site-related chemicals in sediment within site seep/spring areas or aquatic features in residential yards (e.g., small ponds). While these areas could support aquatic invertebrates and emerging insects, they are unlikely to represent pristine natural aquatic habitats and effects from any site-related exposures are likely to be minor.
3.5 Evaluation of Soil Gas
3.5.1 Data Summary The primary purpose of the site soil gas sampling efforts was to delineate VOC contamination and determine the area susceptible to vapor intrusion. However, these soil gas samples also provide information on air concentrations that could be present inside underground burrows to which burrowing wildlife (e.g., rabbits) could be exposed. Sections 3.8 and 3.9 of the RI describe the soil gas sampling activities for the ESS and source areas, respectively. Each sampling effort is summarized briefly below. During the soil gas investigations, two types of devices have been used to sample/analyze VOCs in air. Most of the air concentrations were measured using a portable gas chromatography/mass spectrometer (Inficon HAPSITE® [HAPSITE]) equipped with a headspace sampling system. The HAPSITE is useful because it can provide real-time measurements of volatiles without having to send samples to an off-site laboratory. Use of the HAPSITE allows for a rapid assessment of air concentrations; however, the HAPSITE reports concentrations for a subset of VOCs, including PCE, TCE, and cis-1,2-DCE. SUMMA canisters are submitted to an off-site laboratory for analysis of the full list of VOCs. Both types of samples were included in the screening-level risk evaluation of soil gas results.
Table I.3-9 presents chemical concentration summary statistics for soil gas across all RI sampling activities, including both the ESS and source area sampling efforts. The soil gas results across all the RI sampling activities were used to identify COPECs for further evaluation in the risk calculations.
3.5.1.1 East Side Springs Sampling Near-slab (collected within 5 feet of the foundation of a structure) soil gas samples in the ESS neighborhood were collected in 2015, 2016, and 2017 during the AOU1 investigation. Soil vapor probes were installed adjacent to structures where indoor air samples were collected. Soil gas sample locations are presented in RI Figure 3-6. All samples were analyzed by HAPSITE for a subset of VOCs, including PCE, TCE, and cis-1,2-DCE. Confirmation SUMMA canister samples were collected at a subset of HAPSITE sampling locations.
Section 3 • Screening-Level Risk Characterization
3-15
In 2015, open-field (collected greater than 5 feet from an occupied building foundation) soil gas samples were also collected and analyzed by HAPSITE or EPA Method TO-15/TO-15 SIM (SUMMA). These samples were collected at seeps and springs expected to be impacted by VOCs, and at locations adjacent to streets and sidewalks in AOU1. As explained in Section 3.13.1 of the RI, some of the 2015 soil gas data was determined to not be usable for risk assessment because field data collection was not completed in compliance with the QAPP and because of field and laboratory documentation discrepancies. The SLERA only includes soil gas samples with data that were deemed usable. In December 2020, soil vapor probes (SVPs) were installed at selected monitoring wells where elevated photoionization detector readings were observed in the subsurface vadose zone, or where coarse-grained intervals were encountered. In March 2021, soil gas samples were collected at four monitoring wells with SVPs in the ESS area: MW-32, MW-34, MW-37, and MW-38 (RI Figure 3-7). In April 2021, soil gas samples were collected from seven additional SVPs installed at residential groundwater sampling locations with SVPs (designated “RG”) where groundwater is present deeper than 10 feet bgs. In August 2021, soil gas samples were collected at four previously sampled SVPs installed with RG wells in the ESS area: RG-01, RG-04, RG-07, and RG-08 (RI Table 3-5 and RI Figure 3-7). Soil gas samples were collected in SUMMA canisters and analyzed for VOCs (EPA Method TO-15).
3.5.1.2 Source Area Sampling Soil gas sampling was conducted in 2018, 2019, and 2021 on the VAMC campus and in Sunnyside Park to identify and delineate source(s) of PCE contamination. Samples were collected from previously installed and newly installed SVPs in both soil borings and monitoring well borings, and from Vapor Pins®. In 2018 and 2019, during OU2 investigation activities, SVPs and Vapor Pin subslab sampling ports were installed in areas near VAMC Buildings 6 and 7 and within these two buildings by drilling sampling ports in the basement and ground floor (RI Figure 3-8). In addition, SVPs were also installed along the sewer line from the VAMC Buildings 6 and 7 to the Sunnyside Park area (RI Figure 3-9). Soil gas sampling was conducted using Tedlar bags analyzing with the HAPSITE for PCE, TCE, and cis-1,2-DCE. Approximately 10 percent of HAPSITE samples were confirmed with SUMMA canisters and analyzed for VOCs (EPA Method TO-15). In March 2021, 46 soil gas samples were collected on the VAMC campus and in Sunnyside Park (RI Figures 3-10 and 3-11, respectively). Soil gas samples were collected in SUMMA canisters and analyzed for VOCs (EPA Method TO-15).
3.5.2 Exposure Assessment When performing the initial screen for ecological receptor exposures to soil gas, the exposure concentration was based on the maximum concentration of each analyte across all samples (Table I.3-9).
Section 3 • Screening-Level Risk Characterization
3-16
3.5.3 Toxicity Assessment Inhalation exposures to airborne dusts and volatiles in outdoor air is possible for all birds and mammals, but these exposures are usually considered to be minor in comparison to exposures from ingestion (EPA 2005). However, for burrowing animals, it is possible that animals could be exposed to relatively high concentrations of VOCs via inhalation if concentrations accumulate inside their burrows. Toxicity data to assess inhalation exposures by wildlife are limited. The LANL ECORISK Database (LANL 2021) provides ecological screening level in air for a subset of VOCs. These screening levels are protective of burrowing mammal inhalation exposures and derived based on exposure assumptions for a Botta’s pocket gopher. Two types of ESLs were derived: no-effect ESLs, which were developed from no-observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL) TRVs, and low-effect ESLs, which were developed from lowest-observed-adverse-effect level (LOAEL) TRVs. Table I.3-10 presents the no-effect ESLs for air used to identify COPECs for soil gas.
3.5.4 Results
Table I.3-9 presents the initial screen for soil gas by burrowing wildlife. For each chemical analyzed in soil gas, this table shows a comparison of the maximum detected concentration to the lowest air-based ESV and summarizes the outcome of the screen. This table also presents the HQmax. As shown, maximum soil gas concentrations of all chemicals are below their respective air-based ESVs; therefore, no COPECs were identified for further quantitative assessment in soil gas. These results show that inhalation of volatile chemicals in burrows is unlikely to result in unacceptable risks to burrowing animals.
3.6 Uncertainty Assessment Quantitative evaluation of ecological risks is frequently limited by uncertainties in the data evaluation, exposure assessment, effects assessment, and risk characterization process. Although risk assessment follows a formal scientific approach, making assumptions or estimates based on limited available data or incorporation of professional judgment is an inherent part of the risk assessment process. The characterization of uncertainty is a key component of the ecological risk assessment process (EPA 1997). Uncertainties can lead to either an overestimation or an underestimation of risk. However, because of the inherent conservatism in the derivation of many of the exposure estimates and toxicity values, risk estimates presented in this SLERA should generally be viewed as being more likely to be high than low. Uncertainties in the risk assessment need to be evaluated and considered when making risk management decisions. This section provides a narrative discussion of the types of uncertainties that influence the SLERA results.
3.6.1 Nature and Extent of Contamination
3.6.1.1 Accuracy of Analytical Measurements Laboratory analysis of environmental samples is subject to technical difficulties and values reported by the laboratory may not always be correct. The magnitude of analytical error is usually small compared to other sources of uncertainty, although the relative uncertainty
Section 3 • Screening-Level Risk Characterization
3-17
increases for results near the MDL. The risk assessment includes J-qualified results recognizing there is a higher degree of analytical uncertainty in these estimated values.
3.6.1.2 Data Adequacy The data adequacy evaluation is a qualitative determination of whether the available data are representative in space and time. Section 3.2 summarizes the datasets that were used in the SLERA to select COPECs and quantify exposures and risks. The following provides a brief discussion of some of the potential data adequacy issues for the results used to support the SLERA risk conclusions. Three sediment samples have been collected from seeps/springs (see SW- prefix locations in RI Figure 5-1). Since 2016, up to 100 surface water samples have been collected from site seeps/springs, sumps, and Red Butte Creek and analyzed for a range of contaminants, including the site-related chemicals of interest. More samples have been collected for surface water because this is the medium that is more directly affected by site releases. The surface water dataset is comprehensive and spatially representative of the ESS area (RI Figure 3-6), which is the area where surface water exposures have the highest potential to occur. However, additional data collection may be needed to better understand potential exposures to aquatic organisms exposed to PCE in sediment. No measured shallow soil (0 to 10 feet bgs) data are available within the ESS area. Nearly all the available shallow soil data were collected from near the VAMC buildings and the sanitary sewer lines where PCE spills and releases occurred (RI Figure 5-1). As noted previously, outside of the seep/spring areas, shallow soil contamination is likely to be negligible; thus, evaluating shallow soil exposures on the VAMC campus is likely to be adequately protective of exposures within the ESS area. Two devices have been employed to measure VOCs in air: in-field HAPSITE and SUMMA canisters. The pros and cons associated with each of these methods was discussed in Section 3.5.1. A subset of the data was collected using the HAPSITE, and results are limited to PCE, TCE, and cis-1,2-DCE. The HAPSITE results do not suggest site-related VOC concentrations approach a level of potential concern for burrowing mammals. Thus, the reliance on these data is not anticipated to change the overall risk conclusions.
3.6.2 Exposure Assessment
3.6.2.1 Exposure Pathways Not Evaluated Exposure pathways selected for quantitative evaluation in this assessment do not include all potentially complete exposure pathways for all ecological receptors (Figure I.2-1). Omission of these pathways will tend to lead to an underestimation of total risk to the exposed receptors. As discussed previously, many of these exposure pathways (i.e., dermal exposures of wildlife) are likely to be minor compared to other pathways that were evaluated, and the magnitude of the underestimation is not likely to be significant in most cases.
Section 3 • Screening-Level Risk Characterization
3-18
3.6.2.2 Detection Limit Adequacy Detection limit adequacy is determined by performing an evaluation of the achieved laboratory detection limits for each chemical in each media in cases where the samples were all non-detect to determine if the achieved detection limits were low enough to support risk management decision making. During the COPEC selection process, several analytes were not detected or were infrequently detected in site media based on the sitewide dataset. For infrequently detected chemicals, the mean of the MDL was compared to the appropriate risk-based screening level. When the MDL was higher than the screening level, the chemical was identified as a “Qual. 1” chemical, meaning a qualitative discussion of the potential implications of the inadequate detection limit would need to be discussed as part of the uncertainty assessment. The following bullets summarize the Qual. 1 chemicals for each medium.
 For groundwater and surface water, 16 infrequently detected chemicals had inadequate MDLs relative to the lowest chronic ESVs, including 4,4'-dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (4,4’-DDT), anthracene, benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, chrysene, cis-chlordane, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, fluoranthene, heptachlor, heptachlor epoxide, methoxychlor, naphthalene, pyrene, toxaphene, and trans-chlordane.
 For soil/sediment, there were only four chemicals identified as Qual. 1—bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, di-n-butylphthalate, and pentachlorophenol—based on the lowest no-effect soil/sediment ESVs.
 For soil gas, there were no chemicals identified as Qual. 1, meaning the achieved MDLs for all chemicals were adequate relative to the air-based ESVs. This shows the MDLs achieved during the analysis of several chemicals in site media were too high to determine if they may be present at an unacceptable exposure level. There are no instances where a site-related contaminant had an inadequate MDL. Samples were collected and analyzed using the best available techniques and standard analytical methods. Because there is no expectation that the chemicals with inadequate MDLs are site-related, the lack of adequate MDLs does not preclude risk determinations for the contaminants that are likely to be attributable to site releases.
3.6.2.3 Exposure Point Concentrations In all exposure calculations, the desired input parameter is the true mean concentration of a contaminant within a medium, averaged over the area where random exposure occurs. However, because the true mean cannot be calculated based on a limited set of measurements, EPA (1992, 1989) recommends that the exposure estimate be based on the 95% upper confidence limit (95UCL) on the mean. When data are plentiful and inter-sample variability is not large, the 95UCL may be only slightly higher than the mean of the data. However, when data are sparse or are highly variable, the 95UCL may be much higher than the mean of available data or may not be able to be calculated (e.g., a reliable calculation of the 95UCL requires at least 8 to 10 samples). Initially, the COPEC selection and refined calculations were performed based on the maximum concentration in each exposure medium. Use of the maximum concentration is likely to overestimate potential exposures, especially when the focus is on the protection of larger ecological populations and communities.
Section 3 • Screening-Level Risk Characterization
3-19
3.6.3 Toxicity Assessment
3.6.3.1 Receptors Evaluated Risks to wildlife were assessed for a subset of avian and mammalian species selected to represent the range of feeding guilds (i.e., insectivores, herbivores, carnivores, and piscivores) potentially present at the site. Although the wildlife receptors evaluated in the risk assessment were selected to represent species within this feeding guild, they may not represent the full range of sensitivities present. The species selected may be more or less sensitive to chemical exposure than typical species located within the site.
3.6.3.2 Selected Toxicity Values In the SLERA, HQmax values were calculated using screening levels compiled from the literature. In general, because the resulting HQmax values are more likely to be overestimated than underestimated, when HQ values are below 1, it is possible to draw meaningful conclusions regarding potential risks despite the uncertainties in the selected toxicity values. However, when HQ values are above 1, the uncertainties in the selected toxicity values should be carefully considered in making risk management decisions. The SLERA relies upon literature-derived ESVs for wildlife that have been back-calculated from assumed wildlife exposure parameters, default dietary uptake models, and dose-based toxicity values from the literature. This back-calculation of wildlife ESVs incorporates several conservative assumptions. For example, dose-based toxicity values also do not account for site-specific environmental attributes that may influence uptake and toxicity and it was assumed wildlife exposures were continuous and receptor home ranges were located entirely within the site. Because of the conservatism of the ESVs, HQmax values are likely to be overestimated.
3.6.3.3 Absence of Toxicity Data Toxicity values are needed to quantify risks from exposure to chemicals detected in environmental media. Toxicity values are not available for some of the chemicals analyzed at the site (Tables I.3-3, I.3-7, and I3-10). In the COPEC selection, these chemicals were identified as “Qual. 2” or “Bkg.” Chemicals that were not detected but are lacking screening levels to assess detection limit adequacy were identified as “Qual. 2” chemicals. Detected chemicals that are lacking screening levels were identified as “Bkg” chemicals because the only way to assess if they may be site-related or elevated is to make comparisons between site samples and background (or reference) locations. As shown in the COPEC selection tables, there were a few examples where potentially site-related chemicals (e.g., cis- and trans-1,2-DCE and 1,4-dioxane in groundwater, surface water, and soil gas) were detected in site media, but there are no toxicity values to determine if the reported concentrations would pose a potentially unacceptable ecological risk. Inspection of the groundwater data for two wells upgradient of the site (MW-05R and MW-06) shows that cis- and trans-1,2-DCE and 1,4-dioxane were not detected, which indicates that their presence in site media may be site-related, but it is not possible to quantify potential risks. Although no strong conclusions can be reached regarding the potential for risk from chemicals without toxicity values, it is suspected that the magnitude of the error that results from excluding
Section 3 • Screening-Level Risk Characterization
3-20
these chemicals is usually likely to be low. This is because the absence of toxicity information for a chemical is most often because toxicological concern over that chemical is low. That is, chemicals that lack toxicity values have often not been well studied because existing data suggest relatively low toxicity to humans and researchers have focused on chemicals with a higher potential for toxicity.
3.6.4 Risk Characterization
3.6.4.1 Interactions Among Chemicals Most toxicity benchmark values are derived from studies of the adverse effects of a single contaminant. However, exposures to ecological receptors usually involve multiple contaminants, raising the possibility that synergistic or antagonistic interactions might occur. Generally, data are not adequate to permit any quantitative adjustment in toxicity values or risk calculations based on inter-chemical interactions. In accordance with EPA guidance, effects from different chemicals are not added unless reliable data are available to indicate that the two (or more) chemicals act on the same target tissue by the same mode of action (e.g., polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, divalent cations of heavy metals). If any of the COPECs at the site act by a similar mode of action, total risks could be higher than estimated. Conversely, if the COPECs at the site act antagonistically, total risks could be lower than estimated.
3.6.4.2 Estimation of Population-Level Impacts Assessment endpoints for most receptors at this site (Table I.2-1) are based on the sustainability of exposed populations and communities (i.e., the ability of a population to maintain normal levels of diversity and density). Even if it is possible to accurately characterize the distribution of risks or effects across the members of the exposed population, estimating the impact of those effects on the population is generally difficult and uncertain. The relationship between adverse effects on individuals and effects on the population is complex and depends on the demographic and life history characteristics of the receptor being considered as well as the nature, magnitude, and frequency of the chemical stresses and associated adverse effects. Thus, the actual risks that will lead to population-level adverse effects will vary from receptor to receptor.
3.7 Screening-Level Risk Conclusions The purpose of the screening-level risk characterization is to identify the COPECs, exposure pathways, and receptors of potential concern. The results of this assessment are used to quantify the screening-level risk estimates, identify the chemicals that are likely to be key risk drivers, and determine if a more refined risk assessment is needed.
3.7.1 Evaluation of Groundwater and Surface Water Several springs and seeps emanate along the East Bench fault within the ESS residential neighborhood west of 1300 East Street. PCE was detected in several of the springs and seeps within the downgradient portion of the PCE plume. The SLERA evaluated the following water exposure scenarios: direct contact exposures by aquatic organisms residing in the seeps; springs, ponds, and other water features within the ESS area; direct contact (root) exposures by terrestrial plants near seeps/springs; and ingestion exposures by wildlife and domestic pets that
Section 3 • Screening-Level Risk Characterization
3-21
drink or feed from these water features. Exposures to ecological receptors under current conditions were assessed based on available surface water data. Potential future exposures to ecological receptors were assessed based on available groundwater data, as this data represents groundwater that could potentially daylight in seeps/spring as surface water in the future. The SLERA results support the following risk conclusions:
 Exposures to seeps/springs, both now and in the future, will not result in unacceptable risks to wildlife or to domestic pets that drink the water or feed on aquatic organisms.
 No unacceptable risks are expected for terrestrial plants from exposures to organic chemicals in seeps/springs.
 Acute impacts to aquatic organisms from exposures to COPECs in seep/spring water are not expected.
 There is the potential for aquatic organisms to have unacceptable chronic exposures; however, the COPECs associated with these exposures are not site-related contaminants. PCE concentrations in surface water did not result in unacceptable aquatic receptor risks and PCE concentrations in deep groundwater would be expected to attenuate below the chronic ESL prior to daylighting. No further evaluation of ecological exposures to site-related contaminants in surface water is necessary.
3.7.2 Evaluation of Sediment and Soil The SLERA evaluated the following sediment and soil exposure scenarios – direct contact sediment exposures by aquatic invertebrates residing in the seeps, springs, ponds, and other water features within the ESS area, direct contact soil exposures by terrestrial plants, and ingestion exposures by wildlife and domestic pets (including both incidental ingestion of sediment and soil and ingestion of aquatic and terrestrial food items). The SLERA results support the following risk conclusions:
 Exposures to soils/sediments will not result in unacceptable risks to wildlife or to domestic pets that incidentally ingest soil/sediment or feed on aquatic and terrestrial organisms.
 No unacceptable risks are expected for terrestrial plants from exposures to organic chemicals in soil.
 There is the potential for aquatic organisms to have unacceptable exposures due to PCE exposures in sediment within site seep/springs or aquatic features in residential yards. However, these locations are unlikely to represent pristine natural aquatic habitats and effects from any site-related exposures are likely to be minor. No further evaluation of ecological exposures to site-related contaminants in sediment or soil is necessary.
Section 3 • Screening-Level Risk Characterization
3-22
3.7.3 Evaluation of Soil Gas Wildlife inhalation exposures are usually considered to be minor in comparison to exposures from ingestion. However, for burrowing animals (e.g., rabbits), it is possible that animals could be exposed to relatively high concentrations of VOCs via inhalation if concentrations accumulate inside their burrows. A comparison of maximum soil gas concentrations to air-based ESVs protective of burrowing mammals shows no COPECs were identified for further quantitative assessment in soil gas. The SLERA results indicate that inhalation of volatile chemicals in burrows is unlikely to result in unacceptable risks to burrowing animals. No further evaluation of burrowing animal exposures to volatile chemicals is necessary for the site.

4-1
Section 4
References
Efroymson, R.A., M.E. Will, G.W. Suter II, and A.C. Wooten. 1997. Toxicological Benchmarks for
Screening Contaminants of Potential Concern for Effects on Terrestrial Plants: 1997 Revision. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management by Lockheed Martin Energy Systems, Inc., managing the ORNL. Publication ES/ER/TM-85/R3. Available at: http://www.esd.ornl.gov/programs/ecorisk/documents/tm85r3.pdf. EA. 2019. 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume AOU-1: East Side Springs Remedial Investigation Report. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. February. https://semspub.epa.gov/work/08/1769131.pdf. EPA. 2020. “National Recommended Water Quality Criteria.” https://www.epa.gov/wqc/national-recommended-water-quality-criteria-aquatic-life-criteria-table. EPA. 2015. Determination of the Biologically Relevant Sampling Depth for Terrestrial and Aquatic
Ecological Risk Assessments. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development. EPA/600/R-15/176. EPA. 2014. “700 South 1600 East PCE Plume. Superfund Site.” http://www2.epa.gov/region8/700-south-1600-east-pce-plume. EPA. 2012. Hazard Ranking System Documentation Record for 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume. EPA ID No. UTD981548985. EPA. 2005. Guidance for Deriving Ecological Soil Screening Levels (EcoSSLs). Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. OSWER Directive 9285.7-55. February. EPA. 2003. Generic Ecological Assessment Endpoints (GEAEs) for Ecological Risk Assessment. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Risk Assessment Forum. EPA/630/P-02/004F. EPA. 2002. Role of Background in the CERCLA Cleanup Program. OSWER Directive 9285.6-07P. EPA. 1998. Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment. EPA/630/R-95/002F. EPA. 1997. Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Process for Designing and
Conducting Ecological Risk Assessments. Interim Final. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Response Team, Edison, NJ. https://www.epa.gov/risk/ecological-risk-assessment-guidance-superfund-process-designing-and-conducting-ecological-risk. EPA. 1992. Supplemental Guidance to RAGS: Calculating the Concentration Term. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Publication 9285.7-081.
Section 4 • References
4-2
EPA. 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume II Environmental Evaluation Manual,
Appendix B. https://rais.ornl.gov/documents/appb.pdf Ivahnenko, T., and Zogorski, J.S. 2006. Sources and occurrence of chloroform and other
trihalomethanes in drinking-water supply wells in the United States, 1986–2001. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2006–5015, 13 p. https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2006/5015/sir2006-5015.pdf LANL. 2021. ECORISK Database (Release 4.2). Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico. UBLM. 2018. Utah Bureau of Land Management Sensitive Wildlife Species List, December 2018, accessed May 6, 2021, https://www.blm.gov/programs/fish-and-wildlife/threatened-and-endangered/state-te-data/utah. UDEQ. 2020. R317-2. Standards of Quality for Waters of the State. Last updated December 3, 2020. https://adminrules.utah.gov/public/search/317-2-1A/Current%20Rules. UDEQ. 2011. Preliminary Assessment – East Side Springs, Salt Lake County, Utah. Division of Environmental Response and Remediation. UDEQ. 2000. Mount Olivet Cemetery Plume Analytical Results Report, UTD981548985. Division of Environmental Response and Remediation. August.

Figures 

 Figures 

This page intentionally left blank.

OU1 Remedial Investigation Report      
 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume   
 Salt Lake City, Utah Page 1 of 1 

Steps 1 and 2 – Tier 1 (Screening‐Level Assessment) 
Steps 3 to 7 – Tier 2 (Baseline Assessment)  

Source:  EPA (1997) 
SMDP = Scientific/Management Decision Point 
DQO = data quality objective 
Toxicity Evaluation 
Questions/Hypotheses
Assessment 
Endpoints 
Conceptual Model 
Exposure Pathways  
STEP 1:  SCREENING LEVEL 
 Site Visit 
 Problem Formulation 
 Toxicity Evaluation 
STEP 2:  SCREENING LEVEL 
 Exposure Estimate 
 Risk Characterization  
Co
m
p
i
l
e
 Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g

In
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

STEP 3:  PROBLEM FORMULATION 
STEP 4:  STUDY DESIGN AND DQO  
PROCESS 
 Lines of Evidence 
 Measurement Endpoints 
Work Plan and Sampling and Analysis Plan 
STEP 5:  VERIFICATION OF FIELD  
SAMPLING DESIGN 
STEP 6:  SITE INVESTIGATION AND 
              DATA ANALYSIS 
STEP 7:  RISK CHARACTERIZATION  
STEP 8:  RISK MANAGEMENT  
Da
t
a
 Co
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n

SMDP 
Risk Assessor 
and Risk 
Manager 
Agreement 
SMDP 
SMDP 
SMDP 
SMDP 
SMDP 
FIGURE I.1‐1 
EIGHT‐STEP PROCESS RECOMMENDED IN ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT  
GUIDANCE FOR SUPERFUND PROCESS DIAGRAM 
700 S 1600 E PCE Plume Superfund Site, Salt Lake City, Utah 
Source Primary Release
Mechanisms
Primary
Contaminated
Media
Exposure Media Exposure
Route
Aquatic
Receptors
[g]
Terrestrial
Plants,
Invertebrates
Birds Mammals
[h]Domestic Pets
Inhalation XX 
Inhalation XXX [e]X
Ingestion XXcurrent: X
future:  [f] [e]current: X
future:  [f]
Direct Contact current: X
future:  [f]X  [e]X
Ingestion XX 
Direct Contact  
Inhalation [d]XX 
Ingestion XX 
Direct Contact  
Inhalation [a]XX 
Ingestion XXX
Ingestion XX 
Direct Contact X  
Inhalation [a]XX 
Ingestion XX 
Ingestion XX 
Direct Contact X  
Inhalation [d]XX 
LEGEND NOTES
X Pathway is not complete; no evaluation required **These releases likely occurred as disposal of PCE into the sanitary sewer line and releases from the sewer line
Pathway is or might be complete, but is likely to be minor into the surrounding soil because of line cracks and possibly from spills on the ground surface.
Pathway is or might be complete [a] Resulting from volatilization from spring/seep surface water and irrigation/sprinkler water
[b] The expectation is that, outside of the seep/spring areas, shallow soil (0–10 feet bgs) contamination is likely
to be negligible, with the possible exception of near Buildings 6 and 7 where historical spills may have occurred.
[c] There is no potable groundwater use under current conditions, but hypothetical future use will be evaluated.
[d] Inhalation of airborne particulates and volatiles derived from shallow soil or spring/seep sediment
[e] Restricted to burrowing animal exposures only (e.g., rabbits)
[f] Incomplete scenario under current conditions, but a screening-level evaluation of groundwater will be performed
to address potential for daylighting under future site conditions.
[g] Aquatic receptors can include small fish (e.g., in ponds or water features fed by springs/seeps), aquatic
invertebrates, and aquatic plants.
[h] Includes burrowing mammals (e.g., rabbits)
[i] Use of deep groundwater for irrigation is only expected in limited areas (e.g., University of Utah, Mount Olivet Cemetery);
no residential use of deep groundwater is anticipated.
[j] Use of springs/seeps for irrigation is only expected for a subset of residential properties where springs/seeps are present.
Shallow Soil [b]
Shallow
Groundwater
Terrestrial Plants
Spring/Seep
Sediment
Aquatic Biota
Seep/Springs
Irrigation/Sprinkler
WaterDeep Groundwater
FIGURE I.2‐1
CONCEPTUAL SITE EXPOSURE MODEL FOR ECOLOGICAL RECEPTORS
Shallow Groundwater
PCE releases
from dry-
cleaning
facility**
Migration and Transport Pathways
and Secondary Contaminated Media
Soil Gas Outdoor Ambient Air
Seep/Spring
Surface Water
Air Inside Burrows
700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah
Daylighting at 
ground surface
Adsorption onto soil particles
VolatilizationVolatilization
Downward 
groundwater 
transport
Sewer line releases; 
vertical and lateral 
Adsorption onto    
sediment particles
Volatilization
Spills onto 
ground 
surface; 
seeping into 
shallow 
Tissue   uptake
Tissue   
uptake
Sprinkler/ 
irrigation 
Tissue   uptake
Irrigation 
OU1 Remedial Investigation Report
700 South 1600 East PCE Plume
Salt Lake City, Utah Page 1 of 1

Tables 

 Tables 

This page intentionally left blank.

TABLE I.2‐1
SCREENING‐LEVEL ASSESSMENT AND MEASURES OF EFFECT FOR THE ECOLOGICAL RECEPTOR GROUPS OF INTEREST
700 S 1600 E PCE Plume Superfund Site, Salt Lake City, Utah
Receptor Groups Exposure Pathway Assessment Endpoint Measures of Effect
Comparison of measured surface water concentrations of chemicals to acute and chronic 
toxicity benchmarks protective of a broad range of aquatic receptors
Comparison of measured surface water concentrations of chemicals to receptor group 
and/or species‐specific acute and chronic toxicity benchmarks
Evaluation of survival rates and growth for water‐column dwelling invertebrates exposed 
to site surface water versus control water in laboratory toxicity tests
Comparison of measured bulk sediment concentrations of chemicals to toxicity 
benchmarks protective of a broad range of sediment‐dwelling aquatic invertebrate species
Comparison of measured sediment porewater concentrations of chemicals to toxicity 
benchmarks protective of a broad range of aquatic receptors
Evaluation of survival rates and growth for sediment‐dwelling invertebrates exposed to site 
sediment versus control sediments in laboratory toxicity tests
Comparison of measured surface soil concentrations of chemicals to toxicity benchmarks 
protective of a broad range of terrestrial receptors
Comparison of measured surface soil concentrations of chemicals to receptor group and/or 
species‐specific toxicity benchmarks
Evaluation of survival rates and growth for terrestrial plants exposed to site surface soil 
versus control soil in laboratory toxicity tests
Evaluation of survival rates and growth for soil invertebrates exposed to site surface soil 
versus control soil in laboratory toxicity tests
Comparison of measured surface soil concentrations of chemicals to toxicity benchmarks 
protective of a broad range of terrestrial wildlife
Comparison of measured surface water concentrations of chemicals to toxicity benchmarks 
protective of a broad range of piscivorous wildlife
Comparison of measured sediment concentrations of chemicals to toxicity benchmarks 
protective of a broad range of aquatic‐feeding insectivorous wildlife
Comparison of measured soil gas concentrations of volatiles to toxicity benchmarks 
protective of a broad range of burrowing wildlife
Evaluation of site exposure estimates from food chain models for feeding guild‐specific 
groups to dose‐based toxicity thresholds for birds and mammals
Notes
This endpoint is evaluated quantitatively in the SLERA
Abbreviations
VAMC ‐ Veterans Affairs Medical Center 
ESS ‐ East Side Springs 
* Outside of seeps/springs, which are evaluated as sediment, surface soil contamination is expected only near the VAMC campus buildings where PCE was used because of potential spills and releases from 
the sanitary sewer lines.
Aquatic Receptors
Sustainability (survival, growth, 
reproduction) of local aquatic 
invertebrate populations in site 
seeps/springs and water features
Direct Contact 
with Sediment
Sediment‐Dwelling 
Invertebrates
Sustainability (survival, growth, 
reproduction) of local wildlife 
populations near VAMC 
buildings* and seeps/springs in 
the ESS area
Ingestion of 
Water and Food 
Items and 
Incidential 
Ingestion of Soil 
and Sediment
Herbivorous, 
Insectivorous, 
Carnivorous, and 
Piscivorous Birds and 
Mammals
Direct Contact 
with Surface 
Water
Sustainability (survival, growth, 
reproduction) of local aquatic 
receptor populations in site 
seeps/springs and water features
Fish, Water Column‐
Dwelling Invertebrates, 
Aquatic Plants, and 
Amphibians
Terrestrial Receptors
Sustainability (survival, growth, 
reproduction) of local terrestrial 
plant and soil invertebrate 
populations near VAMC 
buildings*
Direct Contact 
with Surface Soil
Terrestrial Plants and 
Soil Organisms
Wildlife Receptors
OU1 Remedial Investigation Report
700 South 1600 East PCE Plume
Salt Lake City, Utah Page 1 of 1
TABLE I.3‐1
SURFACE WATER COPEC SELECTION FOR ECOLOGICAL RECEPTORS
700 S 1600 E PCE Plume Superfund Site, Salt Lake City, Utah
No. of 
Samples
No. 
Detected
Detection 
Frequency
Range of DLs 
(µg/L)
Mean DL 
(µg/L)
Min. 
Conc. 
(µg/L)
Max. 
Conc. 
(µg/L)
Is Max. Det. 
Conc. > SL?
Is Mean DL  
> SL?
Chemical 
Detected, 
No SL?
Chemical 
ND, No SL?
Is Chemical 
a COPEC?
Type of 
Evaluation
1,1,1‐TRICHLOROETHANE 71‐55‐6 100 47 47% 0.057‐0.17 0.09 0.09 1.1 11 N ‐‐N ‐‐N ‐‐1E‐01
1,1,2,2‐TETRACHLOROETHANE 79‐34‐5 100 0 0% 0.097‐0.19 0.11 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
1,1,2‐TRICHLOROETHANE 79‐00‐5 100 0 0% 0.085‐0.14 0.10 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
1,1,2‐TRICHLOROTRIFLUOROETHANE 76‐13‐1 100 0 0% 0.11‐0.34 0.15 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
1,1'‐BIPHENYL 92‐52‐4 38 0 0% 0.32‐5.4 2.34 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
1,1‐DICHLOROETHANE 75‐34‐3 100 2 2% 0.06‐0.13 0.08 0.11 0.13 47 N N N ‐‐N ‐‐3E‐03
1,1‐DICHLOROETHENE 75‐35‐4 100 5 5% 0.081‐0.21 0.10 0.12 0.27 25 N N N ‐‐N ‐‐1E‐02
1,2,3‐TRICHLOROBENZENE 87‐61‐6 100 0 0% 0.076‐0.23 0.13 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
1,2,4,5‐TETRACHLOROBENZENE 95‐94‐3 38 0 0% 0.27‐5.4 2.31 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
1,2,4‐TRICHLOROBENZENE 120‐82‐1 100 0 0% 0.059‐0.23 0.12 ND ND 24 ‐‐N ‐‐NN‐‐ ‐‐
1,2,4‐TRIMETHYLBENZENE 95‐63‐6 45 0 0% 0.11‐0.11 0.11 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
1,2‐DIBROMO‐3‐CHLOROPROPANE 96‐12‐8 100 0 0% 0.1‐0.38 0.18 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
1,2‐DIBROMOETHANE 106‐93‐4 100 0 0% 0.047‐0.21 0.08 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
1,2‐DICHLOROBENZENE 95‐50‐1 100 0 0% 0.036‐0.23 0.08 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
1,2‐DICHLOROETHANE 107‐06‐2 100 0 0% 0.07‐0.11 0.09 ND ND 100 ‐‐N ‐‐NN‐‐ ‐‐
1,2‐DICHLOROPROPANE 78‐87‐5 100 0 0% 0.054‐0.18 0.08 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
1,3,5‐TRIMETHYLBENZENE 108‐67‐8 45 0 0% 0.12‐0.12 0.12 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
1,3‐DICHLOROBENZENE 541‐73‐1 100 0 0% 0.057‐0.15 0.09 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
1,3‐DICHLOROPROPYLENE 542‐75‐6 27 0 0% 0.1‐0.1 0.10 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
1,4‐DICHLOROBENZENE 106‐46‐7 100 0 0% 0.066‐0.13 0.09 ND ND 15 ‐‐N ‐‐NN‐‐ ‐‐
1,4‐DIOXANE 123‐91‐1 38 4 11% 0.15‐0.99 0.39 0.2 0.35 NA ‐‐ ‐‐Y ‐‐YBkg.‐‐
2,3,4,6‐TETRACHLOROPHENOL 58‐90‐2 38 0 0% 0.33‐5.4 2.32 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
2,4,5‐TRICHLOROPHENOL 95‐95‐4 38 0 0% 0.33‐5.4 2.30 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
2,4,6‐TRICHLOROPHENOL 88‐06‐2 38 0 0% 0.32‐5.4 2.31 ND ND 10,000 ‐‐N ‐‐NN‐‐ ‐‐
2,4‐DICHLOROPHENOL 120‐83‐2 38 0 0% 0.4‐5.4 2.32 ND ND 20,000 ‐‐N ‐‐NN‐‐ ‐‐
2,4‐DIMETHYLPHENOL 105‐67‐9 38 0 0% 0.37‐5.6 2.43 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
2,4‐DINITROPHENOL 51‐28‐5 38 0 0% 0.88‐5.4 2.33 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
2,4‐DINITROTOLUENE 121‐14‐2 38 0 0% 0.29‐5.4 2.31 ND ND 65 ‐‐N ‐‐NN‐‐ ‐‐
2,6‐DINITROTOLUENE 606‐20‐2 38 0 0% 0.35‐5.4 2.34 ND ND 230 ‐‐N ‐‐NN‐‐ ‐‐
2‐BUTANONE (MEK)78‐93‐3 100 0 0% 0.84‐2.5 1.61 ND ND 7,200 ‐‐N ‐‐NN‐‐ ‐‐
2‐CHLORONAPHTHALENE 91‐58‐7 38 0 0% 0.28‐5.4 2.32 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
2‐CHLOROPHENOL 95‐57‐8 38 0 0% 0.38‐5.4 2.29 ND ND 490 ‐‐N ‐‐NN‐‐ ‐‐
2‐HEXANONE 591‐78‐6 100 0 0% 0.58‐2.5 1.45 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
2‐METHYLNAPHTHALENE 91‐57‐6 38 0 0% 0.35‐5.4 2.29 ND ND 330 ‐‐N ‐‐NN‐‐ ‐‐
2‐METHYLPHENOL 95‐48‐7 38 0 0% 0.36‐5.4 2.31 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
2‐NITROANILINE 88‐74‐4 38 0 0% 0.33‐5.4 2.27 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
2‐NITROPHENOL 88‐75‐5 38 0 0% 0.36‐5.4 2.34 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
3,3'‐DICHLOROBENZIDINE 91‐94‐1 38 0 0% 0.83‐5.4 2.29 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
3‐NITROANILINE 99‐09‐2 38 0 0% 0.91‐5.4 2.31 ND ND 70,000 ‐‐N ‐‐NN‐‐ ‐‐
4,4'‐DDD 72‐54‐8 27 0 0% 0.0049‐0.0061 0.01 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
4,4'‐DDE 72‐55‐9 27 0 0% 0.0049‐0.0061 0.01 ND ND 100 ‐‐N ‐‐NN‐‐ ‐‐
4,4'‐DDT 50‐29‐3 27 0 0% 0.0049‐0.0061 0.01 ND ND 0.001 ‐‐Y ‐‐NYQual.1‐‐
4,6‐DINITRO‐2‐METHYLPHENOL 534‐52‐1 38 0 0% 0.58‐5.4 2.32 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
HQmaxChemical CASRN
Summary Statistics
Water 
Lowest ESV 
(µg/L)
COPEC Selection
OU1 Remedial Investigation Report
700 South 1600 East PCE Plume
Salt Lake City, Utah Page 1 of 4
TABLE I.3‐1
SURFACE WATER COPEC SELECTION FOR ECOLOGICAL RECEPTORS
700 S 1600 E PCE Plume Superfund Site, Salt Lake City, Utah
No. of 
Samples
No. 
Detected
Detection 
Frequency
Range of DLs 
(µg/L)
Mean DL 
(µg/L)
Min. 
Conc. 
(µg/L)
Max. 
Conc. 
(µg/L)
Is Max. Det. 
Conc. > SL?
Is Mean DL  
> SL?
Chemical 
Detected, 
No SL?
Chemical 
ND, No SL?
Is Chemical 
a COPEC?
Type of 
Evaluation
HQmaxChemical CASRN
Summary Statistics
Water 
Lowest ESV 
(µg/L)
COPEC Selection
4‐BROMOPHENYL PHENYL ETHER 101‐55‐3 38 0 0% 0.37‐5.4 2.34 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
4‐CHLORO‐3‐METHYLPHENOL 59‐50‐7 38 0 0% 0.43‐5.4 2.30 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
4‐CHLOROANILINE 106‐47‐8 38 0 0% 0.24‐9.1 3.74 ND ND 40,000 ‐‐N ‐‐NN‐‐ ‐‐
4‐CHLOROPHENYL PHENYL ETHER 7005‐72‐3 38 0 0% 0.38‐5.4 2.32 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
4‐METHYL‐2‐PENTANONE (MIBK)108‐10‐1 100 0 0% 0.46‐2.5 1.32 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
4‐METHYLPHENOL 106‐44‐5 38 0 0% 0.42‐5.4 2.27 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
4‐NITROANILINE 100‐01‐6 38 0 0% 0.48‐5.4 2.23 ND ND 40,000 ‐‐N ‐‐NN‐‐ ‐‐
4‐NITROPHENOL 100‐02‐7 38 0 0% 0.63‐5.4 2.32 ND ND 10,000 ‐‐N ‐‐NN‐‐ ‐‐
ACENAPHTHENE 83‐32‐9 38 0 0% 0.36‐5.4 2.34 ND ND 5.8 ‐‐N ‐‐NN‐‐ ‐‐
ACENAPHTHYLENE 208‐96‐8 38 0 0% 0.34‐5.4 2.30 ND ND 4,800 ‐‐N ‐‐NN‐‐ ‐‐
ACETONE 67‐64‐1 100 14 14% 0.31‐2.6 1.40 2.8 18 1,500 N ‐‐N ‐‐N ‐‐1E‐02
ACETOPHENONE 98‐86‐2 38 0 0% 0.44‐5.4 2.31 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
ALDRIN 309‐00‐2 27 0 0% 0.0049‐0.0061 0.01 ND ND 0.3 ‐‐N ‐‐NN‐‐ ‐‐
ALPHA‐BHC 319‐84‐6 27 0 0% 0.0049‐0.0061 0.01 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
ALUMINUM 7429‐90‐5 47 27 57% 1.2‐25 11.32 18.4 8,230 87 Y ‐‐N ‐‐Y Quant. 9E+01
ANTHRACENE 120‐12‐7 38 0 0% 0.38‐5.4 2.32 ND ND 0.73 ‐‐Y ‐‐NYQual.1‐‐
ANTIMONY 7440‐36‐0 47 17 36% 0.051‐0.25 0.21 0.252 3 30 N ‐‐N ‐‐N ‐‐1E‐01
ARSENIC 7440‐38‐2 47 47 100% 0.1‐0.125 0.11 0.408 66 1 Y ‐‐N ‐‐Y Quant. 7E+01
ATRAZINE 1912‐24‐9 38 0 0% 0.83‐5.4 2.29 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
BARIUM 7440‐39‐3 47 47 100% 0.21‐0.25 0.24 24.2 206 3.9 Y ‐‐N ‐‐Y Quant. 5E+01
BENZALDEHYDE 100‐52‐7 38 0 0% 0.41‐11 4.28 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
BENZENE 71‐43‐2 100 4 4% 0.083‐0.12 0.10 0.13 0.50 46 N N N ‐‐N ‐‐1E‐02
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE 56‐55‐3 38 0 0% 0.17‐5.4 2.30 ND ND 0.027 ‐‐Y ‐‐NYQual.1‐‐
BENZO(A)PYRENE 50‐32‐8 38 0 0% 0.19‐5.4 2.73 ND ND 0.014 ‐‐Y ‐‐NYQual.1‐‐
BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE 205‐99‐2 38 0 0% 0.17‐5.6 2.97 ND ND 9 ‐‐N ‐‐NN‐‐ ‐‐
BENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE 191‐24‐2 38 0 0% 0.35‐5.4 2.82 ND ND 7.6 ‐‐N ‐‐NN‐‐ ‐‐
BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE 207‐08‐9 38 0 0% 0.23‐5.4 3.00 ND ND 0.0041 ‐‐Y ‐‐NYQual.1‐‐
BENZYL BUTYL PHTHALATE 85‐68‐7 38 0 0% 0.24‐5.4 2.28 ND ND 19 ‐‐N ‐‐NN‐‐ ‐‐
BERYLLIUM 7440‐41‐7 47 1 2% 0.05‐0.1 0.06 1.9 1.9 0.66 Y N N ‐‐Y Quant. 3E+00
BETA‐BHC 319‐85‐7 27 0 0% 0.0068‐0.0085 0.01 ND ND 2.2 ‐‐N ‐‐NN‐‐ ‐‐
BIS(2‐CHLOROETHOXY)METHANE 111‐91‐1 38 0 0% 0.42‐5.4 2.31 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
BIS(2‐CHLOROETHYL) ETHER 111‐44‐4 38 0 0% 0.39‐5.4 2.31 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
BIS(2‐ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE 117‐81‐7 38 3 8% 0.47‐5.4 2.31 3.6 84 32 Y N N ‐‐Y Quant. 3E+00
BIS‐CHLOROISOPROPYL ETHER 39638‐32‐9 38 0 0% 0.46‐5.4 2.32 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
BROMOCHLOROMETHANE 74‐97‐5 100 0 0% 0.059‐0.26 0.10 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
BROMODICHLOROMETHANE 75‐27‐4 100 25 25% 0.068‐0.13 0.09 0.09 0.68 NA ‐‐ ‐‐Y ‐‐YBkg.‐‐
BROMOFORM 75‐25‐2 100 0 0% 0.06‐0.15 0.13 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
BROMOMETHANE 74‐83‐9 100 0 0% 0.092‐0.19 0.17 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
CADMIUM 7440‐43‐9 47 4 9% 0.054‐0.1 0.09 0.06 2.5 0.28 Y N N ‐‐Y Quant. 9E+00
CALCIUM 7440‐70‐2 47 47 100% 5.5‐250 105 27,900 232,000 NA ‐‐ ‐‐Y ‐‐YBkg.‐‐
CAPROLACTAM 105‐60‐2 38 0 0% 0.38‐11 4.30 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
CARBAZOLE 86‐74‐8 38 0 0% 0.18‐5.4 2.26 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
CARBON DISULFIDE 75‐15‐0 100 2 2% 0.07‐0.25 0.16 0.07 0.19 NA ‐‐NY‐‐YBkg.‐‐
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE 56‐23‐5 100 0 0% 0.059‐0.22 0.10 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
CHLORIDE 16887‐00‐6 47 47 100% 500‐25000 5,519 35,200 473,000 NA ‐‐ ‐‐Y ‐‐YBkg.‐‐
CHLOROBENZENE 108‐90‐7 100 0 0% 0.05‐0.18 0.08 ND ND 130 ‐‐N ‐‐NN‐‐ ‐‐
OU1 Remedial Investigation Report
700 South 1600 East PCE Plume
Salt Lake City, Utah Page 2 of 4
TABLE I.3‐1
SURFACE WATER COPEC SELECTION FOR ECOLOGICAL RECEPTORS
700 S 1600 E PCE Plume Superfund Site, Salt Lake City, Utah
No. of 
Samples
No. 
Detected
Detection 
Frequency
Range of DLs 
(µg/L)
Mean DL 
(µg/L)
Min. 
Conc. 
(µg/L)
Max. 
Conc. 
(µg/L)
Is Max. Det. 
Conc. > SL?
Is Mean DL  
> SL?
Chemical 
Detected, 
No SL?
Chemical 
ND, No SL?
Is Chemical 
a COPEC?
Type of 
Evaluation
HQmaxChemical CASRN
Summary Statistics
Water 
Lowest ESV 
(µg/L)
COPEC Selection
CHLOROETHANE 75‐00‐3 100 0 0% 0.08‐0.27 0.18 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
CHLOROFORM 67‐66‐3 100 71 71% 0.1‐0.15 0.11 0.11 6.3 1.8 Y ‐‐N ‐‐Y Quant. 4E+00
CHLOROMETHANE 74‐87‐3 100 0 0% 0.088‐0.15 0.13 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
CHROMIUM 16065‐83‐1 47 40 85% 0.07‐0.1 0.09 0.222 55 11 Y ‐‐N ‐‐Y Quant. 5E+00
CHRYSENE 218‐01‐9 38 0 0% 0.16‐5.4 2.34 ND ND 0.0018 ‐‐Y ‐‐NYQual.1‐‐
CIS‐1,2‐DICHLOROETHENE 156‐59‐2 100 42 42% 0.076‐0.11 0.09 0.11 1.3 NA ‐‐ ‐‐Y ‐‐YBkg.‐‐
CIS‐1,3‐DICHLOROPROPENE 542‐75‐6 100 0 0% 0.065‐0.2 0.12 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
CIS‐CHLORDANE 5103‐71‐9 27 0 0% 0.0049‐0.0061 0.01 ND ND 0.0043 ‐‐Y ‐‐NYQual.1‐‐
COBALT 7440‐48‐4 47 40 85% 0.056‐0.1 0.09 0.06 16 3 Y ‐‐N ‐‐Y Quant. 5E+00
COPPER 7440‐50‐8 47 37 79% 0.054‐0.5 0.26 0.31 102 1.6 Y ‐‐N ‐‐Y Quant. 6E+01
CYCLOHEXANE 110‐82‐7 55 1 2% 0.09‐0.27 0.15 0.11 0.11 NA ‐‐NY‐‐YBkg.‐‐
DELTA‐BHC 319‐86‐8 27 0 0% 0.0068‐0.0085 0.0075 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
DIBENZO(A,H)ANTHRACENE 53‐70‐3 38 0 0% 0.29‐5.4 3.0 ND ND 0.0034 ‐‐Y ‐‐NYQual.1‐‐
DIBENZOFURAN 132‐64‐9 38 0 0% 0.35‐5.4 2.31 ND ND 3.7 ‐‐N ‐‐NN‐‐ ‐‐
DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE 124‐48‐1 100 0 0% 0.057‐0.21 0.09 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE 75‐71‐8 100 0 0% 0.11‐0.38 0.15 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
DIELDRIN 60‐57‐1 27 0 0% 0.0049‐0.0061 0.0054 ND ND 0.056 ‐‐N ‐‐NN‐‐ ‐‐
DIETHYL PHTHALATE 84‐66‐2 38 1 3% 0.23‐5.4 2.28 43 43 20,000 N N N ‐‐N ‐‐2E‐03
DIMETHYL PHTHALATE 131‐11‐3 38 0 0% 0.35‐5.4 2.3 ND ND 3 ‐‐N ‐‐NN‐‐ ‐‐
DI‐N‐BUTYLPHTHALATE 84‐74‐2 38 0 0% 0.23‐5.4 2.31 ND ND 19 ‐‐N ‐‐NN‐‐ ‐‐
DI‐N‐OCTYLPHTHALATE 117‐84‐0 38 0 0% 0.29‐5.4 2.76 ND ND 3 ‐‐N ‐‐NN‐‐ ‐‐
ENDOSULFAN I 959‐98‐8 27 0 0% 0.0078‐0.0098 0.0086 ND ND 0.056 ‐‐N ‐‐NN‐‐ ‐‐
ENDOSULFAN II 33213‐65‐9 27 0 0% 0.0049‐0.0061 0.0054 ND ND 0.056 ‐‐N ‐‐NN‐‐ ‐‐
ENDOSULFAN SULFATE 1031‐07‐8 27 0 0% 0.0049‐0.0061 0.01 ND ND 0.056 ‐‐N ‐‐NN‐‐ ‐‐
ENDRIN 72‐20‐8 27 0 0% 0.0078‐0.0098 0.01 ND ND 0.036 ‐‐N ‐‐NN‐‐ ‐‐
ENDRIN ALDEHYDE 7421‐93‐4 27 0 0% 0.0049‐0.0061 0.0054 ND ND 0.036 ‐‐N ‐‐NN‐‐ ‐‐
ENDRIN KETONE 53494‐70‐5 27 0 0% 0.0049‐0.0061 0.0054 ND ND 0.036 ‐‐N ‐‐NN‐‐ ‐‐
ETHANE 74‐84‐0 10 0 0% 0.32‐0.32 0.32 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
ETHENE 74‐85‐1 10 0 0% 0.3‐0.3 0.30 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
ETHYLBENZENE 100‐41‐4 100 3 3% 0.031‐0.13 0.07 0.08 0.15 NA ‐‐NY‐‐YBkg.‐‐
FLUORANTHENE 206‐44‐0 38 0 0% 0.19‐5.4 2.27 ND ND 0.04 ‐‐Y ‐‐NYQual.1‐‐
FLUORENE 86‐73‐7 38 0 0% 0.37‐5.4 2.32 ND ND 3.9 ‐‐N ‐‐NN‐‐ ‐‐
GAMMA‐BHC (LINDANE)58‐89‐9 27 1 4% 0.0049‐0.0061 0.01 0.0065 0.0065 0.095 N N N ‐‐N ‐‐7E‐02
HEPTACHLOR 76‐44‐8 27 0 0% 0.0068‐0.0085 0.0075 ND ND 0.0038 ‐‐Y ‐‐NYQual.1‐‐
HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE 1024‐57‐3 27 0 0% 0.0049‐0.0061 0.0054 ND ND 0.0038 ‐‐Y ‐‐NYQual.1‐‐
HEXACHLORO‐1,3‐BUTADIENE 87‐68‐3 38 0 0% 0.33‐5.4 2.3 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
HEXACHLOROBENZENE 118‐74‐1 38 0 0% 0.36‐5.4 2.3 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE 77‐47‐4 38 0 0% 1.1‐5.4 2.4 ND ND 100 ‐‐N ‐‐NN‐‐ ‐‐
HEXACHLOROETHANE 67‐72‐1 38 0 0% 0.28‐5.4 2.3 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
INDENO(1,2,3‐CD)PYRENE 193‐39‐5 38 0 0% 0.26‐5.4 2.9 ND ND 4.3 ‐‐N ‐‐NN‐‐ ‐‐
IRON 7439‐89‐6 47 34 72% 4.1‐25 9.06 5.42 13,200 1,000 Y ‐‐N ‐‐Y Quant. 1E+01
ISOPHORONE 78‐59‐1 38 0 0% 0.44‐5.4 2.29 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
ISOPROPYLBENZENE 98‐82‐8 100 0 0% 0.056‐0.16 0.08 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
LEAD 7439‐92‐1 47 35 74% 0.05‐0.061 0.05 0.0761 127 1 Y ‐‐N ‐‐Y Quant. 1E+02
M,P‐XYLENE 108‐38‐3 90 6 7% 0.048‐0.21 0.12 0.1 0.74 100,000 N N N ‐‐N ‐‐7E‐06
M+P‐XYLENES 108‐38‐3 10 0 0% 0.21‐0.21 0.21 ND ND 100,000 ‐‐N ‐‐NN‐‐ ‐‐
OU1 Remedial Investigation Report
700 South 1600 East PCE Plume
Salt Lake City, Utah Page 3 of 4
TABLE I.3‐1
SURFACE WATER COPEC SELECTION FOR ECOLOGICAL RECEPTORS
700 S 1600 E PCE Plume Superfund Site, Salt Lake City, Utah
No. of 
Samples
No. 
Detected
Detection 
Frequency
Range of DLs 
(µg/L)
Mean DL 
(µg/L)
Min. 
Conc. 
(µg/L)
Max. 
Conc. 
(µg/L)
Is Max. Det. 
Conc. > SL?
Is Mean DL  
> SL?
Chemical 
Detected, 
No SL?
Chemical 
ND, No SL?
Is Chemical 
a COPEC?
Type of 
Evaluation
HQmaxChemical CASRN
Summary Statistics
Water 
Lowest ESV 
(µg/L)
COPEC Selection
MAGNESIUM 7439‐95‐4 47 47 100% 5‐250 65 5,960 79,700 NA ‐‐ ‐‐Y ‐‐YBkg.‐‐
MANGANESE 7439‐96‐5 47 45 96% 0.06‐0.25 0.12 0.166 351 1,300 N ‐‐N ‐‐N ‐‐3E‐01
MERCURY 7487‐94‐7 47 2 4% 0.043‐0.1 0.06 0.092 0.86 0.012 Y Y N ‐‐Y Quant. 7E+01
METHANE 74‐82‐8 10 8 80% 0.17‐0.17 0.17 0.18 1.1 NA ‐‐ ‐‐Y ‐‐YBkg.‐‐
METHOXYCHLOR 72‐43‐5 27 0 0% 0.049‐0.061 0.05 ND ND 0.03 ‐‐Y ‐‐NYQual.1‐‐
METHYL ACETATE 79‐20‐9 100 0 0% 0.11‐0.25 0.21 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
METHYL TERT‐BUTYL ETHER 1634‐04‐4 100 0 0% 0.067‐0.18 0.10 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
METHYLCYLOHEXANE 108‐87‐2 55 0 0% 0.11‐0.3 0.14 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
METHYLENE CHLORIDE 75‐09‐2 100 0 0% 0.14‐0.5 0.35 ND ND 210 ‐‐N ‐‐NN‐‐ ‐‐
NAPHTHALENE 91‐20‐3 38 0 0% 0.39‐5.4 2.30 ND ND 1.1 ‐‐Y ‐‐NYQual.1‐‐
NICKEL 7440‐02‐0 47 37 79% 0.06‐0.25 0.12 0.166 26 29 N ‐‐N ‐‐N ‐‐9E‐01
NITRATE [AS N]14797‐55‐8 10 10 100% 100‐200 190 300 3,500 4 Y ‐‐N ‐‐Y Quant. 9E+02
NITROBENZENE 98‐95‐3 38 0 0% 0.38‐5.4 2.3 ND ND 550 ‐‐N ‐‐NN‐‐ ‐‐
N‐NITROSO‐DI‐N‐PROPYLAMINE 621‐64‐7 38 0 0% 0.47‐5.4 2.3 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
N‐NITROSODIPHENYLAMINE 86‐30‐6 38 0 0% 0.37‐5.4 2.29 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
O‐XYLENE 95‐47‐6 100 2 2% 0.061‐0.12 0.08 0.1 0.24 1,000 N N N ‐‐N ‐‐2E‐04
PENTACHLOROPHENOL 87‐86‐5 38 0 0% 0.25‐5.4 2.2 ND ND 15 ‐‐N ‐‐NN‐‐ ‐‐
PHENANTHRENE 85‐01‐8 38 0 0% 0.32‐5.4 2.3 ND ND 6.3 ‐‐N ‐‐NN‐‐ ‐‐
PHENOL 108‐95‐2 38 0 0% 0.38‐5.4 2.28 ND ND 320 ‐‐N ‐‐NN‐‐ ‐‐
POTASSIUM 7440‐09‐7 47 47 100% 8.1‐25 13 1,290 7,030 NA ‐‐ ‐‐Y ‐‐YBkg.‐‐
PYRENE 129‐00‐0 38 0 0% 0.15‐5.4 2.36 ND ND 0.025 ‐‐Y ‐‐NYQual.1‐‐
SELENIUM 7782‐49‐2 47 46 98% 0.15‐1.4 0.42 0.249 4.2 1.5 Y ‐‐N ‐‐Y Quant. 3E+00
SILVER 7440‐22‐4 47 9 19% 0.036‐0.1 0.09 0.08 3 0.1 Y ‐‐N ‐‐Y Quant. 3E+01
SODIUM 7440‐23‐5 47 47 100% 10.4‐250 130 22,300 233,000 NA ‐‐ ‐‐Y ‐‐YBkg.‐‐
STYRENE 100‐42‐5 100 0 0% 0.044‐0.25 0.15 ND ND 10,000 ‐‐N ‐‐NN‐‐ ‐‐
SULFATE 14808‐79‐8 47 47 100% 130‐26000 3,597 19,500 341,000 NA ‐‐ ‐‐Y ‐‐YBkg.‐‐
TETRACHLOROETHENE 127‐18‐4 100 78 78% 0.077‐0.75 0.13 0.13 82 98 N ‐‐N ‐‐N ‐‐8E‐01
THALLIUM 7440‐28‐0 47 1 2% 0.054‐0.1 0.09 1.5 1.5 0.03 Y Y N ‐‐Y Quant. 5E+01
TOLUENE 108‐88‐3 100 14 14% 0.048‐0.13 0.08 0.1 1.7 9.8 N ‐‐N ‐‐N ‐‐2E‐01
TOXAPHENE 8001‐35‐2 27 0 0% 0.24‐0.3 0.27 ND ND 0.0002 ‐‐Y ‐‐NYQual.1‐‐
TRANS‐1,2‐DICHLOROETHENE 156‐60‐5 100 0 0% 0.075‐0.16 0.11 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
TRANS‐1,3‐DICHLOROPROPENE 542‐75‐6 100 0 0% 0.049‐0.2 0.11 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
TRANS‐CHLORDANE 5103‐74‐2 27 0 0% 0.0049‐0.0061 0.01 ND ND 0.0043 ‐‐Y ‐‐NYQual.1‐‐
TRICHLOROETHENE 79‐01‐6 100 58 58% 0.07‐0.1 0.084 0.09 4.6 21 N ‐‐N ‐‐N ‐‐2E‐01
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE 75‐69‐4 100 0 0% 0.074‐0.29 0.12 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
VANADIUM 7440‐62‐2 47 46 98% 0.026‐0.25 0.20 1.14 32.4 19 Y ‐‐N ‐‐Y Quant. 2E+00
VINYL ACETATE 108‐05‐4 45 0 0% 0.25‐0.25 0.25 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
VINYL CHLORIDE 75‐01‐4 100 0 0% 0.081‐0.22 0.14 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
ZINC 7440‐66‐6 47 18 38% 0.13‐5 4.0 4.3 757 65 Y ‐‐N ‐‐Y Quant. 1E+01
Abbreviations
% ‐ percent Conc. ‐ Concentration HQ ‐ Hazard Quotient ND ‐ Non‐Detect SL ‐ Screening Level
> ‐  greater than COPEC ‐ Chemical of Potential Ecological Concern Max. ‐ Maximum No. ‐ Number Y ‐ Yes
µg/L ‐ micrograms per liter Det. ‐ detect Min. ‐ Minimum Qual.1 ‐ Qualitative analysis for infrequently detected analytes with insufficient detection limits
Bkg. ‐ Background analysis for detected analytes with no screening levels DL ‐ Detection Limit N ‐ No Qual.2 ‐ Qualitative analysis for non‐detected analytes with no screening levels
CASRN ‐ Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number ESV ‐ Ecological Screening Value NA ‐ Not Available Quant. ‐ Quantitative
OU1 Remedial Investigation Report
700 South 1600 East PCE Plume
Salt Lake City, Utah Page 4 of 4
TABLE I.3‐2
GROUNDWATER COPEC SELECTION FOR ECOLOGICAL RECEPTORS
700 S 1600 E PCE Plume Superfund Site, Salt Lake City, Utah
No. of 
Samples
No. 
Detected
Detection 
Frequency
Range of DLs 
(µg/L)
Mean DL 
(µg/L)
Min. Conc. 
(µg/L)
Max. Conc. 
(µg/L)
Is Max. Det. 
Conc. > SL?
Is Mean DL  
> SL?
Chemical 
Detected, 
No SL?
Chemical 
ND, No SL?
Is Chemical 
a COPEC?
Type of 
Evaluation
1,1,1‐TRICHLOROETHANE 71‐55‐6 479 115 24% 0.057‐0.5 0.09 0.09 0.99 11 N ‐‐N ‐‐N ‐‐9E‐02
1,1,2,2‐TETRACHLOROETHANE 79‐34‐5 479 0 0% 0.09‐0.55 0.11 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
1,1,2‐TRICHLOROETHANE 79‐00‐5 479 0 0% 0.071‐0.51 0.10 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
1,1,2‐TRICHLOROTRIFLUOROETHANE 76‐13‐1 479 0 0% 0.061‐0.75 0.15 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
1,1'‐BIPHENYL 92‐52‐4 124 0 0% 0.64‐4.5 2.20 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
1,1‐DICHLOROETHANE 75‐34‐3 479 13 3% 0.053‐0.5 0.09 0.1 0.19 47 N N N ‐‐N ‐‐4E‐03
1,1‐DICHLOROETHENE 75‐35‐4 479 55 11% 0.081‐0.5 0.10 0.11 0.29 25 N ‐‐N ‐‐N ‐‐1E‐02
1,2,3‐TRICHLOROBENZENE 87‐61‐6 479 0 0% 0.076‐0.75 0.14 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
1,2,4,5‐TETRACHLOROBENZENE 95‐94‐3 124 0 0% 0.83‐4.2 2.21 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
1,2,4‐TRICHLOROBENZENE 120‐82‐1 479 0 0% 0.059‐0.76 0.14 ND ND 24 ‐‐N ‐‐NN‐‐ ‐‐
1,2,4‐TRIMETHYLBENZENE 95‐63‐6 396 15 4% 0.11‐0.54 0.11 0.12 1.2 NA ‐‐NY‐‐YBkg.‐‐
1,2‐DIBROMO‐3‐CHLOROPROPANE 96‐12‐8 479 0 0% 0.1‐1.2 0.24 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
1,2‐DIBROMOETHANE 106‐93‐4 479 0 0% 0.047‐0.52 0.09 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
1,2‐DICHLOROBENZENE 95‐50‐1 479 0 0% 0.036‐0.5 0.09 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
1,2‐DICHLOROETHANE 107‐06‐2 479 0 0% 0.057‐0.5 0.10 ND ND 100 ‐‐N ‐‐NN‐‐ ‐‐
1,2‐DICHLOROPROPANE 78‐87‐5 479 0 0% 0.054‐0.5 0.10 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
1,3,5‐TRIMETHYLBENZENE 108‐67‐8 396 4 1% 0.12‐0.62 0.12 0.17 0.25 NA ‐‐NY‐‐YBkg.‐‐
1,3‐DICHLOROBENZENE 95‐50‐1 479 0 0% 0.051‐0.54 0.10 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
1,3‐DICHLOROPROPYLENE 542‐75‐6 83 0 0% 0.1‐0.1 0.10 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
1,4‐DICHLOROBENZENE 106‐46‐7 479 0 0% 0.047‐0.5 0.10 ND ND 15 ‐‐N ‐‐NN‐‐ ‐‐
1,4‐DIOXANE 123‐91‐1 218 8 4% 0.15‐7.1 0.36 0.18 2.7 NA ‐‐NY‐‐YBkg.‐‐
2,3,4,6‐TETRACHLOROPHENOL 58‐90‐2 124 0 0% 0.65‐5.3 2.22 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
2,4,5‐TRICHLOROPHENOL 95‐95‐4 124 0 0% 0.75‐6.7 2.26 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
2,4,6‐TRICHLOROPHENOL 88‐06‐2 124 0 0% 0.62‐5.3 2.21 ND ND 10,000 ‐‐N ‐‐NN‐‐ ‐‐
2,4‐DICHLOROPHENOL 120‐83‐2 124 0 0% 0.71‐4.1 2.19 ND ND 20,000 ‐‐N ‐‐NN‐‐ ‐‐
2,4‐DIMETHYLPHENOL 105‐67‐9 124 0 0% 0.62‐3.4 2.25 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
2,4‐DINITROPHENOL 51‐28‐5 124 0 0% 0.73‐4.1 2.13 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
2,4‐DINITROTOLUENE 121‐14‐2 124 0 0% 0.53‐5.4 2.22 ND ND 65 ‐‐N ‐‐NN‐‐ ‐‐
2,6‐DINITROTOLUENE 606‐20‐2 124 0 0% 0.74‐5.2 2.20 ND ND 230 ‐‐N ‐‐NN‐‐ ‐‐
2‐BUTANONE (MEK)78‐93‐3 479 24 5% 0.76‐12 2.15 1.9 54 7,200 N N N ‐‐N ‐‐8E‐03
2‐CHLORONAPHTHALENE 91‐58‐7 124 0 0% 0.65‐4.5 2.20 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
2‐CHLOROPHENOL 95‐57‐8 124 0 0% 0.76‐4.7 2.19 ND ND 490 ‐‐N ‐‐NN‐‐ ‐‐
2‐HEXANONE 591‐78‐6 479 13 3% 0.58‐12 2.20 2.8 12 NA ‐‐NY‐‐YBkg.‐‐
2‐METHYLNAPHTHALENE 91‐57‐6 124 0 0% 0.76‐4.6 2.20 ND ND 330 ‐‐N ‐‐NN‐‐ ‐‐
2‐METHYLPHENOL 95‐48‐7 124 0 0% 0.6‐4.4 2.19 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
2‐NITROANILINE 88‐74‐4 124 0 0% 0.54‐5.3 2.18 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
2‐NITROPHENOL 88‐75‐5 124 0 0% 0.85‐5.7 2.25 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
3,3'‐DICHLOROBENZIDINE 91‐94‐1 124 0 0% 0.4‐6.5 2.21 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
3‐NITROANILINE 99‐09‐2 124 0 0% 0.81‐5.7 2.20 ND ND 70,000 ‐‐N ‐‐NN‐‐ ‐‐
4,4'‐DDD 72‐54‐8 77 0 0% 0.0047‐0.0063 0.01 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
4,4'‐DDE 72‐55‐9 77 0 0% 0.0047‐0.0063 0.01 ND ND 100 ‐‐N ‐‐NN‐‐ ‐‐
4,4'‐DDT 50‐29‐3 77 0 0% 0.0047‐0.0063 0.01 ND ND 0.001 ‐‐Y ‐‐NYQual.1‐‐
4,6‐DINITRO‐2‐METHYLPHENOL 534‐52‐1 124 0 0% 0.74‐6.9 2.26 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
4‐BROMOPHENYL PHENYL ETHER 101‐55‐3 124 0 0% 0.7‐5.8 2.24 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
HQmaxChemical CAS Number
Summary Statistics
Water 
Lowest ESV 
(µg/L)
COPEC Selection
OU1 Remedial Investigation Report
700 South 1600 East PCE Plume
Salt Lake City, Utah Page 1 of 4
TABLE I.3‐2
GROUNDWATER COPEC SELECTION FOR ECOLOGICAL RECEPTORS
700 S 1600 E PCE Plume Superfund Site, Salt Lake City, Utah
No. of 
Samples
No. 
Detected
Detection 
Frequency
Range of DLs 
(µg/L)
Mean DL 
(µg/L)
Min. Conc. 
(µg/L)
Max. Conc. 
(µg/L)
Is Max. Det. 
Conc. > SL?
Is Mean DL  
> SL?
Chemical 
Detected, 
No SL?
Chemical 
ND, No SL?
Is Chemical 
a COPEC?
Type of 
Evaluation
HQmaxChemical CAS Number
Summary Statistics
Water 
Lowest ESV 
(µg/L)
COPEC Selection
4‐CHLORO‐3‐METHYLPHENOL 59‐50‐7 124 0 0% 0.92‐5.4 2.23 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
4‐CHLOROANILINE 106‐47‐8 124 0 0% 0.7‐6.8 3.52 ND ND 40,000 ‐‐N ‐‐NN‐‐ ‐‐
4‐CHLOROPHENYL PHENYL ETHER 7005‐72‐3 124 0 0% 0.53‐3.6 2.18 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
4‐METHYL‐2‐PENTANONE (MIBK)108‐10‐1 479 0 0% 0.46‐12 2.15 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
4‐METHYLPHENOL 106‐44‐5 124 0 0% 0.56‐3.9 2.16 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
4‐NITROANILINE 100‐01‐6 124 0 0% 0.67‐6.7 2.24 ND ND 40,000 ‐‐N ‐‐NN‐‐ ‐‐
4‐NITROPHENOL 100‐02‐7 124 0 0% 0.59‐7.3 2.30 ND ND 10,000 ‐‐N ‐‐NN‐‐ ‐‐
ACENAPHTHENE 83‐32‐9 124 0 0% 0.7‐3.5 2.18 ND ND 5.8 ‐‐N ‐‐NN‐‐ ‐‐
ACENAPHTHYLENE 208‐96‐8 124 0 0% 0.58‐4.5 2.21 ND ND 4,800 ‐‐N ‐‐NN‐‐ ‐‐
ACETONE 67‐64‐1 479 91 19% 0.31‐12 2.26 1.1 55 1,500 N ‐‐N ‐‐N ‐‐4E‐02
ACETOPHENONE 98‐86‐2 124 0 0% 0.62‐4.2 2.20 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
ALDRIN 309‐00‐2 77 0 0% 0.0047‐0.0063 0.01 ND ND 0.3 ‐‐N ‐‐NN‐‐ ‐‐
ALPHA‐BHC 319‐84‐6 77 0 0% 0.0047‐0.0063 0.01 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
ALUMINUM 7429‐90‐5 385 206 54% 1.1‐100 18.61 1.6 65,600 87 Y ‐‐N ‐‐Y Quant. 8E+02
ANTHRACENE 120‐12‐7 124 0 0% 0.66‐4.9 2.21 ND ND 0.73 ‐‐Y ‐‐NYQual.1‐‐
ANTIMONY 7440‐36‐0 385 5 1% 0.045‐1.25 0.27 0.27 1.4 30 N N N ‐‐N ‐‐5E‐02
ARSENIC 7440‐38‐2 385 334 87% 0.075‐0.58 0.15 0.16 14 1 Y ‐‐N ‐‐Y Quant. 1E+01
ATRAZINE 1912‐24‐9 124 0 0% 0.53‐3.3 2.10 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
BARIUM 7440‐39‐3 385 384 100% 0.024‐2.8 0.41 21 641 3.9 Y ‐‐N ‐‐Y Quant. 2E+02
BENZALDEHYDE 100‐52‐7 124 0 0% 0.66‐6.6 4.07 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
BENZENE 71‐43‐2 479 72 15% 0.054‐0.5 0.10 0.11 20 46 N ‐‐N ‐‐N ‐‐4E‐01
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE 56‐55‐3 124 0 0% 0.76‐5.2 2.20 ND ND 0.027 ‐‐Y ‐‐NYQual.1‐‐
BENZO(A)PYRENE 50‐32‐8 124 0 0% 0.66‐3.3 2.30 ND ND 0.014 ‐‐Y ‐‐NYQual.1‐‐
BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE 205‐99‐2 124 0 0% 0.74‐42.43NDND9 ‐‐N ‐‐NN‐‐ ‐‐
BENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE 191‐24‐2 124 0 0% 0.72‐4.4 2.35 ND ND 7.6 ‐‐N ‐‐NN‐‐ ‐‐
BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE 207‐08‐9 124 0 0% 0.83‐4.1 2.40 ND ND 0.0041 ‐‐Y ‐‐NYQual.1‐‐
BENZYL BUTYL PHTHALATE 85‐68‐7 124 1 1% 0.53‐6.9 2.21 1.8 1.8 19 N N N ‐‐N ‐‐9E‐02
BERYLLIUM 7440‐41‐7 385 15 4% 0.027‐0.32 0.10 0.055 4.8 0.66 Y N N ‐‐Y Quant. 7E+00
BETA‐BHC 319‐85‐7 77 0 0% 0.0065‐0.0089 0.01 ND ND 2.2 ‐‐N ‐‐NN‐‐ ‐‐
BIS(2‐CHLOROETHOXY)METHANE 111‐91‐1 124 0 0% 0.72‐4.4 2.19 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
BIS(2‐CHLOROETHYL) ETHER 111‐44‐4 124 0 0% 0.76‐3.9 2.21 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
BIS(2‐ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE 117‐81‐7 124 8 6% 0.78‐6.4 2.28 4.2 150 32 Y N N ‐‐Y Quant. 5E+00
BIS‐CHLOROISOPROPYL ETHER 39638‐32‐9 124 0 0% 0.72‐5.8 2.25 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
BROMOCHLOROMETHANE 74‐97‐5 479 0 0% 0.059‐0.57 0.11 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
BROMODICHLOROMETHANE 75‐27‐4 479 258 54% 0.049‐0.5 0.10 0.10 6 NA ‐‐ ‐‐Y ‐‐YBkg.‐‐
BROMOFORM 75‐25‐2 479 3 1% 0.06‐0.75 0.14 0.24 0.58 NA ‐‐NY‐‐YBkg.‐‐
BROMOMETHANE 74‐83‐9 479 0 0% 0.079‐0.82 0.15 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
CADMIUM 7440‐43‐9 385 13 3% 0.026‐0.5 0.12 0.060 0.86 0.28 Y N N ‐‐Y Quant. 3E+00
CALCIUM 7440‐70‐2 385 385 100% 5.5‐735 203.61 86,700 940,000 NA ‐‐ ‐‐Y ‐‐YBkg.‐‐
CAPROLACTAM 105‐60‐2 124 0 0% 0.54‐7.7 4.02 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
CARBAZOLE 86‐74‐8 124 0 0% 0.65‐5.2 2.20 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
CARBON DISULFIDE 75‐15‐0 479 11 2% 0.049‐1.2 0.22 0.07 0.35 NA ‐‐NY‐‐YBkg.‐‐
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE 56‐23‐5 479 4 1% 0.057‐0.5 0.10 0.08 0.12 NA ‐‐NY‐‐YBkg.‐‐
CHLORIDE 16887‐00‐6 315 315 100% 500‐25000 5,046.35 26,000 1,280,000 NA ‐‐ ‐‐Y ‐‐YBkg.‐‐
CHLOROBENZENE 108‐90‐7 479 0 0% 0.05‐0.5 0.10 ND ND 130 ‐‐N ‐‐NN‐‐ ‐‐
CHLOROETHANE 75‐00‐3 479 0 0% 0.078‐1.3 0.24 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
CHLOROFORM 67‐66‐3 479 423 88% 0.096‐0.5 0.10 0.13 13 1.8 Y ‐‐N ‐‐Y Quant. 7E+00
OU1 Remedial Investigation Report
700 South 1600 East PCE Plume
Salt Lake City, Utah Page 2 of 4
TABLE I.3‐2
GROUNDWATER COPEC SELECTION FOR ECOLOGICAL RECEPTORS
700 S 1600 E PCE Plume Superfund Site, Salt Lake City, Utah
No. of 
Samples
No. 
Detected
Detection 
Frequency
Range of DLs 
(µg/L)
Mean DL 
(µg/L)
Min. Conc. 
(µg/L)
Max. Conc. 
(µg/L)
Is Max. Det. 
Conc. > SL?
Is Mean DL  
> SL?
Chemical 
Detected, 
No SL?
Chemical 
ND, No SL?
Is Chemical 
a COPEC?
Type of 
Evaluation
HQmaxChemical CAS Number
Summary Statistics
Water 
Lowest ESV 
(µg/L)
COPEC Selection
CHLOROMETHANE 74‐87‐3 479 23 5% 0.057‐0.75 0.14 0.15 2 NA ‐‐NY‐‐YBkg.‐‐
CHROMIUM 16065‐83‐1 385 346 90% 0.043‐0.62 0.13 0.10 130 11 Y ‐‐N ‐‐Y Quant. 1E+01
CHRYSENE 218‐01‐9 124 0 0% 0.78‐3.9 2.18 ND ND 0.0018 ‐‐Y ‐‐NYQual.1‐‐
CIS‐1,2‐DICHLOROETHENE 156‐59‐2 505 137 27% 0‐0.5 0.09 0.10 3.9 NA ‐‐ ‐‐Y ‐‐YBkg.‐‐
CIS‐1,3‐DICHLOROPROPENE 542‐75‐6 479 0 0% 0.065‐0.5 0.11 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
CIS‐CHLORDANE 5103‐71‐9 77 0 0% 0.0047‐0.0063 0.01 ND ND 0.0043 ‐‐Y ‐‐NYQual.1‐‐
COBALT 7440‐48‐4 385 335 87% 0.011‐0.5 0.11 0.060 39 3 Y ‐‐N ‐‐Y Quant. 1E+01
COPPER 7440‐50‐8 385 166 43% 0.054‐1.25 0.40 0.25 116 1.6 Y ‐‐N ‐‐Y Quant. 7E+01
CYCLOHEXANE 110‐82‐7 83 0 0% 0.038‐0.14 0.10 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
DELTA‐BHC 319‐86‐8 77 0 0% 0.0065‐0.0089 0.01 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
DIBENZO(A,H)ANTHRACENE 53‐70‐3 124 0 0% 0.49‐4.2 2.39 ND ND 0.0034 ‐‐Y ‐‐NYQual.1‐‐
DIBENZOFURAN 132‐64‐9 124 0 0% 0.66‐3.7 2.18 ND ND 3.7 ‐‐N ‐‐NN‐‐ ‐‐
DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE 124‐48‐1 479 4 1% 0.051‐0.5 0.09 0.16 2.4 NA ‐‐NY‐‐YBkg.‐‐
DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE 75‐71‐8 479 4 1% 0.061‐0.75 0.14 0.17 0.25 NA ‐‐NY‐‐YBkg.‐‐
DIELDRIN 60‐57‐1 77 0 0% 0.0047‐0.0063 0.01 ND ND 0.056 ‐‐N ‐‐NN‐‐ ‐‐
DIETHYL PHTHALATE 84‐66‐2 124 0 0% 0.53‐3.7 2.16 ND ND 20,000 ‐‐N ‐‐NN‐‐ ‐‐
DIMETHYL PHTHALATE 131‐11‐3 124 4 3% 0.54‐4.3 2.20 1.7 19 3 Y N N ‐‐Y Quant. 6E+00
DI‐N‐BUTYLPHTHALATE 84‐74‐2 124 5 4% 0.71‐5.2 2.18 1.1 1.9 19 N N N ‐‐N ‐‐1E‐01
DI‐N‐OCTYLPHTHALATE 117‐84‐0 124 0 0% 0.91‐6.3 2.39 ND ND 3 ‐‐N ‐‐NN‐‐ ‐‐
ENDOSULFAN I 959‐98‐8 77 0 0% 0.0074‐0.01 0.01 ND ND 0.056 ‐‐N ‐‐NN‐‐ ‐‐
ENDOSULFAN II 33213‐65‐9 77 0 0% 0.0047‐0.0063 0.01 ND ND 0.056 ‐‐N ‐‐NN‐‐ ‐‐
ENDOSULFAN SULFATE 1031‐07‐8 77 0 0% 0.0047‐0.0063 0.01 ND ND 0.056 ‐‐N ‐‐NN‐‐ ‐‐
ENDRIN 72‐20‐8 77 0 0% 0.0074‐0.01 0.01 ND ND 0.036 ‐‐N ‐‐NN‐‐ ‐‐
ENDRIN ALDEHYDE 7421‐93‐4 77 0 0% 0.0047‐0.0063 0.01 ND ND 0.036 ‐‐N ‐‐NN‐‐ ‐‐
ENDRIN KETONE 53494‐70‐5 77 0 0% 0.0047‐0.0063 0.01 ND ND 0.036 ‐‐N ‐‐NN‐‐ ‐‐
ETHANE 74‐84‐0 211 16 8% 0.32‐0.32 0.32 0.33 8.8 NA ‐‐NY‐‐YBkg.‐‐
ETHENE 74‐85‐1 211 27 13% 0.3‐0.30.300.3114NA ‐‐ ‐‐Y ‐‐YBkg.‐‐
ETHYLBENZENE 100‐41‐4 479 30 6% 0.031‐0.5 0.10 0.10 3.3 NA ‐‐NY‐‐YBkg.‐‐
FLUORANTHENE 206‐44‐0 124 0 0% 0.72‐4.8 2.21 ND ND 0.04 ‐‐Y ‐‐NYQual.1‐‐
FLUORENE 86‐73‐7 124 0 0% 0.67‐3.9 2.19 ND ND 3.9 ‐‐N ‐‐NN‐‐ ‐‐
GAMMA‐BHC (LINDANE)58‐89‐9 77 1 1% 0.0047‐0.0063 0.01 0.012 0.012 0.095 N N N ‐‐N ‐‐1E‐01
HEPTACHLOR 76‐44‐8 77 0 0% 0.0065‐0.0089 0.01 ND ND 0.0038 ‐‐Y ‐‐NYQual.1‐‐
HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE 1024‐57‐3 77 0 0% 0.0047‐0.0063 0.01 ND ND 0.0038 ‐‐Y ‐‐NYQual.1‐‐
HEXACHLORO‐1,3‐BUTADIENE 87‐68‐3 124 0 0% 0.69‐3.4 2.18 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
HEXACHLOROBENZENE 118‐74‐1 124 0 0% 0.97‐4.8 2.22 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE 77‐47‐4 124 0 0% 0.77‐3.9 2.15 ND ND 100 ‐‐N ‐‐NN‐‐ ‐‐
HEXACHLOROETHANE 67‐72‐1 124 0 0% 0.59‐4.4 2.23 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
INDENO(1,2,3‐CD)PYRENE 193‐39‐5 124 0 0% 0.62‐4.1 2.36 ND ND 4.3 ‐‐N ‐‐NN‐‐ ‐‐
IRON 7439‐89‐6 385 278 72% 3.8‐47.6 19.29 5.7 57,500 1,000 Y ‐‐N ‐‐Y Quant. 6E+01
ISOPHORONE 78‐59‐1 124 0 0% 0.63‐4.3 2.18 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
ISOPROPYLBENZENE 98‐82‐8 479 3 1% 0.035‐0.5 0.09 0.1 0.13 NA ‐‐NY‐‐YBkg.‐‐
LEAD 7439‐92‐1 385 120 31% 0.013‐0.36 0.07 0.050 91 1 Y ‐‐N ‐‐Y Quant. 9E+01
M,P‐XYLENE 108‐38‐3 479 35 7% 0.048‐1.1 0.19 0.11 4.7 100,000 N N N ‐‐N ‐‐5E‐05
MAGNESIUM 7439‐95‐4 385 385 100% 0.41‐677 111.73 29,300 124,000 NA ‐‐ ‐‐Y ‐‐YBkg.‐‐
MANGANESE 7439‐96‐5 385 360 94% 0.021‐1.4 0.20 0.21 2,770 1,300 Y ‐‐N ‐‐Y Quant. 2E+00
MERCURY 7487‐94‐7 385 11 3% 0.014‐0.54 0.07 0.034 0.88 0.012 Y Y N ‐‐Y Quant. 7E+01
METHANE 74‐82‐8 211 104 49% 0.17‐0.17 0.17 0.17 15 NA ‐‐ ‐‐Y ‐‐YBkg.‐‐
OU1 Remedial Investigation Report
700 South 1600 East PCE Plume
Salt Lake City, Utah Page 3 of 4
TABLE I.3‐2
GROUNDWATER COPEC SELECTION FOR ECOLOGICAL RECEPTORS
700 S 1600 E PCE Plume Superfund Site, Salt Lake City, Utah
No. of 
Samples
No. 
Detected
Detection 
Frequency
Range of DLs 
(µg/L)
Mean DL 
(µg/L)
Min. Conc. 
(µg/L)
Max. Conc. 
(µg/L)
Is Max. Det. 
Conc. > SL?
Is Mean DL  
> SL?
Chemical 
Detected, 
No SL?
Chemical 
ND, No SL?
Is Chemical 
a COPEC?
Type of 
Evaluation
HQmaxChemical CAS Number
Summary Statistics
Water 
Lowest ESV 
(µg/L)
COPEC Selection
METHOXYCHLOR 72‐43‐5 77 0 0% 0.047‐0.063 0.05 ND ND 0.03 ‐‐Y ‐‐NYQual.1‐‐
METHYL ACETATE 79‐20‐9 479 0 0% 0.09‐1.2 0.23 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
METHYL TERT‐BUTYL ETHER 1634‐04‐4 479 0 0% 0.056‐0.66 0.12 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
METHYLCYLOHEXANE 108‐87‐2 83 4 5% 0.035‐0.12 0.09 0.1 0.2 NA ‐‐NY‐‐YBkg.‐‐
METHYLENE CHLORIDE 75‐09‐2 479 10 2% 0.062‐2.5 0.44 0.11 0.44 210 N N N ‐‐N ‐‐2E‐03
NAPHTHALENE 91‐20‐3 124 0 0% 0.64‐3.8 2.19 ND ND 1.1 ‐‐Y ‐‐NYQual.1‐‐
NICKEL 7440‐02‐0 385 355 92% 0.06‐0.5 0.21 0.18 239 29 Y ‐‐N ‐‐Y Quant. 8E+00
NITRATE [AS N]14797‐55‐8 21 17 81% 100‐500 209.52 1,100 4,800 4 Y ‐‐N ‐‐Y Quant. 1E+03
NITROBENZENE 98‐95‐3 124 0 0% 0.64‐4.1 2.19 ND ND 550 ‐‐N ‐‐NN‐‐ ‐‐
N‐NITROSO‐DI‐N‐PROPYLAMINE 621‐64‐7 124 0 0% 0.68‐4.9 2.18 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
N‐NITROSODIPHENYLAMINE 86‐30‐6 124 0 0% 0.69‐5.3 2.22 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
O‐XYLENE 95‐47‐6 479 27 6% 0.043‐0.5 0.10 0.1 3.4 1,000 N N N ‐‐N ‐‐3E‐03
PENTACHLOROPHENOL 87‐86‐5 124 0 0% 0.73‐62.21NDND15 ‐‐N ‐‐NN‐‐ ‐‐
PHENANTHRENE 85‐01‐8 124 0 0% 0.69‐4.1 2.19 ND ND 6.3 ‐‐N ‐‐NN‐‐ ‐‐
PHENOL 108‐95‐2 124 0 0% 0.56‐3.6 2.15 ND ND 320 ‐‐N ‐‐NN‐‐ ‐‐
POTASSIUM 7440‐09‐7 385 385 100% 5.4‐151 28.02 1,510 12,300 NA ‐‐ ‐‐Y ‐‐YBkg.‐‐
PYRENE 129‐00‐0 124 0 0% 0.85‐4.2 2.20 ND ND 0.025 ‐‐Y ‐‐NYQual.1‐‐
SELENIUM 7782‐49‐2 385 315 82% 0.15‐2.8 0.37 0.153 5.1 1.5 Y ‐‐N ‐‐Y Quant. 3E+00
SILVER 7440‐22‐4 385 39 10% 0.011‐0.5 0.11 0.05 1.1 0.1 Y ‐‐N ‐‐Y Quant. 1E+01
SODIUM 7440‐23‐5 385 385 100% 8.3‐1250 167.33 23,900 792,000 NA ‐‐ ‐‐Y ‐‐YBkg.‐‐
STYRENE 100‐42‐5 479 7 1% 0.031‐1.2 0.22 0.24 1.1 10,000 N N N ‐‐N ‐‐1E‐04
SULFATE 14808‐79‐8 315 315 100% 650‐26000 2,805.40 49,300 232,000 NA ‐‐ ‐‐Y ‐‐YBkg.‐‐
TETRACHLOROETHENE 127‐18‐4 505 336 67% 0‐3.8 0.20 0.13 230 98 Y ‐‐N ‐‐Y Quant. 2E+00
THALLIUM 7440‐28‐0 385 7 2% 0.054‐0.5 0.14 0.080 0.35 0.03 Y Y N ‐‐Y Quant. 1E+01
TOLUENE 108‐88‐3 479 80 17% 0.048‐0.5 0.10 0.090 18 9.8 Y ‐‐N ‐‐Y Quant. 2E+00
TOXAPHENE 8001‐35‐2 77 0 0% 0.23‐0.32 0.27 ND ND 0.0002 ‐‐Y ‐‐NYQual.1‐‐
TRANS‐1,2‐DICHLOROETHENE 156‐60‐5 479 2 0% 0.062‐0.5 0.10 0.1 0.2 NA ‐‐NY‐‐YBkg.‐‐
TRANS‐1,3‐DICHLOROPROPENE 542‐75‐6 479 0 0% 0.049‐0.57 0.12 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
TRANS‐CHLORDANE 5103‐74‐2 77 0 0% 0.0047‐0.0063 0.01 ND ND 0.0043 ‐‐Y ‐‐NYQual.1‐‐
TRICHLOROETHENE 79‐01‐6 505 210 42% 0‐0.5 0.09 0.1 12 21 N ‐‐N ‐‐N ‐‐6E‐01
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE 75‐69‐4 479 9 2% 0.038‐0.75 0.14 0.17 0.28 NA ‐‐NY‐‐YBkg.‐‐
VANADIUM 7440‐62‐2 385 346 90% 0.026‐1.8 0.36 0.26 78 19 Y ‐‐N ‐‐Y Quant. 4E+00
VINYL ACETATE 108‐05‐4 396 0 0% 0.25‐1.2 0.25 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
VINYL CHLORIDE 75‐01‐4 479 0 0% 0.054‐0.58 0.12 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
ZINC 7440‐66‐6 385 168 44% 0.13‐25 4.75 0.96 1,350 65 Y ‐‐N ‐‐Y Quant. 2E+01
Abbreviations
% ‐  percent Det. ‐ detect NA ‐ Not Available Y ‐ Yes
> ‐  greater than DL ‐ Detection Limit ND ‐ Non‐Detect
µg/L ‐ micrograms per liter ESV ‐ Ecological Screening Value No. ‐ Number
Bkg. ‐ Background analysis for detected analytes with no screening levels HQ ‐ Hazard Quotient Qual.1 ‐ Qualitative analysis for infrequently detected analytes with insufficient detection limits
CASRN ‐ Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number Max. ‐ Maximum Qual.2 ‐ Qualitative analysis for non‐detected analytes with no screening levels
Conc. ‐ Concentration Min. ‐ Minimum Quant. ‐ Quantitative
COPEC ‐ Chemical of Potential Ecological Concern N ‐ No SL ‐ Screening Level
OU1 Remedial Investigation Report
700 South 1600 East PCE Plume
Salt Lake City, Utah Page 4 of 4
TABLE I.3‐3
SURFACE WATER SCREENING LEVELS FOR ECOLOGICAL RECEPTORS
700 S 1600 E PCE Plume Superfund Site, Salt Lake City, Utah
Chemical CASRN Notes
UDEQ WQC 
Chronic   
(µg/L)
EPA NRWQC 
Chronic (µg/L)
LANL Water 
No‐Effect ESL 
(µg/L)
ORNL Plant Soil 
Solution SL 
(µg/L)
Lowest ESV 
(µg/L)
1,1,1‐TRICHLOROETHANE 71‐55‐6NANA11NA11
1,1,2,2‐TETRACHLOROETHANE 79‐34‐5NANANANANA
1,1,2‐TRICHLOROETHANE 79‐00‐5NANANANANA
1,1,2‐TRICHLOROTRIFLUOROETHANE 76‐13‐1NANANANANA
1,1'‐BIPHENYL 92‐52‐4NANANANANA
1,1‐DICHLOROETHANE 75‐34‐3NANA47NA47
1,1‐DICHLOROETHENE 75‐35‐4NANA25NA25
1,2,3‐TRICHLOROBENZENE 87‐61‐6NANANANANA
1,2,4,5‐TETRACHLOROBENZENE 95‐94‐3NANANANANA
1,2,4‐TRICHLOROBENZENE 120‐82‐1NANA24NA24
1,2,4‐TRIMETHYLBENZENE 95‐63‐6NANANANANA
1,2‐DIBROMO‐3‐CHLOROPROPANE 96‐12‐8NANANANANA
1,2‐DIBROMOETHANE 106‐93‐4NANANANANA
1,2‐DICHLOROBENZENE 95‐50‐1NANANANANA
1,2‐DICHLOROETHANE 107‐06‐2 NA NA 100 NA 100
1,2‐DICHLOROPROPANE 78‐87‐5NANANANANA
1,3,5‐TRIMETHYLBENZENE 108‐67‐8NANANANANA
1,3‐DICHLOROBENZENE 541‐73‐1NANANANANA
1,3‐DICHLOROPROPYLENE 542‐75‐6NANANANANA
1,4‐DICHLOROBENZENE 106‐46‐7NANA15NA15
1,4‐DIOXANE 123‐91‐1NANANANANA
2,3,4,6‐TETRACHLOROPHENOL 58‐90‐2NANANANANA
2,4,5‐TRICHLOROPHENOL 95‐95‐4NANANANANA
2,4,6‐TRICHLOROPHENOL 88‐06‐2 NA NA NA 10,000 10,000
2,4‐DICHLOROPHENOL 120‐83‐2 NA NA NA 20,000 20,000
2,4‐DIMETHYLPHENOL 105‐67‐9NANANANANA
2,4‐DINITROPHENOL 51‐28‐5NANANANANA
2,4‐DINITROTOLUENE 121‐14‐2NANA65NA65
2,6‐DINITROTOLUENE 606‐20‐2 NA NA 230 NA 230
2‐BUTANONE (MEK) 78‐93‐3 NA NA 7,200 NA 7,200
2‐CHLORONAPHTHALENE 91‐58‐7NANANANANA
2‐CHLOROPHENOL 95‐57‐8 NA NA 490 60,000 490
2‐HEXANONE 591‐78‐6NANANANANA
2‐METHYLNAPHTHALENE 91‐57‐6 NA NA 330 NA 330
2‐METHYLPHENOL 95‐48‐7NANANANANA
2‐NITROANILINE 88‐74‐4NANANANANA
2‐NITROPHENOL 88‐75‐5NANANANANA
3,3'‐DICHLOROBENZIDINE 91‐94‐1NANANANANA
3‐NITROANILINE 99‐09‐2 NA NA NA 70,000 70,000
4,4'‐DDD 72‐54‐8NANANANANA
4,4'‐DDE 72‐55‐9 NA NA 100 NA 100
4,4'‐DDT 50‐29‐3 NA 0.001 0.001 NA 0.001
4,6‐DINITRO‐2‐METHYLPHENOL 534‐52‐1NANANANANA
4‐BROMOPHENYL PHENYL ETHER 101‐55‐3NANANANANA
4‐CHLORO‐3‐METHYLPHENOL 59‐50‐7NANANANANA
OU1 Remedial Investigation Report
700 South 1600 East PCE Plume
Salt Lake City, Utah Page 1 of 5
TABLE I.3‐3
SURFACE WATER SCREENING LEVELS FOR ECOLOGICAL RECEPTORS
700 S 1600 E PCE Plume Superfund Site, Salt Lake City, Utah
Chemical CASRN Notes
UDEQ WQC 
Chronic   
(µg/L)
EPA NRWQC 
Chronic (µg/L)
LANL Water 
No‐Effect ESL 
(µg/L)
ORNL Plant Soil 
Solution SL 
(µg/L)
Lowest ESV 
(µg/L)
4‐CHLOROANILINE 106‐47‐8 NA NA NA 40,000 40,000
4‐CHLOROPHENYL PHENYL ETHER 7005‐72‐3NANANANANA
4‐METHYL‐2‐PENTANONE (MIBK) 108‐10‐1NANANANANA
4‐METHYLPHENOL 106‐44‐5NANANANANA
4‐NITROANILINE 100‐01‐6 NA NA NA 40,000 40,000
4‐NITROPHENOL 100‐02‐7 NA NA NA 10,000 10,000
ACENAPHTHENE 83‐32‐9 NA NA 5.8 100 5.8
ACENAPHTHYLENE 208‐96‐8 NA NA 4,800 NA 4,800
ACETONE 67‐64‐1 NA NA 1,500 NA 1,500
ACETOPHENONE 98‐86‐2NANANANANA
ALDRIN 309‐00‐2 5 1.5 0.3 NA NA 0.3
ALPHA‐BHC 319‐84‐6NANANANANA
ALUMINUM 7429‐90‐5 NA 87 530 300 87
ANTHRACENE 120‐12‐7 NA NA 0.73 NA 0.73
ANTIMONY 7440‐36‐0NANA30NA30
ARSENIC 7440‐38‐2 150 150 150 1 1
ATRAZINE 1912‐24‐9NANANANANA
BARIUM 7440‐39‐3 NA NA 3.9 NA 3.9
BENZALDEHYDE 100‐52‐7NANANANANA
BENZENE 71‐43‐2NANA46NA46
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE 56‐55‐3 NA NA 0.027 NA 0.027
BENZO(A)PYRENE 50‐32‐8 NA NA 0.014 NA 0.014
BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE 205‐99‐2NANA9NA9
BENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE 191‐24‐2 NA NA 7.6 NA 7.6
BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE 207‐08‐9 NA NA 0.0041 NA 0.0041
BENZYL BUTYL PHTHALATE 85‐68‐7NANA19NA19
BERYLLIUM 7440‐41‐7 NA NA 0.66 500 0.66
BETA‐BHC 319‐85‐7 NA NA 2.2 NA 2.2
BIS(2‐CHLOROETHOXY)METHANE 111‐91‐1NANANANANA
BIS(2‐CHLOROETHYL) ETHER 111‐44‐4NANANANANA
BIS(2‐ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE 117‐81‐7NANA32NA32
BIS‐CHLOROISOPROPYL ETHER 39638‐32‐9NANANANANA
BROMOCHLOROMETHANE 74‐97‐5NANANANANA
BROMODICHLOROMETHANE 75‐27‐4NANANANANA
BROMOFORM 75‐25‐2NANANANANA
BROMOMETHANE 74‐83‐9NANANANANA
CADMIUM 7440‐43‐9 7 0.72 0.72 0.28 100 0.28
CALCIUM 7440‐70‐2NANANANANA
CAPROLACTAM 105‐60‐2NANANANANA
CARBAZOLE 86‐74‐8NANANANANA
CARBON DISULFIDE 75‐15‐0NANANANANA
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE 56‐23‐5NANANANANA
CHLORIDE 16887‐00‐6NANANANANA
CHLOROBENZENE 108‐90‐7 NA NA 130 NA 130
CHLOROETHANE 75‐00‐3NANANANANA
OU1 Remedial Investigation Report
700 South 1600 East PCE Plume
Salt Lake City, Utah Page 2 of 5
TABLE I.3‐3
SURFACE WATER SCREENING LEVELS FOR ECOLOGICAL RECEPTORS
700 S 1600 E PCE Plume Superfund Site, Salt Lake City, Utah
Chemical CASRN Notes
UDEQ WQC 
Chronic   
(µg/L)
EPA NRWQC 
Chronic (µg/L)
LANL Water 
No‐Effect ESL 
(µg/L)
ORNL Plant Soil 
Solution SL 
(µg/L)
Lowest ESV 
(µg/L)
CHLOROFORM 67‐66‐3 NA NA 1.8 NA 1.8
CHLOROMETHANE 74‐87‐3NANANANANA
CHROMIUM 16065‐83‐11, 711 11 11 NA 11
CHRYSENE 218‐01‐9 NA NA 0.0018 NA 0.0018
CIS‐1,2‐DICHLOROETHENE 156‐59‐2NANANANANA
CIS‐1,3‐DICHLOROPROPENE 542‐75‐6NANANANANA
CIS‐CHLORDANE 5103‐71‐9 NA 0.0043 0.0043 NA 0.0043
COBALT 7440‐48‐4NANA3603
COPPER 7440‐50‐8 6 9 1.6 5 60 1.6
CYCLOHEXANE 110‐82‐7NANANANANA
DELTA‐BHC 319‐86‐8NANANANANA
DIBENZO(A,H)ANTHRACENE 53‐70‐3 NA NA 0.0034 NA 0.0034
DIBENZOFURAN 132‐64‐9 NA NA 3.7 NA 3.7
DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE 124‐48‐1NANANANANA
DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE 75‐71‐8NANANANANA
DIELDRIN 60‐57‐1 0.056 0.056 0.056 NA 0.056
DIETHYL PHTHALATE 84‐66‐2 NA NA NA 20,000 20,000
DIMETHYL PHTHALATE 131‐11‐3NANA3NA3
DI‐N‐BUTYLPHTHALATE 84‐74‐2NANA19NA19
DI‐N‐OCTYLPHTHALATE 117‐84‐0NANA3NA3
ENDOSULFAN I 959‐98‐8 4 0.056 0.056 NA NA 0.056
ENDOSULFAN II 33213‐65‐9 4 NA 0.056 NA NA 0.056
ENDOSULFAN SULFATE 1031‐07‐8 NA 0.056 NA NA 0.056
ENDRIN 72‐20‐8 0.036 0.036 0.036 NA 0.036
ENDRIN ALDEHYDE 7421‐93‐4 NA 0.036 NA NA 0.036
ENDRIN KETONE 53494‐70‐5 NA 0.036 NA NA 0.036
ETHANE 74‐84‐0NANANANANA
ETHENE 74‐85‐1NANANANANA
ETHYLBENZENE 100‐41‐4NANANANANA
FLUORANTHENE 206‐44‐0 NA NA 0.04 NA 0.04
FLUORENE 86‐73‐7 NA NA 3.9 NA 3.9
GAMMA‐BHC (LINDANE) 58‐89‐9 NA 0.095 0.095 NA 0.095
HEPTACHLOR 76‐44‐8 0.0038 0.0038 0.0038 NA 0.0038
HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE 1024‐57‐3 0.0038 0.0038 NA NA 0.0038
HEXACHLORO‐1,3‐BUTADIENE 87‐68‐3NANANANANA
HEXACHLOROBENZENE 118‐74‐1NANANANANA
HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE 77‐47‐4 NA NA NA 100 100
HEXACHLOROETHANE 67‐72‐1NANANANANA
INDENO(1,2,3‐CD)PYRENE 193‐39‐5 NA NA 4.3 NA 4.3
IRON 7439‐89‐6 NA 1,000 1,000 NA 1,000
ISOPHORONE 78‐59‐1NANANANANA
ISOPROPYLBENZENE 98‐82‐8NANANANANA
LEAD 7439‐92‐1 7 2.5 2.52 1 20 1
M,P‐XYLENE 108‐38‐3 3 NA NA NA 100,000 100,000
MAGNESIUM 7439‐95‐4NANANANANA
OU1 Remedial Investigation Report
700 South 1600 East PCE Plume
Salt Lake City, Utah Page 3 of 5
TABLE I.3‐3
SURFACE WATER SCREENING LEVELS FOR ECOLOGICAL RECEPTORS
700 S 1600 E PCE Plume Superfund Site, Salt Lake City, Utah
Chemical CASRN Notes
UDEQ WQC 
Chronic   
(µg/L)
EPA NRWQC 
Chronic (µg/L)
LANL Water 
No‐Effect ESL 
(µg/L)
ORNL Plant Soil 
Solution SL 
(µg/L)
Lowest ESV 
(µg/L)
MANGANESE 7439‐96‐5 NA NA 1300 4000 1300
MERCURY 7487‐94‐72, 7 0.012 0.65 0.77 5 0.012
METHANE 74‐82‐8NANANANANA
METHOXYCHLOR 72‐43‐5 0.03 0.03 0.03 NA 0.03
METHYL ACETATE 79‐20‐9NANANANANA
METHYL TERT‐BUTYL ETHER 1634‐04‐4NANANANANA
METHYLCYLOHEXANE 108‐87‐2NANANANANA
METHYLENE CHLORIDE 75‐09‐2 NA NA 210 NA 210
NAPHTHALENE 91‐20‐3 NA NA 1.1 10,000 1.1
NICKEL 7440‐02‐0 7 52 52 29 500 29
NITRATE [AS N] 14797‐55‐8 4 NA NA NA 4
NITROBENZENE 98‐95‐3 NA NA 550 8,000 550
N‐NITROSO‐DI‐N‐PROPYLAMINE 621‐64‐7NANANANANA
N‐NITROSODIPHENYLAMINE 86‐30‐6NANANANANA
O‐XYLENE 95‐47‐6 NA NA NA 1,000 1,000
PENTACHLOROPHENOL 87‐86‐51515153015
PHENANTHRENE 85‐01‐8 NA NA 6.3 NA 6.3
PHENOL 108‐95‐2 NA NA 320 10,000 320
POTASSIUM 7440‐09‐7NANANANANA
PYRENE 129‐00‐0 NA NA 0.025 NA 0.025
SELENIUM 7782‐49‐2 4.6 1.5 5.0 700 1.5
SILVER 7440‐22‐4 5,7 3.2 0.322 0.1 100 0.1
SODIUM 7440‐23‐5NANANANANA
STYRENE 100‐42‐5 NA NA NA 10,000 10,000
SULFATE 14808‐79‐8NANANANANA
TETRACHLOROETHENE 127‐18‐4 NA NA 98 10,000 98
THALLIUM 7440‐28‐0 NA NA 0.03 50 0.03
TOLUENE 108‐88‐3 NA NA 9.8 10,000 9.8
TOXAPHENE 8001‐35‐2 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 NA 0.0002
TRANS‐1,2‐DICHLOROETHENE 156‐60‐5NANANANANA
TRANS‐1,3‐DICHLOROPROPENE 542‐75‐6NANANANANA
TRANS‐CHLORDANE 5103‐74‐2 NA 0.0043 0.0043 NA 0.0043
TRICHLOROETHENE 79‐01‐6 NA NA 21 100,000 21
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE 75‐69‐4NANANANANA
VANADIUM 7440‐62‐2 NA NA 19 200 19
VINYL ACETATE 108‐05‐4NANANANANA
VINYL CHLORIDE 75‐01‐4NANANANANA
ZINC 7440‐66‐6 7 120 118 65 400 65
Sources
UDEQ WQC ‐ Utah Department of Environmental Quality R317‐2, Standard of Quality for Waters of the State 
EPA NRWQC ‐ National Recommended Water Quality Criteria for Aquatic Life
LANL ‐ Los Alamos National Laboratory, EcoRisk Database, version 4.2
ORNL ‐ Oak Ridge National Laboratory, ES/ER/TM‐85/R3
OU1 Remedial Investigation Report
700 South 1600 East PCE Plume
Salt Lake City, Utah Page 4 of 5
TABLE I.3‐3
SURFACE WATER SCREENING LEVELS FOR ECOLOGICAL RECEPTORS
700 S 1600 E PCE Plume Superfund Site, Salt Lake City, Utah
Chemical CASRN Notes
UDEQ WQC 
Chronic   
(µg/L)
EPA NRWQC 
Chronic (µg/L)
LANL Water 
No‐Effect ESL 
(µg/L)
ORNL Plant Soil 
Solution SL 
(µg/L)
Lowest ESV 
(µg/L)
Notes
1 ‐ As Chromium VI
2 ‐ As inorganic mercury
3 ‐ Based on total xylenes
4 ‐ ESVs for the alpha and beta are presented
5 ‐ No chronic NRWQC available; value is assumed to be 10 times lower than the acute criterion.
6 ‐ Chronic NRWQC presented in this table is based on minimum value presented in Appendix G of EPA (2007); pH = 6.5, Hardness = 40 mg/L CaCO3,
         DOC = 2 mg/L.
7 ‐ Metal toxicity is hardness‐dependent; values shown are calculated based on a hardness of 100 mg/L.
Abbreviations
µg/L ‐ micrograms per liter
CASRN ‐ Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number
ESL ‐ Ecological Screening Level
ESV ‐ Ecological Screening Value
mg/L ‐ milligrams per liter
NA ‐ Not Available
NRWQC ‐ National Recommended Water Quality Criteria 
SL ‐ Screening Level
WQC ‐ Water Quality Criteria
OU1 Remedial Investigation Report
700 South 1600 East PCE Plume
Salt Lake City, Utah Page 5 of 5
TABLE I.3‐4
REFINED ORGANIC COPEC EVALUATION FOR SURFACE WATER
700 S 1600 E PCE Plume Superfund Site, Salt Lake City, Utah
No. of 
Samples
No. 
Detected
Detection 
Frequency
Min. Conc. 
(µg/L)
Max. 
Conc. 
(µg/L)
Receptor
Aquatic Chronic 
or Wildlife No‐
Effect ESL (µg/L)
Aquatic Acute or 
Low‐Effect ESL 
(µg/L)
BIS(2‐ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE 38 3 8% 3.6 84 Aquatic community organisms 32 320
Terrestrial plants (roots) NA NA
Violet‐green swallow 4,500 45,000
American robin 7,800 78,000
American kestrel 9,100 91,000
Montane shrew 82,000 820,000
Deer mouse 96,000 960,000
Occult little brown myotis bat 110,000 1,100,000
Mountain cottontail 180,000 1,800,000
Gray fox 210,000 2,100,000
CHLOROFORM 100 71 71% 0.11 6.3 Aquatic community organisms 1.8 18
Terrestrial plants (roots) NA NA
Montane shrew 67,000 180,000
Deer mouse 78,000 210,000
Occult little brown myotis bat 94,000 250,000
Mountain cottontail 150,000 420,000
Gray fox 170,000 470,000
ESL Source
LANL ‐ Los Alamos National Laboratory, ECORISK Database, version 4.2
Notes
Shaded cells indicate the maximum concentration exceeds the ESL
Abbreviations
% ‐  percent
µg/L ‐ micrograms per liter
CAS ‐ Chemical Abstracts Service
Conc. ‐ Concentration
COPEC ‐ Chemical of Potential Ecological Concern
ESL ‐ ecological screening level
Max. ‐ Maximum
Min. ‐ Minimum
NA ‐ not available
No. ‐ Number
Surface Water COPEC
Surface Water Summary Statistics Water ESL
OU1 Remedial Investigation Report
700 South 1600 East PCE Plume
Salt Lake City, Utah Page 1 of 1
TABLE I.3‐5
REFINED ORGANIC COPEC EVALUATION FOR GROUNDWATER
700 S 1600 E PCE Plume Superfund Site, Salt Lake City, Utah
No. of 
Samples
No. 
Detected
Detection 
Frequency
Min. Conc. 
(µg/L)
Max. 
Conc. 
(µg/L)
Receptor
Aquatic Chronic or 
Wildlife No‐Effect 
ESL (µg/L)
Aquatic Acute or 
Low‐Effect ESL 
(µg/L)
BIS(2‐ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE 124 8 6% 4.2 150 Aquatic community organisms 32 320
Terrestrial plants (roots) NA NA
Violet‐green swallow 4,500 45,000
American robin 7,800 78,000
American kestrel 9,100 91,000
Montane shrew 82,000 820,000
Deer mouse 96,000 960,000
Occult little brown myotis bat 110,000 1,100,000
Mountain cottontail 180,000 1,800,000
Gray fox 210,000 2,100,000
CHLOROFORM 479 423 88% 0.13 13 Aquatic community organisms 1.8 18
Terrestrial plants (roots) NA NA
Montane shrew 67,000 180,000
Deer mouse 78,000 210,000
Occult little brown myotis bat 94,000 250,000
Mountain cottontail 150,000 420,000
Gray fox 170,000 470,000
DIMETHYL PHTHALATE 124 4 3% 1.7 19 Aquatic community organisms 3.0 30
Terrestrial plants (roots) NA NA
Montane shrew 300,000 3,000,000
Deer mouse 350,000 3,500,000
Occult little brown myotis bat 420,000 4,200,000
Mountain cottontail 700,000 7,000,000
Gray fox 790,000 7,900,000
TETRACHLOROETHENE 505 336 67% 0.13 230 Aquatic community organisms 98 830
Terrestrial plants (roots) 10,000 NA
Montane shrew 8,900 44,000
Deer mouse 10,000 52,000
Occult little brown myotis bat 12,000 62,000
Mountain cottontail 20,000 100,000
Gray fox 23,000 110,000
TOLUENE 479 80 17% 0.09 18 Aquatic community organisms 9.8 98
Terrestrial plants (roots) 10,000 NA
Montane shrew 110,000 1,100,000
Deer mouse 130,000 1,300,000
Occult little brown myotis bat 160,000 1,600,000
Mountain cottontail 260,000 2,600,000
Gray fox 300,000 3,000,000
ESL Source
LANL ‐ Los Alamos National Laboratory, ECORISK Database, version 4.2
Notes
Shaded cells indicate the maximum concentration exceeds the ESL
Abbreviations
% ‐  percent
µg/L ‐ micrograms per liter
CAS ‐ Chemical Abstracts Service
Conc. ‐ Concentration
COPEC ‐ Chemical of Potential Ecological Concern
ESL ‐ ecological screening level
Max. ‐ Maximum
Min. ‐ Minimum
NA ‐ not available
No. ‐ Number
Groundwater COPEC
Groundwater Summary Statistics Water ESL
OU1 Remedial Investigation Report
700 South 1600 East PCE Plume
Salt Lake City, Utah Page 1 of 1
TABLE I.3‐6
SOIL/SEDIMENT COPEC SELECTION FOR ECOLOGICAL RECEPTORS
700 S 1600 E PCE Plume Superfund Site, Salt Lake City, Utah
No. of 
Samples
No. 
Detected
Detection 
Frequency
Mean DL 
(mg/kg)Range of DLs (mg/kg)
Min. 
Conc. 
(mg/kg)
Max. 
Conc. 
(mg/kg)
Is Max. Det. 
Conc. > SL?
Is Mean DL > 
SL?
Chemical 
Detected, 
No SL?
Chemical 
ND, No SL?
Is Chemical 
a COPEC?
Type of 
Evaluation
1,1,1‐TRICHLOROETHANE 71‐55‐6 44 0 0% 0.0005 0.00043‐0.00061 ND ND 0.07 ‐‐N ‐‐NN ‐‐ ‐‐
1,1,2,2‐TETRACHLOROETHANE 79‐34‐5 44 0 0% 0.0005 0.00043‐0.00061 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
1,1,2‐TRICHLOROETHANE 79‐00‐5 44 0 0% 0.0005 0.00043‐0.00069 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
1,1,2‐TRICHLOROTRIFLUOROETHANE 76‐13‐1 44 0 0% 0.0010 0.00053‐0.0012 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
1,1'‐BIPHENYL 92‐52‐4 3 0 0% 0.041 0.035‐0.047 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
1,1‐DICHLOROETHANE 75‐34‐3 44 0 0% 0.0005 0.00039‐0.00061 ND ND 0.02 ‐‐N ‐‐NN ‐‐ ‐‐
1,1‐DICHLOROETHENE 75‐35‐4 44 0 0% 0.0005 0.00043‐0.00065 ND ND 0.1 ‐‐N ‐‐NN ‐‐ ‐‐
1,2,3‐TRICHLOROBENZENE 87‐61‐6 44 0 0% 0.0010 0.0008‐0.0012 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
1,2,4,5‐TETRACHLOROBENZENE 95‐94‐3 3 0 0% 0.041 0.035‐0.047 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
1,2,4‐TRICHLOROBENZENE 120‐82‐1 44 0 0% 0.0010 0.00086‐0.0012 ND ND 0.011 ‐‐N ‐‐NN ‐‐ ‐‐
1,2,4‐TRIMETHYLBENZENE 95‐63‐6 40 0 0% 0.0006 0.00048‐0.00067 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
1,2‐DIBROMO‐3‐CHLOROPROPANE 96‐12‐8 44 0 0% 0.0010 0.00043‐0.0012 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
1,2‐DIBROMOETHANE 106‐93‐4 44 0 0% 0.0005 0.00036‐0.00061 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
1,2‐DICHLOROBENZENE 95‐50‐1 44 0 0% 0.0005 0.00043‐0.0007 ND ND 0.92 ‐‐N ‐‐NN ‐‐ ‐‐
1,2‐DICHLOROETHANE 107‐06‐2 44 0 0% 0.0005 0.00043‐0.00061 ND ND 0.85 ‐‐N ‐‐NN ‐‐ ‐‐
1,2‐DICHLOROPROPANE 78‐87‐5 44 0 0% 0.0005 0.00039‐0.00061 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
1,3,5‐TRIMETHYLBENZENE 108‐67‐8 40 0 0% 0.0006 0.00051‐0.00072 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
1,3‐DICHLOROBENZENE 541‐73‐1 44 0 0% 0.0005 0.00045‐0.00076 ND ND 0.74 ‐‐N ‐‐NN ‐‐ ‐‐
1,3‐DICHLOROPROPYLENE 542‐75‐6 40 0 0% 0.0010 0.00087‐0.0012 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
1,4‐DICHLOROBENZENE 106‐46‐7 44 0 0% 0.0005 0.00043‐0.00062 ND ND 0.03 ‐‐N ‐‐NN ‐‐ ‐‐
1,4‐DIOXANE 123‐91‐1 3 0 0% 0.039 0.033‐0.045 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
2,3,4,6‐TETRACHLOROPHENOL 58‐90‐2 3 0 0% 0.043 0.037‐0.05 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
2,4,5‐TRICHLOROPHENOL 95‐95‐4 3 0 0% 0.038 0.033‐0.043 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
2,4,6‐TRICHLOROPHENOL 88‐06‐2 3 0 0% 0.043 0.037‐0.049 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
2,4‐DICHLOROPHENOL 120‐83‐2 3 0 0% 0.038 0.033‐0.044 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
2,4‐DIMETHYLPHENOL 105‐67‐9 3 0 0% 0.039 0.034‐0.045 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
2,4‐DINITROPHENOL 51‐28‐5 3 0 0% 0.032 0.028‐0.037 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
2,4‐DINITROTOLUENE 121‐14‐2 3 0 0% 0.044 0.038‐0.051 ND ND 0.29 ‐‐N ‐‐NN ‐‐ ‐‐
2,6‐DINITROTOLUENE 606‐20‐2 3 0 0% 0.039 0.034‐0.045 ND ND 4 ‐‐N ‐‐NN ‐‐ ‐‐
2‐BUTANONE (MEK)78‐93‐3 44 0 0% 0.0025 0.0022‐0.003 ND ND 350 ‐‐N ‐‐NN ‐‐ ‐‐
2‐CHLORONAPHTHALENE 91‐58‐7 3 0 0% 0.039 0.034‐0.045 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
2‐CHLOROPHENOL 95‐57‐8 3 0 0% 0.040 0.035‐0.047 ND ND 0.055 ‐‐N ‐‐NN ‐‐ ‐‐
2‐HEXANONE 591‐78‐6 44 0 0% 0.0028 0.0021‐0.0035 ND ND 0.36 ‐‐N ‐‐NN ‐‐ ‐‐
2‐METHYLNAPHTHALENE 91‐57‐6 3 0 0% 0.041 0.035‐0.047 ND ND 0.076 ‐‐N ‐‐NN ‐‐ ‐‐
2‐METHYLPHENOL 95‐48‐7 3 0 0% 0.042 0.036‐0.048 ND ND 0.67 ‐‐N ‐‐NN ‐‐ ‐‐
2‐NITROANILINE 88‐74‐4 3 0 0% 0.041 0.035‐0.047 ND ND 5.3 ‐‐N ‐‐NN ‐‐ ‐‐
2‐NITROPHENOL 88‐75‐5 3 0 0% 0.044 0.038‐0.051 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
3,3'‐DICHLOROBENZIDINE 91‐94‐1 3 0 0% 0.040 0.035‐0.046 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
3‐NITROANILINE 99‐09‐2 3 0 0% 0.043 0.037‐0.049 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
4,6‐DINITRO‐2‐METHYLPHENOL 534‐52‐1 3 0 0% 0.038 0.033‐0.044 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
4‐BROMOPHENYL PHENYL ETHER 101‐55‐3 3 0 0% 0.042 0.036‐0.048 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
4‐CHLORO‐3‐METHYLPHENOL 59‐50‐7 3 0 0% 0.038 0.033‐0.043 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
4‐CHLOROANILINE 106‐47‐8 3 0 0% 0.043 0.037‐0.05 ND ND 1 ‐‐N ‐‐NN ‐‐ ‐‐
4‐CHLOROPHENYL PHENYL ETHER 7005‐72‐3 3 0 0% 0.042 0.036‐0.049 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
4‐METHYL‐2‐PENTANONE (MIBK)108‐10‐1 44 0 0% 0.0027 0.0012‐0.0034 ND ND 9.7 ‐‐N ‐‐NN ‐‐ ‐‐
4‐METHYLPHENOL 106‐44‐5 3 0 0% 0.043 0.037‐0.05 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
4‐NITROANILINE 100‐01‐6 3 0 0% 0.047 0.04‐0.054 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
4‐NITROPHENOL 100‐02‐7 3 0 0% 0.045 0.039‐0.052 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
ACENAPHTHENE 83‐32‐9 3 0 0% 0.042 0.036‐0.048 ND ND 0.076 ‐‐N ‐‐NN ‐‐ ‐‐
ACENAPHTHYLENE 208‐96‐8 3 0 0% 0.040 0.035‐0.046 ND ND 0.076 ‐‐N ‐‐NN ‐‐ ‐‐
ACETONE 67‐64‐1 44 10 23% 0.0030 0.0014‐0.0038 0.0051 0.13 0.065 Y ‐‐N ‐‐Y Quant. 2E+00
ACETOPHENONE 98‐86‐2 3 0 0% 0.041 0.036‐0.048 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
ANTHRACENE 120‐12‐7 3 0 0% 0.042 0.036‐0.049 ND ND 0.057 ‐‐N ‐‐NN ‐‐ ‐‐
HQmaxChemical CAS Number
Summary Statistics Soil/ 
Sediment 
No‐Effect 
ESV 
(mg/kg)
COPEC Selection
OU1 Remedial Investigation Report
700 South 1600 East PCE Plume
Salt Lake City, Utah Page 1 of 3
TABLE I.3‐6
SOIL/SEDIMENT COPEC SELECTION FOR ECOLOGICAL RECEPTORS
700 S 1600 E PCE Plume Superfund Site, Salt Lake City, Utah
No. of 
Samples
No. 
Detected
Detection 
Frequency
Mean DL 
(mg/kg)Range of DLs (mg/kg)
Min. 
Conc. 
(mg/kg)
Max. 
Conc. 
(mg/kg)
Is Max. Det. 
Conc. > SL?
Is Mean DL > 
SL?
Chemical 
Detected, 
No SL?
Chemical 
ND, No SL?
Is Chemical 
a COPEC?
Type of 
Evaluation
HQmaxChemical CAS Number
Summary Statistics Soil/ 
Sediment 
No‐Effect 
ESV 
(mg/kg)
COPEC Selection
ANTIMONY 7440‐36‐0 3 3 100% 0.021 0.017‐0.028 1.2 2.7 2.3 Y ‐‐N ‐‐Y Quant. 1E+00
ARSENIC 7440‐38‐2 3 3 100% 0.073 0.059‐0.1 6.1 24 6.8 Y ‐‐N ‐‐Y Quant. 4E+00
ATRAZINE 1912‐24‐9 3 0 0% 0.043 0.037‐0.049 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
BARIUM 7440‐39‐3 3 3 100% 0.12 0.093‐0.16 122 224 110 Y ‐‐N ‐‐Y Quant. 2E+00
BENZALDEHYDE 100‐52‐7 3 0 0% 0.043 0.037‐0.05 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
BENZENE 71‐43‐2 44 0 0% 0.0005 0.00043‐0.00061 ND ND 0.01 ‐‐N ‐‐NN ‐‐ ‐‐
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE 56‐55‐3 3 0 0% 0.047 0.04‐0.054 ND ND 0.1 ‐‐N ‐‐NN ‐‐ ‐‐
BENZO(A)PYRENE 50‐32‐8 3 1 33% 0.044 0.038‐0.05 0.085 0.085 0.15 N ‐‐N ‐‐N ‐‐6E‐01
BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE 205‐99‐2 3 1 33% 0.042 0.036‐0.048 0.21 0.21 0.19 Y ‐‐N ‐‐Y Quant. 1E+00
BENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE 191‐24‐2 3 1 33% 0.041 0.036‐0.047 0.064 0.064 0.17 N ‐‐N ‐‐N ‐‐4E‐01
BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE 207‐08‐9 3 0 0% 0.046 0.04‐0.053 ND ND 0.24 ‐‐N ‐‐NN ‐‐ ‐‐
BENZYL BUTYL PHTHALATE 85‐68‐7 3 0 0% 0.046 0.04‐0.053 ND ND 0.1 ‐‐N ‐‐NN ‐‐ ‐‐
BERYLLIUM 7440‐41‐7 3 3 100% 0.070 0.057‐0.097 0.31 0.40 2.5 N ‐‐N ‐‐N ‐‐2E‐01
BIS(2‐CHLOROETHOXY)METHANE 111‐91‐1 3 0 0% 0.043 0.037‐0.049 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
BIS(2‐CHLOROETHYL) ETHER 111‐44‐4 3 0 0% 0.044 0.038‐0.05 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
BIS(2‐ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE 117‐81‐7 3 0 0% 0.047 0.041‐0.054 ND ND 0.02 ‐‐Y ‐‐NYQual.1‐‐
BIS‐CHLOROISOPROPYL ETHER 108‐60‐1 3 0 0% 0.039 0.034‐0.045 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
BROMOCHLOROMETHANE 74‐97‐5 44 0 0% 0.0005 0.00043‐0.0007 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
BROMODICHLOROMETHANE 75‐27‐4 44 0 0% 0.0005 0.00043‐0.00063 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
BROMOFORM 75‐25‐2 44 0 0% 0.0010 0.00038‐0.0012 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
BROMOMETHANE 74‐83‐9 44 0 0% 0.0017 0.00032‐0.0022 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
CADMIUM 7440‐43‐9 3 3 100% 0.037 0.03‐0.051 1.1 1.8 0.27 Y ‐‐N ‐‐Y Quant. 7E+00
CAPROLACTAM 105‐60‐2 3 0 0% 0.046 0.04‐0.053 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
CARBAZOLE 86‐74‐8 3 0 0% 0.044 0.038‐0.051 ND ND 79 ‐‐N ‐‐NN ‐‐ ‐‐
CARBON DISULFIDE 75‐15‐0 44 0 0% 0.0005 0.00038‐0.00061 ND ND 0.81 ‐‐N ‐‐NN ‐‐ ‐‐
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE 56‐23‐5 44 0 0% 0.0005 0.00039‐0.00066 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
CHLOROBENZENE 108‐90‐7 44 0 0% 0.0005 0.00043‐0.00061 ND ND 0.03 ‐‐N ‐‐NN ‐‐ ‐‐
CHLOROETHANE 75‐00‐3 44 0 0% 0.0012 0.00054‐0.0016 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
CHLOROFORM 67‐66‐3 44 0 0% 0.0005 0.00039‐0.00061 ND ND 8 ‐‐N ‐‐NN ‐‐ ‐‐
CHLOROMETHANE 74‐87‐3 44 0 0% 0.0009 0.00036‐0.0012 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
CHROMIUM 7440‐47‐3 3 3 100% 0.048 0.039‐0.066 9.7 14 0.34 Y ‐‐N ‐‐Y Quant. 4E+01
CHRYSENE 218‐01‐9 3 1 33% 0.046 0.04‐0.053 0.12 0.12 0.16 N ‐‐N ‐‐N ‐‐8E‐01
CIS‐1,2‐DICHLOROETHENE 156‐59‐2 44 0 0% 0.0005 0.00043‐0.00061 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
CIS‐1,3‐DICHLOROPROPENE 542‐75‐6 44 0 0% 0.0010 0.00043‐0.0012 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
COBALT 7440‐48‐4 3 3 100% 0.027 0.022‐0.038 4.5 5.2 13 N ‐‐N ‐‐N ‐‐4E‐01
COPPER 7440‐50‐8 3 3 100% 0.036 0.029‐0.049 36.5 68 14 Y ‐‐N ‐‐Y Quant. 5E+00
CYCLOHEXANE 110‐82‐7 4 0 0% 0.0005 0.00047‐0.00056 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
DIBENZO(A,H)ANTHRACENE 53‐70‐3 3 0 0% 0.042 0.036‐0.049 ND ND 0.033 ‐‐Y ‐‐NYQual.1‐‐
DIBENZOFURAN 132‐64‐9 3 0 0% 0.041 0.036‐0.047 ND ND 0.51 ‐‐N ‐‐NN ‐‐ ‐‐
DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE 124‐48‐1 44 0 0% 0.0005 0.00043‐0.00061 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE 75‐71‐8 44 0 0% 0.0011 0.00042‐0.0015 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
DIETHYL PHTHALATE 84‐66‐2 3 0 0% 0.042 0.037‐0.049 ND ND 100 ‐‐N ‐‐NN ‐‐ ‐‐
DIMETHYL PHTHALATE 131‐11‐3 3 3 100% 0.042 0.037‐0.049 0.37 0.40 10 N ‐‐N ‐‐N ‐‐4E‐02
DI‐N‐BUTYLPHTHALATE 84‐74‐2 3 0 0% 0.046 0.04‐0.053 ND ND 0.011 ‐‐Y ‐‐NYQual.1‐‐
DI‐N‐OCTYLPHTHALATE 117‐84‐0 3 0 0% 0.043 0.037‐0.05 ND ND 0.91 ‐‐N ‐‐NN ‐‐ ‐‐
ETHYLBENZENE 100‐41‐4 44 0 0% 0.0005 0.00035‐0.00061 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
FLUORANTHENE 206‐44‐0 3 1 33% 0.046 0.04‐0.053 0.078 0.078 0.42 N ‐‐N ‐‐N ‐‐2E‐01
FLUORENE 86‐73‐7 3 0 0% 0.040 0.035‐0.046 ND ND 0.077 ‐‐N ‐‐NN ‐‐ ‐‐
HEXACHLORO‐1,3‐BUTADIENE 87‐68‐3 3 0 0% 0.039 0.034‐0.045 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
HEXACHLOROBENZENE 118‐74‐1 3 0 0% 0.042 0.036‐0.048 ND ND 0.079 ‐‐N ‐‐NN ‐‐ ‐‐
HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE 77‐47‐4 3 0 0% 0.039 0.034‐0.045 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
HEXACHLOROETHANE 67‐72‐1 3 0 0% 0.045 0.039‐0.051 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
INDENO(1,2,3‐CD)PYRENE 193‐39‐5 3 1 33% 0.042 0.036‐0.048 0.062 0.062 0.2 N ‐‐N ‐‐N ‐‐3E‐01
ISOPHORONE 78‐59‐1 3 0 0% 0.040 0.035‐0.047 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
ISOPROPYLBENZENE 98‐82‐8 44 0 0% 0.0006 0.00052‐0.00078 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
OU1 Remedial Investigation Report
700 South 1600 East PCE Plume
Salt Lake City, Utah Page 2 of 3
TABLE I.3‐6
SOIL/SEDIMENT COPEC SELECTION FOR ECOLOGICAL RECEPTORS
700 S 1600 E PCE Plume Superfund Site, Salt Lake City, Utah
No. of 
Samples
No. 
Detected
Detection 
Frequency
Mean DL 
(mg/kg)Range of DLs (mg/kg)
Min. 
Conc. 
(mg/kg)
Max. 
Conc. 
(mg/kg)
Is Max. Det. 
Conc. > SL?
Is Mean DL > 
SL?
Chemical 
Detected, 
No SL?
Chemical 
ND, No SL?
Is Chemical 
a COPEC?
Type of 
Evaluation
HQmaxChemical CAS Number
Summary Statistics Soil/ 
Sediment 
No‐Effect 
ESV 
(mg/kg)
COPEC Selection
LEAD 7439‐92‐1 3 3 100% 0.040 0.032‐0.055 130 301 11 Y ‐‐N ‐‐Y Quant. 3E+01
M,P‐XYLENE 179601‐23‐1 44 0 0% 0.0010 0.00048‐0.0012 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
MANGANESE 7439‐96‐5 3 3 100% 0.070 0.057‐0.097 288 583 220 Y ‐‐N ‐‐Y Quant. 3E+00
MERCURY 7439‐97‐6 3 3 100% 0.016 0.013‐0.023 0.087 0.21 0.013 Y ‐‐N ‐‐Y Quant. 2E+01
METHYL ACETATE 79‐20‐9 44 0 0% 0.0014 0.00069‐0.0018 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
METHYL TERT‐BUTYL ETHER 1634‐04‐4 44 0 0% 0.0005 0.00041‐0.00061 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
METHYLCYLOHEXANE 108‐87‐2 4 0 0% 0.0004 0.00038‐0.00045 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
METHYLENE CHLORIDE 75‐09‐2 44 7 16% 0.0010 0.00087‐0.0013 0.0012 0.0031 0.018 N ‐‐N ‐‐N ‐‐2E‐01
NAPHTHALENE 91‐20‐3 3 0 0% 0.039 0.033‐0.045 ND ND 0.17 ‐‐N ‐‐NN ‐‐ ‐‐
NICKEL 7440‐02‐0 3 3 100% 0.036 0.029‐0.049 10.2 11.4 10 Y ‐‐N ‐‐Y Quant. 1E+00
NITROBENZENE 98‐95‐3 3 0 0% 0.041 0.035‐0.047 ND ND 2.2 ‐‐N ‐‐NN ‐‐ ‐‐
N‐NITROSO‐DI‐N‐PROPYLAMINE 621‐64‐7 3 0 0% 0.041 0.036‐0.047 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
N‐NITROSODIPHENYLAMINE 86‐30‐6 3 0 0% 0.044 0.038‐0.05 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
O‐XYLENE 95‐47‐6 44 0 0% 0.0005 0.00042‐0.00061 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
PENTACHLOROPHENOL 87‐86‐5 3 0 0% 0.035 0.03‐0.041 ND ND 0.01 ‐‐Y ‐‐NYQual.1‐‐
PHENANTHRENE 85‐01‐8 3 0 0% 0.044 0.038‐0.051 ND ND 0.2 ‐‐N ‐‐NN ‐‐ ‐‐
PHENOL 108‐95‐2 3 0 0% 0.038 0.033‐0.044 ND ND 0.79 ‐‐N ‐‐NN ‐‐ ‐‐
PYRENE 129‐00‐0 3 1 33% 0.050 0.043‐0.058 0.093 0.093 0.19 N ‐‐N ‐‐N ‐‐5E‐01
SELENIUM 7782‐49‐2 3 3 100% 0.633 0.51‐0.87 1.1 1.8 0.52 Y ‐‐N ‐‐Y Quant. 3E+00
SILVER 7440‐22‐4 3 3 100% 0.021 0.017‐0.028 0.31 0.71 0.5 Y ‐‐N ‐‐Y Quant. 1E+00
STYRENE 100‐42‐5 44 0 0% 0.0005 0.00043‐0.00061 ND ND 1.2 ‐‐N ‐‐NN ‐‐ ‐‐
TETRACHLOROETHENE 127‐18‐4 44 7 16% 0.0005 0.00037‐0.00061 0.00062 0.022 0.002 Y ‐‐N ‐‐Y Quant. 1E+01
THALLIUM 7440‐28‐0 3 3 100% 0.049 0.04‐0.068 0.18 0.28 0.05 Y ‐‐N ‐‐Y Quant. 6E+00
TOLUENE 108‐88‐3 44 0 0% 0.0005 0.00039‐0.00061 ND ND 0.01 ‐‐N ‐‐NN ‐‐ ‐‐
TRANS‐1,2‐DICHLOROETHENE 156‐60‐5 44 0 0% 0.0005 0.00043‐0.00061 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
TRANS‐1,3‐DICHLOROPROPENE 542‐75‐6 44 0 0% 0.0010 0.00046‐0.0012 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
TRICHLOROETHENE 79‐01‐6 44 0 0% 0.0005 0.00043‐0.00061 ND ND 0.078 ‐‐N ‐‐NN ‐‐ ‐‐
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE 75‐69‐4 44 0 0% 0.0011 0.00045‐0.0013 ND ND 52 ‐‐N ‐‐NN ‐‐ ‐‐
VANADIUM 7440‐62‐2 3 3 100% 0.033 0.027‐0.046 14.3 14.8 4.7 Y ‐‐N ‐‐Y Quant. 3E+00
VINYL ACETATE 108‐05‐4 39 0 0% 0.0013 0.0011‐0.0016 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
VINYL CHLORIDE 75‐01‐4 44 0 0% 0.0013 0.00037‐0.0017 ND ND 0.12 ‐‐N ‐‐NN ‐‐ ‐‐
ZINC 7440‐66‐6 3 3 100% 0.115 0.00 153 348 47 Y ‐‐N ‐‐Y Quant. 7E+00
Abbreviations
% ‐  percent ESV ‐ Ecological Screening Value ND ‐ Non‐Detect
> ‐  greater than HQ ‐ Hazard Quotient No. ‐ Number
Bkg. ‐ Background analysis for detected analytes with no screening levels Max. ‐ Maximum Qual.1 ‐ Qualitative analysis for infrequently detected analytes with insufficient detection limits
CASRN ‐ Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number mg/kg ‐ milligrams per kilogram Qual.2 ‐ Qualitative analysis for non‐detected analytes with no screening levels
Conc. ‐ Concentration Min. ‐ Minimum Quant. ‐ Quantitative
COPEC ‐ Chemical of Potential Ecological Concern N ‐ No SL ‐ Screening Level
Det. ‐ detect NA ‐ Not Available Y ‐ Yes
DL ‐ Detection Limit
OU1 Remedial Investigation Report
700 South 1600 East PCE Plume
Salt Lake City, Utah Page 3 of 3
TABLE I.3‐7
SOIL/SEDIMENT SCREENING LEVELS FOR ECOLOGICAL RECEPTORS
700 S 1600 E PCE Plume Superfund Site, Salt Lake City, Utah
1,1,1,2‐TETRACHLOROETHANE 630‐20‐6 NA NA NA
1,1,1‐TRICHLOROETHANE 71‐55‐6 260 0.07 0.07
1,1,2,2‐TETRACHLOROETHANE 79‐34‐5 NA NA NA
1,1,2‐TRICHLOROETHANE 79‐00‐5 NA NA NA
1,1,2‐TRICHLOROTRIFLUOROETHANE 76‐13‐1 NA NA NA
1,1'‐BIPHENYL 92‐52‐4 NA NA NA
1,1‐DICHLOROETHANE 75‐34‐3 210 0.02 0.02
1,1‐DICHLOROETHENE 75‐35‐4 11 0.1 0.1
1,1‐DICHLOROPROPENE 563‐58‐6 NA NA NA
1,2,3‐TRICHLOROBENZENE 87‐61‐6 NA NA NA
1,2,3‐TRICHLOROPROPANE 96‐18‐4 NA NA NA
1,2,4,5‐TETRACHLOROBENZENE 95‐94‐3 NA NA NA
1,2,4‐TRICHLOROBENZENE 120‐82‐1 0.27 0.011 0.011
1,2,4‐TRIMETHYLBENZENE 95‐63‐6 NA NA NA
1,2‐DIBROMO‐3‐CHLOROPROPANE 96‐12‐8 NA NA NA
1,2‐DIBROMOETHANE 106‐93‐4 NA NA NA
1,2‐DICHLOROBENZENE 95‐50‐1 0.92 1 0.92
1,2‐DICHLOROETHANE 107‐06‐2 0.85 6.1 0.85
1,2‐DICHLOROPROPANE 78‐87‐5 NA NA NA
1,3,5‐TRIMETHYLBENZENE 108‐67‐8 NA NA NA
1,3‐DICHLOROBENZENE 541‐73‐1 0.74 0.82 0.74
1,3‐DICHLOROPROPANE 142‐28‐9 NA NA NA
1,3‐DICHLOROPROPYLENE 542‐75‐6 NA NA NA
1,4‐DICHLOROBENZENE 106‐46‐7 0.89 0.03 0.03
1,4‐DIOXANE 123‐91‐1 NA NA NA
1‐CHLOROHEXANE 544‐10‐5 NA NA NA
2,2‐DICHLOROPROPANE 594‐20‐7 NA NA NA
2,3,4,6‐TETRACHLOROPHENOL 58‐90‐2 NA NA NA
2,4,5‐TRICHLOROPHENOL 95‐95‐4 NA NA NA
2,4,6‐TRICHLOROPHENOL 88‐06‐2 NA NA NA
2,4‐DICHLOROPHENOL 120‐83‐2 NA NA NA
2,4‐DIMETHYLPHENOL 105‐67‐9 NA NA NA
2,4‐DINITROPHENOL 51‐28‐5 NA NA NA
2,4‐DINITROTOLUENE 121‐14‐2 6 0.29 0.29
2,6‐DINITROTOLUENE 606‐20‐2 48.64
2‐BUTANONE (MEK)78‐93‐3 350 3000 350
2‐CHLORONAPHTHALENE 91‐58‐7 NA NA NA
2‐CHLOROPHENOL 95‐57‐8 0.39 0.055 0.055
2‐CHLOROTOLUENE 95‐49‐8 NA NA NA
Chemical CASRN
LANL Sediment 
No‐Effect ESL 
(mg/kg)
Lowest No‐
Effect ESV 
(mg/kg)
LANL Soil 
No‐Effect ESL 
(mg/kg)
Notes
OU1 Remedial Investigation Report
700 South 1600 East PCE Plume
Salt Lake City, Utah Page 1 of 5
TABLE I.3‐7
SOIL/SEDIMENT SCREENING LEVELS FOR ECOLOGICAL RECEPTORS
700 S 1600 E PCE Plume Superfund Site, Salt Lake City, Utah
Chemical CASRN
LANL Sediment 
No‐Effect ESL 
(mg/kg)
Lowest No‐
Effect ESV 
(mg/kg)
LANL Soil 
No‐Effect ESL 
(mg/kg)
Notes
2‐HEXANONE 591‐78‐6 0.36 0.47 0.36
2‐METHYLNAPHTHALENE 91‐57‐6 16 0.076 0.076
2‐METHYLPHENOL 95‐48‐7 0.67 1700 0.67
2‐NITROANILINE 88‐74‐4 5.3 7.3 5.3
2‐NITROPHENOL 88‐75‐5 NA NA NA
2‐PHENYLBUTANE 135‐98‐8 NA NA NA
3,3'‐DICHLOROBENZIDINE 91‐94‐1 NA NA NA
3‐NITROANILINE 99‐09‐2 NA NA NA
4,6‐DINITRO‐2‐METHYLPHENOL 534‐52‐1 NA NA NA
4‐BROMOPHENYL PHENYL ETHER 101‐55‐3 NA NA NA
4‐CHLORO‐3‐METHYLPHENOL 59‐50‐7 NA NA NA
4‐CHLOROANILINE 106‐47‐8 1NA1
4‐CHLOROPHENYL PHENYL ETHER 7005‐72‐3 NA NA NA
4‐CHLOROTOLUENE 106‐43‐4 NA NA NA
4‐METHYL‐2‐PENTANONE (MIBK)108‐10‐1 9.7179.7
4‐METHYLPHENOL 106‐44‐5 NA NA NA
4‐NITROANILINE 100‐01‐6 NA NA NA
4‐NITROPHENOL 100‐02‐7 NA NA NA
ACENAPHTHENE 83‐32‐9 0.25 0.076 0.076
ACENAPHTHYLENE 208‐96‐8 120 0.076 0.076
ACETONE 67‐64‐1 1.2 0.065 0.065
ACETOPHENONE 98‐86‐2 NA NA NA
ALLYL CHLORIDE 107‐05‐1 NA NA NA
ANTHRACENE 120‐12‐7 6.8 0.057 0.057
ANTIMONY 7440‐36‐0 2.3452.3
ARSENIC 7440‐38‐2 6.8 9.7 6.8
ATRAZINE 1912‐24‐9 NA NA NA
BARIUM 7440‐39‐3 110 150 110
BENZALDEHYDE 100‐52‐7 NA NA NA
BENZENE 71‐43‐2 24 0.01 0.01
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE 56‐55‐3 0.73 0.1 0.1
BENZO(A)PYRENE 50‐32‐8 62 0.15 0.15
BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE 205‐99‐2 18 0.19 0.19
BENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE 191‐24‐2 25 0.17 0.17
BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE 207‐08‐9 71 0.24 0.24
BENZYL BUTYL PHTHALATE 85‐68‐7 90 0.1 0.1
BERYLLIUM 7440‐41‐7 2.5662.5
BIS(2‐CHLOROETHOXY)METHANE 111‐91‐1 NA NA NA
BIS(2‐CHLOROETHYL) ETHER 111‐44‐4 NA NA NA
OU1 Remedial Investigation Report
700 South 1600 East PCE Plume
Salt Lake City, Utah Page 2 of 5
TABLE I.3‐7
SOIL/SEDIMENT SCREENING LEVELS FOR ECOLOGICAL RECEPTORS
700 S 1600 E PCE Plume Superfund Site, Salt Lake City, Utah
Chemical CASRN
LANL Sediment 
No‐Effect ESL 
(mg/kg)
Lowest No‐
Effect ESV 
(mg/kg)
LANL Soil 
No‐Effect ESL 
(mg/kg)
Notes
BIS(2‐ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE 117‐81‐7 0.02 0.026 0.02
BIS‐CHLOROISOPROPYL ETHER 108‐60‐1 NA NA NA
BROMOBENZENE 108‐86‐1 NA NA NA
BROMOCHLOROMETHANE 74‐97‐5 NA NA NA
BROMODICHLOROMETHANE 75‐27‐4 NA NA NA
BROMOFORM 75‐25‐2 NA NA NA
BROMOMETHANE 74‐83‐9 NA NA NA
CADMIUM 7440‐43‐9 0.27 0.3 0.27
CAPROLACTAM 105‐60‐2 NA NA NA
CARBAZOLE 86‐74‐8 79 130 79
CARBON DISULFIDE 75‐15‐0 0.81 1.3 0.81
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE 56‐23‐5 NA NA NA
CHLOROBENZENE 108‐90‐7 2.4 0.03 0.03
CHLOROETHANE 75‐00‐3 NA NA NA
CHLOROFORM 67‐66‐3 89.28
CHLOROMETHANE 74‐87‐3 NA NA NA
CHROMIUM 7440‐47‐31 0.34 660 0.34
CHRYSENE 218‐01‐9 3.1 0.16 0.16
CIS‐1,2‐DICHLOROETHENE 156‐59‐2 NA NA NA
CIS‐1,3‐DICHLOROPROPENE 542‐75‐6 NA NA NA
COBALT 7440‐48‐4 13 220 13
COPPER 7440‐50‐8 14 23 14
CYCLOHEXANE 110‐82‐7 NA NA NA
CYMENE 99‐87‐6 NA NA NA
DIBENZO(A,H)ANTHRACENE 53‐70‐3 14 0.033 0.033
DIBENZOFURAN 132‐64‐9 6.1 0.51 0.51
DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE 124‐48‐1 NA NA NA
DIBROMOMETHANE 74‐95‐3 NA NA NA
DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE 75‐71‐8 NA NA NA
DICHLOROMONOFLUOROMETHANE 75‐43‐4 NA NA NA
DIETHYL PHTHALATE 84‐66‐2 100 4000 100
DIMETHYL PHTHALATE 131‐11‐3 10 90 10
DI‐N‐BUTYLPHTHALATE 84‐74‐2 0.011 0.011 0.011
DI‐N‐OCTYLPHTHALATE 117‐84‐0 0.91 1 0.91
ETHYL ACETATE 141‐78‐6 NA NA NA
ETHYL ETHER 60‐29‐7 NA NA NA
ETHYL METHACRYLATE 97‐63‐2 NA NA NA
ETHYLBENZENE 100‐41‐4 NA NA NA
FLUORANTHENE 206‐44‐0 10 0.42 0.42
OU1 Remedial Investigation Report
700 South 1600 East PCE Plume
Salt Lake City, Utah Page 3 of 5
TABLE I.3‐7
SOIL/SEDIMENT SCREENING LEVELS FOR ECOLOGICAL RECEPTORS
700 S 1600 E PCE Plume Superfund Site, Salt Lake City, Utah
Chemical CASRN
LANL Sediment 
No‐Effect ESL 
(mg/kg)
Lowest No‐
Effect ESV 
(mg/kg)
LANL Soil 
No‐Effect ESL 
(mg/kg)
Notes
FLUORENE 86‐73‐7 3.7 0.077 0.077
HEXACHLORO‐1,3‐BUTADIENE 87‐68‐3 NA NA NA
HEXACHLOROBENZENE 118‐74‐1 0.079 0.1 0.079
HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE 77‐47‐4 NA NA NA
HEXACHLOROETHANE 67‐72‐1 NA NA NA
INDENO(1,2,3‐CD)PYRENE 193‐39‐5 71 0.2 0.2
ISOPHORONE 78‐59‐1 NA NA NA
ISOPROPYLBENZENE 98‐82‐8 NA NA NA
LEAD 7439‐92‐1 11 26 11
M,P‐XYLENE 179601‐23‐1 NA NA NA
MANGANESE 7439‐96‐5 220 460 220
MERCURY 7439‐97‐62 0.013 0.017 0.013
METHYL ACETATE 79‐20‐9 NA NA NA
METHYL IODIDE 74‐88‐4 0.038 0.081 0.038
METHYL TERT‐BUTYL ETHER 1634‐04‐4 NA NA NA
METHYLCYLOHEXANE 108‐87‐2 NA NA NA
METHYLENE CHLORIDE 75‐09‐2 2.6 0.018 0.018
NAPHTHALENE 91‐20‐3 1 0.17 0.17
N‐BUTYLBENZENE 104‐51‐8 NA NA NA
NICKEL 7440‐02‐0 10 12 10
NITROBENZENE 98‐95‐3 2.2242.2
N‐NITROSO‐DI‐N‐PROPYLAMINE 621‐64‐7 NA NA NA
N‐NITROSODIPHENYLAMINE 86‐30‐6 NA NA NA
N‐PROPYLBENZENE 103‐65‐1 NA NA NA
O‐XYLENE 95‐47‐6 NA NA NA
PENTACHLOROETHANE 76‐01‐7 NA NA NA
PENTACHLOROPHENOL 87‐86‐5 0.36 0.01 0.01
PHENANTHRENE 85‐01‐8 5.5 0.2 0.2
PHENOL 108‐95‐2 0.79 750 0.79
PYRENE 129‐00‐0 10 0.19 0.19
SELENIUM 7782‐49‐2 0.52 0.72 0.52
SILVER 7440‐22‐4 2.6 0.5 0.5
STYRENE 100‐42‐5 1.2 NA 1.2
TERT‐BUTYLBENZENE 98‐06‐6 NA NA NA
TETRACHLOROETHENE 127‐18‐4 0.18 0.002 0.002
TETRAHYDROFURAN 109‐99‐9 NA NA NA
THALLIUM 7440‐28‐0 0.05 0.73 0.05
TOLUENE 108‐88‐3 23 0.01 0.01
TRANS‐1,2‐DICHLOROETHENE 156‐60‐5 NA NA NA
OU1 Remedial Investigation Report
700 South 1600 East PCE Plume
Salt Lake City, Utah Page 4 of 5
TABLE I.3‐7
SOIL/SEDIMENT SCREENING LEVELS FOR ECOLOGICAL RECEPTORS
700 S 1600 E PCE Plume Superfund Site, Salt Lake City, Utah
Chemical CASRN
LANL Sediment 
No‐Effect ESL 
(mg/kg)
Lowest No‐
Effect ESV 
(mg/kg)
LANL Soil 
No‐Effect ESL 
(mg/kg)
Notes
TRANS‐1,3‐DICHLOROPROPENE 542‐75‐6 NA NA NA
TRANS‐1,4‐DICHLOROBUTENE 110‐57‐6 NA NA NA
TRICHLOROETHENE 79‐01‐6 42 0.078 0.078
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE 75‐69‐4 52 58 52
VANADIUM 7440‐62‐2 4.7294.7
VINYL ACETATE 108‐05‐4 NA NA NA
VINYL CHLORIDE 75‐01‐4 0.12 0.14 0.12
ZINC 7440‐66‐6 47 63 47
Source
LANL ‐ Los Alamos National Laboratory, ECORISK Database, version 4.2
Notes
1 ‐ As Chromium VI
2 ‐ As inorganic mercury
Abbreviations
CASRN ‐ Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number
ESL ‐ Ecological Screening Level
ESV ‐ Ecological Screening Value
mg/kg ‐ milligrams per liter
NA ‐ Not Available
OU1 Remedial Investigation Report
700 South 1600 East PCE Plume
Salt Lake City, Utah Page 5 of 5
TABLE I.3‐8
REFINED ORGANIC COPEC EVALUATION FOR SOIL AND SEDIMENT
700 S 1600 E PCE Plume Superfund Site, Salt Lake City, Utah
No. of 
Samples
No. 
Detected
Detection 
Frequency
Min. Conc. 
(mg/kg)
Max. 
Conc. 
(mg/kg)
Receptor No‐Effect ESL 
(mg/kg)
Low‐Effect ESL 
(mg/kg)
ACETONE 44 10 23% 0.0051 0.13 Aquatic community organisms 0.065 0.65
Deer mouse (Mammalian omnivore) 1.2 6.3
Mountain cottontail (Mammalian herbivore) 1.6 8.0
American robin (Avian herbivore) 7.5 75
American robin (Avian omnivore) 14 140
Montane shrew (Mammalian insectivore) 15 79
Occult little brown myotis bat (Mammalian aerial insectivore) 17 88
American robin (Avian insectivore) 170 1,700
Violet‐green swallow (Avian aerial insectivore) 230 2,300
American kestrel (insectivore / carnivore) 840 8,400
Gray fox (Mammalian top carnivore) 7,800 39,000
American kestrel (Avian top carnivore) 66,000 660,000
BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE 3 1 33% 0.21 0.21 Aquatic community organisms 0.19 1.9
Generic plant (Terrestrial autotroph ‐ producer) 18 180
Montane shrew (Mammalian insectivore) 44 440
Deer mouse (Mammalian omnivore) 51 510
Occult little brown myotis bat (Mammalian aerial insectivore) 53 530
Mountain cottontail (Mammalian herbivore) 130 1,300
Gray fox (Mammalian top carnivore) 2,400 24,000
TETRACHLOROETHENE 44 7 16% 0.00062 0.022 Aquatic community organisms 0.002 0.02
Generic plant (Terrestrial autotroph ‐ producer) 10 100
Montane shrew (Mammalian insectivore) 0.18 0.94
Occult little brown myotis bat (Mammalian aerial insectivore) 0.2 1.0
Deer mouse (Mammalian omnivore) 0.35 1.7
Mountain cottontail (Mammalian herbivore) 9.5 47
Gray fox (Mammalian top carnivore) 120 630
ESL Source
LANL ‐ Los Alamos National Laboratory, ECORISK Database, version 4.2
Notes
Shaded cells indicate the maximum concentration exceeds the ESL
Abbreviations
% ‐  percent
CAS ‐ Chemical Abstracts Service
Conc. ‐ Concentration
COPEC ‐ Chemical of Potential Ecological Concern
ESL ‐ ecological screening level
Max. ‐ Maximum
mg/kg ‐ milligrams per kilogram
Min. ‐ Minimum
No. ‐ Number
Soil/Sediment COPEC
Soil/Sediment Summary Statistics Soil/Sediment ESL
OU1 Remedial Investigation Report
700 South 1600 East PCE Plume
Salt Lake City, Utah Page 1 of 1
TABLE I.3‐9
SOIL GAS COPEC SELECTION FOR ECOLOGICAL RECEPTORS
700 S 1600 E PCE Plume Superfund Site, Salt Lake City, Utah
No. of 
Samples
No. 
Detected
Detection 
Frequency
Range of DLs 
(µg/m3)
Mean DL 
(µg/m3)
Min. Conc. 
(µg/m3)
Max. 
Conc. 
(µg/m3)
Is Max. Det. 
Conc. > SL?
Is Mean DL  > 
SL?
Chemical 
Detected, No 
SL?
Chemical 
ND, No SL?
Is Chemical 
a COPEC?
Type of 
Evaluation
1,1,1‐TRICHLOROETHANE 71‐55‐6 110 57 52% 0.0047‐24 1.0 0.032 40 240,000 N ‐‐N ‐‐N ‐‐2E‐04
1,1,2,2‐TETRACHLOROETHANE 79‐34‐5 110 0 0% 0.027‐26 1.4 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
1,1,2‐TRICHLOROETHANE 79‐00‐5 110 1 1% 0.016‐19 1.1 0.62 0.62 NA ‐‐NY‐‐YBkg.‐‐
1,1,2‐TRICHLOROTRIFLUOROETHANE 76‐13‐1 110 81 74% 0.11‐27 1.5 0.32 15 NA ‐‐ ‐‐Y ‐‐YBkg.‐‐
1,1‐DICHLOROETHANE 75‐34‐3 110 3 3% 0.015‐28 1.1 0.15 1.6 5,600,000 N N N ‐‐N ‐‐3E‐07
1,1‐DICHLOROETHENE 75‐35‐4 110 6 5% 0.0033‐26 1.1 0.069 3.7 5,700 N N N ‐‐N ‐‐6E‐04
1,2,4‐TRICHLOROBENZENE 120‐82‐1 72 0 0% 0.7‐130 10 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
1,2,4‐TRIMETHYLBENZENE 95‐63‐6 110 73 66% 0.047‐26 1.3 0.07 9.2 NA ‐‐ ‐‐Y ‐‐YBkg.‐‐
1,2‐DIBROMOETHANE 106‐93‐4 110 0 0% 0.016‐22 1.3 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
1,2‐DICHLOROBENZENE 95‐50‐1 110 0 0% 0.079‐28 1.8 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
1,2‐DICHLOROETHANE 107‐06‐2 110 10 9% 0.0066‐21 1.0 0.026 0.51 41,000 N N N ‐‐N ‐‐1E‐05
1,2‐DICHLOROPROPANE 78‐87‐5 110 1 1% 0.036‐24 1.4 3.3 3.3 NA ‐‐NY‐‐YBkg.‐‐
1,2‐DICHLOROTETRAFLUOROETHANE;FL 76‐14‐2 110 48 44% 0.012‐30 1.6 0.1 1.3 NA ‐‐ ‐‐Y ‐‐YBkg.‐‐
1,3,5‐TRIMETHYLBENZENE 108‐67‐8 110 35 32% 0.047‐28 1.6 0.066 4.2 NA ‐‐ ‐‐Y ‐‐YBkg.‐‐
1,3‐BUTADIENE 106‐99‐0 110 14 13% 0.017‐32 1.2 0.40 55 NA ‐‐ ‐‐Y ‐‐YBkg.‐‐
1,3‐DICHLOROBENZENE 541‐73‐1 110 17 15% 0.059‐29 1.5 0.36 36 NA ‐‐ ‐‐Y ‐‐YBkg.‐‐
1,4‐DICHLOROBENZENE 106‐46‐7 110 1 1% 0.062‐29 1.6 0.56 0.56 NA ‐‐NY‐‐YBkg.‐‐
1,4‐DIOXANE 123‐91‐1 100 17 17% 0.035‐23 1.8 0.066 4.9 NA ‐‐ ‐‐Y ‐‐YBkg.‐‐
2‐BUTANONE (MEK)78‐93‐3 108 74 69% 0.14‐39 2.4 0.21 93 NA ‐‐ ‐‐Y ‐‐YBkg.‐‐
2‐HEXANONE 591‐78‐6 110 22 20% 0.18‐27 1.7 0.24 24 NA ‐‐ ‐‐Y ‐‐YBkg.‐‐
4‐ETHYLTOLUENE 622‐96‐8 110 46 42% 0.035‐30 1.4 0.063 3.3 NA ‐‐ ‐‐Y ‐‐YBkg.‐‐
4‐METHYL‐2‐PENTANONE (MIBK)108‐10‐1 110 30 27% 0.054‐26 1.4 0.11 71 NA ‐‐ ‐‐Y ‐‐YBkg.‐‐
ACETONE 67‐64‐1 106 75 71% 0.43‐430 14 3.7 390 530,000 N ‐‐N ‐‐N ‐‐7E‐04
BENZENE 71‐43‐2 110 78 71% 0.014‐28 0.95 0.034 39 25,000 N ‐‐N ‐‐N ‐‐2E‐03
BENZYL CHLORIDE 100‐44‐7 72 0 0% 0.13‐9 1.2 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
BROMODICHLOROMETHANE 75‐27‐4 110 26 24% 0.029‐28 1.5 0.12 81 NA ‐‐ ‐‐Y ‐‐YBkg.‐‐
BROMOFORM 75‐25‐2 110 0 0% 0.093‐39 1.9 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
BROMOMETHANE 74‐83‐9110 3 3% 0.29‐26 3.2 2.5 3.1 NA ‐‐NY‐‐YBkg.‐‐
CARBON DISULFIDE 75‐15‐0 110 60 55% 0.18‐57 2.7 0.26 82 NA ‐‐ ‐‐Y ‐‐YBkg.‐‐
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE 56‐23‐5 110 42 38% 0.0099‐26 1.3 0.03 3.9 5,700 N ‐‐N ‐‐N ‐‐7E‐04
CHLOROBENZENE 108‐90‐7110 1 1% 0.02‐25 1.0 14 14 NA ‐‐NY‐‐YBkg.‐‐
CHLOROETHANE 75‐00‐3 110 24 22% 0.0066‐24 1.2 0.05 0.96 NA ‐‐ ‐‐Y ‐‐YBkg.‐‐
CHLOROFORM 67‐66‐3 110 92 84% 0.012‐25 1.0 0.048 1,200 20,000 N ‐‐N ‐‐N ‐‐6E‐02
CHLOROMETHANE 74‐87‐3 110 38 35% 0.019‐31 1.5 0.02 21 21,000 N ‐‐N ‐‐N ‐‐1E‐03
CIS‐1,2‐DICHLOROETHENE 156‐59‐2 344 41 12% 0.0075‐27 0.65 0.026 11.3 NA ‐‐ ‐‐Y ‐‐YBkg.‐‐
CIS‐1,3‐DICHLOROPROPENE 542‐75‐6110 0 0% 0.03‐30 1.3 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
CYCLOHEXANE 110‐82‐7 110 33 30% 0.14‐54 2.3 0.55 54 NA ‐‐ ‐‐Y ‐‐YBkg.‐‐
DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE 124‐48‐1 110 6 5% 0.077‐25 1.6 0.33 4 NA ‐‐NY‐‐YBkg.‐‐
DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE 75‐71‐8 110 101 92% 0.0057‐31 1.4 1.9 12 2,600,000 N ‐‐N ‐‐N ‐‐5E‐06
ETHYL ACETATE 141‐78‐6 48 20 42% 0.54‐100 5.8 1.1 280 NA ‐‐ ‐‐Y ‐‐YBkg.‐‐
ETHYLBENZENE 100‐41‐4 110 78 71% 0.005‐27 1.1 0.025 26 NA ‐‐ ‐‐Y ‐‐YBkg.‐‐
HEXACHLORO‐1,3‐BUTADIENE 87‐68‐372 0 0% 1‐150 11 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
HQmaxChemical CASRN
Summary Statistics
Air No‐
Effect ESL 
(µg/m3)
COPEC Selection
OU1 Remedial Investigation Report
700 South 1600 East PCE Plume
Salt Lake City, Utah Page 1 of 2
TABLE I.3‐9
SOIL GAS COPEC SELECTION FOR ECOLOGICAL RECEPTORS
700 S 1600 E PCE Plume Superfund Site, Salt Lake City, Utah
No. of 
Samples
No. 
Detected
Detection 
Frequency
Range of DLs 
(µg/m3)
Mean DL 
(µg/m3)
Min. Conc. 
(µg/m3)
Max. 
Conc. 
(µg/m3)
Is Max. Det. 
Conc. > SL?
Is Mean DL  > 
SL?
Chemical 
Detected, No 
SL?
Chemical 
ND, No SL?
Is Chemical 
a COPEC?
Type of 
Evaluation
HQmaxChemical CASRN
Summary Statistics
Air No‐
Effect ESL 
(µg/m3)
COPEC Selection
HEXANE 110‐54‐3 110 45 41% 0.16‐39 1.7 0.35 140 NA ‐‐ ‐‐Y ‐‐YBkg.‐‐
M,P‐XYLENE 108‐38‐3 110 84 76% 0.0083‐50 1.6 0.028 120 NA ‐‐ ‐‐Y ‐‐YBkg.‐‐
METHYL TERT‐BUTYL ETHER 1634‐04‐4110 0 0% 0.01‐23 1.0 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
METHYLENE CHLORIDE 75‐09‐2 110 25 23% 0.25‐54 2.7 0.54 6.7 1,300,000 N ‐‐N ‐‐N ‐‐5E‐06
N‐HEPTANE 142‐82‐5 110 35 32% 0.098‐30 1.5 0.36 57 NA ‐‐ ‐‐Y ‐‐YBkg.‐‐
O‐XYLENE 95‐47‐6 110 79 72% 0.0078‐28 1.1 0.027 74 NA ‐‐ ‐‐Y ‐‐YBkg.‐‐
STYRENE 100‐42‐5 110 31 28% 0.024‐31 1.2 0.025 3.3 NA ‐‐ ‐‐Y ‐‐YBkg.‐‐
TETRACHLOROETHENE 127‐18‐4 404 313 77% 0.0076‐25 0.97 0.20 46,000 73,000 N ‐‐N ‐‐N ‐‐6E‐01
TETRAHYDROFURAN 109‐99‐9 110 36 33% 0.21‐24 1.5 0.54 24 NA ‐‐ ‐‐Y ‐‐YBkg.‐‐
TOLUENE 108‐88‐3 110 92 84% 0.011‐23 0.86 0.026 71 60,000 N ‐‐N ‐‐N ‐‐1E‐03
TRANS‐1,2‐DICHLOROETHENE 156‐60‐5 110 3 3% 0.0065‐26 1.3 0.025 0.064 NA ‐‐NY‐‐YBkg.‐‐
TRANS‐1,3‐DICHLOROPROPENE 542‐75‐6 110 0 0% 0.039‐39 1.6 ND ND NA ‐‐N ‐‐YYQual.2‐‐
TRICHLOROETHENE 79‐01‐6 405 97 24% 0.015‐26 0.72 0.017 180 19,000 N ‐‐N ‐‐N ‐‐9E‐03
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE 75‐69‐4 110 107 97% 0.033‐29 1.5 0.8 170 820,000 N ‐‐N ‐‐N ‐‐2E‐04
VINYL ACETATE 108‐05‐4 48 7 15% 0.53‐430 24 6.4 14.1 NA ‐‐ ‐‐Y ‐‐YBkg.‐‐
VINYL CHLORIDE 75‐01‐4 110 13 12% 0.0028‐20 0.91 0.013 0.23 NA ‐‐ ‐‐Y ‐‐YBkg.‐‐
Notes:
% ‐  percent Max. ‐ Maximum
> ‐  greater than Min. ‐ Minimum
°C ‐ degrees Celsius N ‐ No
µg/m3 ‐ micrograms per cubic meter NA ‐ Not Available
atm ‐ atmosphere ND ‐ Non‐Detect
Bkg. Background analysis for detected analytes with no screening levels No. ‐ Number
CASRN ‐ Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number Note ‐ parts per billion results converted to µg/m3 based upon 25°C and 1 atm
Conc. ‐ Concentration Qual.1 ‐ qualitative analysis for infrequently detected analytes with insufficient detection limits
COPEC ‐ Chemical of Potential Ecological Concern Qual.2 ‐ qualitative analysis for non‐detected analytes with no screening levels
Det. ‐ Detect Quant. ‐ quantitative
DL ‐ Detection Limit SL ‐ screening level
HQ ‐ Hazard Quotient Y ‐ Yes
OU1 Remedial Investigation Report
700 South 1600 East PCE Plume
Salt Lake City, Utah Page 2 of 2
TABLE I.3‐10
AIR SCREENING LEVELS FOR ECOLOGICAL RECEPTORS
700 S 1600 E PCE Plume Superfund Site, Salt Lake City, Utah
1,1,1‐TRICHLOROETHANE 71‐55‐6 240,000
1,1‐DICHLOROETHANE 75‐34‐3 5,600,000
1,1‐DICHLOROETHENE 75‐35‐4 5,700
1,2‐DICHLOROETHANE 107‐06‐2 41,000
ACETONE 67‐64‐1 530,000
BENZENE 71‐43‐2 25,000
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE 56‐23‐5 5,700
CHLOROFORM 67‐66‐3 20,000
CHLOROMETHANE 74‐87‐3 21,000
DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE 75‐71‐8 2,600,000
METHYLENE CHLORIDE 75‐09‐2 1,300,000
TETRACHLOROETHENE 127‐18‐4 73,000
TOLUENE 108‐88‐3 60,000
TRICHLOROETHENE 79‐01‐6 19,000
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE 75‐69‐4 820,000
Source
LANL ‐ Los Alamos National Laboratory, ECORISK Database, version 4.2
Abbreviations
µg/m3 ‐ micrograms per cubic meter
CASRN ‐ Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number
ESL ‐ Ecological Screening Level
Chemical CASRN
LANL Air No‐
Effect ESL 
(µg/m3)
OU1 Remedial Investigation Report
700 South 1600 East PCE Plume
Salt Lake City, Utah Page 1 of 1

Attachments 

 Attachments 

This page intentionally left blank.

ATTACHMENT I.1
SCREENING‐LEVEL RISK EVALUATION FOR METAL COPECs IN SURFACE WATER AND GROUNDWATER
700 S 1600 E PCE Plume Superfund Site, Salt Lake City, Utah
Panel A: Based on Chronic/No‐Effect Ecological Screening Levels
Aquatic 
community 
organisms ‐ 
water
American 
kestrel 
(water)
American 
robin (water)
Deer mouse 
(water)
Gray fox 
(water)
Montane 
shrew (water)
Mountain 
cottontail 
(water)
Occult little 
brown myotis 
bat (water)
Violet‐green 
Swallow 
(water)
ALUMINUM 8,230 65,600 NA NA 530 910,000 780,000 10,000 22,000 8,600 19,000 12,000 450,000 87
ARSENIC 24.2 13.8 150 150 150 42,000 36,000 660 1,400 560 1,200 790 21,000 150
BARIUM 224 641 NA NA 3.9 760,000 650,000 7,200 16,000 6,100 14,000 8,600 380,000 NA
BERYLLIUM 0.4 4.8 NA NA 0.66 NA NA 3,400 7,600 2,900 6,800 4,100 NA NA
CADMIUM 1.8 0.86 0.72 0.72 0.28 12,000 10,000 5,600 12,000 4,800 11,000 6,700 5,900 0.72
COBALT 5.2 39.1 NA NA 3 160 140 100 230 89 200 120 82 NA
COPPER 67.8 116 9 9 5 25,000 21,000 26,000 59,000 22,000 52,000 32,000 12,000 1.6
IRON ND 57,500 NA NA 1,000 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1,000
LEAD 301 91.2 2.5 2.5 1 130,000 110,000 5,100 11,000 4,300 10,000 6,100 64,000 2.52
MANGANESE 583 2770 NA NA 1,300 4,800,000 4,100,000 230,000 510,000 190,000 450,000 270,000 2,400,000 NA
NICKEL 11.4 239 52 52 29 230,000 200,000 360 800 300 710 430 110,000 52
SELENIUM 1.8 5.1 4.6 4.6 5 3,600 3,100 1,000 2,300 890 2,000 1,200 1,800 1.5
SILVER 0.71 1.1 3.2 3.2 0.1 45,000 38,000 100,000 220,000 85,000 190,000 110,000 22,000 0.322
THALLIUM 0.28 0.35 NA NA 0.03 2,900 2,500 37 82 31 73 44 1,400 NA
VANADIUM 14.8 78 NA NA 19 9,100 7,800 11,000 24,000 9,400 21,000 13,000 4,500 NA
ZINC 348 1350 120 120 65 1,000,000 850,000 660,000 1,400,000 560,000 1,200,000 790,000 490,000 118
Panel B: Based on Low‐Effect Ecological Screening Levels
Aquatic 
community 
organisms ‐ 
water
American 
kestrel 
(water)
American 
robin (water)
Deer mouse 
(water)
Gray fox 
(water)
Montane 
shrew (water)
Mountain 
cottontail 
(water)
Occult little 
brown myotis 
bat (water)
Violet‐green 
Swallow 
(water)
ALUMINUM 8,230 65,600 1,300 9,100,000 7,800,000 100,000 220,000 86,000 190,000 120,000 4,500,000
ARSENIC 24.2 13.8 340 100,000 91,000 6,600 14,000 5,600 12,000 7,900 52,000
BARIUM 224 641 39 1,500,000 1,300,000 10,000 23,000 8,800 20,000 12,000 760,000
BERYLLIUM 0.4 4.8 6.6 NA NA 34,000 76,000 29,000 68,000 41,000 NA
CADMIUM 1.8 0.86 0.91 160,000 140,000 20,000 45,000 17,000 40,000 24,000 82,000
COBALT 5.2 39.1 30 4,100 3,500 2,600 5,800 2,200 5,100 3,100 2,000
COPPER 67.8 116 7 260,000 220,000 39,000 86,000 33,000 76,000 46,000 130,000
IRON ND 57,500 10,000 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
LEAD 301 91.2 10 1,300,000 1,100,000 19,000 43,000 16,000 38,000 23,000 640,000
MANGANESE 583 2770 2300 48,000,000 41,000,000 830,000 1,800,000 700,000 1,600,000 990,000 24,000,000
NICKEL 11.4 239 260 320,000 270,000 3,600 8,000 3,000 7,100 4,300 160,000
SELENIUM 1.8 5.1 20 12,000 10,000 1,700 3,800 1,400 3,400 2,000 6,100
SILVER 0.71 1.1 1.0 450,000 380,000 1,000,000 2,200,000 850,000 1,900,000 1,100,000 220,000
THALLIUM 0.28 0.35 0.3 29,000 25,000 370 820 310 730 440 14,000
VANADIUM 14.8 78 190 91,000 78,000 22,000 48,000 18,000 43,000 26,000 45,000
ZINC 348 1350 85 10,000,000 8,500,000 6,600,000 14,000,000 5,600,000 12,000,000 7,900,000 4,900,000
Ground‐
water Max. 
Conc. 
(µg/L)
LANL Water No‐Effect ESLs (µg/L)ORNL Plant 
Soil Solution 
Benchmark 
(µg/L)
LANL Water Low‐Effect ESLs (µg/L)
Surface Water/ 
Groundwater 
COPEC
Surface 
Water Max. 
Conc. 
(µg/L)
Surface Water/ 
Groundwater 
COPEC
Surface 
Water Max. 
Conc. 
(µg/L)
Ground‐
water Max. 
Conc. 
(µg/L)
UDEQ WQC 
Chronic 
(µg/L)
EPA NRWQC 
Chronic 
(µg/L)
OU1 Remedial Investigation Report
700 South 1600 East PCE Plume
Salt Lake City, Utah Page 1 of 1
ATTACHMENT I.2
SCREENING‐LEVEL RISK EVALUATION FOR METAL COPECs IN SOIL AND SEDIMENT
700 S 1600 E PCE Plume Superfund Site, Salt Lake City, Utah
Panel A: Based on No‐Effect Ecological Screening Levels
Mean 
(mg/kg)
Generic plant 
(terrestrial 
autotroph ‐ 
producer)
Earthworm 
(soil‐dwelling 
invertebrate)
American 
kestrel (avian 
top carnivore)
American 
kestrel 
(insectivore / 
carnivore)
American robin 
(avian 
herbivore)
American robin 
(avian 
insectivore)
American robin 
(avian 
omnivore)
Deer mouse 
(mammalian 
omnivore)
Gray fox 
(mammalian 
top carnivore)
Montane 
shrew 
(mammalian 
insectivore)
Mountain 
cottontail 
(mammalian 
herbivore)
Aquatic 
community 
organisms ‐ 
sediment
Occult little brown 
myotis bat 
(mammalian aerial 
insectivore)
Violet‐green 
swallow (avian 
aerial 
insectivore)
ANTIMONY 2.7 0.59 0.12 ‐2.61 11 78 NA NA NA NA NA 2.3 46 7.9 2.7 NA 45 NA
ARSENIC 24.2 5.8 1.3 ‐24.9 18 6.8 740 100 34 15 21 32 820 19 110 9.7 24 34
BARIUM 224 569 44 ‐2630 110 330 24,000 7,500 720 820 770 1800 41,000 2,100 2,900 150 3,100 2,900
CADMIUM 1.8 0.37 0.1 ‐3 32 140 430 1.3 4.3 0.29 0.54 0.5 550 0.27 10 0.99 0.3 0.37
CHROMIUM 14 30 3 ‐155 0.35 0.34 3,600 1400 210 140 160 850 7,200 510 1,600 NA 860 660
COPPER 67.8 14 1.4 ‐75.2 70 80 1,100 80 34 14 20 63 4,000 42 260 31 49 23
LEAD 301 19 0.9 ‐133 120 1700 540 83 18 11 14 120 3,700 93 310 35 110 26
MANGANESE 583 457 26 ‐1460 220 450 60,000 24,000 1,300 2,200 1,600 1,400 40,000 2,800 2,000 460 4,700 10,000
MERCURY 0.21 0.019 0.01 ‐0.05 34 0.05 0.32 0.058 0.067 0.013 0.022 3 76 1.7 23 0.18 2 0.017
NICKEL 11.4 12 1 ‐78.5 38 280 2,000 110 120 20 35 20 1,200 10 270 22 12 31
SELENIUM 1.8 0.38 0.2 ‐2.3 0.52 4.1 74 3.7 0.98 0.71 0.83 0.82 92 0.7 2.2 0.72 0.8 1
SILVER 0.71 all <1 560 NA 600 13 10 2.6 4.1 24 4,400 14 150 0.5 16 3.6
THALLIUM 0.28 0.45 0.1 ‐1.5 0.05 NA 100 48 6.9 4.5 5.5 0.72 5 0.42 1.2 NA 0.73 23
VANADIUM 14.8 54 3 ‐189 60 NA 110 56 6.8 4.7 5.5 470 3,200 290 740 NA 550 29
ZINC 348 50 3 ‐107 160 120 2600 220 330 47 83 170 9,600 99 1,800 120 110 63
Panel B: Based on Low‐Effect Ecological Screening Levels
Mean 
(mg/kg)
Generic plant 
(terrestrial 
autotroph ‐ 
producer)
Earthworm 
(soil‐dwelling 
invertebrate)
American 
kestrel (avian 
top carnivore)
American 
kestrel 
(insectivore / 
carnivore)
American robin 
(avian 
herbivore)
American robin 
(avian 
insectivore)
American robin 
(avian 
omnivore)
Deer mouse 
(mammalian 
omnivore)
Gray fox 
(mammalian 
top carnivore)
Montane 
shrew 
(mammalian 
insectivore)
Mountain 
cottontail 
(mammalian 
herbivore)
Aquatic 
community 
organisms ‐ 
sediment
Occult little brown 
myotis bat 
(mammalian aerial 
insectivore)
Violet‐green 
swallow (avian 
aerial 
insectivore)
ANTIMONY 2.7 0.59 0.12 ‐2.61 58 780 NA NA NA NA NA 23 460 79 27 NA 450 NA
ARSENIC 24.2 5.8 1.3 ‐24.9 91 68 7,400 1,000 340 150 210 51 1,300 31 180 33 39 340
BARIUM 224 569 44 ‐2630 260 3,200 44,000 13,000 1,200 1,400 1,300 8,700 190,000 10,000 14,000 300 31,000 5,200
CADMIUM 1.8 0.37 0.1 ‐3 160 760 2,300 7.7 23 1.6 3 6.8 7,400 3.6 140 4.9 3 3.7
CHROMIUM 14 30 3 ‐155 4 3.4 36,000 14,000 2,100 1,400 1,600 5,500 46,000 3,300 10,000 NA 8,600 6,600
COPPER 67.8 14 1.4 ‐75.2 490 530 3,500 240 100 43 60 100 6,700 70 430 140 81 69
LEAD 301 19 0.9 ‐133 570 8,400 1,000 160 36 23 28 230 7,000 170 600 120 220 52
MANGANESE 583 457 26 ‐1460 1,100 4,500 120,000 50,000 2,700 4,700 3,500 5,400 150,000 10,000 7,500 1,100 47,000 100,000
MERCURY 0.21 0.019 0.01 ‐0.05 64 0.5 3.2 0.58 0.67 0.13 0.22 30 760 17 230 1 20 0.17
NICKEL 11.4 12 1 ‐78.5 270 1,300 8,100 440 500 81 130 40 2,500 21 540 48 24 310
SELENIUM 1.8 0.38 0.2 ‐2.3 3 41 140 7.5 1.9 1.4 1.6 1.2 130 1 3.4 2.9 1.2 2.1
SILVER 0.71 all <1 2,800 NA 6,000 130 100 26 41 240 44,000 140 1,500 5 160 36
THALLIUM 0.28 0.45 0.1 ‐1.5 0.5 NA 1,000 480 69 45 55 7.2 50 4.2 12 NA 7.3 230
VANADIUM 14.8 54 3 ‐189 80 NA 230 110 13 9.5 11 1,000 6,900 610 1,500 NA 1,100 59
ZINC 348 50 3 ‐107 810 930 7,000 590 120 120 220 1,700 94,000 980 18,000 450 1,100 630
Sources Abbreviations Max. ‐ Maximum
LANL ‐ Los Alamos National Laboratory, EcoRisk Database, version 4.2 Conc. ‐ Concentration NA ‐ Not Applicable
USGS ‐ United States Geological Survey COPEC ‐ Chemical of Potential Ecological Concern mg/kg ‐ milligrams per kilogram
ESL ‐ Ecological Screening Level Bkg ‐ Background
Notes
Maximum concentration exceeds the ESL
*Only three sediment samples, collected from site seep areas, have been analyzed for metals. No surface soil have been analyzed for metals. This evaluation assumes surficial soil would be similar to measured sediment concentrations.
Range (mg/kg)
Soil/Sediment 
COPEC
LANL Soil Low‐Effect ESLs (mg/kg)LANL Sediment Low Effect ESLs (mg/kg)
Sediment 
Max. 
Conc.* 
(mg/kg)
Sediment 
Max. 
Conc.* 
(mg/kg)
USGS Utah Bkg Soil
USGS Utah Bkg Soil
Range (mg/kg)
Soil/Sediment 
COPEC
LANL Soil No‐Effect ESLs (mg/kg)LANL Sediment No Effect ESLs (mg/kg)
OU1 Remedial Investigation Report
700 South 1600 East PCE Plume
Salt Lake City, Utah Page 1 of 1