Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDERR-2024-008609 Appendix D Phase 2 OU1 Data Summary Reports and Supporting Information Reporting Limits and Detection Limits for Volatile Organic Compounds CDM Smith. Q4 2020 Data Summary Report Groundwater Sampling Event, 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah. CDM Smith. Q1 2021 Data Summary Report Groundwater Sampling Event, 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah. CDM Smith. Data Summary Report Phase 2 2020 Drilling Investigation, 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah. CDM Smith. Plan for Surface Water Sampling and Flow Measurement Technical Memorandum, 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah. CDM Smith. Plan for Soil Vapor Probe Sampling and Indoor Air Sampling at Buildings 6 and 7 Technical Memorandum, 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah. CDM Smith. 2021 Source Area Soil Gas and Indoor Air Sampling Data Summary Report, 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah. CDM Smith. 2021 East Side Springs Vapor Intrusion Lines of Evidence Data Summary Report, 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah. CDM Smith. Aquifer Testing Analysis Technical Memorandum, 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah. CDM Smith. Summer 2021 Air Sampling Event Quality Control Summary Report, 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah. CDM Smith. Winter 2022 Air Sampling Event Quality Control Summary Report, 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah. Reporting Limits and Detection Limits for Volatile Organic Compounds Source: CDM Smith. 2020d. Phase 2 Remedial Investigation Work Plan, Operable Unit 1, 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Quality Assurance Project Plan, Revision 1, December 2020 12 Table 2-3. Project Laboratory (EMAX Laboratories, Inc.) – Target Analytes and Reporting Limits – Volatile Organic Compounds in Soil Quality Assurance Project Plan, Remedial Investigation 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah Analyte CAS Number Method Screening Level Lowest Screening Level Value (mg/kg)a Laboratory RL (mg/kg) Laboratory MDL (mg/kg) 1,1,1- Trichloroethane 71-55-6 SW8260C Protection of Groundwater MCL-SSL (DAF=20) 1.4 0.005 0.001 1,1,2,2- Tetrachloroethane 79-34-5 SW8260C Protection of Groundwater SSL (DAF=20) 0.0006b 0.005 0.001 1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2- trifluoroethane (Freon 113) 76-13-1 SW8260C Protection of Groundwater SSL (DAF=20) 510 0.005 0.001 1,1,2- Trichloroethane 79-00-5 SW8260C Protection of Groundwater SSL (DAF=20) 0.0018b 0.005 0.001 1,1-Dichloroethane 75-34-3 SW8260C Protection of Groundwater SSL (DAF=20) 0.016 0.005 0.001 1,1-Dichloroethene 75-35-4 SW8260C Protection of Groundwater MCL-SSL (DAF=20) 0.05 0.005 0.001 1,2,3- Trichlorobenzene 87-61-6 SW8260C Protection of Groundwater SSL (DAF=20) 0.42 0.005 0.001 1,2,4- Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1 SW8260C Protection of Groundwater SSL (DAF=20) 0.674 0.005 0.001 1,2,4- Trimethylbenzene 95-63-6 SW8260C Protection of Groundwater SSL (DAF=20) 1.6 0.005 0.001 1,3,5- Trimethylbenzene 108-67-8 SW8260C Protection of Groundwater SSL (DAF=20) 1.7 0.005 0.001 1,2-Dibromo-3- Chloropropane 96-12-8 SW8260C Protection of Groundwater SSL (DAF=20) 0.000029b 0.005 0.001 1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) 106-93-4 SW8260C Protection of Groundwater SSL (DAF=20) 0.000042b 0.005 0.001 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 95-50-1 SW8260C Protection of Groundwater SSL (DAF=20) 5.9 0.005 0.001 1,2-Dichloroethane 107-06-2 SW8260C Protection of Groundwater SSL (DAF=20) 0.00097b 0.005 0.001 1,2-Dichloropropane 78-87-5 SW8260C Protection of Groundwater SSL (DAF=20) 0.0056 0.005 0.001 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 541-73-1 SW8260C NA NA 0.005 0.001 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 SW8260C Protection of Groundwater SSL (DAF=20) 0.0092 0.005 0.001 2-Butanone (Methyl Ethyl Ketone) 78-93-3 SW8260C Protection of Groundwater SSL (DAF=20) 23 0.02 0.005 2-Hexanone 591-78-6 SW8260C Protection of Groundwater SSL (DAF=20) 0.18 0.02 0.005 4-Methyl-2- pentanone 108-10-1 SW8260C Protection of Groundwater SSL (DAF=20) 28 0.02 0.005 Acetone 67-64-1 SW8260C Protection of Groundwater SSL (DAF=20) 58 0.02 0.005 Quality Assurance Project Plan, Revision 1, December 2020 13 Table 2-3. Project Laboratory (EMAX Laboratories, Inc.) – Target Analytes and Reporting Limits – Volatile Organic Compounds in Soil Quality Assurance Project Plan, Remedial Investigation 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah Analyte CAS Number Method Screening Level Lowest Screening Level Value (mg/kg)a Laboratory RL (mg/kg) Laboratory MDL (mg/kg) Benzene 71-43-2 SW8260C Protection of Groundwater SSL (DAF=20) 0.0047b 0.005 0.001 Bromochloromethane 74-97-5 SW8260C Protection of Groundwater SSL (DAF=20) 0.42 0.005 0.001 Bromodichloromethane 75-27-4 SW8260C Protection of Groundwater SSL (DAF=20) 0.00073b 0.005 0.001 Bromoform 75-25-2 SW8260C Protection of Groundwater SSL (DAF=20) 0.018 0.005 0.001 Bromomethane 74-83-9 SW8260C Protection of Groundwater SSL (DAF=20) 0.038 0.01 0.002 Carbon Disulfide 75-15-0 SW8260C Protection of Groundwater SSL (DAF=20) 4.8 0.005 0.001 Carbon Tetrachloride 56-23-5 SW8260C Protection of Groundwater SSL (DAF=20) 0.0035b 0.005 0.001 Chlorobenzene 108-90-7 SW8260C Protection of Groundwater SSL (DAF=20) 1.1 0.005 0.001 Chloroethane 75-00-3 SW8260C Protection of Groundwater SSL (DAF=20) 120 0.005 0.001 Chloroform 67-66-3 SW8260C Protection of Groundwater SSL (DAF=20) 0.0012b 0.005 0.001 Chloromethane 74-87-3 SW8260C Protection of Groundwater SSL (DAF=20) 0.097 0.005 0.001 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 156-59-2 SW8260C Protection of Groundwater SSL (DAF=20) 0.021 0.005 0.001 cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 10061-01- 5 SW8260C Protection of Groundwater SSL (DAF=20) 0.0034b 0.005 0.001 Dibromochloromethane 124-48-1 SW8260C Protection of Groundwater SSL (DAF=20) 0.0046b 0.005 0.001 Dichlorodifluoromethan e (Freon 12) 75-71-8 SW8260C Protection of Groundwater SSL (DAF=20) 6.1 0.005 0.001 Ethylbenzene 100-41-4 SW8260C Protection of Groundwater SSL (DAF=20) 0.034 0.005 0.001 Isopropylbenzene 98-82-8 SW8260C Protection of Groundwater SSL (DAF=20) 15 0.005 0.001 Methyl Acetate 79-20-9 SW8260C Protection of Groundwater SSL (DAF=20) 82 0.005 0.0015 Methyl Tert-Butyl Ether 1634-04-4 SW8260C Protection of Groundwater SSL (DAF=20) 0.064 0.005 0.001 Methylene Chloride 75-09-2 SW8260C Protection of Groundwater MCL-SSL (DAF=20) 0.026 0.01 0.0025 Quality Assurance Project Plan, Revision 1, December 2020 14 Table 2-3. Project Laboratory (EMAX Laboratories, Inc.) – Target Analytes and Reporting Limits – Volatile Organic Compounds in Soil Quality Assurance Project Plan, Remedial Investigation 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah Analyte CAS Number Method Screening Level Lowest Screening Level Value (mg/kg)a Laboratory RL (mg/kg) Laboratory MDL (mg/kg) m,p-Xylene 108-38-3 and 106-42-3 SW8260C Protection of Groundwater SSL (DAF=20) 3.8 0.01 0.0025 o-Xylene 95-47-6 SW8260C Protection of Groundwater SSL (DAF=20) 3.8 0.005 0.001 Styrene 100-42-5 SW8260C Protection of Groundwater MCL-SSL (DAF=20) 2.2 0.005 0.001 Tetrachloroethene 127-18-4 SW8260C Protection of Groundwater MCL-SSL (DAF=20) 0.046b 0.005 0.001 Toluene 108-88-3 SW8260C Protection of Groundwater SSL (DAF=20) 14 0.005 0.001 trans-1,3- Dichloropropene 10061-02- 6 SW8260C Protection of Groundwater SSL (DAF=20) 0.0034b 0.005 0.001 trans-1,2- Dichloroethene 156-60-5 SW8260C Protection of Groundwater SSL (DAF=20) 0.62 0.005 0.001 Trichloroethene 79-01-6 SW8260C Protection of Groundwater SSL (DAF=20) 0.0035b 0.005 0.001 Trichlorofluorometha ne (Freon 11) 75-69-4 SW8260C Protection of Groundwater SSL (DAF=20) 66 0.005 0.0011 Vinyl Acetate 108-05-4 SW8260C Protection of Groundwater SSL (DAF=20) 1.7 0.005 0.0013 Vinyl Chloride 75-01-4 SW8260C Protection of Groundwater SSL (DAF=20) 0.00013 b 0.005 0.0014 a Lowest of: (1) RSLs for residential exposure or (2) SSLs for groundwater protection using a DAF of 20 and soil saturation level. RSLs corresponding to an excess lifetime cancer risk of 1 × 10-6 and a hazard quotient of 1 were used (EPA November 2019). b Because of the low screening level for this analyte, the RL is greater than the screening level. However, soil screening would be used in a source investigation in which the RL would be an acceptable limit. DAF References: Soil Screening Guidance: User’s Guide (EPA 1996) and Supplemental Guidance for Developing Soil Screening Levels for Superfund Sites (EPA 2002b) Notes: CAS = Chemical Abstracts Service DAF = dilution attenuation factor MCL = maximum contaminant level MDL = method detection limit mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram NA = not applicable RL = reporting limit RSL = regional screening level SSL = soil screening level Quality Assurance Project Plan, Revision 1, December 2020 17 Table 2-6. Project Field Screening Method (HAPSITE) – Target Analytes and Reporting Limits – Volatile Organic Compounds in Air and Water Quality Assurance Project Plan, Remedial Investigation 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah Analyte CAS Number Method Screening Levela Lowest Screening Level Value (µg/m3)a Method RL (µg/m3) Air cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 156-59-2 HAPSITE EPA RSL NA 1 Tetrachloroethene 127-18-4 HAPSITE EPA RSL 11 1 Trichloroethene 79-01-6 HAPSITE EPA RSL 0.48b 1 Analyte CAS Number Method Screening Level Screening Level Value (µg/L)b Method RL (µg/m3) Water cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 156-59-2 HAPSITE Headspace Analyzer EPA MCL 70 5 Tetrachloroethene 127-18-4 HAPSITE Headspace Analyzer EPA MCL 5 5 Trichloroethene 79-01-6 HAPSITE Headspace Analyzer EPA MCL 5 5 a EPA RSL, Resident Air, November 2019, screening levels were based on a target excess lifetime cancer risk of 1 × 10-6 and a hazard quotient of 1. b Because of the low screening level for this analyte, the RL is greater than the screening level. However, the HAPSITE provides screening level data only, and measurements will be confirmed by definitive analysis. Notes: µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter µg/L = micrograms per liter CAS = Chemical Abstracts Service EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency MCL = maximum contaminant level RL= reporting limit RSL = regional screening level Quality Assurance Project Plan, Revision 1, December 2020 18 Table 2-7. Project Laboratory (Eurofins Air Toxics, LLC) – Target Analytes and Reporting Limits – Volatile Organic Compounds in Air Quality Assurance Project Plan, Remedial Investigation 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah Analyte CAS Number Air Method Screening Levela Lowest Screening Level Value (µg/m3)a Laboratory RL (µg/m3) Laboratory MDL (µg/m3) Laboratory Analytical Parameters (SUMMA®) 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 71-55-6 Modified TO-15 EPA RSL 5,200 0.11 0.033 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 79-34-5 Modified TO-15 EPA RSL 0.048b 0.14 0.045 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 79-00-5 Modified TO-15 EPA RSL 0.18 0.11 0.033 1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2- trifluoroethane (Freon 113) 76-13-1 Modified TO-15 EPA RSL 5,200 0.77 0.15 1,1-Dichloroethane 75-34-3 Modified TO-15 EPA RSL 1.8 0.081 0.027 1,1-Dichloroethene 75-35-4 Modified TO-15 EPA RSL 210 0.040 0.032 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1 Modified TO-15 EPA RSL 2.1b 3.7 1.3 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 95-63-6 Modified TO-15 EPA RSL 63 0.49 0.11 1,2-Dibromoethane 106-93-4 Modified TO-15 EPA RSL 0.0047b 0.15 0.024 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 95-50-1 Modified TO-15 EPA RSL 210 0.60 0.11 1,2-Dichloroethane 107-06-2 Modified TO-15 EPA RSL 0.11 0.081 0.015 1,2-Dichloropropane 78-87-5 Modified TO-15 EPA RSL 0.76 0.46 0.11 1,2- Dichlorotetrafluoroethane (Freon 114) 76-14-2 Modified TO-15 NA NA 0.14 0.041 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 108-67-8 Modified TO-15 EPA RSL 63 0.49 0.098 1,3-Butadiene 106-99-0 Modified TO-15 EPA RSL 0.094b 0.22 0.048 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 541-73-1 Modified TO-15 NA NA 0.60 0.21 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 Modified TO-15 EPA RSL 0.26 0.12 0.068 1,4-Dioxane 123-91-1 Modified TO-15 EPA RSL 0.56 0.36 0.19 2-Butanone (Methyl Ethyl Ketone) 78-93-3 Modified TO-15 EPA RSL 5,200 1.5 0.30 2-Hexanone 591-78-6 Modified TO-15 EPA RSL 31 2.0 0.52 2-Propanol (Isopropyl alcohol) 67-63-0 Modified TO-15 EPA RSL 210 1.2 0.14 3-Chloropropene (Ally chloride) 107-05-1 Modified TO-15 EPA RSL 0.47b 1.6 0.57 4-Ethyltoluene 622-96-8 Modified TO-15 EPA RSL NA 0.49 0.11 4-Methyl-2-pentanone 108-10-1 Modified TO-15 EPA RSL 3,100 0.41 0.1 Acetone 67-64-1 Modified TO-15 EPA RSL 32,000 2.4 0.4 Alpha-Chlorotoluene (Benzyl chloride) 100-44-7 Modified TO-15 EPA RSL 0.057b 0.52 0.1 Benzene 71-43-2 Modified TO-15 EPA RSL 0.36 0.16 0.094 Bromodichloromethane 75-27-4 Modified TO-15 EPA RSL 0.076b 0.67 0.24 Bromoform 75-25-2 Modified TO-15 EPA RSL 2.6 1.0 0.24 Bromomethane 74-83-9 Modified TO-15 EPA RSL 5.2 1.9 0.34 Quality Assurance Project Plan, Revision 1, December 2020 19 Table 2-7. Project Laboratory (Eurofins Air Toxics, LLC) – Target Analytes and Reporting Limits – Volatile Organic Compounds in Air Quality Assurance Project Plan, Remedial Investigation 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah Analyte CAS Number Air Method Screening Levela Lowest Screening Level Value (µg/m3)a Laboratory RL (µg/m3) Laboratory MDL (µg/m3) Carbon disulfide 75-15-0 Modified TO-15 EPA RSL 730 1.6 0.27 Carbon tetrachloride 56-23-5 Modified TO-15 EPA RSL 0.47 0.12 0.058 Chlorobenzene 108-90-7 Modified TO-15 EPA RSL 52 0.46 0.12 Chloroethane 75-00-3 Modified TO-15 EPA RSL 10,000 0.13 0.02 Chloroform 67-66-3 Modified TO-15 EPA RSL 0.12 0.098 0.028 Chloromethane 74-87-3 Modified TO-15 EPA RSL 94 1.0 0.025 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 156-59-2 Modified TO-15 EPA RSL NA 0.079 0.028 cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 10061-01-5 Modified TO-15 EPA RSL 0.70 0.45 0.091 Cumene (isopropylbenzene) 98-82-8 Modified TO-15 EPA RSL 420 0.49 0.076 Cyclohexane 110-82-7 Modified TO-15 EPA RSL 6,300 0.34 0.093 Dibromochloromethane 124-48-1 Modified TO-15 EPA RSL NA 0.85 0.26 Dichlorodifluoromethane (Freon 12) 75-71-8 Modified TO-15 EPA RSL 100 0.099 0.025 Ethylbenzene 100-41-4 Modified TO-15 EPA RSL 1.1 0.087 0.057 Ethanol 64-17-5 Modified TO-15 EPA RSL NA 0.94 0.2 n-Heptane 142-82-5 Modified TO-15 EPA RSL 420 0.41 0.14 Hexachlorobutadiene 87-68-3 Modified TO-15 EPA RSL 0.13b 5.3 1.8 n-Hexane 110-54-3 Modified TO-15 EPA RSL 730 1.8 0.2 m,p-Xylene 108-38-3 and 106- 42-3 Modified TO-15 EPA RSL 100 0.17 0.1 Methylene Chloride 75-09-2 Modified TO-15 EPA RSL 100 0.69 0.1 Methyl tert-butyl ether 1634-04-4 Modified TO-15 EPA RSL 11 0.36 0.031 o-Xylene 95-47-6 Modified TO-15 EPA RSL 100 0.087 0.019 Propylbenzene 103-65-1 Modified TO-15 EPA RSL 1,000 0.49 0.12 Styrene 100-42-5 Modified TO-15 EPA RSL 1,000 0.42 0.046 Tetrachloroethene 127-18-4 Modified TO-15 EPA RSL 11 0.14 0.026 Tetrahydrofuran 109-99-9 Modified TO-15 EPA RSL 2,100 1.5 0.59 Toluene 108-88-3 Modified TO-15 EPA RSL 5,200 0.19 0.057 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 156-60-5 Modified TO-15 EPA RSL NA 0.40 0.03 trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 10061-02-6 Modified TO-15 EPA RSL 0.70 0.45 0.11 Trichloroethene 79-01-6 Modified TO-15 EPA RSL 0.48 0.11 0.073 Trichlorofluoromethane (Freon 11) 75-69-4 Modified TO-15 EPA RSL NA 0.56 0.12 Vinyl Chloride 75-01-4 Modified TO-15 EPA RSL 0.17 0.026 0.02 Quality Assurance Project Plan, Revision 1, December 2020 20 Table 2-7. Project Laboratory (Eurofins Air Toxics, LLC) – Target Analytes and Reporting Limits – Volatile Organic Compounds in Air Quality Assurance Project Plan, Remedial Investigation 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah Analyte CAS Number Air Method Screening Levela Lowest Screening Level Value (µg/m3)a Laboratory RL (µg/m3) Laboratory MDL (µg/m3) Laboratory Analytical Parameters (Passive Sampler Radiello 130) 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 71-55-6 Modified TO-17 EPA RSL 5,200 0.053 0.014 1,2-Dichloroethane 107-06-2 Modified TO-17 EPA RSL 0.011b 0.043 0.014 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 Modified TO-17 EPA RSL 0.26 0.065 0.024 2-Butanone (Methyl Ethyl Ketone) 78-93-3 Modified TO-17 EPA RSL 5,200 0.042 0.017 4-Methyl-2-pentanone 108-10-1 Modified TO-17 EPA RSL 3,100 0.099 0.032 Benzene 71-43-2 Modified TO-17 EPA RSL 0.36 0.17 0.12 Carbon tetrachloride 56-23-5 Modified TO-17 EPA RSL 0.47 0.049 0.015 Chlorobenzene 108-90-7 Modified TO-17 EPA RSL 52 0.049 0.017 Chloroform 67-66-3 Modified TO-17 EPA RSL 0.12 0.044 0.017 Cyclohexane 110-82-7 Modified TO-17 EPA RSL 6,300 0.061 0.02 Ethanol 64-17-5 Modified TO-17 EPA RSL NA 0.32 0.094 Ethyl Acetate 141-78-6 Modified TO-17 EPA RSL 73 0.17 0.11 Ethylbenzene 100-41-4 Modified TO-17 EPA RSL 1.1 0.049 0.019 n-Heptane 142-82-5 Modified TO-17 EPA RSL 420 0.057 0.02 n-Hexane 110-54-3 Modified TO-17 EPA RSL 730 0.050 0.02 m,p-Xylene 108-38-3 Modified TO-17 EPA RSL 100 0.047 0.034 Methyl tert-butyl ether 1634-04-4 Modified TO-17 EPA RSL 11 0.051 0.02 Naphthalene 91-20-3 Modified TO-17 EPA RSL 0.083b 0.13 0.051 o-Xylene 95-47-6 Modified TO-17 EPA RSL 100 0.051 0.018 Propylbenzene 103-65-1 Modified TO-17 EPA RSL 1,000 0.058 0.021 Styrene 100-42-5 Modified TO-17 EPA RSL 1,000 0.054 0.031 Tetrachloroethene 127-18-4 Modified TO-17 EPA RSL 11 0.056 0.014 Toluene 108-88-3 Modified TO-17 EPA RSL 5,200 0.045 0.016 Trichloroethene 79-01-6 Modified TO-17 EPA RSL 0.48 0.048 0.02 a EPA RSL, Resident Air, November 2019, screening levels were based on a target excess lifetime cancer risk of 1 × 10-6 and a hazard quotient of 1. b Because of the low screening level for this analyte, the RL is greater than the screening level. However, this analyte is not a known COPC for the site. Notes: µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter COPC = constituent of potential concern EPA = Environmental Protection Agency MDL = method detection limit RL= reporting limit RSL = regional screening level Quality Assurance Project Plan, Revision 1, December 2020 21 Table 2-8. Project Laboratory (EMAX Laboratories, Inc.)– Target Analytes and Reporting Limits – Volatile Organic Compounds in Water (Groundwater/Surface Water) Quality Assurance Project Plan, Remedial Investigation 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah Analyte CAS Number Method Screening Level Screening Level Value (µg/L)a Laboratory RL (µg/L) Laboratory MDL (µg/L) Laboratory Analytical Parameters 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 71-55-6 SW8260C EPA MCL 200 1 0.1 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 79-34-5 SW8260C EPA RSL 0.076b 1 0.11 1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2- trifluoroethane (Freon 113) 76-13-1 SW8260C EPA RSL 10,000 1 0.15 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 79-00-5 SW8260C EPA MCL 5 1 0.1 1,1-Dichloroethane 75-34-3 SW8260C EPA RSL 2.8 1 0.1 1,1-Dichloroethene 75-35-4 SW8260C EPA MCL 7 1 0.1 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene 87-61-6 SW8260C EPA RSL 0.7b 1 0.15 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1 SW8260C EPA MCL 70 1 0.15 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 95-63-6 SW8260C EPA RSL 56 1 0.11 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 108-67-8 SW8260C EPA RSL 60 1 0.12 1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane 96-12-8 SW8260C EPA MCL 0.2b 2 0.25 1,2-Dibromoethane 106-93-4 SW8260C EPA MCL 0.05b 1 0.103 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 95-50-1 SW8260C EPA MCL 600 1 0.1 1,2-Dichloroethane 107-06-2 SW8260C EPA MCL 5 1 0.1 1,2-Dichloropropane 78-87-5 SW8260C EPA MCL 5 1 0.1 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 541-73-1 SW8260C NA NA 1 0.11 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 SW8260C EPA MCL 75 1 0.1 2-Butanone (Methyl Ethyl Ketone) 78-93-3 SW8260C EPA RSL 5,600 20 2.5 2-Hexanone 591-78-6 SW8260C EPA RSL 38 20 2.5 4-Methyl-2-pentanone 108-10-1 SW8260C EPA RSL 6,300 20 2.5 Acetone 67-64-1 SW8260C EPA RSL 14,000 20 2.5 Benzene 71-43-2 SW8260C EPA MCL 5 1 0.1 Bromochloromethane 74-97-5 SW8260C EPA RSL 83 1 0.11 Bromodichloromethane 75-27-4 SW8260C EPA MCL 80 1 0.1 Bromoform 75-25-2 SW8260C EPA MCL 80 1 0.15 Bromomethane 74-83-9 SW8260C EPA RSL 7.5 1 0.16 Carbon Disulfide 75-15-0 SW8260C EPA RSL 810 1 0.25 Carbon Tetrachloride 56-23-5 SW8260C EPA MCL 5 1 0.1 Chlorobenzene 108-90-7 SW8260C EPA MCL 100 1 0.1 Chloroethane 75-00-3 SW8260C EPA RSL 21,000 1 0.27 Chloroform 67-66-3 SW8260C EPA MCL 80 1 0.1 Chloromethane 74-87-3 SW8260C EPA RSL 190 1 0.15 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 156-59-2 SW8260C EPA MCL 70 1 0.1 cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 10061-01- 5 SW8260C EPA RSL 0.47b 1 0.1 Quality Assurance Project Plan, Revision 1, December 2020 22 Table 2-8. Project Laboratory (EMAX Laboratories, Inc.)– Target Analytes and Reporting Limits – Volatile Organic Compounds in Water (Groundwater/Surface Water) Quality Assurance Project Plan, Remedial Investigation 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah Analyte CAS Number Method Screening Level Screening Level Value (µg/L)a Laboratory RL (µg/L) Laboratory MDL (µg/L) Dibromochloromethane 124-48-1 SW8260C EPA MCL 80 1 0.1 Dichlorodifluoromethane (Freon 12) 75-71-8 SW8260C EPA RSL 200 1 0.15 Ethylbenzene 100-41-4 SW8260C EPA MCL 700 1 0.1 Isopropylbenzene (Cumene) 98-82-8 SW8260C EPA RSL 450 1 0.1 Methyl acetate 79-20-9 SW8260C EPA RSL 20,000 2 0.25 Methyl Tert-Butyl Ether 1634-04-4 SW8260C EPA RSL 14 1 0.13 Methylene chloride 75-09-2 SW8260C EPA MCL 5 2 0.5 m,p-Xylene 108-38-3 and 106-42-3 SW8260C EPA RSL 190 2 0.21 o-Xylene 95-47-6 SW8260C EPA RSL 190 1 0.1 Styrene 100-42-5 SW8260C EPA MCL 100 1 0.25 Tetrachloroethene (PCE) 127-18-4 SW8260C EPA MCL 5 1 0.15 Toluene 108-88-3 SW8260C EPA MCL 1,000 1 0.1 trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 10061-02- 6 SW8260C EPA RSL 0.47b 1 0.11 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 156-60-5 SW8260C EPA MCL 100 1 0.1 Trichloroethene 79-01-6 SW8260C EPA MCL 5 1 0.1 Trichlorofluoromethane (Freon 11) 75-69-4 SW8260C EPA RSL 5,200 1 0.15 Vinyl Acetate 108-05-4 SW8260C EPA RSL 410 2 0.25 Vinyl Chloride 75-01-4 SW8260C EPA MCL 2 1 0.12 a If an MCL is set for the analyte, the screening level is the MCL. Otherwise, the screening level is the RSL for tap water. RSLs corresponding to an excessive lifetime cancer risk of 1 × 10-6 and a hazard quotient of 1 were used (EPA November 2019). b Because of the low screening level for this analyte, the RL is greater than the screening level. However, this analyte is not a known constituent of potential concern for the site. Notes: µg/L = micrograms per liter CAS = Chemical Abstracts Service EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency MCL = maximum contaminant level MDL = method detection limit RL = reporting limit RSL = regional screening level Quality Assurance Project Plan, Revision 1, December 2020 23 Table 2-9. Project Laboratory (EMAX Laboratories, Inc.) – Target Analytes and Reporting Limits – 1,4-Dioxane in Water (Groundwater/Surface Water) Quality Assurance Project Plan, Remedial Investigation 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah Analyte CAS Number Method Screening Level Screening Level Value (µg/L)a Laboratory RL (µg/L) Laboratory MDL (µg/L) 1,4-Dioxane 123-91-1 SW8270SIM-low EPA RSL 0.46 0.4 0.21 a If an MCL is set for the analyte, the screening level is the MCL. Otherwise, the screening level is the RSL for tap water. RSLs corresponding to an excessive lifetime cancer risk of 1 × 10-6 and a hazard quotient of 1 were used (EPA November 2019). Notes: µg/L = micrograms per liter CAS = Chemical Abstracts Service EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency MCL = maximum contaminant level MDL = method detection limit RL = reporting limit RSL = regional screening level FINAL Data Summary Report Q4 2020 Groundwater Sampling Event 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Site Salt Lake City, Utah CONTRACT NO.: W912DQ-18-D-3008 DELIVERY ORDER NO.: W912DQ19F3048 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Kansas City District Department of Veterans Affairs Veterans Health Administration Salt Lake City Health Care System September 30, 2021 i Table of Contents Section 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Background ................................................................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Purpose and Scope ................................................................................................................................................... 1-1 Section 2 Field Sampling Activities ................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Groundwater Sampling .......................................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1.1 Synoptic Water Level Measurement ................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1.2 Groundwater Sampling Procedures .................................................................................................... 2-2 2.1.3 Sample Analysis ........................................................................................................................................... 2-3 2.2 Transducer Data Collection .................................................................................................................................. 2-4 2.3 Decontamination and Investigation-Derived Waste ................................................................................. 2-4 2.4 Deviations from the Quality Assurance Project Plan ................................................................................. 2-4 Section 3 Groundwater Monitoring Results ...................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Groundwater Elevations ........................................................................................................................................ 3-1 3.2 Groundwater Analytical Results......................................................................................................................... 3-2 3.2.1 Volatile Organic Compounds .................................................................................................................. 3-2 3.2.2 1,4-Dioxane .................................................................................................................................................... 3-3 3.2.3 General Chemistry ...................................................................................................................................... 3-3 Section 4 Summary .......................................................................................................... 4-1 Section 5 References ....................................................................................................... 5-1 Table of Contents ii List of Figures Figure 1 – Site Location Map Figure 2 – Potentiometric Groundwater Surface Map – Shallow Aquifer Figure 3 – Potentiometric Groundwater Surface Map – Deep Aquifer Figure 4 – Q4 2020 Groundwater PCE and TCE Results and Approximate Extent of PCE in Groundwater List of Tables Table 1 – Monitoring Well Survey Data and Construction Details Table 2 – Groundwater Elevations and Transducer Locations and Download Dates Table 3 – Groundwater Sampling Analytes Table 4 – 1,4-Dioxane and Detected VOC Analytical Results Table 5 – Metals Analytical Results Table 6 – General Chemistry Analytical Results and Field Parameters Appendices Appendix A – Salt Lake City Division of Transportation Traffic Control Permit Appendix B – Field Forms Appendix C – Quality Control Summary Report Appendix D – Transducer Hydrographs Table of Contents iii Acronyms and Abbreviations bgs below ground surface CDM Smith CDM Federal Programs Corporation DO dissolved oxygen DSR data summary report EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ESS East Side Springs IDW investigation-derived waste MCL maximum contaminant level mg/L milligrams per liter mL/min milliliters per minute NTU nephelometric turbidity unit ORP oxidation-reduction potential OU operable unit PCE tetrachloroethene Q1-2021 first quarter 2021 Q2-2021 second quarter 2021 Q3-2020 third quarter 2020 Q4-2020 fourth quarter 2020 QAPP quality assurance project plan RI remedial investigation RSL regional screening level SOP standard operating procedure TCE trichloroethene TOC total organic carbon UDEQ Utah Department of Environmental Quality VAMC Veterans Affairs Medical Center VHA Veterans Health Administration VOC volatile organic compound ZIST zone isolation sampling technology µg/L micrograms per liter µg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter 1-1 Section 1 Introduction Under the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Kansas City District Contract No. W912DQ-18-D-3008, Task Order No. W912DQ19F3048, CDM Federal Programs Corporation (CDM Smith) was directed to perform a remedial investigation (RI) for Operable Unit (OU) 1 of the 700 South 1600 East Tetrachloroethene (PCE) Plume Superfund Site in Salt Lake City, Utah. CDM Smith prepared this data summary report (DSR) to present the results of the fourth quarter 2020 (Q4-2020) groundwater monitoring event as part of the RI field characterization activities. 1.1 Background The Salt Lake City Healthcare System George E. Wahlen Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC) is in Salt Lake City, Utah (Figure 1). PCE contamination was first identified in groundwater in 1990 at the nearby Mt. Olivet Cemetery irrigation well during the Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities routine monitoring. This led to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ) involvement at the Site and the preliminary determination that the source of PCE in groundwater was the historic dry-cleaning facility located at the VAMC. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) operated a part-time dry-cleaning operation that used PCE over a 6-year period in the late 1970s and early 1980s. During this period, dry cleaning residuals were disposed in the sanitary sewer. A PCE groundwater plume is present beneath the VAMC property and in areas hydraulically downgradient, extending to the East Side Springs (ESS) neighborhood. In addition, elevated concentrations of PCE in soil gas and subslab vapor (up to 20,000 micrograms per cubic meter [µg/m3]) have been observed adjacent to VAMC Buildings 6 and 7 (location of the VAMC dry-cleaning facility) (Jacobs 2019). 1.2 Purpose and Scope The purpose and scope of this DSR is to describe the work conducted and present the analytical and field data collected during the Q4-2020 groundwater monitoring event. Recommendations for improvements for future sampling events are also included. 2-1 Section 2 Field Sampling Activities The following sections outline the field sampling activities that were completed during the Q4-2020 sampling event, which occurred from December 7 to 18, 2020. 2.1 Groundwater Sampling The Q4-2020 groundwater monitoring event included collecting samples at 37 existing wells and 6 newly installed wells (MW-13L, MW-36, MW-37S/D, and MW-38S/D). Several wells have multiple screened intervals so 66 samples were expected to be collected. All monitoring wells (including previously abandoned wells) are shown on Figure 1, and location data and well construction details are presented in Table 1. The sampling activities were conducted in accordance with the Phase 2 OU1 Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) (CDM Smith 2020a) and the Phase 2 OU1 RI Work Plan (CDM Smith 2020b). Several groundwater wells are in the public right-of-way and require traffic control and special work requirements be implemented when accessing the wells. The associated traffic control permit and location-specific plans from Salt Lake City Division of Transportation are attached (Appendix A). Field forms associated with this event, including the field logbook pages, water level measurement recordings, and sample purge forms, are included in Appendix B. 2.1.1 Synoptic Water Level Measurement Prior to sampling activities, synoptic water levels were collected on December 7 and 8, 2020 from 66 wells following procedures outlined in Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) 1-6, Groundwater Level Measurement (CDM Smith 2020a). Manual water level measurements were recorded for the wells from the northern edge of the casing using electronic water level meters. At artesian well MW-14D, the pressure reading on the gauge was recorded and converted to feet above the top of casing. At artesian well MW-17D, a standpipe was installed, and the water level was recorded. Water levels are presented in Table 2. The collection of water level measurements in monitoring wells with dedicated Zone Isolation Sampling Technology (ZIST) pumps requires pulling the pump and allowing the water to equilibrate in the well casing. ZIST pumps provide isolation of the screen by creating a seal in the well casing when the pump is properly seated in the well screen dock. To collect water level measurements, the pumps were pulled about 1 foot out of the receiver in the well casing for approximately 3 hours to allow the water level to equilibrate following pump removal. After verifying that water levels had stabilized, the water level measurement was recorded manually, and the pump was properly reseated. The following wells have dedicated ZIST pumps:  MW-03RA/B/C/D  MW-08C Section 2 • Field Sampling Activities 2-2  MW-23A/B/C  MW-25A/B/C  MW-26A/B/C/D  MW-29A 1/B/C  MW-30C  MW-31A1/B/C  MW-32B1/C1  MW-34A1/B1/C1/D1 2.1.2 Groundwater Sampling Procedures All wells were sampled following project-specific SOP 6-2, Low-Stress (Low-Flow) Groundwater Sampling (CDM Smith 2020a) procedures. All wells were sampled using dedicated pumps except MW-14D. Prior to collecting groundwater samples with low-flow sampling techniques, each well was purged to remove a minimum volume, which was calculated prior to the event. The minimum purge volume is three times the total amount of stagnant water in the pump and tubing. Low-flow groundwater sampling includes purging the well at a rate typically less than 500 milliliters per minute (mL/min) and with minimal drawdown (less than 0.3 feet) to ensure that the water sampled is representative of the formation surrounding the screened interval and not of the stagnant water column. If the drawdown exceeds 0.3 feet, the stagnant water column is contributing to the purge water and the minimum purge volume must be recalculated. Once the minimum purge volume was removed and water quality parameters stabilized as described in SOP 6-2, samples were collected. At MW-14D, a permanent valve and gauge were previously installed to assist in controlling the artesian flow at the well. During sampling, the team opened the valve to maximum capacity and noted the flow rate as grab samples were collected for field parameter analysis. The flow rate decreased considerably over the purging period, from an initial flow of approximately 1,800 mL/min to 300 mL/min. MW-17D has been observed to be seasonally artesian; therefore, a permanent threaded connection was previously attached to the well head to plug the well. As a result, the dedicated bladder pump is not permanently deployed in the well and is only used to sample the well when conditions are not artesian. During the sampling event, water was not free flowing from MW-17D; therefore, the dedicated bladder pump was used to sample the well. ___________________________________ 1 ZIST wells that were constructed without a pump receiver Section 2 • Field Sampling Activities 2-3 All groundwater sampling was completed according to the project-specific SOP 6-2, Low-Stress (Low-Flow) Groundwater Sampling (CDM Smith 2020a), with the exception of deviations outlined in Section 2.4. Field documentation of sampling procedures are provided in Appendix B. 2.1.3 Sample Analysis The water quality parameters were analyzed continuously while purging with the use of a flow-through cell. The following parameters were recorded for each well:  Dissolved oxygen (DO)  Oxidation-reduction potential (ORP)  pH  Temperature  Conductivity  Turbidity In addition to the field parameters, samples were collected from each well for the following analyses (Table 3):  Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) by EPA Method SW8260C  Total metals (unfiltered) by EPA Method SW6020A/SW7470A  Alkalinity by EPA Method SM2320B  Anions (sulfate, chloride) by EPA Method E300.0  Dissolved gases (methane, ethane, ethene) by RSK-175  Total organic carbon (TOC) by EPA Method SW9060A  Nitrate and nitrite by EPA Method SM4500-NO3E  Ferrous iron (measured in the field using a HACH 8146) Samples were collected from the following wells for 1,4-dioxane by EPA Method 8270D:  MW-26B  MW-30RA/B  MW-34A  MW-36  MW-37S/D Section 2 • Field Sampling Activities 2-4  MW-38S/D All samples were submitted to EMAX Laboratories Inc. in Torrance, California. The analytical results are discussed in Section 3. Laboratory data are included in Appendix C. Field quality control samples were collected, including field duplicates, matrix spike/matrix duplicates, trip blanks, and field blanks, and are discussed in the Quality Control Summary Report in Appendix C. Not all samples were able to be collected as planned as further discussed in Section 2.4. The completeness for the number of samples planned to be collected versus the number of samples collected was 97%, thus exceeding the 90% project data goal. The achievement of the completeness goals for the data provides sufficient data for project decisions. Sample results meet the data quality objectives presented in the RI Work Plan (CDM Smith 2020b). 2.2 Transducer Data Collection Transducer data were downloaded from 16 groundwater wells during the Q4-2020 groundwater monitoring event. Data from the December 2020 download date back to September 2020. Table 2 presents the date, time, and location of transducer data downloads during Q4-2020. Hydrographs were prepared from the transducer downloads and are presented in Appendix D. A drop in water level due to groundwater sampling activities can be seen in the hydrograph for MW-13D and MW-14S. No other inconsistencies are observed in the hydrographs, and the data are useable for the purposes of monitoring groundwater elevations. The transducer data will be evaluated for seasonal and annual trends as well as potential variations due to anthropogenic usage and presented in the RI report. 2.3 Decontamination and Investigation-Derived Waste All nondedicated equipment used during the groundwater sampling event was decontaminated following the procedures outlined in SOP 4-5, Field Equipment Decontamination at Nonradioactive Sites (CDM Smith 2020a). Nondedicated equipment used during this event were electronic water level meters. Investigation-derived waste (IDW) was handled per SOP 2-2, Guide to Handling Investigation-Derived Waste (CDM Smith 2020a). All decontamination water and purge water were containerized at their source and transferred to the holding tanks at the VAMC. These tanks will be emptied as needed by a certified IDW disposal company. 2.4 Deviations from the Quality Assurance Project Plan The following QAPP deviations occurred during the Q4-2020 sampling event:  Purge parameter stabilization criteria for turbidity (either less than 10 nephelometric turbidity unit [NTU] or less than 50 NTU and within 10 percent) were not met at MW-03RB/D, MW-25A, and MW-29B prior to the collection of groundwater samples. Turbidity at two of these locations (MW-03RD and MW-29B) was less than 50 NTU, but not within 10 percent. Turbidity at the other two locations (MW-03RB and MW-25A) was stable within 10 percent, but slightly above 50 NTU. No analytical result bias for dissolved VOCs, including chlorinated compounds (EPA 2005), is anticipated to result from turbid water samples. This deviation does not affect DQOs or data usability. As all other purge Section 2 • Field Sampling Activities 2-5 parameter stabilization criteria was met there is no expected impact upon data quality at these locations.  As MW-13S was purged dry, a sample was collected the next day once sufficient recharge was observed without meeting purge parameter stabilization. This is an accepted deviation in the low-flow groundwater sampling SOP, and there is no impact upon data quality at this location.  There was insufficient water to collect a groundwater sample from MW-12S. As this location has been successfully sampled in the past, there is no significant impact to the groundwater plume delineation data quality objective.  Due to a high amount of sediment, groundwater samples for VOCs were collected from MW-13L without collecting purge and geochemical parameters after the minimum purge volume had been met. This location will be further developed prior to Q1-2021 groundwater sampling. As a VOC sample was collected, there is no significant impact to the groundwater plume delineation data quality objective. As groundwater samples for geochemical analyses will be collected during the Q1-2021 event, there is no significant impact to the natural attenuation data quality objective.  Due to difficulties with the ZIST sampling systems, a consistent flow of water to the surface could not be sustained during purging at several locations (MW-26C/D, MW-34B/C). At these locations, visible sediment was observed on the ZIST Panacea pump porous media filters. These locations will be developed prior to Q1-2021 groundwater sampling. • At MW-26C and MW-34B/C groundwater samples for VOCs were collected without collecting purge and geochemical parameters after the minimum purge volume had been met. As VOC samples were collected, there is no significant impact to the groundwater plume delineation data quality objective. As groundwater samples for geochemical analyses will be collected during the Q1-2021 event, there is no significant impact to the natural attenuation data quality objective. • At MW-26D no groundwater samples were collected. As a VOC sample was collected during the Q3-2020 event, there is no significant impact to the groundwater plume delineation data quality objective. As groundwater samples for geochemical analyses will be collected during the Q1-2021 event, there is no significant impact to the natural attenuation data quality objective. 1 3-1 Section 3 Groundwater Monitoring Results Groundwater monitoring results from the Q4-2020 event, specifically groundwater elevations and analytical results, are presented below. 3.1 Groundwater Elevations Measured groundwater elevations are presented in Table 2 and on the potentiometric groundwater surface maps (Figures 2 and 3). Vertical gradients were calculated using the approach described by EPA (EPA 2016). The potentiometric groundwater contours were developed from manual groundwater elevation measurements collected during the synoptic event on December 7, 2020, and separate measurements collected on December 6, 2020. The following discusses the groundwater elevation evaluations. Based on the observed piezometric heads, the subsurface was divided into the following hydraulic zones:  Perched Zone: This zone is situated above the water table; it exhibits significantly higher piezometric heads than what is observed at other wells. The only wells that exhibit this feature are MW-06 (screened 100 to 130 feet below ground surface [bgs]) and MW-29A (screened 120 to 130 feet bgs). Perched head data have not been contoured.  Shallow Aquifer Zone: This zone extends to approximately 220 feet bgs at VAMC Building 7 and gets shallower to the west as the ground surface dips. The shallow aquifer zone is contoured (using a 10-foot-contour interval) on Figure 2. • Flow directions are generally east to west, with horizontal gradients approximately 0.014 feet/foot along the 2,500 feet between MW-24 and MW-34. Over the next 1,000 feet between MW-34 and MW-18, the horizontal gradients are approximately 0.012 feet/foot. Between MW-13S and MW-14S (approximately 500 feet), horizontal gradients are an order of magnitude higher, at approximately 0.12 feet/foot.  Deep Aquifer Zone: This zone sits below approximately 260 feet bgs at VAMC Building 7 and gets shallower to the west as the ground surface dips. The deep aquifer zone heads are contoured on Figure 3. • Flow directions are generally east to west. Horizontal gradients between MW-23C and MW-34C are approximately 0.002 feet/foot, and 0.013 feet/foot between MW-34C and MW-13L. • Piezometric heads at MW-03RB/C/D show that heads are approximately 18 feet lower than in the shallow aquifer zone situated approximately 40 feet above. These steep vertical gradients are indicative of hydraulic separation between the shallow and deep aquifer zones; likely because of the presence of a semi-confining unit between 220 and 260 feet bgs. Section 3 • Groundwater Monitoring Results 3-2 • Heads at MW-03RC/D are nearly identical despite spanning nearly 35 vertical feet of the aquifer. This likely indicates the lack of significant aquitard units within the deep aquifer zone.  Intermediate Zone: This zone sits between the shallow and deep aquifer zones (approximately 220 to 260 feet bgs) at wells near VAMC Building 7 including MW-23B, MW-25B, MW-26B, MW-29C, and MW-30A. The zone is characterized by heads that are slightly lower than those in the shallow aquifer zone. It is unclear how laterally extensive this zone is and whether it is bounded by lower permeability units. Head data from this unit have not been contoured. Vertical gradients, which are typically strongly downward on-site, dissipate along the east to west groundwater flow path. While MW-34C/D and MW-32C are estimated to be screened in the deep aquifer zone, there is little distinction in heads between MW-34C/D and MW-32C and the shallow aquifer zone at MW-34A/B and MW-32A/B. West of MW-34, vertical head gradients shift upwards, with artesian conditions present in the deeper portions of the shallow aquifer zone at wells MW-17D and MW-14D, just east of the fault. These two wells were reclassified as shallow aquifer zone wells following the installation and measurement of MW-13L into the deep aquifer zone, where heads are lower than in the shallow aquifer zone. Groundwater trends at this location will continue to be monitored and evaluated. West of the fault, the vertical head differences, and therefore, the distinction between the shallow and deep aquifer zones, are not present. 3.2 Groundwater Analytical Results Analytical results from the Q4-2020 groundwater monitoring event are presented below. 3.2.1 Volatile Organic Compounds Groundwater samples were collected and analyzed for VOCs. Table 4 presents the concentrations of detected VOCs compared to the EPA maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) or regional screening levels (RSLs) for tap water (for compounds without an established MCL). Detections are presented as bolded values and exceedances of the MCL or RSL are presented as highlighted values. Additionally, the approximate extent of PCE in groundwater, and results for PCE and trichloroethene (TCE) are shown in Figure 4. This figure also presents the projected fault traces (Davis 1983, Personius 2009) and the monitoring well transect lines. A total of 64 samples were collected for VOC analysis. Of those, PCE exceeded the MCL (5 µg/L) in 18 samples, with concentrations ranging from 5.7 to 220 µg/L. The highest concentrations of PCE were detected in MW-02 (220 µg/L), MW-01S (160 µg/L), and MW-03RB (170 µg/L). PCE was detected at concentrations less than 5 µg/L in 18 samples and was not detected (concentrations less than the reporting limit of 1 µg/L) in 28 samples. PCE was nondetect or below the MCL in MW-01D, MW-03RD, MW-08B/C, MW-16D, MW-29B/C, and MW-34C/D, indicating a possible vertical boundary for the PCE plume in these locations. PCE was nondetect or below the MCL in MW-05R, MW-06, MW-23A/B/C, MW-24, MW-25, MW-26, MW-27, and MW-28, bounding the plume to the east. PCE was nondetect or below the MCL in MW-17S/D, MW-21, MW-22, MW-31A/B/C, and MW-36, providing a southern plume boundary. PCE was nondetect or below the MCL in MW-12S/D, MW-15S/D, and MW-37S/D, bounding the plume to the west. PCE was Section 3 • Groundwater Monitoring Results 3-3 nondetect at MW-30RA/RB/C, MW-32A/B/C, and MW-38S/D, bounding the plume to the north (Figure 4). TCE was detected at concentrations below the MCL (5 µg/L) in 24 samples of the 64 samples collected and exceeded the MCL at MW-14S (6.7 µg/L). Low-level (less than 4 µg/L) detections of cis-1,2-dichloroethene were observed in 16 samples, with the highest detection at MW-14S (1.9 µg/L). There were no detections of vinyl chloride. 3.2.2 1,4-Dioxane Analytical results for 1,4-dioxane are presented in Table 4. Because no MCL is established for 1,4-dioxane, results are screened against the RSL of 0.46 µg/L (EPA 2020). Concentrations of 1,4-dioxane greater than the RSL were observed in the field duplicate for MW-36 (3.1 J µg/L), however; 1,4-dioxane was not detected in the parent sample for MW-36. This suggests that the 1,4-dioxane detection in the field duplicate is likely an erroneous result and will be resampled during the Q2-2021 event. There were no other detections of 1,4-dioxane. 3.2.3 General Chemistry Total (unfiltered) metal concentrations provide information on the general chemistry of groundwater (i.e., salinity), and redox conditions (i.e., redox sensitive metals such as arsenic). Analytical results for total (unfiltered) metals are presented in Table 5. The highest observed concentrations of redox sensitive metals were as follows:  Concentrations of arsenic greater than 1 µg/L were observed at MW-02, MW-04, MW-05R, MW-06, MW-13S, MW-16S, MW-18, MW-19, MW-20S/D, MW-21, MW-24, MW-25A, MW-27, MW-28, and MW-29A/C  Concentrations of iron greater than 500 µg/L were observed at MW-13S, MW-19, MW-23A, MW-30C, and MW-31C.  Concentrations of manganese greater than 500 µg/L were observed at MW-13S, MW-23A, MW-31C, and MW-36. DO, ORP, sulfate, nitrate, ferrous iron, and methane are geochemical parameters that can be used to evaluate redox conditions. Reductive dechlorination of PCE to TCE and cis-1,2-dichloroethene generally occurs under iron-reducing to sulfate-reducing conditions, while complete dechlorination to ethene and ethane generally occurs under sulfate-reducing to methanogenic conditions (EPA 2006). Conditions are considered aerobic when DO is greater than 0.5 mg/L, iron-reducing when ferrous iron is greater than 0.5 mg/L, and methanogenic when methane is greater than 1 mg/L (EPA 2006). As presented in Table 6, high DO (greater than 0.5 mg/L) suggest that groundwater conditions at the site are generally aerobic. Low ferrous iron (less than 1.0 mg/L), low methane (less than 3.6 µg/L), and high sulfate (74 to 216 mg/L) in most wells further support the observation that conditions are generally aerobic (Table 6). Conditions are locally anaerobic at MW-03RD (negative ORP, low DO, and detectable methane), MW-05R (negative ORP, high ferrous iron, detectable methane), MW-23A (negative ORP, high ferrous iron, detectable methane, ethane and ethene), and MW-31C (negative ORP, high ferrous iron, detectable methane, ethane, and ethene). Section 3 • Groundwater Monitoring Results 3-4 Chloride concentrations ranged from 47.9 mg/L (MW-34D) to 462 mg/L (MW-08A). Alkalinity ranged from 219 mg/L (MW-08A) to 405 mg/L (MW-37S). TOC was generally less than 2 mg/L except for MW-03RA (2.32 mg/L), MW-03RB (2.28 mg/L), MW-03RC (3.2 mg/L), MW-03RD (9.06 mg/L), MW-08C (3.98 mg/L), and MW-16D (2.88 mg/L). 4-1 Section 4 Summary This report presents the results from the Q4-2020 groundwater monitoring event. Further analysis and evaluation of these results will be presented in the RI report. Groundwater flow directions are generally east to west. There are four distinct hydraulic zones in the subsurface: perched, shallow aquifer zone, deep aquifer zone, and intermediate zone. There is a hydraulic separation between the shallow and deep aquifer zones, likely because of the presence of a semi-confining silt/clay unit. The lateral extent of the perched and middle zones are unclear. Vertical gradients, which are typically strongly downward on-site, dissipate along the east to west groundwater flow path towards MW-34. West of MW-34, vertical head gradients generally shift upwards in the deeper portions of the shallow zone aquifer, with artesian conditions present in wells MW-17D and MW-14D, just east of the fault. West of the fault, vertical head differences and the distinction between the shallow and deep aquifer zones are not present. The significant amount of new piezometric head data collected has allowed for the more refined understanding of groundwater flow directions, gradients, and vertical head differences described above. This hydraulic framework, notably the separation of the aquifer into two distinct hydraulic zones, will be incorporated into the conceptual site model and compared to the other datasets collected from the wells, including lithologic and water quality data. Further refinements to the zonation of the system may be necessary upon review of the conceptual site model and will be incorporated into future reports. PCE was nondetect or below the MCL in MW-01D, MW-03RD, MW-08C, MW-16D, MW-29B/C, and MW-34C/D, providing a possible vertical extent for the PCE plume in these locations. PCE was nondetect or below the MCL in MW-05R, MW-06, MW-23A/B/C, MW-24, MW-25, MW-26, MW-27, and MW-28, bounding the plume to the east. PCE was nondetect or below the MCL in MW-17S/D, MW-21, MW-22, MW-31A/B/C, and MW-36, providing a southern plume boundary. PCE was nondetect or below the MCL in MW-12S/D, MW-15S/D, and MW-37S/D, bounding the plume to the west. PCE was nondetect at MW-30RA/RB/C, MW-32A/B/C, and MW-38S/D, bounding the plume to the north (Figure 4). The highest concentrations of PCE were detected in MW-02 (220 µg/L), MW-01S (160 µg/L), and MW-03RB (170 µg/L). The highest TCE concentration was observed in MW-14S (6.7 µg/L) (Figure 4). Along with VOCs, samples were collected for the determination of general chemistry including, ORP, DO, metals, sulfate, nitrate/nitrite, chloride, alkalinity, TOC, ferrous iron, and dissolved gases. These data were used to determine that the redox conditions at the site are generally aerobic. The observation of aerobic conditions and low concentrations of degradation daughter products suggest that degradation of PCE at the Site is limited. Further evaluation of plume delineation, concentrations trends, and attenuation will be presented in the RI report. Section 5 References CDM Smith. 2020a. Phase 2 Quality Assurance Project Plan, Operable Unit 1, 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Kansas City District. CDM Smith. 2020b. Phase 2 Remedial Investigation Work Plan, Operable Unit 1, 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Davis, F.D. 1983. Geologic Map of the Central Wasatch Front, Utah. Utah Geological and Mineral Survey. Map 54-A – Wasatch Front Series. EPA. 2020. Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) Generic Tables. November. Available online at https://www.epa.gov/risk/regional-screening-levels-rsls. EPA. 2016. EPA On-line Tools for Site Assessment Calculation. Accessed March 2, 2020 at: https://www3.epa.gov/ceampubl/learn2model/part-two/onsite/vgradient.html. EPA. Lu, X., Kampbell, D.H., and J.T. Wilson. 2006. Evaluation of the Role of Dehalococcoides Organisms in the Natural Attenuation of Chlorinated Ethylenes in Groundwater. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development. EPA 2005. Groundwater Sampling and Monitoring with Direct Push Technologies, Table 3.1. OSWER No. 9200.1-51, EPA 540/R-04/005 Jacobs. 2019. 2019 Indoor Air Data Summary Report, Operable Unit 2 Remedial Investigation 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Personius, S.F. and W.E. Scott. 2009. Surficial Geologic Map of the Salt Lake City Segment and Parts of Adjacent Segments of the Wasatch Fault Zone, Davis, Salt Lake, and Utah Counties, Utah. Figures &< &< !.!(!( !( !( ! ! ! &< &<&< &<&< &< &<&<&< &<&<&<&< &< &< &< &<&<&< &<&<&<&< &<&< &<&< &<&< &<&< &< &< &<&< &< &< &<&<&< &<&<&<&< &<&<&<&< &<&< &<&<&< &<&<&< &<&<&< &<&<&< &<&<&<&< ! Sunnyside Park University of Utah Well #2 University of Utah Well #1Fountain of Ute EPA-MW-03 EPA-MW-05 SLC-18EastBenchSegmentoftheWasatchFault1 EastBenchFaultSpur2 East Bench Fault Spur2 MW-01SMW-01D MW-02 MW-03R MW-04 MW-05R MW-06 MW-08 MW-12SMW-12D MW-13SMW-13D MW-14SMW-14D MW-15SMW-15D MW-16SMW-16D MW-17SMW-17D MW-18 MW-19 MW-20SMW-20D MW-21 MW-22 MW-23 MW-24MW-25 MW-26 MW-27 MW-28 MW-29 MW-30MW-30R MW-31 MW-32 MW-34 MW-36 MW-37SMW-37D MW-38SMW-38D MW-13L Mt. Olivet Well VA Medical CenterBuilding 7 East HighSchool Mt. OlivetCemetery 500 S GUARDSMAN WAY F O O T H IL L D R 700 S 800 S 500 S 1300 E 1100 E SUNNYSIDE AVE 900 S Red B utte Creek Figure 1Site Location MapLegend &<Monitoring Well &<Abandoned Monitoring Well !.Drinking Water Supply Well !(Irrigation Well !LandmarkRed Butte CreekFault Line File Path: J:\238824_VA_Medical_Salt_Lake\MXD\Sampling_2020\DSR_2020Q4\Fig1_DSR_SiteMap.mxd WAGNERA 4/6/2021 Map Area UTAH Notes:(1) Location of University of Utah Well #1 is approximate; well is located less than 100 feet east of Fountain of Ute.(2) Proposed monitoring wells MW-07, MW-09, MW-10, MW-11, MW-33, and MW-35 were not installed. OU = operable unitPCE = tetrachloroetheneVHA = Veterans Health Administration 1 Davis, F.D. 1983. Geologic Map of the Central Wasatch Front, Utah. Utah Geological and Mineral Survey. Map 54-A – Wasatch Front Series. May. 2 Personius, S.F. and Scott, W.E. 2009. Surficial Geologic Map of the Salt Lake City Segment and Parts of Adjacent Segments of the Wasatch Fault Zone, Davis, Salt Lake, and Utah Counties, Utah Q4 2020 Data Summary ReportOU1 700 South 1600 East PCE PlumeSalt Lake City, Utah 0 500 1,000Feet . !( ! ! &<&< &< &<&< &<&< &< &<&<&< &<&<&<&< &< &< &< &<&<&< &<&<&<&< &<&< &<&< &<&< &<&< &< &< &<&< &< &< &<&<&< &<&<&<&< &<&<&<&< &<&< &<&<&< &<&<&< &<&<&< &<&<&< &<&<&<&< ! Sunnyside Park EastBenchSegmentofthe W asatch Fault1 East Bench Fault Spur2 East Bench Fault Spur 2 MW-01S4507.80MW-01D4493.59 MW-024514.78 MW-03RA4509.94MW-03RB4493.63 MW-044520.66 MW-05R4523.20 MW-064554.87 MW-08A4479.67 MW-08C4482.86 MW-08B4481.28 MW-12SDRYMW-12D4303.65 MW-13S4468.77MW-13D4469.06 MW-14S4410.33MW-14D4422.27 MW-15S4297.94 MW-15D4297.02 MW-16S4444.64MW-16D4444.95 MW-17S4458.49MW-17D4465.24 MW-184477.07MW-194476.40 MW-20S4475.35MW-20D4475.21 MW-214498.62 MW-224499.47 MW-23A4523.35MW-23B4516.37 MW-244523.28 MW-26A4521.39 MW-29B4522.95 MW-29A4561.91 MW-30RB4493.11MW-30C4492.51 MW-30RA4495.13 MW-31B4518.41 MW-31ADRY MW-32A4482.64MW-32B4483.13MW-32C4483.75 MW-34C4492.76 MW-34B4492.11 MW-34A4492.14 MW-03RC4493.52MW-03RD4492.90 MW-23C4494.57 MW-25A4522.30MW-25B4517.38MW-25C4494.34 MW-26B4517.24MW-26C4494.55MW-26D4494.42 MW-274523.88 MW-284525.12 MW-29C4519.76 MW-31C4505.82 MW-34D4492.58 MW-364383.77 MW-37S4329.55MW-37D4305.69 MW-38S4478.05MW-38D4479.27 MW-13L4461.14 4410 4 4 2 0 4530 4 4 3 0 4 4 4 0 4 4 5 0 4 4 6 0 4 4 7 0 4 4 9 0 4 4 8 0 4 5 1 0 4 5 0 0 4530 4 4 4 0 4 4 7 0 4490 4510 4 4 1 0 4 4 2 0 4 4 3 0 4 4 5 0 4 4 6 0 4 4 8 0 4520 Mt. Olivet Well VA Medical CenterBuilding 7 East HighSchool Mt. OlivetCemetery 500 S F O O T H IL L D R 700 S 800 S 500 S 1300 E 1100 E SUNNYSIDE AVE 900 S Red B utte C reek Figure 2Potentiometric GroundwaterSurface Map - Shallow Aquifer Legend &<Monitoring Well !(Irrigation Well !LandmarkRed Butte CreekFault LineGroundwater Contour Groundwater Flow Direction File Path: J:\238824_VA_Medical_Salt_Lake\MXD\Sampling_2020\DSR_2020Q4\Fig2_DSR_GW_A_Aquifer.mxd WAGNERA 4/6/2021 6:41:02 PM Map Area UTAH Notes:- All ground surface elevations in feet amsl- Measurements taken December 6th through 8th 2020.- Water levels shown in grey were not used for the generation of the potentiometric contours and are shown for information only- Water level values for MW-14S/D and MW-17S/D were averaged during contouring. 1 Davis, F.D. 1983. Geologic Map of the Central Wasatch Front, Utah. Utah Geological and Mineral Survey. Map 54-A – Wasatch Front Series. May. 2 Personius, S.F. and Scott, W.E. 2009. Surficial Geologic Map of the Salt Lake City Segment and Parts of Adjacent Segments of the Wasatch Fault Zone, Davis, Salt Lake, and Utah Counties, Utah Q4 2020 Data Summary ReportOU1 700 South 1600 East PCE PlumeSalt Lake City, Utah 0 500 1,000Feet .Dashed Line - Inferred Extent amsl = above mean sea levelOU = operable unitVHA = Veterans Health Administration !( ! ! &<&< &< &<&< &<&< &< &<&<&< &<&<&<&< &< &< &< &<&<&< &<&<&<&< &<&< &<&< &<&< &<&< &< &< &<&< &< &< &<&<&< &<&<&<&< &<&<&<&< &<&< &<&<&< &<&<&< &<&<&< &<&<&< &<&<&<&< ! Sunnyside Park EastBenchSegmentofthe W asatch Fault1 East Bench Fault Spur2 East Bench Fault Spur 2 MW-01S4507.80MW-01D4493.59 MW-024514.78 MW-044520.66 MW-05R4523.20 MW-064554.87 MW-12SDRY MW-12D4303.65 MW-13S4468.77MW-13D4469.06 MW-14S4410.33MW-14D4422.27MW-15S4297.94 MW-15D4297.02 MW-16S4444.64MW-16D4444.95 MW-17S4458.49MW-17D4465.24 MW-184477.07MW-194476.40 MW-20S4475.35MW-20D4475.21 MW-214498.62 MW-224499.47 MW-244523.28 MW-274523.88 MW-284525.12 MW-03RA4509.94MW-03RB4493.63MW-03RC4493.52MW-03RD4492.90 MW-08A4479.67 MW-08B4481.28MW-08C4482.86 MW-23A4523.35MW-23B4516.37MW-23C4494.57 MW-25A4522.30MW-25B4517.38MW-25C4494.34 MW-26A4521.39MW-26B4517.24MW-26C4494.55MW-26D4494.42 MW-29A4561.91MW-29B4522.95MW-29C4519.76 MW-30RA4495.13MW-30RB4493.11MW-30C4492.51 MW-31ADRYMW-31B4518.41MW-31C4505.82 MW-32A4482.64MW-32B4483.13MW-32C4483.75 MW-34A4492.14MW-34B4492.11MW-34C4492.76MW-34D4492.58 MW-364383.77 MW-37S4329.55MW-37D4305.69 MW-38S4478.05MW-38D4479.27 MW-13L4461.14 4460 4470 4480 4500 4490 4 4 9 0 4470 4480 4500 Mt. Olivet Well VA Medical CenterBuilding 7 East HighSchool Mt. OlivetCemetery 500 S F O O T H IL L D R 700 S 800 S 500 S 1300 E 1100 E SUNNYSIDE AVE 900 S Red B utte Creek Figure 3Potentiometric GroundwaterSurface Map - Deep Aquifer Legend &<Monitoring Well !(Irrigation Well !LandmarkRed Butte CreekFault LineGroundwater Contour Groundwater Flow Direction File Path: J:\238824_VA_Medical_Salt_Lake\MXD\Sampling_2020\DSR_2020Q4\Fig3_DSR_GW_B_Aquifer.mxd WAGNERA 4/6/2021 7:13:56 PM Map Area UTAH Notes:- All ground surface elevations in feet amsl- Measurements taken December 6th through 8th 2020.- Water levels shown in grey were not used for the generation of the potentiometric contours and are shown for information onlyamsl = above mean sea levelOU = operable unitVHA = Veterans Health Administration 1 Davis, F.D. 1983. Geologic Map of the Central Wasatch Front, Utah. Utah Geological and Mineral Survey. Map 54-A – Wasatch Front Series. May. 2 Personius, S.F. and Scott, W.E. 2009. Surficial Geologic Map of the Salt Lake City Segment and Parts of Adjacent Segments of the Wasatch Fault Zone, Davis, Salt Lake, and Utah Counties, Utah Q4 2020 Data Summary ReportOU1 700 South 1600 East PCE PlumeSalt Lake City, Utah 0 500 1,000Feet .Dashed Line - Inferred Extent !( &<&< &< &< &<&<&< &<&<&<&< &< &< &< &<&<&< &<&<&<&< &<&< &<&< &<&< &< &< &< &<&< &< &< &<&<&< &<&<&<&< &<&<&<&< &<&< &<&<&< &<&<&< &<&<&< &<&<&< &<&<&<&< &<&< &< MW-01S MW-02 MW-03R MW-04 MW-05R MW-06 MW-08 MW-12S MW-13S MW-14S MW-15S MW-16S MW-17S MW-18 MW-19 MW-20S MW-21 MW-22 MW-23 MW-24 MW-26 MW-27 MW-28 MW-29 MW-30 MW-31 MW-32 MW-34 MW-25 MW-38S/D MW-37S/D MW-36 MW-30RA SUNNYSIDE AVE 500 S V A L D E Z D R W A H L E N W A Y GU A R D S M A N W A Y 700 S 800 S 1300 E 1100 E SUNNYSIDE AVE 900 S F O O T H I L L D FOOTHILL DR Mt. Olivet Well R e d B u tt e C r e e k Figure 4 Q4 2020 Groundwater PCE and TCE Results and Approximate Extent of PCE in Groundwater Legend &<Monitoring Well !(Irrigation Well Monitoring Well Transect Line Red Butte Creek Fault Line File Path: J:\238824_VA_Medical_Salt_Lake\MXD\Sampling_2020\DSR_2020Q4\Fig4_DSR_PCE_and_TCE_in_GW_All.mxd WAGNERA 4/6/2021 Notes 1. Proposed monitoring wells MW-07, MW-09, MW-10, MW-11, MW-33, and MW-35 were not installed. 2. Plume contours were developed using Leapfrog 3-dimensional visualization software to interpolate data from the Q4 2020 groundwater sampling event. The contours represent a top-down view of the 3-dimensional extent of the plume as interpreted in the Leapfrog software. Dashed Line - Inferred Extent PCE Contours 5 µg/L 50 µg/L PCE and TCE Concentrations (µg/L) = < 5 µg/L = 5 - 50 µg/L = > 50 µg/L Q4 2020 Data Summary Report OU1 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah ft bgs = feet below ground surface J = Result is estimated U = Analyte was not detected at the associated value 0250500 Feet .OU = operable unit PCE = tetrachloroethene TCE = trichloroethene μg/L = micrograms per liter 12/16/2020 PCE (μg/L) 220 TCE (μg/L) 0.55 J MW‐02 (175.5 ‐ 202.5 ft bgs) 12/10/2020 PCE (μg/L) 40 TCE (μg/L) 0.24 J MW‐04 (143 ‐ 173 ft bgs) 12/14/2020 PCE (μg/L) 4.8 TCE (μg/L) 6.7 12/14/2020 PCE (μg/L) 30 TCE (μg/L) 0.27 J MW‐14S (4.5 ‐ 14.5 ft bgs) MW‐14D (49 ‐ 54 ft bgs) 12/14/2020 PCE (μg/L) 53 TCE (μg/L) 0.44 J MW‐18 (80 ‐ 90 ft bgs) 12/14/2020 PCE (μg/L) 49 TCE (μg/L) 0.5 J MW‐19 (84 ‐ 94 ft bgs) 12/14/2020 PCE (μg/L) 4.3 TCE (μg/L) 0.13 J 12/15/2020 PCE (μg/L) 9.1 TCE (μg/L) 0.26 J MW‐20S (79.5 ‐ 89.5 ft bgs) MW‐20D (119 ‐ 129 ft bgs) 12/11/2020 PCE (μg/L) 27 TCE (μg/L) 1.3 12/11/2020 PCE (μg/L) 51 TCE (μg/L) 0.47 J 12/16/2020 PCE (μg/L) 16 TCE (μg/L) 0.17 J MW‐13S (15.5 ‐ 20.5 ft bgs) MW‐13L (150 ‐ 160 ft bgs) MW‐13D (79 ‐ 84 ft bgs) 12/16/2020 PCE (μg/L) 160 TCE (μg/L) 1.1 12/15/2020 PCE (μg/L) 1 U TCE (μg/L) 1 U MW01S (184 ‐ 224 ft bgs) MW‐01D (364 ‐ 404 ft bgs) 12/11/2020 PCE (μg/L) 29 TCE (μg/L) 0.19 J 12/11/2020 PCE (μg/L) 170 TCE (μg/L) 1.9 12/11/2020 PCE (μg/L) 5.7 TCE (μg/L) 1 U 12/11/2020 PCE (μg/L) 1 U TCE (μg/L) 1 U MW‐03RA (215 ‐ 220 ft bgs) MW‐03RD (359 ‐ 364 ft bgs) MW‐03RB (267 ‐ 272 ft bgs) MW‐03RC (307 ‐ 312 ft bgs) 12/10/2020 PCE (μg/L) 1 U TCE (μg/L) 1 U MW‐06 (100 ‐ 130 ft bgs) 12/9/2020 PCE (μg/L) 52 TCE (μg/L) 0.42 J 12/9/2020 PCE (μg/L) 3.9 TCE (μg/L) 1 U 12/9/2020 PCE (μg/L) 1 U TCE (μg/L) 1 U MW‐08A (91 ‐ 106 ft bgs) MW‐08B (180 ‐ 200 ft bgs) MW‐08C (304 ‐ 309 ft bgs) 12/9/2020 PCE (μg/L) 1 U TCE (μg/L) 1 U MW‐12D (88.5 ‐ 93.5 ft bgs) 12/9/2020 PCE (μg/L) 0.39 J TCE (μg/L) 1 U 12/9/2020 PCE (μg/L) 1 U TCE (μg/L) 1 U MW‐15S (52.5 ‐ 55 ft bgs) MW‐15D (69 ‐ 74 ft bgs) 12/10/2020 PCE (μg/L) 24 TCE (μg/L) 0.21 J 12/10/2020 PCE (μg/L) 1 U TCE (μg/L) 1 U MW‐16S (9 ‐ 19 ft bgs) MW‐16D (62 ‐ 72 ft bgs) 12/11/2020 PCE (μg/L) 0.7 J TCE (μg/L) 1 U 12/13/2020 PCE (μg/L) 2.3 TCE (μg/L) 1 U MW‐17S (6 ‐ 21 ft bgs) MW‐17D (44 ‐ 54 ft bgs) 12/14/2020 PCE (μg/L) 1.1 TCE (μg/L) 1 U MW‐21 (62 ‐ 72 ft bgs) 12/14/2020 PCE (μg/L) 2.5 TCE (μg/L) 1 U MW‐22 (64 ‐ 74 ft bgs) 12/9/2020 PCE (μg/L) 1 U TCE (μg/L) 0.11 J 12/10/2020 PCE (μg/L) 1 U TCE (μg/L) 1 U 12/9/2020 PCE (μg/L) 1 U TCE (μg/L) 1 U MW‐23B (250 ‐ 260 ft bgs) MW‐23C (348 ‐ 358 ft bgs) MW‐23A (210 ‐ 220 ft bgs) 12/9/2020 PCE (μg/L) 1.3 TCE (μg/L) 1 U 12/10/2020 PCE (μg/L) 1 U TCE (μg/L) 1 U 12/10/2020 PCE (μg/L) 0.76 J TCE (μg/L) 1 U MW‐25A (201 ‐ 211 ft bgs) MW‐25C (307.5 ‐ 317.5 ft bgs) MW‐25B (231 ‐ 241 ft bgs) 12/8/2020 PCE (μg/L) 1 U TCE (μg/L) 0.15 J MW‐27 (200 ‐ 220 ft bgs) 12/8/2020 PCE (μg/L) 1 U TCE (μg/L) 0.18 J MW‐28 (190 ‐ 210 ft bgs) 12/13/2020 PCE (μg/L) 9.6 TCE (μg/L) 0.18 J 12/11/2020 PCE (μg/L) 0.47 J TCE (μg/L) 1 U 12/11/2020 PCE (μg/L) 1 U TCE (μg/L) 1 U MW‐29C (230 ‐ 240 ft bgs) MW‐29A (120 ‐ 130 ft bgs) MW‐29B (190 ‐ 200 ft bgs) 12/9/2020 PCE (μg/L) 0.4 J TCE (μg/L) 1 U MW‐30C (317 ‐ 327 ft bgs) 12/8/2020 PCE (μg/L) 0.18 J TCE (μg/L) 0.34 J 12/8/2020 PCE (μg/L) 1 U TCE (μg/L) 0.19 J MW‐30RA (240 ‐ 250 ft bgs) MW‐30RB (280 ‐ 290 ft bgs) 12/11/2020 PCE (μg/L) 0.54 J TCE (μg/L) 1 U 12/11/2020 PCE (μg/L) 1 U TCE (μg/L) 1 U 12/11/2020 PCE (μg/L) 1 U TCE (μg/L) 1 U MW‐31C (228 ‐ 238 ft bgs) MW‐31A (138 ‐ 148 ft bgs) MW‐31B (190 ‐ 200 ft bgs) 12/10/2020 PCE (μg/L) 0.46 J TCE (μg/L) 1 U 12/10/2020 PCE (μg/L) 0.34 J TCE (μg/L) 1 U 12/10/2020 PCE (μg/L) 1 U TCE (μg/L) 1 U MW‐32C (260 ‐ 270 ft bgs) MW‐32A (114 ‐ 124 ft bgs) MW‐32B (170 ‐ 180 ft bgs) 12/15/2020 PCE (μg/L) 30 TCE (μg/L) 0.66 J 12/17/2020 PCE (μg/L) 5.8 TCE (μg/L) 0.39 J 12/17/2020 PCE (μg/L) 1 U TCE (μg/L) 1 U 12/13/2020 PCE (μg/L) 1 U TCE (μg/L) 1 U MW‐34B (175 ‐ 185 ft bgs) MW‐34C (250 ‐ 260 ft bgs) MW‐34A (140 ‐ 150 ft bgs) MW‐34D (315 ‐ 325 ft bgs) 12/14/2020 PCE (μg/L) 0.28 J TCE (μg/L) 1 U MW‐36 (47 ‐ 52 ft bgs) 12/14/2020 PCE (μg/L) 1 U TCE (μg/L) 1 U 12/14/2020 PCE (μg/L) 1 U TCE (μg/L) 1 U MW‐37S (25 ‐ 35 ft bgs) MW‐37D (60 ‐ 70 ft bgs) 12/16/2020 PCE (μg/L) 1 U TCE (μg/L) 1 U 12/16/2020 PCE (μg/L) 1 U TCE (μg/L) 1 U MW‐38D (60 ‐ 70 ft bgs) MW‐38S (27 ‐ 37 ft bgs)12/8/2020 PCE (μg/L) 1 U TCE (μg/L) 1 U MW‐05R (198 ‐ 228 ft bgs) 12/8/2020 PCE (μg/L) 1 U TCE (μg/L) 1 U MW‐24 (209.5 ‐ 239.5 ft bgs) 12/16/2020 PCE (μg/L) 1 U TCE (μg/L) 0.18 J 12/16/2020 PCE (μg/L) 1 U TCE (μg/L) 1 U 12/17/2020 PCE (μg/L) 0.4 J TCE (μg/L) 1 U MW‐26A (205 ‐ 215 ft bgs) MW‐26B (235 ‐ 245 ft bgs) MW‐26C (347.75 ‐ 357.75 ft bgs) Tables Table 1 Monitoring Well Survey Data and Construction Details Location Sample Interval Y Coordinate (Utah State Plane, ft)1 X Coordinate (Utah State Plane, ft)1 Surface Elevation (ft amsl)2 Top of casing elevation (ft amsl)2 Total Well Depth (ft bgs) Screen Start (ft bgs) Screen End (ft bgs) Pump Depth (ft bgs)Pump Type MW-01S -4664.80 224 184 224 204 Solinist bladder pump MW-01D -4664.80 404 364 404 384 Solinist bladder pump MW-02 - 7443618.23 1545346.65 4685.76 4685.24 205.5 175.5 202.5 195 Solinist bladder pump A 4698.12 223 215 220 215 ZIST/Gas - with reciever B 4697.90 275 267 272 267 ZIST/Gas - with reciever C 4697.92 315 307 312 307 ZIST/Gas - with reciever D 4697.93 367 359 364 359 ZIST/Gas - with reciever MW-04 - 7442902.88 1545176.20 4657.20 4656.85 173 143 173 160 Solinist bladder pump MW-05R - 7444293.27 1546450.38 4738.25 4737.99 230 198 228 222 Solinist bladder pump MW-06 - 7442705.05 1546174.37 4679.13 4678.66 134 100 130 128 Solinist bladder pump A 4539.81 106 91 106 99 Solinist bladder pump B 4539.77 200 180 200 190 Solinist bladder pump C 4539.68 312 304 309 304 ZIST/Gas - with reciever MW-12S - 7442144.27 1540464.18 4360.35 4360.03 65 50 60 60 Solinist bladder pump MW-12D - 7442139.2 1540464.27 4360.40 4360.07 95 88.5 93.5 90 Solinist bladder pump MW-13S - 7442104.9 1541844.99 4483.26 4482.93 22 15.5 20.5 19 Solinist bladder pump MW-13D - 7442104.65 1541840.18 4482.93 4482.62 90 79 84 82 Solinist bladder pump MW-13L - 7442106.298 1541851.01 4483.67 4483.23 160 150 160 155 Solinist bladder pump MW-14S - 7441871.55 1541340.04 4415.96 4415.69 15 4.5 14.5 12 Solinist bladder pump MW-14D - 7441874.22 1541345.22 4416.45 4415.93 65 49 54 NA Artesian MW-15S - 7441412.92 1540276.55 4347.65 4347.35 65 52.5 55 54 Solinist bladder pump MW-15D - 7441412.63 1540283.39 4347.99 4347.72 95 69 74 72 Solinist bladder pump MW-16S - 7443049.27 1541188.74 4455.19 4454.83 20 9 19 16.0 Solinist bladder pump MW-16D - 7443052.83 1541188.80 4455.32 4454.84 73 62 72 67 Solinist bladder pump MW-17S - 7441761.45 1542156.28 4465.51 4465.18 22 6 21 20 Solinist bladder pump MW-17D - 7441762.17 1542159.83 4465.86 4465.69 70 44 54 NA Artesian/Solinst bladder pump MW-18 - 7443344.52 1542789.74 4559.06 4558.76 110 80 90 88 Solinist bladder pump MW-19 - 7443109.99 1542791.56 4557.51 4557.16 110 84 94 89 Solinist bladder pump MW-20S - 7442822.74 1542905.98 4558.92 4558.61 90.8 79.5 89.5 88 Solinist bladder pump MW-20D - 7442813.21 1542905.39 4558.46 4558.19 150 119 129 124 Solinist bladder pump MW-21 - 7442343.24 1543130.25 4563.57 4563.32 80 62 72 70 Solinist bladder pump MW-22 - 7441969.31 1543122.59 4563.06 4562.72 120 64 74 72 Solinist bladder pump A 4711.80 222 210 220 210 ZIST/Gas - with reciever B 4711.77 262 250 260 250 ZIST/Gas - with reciever C 4711.69 360 348 358 348 ZIST/Gas - with reciever MW-24 - 7443698.74 1546266.48 4709.77 4709.19 250 209.5 239.5 211 Solinist bladder pump A 4702.02 213 201 211 201 ZIST/Gas - with reciever B 4702.09 243 231 241 231 ZIST/Gas - with reciever C 4702.07 320 307.5 317.5 308 ZIST/Gas - with reciever A 4712.29 217 205 215 205 ZIST/Gas - with reciever B 4712.55 247 235 245 235 ZIST/Gas - with reciever C 4712.51 327 315 325 315 ZIST/Gas - with reciever D 4712.50 360 347.75 357.75 348 ZIST/Gas - with reciever MW-27 - 7443766.76 1546337.14 4712.61 4712.34 220 200 220 210 Solinist bladder pump MW-28 - 7443764.76 1546532.92 4712.80 4712.54 210 190 210 204 Solinist bladder pump A 4678.46 132 120 130 128 ZIST/Gas - w/o reciever B 4678.45 202 190 200 190 ZIST/Gas - with reciever C 4678.68 242 230 240 230 ZIST/Gas - with reciever RA 7445055.62 1545425.12 4722.89 4722.60 252 240 250 245 Solinist bladder pump RB 7445055.62 1545425.12 4722.89 4722.36 294 282 292 285 Solinist bladder pump C 7445073.45 1545424.98 4723.07 4721.92 329 317 327 317 ZIST/Gas - with reciever A 4654.27 150 138 148 138 ZIST/Gas - w/o reciever B 4654.39 202 190 200 190 ZIST/Gas - with reciever C 4654.35 230 228 238 228 ZIST/Gas - with reciever A 4565.67 126 114 124 119 Solinist bladder pump B 4565.63 182 170 180 170 ZIST/Gas - w/o reciever C 4565.59 272 260 270 260 ZIST/Gas - w/o reciever A 4623.09 152 140 150 148 ZIST/Gas - w/o reciever B 4622.71 187 175 185 175 ZIST/Gas - w/o reciever C 4622.63 262 250 260 250 ZIST/Gas - w/o reciever D 4622.58 327 315 325 315 ZIST/Gas - w/o reciever MW-36 -7440955.06 1541547.17 4429.01 4428.49 52 47 52 50 Solinist bladder pump MW-37S -7443160.46 1539938.63 4348.36 4348.00 35 25 35 30 Solinist bladder pump MW-37D -7443160.46 1539938.63 4348.36 4347.97 70 60 70 65 Solinist bladder pump MW-38S -7443931.79 1541593.58 4498.56 4497.64 37 27 37 32 Solinist bladder pump MW-38D -7443931.79 1541593.58 4498.56 4497.80 70 60 70 65 Solinist bladder pump Notes:Acronyms: 1 X/Y Coordinates measured using NAD 83 State Plane Coordinate System amsl = above mean sea level 2 Elevations measured using NAVD 88 vertical datum bgs = below ground surface ft = feet w/o = without ZIST = Zone Isolation Sampling Technology 7443498.84 1543745.66 4623.61 7442512.47 1545351.52 4655.22 7444416.40 1542692.62 4566.22 7442845.95 1545935.59 4679.35 7443676.94 1546071.97 4703.04 7443907.17 1546132.96 4713.25 7443625.54 1542467.21 4540.36 7443809.38 1546280.59 4712.47 7443663.78 1544832.82 4665.50 4698.747444184.94 1545418.19 MW-32 MW-34 MW-26 MW-29 MW-30 MW-03R MW-08 MW-23 MW-25 MW-31 Q4 2020 Data Summary Report Groundwater Sampling Event OU1 Remedial Investigation 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Page 1 of 1 Table 2 Groundwater Elevations and Transducer Locations and Download Dates Location Screen Start (ft bgs) Screen End (ft bgs) Top of Casing Elevation (ft amsl)1 Aquifer Zone Water Level Measurement Date and Time Water Level Depth (ft btoc) Water Level Elevation (ft amsl)1 Direction of Gradient2 Vertical Gradient2 Transducer Download Date and Time MW-01S 184 224 4664.80 Shallow 12/7/20 16:26 157.00 4507.80 12/7/20 16:30 MW-01D 364 404 4664.80 Deep 12/7/20 16:15 171.21 4493.59 12/7/20 16:30 MW-02 175.5 202.5 4685.24 Shallow 12/7/20 16:05 170.46 4514.78 - - - 215 220 4698.12 Shallow 12/7/20 13:15 188.18 4509.94 - 267 272 4697.90 Deep 12/7/20 13:20 204.27 4493.63 - 307 312 4697.92 Deep 12/7/20 13:25 204.40 4493.52 - 359 364 4697.93 Deep 12/7/20 13:30 205.03 4492.90 - MW-04 143 173 4656.85 Shallow 12/7/20 17:00 136.19 4520.66 - - 12/7/20 17:00 MW-05R 198 228 4737.99 Shallow 12/7/20 9:47 214.79 4523.20 - - 12/7/20 10:00 MW-06 100 130 4678.66 Perched 12/7/20 14:45 123.79 4554.87 - - 12/7/20 16:00 91 106 4539.81 Shallow 12/8/20 11:35 60.14 4479.67 - 180 200 4539.77 Shallow 12/8/20 11:38 58.49 4481.28 - 304 309 4539.68 Deep 12/8/20 11:40 56.82 4482.86 - MW-12S 50 60 4360.03 - 12/7/20 12:29 DRY DRY - MW-12D 88.5 93.5 4360.07 - 12/7/20 12:51 56.42 4303.65 - MW-13S 15.5 20.5 4482.93 Shallow 12/6/20 10:50 14.16 4468.77 - MW-13D 79 84 4482.62 Shallow 12/6/20 10:55 13.56 4469.06 12/6/20 11:00 MW-13L 150 160 4483.23 Deep 12/6/20 11:00 22.09 4461.14 MW-14S 4.5 14.5 4415.69 Shallow 12/7/20 16:25 5.36 4410.33 12/7/20 16:30 MW-14D* 49 54 4415.93 Shallow 12/8/20 11:03 -6.34 4422.27 - MW-15S 52.5 55 4347.35 - 12/7/20 12:07 49.41 4297.94 - MW-15D 69 74 4347.72 - 12/7/20 11:46 50.70 4297.02 12/7/20 12:00 MW-16S 9 19 4454.83 Shallow 12/7/20 13:18 10.19 4444.64 - MW-16D 62 72 4454.84 Shallow 12/7/20 13:16 9.89 4444.95 12/7/20 13:30 MW-17S 6 21 4465.18 Shallow 12/8/20 11:14 6.69 4458.49 - MW-17D 44 54 4465.69 Shallow 12/7/20 16:14 0.45 4465.24 - MW-18 80 90 4558.76 Shallow 12/7/20 13:53 81.69 4477.07 - - - MW-19 84 94 4557.16 Shallow 12/7/20 14:04 80.76 4476.40 - - - MW-20S 79.5 89.5 4558.61 Shallow 12/7/20 14:19 83.26 4475.35 12/7/20 14:30 MW-20D 119 129 4558.19 Shallow 12/7/20 14:33 82.98 4475.21 12/7/20 14:30 MW-21 62 72 4563.32 Shallow 12/7/20 15:10 64.70 4498.62 - - 12/7/20 15:00 MW-22 64 74 4562.72 Shallow 12/7/20 15:26 63.25 4499.47 - - 12/7/20 15:30 210 220 4711.80 Shallow 12/7/20 10:55 188.45 4523.35 - 250 260 4711.77 Intermediate 12/7/20 11:07 195.40 4516.37 - 348 358 4711.69 Deep 12/7/20 11:15 217.12 4494.57 - MW-24 209.5 239.5 4709.19 Shallow 12/7/20 12:10 185.91 4523.28 - - - 201 211 4702.02 Shallow 12/7/20 12:20 179.72 4522.30 - 231 241 4702.09 Intermediate 12/7/20 12:26 184.71 4517.38 - 307.5 317.5 4702.07 Deep 12/7/20 12:40 207.73 4494.34 - 205 215 4712.29 Shallow 12/7/20 12:50 190.90 4521.39 - 235 245 4712.55 Intermediate 12/7/20 12:55 195.31 4517.24 - 315 325 4712.51 Deep 12/7/20 13:00 217.96 4494.55 - 347.75 357.75 4712.50 Deep 12/7/20 13:05 218.08 4494.42 - MW-27 200 220 4712.34 Shallow 12/7/20 11:25 188.46 4523.88 - - - MW-28 190 210 4712.54 Shallow 12/8/20 10:15 187.42 4525.12 - - - 120 130 4678.46 Perched 12/8/20 15:57 116.55 4561.91 - 190 200 4678.45 Shallow 12/8/20 15:30 155.50 4522.95 - 230 240 4678.68 Intermediate 12/8/20 15:53 158.92 4519.76 - 240 250 4722.60 Deep 12/7/20 14:28 227.47 4495.13 - 282 292 4722.36 Deep 12/7/20 14:20 229.25 4493.11 - 317 327 4721.92 Deep 12/7/20 14:08 229.41 4492.51 - 138 148 4654.27 Shallow 12/7/20 14:40 DRY DRY - 190 200 4654.39 Shallow 12/7/20 16:45 135.98 4518.41 - 228 238 4654.35 Deep 12/7/20 14:55 148.53 4505.82 - 114 124 4565.67 Shallow 12/8/20 9:52 83.03 4482.64 - 170 180 4565.63 Shallow 12/8/20 9:55 82.50 4483.13 - 260 270 4565.59 Deep 12/8/20 10:00 81.84 4483.75 - 140 150 4623.09 Shallow 12/7/20 14:20 130.95 4492.14 -- 175 185 4622.71 Shallow 12/7/20 15:05 130.60 4492.11 12/7/20 15:00 250 260 4622.63 Deep 12/7/20 15:15 129.87 4492.76 12/7/20 15:00 315 325 4622.58 Deep 12/7/20 15:20 130.00 4492.58 12/7/20 15:30 MW-36 47 52 4428.49 - 12/7/20 17:15 44.72 4383.77 - - - MW-37S 25 35 4348.00 - 12/7/20 17:05 18.45 4329.55 - MW-37D 60 70 4347.97 - 12/7/20 17:02 42.28 4305.69 - MW-38S 27 37 4497.64 Shallow 12/7/20 0:00 19.59 4478.05 - MW-38D 60 70 4497.80 Shallow 12/7/20 0:00 18.53 4479.27 - Notes:Acronyms: 1 Elevations measured using NAVD 88 vertical datum amsl = above mean sea level 2 Direction and magnitude of vertical gradient is calculated between shallow and deep aquifers in paired/nested wells bgs = below ground surface *Water level measured using pressure gauge, converted to height above top of casing (head [ft] = pressure [psi] x 2.31) btoc = below top of casing ft = feet - = not applicable psi = pounds per square inch up 0.01 down 0.06 down 0.01 -- -- - 0.00 0.18 0.00down MW-31 MW-30 MW-34 MW-32 MW-29 MW-26 MW-25 MW-23 MW-08 MW-03R up 0.01 down 0.05 -- up 0.25 down 0.06 down 0.08 -- up 0.01 down 0.29 down 0.91 up 0.03 down 0.21 down 0.26 down 0.27 - Q4 2020 Data Summary Report Groundwater Sampling Event OU1 Remedial Investigation 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume 1 of 1 Table 3 Groundwater Sampling Analytes Analysis Method Sample Container Number of Containers Preservative VOCs EPA Method SW8260C 40 mL VOA 3 HCl to pH < 2, 4°C (±2°C) 1,4-Dioxane EPA Method SW8270D 1 L amber glass 2 4°C (±2°C) Dissolved Gases EPA Method RSK-175 40 mL VOA 3 HCl to pH < 2, 4°C (±2°C) Total Metals (unfiltered) EPA Method SW6020A/SW7470A 250 mL HDPE 1 HNO3 to pH < 2, 4°C (±2°C) Alkalinity1 EPA Method SM2320B 1L HDPE 1 4°C (±2°C) Anions (sulfate, chloride) EPA Method E300.0 125 mL HDPE 1 4°C (±2°C) TOC EPA Method SW9060A 250 mL amber glass 1 H2SO4 to pH < 2, 4°C (±2°C) Nitrate and Nitrite as Total Nitrogen EPA Method SM4500-NO3E 125 mL HDPE 1 H2SO4 to pH < 2, 4°C (±2°C) 1 Anions and Alkalinity are collected in the same container Notes: °C = degrees Celcius EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency HCl = hydrochloric acid HDPE = high density polyethylene HNO3 = nitric acid H2SO4 = sulfuric acid L = liter mL = milliliter TOC = total organic carbon VOA = volatile organic analysis vial VOCs = volatile organic compounds Q4 2020 Data Summary Report Groundwater Sampling Event OU1 Remedial Investigation 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Page 1 of 1 Table 4 1,4-Dioxane and Detected VOC Analytical Results Analyte Screening Level Unit Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q 1,4-Dioxane 0.46b µg/L 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 200a µg/L 1 U 0.13 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.12 J 1 U 1 U 1,1-Dichloroethane 2.8b µg/L 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1,1-Dichloroethene 7a µg/L 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.11 J 1 U 1 U Benzene 5a µg/L 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.2 J Bromodichloromethane 80a µg/L 1 U 0.41 J 0.36 J 0.38 J 0.5 J 0.49 J 0.17 J 1 U Carbon Tetrachloride 5a µg/L 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U Chloroform 80a µg/L 0.18 J 4.2 3.9 4 5.1 3.5 1.3 0.15 J Chloromethane 190b µg/L 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 70a µg/L 1 U 0.56 J 0.43 J 0.44 J 1 U 1.2 1 U 1 U Tetrachloroethene 5a µg/L 1 U 160 220 210 29 170 5.7 1 U Toluene 1000a µg/L 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U Trichloroethene 5a µg/L 1 U 1.1 0.55 J 0.6 J 0.19 J 1.9 1 U 1 U Trichlorofluoromethane 5200b µg/L 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U Notes: a Screening level is EPA MCL b Screening level is EPA Tap Water RSL (target cancer risk 1 x 10-6, hazard quotient = 1) Highlight indicates values greater than screening level Bold indicates detected values Italics indicates nondetected values Acronyms: VOC = volatile organic compound µg/L = microgram per liter EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency MCL = maximum contaminant level NS = not sampled RSL = regional screening level Q = qualifier J = Result is estimated U = Analyte was not detected at the associated value, which is the reporting limit MW-02 MW-03RC MW03RC- GW121120 12/11/2020 MW-03RD MW03RD- GW121120 12/11/202012/16/2020 MW-03RA MW03RA- GW121120 12/11/2020 MW-03RB MW03RB- GW121120 12/11/2020 NS NS NSNS NS NS NS NS Location Sample Name Sample Date MW-01D MW01D- GW121520 12/15/2020 MW-01S MW01S- GW121620 12/16/2020 FD01- GW121620 12/16/2020 MW02- GW121620 Q4 2020 Data Summary Report Groundwater Sampling Event OU1 Remedial Investigation 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume 1 of 9 Table 4 1,4-Dioxane and Detected VOC Analytical Results Analyte Screening Level Unit 1,4-Dioxane 0.46b µg/L 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 200a µg/L 1,1-Dichloroethane 2.8b µg/L 1,1-Dichloroethene 7a µg/L Benzene 5a µg/L Bromodichloromethane 80a µg/L Carbon Tetrachloride 5a µg/L Chloroform 80a µg/L Chloromethane 190b µg/L cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 70a µg/L Tetrachloroethene 5a µg/L Toluene 1000a µg/L Trichloroethene 5a µg/L Trichlorofluoromethane 5200b µg/L Notes: a Screening level is EPA MCL b Screening level is EPA Tap Water RSL (target cancer risk 1 x 10-6, hazard quotient = 1) Highlight indicates values greater than screening level Bold indicates detected values Italics indicates nondetected values Acronyms: VOC = volatile organic compound µg/L = microgram per liter EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency MCL = maximum contaminant level NS = not sampled RSL = regional screening level Q = qualifier J = Result is estimated U = Analyte was not detected at the associated value, which is the reporting limit Location Sample Name Sample Date Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.64 J 0.65 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.19 J 0.18 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.36 J 0.38 J 0.35 J 0.37 J 0.39 J 0.57 J 0.6 J 0.19 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 4.2 4.1 6.4 6.3 2.7 4.3 4.8 1.6 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.15 J 0.15 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.23 J 0.26 J 1 U 40 38 1 U 1 U 1 U 52 53 3.9 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.24 J 0.22 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.42 J 0.42 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U the reporting limit FD03- GW120920 12/9/2020 MW08A- GW120920 12/9/2020 MW-08B MW08B- GW120920 12/9/2020 FD05- GW120820 12/8/2020 MW05R- GW120820 12/8/2020 MW-06 MW06- GW121020 12/10/2020 FD02- GW121020 12/10/2020 MW04- GW121020 12/10/2020 NSNS NSNS NS NSNS NS MW-04 MW-05R MW-08A Q4 2020 Data Summary Report Groundwater Sampling Event OU1 Remedial Investigation 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume 2 of 9 Table 4 1,4-Dioxane and Detected VOC Analytical Results Analyte Screening Level Unit 1,4-Dioxane 0.46b µg/L 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 200a µg/L 1,1-Dichloroethane 2.8b µg/L 1,1-Dichloroethene 7a µg/L Benzene 5a µg/L Bromodichloromethane 80a µg/L Carbon Tetrachloride 5a µg/L Chloroform 80a µg/L Chloromethane 190b µg/L cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 70a µg/L Tetrachloroethene 5a µg/L Toluene 1000a µg/L Trichloroethene 5a µg/L Trichlorofluoromethane 5200b µg/L Notes: a Screening level is EPA MCL b Screening level is EPA Tap Water RSL (target cancer risk 1 x 10-6, hazard quotient = 1) Highlight indicates values greater than screening level Bold indicates detected values Italics indicates nondetected values Acronyms: VOC = volatile organic compound µg/L = microgram per liter EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency MCL = maximum contaminant level NS = not sampled RSL = regional screening level Q = qualifier J = Result is estimated U = Analyte was not detected at the associated value, which is the reporting limit Location Sample Name Sample Date Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q 1 U 1 U 0.39 J 0.41 J 0.17 J 0.42 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.11 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.15 J 0.18 J 1 U 0.17 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.53 J 0.22 J 0.11 J 1 U 0.26 J 1 U 0.11 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.17 J 6.1 1.7 1.6 1.1 1.9 0.18 J 3.9 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.27 J 0.41 J 0.2 J 0.26 J 1.9 1 U 1 U 1 U 51 16 27 30 4.8 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.47 J 0.17 J 1.3 0.27 J 6.7 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U the reporting limit MW-14S MW14S- GW121420 12/14/2020 MW-15D MW15D- GW120920 12/9/2020 MW-13L MW13L- GW121620 12/16/2020 MW-13S MW13S- GW121120 12/11/2020 MW-14D MW14D- GW121420 12/14/2020 MW-08C MW08C- GW120920 12/9/2020 MW-12D MW12D- GW120920 12/9/2020 MW-13D MW13D- GW121120 12/11/2020 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS Q4 2020 Data Summary Report Groundwater Sampling Event OU1 Remedial Investigation 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume 3 of 9 Table 4 1,4-Dioxane and Detected VOC Analytical Results Analyte Screening Level Unit 1,4-Dioxane 0.46b µg/L 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 200a µg/L 1,1-Dichloroethane 2.8b µg/L 1,1-Dichloroethene 7a µg/L Benzene 5a µg/L Bromodichloromethane 80a µg/L Carbon Tetrachloride 5a µg/L Chloroform 80a µg/L Chloromethane 190b µg/L cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 70a µg/L Tetrachloroethene 5a µg/L Toluene 1000a µg/L Trichloroethene 5a µg/L Trichlorofluoromethane 5200b µg/L Notes: a Screening level is EPA MCL b Screening level is EPA Tap Water RSL (target cancer risk 1 x 10-6, hazard quotient = 1) Highlight indicates values greater than screening level Bold indicates detected values Italics indicates nondetected values Acronyms: VOC = volatile organic compound µg/L = microgram per liter EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency MCL = maximum contaminant level NS = not sampled RSL = regional screening level Q = qualifier J = Result is estimated U = Analyte was not detected at the associated value, which is the reporting limit Location Sample Name Sample Date Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q 1 U 1 U 0.36 J 1 U 1 U 0.61 J 0.6 J 0.57 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.11 J 1 U 1 U 0.12 J 0.14 J 0.19 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.1 J 0.25 J 0.2 J 1 U 0.24 J 0.24 J 0.22 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 3.1 1.8 6 2 1.2 2.4 2.4 2.2 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.15 J 1 U 1 U 0.23 J 0.21 J 0.28 J 0.39 J 1 U 24 2.3 0.7 J 53 56 49 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.21 J 1 U 1 U 0.44 J 0.43 J 0.5 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U the reporting limit MW-19 MW19- GW121420 12/14/2020 MW-17S MW17S- GW121120 12/11/2020 FD06- GW121420 12/14/2020 MW18- GW121420 12/14/2020 MW-16D MW16D- GW121020 12/10/2020 MW-16S MW16S- GW121020 12/10/2020 MW-17D MW17D- GW121320 12/13/2020 MW-15S MW15S- GW120920 12/9/2020 NS NS NS NS NS NSNS NS MW-18 Q4 2020 Data Summary Report Groundwater Sampling Event OU1 Remedial Investigation 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume 4 of 9 Table 4 1,4-Dioxane and Detected VOC Analytical Results Analyte Screening Level Unit 1,4-Dioxane 0.46b µg/L 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 200a µg/L 1,1-Dichloroethane 2.8b µg/L 1,1-Dichloroethene 7a µg/L Benzene 5a µg/L Bromodichloromethane 80a µg/L Carbon Tetrachloride 5a µg/L Chloroform 80a µg/L Chloromethane 190b µg/L cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 70a µg/L Tetrachloroethene 5a µg/L Toluene 1000a µg/L Trichloroethene 5a µg/L Trichlorofluoromethane 5200b µg/L Notes: a Screening level is EPA MCL b Screening level is EPA Tap Water RSL (target cancer risk 1 x 10-6, hazard quotient = 1) Highlight indicates values greater than screening level Bold indicates detected values Italics indicates nondetected values Acronyms: VOC = volatile organic compound µg/L = microgram per liter EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency MCL = maximum contaminant level NS = not sampled RSL = regional screening level Q = qualifier J = Result is estimated U = Analyte was not detected at the associated value, which is the reporting limit Location Sample Name Sample Date Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.13 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.24 J 0.16 J 1 U 0.32 J 0.32 J 0.62 J 1 U 0.48 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1.8 1.5 2.7 2.2 5.8 8.2 1 U 6.8 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.15 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 9.1 4.3 1.1 2.5 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.2 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.26 J 0.13 J 1 U 1 U 0.11 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U the reporting limit MW-23B MW23B- GW121020 12/10/2020 MW-23C MW23C- GW120920 12/9/2020 MW-24 MW24- GW120820 12/8/2020 MW-21 MW21- GW121420 12/14/2020 MW-22 MW22- GW121420 12/14/2020 MW-23A MW23A- GW120920 12/9/2020 MW-20D MW20D- GW121520 12/15/2020 MW-20S MW20S- GW121420 12/14/2020 NSNS NS NS NS NS NS NS Q4 2020 Data Summary Report Groundwater Sampling Event OU1 Remedial Investigation 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume 5 of 9 Table 4 1,4-Dioxane and Detected VOC Analytical Results Analyte Screening Level Unit 1,4-Dioxane 0.46b µg/L 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 200a µg/L 1,1-Dichloroethane 2.8b µg/L 1,1-Dichloroethene 7a µg/L Benzene 5a µg/L Bromodichloromethane 80a µg/L Carbon Tetrachloride 5a µg/L Chloroform 80a µg/L Chloromethane 190b µg/L cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 70a µg/L Tetrachloroethene 5a µg/L Toluene 1000a µg/L Trichloroethene 5a µg/L Trichlorofluoromethane 5200b µg/L Notes: a Screening level is EPA MCL b Screening level is EPA Tap Water RSL (target cancer risk 1 x 10-6, hazard quotient = 1) Highlight indicates values greater than screening level Bold indicates detected values Italics indicates nondetected values Acronyms: VOC = volatile organic compound µg/L = microgram per liter EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency MCL = maximum contaminant level NS = not sampled RSL = regional screening level Q = qualifier J = Result is estimated U = Analyte was not detected at the associated value, which is the reporting limit Location Sample Name Sample Date Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q 0.41 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.1 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.11 J 1 U 1 U 0.47 J 0.63 J 0.4 J 0.47 J 0.63 J 0.35 J 0.48 J 0.39 J 1 U 1 U 0.11 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 6.2 7.6 2.8 5.7 8 3.3 6.1 4.6 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1.3 1 U 0.76 J 1 U 1 U 0.4 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.19 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.18 J 1 U 1 U 0.15 J 0.18 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U the reporting limit MW-27 MW27- GW120820 12/8/2020 MW-28 MW28- GW120820 12/8/2020 MW-26A MW26A- GW121620 12/16/2020 MW-26B MW26B- GW121620 12/16/2020 MW-26C MW26C- GW121720 12/17/2020 MW-25A MW25A- GW120920 12/9/2020 MW-25B MW25B- GW121020 12/10/2020 MW-25C MW25C- GW121020 12/10/2020 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS Q4 2020 Data Summary Report Groundwater Sampling Event OU1 Remedial Investigation 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume 6 of 9 Table 4 1,4-Dioxane and Detected VOC Analytical Results Analyte Screening Level Unit 1,4-Dioxane 0.46b µg/L 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 200a µg/L 1,1-Dichloroethane 2.8b µg/L 1,1-Dichloroethene 7a µg/L Benzene 5a µg/L Bromodichloromethane 80a µg/L Carbon Tetrachloride 5a µg/L Chloroform 80a µg/L Chloromethane 190b µg/L cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 70a µg/L Tetrachloroethene 5a µg/L Toluene 1000a µg/L Trichloroethene 5a µg/L Trichlorofluoromethane 5200b µg/L Notes: a Screening level is EPA MCL b Screening level is EPA Tap Water RSL (target cancer risk 1 x 10-6, hazard quotient = 1) Highlight indicates values greater than screening level Bold indicates detected values Italics indicates nondetected values Acronyms: VOC = volatile organic compound µg/L = microgram per liter EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency MCL = maximum contaminant level NS = not sampled RSL = regional screening level Q = qualifier J = Result is estimated U = Analyte was not detected at the associated value, which is the reporting limit Location Sample Name Sample Date Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q 0.42 U 0.42 U 1 U 0.14 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.11 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.52 J 0.5 J 0.49 J 0.62 J 0.68 J 0.43 J 0.36 J 0.47 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 6.4 4.7 3.9 6.6 5.8 5 2.7 3.5 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 9.6 0.47 J 1 U 0.18 J 1 U 0.4 J 0.54 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.18 J 1 U 1 U 0.34 J 0.19 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.19 J 0.28 J 0.23 J 1 U 1 U the reporting limit MW-31A MW31A- GW121120 12/11/2020 MW-31B MW31B- GW121120 12/11/2020 MW-29B MW29B- GW121120 12/11/2020 MW-29C MW29C- GW121120 12/11/2020 MW-30C MW30C- GW120920 12/9/2020 MW-30RA MW30RA- GW120820 12/8/2020 MW-30RB MW30RB- GW120820 12/8/2020 MW-29A MW29A- GW121320 12/13/2020 NS NS NS NS NS NS Q4 2020 Data Summary Report Groundwater Sampling Event OU1 Remedial Investigation 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume 7 of 9 Table 4 1,4-Dioxane and Detected VOC Analytical Results Analyte Screening Level Unit 1,4-Dioxane 0.46b µg/L 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 200a µg/L 1,1-Dichloroethane 2.8b µg/L 1,1-Dichloroethene 7a µg/L Benzene 5a µg/L Bromodichloromethane 80a µg/L Carbon Tetrachloride 5a µg/L Chloroform 80a µg/L Chloromethane 190b µg/L cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 70a µg/L Tetrachloroethene 5a µg/L Toluene 1000a µg/L Trichloroethene 5a µg/L Trichlorofluoromethane 5200b µg/L Notes: a Screening level is EPA MCL b Screening level is EPA Tap Water RSL (target cancer risk 1 x 10-6, hazard quotient = 1) Highlight indicates values greater than screening level Bold indicates detected values Italics indicates nondetected values Acronyms: VOC = volatile organic compound µg/L = microgram per liter EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency MCL = maximum contaminant level NS = not sampled RSL = regional screening level Q = qualifier J = Result is estimated U = Analyte was not detected at the associated value, which is the reporting limit Location Sample Name Sample Date Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q 0.46 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.14 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.25 J 0.11 J 1 U 0.35 J 0.24 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.72 J 4.5 1.7 0.89 J 2.6 1.9 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.19 J 0.64 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.3 J 0.5 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.46 J 0.34 J 1 U 30 5.8 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.66 J 0.39 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U the reporting limit MW-34D MW34D- GW121320 12/13/2020 MW-34A MW34A- GW121520 12/15/2020 MW-34B MW34B- GW121720 12/17/2020 MW-34C MW34C- GW121720 12/17/2020 MW-32A MW32A- GW121020 12/10/2020 MW-32B MW32B- GW121020 12/10/2020 MW-32C MW32C- GW121020 12/10/2020 MW-31C MW31C- GW121120 12/11/2020 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS Q4 2020 Data Summary Report Groundwater Sampling Event OU1 Remedial Investigation 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume 8 of 9 Table 4 1,4-Dioxane and Detected VOC Analytical Results Analyte Screening Level Unit 1,4-Dioxane 0.46b µg/L 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 200a µg/L 1,1-Dichloroethane 2.8b µg/L 1,1-Dichloroethene 7a µg/L Benzene 5a µg/L Bromodichloromethane 80a µg/L Carbon Tetrachloride 5a µg/L Chloroform 80a µg/L Chloromethane 190b µg/L cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 70a µg/L Tetrachloroethene 5a µg/L Toluene 1000a µg/L Trichloroethene 5a µg/L Trichlorofluoromethane 5200b µg/L Notes: a Screening level is EPA MCL b Screening level is EPA Tap Water RSL (target cancer risk 1 x 10-6, hazard quotient = 1) Highlight indicates values greater than screening level Bold indicates detected values Italics indicates nondetected values Acronyms: VOC = volatile organic compound µg/L = microgram per liter EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency MCL = maximum contaminant level NS = not sampled RSL = regional screening level Q = qualifier J = Result is estimated U = Analyte was not detected at the associated value, which is the reporting limit Location Sample Name Sample Date Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q 0.42 UJ 3.1 J 0.42 U 0.45 U 0.44 U 0.45 U 0.42 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.11 J 0.11 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.79 J 0.77 J 0.7 J 2.2 2.1 2.4 3 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.28 J 0.28 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U the reporting limit MW-38D MW38D- GW121620 12/16/2020 MW-38S MW38S- GW121620 12/16/2020 MW-37D MW37D- GW121420 12/14/2020 FD04- GW121420 12/14/2020 MW-37S MW37S- GW121420 12/14/2020 FD07- GW121420 12/14/2020 MW-36 MW36- GW121420 12/14/2020 Q4 2020 Data Summary Report Groundwater Sampling Event OU1 Remedial Investigation 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume 9 of 9 Table 5 Metals Analytical Results Analyte Unit Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Aluminum µg/L 36.6 J 100 U 100 U 100 U 100 U 234 70.3 J 114 Antimony µg/L 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U Arsenic µg/L 1 U 1 U 1.44 1.43 0.72 J 0.656 J 0.603 J 0.341 J Barium µg/L 24 57.9 86.4 85.6 71.7 41.1 26.5 32.3 Beryllium µg/L 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U Cadmium µg/L 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U Calcium µg/L 134000 152000 172000 173000 182000 144000 125000 134000 Chromium µg/L 1.29 1 U 3.08 2.84 1.83 1.56 1.25 1.03 Cobalt µg/L 0.269 J 0.317 J 0.414 J 0.406 J 0.189 J 0.334 J 1 U 0.569 J Copper µg/L 2 U 2 U 0.749 J 0.671 J 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U Iron µg/L 100 U 100 U 100 U 100 U 67.9 J 329 134 273 Lead µg/L 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U Magnesium µg/L 35500 52600 60100 59300 62900 49700 38800 40100 Manganese µg/L 1 U 1.05 1 U 1 U 20 85.6 7.57 214 Mercury µg/L 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U Nickel µg/L 1 U 1 U 1.5 1.45 4.29 1.85 0.753 J 8.98 Potassium µg/L 2230 2340 2740 2780 2620 2030 1940 2200 Selenium µg/L 1.28 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.81 J 1.06 1.08 0.879 J Silver µg/L 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U Sodium µg/L 37900 79700 147000 148000 99300 35000 26900 52000 Thallium µg/L 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U Vanadium µg/L 1.32 2 2.36 2.39 1.7 2.1 2 0.669 J Zinc µg/L 20 U 21.3 20 U 20 U 20 U 5.04 J 6.31 J 12.5 J Notes: Bold indicates detected values Italics indicates nondetected values Acronyms: µg/L = microgram per liter Q = qualifier J = Result is estimated U = Analyte was not detected at the associated value, which is the reporting limit 12/11/2020 MW-03RC MW03RC- GW121120 12/11/2020 MW-03RD MW03RD- GW121120 12/11/202012/16/2020 MW02- GW121620 12/16/2020 MW-03RA MW03RA- GW121120 12/11/2020 MW-02 Sample Date MW-01D MW01D- GW121520 12/15/2020 MW-01S MW01S- GW121620 12/16/2020 Location Sample Name FD01- GW121620 MW-03RB MW03RB- GW121120 Q4 2020 Data Summary Report Groundwater Sampling Event OU1 Remedial Investigation 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume 1 of 8 Table 5 Metals Analytical Results Analyte Unit Aluminum µg/L Antimony µg/L Arsenic µg/L Barium µg/L Beryllium µg/L Cadmium µg/L Calcium µg/L Chromium µg/L Cobalt µg/L Copper µg/L Iron µg/L Lead µg/L Magnesium µg/L Manganese µg/L Mercury µg/L Nickel µg/L Potassium µg/L Selenium µg/L Silver µg/L Sodium µg/L Thallium µg/L Vanadium µg/L Zinc µg/L Notes: Bold indicates detected values Italics indicates nondetected values Acronyms: µg/L = microgram per liter Q = qualifier J = Result is estimated U = Analyte was not detected at the associated value, which is the reporting limit Sample Date Location Sample Name Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q 100 U 100 U 59.7 J 100 U 100 U 58.2 J 55.3 J 57.7 J 78.9 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1.3 1.39 1.05 1.04 1.8 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 50 51.5 73 74.2 61.3 86.1 86.1 34.4 45 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.171 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 142000 141000 165000 167000 126000 188000 189000 135000 113000 2 2.11 0.646 J 0.681 J 1.45 0.948 J 0.99 J 1.12 0.834 J 0.496 J 0.512 J 0.635 J 0.437 J 0.608 J 0.599 J 0.537 J 0.427 J 0.784 J 2.97 2.85 2.16 2 U 1.5 J 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 100 U 100 U 100 U 100 U 27.8 J 100 U 100 U 100 U 345 0.254 J 0.279 J 1 U 1 U 0.197 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 47200 48200 63800 63100 40200 72500 72800 43400 38000 1 UJ 3.23 J 1.56 1 U 1.83 9.14 7.98 2.81 212 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 2.15 2.17 0.438 J 0.529 J 6.56 0.599 J 0.703 J 0.308 J 2.55 2320 2390 2710 2750 2060 2830 2850 2030 2140 0.655 J 0.752 J 1 U 1 U 0.761 J 1 U 1 1.07 1.02 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.19 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 112000 112000 60900 61900 70900 93500 93900 34500 29000 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 2.66 2.76 2.04 2.09 2.87 1.79 1.81 1.79 0.598 J 11 J 11.6 J 20 U 20 U 8.22 J 20 U 20 U 20 U 6.03 J associated value, which is the reporting limit 12/9/202012/10/2020 FD03- GW120920 12/9/2020 MW08A- GW120920 12/9/2020 MW-08B MW08B- GW120920 12/9/202012/10/2020 MW04- GW121020 12/10/2020 FD05- GW120820 12/8/2020 MW05R- GW120820 12/8/2020 MW-04 MW-05R MW-08A FD02- GW121020 MW-06 MW06- GW121020 MW-08C MW08C- GW120920 Q4 2020 Data Summary Report Groundwater Sampling Event OU1 Remedial Investigation 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume 2 of 8 Table 5 Metals Analytical Results Analyte Unit Aluminum µg/L Antimony µg/L Arsenic µg/L Barium µg/L Beryllium µg/L Cadmium µg/L Calcium µg/L Chromium µg/L Cobalt µg/L Copper µg/L Iron µg/L Lead µg/L Magnesium µg/L Manganese µg/L Mercury µg/L Nickel µg/L Potassium µg/L Selenium µg/L Silver µg/L Sodium µg/L Thallium µg/L Vanadium µg/L Zinc µg/L Notes: Bold indicates detected values Italics indicates nondetected values Acronyms: µg/L = microgram per liter Q = qualifier J = Result is estimated U = Analyte was not detected at the associated value, which is the reporting limit Sample Date Location Sample Name Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q 230 54.1 J 948 100 U 730 118 233 92.2 J 221 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.728 J 1.59 0.705 J 0.537 J 1 U 1 U 0.743 J 1.18 55.6 45.4 83.9 46.6 73.7 47.6 63.8 31.7 61.8 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.14 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 148000 144000 192000 145000 155000 168000 169000 123000 152000 2.8 5.47 6.74 0.949 J 1.28 1.74 4.98 2.49 3.12 0.424 J 0.185 J 3.46 1 U 0.649 J 0.641 J 0.523 J 0.408 J 0.494 J 2 U 2 U 3.81 2 U 2 U 0.525 J 0.54 J 0.761 J 0.863 J 100 U 132 925 29.5 J 283 100 U 100 U 117 85.6 J 1 U 1 U 3.09 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.14 J 0.12 J 49600 53200 83400 53200 54400 67300 76000 43600 59100 2.02 1.37 987 1.93 90 5.26 1.67 1.2 1.2 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 1.15 3.85 78.6 0.363 J 1.47 1.22 2.36 0.717 J 0.76 J 2860 2550 4310 2530 3340 3920 4440 2100 2670 1.77 0.869 J 0.416 J 0.91 J 1.98 2.64 2.46 1.06 0.829 J 0.113 J 0.101 J 0.213 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 82000 56700 127000 60300 94400 138000 174000 32000 75900 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1.91 1.88 1.28 1.79 0.577 J 1.42 1.56 1.76 1.91 20 U 20 U 15.7 J 20.4 20 U 6.72 J 20 U 20 U 20 U associated value, which is the reporting limit 12/10/202012/9/2020 MW-15S MW15S- GW120920 12/9/2020 MW-16D MW16D- GW121020 12/10/202012/11/2020 MW-14D MW14D- GW121420 12/14/2020 MW-14S MW14S- GW121420 12/14/2020 MW-12D MW12D- GW120920 12/9/2020 MW-13D MW13D- GW121120 12/11/2020 MW-13S MW13S- GW121120 MW-15D MW15D- GW120920 MW-16S MW16S- GW121020 Q4 2020 Data Summary Report Groundwater Sampling Event OU1 Remedial Investigation 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume 3 of 8 Table 5 Metals Analytical Results Analyte Unit Aluminum µg/L Antimony µg/L Arsenic µg/L Barium µg/L Beryllium µg/L Cadmium µg/L Calcium µg/L Chromium µg/L Cobalt µg/L Copper µg/L Iron µg/L Lead µg/L Magnesium µg/L Manganese µg/L Mercury µg/L Nickel µg/L Potassium µg/L Selenium µg/L Silver µg/L Sodium µg/L Thallium µg/L Vanadium µg/L Zinc µg/L Notes: Bold indicates detected values Italics indicates nondetected values Acronyms: µg/L = microgram per liter Q = qualifier J = Result is estimated U = Analyte was not detected at the associated value, which is the reporting limit Sample Date Location Sample Name Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q 94.1 J 89.5 J 100 U 100 U 48.6 J 67.2 J 100 U 153 25.8 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.728 J 0.181 J 1.16 1.22 1.76 1.49 1.01 1.16 0.828 J 69.3 99.4 96.3 100 79.9 43.1 46.6 115 66 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 156000 153000 165000 166000 167000 105000 107000 128000 156000 1.14 1.77 1.41 1.46 6.99 5.05 1.4 16.7 1.51 0.205 J 0.355 J 0.383 J 0.409 J 0.758 J 0.422 J 0.218 J 0.314 J 1 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 1.04 J 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 111 63.5 J 207 221 1050 414 100 U 277 88.8 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.0708 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 55900 58200 64000 66800 64500 35000 34800 48100 56500 22 14.7 5.89 4.89 8.33 8.25 1.19 2.11 2.57 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.456 J 5.36 1 U 1 U 7.34 5.64 1.08 12.3 0.349 J 2800 3760 3220 3350 3140 2140 2210 2800 2730 0.879 J 0.792 J 1 U 1.03 0.862 J 1 U 1 U 0.641 J 0.875 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.287 J 1 U 1 U 0.104 J 1 U 107000 152000 98600 99500 94000 44600 67200 156000 108000 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1.68 0.367 J 1.97 2.08 3.1 2.59 1.84 2.93 2.05 6.54 J 20 U 20 U 6.72 J 6.56 J 5.06 J 20 U 20 U 20 U associated value, which is the reporting limit MW-22 MW22- GW121420 12/14/2020 MW20D- GW121520 12/15/2020 MW-20S MW20S- GW121420 12/14/2020 MW-21 MW21- GW121420 12/14/202012/14/2020 MW18- GW121420 12/14/2020 MW-19 MW19- GW121420 12/14/2020 MW-17D MW17D- GW121320 12/13/2020 MW-17S MW17S- GW121120 12/11/2020 MW-18 FD06- GW121420 MW-20D Q4 2020 Data Summary Report Groundwater Sampling Event OU1 Remedial Investigation 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume 4 of 8 Table 5 Metals Analytical Results Analyte Unit Aluminum µg/L Antimony µg/L Arsenic µg/L Barium µg/L Beryllium µg/L Cadmium µg/L Calcium µg/L Chromium µg/L Cobalt µg/L Copper µg/L Iron µg/L Lead µg/L Magnesium µg/L Manganese µg/L Mercury µg/L Nickel µg/L Potassium µg/L Selenium µg/L Silver µg/L Sodium µg/L Thallium µg/L Vanadium µg/L Zinc µg/L Notes: Bold indicates detected values Italics indicates nondetected values Acronyms: µg/L = microgram per liter Q = qualifier J = Result is estimated U = Analyte was not detected at the associated value, which is the reporting limit Sample Date Location Sample Name Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q 94.7 J 142 35.7 J 57.4 J 165 74.1 J 154 100 U 100 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 0.785 J 0.374 J 1.26 1.28 0.738 J 0.71 J 1 U 1 U 93.1 53 25.7 72 74 53.1 30.1 77 59.2 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 157000 149000 135000 160000 164000 150000 115000 165000 147000 0.666 J 0.915 J 0.722 J 12.8 1.57 0.885 J 1.19 1 U 1 U 1.17 0.307 J 0.618 J 0.515 J 0.3 J 0.289 J 0.202 J 0.983 J 0.763 J 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 0.91 J 2 U 2 U 2.08 0.601 J 1190 226 102 100 U 273 98.9 J 203 52 J 100 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.17 J 1 U 56400 51700 42700 58200 59500 52500 38500 55100 49000 867 107 252 23.5 23.7 94.9 32.5 211 132 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 9.17 3.46 6.18 3.44 23.8 1.44 4.53 24.5 2.29 3410 2010 2150 2440 2580 2100 2010 2710 2160 0.587 J 0.83 J 1.08 1 U 0.922 J 0.852 J 1.09 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 126000 42400 28600 113000 103000 38000 24900 138000 44200 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1.15 1.97 1.26 2.47 2.99 1.9 2.34 1 U 1.27 5.71 J 25.6 10 J 13.1 J 15.2 J 20 U 20 U 53.1 8.07 J associated value, which is the reporting limit MW-26B MW26B- GW121620 12/16/2020 MW-25B MW25B- GW121020 12/10/2020 MW-25C MW25C- GW121020 12/10/2020 MW-26A MW26A- GW121620 12/16/2020 MW-23C MW23C- GW120920 12/9/2020 MW-24 MW24- GW120820 12/8/2020 MW-25A MW25A- GW120920 12/9/2020 MW-23A MW23A- GW120920 12/9/2020 MW-23B MW23B- GW121020 12/10/2020 Q4 2020 Data Summary Report Groundwater Sampling Event OU1 Remedial Investigation 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume 5 of 8 Table 5 Metals Analytical Results Analyte Unit Aluminum µg/L Antimony µg/L Arsenic µg/L Barium µg/L Beryllium µg/L Cadmium µg/L Calcium µg/L Chromium µg/L Cobalt µg/L Copper µg/L Iron µg/L Lead µg/L Magnesium µg/L Manganese µg/L Mercury µg/L Nickel µg/L Potassium µg/L Selenium µg/L Silver µg/L Sodium µg/L Thallium µg/L Vanadium µg/L Zinc µg/L Notes: Bold indicates detected values Italics indicates nondetected values Acronyms: µg/L = microgram per liter Q = qualifier J = Result is estimated U = Analyte was not detected at the associated value, which is the reporting limit Sample Date Location Sample Name Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q 100 U 36.4 J 100 U 134 25.9 J 100 U 100 U 100 U 100 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1.54 1.58 1.7 0.637 J 1.1 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.932 J 73.9 92.9 69.7 54.1 34.4 90.6 73.3 81.9 50.7 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 163000 176000 131000 157000 143000 176000 176000 168000 121000 8.3 1.75 0.908 J 0.883 J 0.664 J 0.553 J 0.587 J 0.319 J 0.685 J 0.547 J 0.687 J 0.164 J 0.86 J 0.127 J 0.677 J 0.821 J 1.51 0.208 J 2 U 2 U 0.519 J 2 U 1.92 J 2 U 0.552 J 2 U 2.4 100 U 199 100 U 303 29.8 J 100 U 100 U 938 25.1 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 58000 62200 45400 54800 51400 69400 68100 60900 43000 3.08 17.8 2.2 320 5.38 98.9 112 414 31.1 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 5.52 4.93 5.82 2.86 1.16 1.39 1.28 2.78 2.16 2530 2610 2290 2430 2030 2830 2660 2940 2110 1 U 1 U 0.654 J 0.899 J 1.12 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.654 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 133000 162000 96800 42900 32700 68000 58300 61200 75700 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 2.6 2.28 3.05 1.53 2.53 0.758 J 1.18 0.405 J 1.91 20 U 5.94 J 12.1 J 5.6 J 11.5 J 14.3 J 13.9 J 8.32 J 18.5 J associated value, which is the reporting limit MW-31A MW31A- GW121120 12/11/2020 MW-30C MW30C- GW120920 12/9/2020 MW-30RA MW30RA- GW120820 12/8/2020 MW-30RB MW30RB- GW120820 12/8/2020 MW-29A MW29A- GW121320 12/13/2020 MW-29B MW29B- GW121120 12/11/2020 MW-29C MW29C- GW121120 12/11/2020 MW-27 MW27- GW120820 12/8/2020 MW-28 MW28- GW120820 12/8/2020 Q4 2020 Data Summary Report Groundwater Sampling Event OU1 Remedial Investigation 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume 6 of 8 Table 5 Metals Analytical Results Analyte Unit Aluminum µg/L Antimony µg/L Arsenic µg/L Barium µg/L Beryllium µg/L Cadmium µg/L Calcium µg/L Chromium µg/L Cobalt µg/L Copper µg/L Iron µg/L Lead µg/L Magnesium µg/L Manganese µg/L Mercury µg/L Nickel µg/L Potassium µg/L Selenium µg/L Silver µg/L Sodium µg/L Thallium µg/L Vanadium µg/L Zinc µg/L Notes: Bold indicates detected values Italics indicates nondetected values Acronyms: µg/L = microgram per liter Q = qualifier J = Result is estimated U = Analyte was not detected at the associated value, which is the reporting limit Sample Date Location Sample Name Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q 95.5 J 100 U 37.1 J 100 U 100 U 100 U 100 U 100 U 27.3 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.71 J 0.667 J 0.911 J 0.412 J 0.409 J 1 U 0.307 J 0.71 J 0.697 J 29.7 37 67.7 27.8 21.2 50.3 27.1 135 136 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 145000 132000 142000 124000 113000 123000 115000 150000 151000 0.743 J 1 U 1.38 1.13 1.46 1.82 0.78 J 0.26 J 0.275 J 0.257 J 1.22 0.651 J 0.199 J 0.144 J 0.288 J 0.295 J 2.46 2.49 0.576 J 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 137 819 384 100 U 28.6 J 100 U 100 U 105 109 1 U 1 U 0.0504 J 1 U 1 U 0.3 J 1 U 0.104 J 0.109 J 49000 41900 54800 44400 42200 42000 37100 45900 46700 25.9 526 92 27.7 24.7 28.5 148 778 790 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.845 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 1.33 1.93 1.37 3.58 5.72 1.38 2.56 8.74 9.01 2030 2190 2810 2060 2000 2160 1850 3480 3540 1.22 0.788 J 0.833 J 1.03 1.12 1 U 1.03 0.798 J 0.823 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 33100 34900 82300 31900 28500 54400 26700 118000 118000 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1.93 1 U 1.73 1.4 1.46 1.59 1.06 0.963 J 1.01 20 U 20 U 20 U 6.19 J 20 U 20 U 20 U 225 224 associated value, which is the reporting limit MW-34A MW34A- GW121520 12/15/2020 MW-34D MW34D- GW121320 12/13/2020 FD07- GW121420 12/14/2020 MW36- GW121420 12/14/2020 MW-32A MW32A- GW121020 12/10/2020 MW-32B MW32B- GW121020 12/10/2020 MW-32C MW32C- GW121020 12/10/2020 MW-31B MW31B- GW121120 12/11/2020 MW-31C MW31C- GW121120 12/11/2020 MW-36 Q4 2020 Data Summary Report Groundwater Sampling Event OU1 Remedial Investigation 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume 7 of 8 Table 5 Metals Analytical Results Analyte Unit Aluminum µg/L Antimony µg/L Arsenic µg/L Barium µg/L Beryllium µg/L Cadmium µg/L Calcium µg/L Chromium µg/L Cobalt µg/L Copper µg/L Iron µg/L Lead µg/L Magnesium µg/L Manganese µg/L Mercury µg/L Nickel µg/L Potassium µg/L Selenium µg/L Silver µg/L Sodium µg/L Thallium µg/L Vanadium µg/L Zinc µg/L Notes: Bold indicates detected values Italics indicates nondetected values Acronyms: µg/L = microgram per liter Q = qualifier J = Result is estimated U = Analyte was not detected at the associated value, which is the reporting limit Sample Date Location Sample Name Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q 100 U 100 U 100 U 29.4 J 44.9 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 59.3 48.4 48.5 45.6 67.5 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 183000 176000 181000 132000 141000 1 U 1 U 1 U 1.68 1.75 1.08 0.463 J 0.454 J 1.03 0.65 J 2 U 2 U 1.4 J 0.689 J 2 U 61.1 J 67.7 J 73.5 J 59.5 J 112 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.144 J 0.107 J 70200 82700 86100 49400 55000 175 17 17.1 106 71.1 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 2.72 1 U 1 U 1 U 1.49 4150 4250 4270 2590 3010 2.14 2.43 2.45 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 108000 205000 212000 50000 89000 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1.15 1.44 1.44 1.47 1.47 423 5.05 J 11.2 J 5.34 J 9.37 J associated value, which is the reporting limit MW-38D MW38D- GW121620 12/16/2020 MW-38S MW38S- GW121620 12/16/2020 MW-37D MW37D- GW121420 12/14/2020 FD04- GW121420 12/14/2020 MW37S- GW121420 12/14/2020 MW-37S Q4 2020 Data Summary Report Groundwater Sampling Event OU1 Remedial Investigation 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume 8 of 8 Table 6 General Chemistry Analytical Results and Field Parameters Analyte Unit Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Nitrate/Nitrite1 mg/L 3.88 2.68 3.38 3.42 2.44 2.56 2.46 2.05 2.4 2.22 Chloride mg/L 101 270 437 439 329 158 77.9 80.2 241 241 Sulfate mg/L 152 101 88.8 90.9 94.8 107 158 197 96.2 102 Ethane µg/L 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U Ethene µg/L 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 0.52 J 2 U 2 U Methane µg/L 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 0.49 J 2 U 2 U Alkalinity2 mg/L 271 274 294 295 285 239 226 264 298 293 Total Organic Carbon mg/L 0.882 J 0.723 J 0.855 J 0.842 J 2.32 2.28 3.2 9.06 1 U 1 U Dissolved Oxygen mg/L 7.53 9.5 9.59 6.67 3.38 6.88 0.72 6.79 Ferrous Iron mg/L 0.22 0.12 0.08 0.88 0 0 0.13 0 ORP mV 97.7 171.8 80.9 69.1 -24.8 83.9 -88.4 127.5 pH su 7.02 7.02 6.98 6.73 7.16 6.99 7.3 7.16 Specific Conductance mS/cm 0.525 0.682 0.912 1.488 0.954 0.786 0.868 1.57 Temperature deg C 12.4 12.5 12.5 10.9 11.2 11.6 11.9 11 Turbidity NTU 0.51 2.17 0 6.78 64.2 31 31.6 2.31 Notes: Italics indicates nondetected values Acronyms: deg C = degrees Celsius ORP = oxidation reduction potential mg/L = milligram per liter µg/L = microgram per liter mS/cm = millisiemens per centimeter mV = millivolts NTU = nephelometric turbidity unit NS = not sampled su = standard units Q = qualifier J = Result is estimated J+ = Result is estimated, biased high U = Analyte was not detected at the associated value, which is the reporting limit NS NS NS NS NS NS NS Bold indicates detected values 1 Nitrate and Nitrite as total Nitrogen 2 Total Alkalinity as calcium carbonate MW-02 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS Location Sample Name Sample Date MW-01D MW01D- GW121520 12/15/2020 MW-01S MW01S- GW121620 12/16/2020 FD01- GW121620 12/16/2020 MW02- GW121620 12/16/2020 MW-03RA MW03RA- GW121120 12/11/2020 MW-03RB MW03RB- GW121120 12/11/2020 MW-03RC MW03RC- GW121120 12/11/2020 MW-03RD MW03RD- GW121120 12/11/2020 MW-04 FD02- GW121020 12/10/2020 MW04- GW121020 12/10/2020 Q4 2020 Data Summary Report Groundwater Sampling Event OU1 Remedial Investigation 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume 1 of 7 Table 6 General Chemistry Analytical Results and Field Parameters Analyte Unit Nitrate/Nitrite1 mg/L Chloride mg/L Sulfate mg/L Ethane µg/L Ethene µg/L Methane µg/L Alkalinity2 mg/L Total Organic Carbon mg/L Dissolved Oxygen mg/L Ferrous Iron mg/L ORP mV pH su Specific Conductance mS/cm Temperature deg C Turbidity NTU Notes: Italics indicates nondetected values Acronyms: deg C = degrees Celsius ORP = oxidation reduction potential mg/L = milligram per liter µg/L = microgram per liter mS/cm = millisiemens per centimeter mV = millivolts NTU = nephelometric turbidity unit NS = not sampled su = standard units Q = qualifier J = Result is estimated J+ = Result is estimated, biased high U = Analyte was not detected at the associated value, which is the reporting limit Bold indicates detected values 1 Nitrate and Nitrite as total Nitrogen 2 Total Alkalinity as calcium carbonate Location Sample Name Sample Date Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q 3.71 3.78 1.33 4.58 4.27 2.86 2.03 3.15 4.55 2.25 307 278 142 462 450 165 70.6 294 202 369 121 117 107 102 109 149 191 174 100 107 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 0.46 J 0.56 J 2 U 0.34 J 0.36 J 2 U 0.4 J 2 U 2 U 3.6 293 293 277 219 220 225 228 255 251 359 1.06 1.11 1 U 0.588 J 0.665 J 0.67 J 3.98 0.928 J 0.758 J 1.35 5.66 3.04 3.99 2.66 1.58 4.97 5.5 8.16 1.02 0.43 0.02 0 0.58 0 0 0.59 -3.5 115.1 -72.5 -77.2 -113.5 7.9 21.1 136.6 7.04 7.46 6.89 7.15 7.28 7.09 7.07 7.05 1.52 1.223 2.248 1.307 1.071 1.42 1.38 2.1 13.9 10.9 12.2 12.3 12 13.9 12.7 13.5 0.2 3.26 6.03 2.49 27.2 3.62 6.27 48.9 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS MW-05R MW05R- GW120820 12/8/2020 MW-06 MW06- GW121020 12/10/2020 FD05- GW120820 12/8/2020 FD03- GW120920 12/9/2020 MW-08A MW08A- GW120920 12/9/2020 MW-08B MW08B- GW120920 12/9/2020 MW-08C MW08C- GW120920 12/9/2020 MW-12D MW12D- GW120920 12/9/2020 MW-13D MW13D- GW121120 12/11/2020 MW-13S MW13S- GW121120 12/11/2020 Q4 2020 Data Summary Report Groundwater Sampling Event OU1 Remedial Investigation 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume 2 of 7 Table 6 General Chemistry Analytical Results and Field Parameters Analyte Unit Nitrate/Nitrite1 mg/L Chloride mg/L Sulfate mg/L Ethane µg/L Ethene µg/L Methane µg/L Alkalinity2 mg/L Total Organic Carbon mg/L Dissolved Oxygen mg/L Ferrous Iron mg/L ORP mV pH su Specific Conductance mS/cm Temperature deg C Turbidity NTU Notes: Italics indicates nondetected values Acronyms: deg C = degrees Celsius ORP = oxidation reduction potential mg/L = milligram per liter µg/L = microgram per liter mS/cm = millisiemens per centimeter mV = millivolts NTU = nephelometric turbidity unit NS = not sampled su = standard units Q = qualifier J = Result is estimated J+ = Result is estimated, biased high U = Analyte was not detected at the associated value, which is the reporting limit Bold indicates detected values 1 Nitrate and Nitrite as total Nitrogen 2 Total Alkalinity as calcium carbonate Location Sample Name Sample Date Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q 4.14 0.948 7.28 7.04 2.85 2.16 4.92 2.62 5.04 4.76 193 253 380 412 98.5 239 240 299 370 353 102 118 162 167 137 90.7 114 122 104 98.9 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 0.19 J 0.28 J 0.51 J 2 U 2 U 2 U 0.18 J 2 U 2 U 2 U 255 278 300 326 242 275 310 329 281 288 0.684 J 1.75 1.45 1.66 2.88 1 U 1.08 1.35 0.577 J 0.68 J 6.19 0.92 4.06 4.87 6.29 5.07 4.77 1.32 6.65 0.34 0.14 0.78 0 0.49 0.37 0.11 0.61 0 200.4 83.4 22.8 78.6 111.1 195.1 117.8 -3 60.6 7.13 6.97 6.94 6.88 7.31 7.1 6.99 7.08 6.87 1.379 1.25 1.9 2.047 1.093 1.531 1.628 1.89 1.517 11.9 9.3 13.4 13.4 11.9 12 11.7 9.5 11.3 2.77 11.6 17.2 7.58 5.5 5.72 37.1 14.4 6.56 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS MW-14D MW14D- GW121420 12/14/2020 MW-14S MW14S- GW121420 12/14/2020 MW-15D MW15D- GW120920 12/9/2020 MW-15S MW15S- GW120920 12/9/2020 MW-16D MW16D- GW121020 12/10/2020 MW-16S MW16S- GW121020 12/10/2020 MW-17D MW17D- GW121320 12/13/2020 MW-17S MW17S- GW121120 12/11/2020 FD06- GW121420 12/14/2020 MW-18 MW18- GW121420 12/14/2020 Q4 2020 Data Summary Report Groundwater Sampling Event OU1 Remedial Investigation 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume 3 of 7 Table 6 General Chemistry Analytical Results and Field Parameters Analyte Unit Nitrate/Nitrite1 mg/L Chloride mg/L Sulfate mg/L Ethane µg/L Ethene µg/L Methane µg/L Alkalinity2 mg/L Total Organic Carbon mg/L Dissolved Oxygen mg/L Ferrous Iron mg/L ORP mV pH su Specific Conductance mS/cm Temperature deg C Turbidity NTU Notes: Italics indicates nondetected values Acronyms: deg C = degrees Celsius ORP = oxidation reduction potential mg/L = milligram per liter µg/L = microgram per liter mS/cm = millisiemens per centimeter mV = millivolts NTU = nephelometric turbidity unit NS = not sampled su = standard units Q = qualifier J = Result is estimated J+ = Result is estimated, biased high U = Analyte was not detected at the associated value, which is the reporting limit Bold indicates detected values 1 Nitrate and Nitrite as total Nitrogen 2 Total Alkalinity as calcium carbonate Location Sample Name Sample Date Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q 3.84 5.39 4.54 3.99 1.47 0.953 2.22 1.22 2.3 1.78 330 111 106 322 282 314 208 53.7 346 307 103 87.5 88.8 74.2 128 104 92.9 202 109 110 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 0.69 J 2 U 0.33 J 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 0.88 J 0.32 J 0.77 J 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 1.7 J 0.33 J 0.89 J 2 U 2 U 263 243 290 268 297 295 273 240 271 289 1 U 0.361 J 0.539 J 1.01 1.05 1.3 0.916 J 1 U 1.2 1 U 6.18 8.76 4.35 7.69 6.78 3.82 3.63 3.76 5.3 2.01 0.12 0.04 0.22 0.16 0.24 1.32 0.11 0 0.04 0.08 14.6 16.4 67.9 50.8 86 -65.3 74.8 15.1 -2.8 -71.1 6.9 7.17 6.99 6.97 6.92 6.98 7.07 7.25 7.04 7.01 1.439 0.475 0.881 1.804 1.718 1.758 1.13 0.646 1.66 2.016 12.3 11.9 11.3 12.5 12.2 11.5 14 9.4 14.1 10.9 13.2 8.52 3.07 8.51 7.75 33.6 36.2 19.7 1.16 52.4 MW-19 MW19- GW121420 12/14/2020 MW-20D MW20D- GW121520 12/15/2020 MW-20S MW20S- GW121420 12/14/2020 MW-21 MW21- GW121420 12/14/2020 MW-22 MW22- GW121420 12/14/2020 MW-23A MW23A- GW120920 12/9/2020 MW-23B MW23B- GW121020 12/10/2020 MW-23C MW23C- GW120920 12/9/2020 MW-24 MW24- GW120820 12/8/2020 MW-25A MW25A- GW120920 12/9/2020 Q4 2020 Data Summary Report Groundwater Sampling Event OU1 Remedial Investigation 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume 4 of 7 Table 6 General Chemistry Analytical Results and Field Parameters Analyte Unit Nitrate/Nitrite1 mg/L Chloride mg/L Sulfate mg/L Ethane µg/L Ethene µg/L Methane µg/L Alkalinity2 mg/L Total Organic Carbon mg/L Dissolved Oxygen mg/L Ferrous Iron mg/L ORP mV pH su Specific Conductance mS/cm Temperature deg C Turbidity NTU Notes: Italics indicates nondetected values Acronyms: deg C = degrees Celsius ORP = oxidation reduction potential mg/L = milligram per liter µg/L = microgram per liter mS/cm = millisiemens per centimeter mV = millivolts NTU = nephelometric turbidity unit NS = not sampled su = standard units Q = qualifier J = Result is estimated J+ = Result is estimated, biased high U = Analyte was not detected at the associated value, which is the reporting limit Bold indicates detected values 1 Nitrate and Nitrite as total Nitrogen 2 Total Alkalinity as calcium carbonate Location Sample Name Sample Date Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q 2.26 2.68 2 2.37 2.05 2.47 3.99 2.11 4.01 3.12 183 77.2 369 211 459 455 195 198 143 352 94.9 120 95.7 89.4 115 113 96.9 120 113 88.9 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 0.76 J 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 0.61 J 0.17 J 0.25 J 2 U 2 U 2 U 0.33 J 2 U 0.18 J 276 249 302 278 294 286 302 266 268 245 0.982 J 0.941 J 1.53 1.16 0.762 J 0.832 J 0.743 J 0.672 J 0.6 J 0.764 J 2.2 4.24 4.46 3.47 5.32 5.6 7.6 1 5.15 6.43 0 0.04 0 0.28 0.12 0.05 0.02 0.2 0.22 0 -83.5 -77.8 14.2 185.1 -0.1 -16.4 142.9 -61.4 85.9 70.5 7.11 7.24 6.92 7.01 7.07 7.12 6.96 7.1 6.89 7.01 1.045 0.752 1.97 0.622 1.83 1.91 0.958 1.059 0.978 1.568 9.6 11.2 12.7 14.9 15.4 13.8 5.1 8.5 10 13.6 18.2 23.1 7.7 4.69 0.8 0.52 0.84 35.2 6.64 7.15 MW-25B MW25B- GW121020 12/10/2020 MW-25C MW25C- GW121020 12/10/2020 MW-26A MW26A- GW121620 12/16/2020 MW-26B MW26B- GW121620 12/16/2020 MW-27 MW27- GW120820 12/8/2020 MW-28 MW28- GW120820 12/8/2020 MW-29A MW29A- GW121320 12/13/2020 MW-29B MW29B- GW121120 12/11/2020 MW-29C MW29C- GW121120 12/11/2020 MW-30RA MW30RA- GW120820 12/8/2020 Q4 2020 Data Summary Report Groundwater Sampling Event OU1 Remedial Investigation 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume 5 of 7 Table 6 General Chemistry Analytical Results and Field Parameters Analyte Unit Nitrate/Nitrite1 mg/L Chloride mg/L Sulfate mg/L Ethane µg/L Ethene µg/L Methane µg/L Alkalinity2 mg/L Total Organic Carbon mg/L Dissolved Oxygen mg/L Ferrous Iron mg/L ORP mV pH su Specific Conductance mS/cm Temperature deg C Turbidity NTU Notes: Italics indicates nondetected values Acronyms: deg C = degrees Celsius ORP = oxidation reduction potential mg/L = milligram per liter µg/L = microgram per liter mS/cm = millisiemens per centimeter mV = millivolts NTU = nephelometric turbidity unit NS = not sampled su = standard units Q = qualifier J = Result is estimated J+ = Result is estimated, biased high U = Analyte was not detected at the associated value, which is the reporting limit Bold indicates detected values 1 Nitrate and Nitrite as total Nitrogen 2 Total Alkalinity as calcium carbonate Location Sample Name Sample Date Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q 3.42 2.22 1.33 1.92 1.61 2.34 2.67 2.84 4.39 2.06 350 324 154 124 82.8 247 101 59.4 171 47.9 93 93.8 111 157 216 107 142 164 98.3 148 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2.9 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 0.44 J 2 U 2 U 0.59 J 2 U 2 U 0.67 J 2 U 0.35 J 0.96 J 0.86 J 2 U 2 U 4.6 0.18 J 0.18 J 0.3 J 2 U 0.34 J 265 265 287 257 224 275 246 238 252 252 0.662 J 1.42 1.03 0.996 J 1.75 0.587 J 0.474 J 0.42 J 0.837 J 0.925 J 6.22 2.92 6.13 6.69 1.05 7 5.6 5.64 6.17 5.05 0.06 0.64 0.07 0.03 1.14 0.27 0 0.06 0.17 0 35.7 -50 120.7 65 -121.1 26.2 -49.5 -10.5 -4.9 76.6 7 7.08 7.07 6.94 7.12 7.01 7.02 7.14 7.16 7.08 1.508 1.028 0.904 1.237 1.109 1.495 1.083 0.706 1.33 0.909 13.6 13.6 6.8 10.7 10.5 12.2 12.4 8 10.6 12.8 4.47 7.27 3.4 22.1 4.49 11.2 1.52 3.57 1.03 6.04 MW-30C MW30C- GW120920 12/9/2020 MW-30RB MW30RB- GW120820 12/8/2020 MW-31A MW31A- GW121120 12/11/2020 MW-31B MW31B- GW121120 12/11/2020 MW-31C MW31C- GW121120 12/11/2020 MW-32A MW32A- GW121020 12/10/2020 MW-32B MW32B- GW121020 12/10/2020 MW-32C MW32C- GW121020 12/10/2020 MW-34A MW34A- GW121520 12/15/2020 MW-34D MW34D- GW121320 12/13/2020 Q4 2020 Data Summary Report Groundwater Sampling Event OU1 Remedial Investigation 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume 6 of 7 Table 6 General Chemistry Analytical Results and Field Parameters Analyte Unit Nitrate/Nitrite1 mg/L Chloride mg/L Sulfate mg/L Ethane µg/L Ethene µg/L Methane µg/L Alkalinity2 mg/L Total Organic Carbon mg/L Dissolved Oxygen mg/L Ferrous Iron mg/L ORP mV pH su Specific Conductance mS/cm Temperature deg C Turbidity NTU Notes: Italics indicates nondetected values Acronyms: deg C = degrees Celsius ORP = oxidation reduction potential mg/L = milligram per liter µg/L = microgram per liter mS/cm = millisiemens per centimeter mV = millivolts NTU = nephelometric turbidity unit NS = not sampled su = standard units Q = qualifier J = Result is estimated J+ = Result is estimated, biased high U = Analyte was not detected at the associated value, which is the reporting limit Bold indicates detected values 1 Nitrate and Nitrite as total Nitrogen 2 Total Alkalinity as calcium carbonate Location Sample Name Sample Date Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q 1.58 1.51 3.07 6.42 6.29 3.51 4.21 225 215 295 451 439 173 257 132 131 199 199 198 136 104 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 0.47 J 0.45 J 1.1 J 2 U 2 U 0.25 J 2 U 339 349 343 405 403 255 271 1 U 1.24 1.36 1.74 0.908 J 0.35 J 0.89 J 0.87 4.28 5.53 7.69 5.98 0.12 0 0 0.14 0.12 -80.5 -36.7 52.8 147.8 56.2 7.23 7.02 6.82 6.96 6.93 0.913 1.14 1.477 1.281 1.63 12.3 13.8 12.4 12.5 13.4 6.87 6.94 2.96 13.6 15.9 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS FD07- GW121420 12/14/2020 MW36- GW121420 12/14/2020 MW-36 MW-38D MW38D- GW121620 12/16/2020 MW-38S MW38S- GW121620 12/16/2020 MW-37D MW37D- GW121420 12/14/2020 FD04- GW121420 12/14/2020 MW37S- GW121420 12/14/2020 MW-37S Q4 2020 Data Summary Report Groundwater Sampling Event OU1 Remedial Investigation 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume 7 of 7 Appendix A Salt Lake City Division of Transportation Traffic Control Permit WORK SHALL COMPLY WITH PART 6 OF THE 2009 MUTCD. PERMITS MUST BE EXTENDED 24 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF EXPIRATION. IF THE TRAFFIC CONTROL PERMIT IS ALLOWED TO EXPIRE, A NEW PERMIT, AND AN ADDITIONAL FEE WILL BE REQUIRED. CLOSURES ON A DIFFERENT STREET THAN LISTED WILL REQUIRE AN ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC CONTROL, AND ENGINEERING PERMIT. THE ORGANIZATION ISSUED THE TRAFFIC CONTROL PERMIT SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL BARRICADE PLACEMENT AND MAINTENENCE. AN ADDITIONAL PERMIT FROM SLC ENGINEERING MAY ALSO BE REQUIRED. SHALL MAINTAIN ACCESS TO ALL PROPERTIES. SHALL INFORM BUSINESSES & RESIDENTS OF PROJECT & DURATION. SHALL COORDINATE WITH BUSINESSES & RESIDENTS AFFECTED. SHALL OBTAIN A PERMIT FOR ALL PARKING METERS OR OTHER RESTRICTED PARKING MADE UNAVAILBABLE TO THE PUBLIC. TRAFFIC CONTROL PERMITS ARE NOT VALID UNTIL PAID IN FULL. CHANGES TO PERMIT MAY BE REQUIRED AND MADE UPON REVIEW and/or COMPLAINT. Traffic Control Permit Salt Lake City Community and Neighborhoods Division of Transportation 349 South 200 East #150 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Telephone (801) 535-6630 E-Mail TechPermit@slcgov.com Permit # TRN2020-02332 Organization Name: Wasatch Environmental Address: 2410 W California Ave SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84104 Contact Person: EMMA ROTT Phone: 4062413259 Cell: 406-551-5169 Barricade Company: Barricade Phone: Project Name / Description: Sampling ground water wells for the VA at various locations. Block Party Permit # General Work Type: Staging Specific Work Type: Barricade City Project # Public Way Permit # Special Event Permit # Start Date End Date Full Road Closure? Barricade Manual Fig # Description Special Requirements 11/30/2020 12/18/2020 No TA-6 TESTING GROUND WATER NOT DRILLING OR TRENCHING SHALL MAINTAIN ACCESS TO ALL PROPERTIES AND COORDINATE WITH RESIDENTS AND BUSINESSES AFFECTED. WORK HOURS SHALL BE BETWEEN 9AM & 4PM. MAY WORK FROM 6PM TO 6AM. Closure Type On Street Name From Number To Number Side of Street Street Elizabeth St.785 S 785 S E Start Date End Date Full Road Closure? Barricade Manual Fig # Description Special Requirements 11/30/2020 12/18/2020 No TA-6 TESTING GROUND WATER NOT DRILLING OR TRENCHING SHALL MAINTAIN ACCESS TO ALL PROPERTIES AND COORDINATE WITH RESIDENTS AND BUSINESSES AFFECTED. WORK HOURS SHALL BE BETWEEN 9AM & 4PM. MAY WORK FROM 6PM TO 6AM. Closure Type On Street Name From Number To Number Side of Street Street McClelland St.900 S 900 S E Page 1 of 3 Approved By: Jacob Fenton Issue Date: 9/14/2020 Start Date End Date Full Road Closure? Barricade Manual Fig # Description Special Requirements 11/30/2020 12/18/2020 No TA-6 TESTING GROUND WATER NOT DRILLING OR TRENCHING SHALL MAINTAIN ACCESS TO ALL PROPERTIES AND COORDINATE WITH RESIDENTS AND BUSINESSES AFFECTED. WORK HOURS SHALL BE BETWEEN 9AM & 4PM. MAY WORK FROM 6PM TO 6AM. Closure Type On Street Name From Number To Number Side of Street Street Alpine Place 1150 E 1150 E E Start Date End Date Full Road Closure? Barricade Manual Fig # Description Special Requirements 11/30/2020 12/18/2020 No TA-6 TESTING GROUND WATER NOT DRILLING OR TRENCHING SHALL MAINTAIN ACCESS TO ALL PROPERTIES AND COORDINATE WITH RESIDENTS AND BUSINESSES AFFECTED. WORK HOURS SHALL BE BETWEEN 9AM & 4PM. MAY WORK FROM 6PM TO 6AM. Closure Type On Street Name From Number To Number Side of Street Street Gilmer Dr 1280 E 1280 E S Start Date End Date Full Road Closure? Barricade Manual Fig # Description Special Requirements 11/30/2020 12/18/2020 No TA-6 TESTING GROUND WATER NOT DRILLING OR TRENCHING SHALL MAINTAIN ACCESS TO ALL PROPERTIES AND COORDINATE WITH RESIDENTS AND BUSINESSES AFFECTED. WORK HOURS SHALL BE BETWEEN 9AM & 4PM. MAY WORK FROM 6PM TO 6AM. Closure Type On Street Name From Number To Number Side of Street Street 14th E Sunnyside Ave Sunnyside Ave W Start Date End Date Full Road Closure? Barricade Manual Fig # Description Special Requirements 11/30/2020 12/18/2020 No TA-6 TESTING GROUND WATER NOT DRILLING OR TRENCHING SHALL MAINTAIN ACCESS TO ALL PROPERTIES AND COORDINATE WITH RESIDENTS AND BUSINESSES AFFECTED. WORK HOURS SHALL BE BETWEEN 9AM & 4PM. MAY WORK FROM 6PM TO 6AM. Closure Type On Street Name From Number To Number Side of Street Street Belmont Ave McClelland St.McClelland St.S Start Date End Date Full Road Closure? Barricade Manual Fig # Description Special Requirements 11/30/2020 12/18/2020 No TA-6 TESTING GROUND WATER NOT DRILLING OR TRENCHING SHALL MAINTAIN ACCESS TO ALL PROPERTIES AND COORDINATE WITH RESIDENTS AND BUSINESSES AFFECTED. WORK HOURS SHALL BE BETWEEN 9AM & 4PM. MAY WORK FROM 6PM TO 6AM. Closure Type On Street Name From Number To Number Side of Street Street University St.700 S 700 S S Page 2 of 3 Approved By: Jacob Fenton Issue Date: 9/14/2020 Start Date End Date Full Road Closure? Barricade Manual Fig # Description Special Requirements 11/30/2020 12/18/2020 No TA-6 TESTING GROUND WATER NOT DRILLING OR TRENCHING SHALL MAINTAIN ACCESS TO ALL PROPERTIES AND COORDINATE WITH RESIDENTS AND BUSINESSES AFFECTED. WORK HOURS SHALL BE BETWEEN 9AM & 4PM. MAY WORK FROM 6PM TO 6AM. Closure Type On Street Name From Number To Number Side of Street Street 600 S 1300 E 1305 E N Start Date End Date Full Road Closure? Barricade Manual Fig # Description Special Requirements 11/30/2020 12/18/2020 No TA-6 TESTING GROUND WATER NOT DRILLING OR TRENCHING SHALL MAINTAIN ACCESS TO ALL PROPERTIES AND COORDINATE WITH RESIDENTS AND BUSINESSES AFFECTED. WORK HOURS SHALL BE BETWEEN 9AM & 4PM. MAY WORK FROM 6PM TO 6AM. Closure Type On Street Name From Number To Number Side of Street Street HERBERT AVE 1177 E 1183 E N Start Date End Date Full Road Closure? Barricade Manual Fig # Description Special Requirements 11/30/2020 12/18/2020 No TA-6 TESTING GROUND WATER NOT DRILLING OR TRENCHING SHALL MAINTAIN ACCESS TO ALL PROPERTIES AND COORDINATE WITH RESIDENTS AND BUSINESSES AFFECTED. WORK HOURS SHALL BE BETWEEN 9AM & 4PM. MAY WORK FROM 6PM TO 6AM. Closure Type On Street Name From Number To Number Side of Street Street 1200 E 647 S 649 S E Page 3 of 3 Approved By: Jacob Fenton Issue Date: 9/14/2020 Appendix B Field Forms GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL LOW-FLOw SAMPLING DATA SHEET +005 luo0E Site Name: PCE Aum« Date: 12/13/20 Well 1D: M-17D (Vented to) HDPE 0-25 gaten bailer Mo /4 BTEX MTBE, PAJET-A-MO (4 OVM: FID PID In Casing (ppm): (Initial) Purging/Sampling Device: Initial Static Water Level (feet btoc):Analytical Parameters: (after Final Water Level (feet btoc): pump install)QC Samples Collected: Purge Start Time: Sample Number Sample Time: Controller Settings: Recharge: secs Discharge:. secs Pressure:. psi Samplers Signatures Cycles Per Minute: Water Specific Cond. Dissolved Turbidity (NTU) Flow Rate Temperature (Degrees C) Time Level ORP (mV) Comments Oxygen (mg/L) pH (mL/min) (ft btoc) (us/cm) 440 445 449 I5 30o 402 lo 2445 e 21 H 50 S 3oD H55 4ci 25 u 2 5 .5 15 0 113 6 lu24 455 I&.5 SS 2 3o0 500 769 300 505 300 1.0 lu 30 7.o0e 25 l.u5 412 56 5 525 63 535 540 /55 114 3 30? 3o0 .i 1.5 11.5 41 3 .u3 L 18.3 52. 300 oole 4u2 11l254. 1.e 532 300 45 p44 1Olu4.1 1.4 45.1 3DD Casing Volume Calculations: Water Col. X Casing Factor = Gallons per Casing Volume Casing Factors: 2" diameter wel: 0.16/4" diameter well: 0.65/6" diameter well: 1.47 PARAMETERS FOR WATER QUALITY STABILIZATION Temperature 1° C +0.1 pH unit 10 % DO 109 pH ORP 10mV 0.1 foot Conductivity Water Level Turbidity <50 NTUU Ferrous Iron (mg/L): GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL LOW-FLOW SAMPLING DATA SHEET 400 S u 00E Site Name: pE Pwm Date: 12 13/20 oVM: FID PID In Casing (ppm): (Initial) (Vented to) MO 1/4 Well ID MW ITD HOPE0:25gallonbalerPurging/Sampling Device: Initial Static Water Level (feet btoc):BTEX MTBE, PAM, JETA-MO /4 Analytical Parameters:, (after pump instal) aC Samples Collected:Final Water Level (feet btoc): Purge Start Time:. Sample Number: Sample Time: Controller Settings: Recharge: psi secs Discharge: secs Pressure: Samplers' Signatures: Cycles Per Minute: Water Specific Cond. (us/cm) Dissolved Temperature (Degrees C) Turbidity (NTU) Time Level ORP (mV) Flow Rate pH Comments Oxygen (mg/L) (ft btoc) (mL/min) 5.442 G H h5 42. 41o 17 5| 3 3 311 -11 Lu 24 3ot 555 3od 300 io 1-ul Lu44lu 2| 47411K 3 D Casing Volume Calculations: Water Col. X Casing Factor Gallons per Casing Volume Casing Factors:2" diameter well:0.16/4"diameter well:0.65/6"diameter well:1.47 PARAMETERS FOR WATER QUALITY STABILIZATION Temperature 1°C DO % pH 0.1 pH unit ORP 10mV Conductivity 10 % Water Level +0.1 foot Turbidity <50 NTUU Ferrous Iron (mg/L): 6.65 per CK 77.8 per BC 1055 1050 1100 22.09 feet 42.28 feet 18.45 feet 100 OO E INCH =DEFYING MOTHER NATURE" Pce PLUME SINCE 1916 CvCLA All components of this product are recyclable Kite in the ain Rite in the Rain ALL-WEATHER A patented, environmentally responsible, all-weather writing paper that sheds water and enables you to write anywhere, in any weather. LEVEL NO 313 Using a pencil or all-weather pen, Rite in the Rain ensures that your notes survive the rigors of the field, regardless of the conditions. 2019 JL DARLING LLC Tacoma, WA 98424-1017 USA www.Riteinthe Rain.com Item No. 313 ISBN: 978-1-932149-84-5 Made in the USA US Pat No. 6,863,940 3 2281 l31 31 1 al 12/2 vtithi HO'E, Sunny TASkGVu Sampure TELm E CoT (aurhcr), T. Cnmpoetl, e CturVegn, M. Day, K. Murph W nih FVrtlar,I Mulur CONTENTS E PAGE REFERENCE DATE 0300 Tem NSI tt. J3I5 HS ui tne cut taulcake. Pack eGoipt mUnT 0900 E. Ru,L anpiell te MW-4R. 20 BWnctup at MW-0RA. 0950 Bqinpurgz Netneissue ut MP-10H Ao duscaioivo tuio Cucle 1OCOT Camylbe il to CUn/Wx to gut Spar MP-10H 101S . Maller t uip E. kT trevsi s hevt, Does nlot Wer c elttur MP-/UH¥. 1030 Team o Use ZISi cateiur trom Ftld. E. 2T discevevs thaf Feld dud net Sevd tlu qut toive cticn for Zi (0ntroiUr. Cannt Ur blc domt ave nent elechntal Canvucnn 1040 E Ru t coinrEx o et dgvou Channu l TiST om tretlur. Then e TveTLH2 fer iuertti Dalt 12slz0 E. PeT balk b MW-30RA 1115 B ecn peCat MW-30E A. 1Z00 Coiluct Mu 30RA F Dalt 12/9 2 UWtakhav: 4°F, Sunniy Task GW Sampun PPE: Muutred úel D TRam E. RUT(awuor),L Caimpbell,M .Da B. Carveen,k Myephuj Wasatth), C. Lele TRaim On sitt. H+S Mettvg at tulgatc 0815 PacK vehucus 0900 E. KiT . CaimpiweLl to MW-zeC O19 Ewin pUrOk at Mu -30 RC, T030 I CanupheE to Con/ux tor suppues UD t th B Cavvewn at miW-oy I0H0 S eading vey nugn pt and Umpino arnd uey net tunchonu ng. E. RT to t and cln t off. 100 CC MUD 30 RA -&WI208 ZO 1z30 Bequn puvo at mw 30RB 300 NS WOltv at surtaLl oPrer Qemphi0 multple tnwS Ttam To pull Pump ad insptct tor OBOO iSsues 348 Puilud pump. No dtwaltr in wattr uL. Apptared o nue SLdimunt in Hu ioetom A ltr/ ball valUe 350 Deconned pump aid plau back well. 45 Bigin pUre aaln Warat 1 Su ta 1540 Colluct Mw 30RB -Wi208 26 EKOT tb B. arveon tor AvLitur Pack up at nuw 30R Tam to COVMLX 700 I. Campbell offstte. 880 Teain _ottscte. I1SRe torn_to ttt3el Mw-3oc. 1210 Cot ect | MU30C-GwIz0120 2 40 PacE Up at MW 30Cteam to MW-23. 1250 Bgn se tp at At R 1313 Stavt Purg at MW-z30. MW-23¬. R 1z/8/20 Dae. 12 20 Date 121oz Weather 40'F,Ovevcast Task GUW Sampuo PPE Le vel D miu hecl Ptrsonnii E ReT (w Mor), E. Cainypbell, 1520 G. Rott to CorueX,Gett0 Sw luc titivg ter Spuicvo the Wattr u at M- 23A. Tu we WOS too Sinart to CoME vt ef the Cap E.rreen,M. Day, . Keley E. Murp (waatch350 E. Rot adlds approx lo" Y9 tub w to tbp otwaler Unl on M-23A 1410 egin puro at MW-3A, 1436Saw dramah incrtak O&00 Field team onsitt H+S meehv at taulgat. 0% 1 Pack veucus 0836 E Ret, I Campbeli to MW-23B 0850 Puroe Stayt_at MW -238. Il05 Co ctmwz38-GWi21020 fovbidatu wule purgino mUU -3C. 1508S0iw juep in tubiditu'at mu-23A MW-23C begnnaa T L eax 1200 Tam to Connix to qut tvattc Contvol aund mirt utroqenIV fuvbdi ty. 1540 MUW-23A tur bidi tu becjinung to 1215 Tam to MW-32 230 Bgin puro at MW-32C 124S Saw divtag n tluw at Miwz2 i2s0 B Canren at MW3z. ziST contve lc ob tor adjustine intenvals s Strpped.Cannet hx trday 12SS Carreon Qayes 1300 yin purgk_ at MW-32B 4I0 Cuct w3ZB-GWIZIO 20 435 Ben puvoz at MW-32A. 440 Nonce Hhat waltr flows eck on vechoNoNcyci dLreas 20 Coluct mu-T3A SaApu M z3A GWiz0 26 ZS Colluct AA 23 RMW-23C. MW23C -GWIz0420 i720 TaM to Canux fo unpack S60 Team otfs/te tmaA 7720 Dait: 12/1o 2o (446 Tu VSI lls Hun dvains. Shl alo to puVOR Teum will esnhUe ou npts thàt tus ISSUt shnid e addres scd. Spoe witn B CCvveon about tis isSUe. Cotitct iMW32 GWi zj0 20 Collect MW 32A -GWI 2i0 Z0 DaHe 12 Weahar 30°F, Snw T0SkCW Sampbuna PPE: yel Dmodhed Pevsonrui ERuT (avthar), t. Campbeli, M. Day, E Cayvten,Kelley, Mwvpruy (wasatch) 1500 Feld kam onsste.H+S mthno at talgat. lo00 OX00 lo40 Team back to CUNnLX to Unload veiicu 080E RT Í. Canphel to MW-31 700 E Rot to Fedix to swp eguptiunt USed duvrg dwelopmint TPAm eFtitt Stat purOR ut MiA-314 and MU-3iC 08S0 0900 No wultr from mw2A. Tam rutes that a pressurt re luast on Hu SoDds stravgz 0905 Siwitch ciuaniuls tor mUIf and MW2IC te see ts controtlur u mal toncnon Net thu issue, 010 Ram_pvils _pump. Nots roun water in top ot tubing Plaus inside vehide wi huat om 04 45 Pae ponp ak n well. Sru S@iv Sme 6SUe. i0 20 Chanoe httngs om air lunu and au hs. Wattrprtgnt i715 Contvoliu 777 20 R 1D45 Colluct-Atad mw3IC-GWizllzo Dalt 1/2 0103 Breuk thivgn at MWZIA 05 Begin building wC iu Disth Rech Pess uc Notrs Dole&122 25 Byin purOR_at Mw 31B 20 Cwtuct }ui 318-GWiz| 2.0 1320 Kestart al at MUzIA. Poved appox. Y4 pnor b br takthrovdh 4Z0 Coiluct MiN 3IA -GWiziizo 1570 Teaim to MW 34 to oin bvildio walt C W mns. 20 i0 Nd mvemet 20 30 Bulpes jut hud 30 lcreased 20 20 20 30 20 30 20 WC at MW348 a Mu24C. 1z00 20 20 30 20 1214 12& 2.0 20 I20 12 28 30 26 1234 124S 20 20 70 20 120 1300 id watr 1z//2 1315 2 20 Otts 12ne Date 12/1/z MW-34B Ti WL Disc PRh Press Notes MW-34C TineDisch|Pech Pres Notts Z0 2 D 1558 o /GO0 30 /03 1558 AO| 130O 603 10 20 30 IC5 o 10| 20 30 30 30 40 30 ICO8| 3 0 4-0 IO 1a0 30 i0 o12 2-0 Q0 40 20 1 40 20 130 40 ICa71010 50 CG 12 30 20 40 50 1a0 |5O 50 50 50 10 GO GO 30 1 Ga30 4 10 A0 10 1D0 30 GO .0 30 1a0 GO 63 34 0 3 30 1Q0 10 +0 G 34 10 30 0 I3 3 GA 64 10 30 I0 13 q0 Dake 123|20 Wta 30E, Sunn T0SaW Sammpud ime DScn Rec ]Pess|Notes a wae G53 AA PPE. Mduhed uvefD Coinhvue with puvo 12/3 Pvsonel E.Ren luvtker), T. Cawpl2ell, M.Dau, C etl, . Carreon , Murpn (Wasatch) A000 TtaMonSie.HaS multro at taulgat. 0830 E. PoTt, I. Cauinal t MU 24 0100 Bua buildug WC at Mw 34D, 0910 EPq instails tyainsctvcV on MW 34A. Cuans fdicONS PUNMP. Puns tall, wing approx 5' akre TDC. iW work on Cuttrtubing tov pirianunt nstal 0930 Bgin uildry WC at MW 34, 0945 Nohu waer une B troun o HAtD inttnals.Ttam paus hund waU MVs on unS and SuMS be workng. Bin puIOJR at nw S4D 1020 Abandon C ouilivo ad m 349. Waut vnh| it byins to warm vp. 100 Beqn pu at m W34B. Dak: 12/13| Dale iee| MU-24A Tuu_ish ech Pre NOtes 042010 120 2 N mlt nunT 0134 20 U-34D TiuDIs n RthPess Notes i012A Twu 30 20 120 2 04 O7 30 20 120 909 20 039 10 B0941 20 C 443 20 1339 1 O 20 20 30 Frau watr un 14 1342 342 aO 30 50 3 20 0 1A0 CO /U| 50 50 50 /20 /20 6. 1345 1348 1350 O 30 135 30 70 356 20.10 70 f 3030 70 treeavo ssues 1369 1359 30 30/20|GO Saw awwoes 20 20 70 walttr prent 0 20 70 1413 30 /26 70 10 80 70 bubblh aqaeske428 70 507 Dae z/20 Dalc: z13z 1230 Coluct Mu 34D-GWI21320 13% G-24aA Be in Culluctun of muz4B. sth Reches Note Bvak Hydgh ulurs afttr onuyM Coluction ut TOC. ln VEbuild WC ceep ficez iN P53 0 Wa er. /5 1340 Begum vebuidu Wt at Mu24A. Ttam onung munum msvemmnt uuy to fveeung 143Begin purok at Mu34C. Fow In tallu "at izo nml (duschANOL 44D Fnw cam t a stop at mu34e MOst utely due to r a tE 506 E kou stops pUIC on Mw34c. 545 E1 koU speaks with B. arreOn avd sue abut treezuna SSues ilo00 E PsT tns MW34A bj 3 Pt TO PULUP pUmp attv iMstallatoyM oF transdwur utachment. 1710 E Ku, L lanypbell ts MUN Z t ulp wiH pump re-lnstall. SSes wth ottng tHum fulluy ustallud I815 Team Pfsue. CnmaAt 123/28 Datt:1214 Dal tz4 WaHy: Snw, 30°F TOSLGA Suyouro PPE: Med he) welD Personel: E. ReTlau ther), I. Caphell, 1.Day, B. layr cen, C. Peluy, i 4e Tean fo muzz, 055 Beoui pulje at fuw 22. Ui ejas+ Uid elSwivc 1200 Coliut M 22-Gwiz4 ze Colliet MS/s O Tea iux to gn Pacci COOs H30 Couloc TBei-GWi2)420) Colluct K. urphy (wasatth) 1300 Team bnsi tt. H+S mLtg ut Tulgut O4S E. RT, T. Canup ell to MW 2oS/P C15 TE0Z-&WIZI42e 14HC Cotlt TB63-GWIZuz0 j45 Clluth TB04- GWIZ/420 450 Colutt TBU5-GWIz/+20 4S5 Culuct TBe- &wiz4Z6 A SUU Coluct TBU7-Gwi2/420 505 Cotuct|TBc8 -GWIZ/4Z I 30 E, UT, T. Campinei o Fedix tsuup 1 (ursS 425 Scvo qD vls ketj stuttd he cLyint uanus t park on Hu Vuss. Ttain t ivwvt t ditfeict el. 0130 Ten oats tratht Control and su at M-Zi 0050 Camyel te big uatGun te 766 TRaM offs1leteum at mwiHS/D TCaypiell back at Mwz ColuctSaumpu ct MW 21-&W2/42 USt 0os ud usT Otrollv bc MrsosNe bunv ud elswhue lo10 1028 Date 12/15/0.O M-34P e Dih Rech Pressctes 20 10 30 130 Datt: 7/is/ Weather : Snu, clndu, 30°F s GN Sampu PPE Medthecd LevelD Tcam: E, RIT lather),T. laypull,M, Dal B Carrtun,C. Lelley,k. Murplu(taka) lots bubs 13 F13B5 101Ol 2012O 30 /0 O4-0 /20 30 955 953 O09 30 30 OSCO Team onsitt.H'S Juuthng at tulgattO30 E, ROT, T. Caumploell, M.DayB.Carveon to MW 34. 0160 Scrup on MW34A,B,C. 030 Begin building wt at mw34B (040 Bein puvak at Mu34A 1235 olect MW34A-GWiziS20 15 Team putied mw34B, Fittr ppeavea clbooyd eplaudtt avd t-dyploid 1400 BreaktHuvgh occovred at botm MU 34 B and MN 34C. Team tD MWZlo. E.POu calls Noan Fron BESST t order more iters and diccurs 0ptrons.NVoah tommunicate tat hu have lo0 micron fitt aiaulaloll, butHhoe wont 4-0 IU3G 50 30 0|/O| 60 20/2O |oO 120 13 30 JIt1O 2071 I/50 0 7Owter 430 500 Datc 2s/2 Dalt: 12/1s/20 Ht i reqvevs.Covdd wgrk at MUW 3+ PIsCUSed that ttl ttam can ateipt uSiro kacktoRy Nc thuuh filtr un wátr to iUay aut lnsteadS2 O replaI euenYfAumL Disussed clia ot a stauvluss tube wiI wus dnlud n it and VLSh CuDen thMUA VlolUS as an attuchrmwt hte alttrnatve tor MW Z lwi ti vewvs). Noan to Slup ttamtnuw fi ttus Over ua ht 1S00 o30 Teaim to (CnnX fo unpac 700 Fcid ttam offsi te. 1500 1eaim to MuZ. atup on MW2D,C,B 00 Break HuwogN_oL urred at muw zuC Ovd D. ltarm pulld pwmyps. b10 Mw Z pump ancd tvbig Cluavy clooopd w itm rd-ish admenti Team tws hed botM av avd watK wih DI wattr lo20 1Ram pullid MwzioD.MUtr apptlitd, to be a darw oycu stlar b t wat duschaioLd pnor to prtaktraigh. o2/s1/3 Dat 12/1e /zo Weatur:Clwdy 30°F TaskGW Sampung PPE Modi thed uwel D Pevsovul E. RaT lau Her), T, Campetl,M.Dauy,. larreon,C. elluy, K. lyrpuy M-34 Peplaud h tu, rediypluyel puip u_Disch Rcn PrcesNoRs 20 20 No mvemn 01 Sert bUs at ed 30 ZC 30 ts bunous yeu 014 20 3D0 TeAM Unsite.H+S muut a 2,0 0032 2,0 20 Oulgatt 20 OS E, RUT,I. Canuplell to mw38S/D.0900 E LT kack b Conu x to opt tieatic E 094s io 20 itb Covntre 40 051 Btin puvge at w3s. 000 Httulupt pUCe start at muU 380. 20 i027 l0 35 2|1zo 30 IS Sues wim UST Contvailu Bgn pueL at Mws8D. Scth ve (aui b adjusha n tuture_wth tvncHouy cntrdlu 140 Colluct [mw 380-GWizlu z0 CoLact (MIN 38 S-Cai l Uow 300 Tèam te MW 20 b up rtinstall puinyps14-00 E KUT, I, Caruploed to Mi 34. Clawpd hter n MwB4B. e deplayalPuiud mlW34C,eplaud hlwr and 20 016 o 6 120 200 120 70 7 r2i3 20 70 watt 2 rRipoyea otM Stgu choul Usl tntralleys Oe vwt WorE. 1430 Datt 2/1/26 Dalc z 45CoutvetlerS are veüasV As S as Weat her (Caun, sngy20 ask GW Saunpung PPE: Modu fierl uvel D ersovu E. kT (authov), T. Lainpbell, m Day 30' Qds fuvayd on, uey shck Soluitoat HHtmp td chajgi vno batty covneLtiO) 0as tittos,cja Vegulator E.ROTT colls Noan Hellr (BESST) tov fvobu sootng assisfane Hbeuives +hat if's ükelu the SoLevnoids rtachud leir fc tvw. .Cavrcovn, C. Yelluy,K. 1MivpiylWa ut) Ram nst. Hs muthrq at tu laate 0100 t.Ko, B. (avreovn to mw34. Bgin buldno wC at Mw34B and C 1300 Watv ot mw348.Cotiuch qrab VO SanMpl. MiN 348 Gwii720 i300 Bey in purel At Mw?48 lus tral cycluy at l60 aml /duschavay 1315 Began dvawtno back duta rtchavou at MW3+B. Pullina wouftr vp ut alr une, evitlentt y releE valwe on usTeantveilur ovbbua,wem mosture. HS Ed pumi at Mw 348. No pos tire WAtr om) t dvnna duschayK Teain back to tul wriiix,fvusli CEiegUrptimevt avd we Lers. 1545 E. POTt T. Calnpiacll fo MW Ze Contrvnue wlp nstalluy mU 2UC. Unabu to 700 Tean of fsIte. Tneaf 12/1e/70 760 an &tfsie. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah DATE: 12/7/2020 Prepared by: Ben Carreon Personnel on site, including Contractors: CDM Smith – Ben Carreon, Maria Day, Tea Vrtlar, Emma Rott, Joe Miller, Iona Campbell, Connor Kelley Wasatch – Kevin Murphy Visitors/Others: None Weather Temperature Wind Humidity Sunny Partly Cloudy Overcast Rain Snow 85+ º F 70 to 85º F 50 to 70 º F 32 to 50 º F 0 To 32 º F Still Moderate High Dry Moderate Humid Equipment in Use (field instruments, subcontractor equip, etc.) • Development equipment • Water level and low-flow groundwater sampling equipment Description of Field Activities – including samples/data collected, etc: • A H&S tailgate was conducted at the IDW yard area. • Equipment was calibrated. • Synoptic Water Level Event o All water levels were completed except at monitoring wells: MW-08A/B/C, MW-14D, MW-17S, MW-28, MW-29 A/B/C, and MW-32A/B/C. These locations will be completed 12/8/20. • Groundwater Sampling o No groundwater samples were collected. • Development o MW-13L ▪ Prior to development, the total depth at MW-13L was 151.06’ below top of casing; anticipated depth should be 160’ below top of casing. Eight gallons bailed and 17 gallons were pumped on 12/6/20. Depth to bottom was measured at 152.1’ below top of casing. Today (12/7/20), surging and pumping with the Geotech reclaimer pump removed approximately 100 gallons and depth to water at the end of the day was 154.15’ below top of casing. Depth to bottom will be measured tomorrow (12/8/20), at that time we will assess how to move forward with further development and sampling during this event. o MW-34A ▪ Development was initiated at MW-34A using the Waterra pump, and 15 gallons were removed. At the end of the day turbidity was still high; development will continue tomorrow. o MW-38S/D ▪ Dedicated pumps were deployed. • Samples collected: o IDW15-GW120720 – Poly water tank o IDW16-GW120720 – Drum with sediment water and hydraulic fluid from phase I of investigation • Samples to be collected tomorrow: o 2x IDW soil samples from remaining roll off bins. Issues/Problems Encountered/Deficiencies/Deviations from QAPP (and resolutions): • MP10H controller solenoid was sticking until the temperature was above 35F. All controllers will be kept in the hotel rooms to prevent any moisture build up and reduce sticking at low temperatures. • Development at MW-13L (see above). • The teams were short one water level meter due to a shipping issue with Field Environmental. Everything else shipped for the groundwater sampling event was accounted for except 50’ of silicone and a regulator. The missing equipment and supplies are expected to arrive 12/7/20. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah • Salt Lake County has a mandatory mask mandate in effect since Saturday, June 27. Masks are required in public. Projected Work – Near Term: • One team will continue development of MW-34A and will begin development of MW-26B. Following development, pumps will be deployed at MW-37S/D (time permitting). • One team will complete the synoptic water level event and then begin sampling. • Two teams will begin groundwater sampling. Other Activities/Remarks: Photos: Date: 12/7/2020 Location: MW-06 Description: Measuring water level Date: 12/7/2020 Location: MW-02 Description: Stockpile of salt/gravel near well Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah DATE: 12/8/2020 Prepared by: Ben Carreon Personnel on site, including Contractors: CDM Smith – Ben Carreon, Maria Day, Tea Vrtlar, Emma Rott, Joe Miller, Iona Campbell, Connor Kelley Wasatch – Kevin Murphy Visitors/Others: None Weather Temperature Wind Humidity Sunny Partly Cloudy Overcast Rain Snow 85+ º F 70 to 85º F 50 to 70 º F 32 to 50 º F 0 To 32 º F Still Moderate High Dry Moderate Humid Equipment in Use (field instruments, subcontractor equip, etc.) · Development equipment · Water level and low-flow groundwater sampling equipment Description of Field Activities – including samples/data collected, etc: · A H&S tailgate was conducted at the IDW yard area. · Equipment was calibrated. · Synoptic Water Level Event o The remaining water levels were measured. · Groundwater Sampling o Groundwater samples collected:  MW-05R (MW05R-GW120820 and FD05-GW120820) · For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry  Metals  Dissolved gases  Sulfate, chloride  Nitrate + nitrite (total N)  TOC  Alkalinity  MW-24 (MW24-GW120820) · For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry  MW-27 (MW27-GW120820) · For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry  MW-28 (MW28-GW120820) · For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry  MW-30RA (MW30RA-GW120820) · For the following parameters: o VOCs o 1,4-Dioxane Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah o Geochemistry  MW-30RB (MW30RB-GW120820) · For the following parameters: o VOCs o 1,4-Dioxane o Geochemistry o No samples were shipped to EMAX Labs. · Development o MW-13L  DTB was measured at 153.91’ BTOC. o MW-34A  Development was completed. A total of 88.5 gallons were purged with the Waterra pump. o MW-26B  Began development however not much progress was made with the limited daylight available. · Drilling IDW o Samples collected:  Roll off bin #5843  Roll off bin #6030 o IDW samples collected 12/7 and 12/8 were shipped to the lab. Issues/Problems Encountered/Deficiencies/Deviations from QAPP (and resolutions): · At the beginning of purging MW-30RB, water did not surface at expected pressures. The pump was pulled and rinsed to remove sediment which corrected the issue and the well was sampled. · MW-12S was dry. Water level was not measured, and samples will not be collected. · The water level at MW-31A was below the top of the volume booster. As the installation of the volume booster was difficult at this location, the pump was not pulled, and a water level was not measured. · The water level at MW-29A was below the top of the volume booster. After pulling the pump, the airline was noted to be twisted. Spare swagelok fittings will be purchased should any issues be encountered while sampling. The tubing was straightened however the tubing should be trimmed as preventative maintenance in the near future. · MP10H controller solenoids were again sticking despite keeping the controllers in hotel rooms overnight. · One YSI had a pH sensor in need of replacement. A replacement YSI was requested and will arrive 12/9/20. · Salt Lake County has a mandatory mask mandate in effect since Saturday, June 27. Masks are required in public. Projected Work – Near Term: · Continue development of MW-26B. Following development, pumps will be deployed at MW-37S/D. · Continue groundwater sampling. Other Activities/Remarks: · United services picked up the fencing and jobsite toilet. · Drilling PIDs and Mag Sep meters were packed for shipment. Photos: Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 12/8/2020 Location: MW-29A Description: Twisted tubing Date: 12/8/2020 Location: MW-26B Description: Waterra foot valve Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 12/8/2020 Location: MW-26B Description: Development setup Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah DATE: 12/9/2020 Prepared by: Ben Carreon Personnel on site, including Contractors: CDM Smith – Ben Carreon, Maria Day, Emma Rott, Iona Campbell, Connor Kelley Wasatch – Kevin Murphy Visitors/Others: None Weather Temperature Wind Humidity Sunny Partly Cloudy Overcast Rain Snow 85+ º F 70 to 85º F 50 to 70 º F 32 to 50 º F 0 To 32 º F Still Moderate High Dry Moderate Humid Equipment in Use (field instruments, subcontractor equip, etc.) • Development equipment • Water level and low-flow groundwater sampling equipment Description of Field Activities – including samples/data collected, etc: • A H&S tailgate was conducted at the IDW yard area. • Equipment was calibrated. • Groundwater Sampling o Groundwater samples collected: ▪ MW-08A (MW08A-GW120920 and FD03-GW120920) • For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry ▪ Metals ▪ Dissolved gases ▪ Sulfate, chloride ▪ Nitrate + nitrite (total N) ▪ TOC ▪ Alkalinity ▪ MW-08B (MW08B-GW120920) • For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry ▪ MW-08C (MW08C-GW120920) • For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry ▪ MW-12D (MW12D-GW120920) • For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry ▪ MW-15S (MW15S-GW120920) • For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry ▪ MW-15D (MW15D-GW120920) • For the following parameters: o VOCs Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah o Geochemistry ▪ MW-23A (MW23A-GW120920) • For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry ▪ MW-23C (MW23C-GW120920) • For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry ▪ MW-25A (MW25A-GW120920) • For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry ▪ MW-30C (MW30C-GW120920) • For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry o Difficulties were encountered while purging MW-25B. Breakthrough was experienced despite staying under the maximum allowable volume per discharge cycle. When rebuilding the water column, breakthrough was again experienced. The pump filter will be replaced 12/10/20 in an effort to resolve breakthrough issues. o The following samples were shipped to EMAX Labs: ▪ MW05R-GW120820 ▪ FD05-GW120820 ▪ MW08A-GW120920 ▪ FD03-GW120920 ▪ MW08B-GW120920 ▪ MW08C-GW120920 ▪ MW12D-GW120920 ▪ MW15S-GW120920 ▪ MW15D-GW120920 ▪ MW24-GW120820 ▪ MW27-GW120820 ▪ MW28-GW120820 ▪ MW30RA-GW120820 ▪ MW30RB-GW120820 ▪ MW30C-GW120920 • Development o MW-26B ▪ Development with the Waterra pump was not successful. Instead, development was completed using the air lifting apparatus, but by slightly pressurizing the well casing during air lift. A total of 27 gallons were purged using this method for development, until the water had significantly cleared. Issues/Problems Encountered/Deficiencies/Deviations from QAPP (and resolutions): • Breakthrough during purging and during water column building at MW-25B. • One additional YSI was also displaying erroneous pH measurements. The readings had later normalized however a second replacement YSI was still requested. • Salt Lake County has a mandatory mask mandate in effect since Saturday, June 27. Masks are required in public. Projected Work – Near Term: • Continue groundwater sampling. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Other Activities/Remarks: • None. Photos: Date: 12/9/2020 Location: MW-23 Description: Equipment setup Date: 12/9/2020 Location: MW-26B Description: Development setup Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah DATE: 12/10/2020 Prepared by: Ben Carreon Personnel on site, including Contractors: CDM Smith – Ben Carreon, Maria Day, Emma Rott, Iona Campbell, Connor Kelley Wasatch – Kevin Murphy Visitors/Others: None Weather Temperature Wind Humidity Sunny Partly Cloudy Overcast Rain Snow 85+ º F 70 to 85º F 50 to 70 º F 32 to 50 º F 0 To 32 º F Still Moderate High Dry Moderate Humid Equipment in Use (field instruments, subcontractor equip, etc.) • Water level and low-flow groundwater sampling equipment Description of Field Activities – including samples/data collected, etc: • A H&S tailgate was conducted at the IDW yard area. • Equipment was calibrated. • Groundwater Sampling o Groundwater samples collected: ▪ MW-04 (MW04-GW121020 and FD02-GW121020) • For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry ▪ Metals ▪ Dissolved gases ▪ Sulfate, chloride ▪ Nitrate + nitrite (total N) ▪ TOC ▪ Alkalinity ▪ MW-06 (MW06-GW121020) • For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry ▪ MW-16D (MW16D-GW121020) • For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry ▪ MW-16S (MW16S-GW121020) • For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry ▪ MW-23B (MW23B-GW121020) • For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry ▪ MW-25B (MW25B-GW121020) • For the following parameters: o VOCs Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah o Geochemistry ▪ MW-25C (MW25C-GW121020) • For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry ▪ MW-32A (MW32A-GW121020) • For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry ▪ MW-32B (MW32B-GW121020) • For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry ▪ MW-32C (MW32C-GW121020) • For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry o MW-25B panacea pump porous media filter was replaced prior to secondary water column building efforts. The water column was successfully built, and the well was purged and sampled. o No samples were shipped to EMAX labs. Issues/Problems Encountered/Deficiencies/Deviations from QAPP (and resolutions): • Salt Lake County has a mandatory mask mandate in effect since Saturday, June 27. Masks are required in public. Projected Work – Near Term: • Continue groundwater sampling. Other Activities/Remarks: • None. Photos: Date: 12/10/2020 Location: MW-25B Description: Used filter Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 12/10/2020 Location: MW-25B Description: Water column building Date: 12/10/2020 Location: N/A Description: Setting screw for recharge timer units stripped. Needs to be replaced. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah DATE: 12/11/2020 Prepared by: Ben Carreon Personnel on site, including Contractors: CDM Smith – Ben Carreon, Maria Day, Emma Rott, Iona Campbell, Connor Kelley Wasatch – Kevin Murphy Visitors/Others: None Weather Temperature Wind Humidity Sunny Partly Cloudy Overcast Rain Snow 85+ º F 70 to 85º F 50 to 70 º F 32 to 50 º F 0 To 32 º F Still Moderate High Dry Moderate Humid Equipment in Use (field instruments, subcontractor equip, etc.) • Water level and low-flow groundwater sampling equipment Description of Field Activities – including samples/data collected, etc: • A H&S tailgate was conducted at the IDW yard area. • Equipment was calibrated. • Groundwater Sampling o Groundwater samples collected: ▪ MW-03RA (MW03RA-GW121120) • For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry ▪ Metals ▪ Dissolved gases ▪ Sulfate, chloride ▪ Nitrate + nitrite (total N) ▪ TOC ▪ Alkalinity ▪ MW-03RB (MW03RB-GW121120) • For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry ▪ MW-03RC (MW03RC-GW121120) • For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry ▪ MW-03RD (MW03RD-GW121120) • For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry ▪ MW-13S (MW13D-GW121120) • For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry ▪ MW-13D (MW13D-GW121120) • For the following parameters: o VOCs Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah o Geochemistry ▪ MW-17S (MW17S-GW121120) • For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry ▪ MW-29B (MW29B-GW121120) • For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry ▪ MW-29C (MW29C-GW121120) • For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry ▪ MW-31A (MW31A-GW121120) • For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry ▪ MW-31B (MW31B-GW121120) • For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry ▪ MW-31C (MW31C-GW121120) • For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry o No samples were shipped to EMAX labs. All samples currently being held will be sent out Monday. Issues/Problems Encountered/Deficiencies/Deviations from QAPP (and resolutions): • Various discharge lines (MW-03R, MW-29, and MW-31) were found to be frozen near the surface. Pumps either had to be pulled and warmed in a vehicle or a portable electric device had to be attached to the outside of the tubing to thaw the water in the tubing and allow for successful purging. • MW-03RA experienced breakthrough while purging. The water column was rebuilt, and the well was successfully sampled. • MW-03RD had an apparent check valve issue causing purge water to drain back down the discharge tubing. The pump was pulled, and the spring and filter were replaced. The pump was then re-deployed and the draw back issue was resolved. • While purging MW-13S on 12/10/20, a sample could not be collected before the well went dry. A sample was collected on 12/11/20 after recharge had occurred. • Salt Lake County has a mandatory mask mandate in effect since Saturday, June 27. Masks are required in public. Projected Work – Near Term: • Sampling teams will have a rest day on 12/12/20. • Continue groundwater sampling on 12/13/20. Other Activities/Remarks: • None. Photos: Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 12/11/2020 Location: MW-32 Description: MW-32A (left) and MW-32B/C (right) purge water Date: 12/11/2020 Location: MW-03RB Description: Pump prior to filter and spring replacement Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah DATE: 12/13/2020 Prepared by: Ben Carreon Personnel on site, including Contractors: CDM Smith – Ben Carreon, Maria Day, Emma Rott, Iona Campbell, Connor Kelley Wasatch – Kevin Murphy Visitors/Others: None Weather Temperature Wind Humidity Sunny Partly Cloudy Overcast Rain Snow 85+ º F 70 to 85º F 50 to 70 º F 32 to 50 º F 0 To 32 º F Still Moderate High Dry Moderate Humid Equipment in Use (field instruments, subcontractor equip, etc.) • Water level and low-flow groundwater sampling equipment Description of Field Activities – including samples/data collected, etc: • A H&S tailgate was conducted at the IDW yard area. • Equipment was calibrated. • Groundwater Sampling o Groundwater samples collected: ▪ MW-17D (MW17D-GW121320) • For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry ▪ Metals ▪ Dissolved gases ▪ Sulfate, chloride ▪ Nitrate + nitrite (total N) ▪ TOC ▪ Alkalinity ▪ MW-29A (MW29A-GW121320) • For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry ▪ MW-34D (MW34C-GW121320) • For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry o No samples were shipped to EMAX labs. All samples currently being held will be sent out Monday. o A transducer was installed at MW-34A. o Water columns were built at MW-26C and D while working pumps down to the receivers. o Pumps were deployed at MW-37S/D. o MW-13L dedicated pump was assembled for mid-screen deployment, however, will be temporarily placed at a shallower depth during sampling due to the current presence of sediment in the well. Issues/Problems Encountered/Deficiencies/Deviations from QAPP (and resolutions): • Various discharge lines (MW-26, MW-29, and MW-34) were found to be frozen and continued to freeze during purging. Before sampling, pumps were pulled and warmed in a vehicle. During sampling, a portable electric device Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah was attached to the outside of the tubing to thaw the water in the tubing and allow for successful purging. As this offered limited success, the sampling team will make the next attempt to sample the remaining ZIST wells (MW-26 and MW-34) during warmer/sunnier days (Tuesday and Wednesday). These wells are prone to freezing at the surface, due to the small diameter of tubing and the low flow rate during purging. • Pump reinstallations were difficult at MW-26A, C, and D as the cold tubing is less flexible. • Breakthrough was encountered at MW-34B. • Salt Lake County has a mandatory mask mandate in effect since Saturday, June 27. Masks are required in public. Projected Work – Near Term: • Continue groundwater sampling. Other Activities/Remarks: • None. Photos: Date: 12/12/2020 Location: MW-37 Description: Typical shallow well pump deployment Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 12/12/2020 Location: MW-37S/D Description: Pump deployment Date: 12/12/2020 Location: MW-26A/D Description: Pump deployment Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah DATE: 12/14/2020 Prepared by: Ben Carreon Personnel on site, including Contractors: CDM Smith – Ben Carreon, Maria Day, Emma Rott, Iona Campbell, Connor Kelley Wasatch – Kevin Murphy Visitors/Others: None Weather Temperature Wind Humidity Sunny Partly Cloudy Overcast Rain Snow 85+ º F 70 to 85º F 50 to 70 º F 32 to 50 º F 0 To 32 º F Still Moderate High Dry Moderate Humid Equipment in Use (field instruments, subcontractor equip, etc.) • Water level and low-flow groundwater sampling equipment Description of Field Activities – including samples/data collected, etc: • A H&S tailgate was conducted at the IDW yard area. • Equipment was calibrated. • Groundwater Sampling o Groundwater samples collected: ▪ MW-14S (MW14S-GW121420) • For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry ▪ Metals ▪ Dissolved gases ▪ Sulfate, chloride ▪ Nitrate + nitrite (total N) ▪ TOC ▪ Alkalinity ▪ MW-14D (MW14D-GW121420) • For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry ▪ MW-18 (MW18-GW121420, FD06-GW121420) • For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry ▪ MW-19 (MW19-GW121420) • For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry ▪ W-20S (MW20S-GW121420) • For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry ▪ MW-21 (MW21-GW121420) • For the following parameters: o VOCs Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah o Geochemistry ▪ MW-22 (MW22-GW121420) • For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry ▪ MW-36 (MW36-GW121420, FD07-GW121420) • For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry o 1,4-Dioxane ▪ MW-37S (MW37S-GW121420 and FD04-GW121420) • For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry o 1,4-Dioxane ▪ MW-37D (MW37D-GW121420) • For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry o 1,4-Dioxane o The following samples were shipped to EMAX labs: ▪ MW03RA-GW121120 ▪ MW03RB-GW121120 ▪ MW03RC-GW121120 ▪ MW03RD-GW121120 ▪ MW04-GW121020 ▪ FD02-GW121020 ▪ MW06-GW121020 ▪ MW13S-GW121120 ▪ MW13D-GW121120 ▪ MW14S-GW121420 ▪ MW14D-GW121420 ▪ MW16S-GW121020 ▪ MW16D-GW121020 ▪ MW17S-GW121120 ▪ MW17D-GW121320 ▪ MW19-GW121420 ▪ MW21-GW121420 ▪ MW22-GW121420 ▪ MW23A-GW120920 ▪ MW23B-GW121020 ▪ MW23C-GW120920 ▪ MW25A-GW120920 ▪ MW25B-GW121020 ▪ MW25C-GW121020 ▪ MW29A-GW121320 ▪ MW29B-GW121120 ▪ MW29C-GW121120 ▪ MW31A-GW121120 ▪ MW31B-GW121120 ▪ MW31C-GW121120 ▪ MW32A-GW121020 ▪ MW32B-GW121020 Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah ▪ MW32C-GW121020 ▪ MW34D-GW121320 ▪ MW36-GW121420 ▪ FD07-GW121420 Issues/Problems Encountered/Deficiencies/Deviations from QAPP (and resolutions): • Salt Lake County has a mandatory mask mandate in effect since Saturday, June 27. Masks are required in public. Projected Work – Near Term: • Continue groundwater sampling. Other Activities/Remarks: • None. Photos: Date: 12/14/2020 Location: MW-36 Description: Initial purge water Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 12/14/2020 Location: MW-36 Description: Equipment setup Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah DATE: 12/15/2020 Prepared by: Ben Carreon Personnel on site, including Contractors: CDM Smith – Ben Carreon, Maria Day, Emma Rott, Iona Campbell, Connor Kelley Wasatch – Kevin Murphy Visitors/Others: None Weather Temperature Wind Humidity Sunny Partly Cloudy Overcast Rain Snow 85+ º F 70 to 85º F 50 to 70 º F 32 to 50 º F 0 To 32 º F Still Moderate High Dry Moderate Humid Equipment in Use (field instruments, subcontractor equip, etc.) • Water level and low-flow groundwater sampling equipment Description of Field Activities – including samples/data collected, etc: • A H&S tailgate was conducted at the IDW yard area. • Equipment was calibrated. • Groundwater Sampling o Groundwater samples collected: ▪ MW-01D (MW01D-GW121520) • For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry ▪ Metals ▪ Dissolved gases ▪ Sulfate, chloride ▪ Nitrate + nitrite (total N) ▪ TOC ▪ Alkalinity ▪ MW-20D (MW20D-GW121520) • For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry ▪ MW-34A (MW34A-GW121520) • For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry o 1,4-Dioxane o Water columns at MW-26A/B began to be built. o No samples were shipped to EMAX labs. Issues/Problems Encountered/Deficiencies/Deviations from QAPP (and resolutions): • When purging MW-01S, air entrainment was present in the groundwater discharge line. The field team pulled the pump and noticed new and alternative compression fittings may resolve the issue. When pulling the pump, the field team also noticed that the ferrule cables at the pump were deteriorating and in need of replacement. Supplies will be purchased, and repairs will be made prior to sampling. • When purging MW-20D, the QED MP50 and MP10H controllers were having issues cycling properly. Ultimately, a BESST ZIST controller was used to successfully purge the well. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah • Attempts were made to continue building MW-26C, however, when no air movement was evident at pressures exceeding the anticipated purging pressure, the pump and tubing were pulled. Excessive sediment was noted in the pump and tubing. Groundwater and sediment were purged from the lines and DI water was flushed through the tubing. • When purging MW-26D, a large grayish turbid slug of groundwater was noted to pass through the flow-through cell. Shortly after, breakthrough was encountered. The pump and tubing were pulled to examine the pump. Some sediment was noted. • A new filter was installed at MW-34B. Attempts were made to build water columns at MW-34B/C, however, breakthrough was encountered at both locations. • Salt Lake County has a mandatory mask mandate in effect since Saturday, June 27. Masks are required in public. Projected Work – Near Term: • Continue groundwater sampling. Other Activities/Remarks: • None. Photos: Date: 12/15/2020 Location: MW-01S Description: Pump Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 12/15/2020 Location: MW-26C Description: Sediment in pump Date: 12/15/2020 Location: MW-34B Description: New and replacement filter Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah DATE: 12/16/2020 Prepared by: Ben Carreon Personnel on site, including Contractors: CDM Smith – Ben Carreon, Maria Day, Emma Rott, Iona Campbell, Connor Kelley Wasatch – Kevin Murphy Visitors/Others: None Weather Temperature Wind Humidity Sunny Partly Cloudy Overcast Rain Snow 85+ º F 70 to 85º F 50 to 70 º F 32 to 50 º F 0 To 32 º F Still Moderate High Dry Moderate Humid Equipment in Use (field instruments, subcontractor equip, etc.) • Water level and low-flow groundwater sampling equipment Description of Field Activities – including samples/data collected, etc: • A H&S tailgate was conducted at the IDW yard area. • Equipment was calibrated. • Groundwater Sampling o Groundwater samples collected: ▪ MW-01S (MW01S-GW121620) • For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry ▪ Metals ▪ Dissolved gases ▪ Sulfate, chloride ▪ Nitrate + nitrite (total N) ▪ TOC ▪ Alkalinity ▪ MW-02 (MW02-GW121620, FD01-GW121620) • For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry ▪ MW-13L (MW13L-GW121620) • For the following parameters: o Grab VOCs only ▪ MW-26A (MW26A-GW121620) • For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry ▪ MW-26B (MW26B-GW121620) • For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry o 1,4-Dioxane ▪ MW-38S (MW38S-GW121620) • For the following parameters: o VOCs Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah o Geochemistry o 1,4-Dioxane ▪ MW-38D (MW38D-GW121620) • For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry o 1,4-Dioxane ▪ Field Blank (FB01-GW121620) • For the following parameters: o VOCs o 1,4-Dioxane o Replaced the leaking Hy-Lok fittings with new Swagelok fittings on the MW-01S pump. Replaced the corroded aluminum cable crimps with new stainless steel cable clamps. o Finished building water columns at MW-26A/B prior to purging and sampling. o Started building MW-26D water column. o Filters were replaced at MW-26C/D. o A spring was replaced at MW-26D after it was noted that the discharge line was attempting to draw water back down the line. o No samples were shipped to EMAX labs. Issues/Problems Encountered/Deficiencies/Deviations from QAPP (and resolutions): • After purging MW-13L for over an hour at 200 mL/min, amounting to approximately 5 gallons, turbidity was still out of range (>1000 NTU). No parameters were collected due to how turbid the solution was, but a grab VOC sample was collected. • The QED MP50, MP10H, and the rental ZIST controller units are all now experiencing solenoid valve issues. The only well operating controller is the VA dual-channel ZIST controller. • Difficulties were encountered re-deploying MW-26C pump. This issue was experienced 12/13/20 as well, and it was observed that the tubing was clogged with sediment, likely causing buoyancy issues during pump deployment. Attempts were made to aid in lowering of the pump by purposely cycling air through the air line and out the discharge line however this didn’t help. As the well is too turbid to deploy the pump, tomorrow an alternate sampling method without the pump will be attempted. This method will slightly pressurize the well, forcing water up the tubing to surface. After three casing volumes have been purged, a grab VOC sample will be collected. • Salt Lake County has a mandatory mask mandate in effect since Saturday, June 27. Masks are required in public. Projected Work – Near Term: • Complete groundwater sampling. • Send samples to the lab. • Return rental equipment. • IDW yard housekeeping. Other Activities/Remarks: • None. Photos: Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 12/16/2020 Location: MW-01S Description: MW-01S pump with replacement fittings Date: 12/16/2020 Location: MW-26C Description: Attempting to deploy MW-26C Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah DATE: 12/17/2020 Prepared by: Ben Carreon Personnel on site, including Contractors: CDM Smith – Ben Carreon, Maria Day, Emma Rott, Iona Campbell, Connor Kelley Wasatch – Kevin Murphy Visitors/Others: None Weather Temperature Wind Humidity Sunny Partly Cloudy Overcast Rain Snow 85+ º F 70 to 85º F 50 to 70 º F 32 to 50 º F 0 To 32 º F Still Moderate High Dry Moderate Humid Equipment in Use (field instruments, subcontractor equip, etc.) • Water level and low-flow groundwater sampling equipment Description of Field Activities – including samples/data collected, etc: • A H&S tailgate was conducted at the IDW yard area. • Equipment was calibrated. • Groundwater Sampling o Groundwater samples collected: ▪ MW-26C (MW26C-GW121720) • For the following parameters: o Grab VOCs only ▪ MW-34B (MW34B-GW121720) • For the following parameters: o Grab VOCs only ▪ MW-34C (MW34C-GW121620) • For the following parameters: o Grab VOCs only o All rental equipment was returned. o The remaining samples were shipped to EMAX labs: ▪ MW01S-GW121520 ▪ MW01D-GW121620 ▪ MW02-GW121620 ▪ MW13L-GW121620 ▪ MW26A- GW121620 ▪ MW26B-GW121620 ▪ MW26C-GW121720 ▪ MW34A-GW121520 ▪ MW34B-GW121720 ▪ MW34C-GW121720 ▪ MW37S-GW121420 ▪ MW37D- GW121420 ▪ MW38S-GW121620 ▪ MW38D-GW121620 ▪ FD01-GW121620 ▪ FD04-GW121420 ▪ FD06-GW121420 Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Issues/Problems Encountered/Deficiencies/Deviations from QAPP (and resolutions): • Due to excessive sediment in the well, the team was unable to deploy a pump in MW-26C. A pressurized air lifting method was used to purge the well. Purge water was very turbid (>1000 NTU) throughout purging. After four casing volumes had been purged, a grab sample for VOCs was collected. • Due to excessive sediment in the well, the team experienced difficulties deploying the pump in MW-26D. A pressurized air lifting method was used to purge the well, and two casing volumes were purged. Purge water was very turbid (>1000 NTU). A grab VOC sample was unable to be collected as the regulator froze when purging the third casing volume. • When purging MW-34B, water began to drain back down the groundwater purge line. Attempts were made to overcome the drawback, however after approximately one hour of purging, water was noted to have entered the controller. It is presumed that there are likely check valve and/or solenoid valve issues. A grab sample for VOCs was collected. • When purging MW-34C, turbidity began to steadily increase throughout the purge until the minimum purge volume had been met. Due to the excessive turbidity and the possibility of filter clogging, only a grab sample for VOCs was collected. • Salt Lake County has a mandatory mask mandate in effect since Saturday, June 27. Masks are required in public. Projected Work – Near Term: • None. Other Activities/Remarks: • None. Photos: Date: 12/17/2020 Location: MW-34B Description: Water coming out the air discharge hose Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 12/16/2020 Location: MW-26C Description: Purge water Date: 12/16/2020 Location: MW-26D Description: Purge water Appendix C Quality Control Summary Report                 Quality Control Summary Report Q4 2020 Groundwater Sampling  Event  Operable Unit 1 Remedial Investigation   700 South 1600 East PCE Plume,   Salt Lake City, Utah  March 2021      i  Table of Contents   Section 1 Data Usability and Assessment Review .............................................................. 1‐1  1.1 Usability Summary ................................................................................................................................................... 1-1  Section 2 Quality Assurance Objectives ............................................................................. 2‐1  Section 3 Field and Laboratory Quality Assurance Activities .............................................. 3‐1  3.1 Deviations from Field Procedures ..................................................................................................................... 3-2  3.2 Field Quality Assurance/Quality Control ....................................................................................................... 3-3  3.3 Laboratory Quality Assurance/Quality Control .......................................................................................... 3-3  3.3.1 Laboratory Methods .................................................................................................................................. 3-3  Section 4 Data Validation Procedures ................................................................................ 4‐1  Section 5 Data Quality Indicators ....................................................................................... 5‐1  5.1 Precision ....................................................................................................................................................................... 5-1  5.2 Accuracy ....................................................................................................................................................................... 5-2  5.2.1 Percent Recovery ........................................................................................................................................ 5-2  5.2.2 Blank Contamination ................................................................................................................................. 5-4  5.3 Representativeness .................................................................................................................................................. 5-7  5.4 Comparability ............................................................................................................................................................. 5-7  5.5 Completeness ............................................................................................................................................................. 5-7  5.6 Sensitivity ..................................................................................................................................................................... 5-8  Section 6 Data Usability Assessment ................................................................................. 6‐1  Section 7 References ......................................................................................................... 7‐1  List of Tables  Table 3-1 Sample List and Analyses Table 3-2 Blank Sample Results Table 4-1 Qualification Summary  Table 5-1 DQIs and Corresponding QC Parameters  Table 5-2 Summary of Field Duplicate Sampling Results  Attachments  Attachment 1 Data Validation Reports  Attachment 2 Data Package Completeness Review Checklists  Attachment 3 Analytical Data Packages    i  Acronyms  % percent %D percent difference %R percent recovery CDM Smith CDM Federal Programs Corporation COC chain-of-custody DQI data quality indicator DQO data quality objective EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ICP inductively coupled plasma ICP-MS inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry LCS laboratory control sample LCSD laboratory control sample duplicate EMAX EMAX Laboratories, Inc. MDL method detection limit MRL method reporting limit MS/MSD matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate NTU nephelometric turbidity unit PARCCS precision, accuracy, representativeness, comparability, completeness, and sensitivity PCE tetrachloroethene QA quality assurance QAPP quality assurance project plan QC quality control QCSR quality control summary report RPD relative percent difference RSD relative standard deviation SDG sample delivery group SIM selective ion monitoring Site 700 South 1600 East Tetrachloroethene Plume Superfund Site SM standard method SVOC semivolatile organic compound TOC total organic carbon USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers VOC volatile organic compound ZIST Zone Isolation Sampling Technology   1‐1  Section 1  Data Usability and Assessment Review  Under the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Kansas City District, Contract No. W912DQ-18-D-3008, Task Order No. W912DQ19F3048, CDM Federal Programs Corporation (CDM Smith) was directed to perform a remedial investigation for Operable Unit 1 of the 700 South 1600 East Tetrachloroethene (PCE) Plume Superfund Site (Site) in Salt Lake City, Utah. To assist in the ongoing remedial investigation at the Site, groundwater samples were collected from December 8 through 17, 2020 and shipped to EMAX Laboratories, Inc. (EMAX) in Torrance, California for analysis. The purpose of this quality control summary report (QCSR) is to summarize the data validation and determine whether the sample results meet the data quality objective (DQO) of the data usability outlined in the Phase 2 Quality Assurance Project Plan, Operable Unit 1, 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah, Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Kansas City District (QAPP) (CDM Smith 2020). 1.1 Usability Summary Data collected and validated during this field investigation are usable as reported. Applicable data validation qualifiers were added if required. No sample results were rejected. Specific details are provided in the data validation reports summarized in Section 5 and presented in Attachment 1 of this report.   2‐1  Section 2  Quality Assurance Objectives  Quality assurance (QA) objectives for measurement data are expressed in terms of precision, accuracy, representativeness, comparability, completeness, and sensitivity (PARCCS). The PARCCS parameters characterize the quality of the data and as such are called data quality indicators (DQIs). The DQIs provide a mechanism for ongoing quality control (QC) and evaluating and measuring data quality throughout the project. A review of the collected data is necessary to determine if data measurement objectives established in the QAPP (CDM Smith 2020) were met. In general, the following data measurement objectives were considered:  Achievement of analytical method and reporting limit requirements  Adherence to and achievement of appropriate laboratory analytical and field QC requirements  Achievement of required measurement performance criteria for DQIs (the PARCCS parameters)  Adherence to sampling and sample handling procedures  Adherence to the sampling design and deviations documented on field change notifications, if required The data validation review of the DQIs and other QA objectives determines if the data are of sufficient quality to support their intended use.   3‐1  Section 3  Field and Laboratory Quality Assurance Activities  CDM Smith completed field sampling activities between December 8 and 17, 2020. The following table provides a summary of the number of samples collected and the date on which the sampling event occurred: EMAX SDG* 20L102 – Groundwater – December 8 and 9, 2020 13 samples  2 field duplicate samples  4 trip blank samples  EMAX SDG 20L175 – Groundwater – December 14 through 17, 2020 17 samples  3 field duplicate samples  1 field blank sample  6 trip blank samples  EMAX SDG 20L132– Groundwater – December 10 and 14, 2020 6 samples  2 field duplicate samples  2 trip blank samples   EMAX SDG 20L141 – Groundwater – December 11, 13 and 14, 2020 12 samples  3 trip blank samples   EMAX SDG 20L133 – Groundwater – December 9 through 11, 13 and 14, 2020  16 samples  3 trip blank samples  *SDG – sample delivery group All samples were received intact with proper chain-of-custody (COC) documentation at EMAX. Sample identification was accurately documented. Table 3‐1 presents a list of the samples collected and the analyses performed. Attachment 2 presents the completeness review checklists of the data packages. Attachment 3 includes the analytical data packages. Sample preparation and analyses were conducted within the method-specified holding times. The QAPP (CDM Smith 2020) defined the procedures to be followed and the data quality requirements for the field sampling events and associated analytical work. Section 3  Field and Laboratory Quality Assurance Activities  3‐2  3.1 Deviations from Field Procedures  As discussed in Section 2.4 of the Data Summary Report, the following deviations were encountered during the sampling events:  Purge parameter stabilization criteria for turbidity (either less than 10 nephelometric turbidity unit [NTU] or less than 50 NTU and within 10 percent) were not met at MW- 03RB/D, MW-25A, and MW-29B prior to the collection of groundwater samples. Turbidity at these locations was less than 50 NTU, but not within 10 percent. As all other purge parameter stabilization criteria was met and turbidity was below 50 NTU, there is no expected impact upon data quality at these locations.  As MW-13S was purged dry, a sample was collected the next day once sufficient recharge was observed without meeting purge parameter stabilization. This is an accepted deviation in the low-flow groundwater sampling standard operating procedure, and there is no impact upon data quality at this location.  There was insufficient water to collect a groundwater sample from MW-12S. As this location has been successfully in the past, there is no significant impact to the groundwater plume delineation data quality objective.  Due to a high amount of sediment, groundwater samples for VOCs were collected from MW- 13L without collecting purge and geochemical parameters. This location will be further developed prior to Q1-2021 groundwater sampling. As a VOC sample was collected, there is no significant impact to the groundwater plume delineation data quality objective. As groundwater samples for geochemical analyses will be collected during the Q1-2021 event, there is no significant impact to the natural attenuation data quality objective.  Due to difficulties with the Zone Isolation Sampling Technology (ZIST) sampling systems, a consistent flow of water to the surface could not be sustained during purging at several locations. At these locations, visible sediment was observed on the ZIST Panacea pump porous media filters. These locations will be developed prior to Q1-2021 groundwater sampling.  At MW-26C and MW-34B/C groundwater samples for VOCs were collected without collecting purge and geochemical parameters. As VOC samples were collected, there is no significant impact to the groundwater plume delineation data quality objective. As groundwater samples for geochemical analyses will be collected during the Q1-2021 event, there is no significant impact to the natural attenuation data quality objective.  At MW-26D no groundwater samples were collected. As a VOC sample was collected during the Q3-2020 event, there is no significant impact to the groundwater plume delineation data quality objective. As groundwater samples for geochemical analyses will be collected during the Q1-2021 event, there is no significant impact to the natural attenuation data quality objective. These deviations do not impact the DQOs and these well locations and analyses will be sampled during upcoming sampling events.  Section 3  Field and Laboratory Quality Assurance Activities  3‐3  3.2 Field Quality Assurance/Quality Control   Seven field duplicate pairs, and 8 matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate (MS/MSD) samples were analyzed for the 64 groundwater samples. The QC sample collection frequency requirements in the QAPP (CDM Smith 2020) of 10 percent for field duplicates and 5 percent for MS/MSD samples were met. One field blank sample was collected. Trip blanks were submitted with each cooler sent to the laboratory, for a total of 18 trip blank samples. Table 3‐2 presents the results for the field and trip blank sample results. No equipment blank samples were required as disposable sampling equipment was used. Field QA/QC objectives were accomplished through the use of appropriate sampling techniques and collection of the required QC samples at the required frequencies. 3.3 Laboratory Quality Assurance/Quality Control   Analytical QA/QC was assessed by laboratory QC checks, method blanks, sample custody tracking, sample preservation, adherence to holding times, laboratory control samples (LCSs), MS samples, calibration verifications, surrogates, inductively coupled plasma (ICP) interference checks, and other applicable QC parameters. As presented in the data validation reports in Attachment 1 of this report, the laboratory QC samples met project criteria requirements with the appropriate qualifiers applied. All data are considered usable. 3.3.1 Laboratory Methods Samples were analyzed using the following U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or Standard Methods (SM): Groundwater  EPA Method SW8260C – VOCs  EPA Method SW8270D selective ion monitoring (SIM) – Semivolatile Organic Compounds – (1,4-Dioxane)  EPA Method SW6020A – Metals  EPA Method SW7470A – Mercury  Method RSK-175 – Dissolved Gases (Ethane, Ethene, Methane)  EPA Method E300.0 – Chloride, Sulfate  Method SM2320B – Total Alkalinity  Method SM4500-NO3E – Nitrogen, Nitrate-Nitrite  EPA Method SW9060 – Total Organic Carbon (TOC) The methods used met project objectives. Table 3-1 Sample List and Analyses Field Sample ID Matrix Date Sampled Laboratory SDG Method FB01-GW121620 WQ 12/16/2020 20L175 8270DSIM SW8260C FD01-GW121620 WG 12/16/2020 20L175 A4500NE E300.0 RSK-175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 FD02-GW121020 WG 12/10/2020 20L132 A4500NE E300.0 RSK-175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 FD03-GW120920 WG 12/9/2020 20L102 A4500NE E300.0 RSK-175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 FD04-GW121420 WG 12/14/2020 20L175 8270DSIM A4500NE E300.0 RSK-175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 FD05-GW120820 WG 12/8/2020 20L102 A4500NE E300.0 RSK-175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 FD06-GW121420 WG 12/14/2020 20L175 A4500NE E300.0 RSK-175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 Page 1 of 12 Table 3-1 Sample List and Analyses Field Sample ID Matrix Date Sampled Laboratory SDG Method FD07-GW121420 WG 12/14/2020 20L132 8270DSIM A4500NE E300.0 RSK-175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 MW01D-GW121520 WG 12/15/2020 20L175 A4500NE E300.0 RSK-175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 MW01S-GW121620 WG 12/16/2020 20L175 A4500NE E300.0 RSK-175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 MW02-GW121620 WG 12/16/2020 20L175 A4500NE E300.0 RSK-175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 MW03RA-GW121120 WG 12/11/2020 20L141 A4500NE E300.0 RSK-175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 MW03RB-GW121120 WG 12/11/2020 20L141 A4500NE E300.0 RSK-175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 Page 2 of 12 Table 3-1 Sample List and Analyses Field Sample ID Matrix Date Sampled Laboratory SDG Method MW03RC-GW121120 WG 12/11/2020 20L141 A4500NE E300.0 RSK-175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 MW03RD-GW121120 WG 12/11/2020 20L141 A4500NE E300.0 RSK-175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 MW04-GW121020 WG 12/10/2020 20L132 A4500NE E300.0 RSK-175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 MW05R-GW120820 WG 12/8/2020 20L102 A4500NE E300.0 RSK-175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 MW06-GW121020 WG 12/10/2020 20L132 A4500NE E300.0 RSK-175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 MW08A-GW120920 WG 12/9/2020 20L102 A4500NE E300.0 RSK-175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 Page 3 of 12 Table 3-1 Sample List and Analyses Field Sample ID Matrix Date Sampled Laboratory SDG Method MW08B-GW120920 WG 12/9/2020 20L102 A4500NE E300.0 RSK-175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 MW08C-GW120920 WG 12/9/2020 20L102 A4500NE E300.0 RSK-175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 MW12D-GW120920 WG 12/9/2020 20L102 A4500NE E300.0 RSK-175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 MW13D-GW121120 WG 12/11/2020 20L141 A4500NE E300.0 RSK-175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 MW13L-GW121620 WG 12/16/2020 20L175 SW8260C MW13S-GW121120 WG 12/11/2020 20L141 A4500NE E300.0 RSK-175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 MW14D-GW121420 WG 12/14/2020 20L141 A4500NE E300.0 RSK-175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 Page 4 of 12 Table 3-1 Sample List and Analyses Field Sample ID Matrix Date Sampled Laboratory SDG Method MW14S-GW121420 WG 12/14/2020 20L141 A4500NE E300.0 RSK-175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 MW15D-GW120920 WG 12/9/2020 20L102 A4500NE E300.0 RSK-175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 MW15S-GW120920 WG 12/9/2020 20L102 A4500NE E300.0 RSK-175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 MW16D-GW121020 WG 12/10/2020 20L132 A4500NE E300.0 RSK-175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 MW16S-GW121020 WG 12/10/2020 20L132 A4500NE E300.0 RSK-175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 MW17D-GW121320 WG 12/13/2020 20L141 A4500NE E300.0 RSK-175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 Page 5 of 12 Table 3-1 Sample List and Analyses Field Sample ID Matrix Date Sampled Laboratory SDG Method MW17S-GW121120 WG 12/11/2020 20L141 A4500NE E300.0 RSK-175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 MW18-GW121420 WG 12/14/2020 20L175 A4500NE E300.0 RSK-175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 MW19-GW121420 WG 12/14/2020 20L132 A4500NE E300.0 RSK-175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 MW20D-GW121520 WG 12/15/2020 20L175 A4500NE E300.0 RSK-175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 MW20S-GW121420 WG 12/14/2020 20L175 A4500NE E300.0 RSK-175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 MW21-GW121420 WG 12/14/2020 20L133 A4500NE E300.0 RSK-175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 Page 6 of 12 Table 3-1 Sample List and Analyses Field Sample ID Matrix Date Sampled Laboratory SDG Method MW22-GW121420 WG 12/14/2020 20L141 A4500NE E300.0 RSK-175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 MW23A-GW120920 WG 12/9/2020 20L133 A4500NE E300.0 RSK-175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 MW23B-GW121020 WG 12/10/2020 20L133 A4500NE E300.0 RSK-175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 MW23C-GW120920 WG 12/9/2020 20L133 A4500NE E300.0 RSK-175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 MW24-GW120820 WG 12/8/2020 20L102 A4500NE E300.0 RSK-175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 MW25A-GW120920 WG 12/9/2020 20L133 A4500NE E300.0 RSK-175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 Page 7 of 12 Table 3-1 Sample List and Analyses Field Sample ID Matrix Date Sampled Laboratory SDG Method MW25B-GW121020 WG 12/10/2020 20L133 A4500NE E300.0 RSK-175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 MW25C-GW121020 WG 12/10/2020 20L133 A4500NE E300.0 RSK-175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 MW26A-GW121620 WG 12/16/2020 20L175 A4500NE E300.0 RSK-175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 MW26B-GW121620 WG 12/16/2020 20L175 8270DSIM A4500NE E300.0 RSK-175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 MW26C-GW121720 WG 12/17/2020 20L175 SW8260C MW27-GW120820 WG 12/8/2020 20L102 A4500NE E300.0 RSK-175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 MW28-GW120820 WG 12/8/2020 20L102 A4500NE E300.0 RSK-175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 Page 8 of 12 Table 3-1 Sample List and Analyses Field Sample ID Matrix Date Sampled Laboratory SDG Method MW29A-GW121320 WG 12/13/2020 20L133 A4500NE E300.0 RSK-175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 MW29B-GW121120 WG 12/11/2020 20L133 A4500NE E300.0 RSK-175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 MW29C-GW121120 WG 12/11/2020 20L133 A4500NE E300.0 RSK-175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 MW30C-GW120920 WG 12/9/2020 20L102 A4500NE E300.0 RSK-175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 MW30RA-GW120820 WG 12/8/2020 20L102 8270DSIM A4500NE E300.0 RSK-175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 MW30RB-GW120820 WG 12/8/2020 20L102 8270DSIM A4500NE E300.0 RSK-175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 Page 9 of 12 Table 3-1 Sample List and Analyses Field Sample ID Matrix Date Sampled Laboratory SDG Method MW31A-GW121120 WG 12/11/2020 20L133 A4500NE E300.0 RSK-175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 MW31B-GW121120 WG 12/11/2020 20L133 A4500NE E300.0 RSK-175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 MW31C-GW121120 WG 12/11/2020 20L141 A4500NE E300.0 RSK-175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 MW32A-GW121020 WG 12/10/2020 20L133 A4500NE E300.0 RSK-175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 MW32B-GW121020 WG 12/10/2020 20L133 A4500NE E300.0 RSK-175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 MW32C-GW121020 WG 12/10/2020 20L133 A4500NE E300.0 RSK-175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 Page 10 of 12 Table 3-1 Sample List and Analyses Field Sample ID Matrix Date Sampled Laboratory SDG Method MW34A-GW121520 WG 12/15/2020 20L175 8270DSIM A4500NE E300.0 RSK-175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 MW34B-GW121720 WG 12/17/2020 20L175 SW8260C MW34C-GW121720 WG 12/17/2020 20L175 SW8260C MW34D-GW121320 WG 12/13/2020 20L133 A4500NE E300.0 RSK-175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 MW36-GW121420 WG 12/14/2020 20L132 8270DSIM A4500NE E300.0 RSK-175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 MW37D-GW121420 WG 12/14/2020 20L175 8270DSIM A4500NE E300.0 RSK-175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 MW37S-GW121420 WG 12/14/2020 20L175 8270DSIM A4500NE E300.0 RSK-175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 MW38D-GW121620 WG 12/16/2020 20L175 8270DSIM A4500NE E300.0 RSK-175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 Page 11 of 12 Table 3-1 Sample List and Analyses Field Sample ID Matrix Date Sampled Laboratory SDG Method MW38S-GW121620 WG 12/16/2020 20L175 8270DSIM A4500NE E300.0 RSK-175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 TB01A-GW120920 WQ 12/9/2020 20L102 SW8260C TB01-GW121420 WQ 12/14/2020 20L133 SW8260C TB01-GW121720 WQ 12/17/2020 20L175 SW8260C TB02A-GW120920 WQ 12/9/2020 20L102 SW8260C TB02-GW121420 WQ 12/14/2020 20L133 SW8260C TB02-GW121720 WQ 12/17/2020 20L175 SW8260C TB03A-GW120920 WQ 12/9/2020 20L102 SW8260C TB03-GW121420 WQ 12/14/2020 20L133 SW8260C TB03-GW121720 WQ 12/17/2020 20L175 SW8260C TB04A-GW120920 WQ 12/9/2020 20L102 SW8260C TB04-GW121420 WQ 12/14/2020 20L141 SW8260C TB04-GW121720 WQ 12/17/2020 20L175 SW8260C TB05-GW121420 WQ 12/14/2020 20L141 SW8260C TB05-GW121720 WQ 12/17/2020 20L175 SW8260C TB06-GW121420 WQ 12/14/2020 20L141 SW8260C TB06-GW121720 WQ 12/17/2020 20L175 SW8260C TB07-GW121420 WQ 12/14/2020 20L132 SW8260C TB08-GW121420 WQ 12/14/2020 20L132 SW8260C Acronyms: ID ‐ identificaton SDG ‐ sample delivery group WG ‐ groundwater WQ ‐ water quality SW8260C ‐ volatile organic compounds 8270D SIM ‐ semivolatile organic compounds ‐ selective ion monitoring SW6020A ‐ metals SW7470A ‐ mercury RSK‐175 ‐ dissolved gases E300.0 ‐ chloride, sulfate SM2320B ‐ total alkalinity A4500NE ‐ nitrogen, nitrate‐nitrite SW9060 ‐ total organic carbon Page 12 of 12 Table 3-2 Blank Sample Results Method Chemical Name Unit Result QResult QResult QResult QResult Q SW8260C 1,1,1-Trichloroethane µg/L 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U SW8260C 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane µg/L 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U SW8260C 1,1,2-Trichloroethane µg/L 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U SW8260C 1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane µg/L 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U SW8260C 1,1-Dichloroethane µg/L 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U SW8260C 1,1-Dichloroethene µg/L 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U SW8260C 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene µg/L 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U SW8260C 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene µg/L 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U SW8260C 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene µg/L 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U SW8260C 1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane µg/L 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U SW8260C 1,2-Dibromoethane µg/L 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U SW8260C 1,2-Dichlorobenzene µg/L 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U SW8260C 1,2-Dichloroethane µg/L 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U SW8260C 1,2-Dichloropropane µg/L 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U SW8260C 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene µg/L 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U SW8260C 1,3-Dichlorobenzene µg/L 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U SW8260C 1,4-Dichlorobenzene µg/L 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 8270DSIM 1,4-Dioxane µg/L 0.44 U -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- SW8260C 2-Butanone (MEK) µg/L 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U SW8260C 2-Hexanone µg/L 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U SW8260C 4-Methyl-2-Pentanone (MIBK) µg/L 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U SW8260C Acetone µg/L 3 J 2.8 J 2.9 J 20 U 20 U SW8260C Benzene µg/L 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U SW8260C Bromochloromethane µg/L 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U SW8260C Bromodichloromethane µg/L 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U SW8260C Bromoform µg/L 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U SW8260C Bromomethane µg/L 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U SW8260C Carbon Disulfide µg/L 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U SW8260C Carbon Tetrachloride µg/L 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U SW8260C Chlorobenzene µg/L 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U SW8260C Chloroethane µg/L 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U SW8260C Chloroform µg/L 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U SW8260C Chloromethane µg/L 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U SW8260C Cis-1,2-Dichloroethene µg/L 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U SW8260C Cis-1,3-Dichloropropene µg/L 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U SW8260C Dibromochloromethane µg/L 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U SW8260C Dichlorodifluoromethane µg/L 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U SW8260C Ethylbenzene µg/L 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U SW8260C Isopropylbenzene µg/L 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U SW8260C M+P-xylenes µg/L 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U SW8260C Methyl Acetate µg/L 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U SW8260C Methyl Tert-Butyl Ether µg/L 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U SW8260C Methylene Chloride µg/L 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 0.6 J SW8260C O-xylene µg/L 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U SW8260C Styrene µg/L 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U SW8260C Tetrachloroethene µg/L 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U SW8260C Toluene µg/L 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U SW8260C Trans-1,2-Dichloroethene µg/L 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U SW8260C Trans-1,3-Dichloropropene µg/L 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U SW8260C Trichloroethene µg/L 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U SW8260C Trichlorofluoromethane µg/L 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U SW8260C Vinyl Acetate µg/L 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U SW8260C Vinyl Chloride µg/L 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U Acronyms: SW8260C ‐ volatile organic compounds µg/L ‐ micrograms per liter U ‐ nondetect J ‐ estimated Q ‐ qualifier TB ‐ trip blank FB ‐ field blank Highlighted and bolded results are detect. ‐‐ ‐ not analyzed TB01-GW121720 12/17/2020 TB TB02A-GW120920 12/9/2020 TB TB01A-GW120920 12/9/2020 TB TB01-GW121420 12/14/2020 TB 8270DSIM ‐ semivolatile organic compounds selective ion monitoring Sample Name Sample Date Sample Type FB01-GW121620 12/16/2020 FB Page 1 of 4 Table 3-2 Blank Sample Results Method Chemical Name Unit SW8260C 1,1,1-Trichloroethane µg/L SW8260C 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane µg/L SW8260C 1,1,2-Trichloroethane µg/L SW8260C 1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane µg/L SW8260C 1,1-Dichloroethane µg/L SW8260C 1,1-Dichloroethene µg/L SW8260C 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene µg/L SW8260C 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene µg/L SW8260C 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene µg/L SW8260C 1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane µg/L SW8260C 1,2-Dibromoethane µg/L SW8260C 1,2-Dichlorobenzene µg/L SW8260C 1,2-Dichloroethane µg/L SW8260C 1,2-Dichloropropane µg/L SW8260C 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene µg/L SW8260C 1,3-Dichlorobenzene µg/L SW8260C 1,4-Dichlorobenzene µg/L 8270DSIM 1,4-Dioxane µg/L SW8260C 2-Butanone (MEK) µg/L SW8260C 2-Hexanone µg/L SW8260C 4-Methyl-2-Pentanone (MIBK) µg/L SW8260C Acetone µg/L SW8260C Benzene µg/L SW8260C Bromochloromethane µg/L SW8260C Bromodichloromethane µg/L SW8260C Bromoform µg/L SW8260C Bromomethane µg/L SW8260C Carbon Disulfide µg/L SW8260C Carbon Tetrachloride µg/L SW8260C Chlorobenzene µg/L SW8260C Chloroethane µg/L SW8260C Chloroform µg/L SW8260C Chloromethane µg/L SW8260C Cis-1,2-Dichloroethene µg/L SW8260C Cis-1,3-Dichloropropene µg/L SW8260C Dibromochloromethane µg/L SW8260C Dichlorodifluoromethane µg/L SW8260C Ethylbenzene µg/L SW8260C Isopropylbenzene µg/L SW8260C M+P-xylenes µg/L SW8260C Methyl Acetate µg/L SW8260C Methyl Tert-Butyl Ether µg/L SW8260C Methylene Chloride µg/L SW8260C O-xylene µg/L SW8260C Styrene µg/L SW8260C Tetrachloroethene µg/L SW8260C Toluene µg/L SW8260C Trans-1,2-Dichloroethene µg/L SW8260C Trans-1,3-Dichloropropene µg/L SW8260C Trichloroethene µg/L SW8260C Trichlorofluoromethane µg/L SW8260C Vinyl Acetate µg/L SW8260C Vinyl Chloride µg/L Acronyms: SW8260C ‐ volatile organic compounds µg/L ‐ micrograms per liter U ‐ nondetect J ‐ estimated Q ‐ qualifier TB ‐ trip blank FB ‐ field blank Highlighted and bolded results are detect. ‐‐ ‐ not analyzed 8270DSIM ‐ semivolatile organic compounds selective ion monitoring Sample Name Sample Date Sample Type Result QResult QResult QResult QResult Q 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 2U2U2U2U2U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 2.6 J 20 U 2.8 J 3.1 J 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 2U2U2U2U2U 2U2U2U2U2U 1U1U1U1U1U 2U2U0.6 J 2U2U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 2U2U2U2U2U 1U1U1U1U1U TB03-GW121720 12/17/2020 TB TB03A-GW120920 12/9/2020 TB TB03-GW121420 12/14/2020 TB TB02-GW121420 12/14/2020 TB TB02-GW121720 12/17/2020 TB Page 2 of 4 Table 3-2 Blank Sample Results Method Chemical Name Unit SW8260C 1,1,1-Trichloroethane µg/L SW8260C 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane µg/L SW8260C 1,1,2-Trichloroethane µg/L SW8260C 1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane µg/L SW8260C 1,1-Dichloroethane µg/L SW8260C 1,1-Dichloroethene µg/L SW8260C 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene µg/L SW8260C 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene µg/L SW8260C 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene µg/L SW8260C 1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane µg/L SW8260C 1,2-Dibromoethane µg/L SW8260C 1,2-Dichlorobenzene µg/L SW8260C 1,2-Dichloroethane µg/L SW8260C 1,2-Dichloropropane µg/L SW8260C 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene µg/L SW8260C 1,3-Dichlorobenzene µg/L SW8260C 1,4-Dichlorobenzene µg/L 8270DSIM 1,4-Dioxane µg/L SW8260C 2-Butanone (MEK) µg/L SW8260C 2-Hexanone µg/L SW8260C 4-Methyl-2-Pentanone (MIBK) µg/L SW8260C Acetone µg/L SW8260C Benzene µg/L SW8260C Bromochloromethane µg/L SW8260C Bromodichloromethane µg/L SW8260C Bromoform µg/L SW8260C Bromomethane µg/L SW8260C Carbon Disulfide µg/L SW8260C Carbon Tetrachloride µg/L SW8260C Chlorobenzene µg/L SW8260C Chloroethane µg/L SW8260C Chloroform µg/L SW8260C Chloromethane µg/L SW8260C Cis-1,2-Dichloroethene µg/L SW8260C Cis-1,3-Dichloropropene µg/L SW8260C Dibromochloromethane µg/L SW8260C Dichlorodifluoromethane µg/L SW8260C Ethylbenzene µg/L SW8260C Isopropylbenzene µg/L SW8260C M+P-xylenes µg/L SW8260C Methyl Acetate µg/L SW8260C Methyl Tert-Butyl Ether µg/L SW8260C Methylene Chloride µg/L SW8260C O-xylene µg/L SW8260C Styrene µg/L SW8260C Tetrachloroethene µg/L SW8260C Toluene µg/L SW8260C Trans-1,2-Dichloroethene µg/L SW8260C Trans-1,3-Dichloropropene µg/L SW8260C Trichloroethene µg/L SW8260C Trichlorofluoromethane µg/L SW8260C Vinyl Acetate µg/L SW8260C Vinyl Chloride µg/L Acronyms: SW8260C ‐ volatile organic compounds µg/L ‐ micrograms per liter U ‐ nondetect J ‐ estimated Q ‐ qualifier TB ‐ trip blank FB ‐ field blank Highlighted and bolded results are detect. ‐‐ ‐ not analyzed 8270DSIM ‐ semivolatile organic compounds selective ion monitoring Sample Name Sample Date Sample Type Result QResult QResult QResult QResult Q 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 2U2U2U2U2U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 4.2 J 20 U 20 U 2.7 J 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 2U2U2U2U2U 2U2U2U2U2U 1U1U1U1U1U 2U2U2U2U2U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 2U2U2U2U2U 1U1U1U1U1U TB05-GW121420 12/14/2020 TB TB05-GW121720 12/17/2020 TB TB04-GW121420 12/14/2020 TB TB04-GW121720 12/17/2020 TB TB04A-GW120920 12/9/2020 TB Page 3 of 4 Table 3-2 Blank Sample Results Method Chemical Name Unit SW8260C 1,1,1-Trichloroethane µg/L SW8260C 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane µg/L SW8260C 1,1,2-Trichloroethane µg/L SW8260C 1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane µg/L SW8260C 1,1-Dichloroethane µg/L SW8260C 1,1-Dichloroethene µg/L SW8260C 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene µg/L SW8260C 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene µg/L SW8260C 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene µg/L SW8260C 1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane µg/L SW8260C 1,2-Dibromoethane µg/L SW8260C 1,2-Dichlorobenzene µg/L SW8260C 1,2-Dichloroethane µg/L SW8260C 1,2-Dichloropropane µg/L SW8260C 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene µg/L SW8260C 1,3-Dichlorobenzene µg/L SW8260C 1,4-Dichlorobenzene µg/L 8270DSIM 1,4-Dioxane µg/L SW8260C 2-Butanone (MEK) µg/L SW8260C 2-Hexanone µg/L SW8260C 4-Methyl-2-Pentanone (MIBK) µg/L SW8260C Acetone µg/L SW8260C Benzene µg/L SW8260C Bromochloromethane µg/L SW8260C Bromodichloromethane µg/L SW8260C Bromoform µg/L SW8260C Bromomethane µg/L SW8260C Carbon Disulfide µg/L SW8260C Carbon Tetrachloride µg/L SW8260C Chlorobenzene µg/L SW8260C Chloroethane µg/L SW8260C Chloroform µg/L SW8260C Chloromethane µg/L SW8260C Cis-1,2-Dichloroethene µg/L SW8260C Cis-1,3-Dichloropropene µg/L SW8260C Dibromochloromethane µg/L SW8260C Dichlorodifluoromethane µg/L SW8260C Ethylbenzene µg/L SW8260C Isopropylbenzene µg/L SW8260C M+P-xylenes µg/L SW8260C Methyl Acetate µg/L SW8260C Methyl Tert-Butyl Ether µg/L SW8260C Methylene Chloride µg/L SW8260C O-xylene µg/L SW8260C Styrene µg/L SW8260C Tetrachloroethene µg/L SW8260C Toluene µg/L SW8260C Trans-1,2-Dichloroethene µg/L SW8260C Trans-1,3-Dichloropropene µg/L SW8260C Trichloroethene µg/L SW8260C Trichlorofluoromethane µg/L SW8260C Vinyl Acetate µg/L SW8260C Vinyl Chloride µg/L Acronyms: SW8260C ‐ volatile organic compounds µg/L ‐ micrograms per liter U ‐ nondetect J ‐ estimated Q ‐ qualifier TB ‐ trip blank FB ‐ field blank Highlighted and bolded results are detect. ‐‐ ‐ not analyzed 8270DSIM ‐ semivolatile organic compounds selective ion monitoring Sample Name Sample Date Sample Type Result QResult QResult QResult Q 1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U 2U2U2U2U 1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 2.6 J 20 U 20 U 1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U 2U2U2U2U 2U2U2U2U 1U1U1U1U 2U2U2U2U 1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U 2U2U2U2U 1U1U1U1U TB07-GW121420 12/14/2020 TB TB08-GW121420 12/14/2020 TB TB06-GW121420 12/14/2020 TB TB06-GW121720 12/17/2020 TB Page 4 of 4   4‐1  Section 4  Data Validation Procedures  For this QCSR, there were five laboratory SDGs. Qualified CDM Smith data validators not associated with project sampling activities validated the data reported in the five SDGs. Data validation was performed in accordance with specified analytical methods and performance criteria outlined in the QAPP (CDM Smith 2020) and in the EPA National Functional Guidelines for Inorganic Superfund Methods Data Review (EPA 2017) and EPA National Functional Guidelines for Organic Superfund Methods Data Review (EPA 2017). Validation reports were prepared and are presented in Attachment 1. The following SDG data packages were validated:  EMAX – SDG 20L102  EMAX – SDG 20L175  EMAX – SDG 20L132  EMAX – SDG 20L141  EMAX – SDG 20L133 Table 4‐1 presents the results that were qualified and the reasons for the qualifications. Qualifiers applied are defined as follows:  J → Result is an estimated quantity. The associated numerical value is the approximate concentration of the analyte in the sample.  U → Analyte was analyzed for, but was not detected above the level of the sample method reporting limit (MRL).  UJ → Analyte was analyzed for, but was not detected above the level of the sample MRL. The MRL is approximate. Table 4‐1 Qualification Summary Field Sample ID Lab SDG Method Analyte CAS #Final Result Unit Validation Qualifier Interpreted Qualfier Qualifier Reason FD01‐GW121620 20L175 SW6020A Manganese 7439‐96‐51 µg/L U‐RL U CCB FD01‐GW121620 20L175 SW6020A Selenium 7782‐49‐21 µg/L U‐RL U ICB, CCB FD02‐GW121020 20L132 SW6020A Manganese 7439‐96‐53.23 µg/L J J FD FD02‐GW121020 20L132 SW7470A Mercury 7439‐97‐60.5 µg/L U‐RL U ICB FD02‐GW121020 20L132 SW9060 Total Organic Carbon TOC 1 mg/L U‐RL U MB FD03‐GW120920 20L102 SW6020A Arsenic 7440‐38‐21 µg/L U‐RL U ICB FD03‐GW120920 20L102 SW6020A Iron 7439‐89‐6 100 µg/L U‐RL U ICB FD03‐GW120920 20L102 SW6020A Lead 7439‐92‐11 µg/L U‐RL U MB, ICB FD04‐GW121420 20L175 SW6020A Arsenic 7440‐38‐21 µg/L U‐RL U ICB FD04‐GW121420 20L175 SW6020A Chromium 7440‐47‐31 µg/L U‐RL U ICB FD04‐GW121420 20L175 SW6020A Nickel 7440‐02‐01 µg/L U‐RL U ICB FD05‐GW120820 20L102 SW6020A Lead 7439‐92‐11 µg/L U‐RL U MB,ICB FD05‐GW120820 20L102 SW6020A Manganese 7439‐96‐51 µg/L U‐RL U MB, ICB FD05‐GW120820 20L102 SW6020A Selenium 7782‐49‐21 µg/L U‐RL U ICB, CCB FD06‐GW121420 20L175 SW6020A Nickel 7440‐02‐01 µg/L U‐RL U ICB FD07‐GW121420 20L132 8270DSIM 1,4‐Dioxane 123‐91‐13.1 µg/L J J FD MW01D‐GW121520 20L175 SW6020A Arsenic 7440‐38‐21 µg/L U‐RL U ICB MW01D‐GW121520 20L175 SW6020A Manganese 7439‐96‐51 µg/L U‐RL U CCB MW01D‐GW121520 20L175 SW6020A Nickel 7440‐02‐01 µg/L U‐RL U ICB MW01S‐GW121620 20L175 SW6020A Arsenic 7440‐38‐21 µg/L U‐RL U ICB MW01S‐GW121620 20L175 SW6020A Chromium 7440‐47‐31 µg/L U‐RL U ICB MW01S‐GW121620 20L175 SW6020A Nickel 7440‐02‐01 µg/L U‐RL U ICB MW01S‐GW121620 20L175 SW6020A Selenium 7782‐49‐21 µg/L U‐RL U ICB, CCB MW02‐GW121620 20L175 SW6020A Manganese 7439‐96‐51 µg/L U‐RL U CCB MW02‐GW121620 20L175 SW6020A Selenium 7782‐49‐21 µg/L U‐RL U ICB, CCB MW03RA‐GW121120 20L141 SW6020A Lead 7439‐92‐11 µg/L U‐RL U ICB, CCB MW03RB‐GW121120 20L141 SW6020A Lead 7439‐92‐11 µg/L U‐RL U ICB, CCB MW03RC‐GW121120 20L141 SW6020A Lead 7439‐92‐11 µg/L U‐RL U ICB, CCB MW03RD‐GW121120 20L141 SW6020A Lead 7439‐92‐11 µg/L U‐RL U ICB, CCB MW04‐GW121020 20L132 SW6020A Manganese 7439‐96‐51 µg/L UJ‐RL UJ CCB,FD MW04‐GW121020 20L132 SW9060 Total Organic Carbon TOC 1 mg/L U‐RL U MB MW05R‐GW120820 20L102 SW6020A Lead 7439‐92‐11 µg/L U‐RL U MB, ICB MW05R‐GW120820 20L102 SW6020A Selenium 7782‐49‐21 µg/L U‐RL U ICB, CCB MW05R‐GW120820 20L102 SW6020A Thallium 7440‐28‐01 µg/L U‐RL U ICB MW06‐GW121020 20L132 SW9060 Total Organic Carbon TOC 1 mg/L U‐RL U MB MW08A‐GW120920 20L102 SW6020A Arsenic 7440‐38‐21 µg/L U‐RL U ICB MW08A‐GW120920 20L102 SW6020A Iron 7439‐89‐6 100 µg/L U‐RL U ICB MW08A‐GW120920 20L102 SW6020A Lead 7439‐92‐11 µg/L U‐RL U MB, ICB MW08A‐GW120920 20L102 SW6020A Selenium 7782‐49‐21 µg/L U‐RL U ICB, CCB MW08B‐GW120920 20L102 SW6020A Arsenic 7440‐38‐21 µg/L U‐RL U ICB MW08B‐GW120920 20L102 SW6020A Lead 7439‐92‐11 µg/L U‐RL U MB, ICB MW08C‐GW120920 20L102 SW6020A Arsenic 7440‐38‐21 µg/L U‐RL U ICB MW08C‐GW120920 20L102 SW6020A Lead 7439‐92‐11 µg/L U‐RL U MB, ICB MW08C‐GW120920 20L102 SW6020A Thallium 7440‐28‐01 µg/L U‐RL U ICB MW08C‐GW120920 20L102 SW8260C Acetone 67‐64‐120 µg/L U‐RL U TB MW12D‐GW120920 20L102 SW6020A Arsenic 7440‐38‐21 µg/L U‐RL U ICB MW12D‐GW120920 20L102 SW6020A Iron 7439‐89‐6 100 µg/L U‐RL U ICB MW12D‐GW120920 20L102 SW6020A Lead 7439‐92‐11 µg/L U‐RL U MB, ICB Page 1 of 3 Table 4‐1 Qualification Summary Field Sample ID Lab SDG Method Analyte CAS #Final Result Unit Validation Qualifier Interpreted Qualfier Qualifier Reason MW13L‐GW121620 20L175 SW8260C Acetone 67‐64‐120 µg/L U‐RL U TB,FB MW14D‐GW121420 20L141 SW6020A Lead 7439‐92‐11 µg/L U‐RL U ICB, CCB MW14S‐GW121420 20L141 SW6020A Lead 7439‐92‐11 µg/L U‐RL U ICB, CCB MW15D‐GW120920 20L102 SW6020A Arsenic 7440‐38‐21 µg/L U‐RL U ICB MW15D‐GW120920 20L102 SW6020A Iron 7439‐89‐6 100 µg/L U‐RL U ICB MW15D‐GW120920 20L102 SW6020A Lead 7439‐92‐11 µg/L U‐RL U MB, ICB MW15D‐GW120920 20L102 SW6020A Thallium 7440‐28‐01 µg/L U‐RL U ICB MW15S‐GW120920 20L102 SW6020A Arsenic 7440‐38‐21 µg/L U‐RL U ICB MW15S‐GW120920 20L102 SW6020A Iron 7439‐89‐6 100 µg/L U‐RL U ICB MW15S‐GW120920 20L102 SW6020A Lead 7439‐92‐11 µg/L U‐RL U MB, ICB MW16S‐GW121020 20L132 SW9060 Total Organic Carbon TOC 1 mg/L U‐RL U MB MW17D‐GW121320 20L141 SW6020A Lead 7439‐92‐11 µg/L U‐RL U ICB, CCB MW17S‐GW121120 20L141 SW6020A Lead 7439‐92‐11 µg/L U‐RL U ICB, CCB MW18‐GW121420 20L175 SW6020A Nickel 7440‐02‐01 µg/L U‐RL U ICB MW18‐GW121420 20L175 SW6020A Selenium 7782‐49‐21 µg/L U‐RL U ICB, CCB MW19‐GW121420 20L132 SW9060 Total Organic Carbon TOC 1 mg/L U‐RL U MB MW20D‐GW121520 20L175 SW6020A Selenium 7782‐49‐21 µg/L U‐RL U ICB, CCB MW20S‐GW121420 20L175 SW6020A Selenium 7782‐49‐21 µg/L U‐RL U ICB, CCB MW21‐GW121420 20L133 SW6020A Lead 7439‐92‐11 µg/L U‐RL U ICB, CCB MW22‐GW121420 20L141 SW6020A Lead 7439‐92‐11 µg/L U‐RL U ICB, CCB MW22‐GW121420 20L141 SW8260C Styrene 100‐42‐5 1 µg/L UJ UJ MS MW23A‐GW120920 20L133 SW6020A Lead 7439‐92‐11 µg/L U‐RL U ICB, CCB MW23A‐GW120920 20L133 SW9060 Total Organic Carbon TOC 1 mg/L U‐RL U MB MW23B‐GW121020 20L133 SW6020A Lead 7439‐92‐11 µg/L U‐RL U ICB, CCB MW23C‐GW120920 20L133 SW6020A Lead 7439‐92‐11 µg/L U‐RL U ICB, CCB MW23C‐GW120920 20L133 SW9060 Total Organic Carbon TOC 1 mg/L U‐RL U MB MW24‐GW120820 20L102 SW6020A Iron 7439‐89‐6 100 µg/L U‐RL U ICB MW24‐GW120820 20L102 SW6020A Selenium 7782‐49‐21 µg/L U‐RL U ICB, CCB MW25A‐GW120920 20L133 SW6020A Lead 7439‐92‐11 µg/L U‐RL U ICB, CCB MW25A‐GW120920 20L133 SW9060 Total Organic Carbon TOC 1 mg/L U‐RL U MB MW25B‐GW121020 20L133 SW6020A Lead 7439‐92‐11 µg/L U‐RL U ICB, CCB MW25C‐GW121020 20L133 SW6020A Lead 7439‐92‐11 µg/L U‐RL U ICB, CCB MW26A‐GW121620 20L175 SW6020A Arsenic 7440‐38‐21 µg/L U‐RL U ICB MW26A‐GW121620 20L175 SW6020A Chromium 7440‐47‐31 µg/L U‐RL U ICB MW26A‐GW121620 20L175 SW6020A Selenium 7782‐49‐21 µg/L U‐RL U ICB, CCB MW26A‐GW121620 20L175 SW6020A Vanadium 7440‐62‐21 µg/L U‐RL U ICB MW26B‐GW121620 20L175 SW6020A Arsenic 7440‐38‐21 µg/L U‐RL U ICB MW26B‐GW121620 20L175 SW6020A Chromium 7440‐47‐31 µg/L U‐RL U ICB MW26B‐GW121620 20L175 SW6020A Selenium 7782‐49‐21 µg/L U‐RL U ICB, CCB MW26B‐GW121620 20L175 SW8260C Acetone 67‐64‐120 µg/L U‐RL U TB,FB MW26C‐GW121720 20L175 SW8260C Acetone 67‐64‐120 µg/L U‐RL U TB,FB MW27‐GW120820 20L102 SW6020A Iron 7439‐89‐6 100 µg/L U‐RL U ICB MW27‐GW120820 20L102 SW6020A Selenium 7782‐49‐21 µg/L U‐RL U ICB, CCB MW28‐GW120820 20L102 SW6020A Lead 7439‐92‐11 µg/L U‐RL U MB, ICB MW28‐GW120820 20L102 SW6020A Selenium 7782‐49‐21 µg/L U‐RL U ICB, CCB MW29A‐GW121320 20L133 SW6020A Lead 7439‐92‐11 µg/L U‐RL U ICB, CCB MW29B‐GW121120 20L133 SW6020A Lead 7439‐92‐11 µg/L U‐RL U ICB, CCB MW29C‐GW121120 20L133 SW6020A Lead 7439‐92‐11 µg/L U‐RL U ICB, CCB Page 2 of 3 Table 4‐1 Qualification Summary Field Sample ID Lab SDG Method Analyte CAS #Final Result Unit Validation Qualifier Interpreted Qualfier Qualifier Reason MW30C‐GW120920 20L102 SW6020A Arsenic 7440‐38‐21 µg/L U‐RL U ICB MW30C‐GW120920 20L102 SW6020A Lead 7439‐92‐11 µg/L U‐RL U MB, ICB MW30C‐GW120920 20L102 SW6020A Selenium 7782‐49‐21 µg/L U‐RL U ICB, CCB MW30RA‐GW120820 20L102 SW6020A Arsenic 7440‐38‐21 µg/L U‐RL U ICB MW30RA‐GW120820 20L102 SW6020A Iron 7439‐89‐6 100 µg/L U‐RL U ICB MW30RA‐GW120820 20L102 SW6020A Selenium 7782‐49‐21 µg/L U‐RL U ICB, CCB MW30RB‐GW120820 20L102 SW6020A Arsenic 7440‐38‐21 µg/L U‐RL U ICB MW30RB‐GW120820 20L102 SW6020A Iron 7439‐89‐6 100 µg/L U‐RL U ICB MW30RB‐GW120820 20L102 SW6020A Selenium 7782‐49‐21 µg/L U‐RL U ICB, CCB MW31A‐GW121120 20L133 SW6020A Lead 7439‐92‐11 µg/L U‐RL U ICB, CCB MW31B‐GW121120 20L133 SW6020A Lead 7439‐92‐11 µg/L U‐RL U ICB, CCB MW32B‐GW121020 20L133 SW6020A Lead 7439‐92‐11 µg/L U‐RL U ICB, CCB MW32C‐GW121020 20L133 SW6020A Lead 7439‐92‐11 µg/L U‐RL U ICB, CCB MW34A‐GW121520 20L175 SW6020A Arsenic 7440‐38‐21 µg/L U‐RL U ICB MW34A‐GW121520 20L175 SW6020A Selenium 7782‐49‐21 µg/L U‐RL U ICB, CCB MW34B‐GW121720 20L175 SW8260C Acetone 67‐64‐120 µg/L U‐RL U TB,FB MW34C‐GW121720 20L175 SW8260C Acetone 67‐64‐120 µg/L U‐RL U TB,FB MW34D‐GW121320 20L133 SW6020A Lead 7439‐92‐11 µg/L U‐RL U ICB, CCB MW36‐GW121420 20L132 8270DSIM 1,4‐Dioxane 123‐91‐10.42 µg/L UJ UJ FD MW36‐GW121420 20L132 SW9060 Total Organic Carbon TOC 1 mg/L U‐RL U MB MW37D‐GW121420 20L175 SW6020A Arsenic 7440‐38‐21 µg/L U‐RL U ICB MW37D‐GW121420 20L175 SW6020A Chromium 7440‐47‐31 µg/L U‐RL U ICB MW37S‐GW121420 20L175 SW6020A Arsenic 7440‐38‐21 µg/L U‐RL U ICB MW37S‐GW121420 20L175 SW6020A Chromium 7440‐47‐31 µg/L U‐RL U ICB MW37S‐GW121420 20L175 SW6020A Nickel 7440‐02‐01 µg/L U‐RL U ICB MW38D‐GW121620 20L175 SW6020A Arsenic 7440‐38‐21 µg/L U‐RL U ICB MW38D‐GW121620 20L175 SW6020A Nickel 7440‐02‐01 µg/L U‐RL U ICB MW38D‐GW121620 20L175 SW6020A Selenium 7782‐49‐21 µg/L U‐RL U ICB, CCB MW38S‐GW121620 20L175 SW6020A Arsenic 7440‐38‐21 µg/L U‐RL U ICB MW38S‐GW121620 20L175 SW6020A Selenium 7782‐49‐21 µg/L U‐RL U ICB, CCB Acronyms: ID ‐ identification U‐RL ‐ result is qualified as nondetect at the method reporting limit value SDG ‐ sample delivery group UJ‐RL ‐ result is qualified as estimated nondetect at the method reporting limit value SW8260C ‐ volatile organic compounds RL ‐ reporting limit SW6020A ‐ metals MS ‐ matrix spike criteria SW9060 ‐ total organic carbon FD ‐ field duplicate criteria 8270DSIM ‐ 1,4‐dioxane FB ‐ field blank criteria SW‐7470A ‐ mercury ICB ‐ initial calibration blank criteria µg/L ‐ microgram per liter CCB ‐ continuing calibration blank criteria mg/L ‐ milligram per liter MB ‐ method blank criteria  CAS ‐ Chemical Abstract Service TB ‐ trip blank criteria U ‐ nondetect SIM ‐ selective ion monitoring UJ ‐ estimated nondetect J ‐ estimated Page 3 of 3   5‐1  Section 5  Data Quality Indicators  This section summarizes the validation performed and the overall quality of the data. The validation reports are provided in Attachment 1. Achievement of the DQO regarding data usability was determined by the use of DQIs. These DQIs for are expressed in terms of PARCCS. The DQIs provide a mechanism to evaluate and measure data quality throughout the project. These criteria are defined in Table 5‐1 and in the following subsections. 5.1 Precision   Precision is a quantitative term that estimates the reproducibility of a set of replicate measurements under a given set of conditions. It is defined as a measurement of mutual agreement between measurements of the same property and is expressed in terms of relative percent difference (RPD) between duplicate determinations. RPD is calculated as follows: RPD = absolute value [(C1 − C2)/{(C1 + C2)/2)}] × 100% Where: C1 = concentration of primary sample C2 = concentration of duplicate sample Field and analytical precision were determined from review of the field duplicate results, MS/MSDs, LCS/laboratory control sample duplicate (LCSDs), laboratory duplicates and ICP serial dilution tests. The duplicate sample results were compared after calculating their RPDs. Field duplicate samples were collected in the same manner as the original samples but collected in separate individual containers, given separate sample identifiers, and treated as unique samples by the laboratory. Table 5‐2 presents the field duplicate sample results. A control limit of 30 percent (%) RPD was used for the groundwater field duplicate samples when both sample concentrations were greater than five times the MRL. If the sample concentrations were below five times the MRL, the absolute difference between the samples is calculated; if that value is below the MRL, no qualification is required. Laboratory RPDs are specific to the QC parameter. RPD results are summarized below:  Field duplicate RPDs or the absolute criteria results were within control limits except for 1,4-dioxane in field duplicate pair MW36-GW121420/FD07-GW121420 and manganese in field duplicate pair MW04-GW121020/FD02-GW121020 (absolute criteria not met for either analyte) in SDG 20L132. The 1,4-dioxane and manganese results for these samples Section 5  Data Quality Indicators    5‐2  were qualified as estimated “J/UJ.” The difference between the sample results was greater than the MRL.  Laboratory duplicate sample RPDs were within the control limits.  LCS/LCSD RPDs were within control limits.  MS/MSD RPD results were within control limits except for trichlorotrifluoroethane in SDG 20L132, which had an RPD of 22% and styrene in SDG 20L141, which had an RPD of 22%. Qualification for MS/MSD RPDs outside of criteria is only required for detected results. The trichlorotrifluoroethane and styrene results were nondetect in the MS parent samples MW32-GW121420 and MW22-GW121420 respectively. No qualification was required.  ICP serial dilution results were within criteria. No field or laboratory issues were identified from the RPD results outside criteria; the exceedances are reasonable for this type of sampling activity. 5.2 Accuracy   Accuracy is the degree of agreement of a measurement with an accepted reference or true value and is a measure of the bias in a system. Two different metrics are evaluated to assess result accuracy—calculation of percent recovery (%R) for spiked analytes with known concentrations, and review of blank results for cross-contamination. 5.2.1 Percent Recovery Accuracy of the data was assessed by comparing recoveries of LCSs, MSs, calibration standards, surrogates, internal standards, and from ICP interference checks during metals analyses. Accuracy is expressed as %R, which is calculated as: Percent Recovery = (Total Analyte Found − Analyte Originally Present) × 100 Analyte Added Analytical accuracy for the entire data collection activity is difficult to measure because several sources of error exist. Errors can be introduced by any of the following:  Sampling procedure and duration of sampling  Field contamination  Sample preservation and handling  Sample matrix  Sample preparation  Analytical techniques Section 5  Data Quality Indicators    5‐3  Accuracy is maintained by adhering to the laboratory method and approved field and analytical standard operating procedures. The following is a summary of the accuracy parameters reviewed and the resulting qualifications for the data collected: SDG 20L102  LCS/LCSD %Rs were within criteria.  MS/MSD %Rs were within criteria except for sodium (73/83%) and calcium (0/-67%). Initial sample concentrations were greater than four times the spike level; therefore, no qualifications were required.  Initial and continuing calibration verifications were within criteria.  Surrogate results were within criteria.  ICP interference checks were within criteria.  Inorganic and organic tune results were within criteria.  Internal standard results were within criteria. SDG 20L175  LCS/LCSD %Rs were within criteria.  MS/MSD %Rs were within criteria except for magnesium (87/73%), calcium (100/-33%) and sodium (87/10%). Initial sample concentrations were greater than four times the spike level; therefore, no qualifications were required.  Initial and continuing calibration verifications were within criteria.  Surrogate results were within criteria.  ICP interference checks were within criteria.  Inorganic and organic tune results were within criteria.  Internal standard results were within criteria. SDG 20L132  LCS/LCSD %Rs were within criteria.  MS/MSD %Rs were within criteria except for calcium (33/167%) and sodium (67/133%). Initial sample concentrations were greater than four times the spike level; therefore, no qualifications were required.  Initial and continuing calibration verifications were within criteria.  Surrogate results were within criteria. Section 5  Data Quality Indicators    5‐4   ICP interference checks were within criteria.  Inorganic and organic tune results were within criteria.  Internal standard results were within criteria. SDG 20L141  LCS/LCSD %Rs were within criteria.  MS/MSD %Rs were within criteria except for styrene (83/66%), magnesium (147/97%) and sodium (0/100%). The styrene result in sample MW22-GW121420 was qualified as estimated nondetect “UJ.” The magnesium and sodium initial sample concentrations were greater than four times the spike level; therefore, no qualifications were required.  Initial and continuing calibration verifications were within criteria.  Surrogate results were within criteria.  ICP interference checks were within criteria.  Inorganic and organic tune results were within criteria.  Internal standard results were within criteria. SDG 20L133  LCS/LCSD %Rs were within criteria.  MS/MSD %Rs were within criteria except for calcium (233/233%), magnesium (167/170%) and sodium (207/243%). Initial sample concentrations were greater than four times the spike level therefore no qualifications were required.  Initial and continuing calibration verifications were within criteria.  Surrogate results were within criteria.  ICP interference checks were within criteria.  Inorganic and organic tune results were within criteria.  Internal standard results were within criteria. Sample preservation, handling, and holding times are additional measures of accuracy of the data. All cooler temperatures, sample handling information and holding times were acceptable. 5.2.2 Blank Contamination Blanks are used to determine the level of laboratory and field contamination introduced into the samples, independent of the level of target analytes found in the sample source. Sources of sample contamination can include the containers and equipment used to collect the sample, preservatives added to the sample, other samples in transport coolers, laboratory sample storage Section 5  Data Quality Indicators    5‐5  refrigerators, standards and solutions used to calibrate instruments, glassware and reagents used to process samples, airborne contamination in the laboratory preparation area, and the analytical instrument sample introduction equipment. Each analyte group has its own particular suite of common laboratory contaminants. Active measures must be performed to continually measure the ambient contamination level, and steps taken to discover the source of the contamination to eliminate or minimize the levels. Random spot contamination can also occur from analytes that are not common laboratory problems but can arise as a problem for a specific project or over a short period. Field blanks, equipment blanks, trip blanks, and laboratory method blanks are analyzed to identify possible sources of contamination. For this project, one field blank sample was collected to assess potential ambient background cross-contamination of sampled media. Eighteen trip blank samples were sent with the coolers to assess potential cooler transportation cross contamination. VOC results for the field and trip blank samples are presented in Table 3‐2. The following text discusses validation actions required as a result of laboratory, field and/or trip blank contamination. SDG 20L102  Acetone and methylene chloride were detected in the trip blank samples. One acetone sample result was qualified as nondetect “U” at the MRL. The remaining sample results were nondetect and did not require qualification.  Lead, manganese, sodium, calcium, iron, arsenic, selenium, thallium and mercury were detected in some of the laboratory blanks. Applicable sample results for arsenic, iron, lead, manganese, selenium, and thallium were qualified as nondetect “U” at the MRL. The remaining associated sample results were either nondetect, greater than the MRL, or the negative blank result was greater than the negative MRL value and did not require qualification. SDG 20L175  Acetone was detected in multiple trip blank samples and the field blank sample. Applicable acetone results were qualified as nondetect “U” at the MRL. The remaining sample results were nondetect and did not require qualification.  Vanadium, chromium, nickel, arsenic, selenium, mercury and manganese were detected in some of the laboratory blanks. Applicable sample results for vanadium, chromium, nickel, arsenic, selenium, and manganese were qualified as nondetect “U” at the MRL. The remaining associated sample results were either nondetect, greater than the MRL, or the negative blank result was greater than the negative MRL value and did not require qualification. SDG 20L132  Mercury, sodium, manganese, cadmium, thallium, lead, barium, copper and sulfate were detected in some of the laboratory blank samples. Applicable sample results for mercury and manganese were qualified as nondetect “U” at the MRL. The remaining associated sample results were either nondetect, greater than the MRL, or the negative blank result was greater than the negative MRL value and did not require qualification. Some of the detected analytes in the laboratory blanks were associated with dilution analyses. Associated sample results for these analytes were reported from the initial analysis. This Section 5  Data Quality Indicators    5‐6  analysis was identified as the most defensible set of results and therefore these results did not require qualification.  Total organic carbon was detected in the method blank. Associated sample results were qualified as nondetect “U” at the MRL. SDG 20L141  Acetone was detected in some of the trip blank samples. Associated sample results were nondetect and did not require qualification.  Manganese, lead, mercury, cadmium, copper and sodium were detected in some of the laboratory blank samples. Applicable sample results for lead were qualified as nondetect “U” at the MRL. The remaining associated sample results were either nondetect, greater than the MRL, or the negative blank result was greater than the negative MRL value and did not require qualification. Some of the detected analytes in the laboratory blanks were associated with dilution analyses. Associated sample results for these analytes were reported from the initial analysis. This analysis was identified as the most defensible set of results and therefore these results did not require qualification. SDG 20L133  Acetone was detected in some of the trip blank samples. Associated sample results were nondetect and did not require qualification.  Manganese, lead, mercury, and thallium were detected in some of the laboratory blank samples. Applicable sample results for lead were qualified as nondetect “U” at the MRL. The remaining associated sample results were either nondetect, greater than the MRL, or the negative blank result was greater than the negative MRL value and did not require qualification. Some of the detected analytes in the laboratory blanks were associated with dilution analyses. Associated sample results for these analytes were reported from the initial analysis. This analysis was identified as the most defensible set of results and therefore these results did not require qualification.  Total organic carbon was detected in the method blank. Associated sample results were qualified as nondetect “U” at the MRL. Ideally, no contaminants should be found in the blank samples. Blank samples are used to determine the validity of the analytical results by determining the existence and magnitude of contamination resulting from laboratory (or field) activities or baseline drift during analysis. As discussed above, analytes were detected in some of the laboratory blank samples and/or field and trip blank samples. Concentrations were below the MRLs for all detected blank results. Analytes detected in laboratory blanks are common with laboratory analyses and almost unavoidable. Associated sample results for the laboratory blanks and/or field and trip blank samples were qualified following the appropriate guidelines. Detected blank concentrations were below the MRLs and the resulting sample qualifications as nondetect or "U” does not falsely diminish identification of site-related contaminants. Section 5  Data Quality Indicators    5‐7  5.3 Representativeness  Representativeness is a qualitative term that expresses the degree to which the sample data accurately and precisely represent the environmental conditions corresponding to the location and/or depth interval of sample collection. Requirements and procedures for sample collection were designed to maximize sample representativeness. Representativeness can be monitored by reviewing field documentation and/or performing field audits. For this report, a detailed review was performed on the COC and field data collection forms. Appropriate laboratory QA/QC requirements were described in the QAPP (CDM Smith 2020) and laboratory statement of work to confirm that the laboratory analytical results were representative of true field conditions. Field sampling representativeness was attained through strict adherence to the sampling design and the approved QAPP (CDM Smith 2020) procedures and by using EPA-approved analytical methods for sample analyses. As a result, the data represent as near as possible the actual field conditions at the time of sampling. Representativeness, as defined above, was met for the fieldwork and laboratory analyses. The data collected are suitable for project use. 5.4 Comparability  Comparability is a qualitative term that expresses the confidence with which a data set can be compared with another. Strict adherence to standard sample collection procedures, analytical detection limits, and analytical methods is necessary so data from similar samples and sample conditions are comparable. This comparability is independent of laboratory personnel, data reviewers, or sampling personnel. Comparability criteria are met for the project if, based on data review, the sample collection and analytical procedures used are similar and are determined to have been followed. To achieve comparability of data generated for the Site, CDM Smith followed standard sample collection procedures and EPA-approved analytical methods during sampling activities. The sample analyses were performed by EMAX using approved standard operating procedures and reporting units. Utilizing such procedures and methods enables the current data to be comparable to future data sets generated with similar methods and units. 5.5 Completeness  Completeness of the field program is defined as the percentage of samples planned for collection, as listed in the QAPP (CDM Smith 2020), versus the actual number of samples collected during the field program (see equation A). Completeness for acceptable data is defined as the percentage of acceptable data obtained judged to be valid versus the total quantity of data generated (see equation B). Acceptable data include both data that pass all the QC criteria (unqualified data) and data that may not pass all the QC criteria but had appropriate corrective actions taken (qualified but usable data). Section 5  Data Quality Indicators    5‐8  A. Where: C = actual number of samples collected n = total number of samples planned B. Where: V = number of measurements judged valid n' = total number of measurements made The overall completeness goal for this sampling event was 90% for all project data. Not all samples outlined in the QAPP (CDM Smith, 2020) were able to be collected as planned; this is discussed in Section 3.1. Sixty-six samples were planned to be collected not including field duplicates. Sixty-four samples were collected. The completeness for the number of samples planned to be collected versus the number of samples collected was 97%, thus exceeding the 90% goal. Samples that were not able to be collected will be sampled in future sampling events if possible. Analyses for the sampling event exceeded the 90% completeness goal of acceptable data for the number of measurements judged to be valid versus the total number of measurements made. One hundred percent of the data validated and reported are suitable for their intended use for site characterization. No results were rejected, and all data collected met the overall project objective for data usability. The completeness goals were met for both the number of samples collected for all sampling events and the number of measurements judged to be valid. The data usability DQO was achieved; the data reported are suitable for their intended use as stated in the QAPP (CDM Smith 2020). The achievement of the completeness goals for the data provides sufficient data for project decisions. 5.6 Sensitivity  Sensitivity is related to the ability to compare analytical results with project-specific levels of interest such as delineation levels or action levels. Analytical quantitation limits for the various sample analytes should be below the level of interest to allow an effective comparison. The method detection limit (MDL) study attempts to answer the question, “What is the minimum concentration of a substance that can be measured and reported with 99% confidence that the analyte concentration is greater than zero?” The study is based upon repetitive analysis of an interference-free sample spiked with a known amount of the target analyte. The MDL is a measure of the ability of the test procedure to generate a positive response for the target analyte in the absence of any other interferences from the sample. The MRL is generally defined as the lowest concentration at which an analyte can be confidently reported in a sample and its concentration reported with a reasonable degree of accuracy and n 100Cxess%Completen  n' 100Vxess%Completen  Section 5  Data Quality Indicators    5‐9  precision. For samples that do not pose a particular matrix problem, the MRL is typically about three to five times higher than the MDL. Laboratory results are reported according to rules that provide established certainty of detection. The result for an analyte is flagged with a "U" if that analyte was not detected and reported at the MRL value or qualified with a "J" flag if associated QC results fall outside the appropriate QC criteria. Additionally, if an analyte is present at a concentration between the MDL and the MRL, the analytical result is flagged with a "J," indicating an estimated quantity. Qualifying the result as an estimated concentration reflects uncertainty in the reported value. When required, dilutions were performed and accounted for in the reported MRLs. For each analyte, laboratory MRLs were low enough to compare to the project criteria stated in the laboratory statement of work and the QAPP (CDM Smith 2020).   Section 5  Data Quality Indicators    5‐10  Table 5‐1 DQIs and Corresponding QC Parameters Data Quality Indicators QC Parameters Evaluation in Data Review/Validation Precision RPD values of:  1) Laboratory duplicates  2) Field duplicates  3) MS/MSD  4) LCS/LCSD  5) Serial dilution (ICP metals)  Relative standard deviation (RSD) values of:  1) Initial calibration verifications   Accuracy/Bias %R or percent difference (%D) values of:  1) LCS/LCSD %R  2) MS/MSD %R  3) Initial calibration verification/continuing calibration verification %R  4) ICP interference check standards  5) ICP‐mass spectrometry (MS) tune percent RSD  6) ICP‐MS internal standard %R intensity  7) Surrogates  8) Internal standards   Results of:  1) Instrument and calibration blanks  2) Method (preparation) blanks  3) Field blanks  4) Trip blanks  Representativeness Results of all blanks  Adherence to field standard operating procedures  Sample integrity (COC and sample receipt forms)  Holding times  Comparability Similar reporting limits and units  Similar sample collection methods  Similar laboratory analytical methods  Completeness Data qualifiers  Laboratory deliverables  Requested/Reported valid results  Field sample collection (primary and QC samples)  Contract compliance (i.e., method and instrument QC within limits)  Sensitivity Sample method reporting limits meet QAPP criteria  Adequacy of sample dilution        Table 5‐2  Summary of Field Duplicate Sampling Results Method Analyte Unit Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q SW8260C 1,1,1‐Trichloroethane µg/L 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 0.64J0.65JABS Criteria 0.61 J 0.6 J ABS Criteria SW8260C 1,1,2,2‐Tetrachloroethane µg/L 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC SW8260C 1,1,2‐Trichloroethane µg/L 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC SW8260C 1,1,2‐Trichlorotrifluoroethane µg/L 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC SW8260C 1,1‐Dichloroethane µg/L 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC SW8260C 1,1‐Dichloroethene µg/L 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 0.19J0.18JABS Criteria 0.12 J 0.14 J ABS Criteria SW8260C 1,2,3‐Trichlorobenzene µg/L 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC SW8260C 1,2,4‐Trichlorobenzene µg/L 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC SW8260C 1,2,4‐Trimethylbenzene µg/L 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC SW8260C 1,2‐Dibromo‐3‐Chloropropane µg/L 2U2UNC 2U2UNC 2U2UNC 2U2UNC 2U2UNC SW8260C 1,2‐Dibromoethane µg/L 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC SW8260C 1,2‐Dichlorobenzene µg/L 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC SW8260C 1,2‐Dichloroethane µg/L 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC SW8260C 1,2‐Dichloropropane µg/L 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC SW8260C 1,3,5‐Trimethylbenzene µg/L 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC SW8260C 1,3‐Dichlorobenzene µg/L 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC SW8260C 1,4‐Dichlorobenzene µg/L 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC SW8260C 2‐Butanone (MEK) µg/L 20U20UNC 20U20UNC 20U20UNC 20U20UNC 20U20UNC SW8260C 2‐Hexanone µg/L 20U20UNC 20U20UNC 20U20UNC 20U20UNC 20U20UNC SW8260C 4‐Methyl‐2‐Pentanone (MIBK) µg/L 20U20UNC 20U20UNC 20U20UNC 20U20UNC 20U20UNC SW8260C Acetone µg/L 20 U 20 U NC 20 U 20 U NC 20 U 2.6 J ABS Criteria 20 U 3.6 J ABS Criteria 20 U 20 U NC SW8260C Benzene µg/L 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C Bromochloromethane µg/L 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C Bromodichloromethane µg/L 0.36 J 0.38 J ABS Criteria 0.36 J 0.38 J ABS Criteria 0.35 J 0.37 J ABS Criteria 0.57 J 0.6 J ABS Criteria 0.24 J 0.24 J ABS Criteria SW8260C Bromoform µg/L 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C Bromomethane µg/L 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C Carbon Disulfide µg/L 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC SW8260C Carbon Tetrachloride µg/L 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC SW8260C Chlorobenzene µg/L 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C Chloroethane µg/L 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C Chloroform µg/L 3.9 4 ABS Criteria 4.2 4.1 ABS Criteria 6.4 6.3 1.57 4.3 4.8 ABS Criteria 2.4 2.4 ABS Criteria SW8260C Chloromethane µg/L 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C cis‐1,2‐Dichloroethene µg/L 0.43 J 0.44 J ABS Criteria 0.15 J 0.15 J ABS Criteria 1 U 1 U NC 0.23 J 0.26 J ABS Criteria 0.23 J 0.21 J ABS Criteria SW8260C cis‐1,3‐Dichloropropene µg/L 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC SW8260C Dibromochloromethane µg/L 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C Dichlorodifluoromethane µg/L 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C Ethylbenzene µg/L 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C Isopropylbenzene µg/L 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C M+P‐Xylenes µg/L 2U2UNC 2U2UNC 2U2UNC 2U2UNC 2U2UNC SW8260C Methyl Acetate µg/L 2U2UNC 2U2UNC 2U2UNC 2U2UNC 2U2UNC SW8260C Methyl Tert‐Butyl Ether µg/L 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC SW8260C Methylene Chloride µg/L 2U2UNC 2U2UNC 2U2UNC 2U2UNC 2U2UNC SW8260C O‐Xylene µg/L 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC SW8260C Styrene µg/L 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C Tetrachloroethene µg/L 220 210 4.65 40 38 5.13 1U1UNC 52 53 1.90 53 56 5.50 SW8260C Toluene µg/L 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C Trans‐1,2‐Dichloroethene µg/L 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC SW8260C Trans‐1,3‐Dichloropropene µg/L 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC SW8260C Trichloroethene µg/L 0.55 J 0.6 J ABS Criteria 0.24 J 0.22 J ABS Criteria 1 U 1 U NC 0.42 J 0.42 J ABS Criteria 0.44 J 0.43 J ABS Criteria SW8260C Trichlorofluoromethane µg/L 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C Vinyl Acetate µg/L 2U2UNC 2U2UNC 2U2UNC 2U2UNC 2U2UNC SW8260C Vinyl Chloride µg/L 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 8270DSIM 1,4‐Dioxane µg/L ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ 12/9/2020 Well RPD (%) MW‐02 MW‐02 MW‐04 MW‐04 MW‐05R 12/8/2020 12/8/2020 12/9/2020 MW08A‐GW120920 FD03‐GW120920 NFD NFD MW05R‐GW120820 FD05‐GW120820 MW‐05R MW‐08A MW‐08A Sample Name MW02‐GW121620 FD01‐GW121620 MW04‐GW121020 FD02‐GW121020 MW18‐GW121420 FD06‐GW121420 RPD (%)12/14/2020 12/14/2020 MW‐18 MW‐18 Sample Date 12/16/2020 12/16/2020 12/10/2020 12/10/2020 Sample Type N FD N FD RPD (%) RPD (%) RPD (%) Volatile Organic Compounds  Semivolatile Organic Compounds SIM (1,4‐Dioxane) NFD Page 1 of 4 Table 5‐2  Summary of Field Duplicate Sampling Results Method Analyte Unit Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q 12/9/2020 Well RPD (%) MW‐02 MW‐02 MW‐04 MW‐04 MW‐05R 12/8/2020 12/8/2020 12/9/2020 MW08A‐GW120920 FD03‐GW120920 NFD NFD MW05R‐GW120820 FD05‐GW120820 MW‐05R MW‐08A MW‐08A Sample Name MW02‐GW121620 FD01‐GW121620 MW04‐GW121020 FD02‐GW121020 MW18‐GW121420 FD06‐GW121420 RPD (%)12/14/2020 12/14/2020 MW‐18 MW‐18 Sample Date 12/16/2020 12/16/2020 12/10/2020 12/10/2020 Sample Type N FD N FD RPD (%) RPD (%) RPD (%) NFD SW6020A Aluminum µg/L 100 U 100 U NC 100 U 100 U NC 59.7 J 100 U ABS Criteria 58.2 J 55.3 J ABS Criteria 100 U 100 U NC SW6020A Antimony µg/L 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC SW6020A Arsenic µg/L 1.44 1.43 ABS Criteria 1.3 1.39 ABS Criteria 1.05 1.04 ABS Criteria 1 U 1 U NC 1.16 1.22 ABS Criteria SW6020A Barium µg/L 86.4 85.6 0.93 50 51.5 2.96 73 74.2 1.63 86.1 86.1 0.00 96.3 100 3.77 SW6020A Beryllium µg/L 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC SW6020A Cadmium µg/L 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 0.171 J 1 U ABS Criteria1U1UNC 1U1UNC SW6020A Calcium µg/L 172000 173000 0.58 142000 141000 0.71 165000 167000 1.20 188000 189000 0.53 165000 166000 0.60 SW6020A Chromium µg/L 3.08 2.84 ABS Criteria 2 2.11 ABS Criteria 0.646 J 0.681 J ABS Criteria 0.948 J 0.99 J ABS Criteria 1.41 1.46 ABS Criteria SW6020A Cobalt µg/L 0.414 J 0.406 J ABS Criteria 0.496 J 0.512 J ABS Criteria 0.635 J 0.437 J ABS Criteria 0.599 J 0.537 J ABS Criteria 0.383 J 0.409 J ABS Criteria SW6020A Copper µg/L 0.749 J 0.671 J ABS Criteria 2.97 2.85 ABS Criteria 2.16 2 U ABS Criteria2U2UNC 2U2UNC SW6020A Iron µg/L 100 U 100 U NC 100 U 100 U NC 100 U 100 U NC 100 U 100 U NC 207 221 ABS Criteria SW6020A Lead µg/L 1 U 1 U NC 0.254 J 0.279 J ABS Criteria1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC SW6020A Magnesium µg/L 60100 59300 1.34 47200 48200 2.10 63800 63100 1.10 72500 72800 0.41 64000 66800 4.28 SW6020A Manganese µg/L 1 U 1 U NC 1 UJ 3.23 J ABS Criteria 1.56 1 U ABS Criteria 9.14 7.98 13.55 5.89 4.89 ABS Criteria SW6020A Nickel µg/L 1.5 1.45 ABS Criteria 2.15 2.17 ABS Criteria 0.438 J 0.529 J ABS Criteria 0.599 J 0.703 J ABS Criteria 1 U 1 U NC SW6020A Potassium µg/L 2740 2780 1.45 2320 2390 2.97 2710 2750 1.47 2830 2850 0.70 3220 3350 3.96 SW6020A Selenium µg/L 1 U 1 U NC 0.655 J 0.752 J ABS Criteria1U1UNC 1U1 ABS Criteria 1 U 1.03 ABS Criteria SW6020A Silver µg/L 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC SW6020A Sodium µg/L 147000 148000 0.68 112000 112000 0.00 60900 61900 1.63 93500 93900 0.43 98600 99500 0.91 SW6020A Thallium µg/L 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC SW6020A Vanadium µg/L 2.36 2.39 ABS Criteria 2.66 2.76 ABS Criteria 2.04 2.09 ABS Criteria 1.79 1.81 ABS Criteria 1.97 2.08 ABS Criteria SW6020A Zinc µg/L 20 U 20 U NC 11 J 11.6 J ABS Criteria 20 U 20 U NC 20 U 20 U NC 20 U 6.72 J ABS Criteria SW7470A Mercury µg/L 0.5 U 0.5 U NC 0.5 U 0.5 U NC 0.5 U 0.5 U NC 0.5 U 0.5 U NC 0.5 U 0.5 U NC RSK‐175Ethane µg/L 2U2UNC 2U2UNC 2U2UNC 2U2UNC 2U2UNC RSK‐175Ethene µg/L 2U2UNC 2U2UNC 2U2UNC 2U2UNC 2U2UNC RSK‐175 Methane µg/L 2 U 2 U NC 2 U 2 U NC 0.46 J 0.56 J ABS Criteria 0.34 J 0.36 J ABS Criteria 2 U 2 U NC A4500NE Nitrate/Nitrite mg/L 3.38 3.42 1.18 2.4 2.22 7.79 3.71 3.78 1.87 4.58 4.27 7.01 5.04 4.76 5.71 E300.0 Chloride mg/L 437 439 0.46 241 241 0.00 307 278 9.91 462 450 2.63 370 353 4.70 E300.0 Sulfate mg/L 88.8 90.9 2.34 96.2 102 5.85 121 117 3.36 102 109 6.64 104 98.9 5.03 SM2320B Alkalinity mg/L 294 295 0.34 298 293 1.69 293 293 0.00 219 220 0.46 281 288 2.46 SW9060 Total Organic Carbon mg/L 0.855 J 0.842 J ABS Criteria 1 U 1 U NC 1.06 1.11 ABS Criteria 0.588 J 0.665 J ABS Criteria 0.577 J 0.68 J ABS Criteria Notes: N ‐ Normal sample FD‐ Field Duplicate µg/L ‐ microgram per liter mg/L ‐ milligram per liter Q ‐ qualifier ABS ‐ absolute difference RPD ‐ Relative Percent Difference SIM ‐ selective ion monitoring U ‐ nondetect UJ ‐ estimated nondetect J ‐ estimated value NC ‐ not calculated ABS Criteria ‐ One or both of the sample results are less than 5 times  the reporting limit.  The absolute value between the two results is  within acceptable criteria. Yellow highlighting ‐ RPD value is outside of 30% criteria and/or the  ABS Criteria is outside of control limits Total Metals Dissolved Gases General Chemistry Parameters Page 2 of 4 Table 5‐2  Summary of Field Duplicate Sampling Results Method Analyte Unit SW8260C 1,1,1‐Trichloroethane µg/L SW8260C 1,1,2,2‐Tetrachloroethane µg/L SW8260C 1,1,2‐Trichloroethane µg/L SW8260C 1,1,2‐Trichlorotrifluoroethane µg/L SW8260C 1,1‐Dichloroethane µg/L SW8260C 1,1‐Dichloroethene µg/L SW8260C 1,2,3‐Trichlorobenzene µg/L SW8260C 1,2,4‐Trichlorobenzene µg/L SW8260C 1,2,4‐Trimethylbenzene µg/L SW8260C 1,2‐Dibromo‐3‐Chloropropane µg/L SW8260C 1,2‐Dibromoethane µg/L SW8260C 1,2‐Dichlorobenzene µg/L SW8260C 1,2‐Dichloroethane µg/L SW8260C 1,2‐Dichloropropane µg/L SW8260C 1,3,5‐Trimethylbenzene µg/L SW8260C 1,3‐Dichlorobenzene µg/L SW8260C 1,4‐Dichlorobenzene µg/L SW8260C 2‐Butanone (MEK) µg/L SW8260C 2‐Hexanone µg/L SW8260C 4‐Methyl‐2‐Pentanone (MIBK) µg/L SW8260C Acetone µg/L SW8260C Benzene µg/L SW8260C Bromochloromethane µg/L SW8260C Bromodichloromethane µg/L SW8260C Bromoform µg/L SW8260C Bromomethane µg/L SW8260C Carbon Disulfide µg/L SW8260C Carbon Tetrachloride µg/L SW8260C Chlorobenzene µg/L SW8260C Chloroethane µg/L SW8260C Chloroform µg/L SW8260C Chloromethane µg/L SW8260C cis‐1,2‐Dichloroethene µg/L SW8260C cis‐1,3‐Dichloropropene µg/L SW8260C Dibromochloromethane µg/L SW8260C Dichlorodifluoromethane µg/L SW8260C Ethylbenzene µg/L SW8260C Isopropylbenzene µg/L SW8260C M+P‐Xylenes µg/L SW8260C Methyl Acetate µg/L SW8260C Methyl Tert‐Butyl Ether µg/L SW8260C Methylene Chloride µg/L SW8260C O‐Xylene µg/L SW8260C Styrene µg/L SW8260C Tetrachloroethene µg/L SW8260C Toluene µg/L SW8260C Trans‐1,2‐Dichloroethene µg/L SW8260C Trans‐1,3‐Dichloropropene µg/L SW8260C Trichloroethene µg/L SW8260C Trichlorofluoromethane µg/L SW8260C Vinyl Acetate µg/L SW8260C Vinyl Chloride µg/L 8270DSIM 1,4‐Dioxane µg/L Well Sample Name Sample Date Sample Type Volatile Organic Compounds  Semivolatile Organic Compounds SIM (1,4‐Dioxane) Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 2U2UNC 2U2UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 20U20UNC 20U20UNC 20U20UNC 20U20UNC 20U20UNC 20U20UNC 20U20UNC 20U20UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 0.11J0.11JABS Criteria 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 0.79 J 0.77 J ABS Criteria 2.2 2.1 ABS Criteria 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 2U2UNC 2U2UNC 2U2UNC 2U2UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 2U2UNC 2U2UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 0.28 J 0.28 J ABS Criteria 1 U 1 U NC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 2U2UNC 2U2UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 0.42 UJ 3.1 J ABS Criteria 0.45 U 0.44 U NC MW36‐GW121420 FD07‐GW121420 MW‐36MW‐36 12/14/2020 12/14/2020 12/14/2020 MW37S‐GW121420 FD04‐GW121420RPD (%) FD 12/14/2020 MW‐37S MW‐37S RPD (%) NFD N Page 3 of 4 Table 5‐2  Summary of Field Duplicate Sampling Results Method Analyte Unit Well Sample Name Sample Date Sample Type SW6020A Aluminum µg/L SW6020A Antimony µg/L SW6020A Arsenic µg/L SW6020A Barium µg/L SW6020A Beryllium µg/L SW6020A Cadmium µg/L SW6020A Calcium µg/L SW6020A Chromium µg/L SW6020A Cobalt µg/L SW6020A Copper µg/L SW6020A Iron µg/L SW6020A Lead µg/L SW6020A Magnesium µg/L SW6020A Manganese µg/L SW6020A Nickel µg/L SW6020A Potassium µg/L SW6020A Selenium µg/L SW6020A Silver µg/L SW6020A Sodium µg/L SW6020A Thallium µg/L SW6020A Vanadium µg/L SW6020A Zinc µg/L SW7470A Mercury µg/L RSK‐175 Ethane µg/L RSK‐175 Ethene µg/L RSK‐175 Methane µg/L A4500NE Nitrate/Nitrite mg/L E300.0 Chloride mg/L E300.0 Sulfate mg/L SM2320B Alkalinity mg/L SW9060 Total Organic Carbon mg/L Notes: N ‐ Normal sample FD‐ Field Duplicate µg/L ‐ microgram per liter mg/L ‐ milligram per liter Q ‐ qualifier ABS ‐ absolute difference RPD ‐ Relative Percent Difference SIM ‐ selective ion monitoring U ‐ nondetect UJ ‐ estimated nondetect J ‐ estimated value NC ‐ not calculated ABS Criteria ‐ One or both of the sample results are less than 5 times  the reporting limit.  The absolute value between the two results is  within acceptable criteria. Yellow highlighting ‐ RPD value is outside of 30% criteria and/or the  ABS Criteria is outside of control limits Total Metals Dissolved Gases General Chemistry Parameters Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q MW36‐GW121420 FD07‐GW121420 MW‐36MW‐36 12/14/2020 12/14/2020 12/14/2020 MW37S‐GW121420 FD04‐GW121420RPD (%) FD 12/14/2020 MW‐37S MW‐37S RPD (%) NFD N 100 U 27.3 J ABS Criteria 100 U 100 U NC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 0.71 J 0.697 J ABS Criteria 1 U 1 U NC 135 136 0.74 48.4 48.5 0.21 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 150000 151000 0.66 176000 181000 2.80 0.26 J 0.275 J ABS Criteria 1 U 1 U NC 2.46 2.49 ABS Criteria 0.463 J 0.454 J ABS Criteria 2U2UNC 2U1.4JABS Criteria 105 109 ABS Criteria 67.7 J 73.5 J ABS Criteria 0.104 J 0.109 J ABS Criteria 1 U 1 U NC 45900 46700 1.73 82700 86100 4.03 778 790 1.53 17 17.1 0.59 8.74 9.01 3.04 1U1UNC 3480 3540 1.71 4250 4270 0.47 0.798 J 0.823 J ABS Criteria 2.43 2.45 ABS Criteria 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 118000 118000 0.00 205000 212000 3.36 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 0.963 J 1.01 ABS Criteria 1.44 1.44 ABS Criteria 225 224 0.45 5.05 J 11.2 J ABS Criteria 0.5U0.5UNC 0.5U0.5UNC 2U2UNC 2U2UNC 2U2UNC 2U2UNC 0.47 J 0.45 J ABS Criteria 2 U 2 U NC 1.58 1.51 4.53 6.42 6.29 2.05 225 215 4.55 451 439 2.70 132 131 0.76 199 198 0.50 339 349 2.91 405 403 0.50 1 U 1.24 ABS Criteria 1.74 0.908 J ABS Criteria Page 4 of 4   6‐1  Section 6  Data Usability Assessment  One hundred percent of the data reported and validated in this QCSR are suitable for their intended use as stated in the QAPP (CDM Smith 2020). No sample results were rejected. The achievement of the completeness goals for the number of samples collected and the number of sample results acceptable for use provides sufficient quality data to support project decisions. Sample results that were qualified as estimated are usable for project decisions.     7‐1  Section 7  References  CDM Smith. 2020. Phase 2 Quality Assurance Project Plan, Operable Unit 1, 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Kansas City District. December 2020. EPA. 2017. National Functional Guidelines for Inorganic Superfund Methods Data Review, EPA-540-R-2017-001, January 2017. EPA. 2017. National Functional Guidelines for Organic Superfund Methods Data Review, EPA-540-R-2017-002, January 2017. EPA 2004. EPA’s Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Wastes: Physical/Chemical Methods (SW-846 2nd edition 1982, revised 1984; 3rd edition 1986; and Updates I, II, IIA, III, IIIA, and IIIB, 1996, 1998, and 2004.      Attachment 1  Data Validation Reports  20L102 EMAX Laboratories, Inc. Matrix:Groundwater Collection date:12/08/2020, 12/09/2020 Volatile Organic Compounds SW 846 8260C Semivolatile Organic Compounds SW 846 8270D (1,4-Dioxane) Metals SW 846 6020A Mercury SW 846 7470A Dissolved Gases - RSK 175 Wet Chemistry Parameters: Chloride EPA 300.0 Sulfate EPA 300.0 Total Alkalinity SM 2320B Nitrate / Nitrite - N SM 4500 NO3E Total Organic Carbon (TOC) SW 9060 Lab ID Sample Number Lab ID Sample Number L102-01 MW27-GW120820 L102-11 TB01A-GW120920 L102-02 MW05R-GW120820 L102-12 MW30RA-GW120820 L102-03 FD05-GW120820 L102-13 MW30RB-GW120820 L102-04 MW15D-GW120920 L102-14 MW30C-GW120920 L102-05 MW15S-GW120920 L102-15 TB04A-GW120920 L102-06 TB03A-GW120920 L102-16 MW08A-GW120920 L102-07 MW24-GW120820 L102-17 MW08B-GW120920 L102-08 MW28-GW120820 L102-18 FD03-GW120920 L102-09 MW12D-GW120920 L102-19 TB02A-GW120920 L102-10 MW08C-GW120920 Precision:Yes No N/A Yes Yes Yes Field 8260C Sample Duplicate %RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples Duplicates MW05R-GW120820 FD05-GW120820 (L102-02) (L102-03) Acetone 20 U 2.6 J NC None Bromodichloromethane 0.35 J 0.37 J NC None MW08A-GW120920 FD03-GW120920 (L102-16) (L102-18) 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 0.64 J 0.65 J NC None 1,1-Dichloroethene 0.19 J 0.18 J NC None Acetone 20 U 3.6 J NC None Bromodichloromethane 0.57 J 0.6 J NC None Chloroform 4.3 4.8 NC None Cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 0.23 J 0.26 J NC None Trichlorothene 0.42 J 0.42 J NC None MS/MSD 8260C %RPD Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples MW08B-GW120920 MS/MSD Acceptable (L102-17) Comments (note deviations): Sample results < 5xs RL; ABS Diff. < RL Sample results < 5xs RL; ABS Diff. < RL Sample results < 5xs RL; ABS Diff. < RL VA Salt Lake City Salt Lake City, Utah Groundwater Validation Report Laboratory: Analysis/Methods: Sample Delivery Group (SDG) Number: Samples in SDG: Data validation was performed in accordance with the specific analytical methods, National Functional Guidelines for Organic Superfund Methods Data Review (EPA January 2017), and the National Functional Guidelines for Inorganic Superfund Methods Data Review (EPA January 2017). Volatile Organic Compounds 8260C Are the field duplicate relative percent differences (RPD) ≤50% (soils), <30% (water) or within CRQL criteria? Were the Matrix Spike Duplicate RPDs ≤ 20%? (Or lab defined limits) Laboratory Control Spike Duplicates RPD within limits? 1 of 10 LCS/LCSD 8260C %RPD Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples LCS1W / LCSD1W Acceptable LCS2W / LCSD2W Acceptable LCS3W / LCSD3W Acceptable Accuracy:Yes No N/A Was the Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate criteria met? (frequency ≥ 5% and laboratory determined control limits) Yes Laboratory Control Sample criteria met?Yes Were the Laboratory Method Blank results all < RL?Yes Were the Field Blanks results all < RL?No Was the ICAL criteria met? Yes Was the CCV criteria met? Yes Was the Tuning criteria met?Yes Were the Surrogate % recoveries within laboratory determined control limits?Yes Were the Internal Standard areas within ± 50 - 150%? Yes Blanks 8260C Concentration MDL /RL Qualifiers Associated Samples MBLK1W Nondetect MBLK2W Nondetect MBLK3W Nondetect Field Blank 8260C Concentration MDL /RL Qualifiers Associated Samples Associated Samples:L102-07 through L102-10 TB01A-GW120920 Acetone 2.8 J 2.5 / 20 U-RL L102-10 Associated Samples: L102-16 through L102-18 TB02A-GW120920 Methylene Chloride 0.60 J 0.5 / 2.0 None Associated Samples: L102-01 through L102-05 TB03A-GW120920 Methylene Chloride 0.60 J 0.5 / 2.0 None TB04A-GW120920 Nondetect Surrogates 8260C %R Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable MS/MSD 8260C %R Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples MW08B-GW120920 MS/MSD Acceptable (L102-17) LCS/LCSD 8260C %R Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples LCS1W / LCSD1W Acceptable LCS2W / LCSD2W Acceptable LCS3W / LCSD3W Acceptable ICAL 8260C RRF %RSD Qualifiers Associated Samples 12/03/2020 9:58 Acceptable Acceptable CCV 8260C RRF %D Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples 12/15/20 9:53 Acceptable Acceptable 12/16/20 10:26 Acceptable Acceptable 12/17/20 10:21 Acceptable Acceptable Tune 8260C Acceptable Internal Standards 8260C Area Area Lower / Upper Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable Sample results nondetect Sample results nondetect Comments (note deviations): 2 of 10 Semivolatile Organic Compounds 8270D (1,4-Dioxane SIM) Precision:Yes No N/A N/A Were the Matrix Spike Duplicate RPDs ≤ 20%? (Or lab defined limits) N/A Laboratory Control Spike Duplicates RPD within limits? Yes Comments (note deviations): Field 8270D Sample Duplicate RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples Duplicates N/A MS/MSD 8270D RPD Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A LCS/LCSD 8270D RPD Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples LCS1W / LCSD1W Acceptable Accuracy:Yes No N/A Was the Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate criteria met? (frequency ≥ 5% and laboratory determined control limits) N/A Laboratory Control Sample criteria met?Yes Were the Laboratory Method Blank results all < RL?Yes Were the Field Blanks results all < RL?N/A Was the ICAL criteria met? Yes Was the CCV criteria met? Yes Was the Tuning criteria met?Yes Were the Surrogate % recoveries within laboratory determined control limits?Yes Were the Internal Standard areas within ± 50 - 150%? Yes Comments (note deviations): Blanks 8270D Concentration (ug/L)MDL / RL Qualifiers Associated Samples MBLK1W Nondetect Field Blank 8270D Concentration MDL / RL Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Surrogates 8270D %R Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable MS/MSD 8270D %R Limits (%)Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A LCS/LCSD 8270D %R Limits Qualifiers LCS1W / LCSD1W Acceptable ICAL 8270D RRF %RSD Qualifiers 6/3/2020 14:04 Acceptable Acceptable CCV 8270D RRF %D Qualifiers Associated Samples 12/15/2020 14:37 Acceptable Acceptable Tune 8270D Acceptable Internal Standards 8270D Area Area Lower / Upper Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable Associated Samples Associated Samples Are the field duplicate relative percent differences (RPD) ≤50% (soils), <30% (water) or within CRQL criteria? 3 of 10 Precision:Yes No N/A Yes Were the Matrix Spike Duplicate RPDs ≤ 20%? (Or lab defined limits) Yes Laboratory Control Spike Duplicates RPD within limits? Yes Are the laboratory duplicate RPDs ≤ 20% for water ≤35% for soils or within CRQL criteria? N/A Field RSK-175 Sample Duplicate %RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples Duplicates MW05R-GW120820 FD05-GW120820 Methane 0.46 J 0.56 J NC None MW08A-GW120920 FD03-GW120920 Methane 0.34 J 0.36 J NC None MS/MSD RSK-175 %RPD Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples MW08B-GW120920 MS/MSD Acceptable (L102-17) LCS/LCSD RSK-175 %RPD Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples LCS1W / LCD1W Acceptable Laboratory RSK-175 Sample (ug/L)Duplicate (ug/L)RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples Duplicates N/A Accuracy:Yes No N/A Was the Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate criteria met? (frequency ≥ 5% and laboratory determined control limits) Yes Laboratory Control Sample criteria met?Yes Were the Laboratory Method Blank results all < RL?Yes Were the Field Blanks results all < RL?N/A Was the ICAL criteria met? Yes Was the CCV criteria met? Yes Was the Tuning criteria met?N/A Were the Surrogate % recoveries within laboratory determined control limits?N/A Were the Internal Standard areas within ± 50 - 150%? N/A Blanks RSK-175 Concentration (ug/L)MDL / RL Qualifiers Associated Samples MBLK1W Nondetect Field Blank RSK-175 Concentration MDL / RL Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Surrogates RSK-175 %R Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A MS/MSD RSK-175 %R Limits (%)Qualifiers Associated Samples MW08B-GW120920 MS/MSD Acceptable (L102-17) LCS/LCSD RSK-175 %R Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples LCS1W / LCD1W Acceptable ICAL RSK-175 RRF %RSD Qualifiers Associated Samples 4/29/2020 Acceptable Acceptable Comments (note deviations): Are the field duplicate relative percent differences (RPD) ≤50% (soils), <30% (water) or within CRQL criteria? Comments (note deviations): Dissolved Gases RSK-175 Sample results < 5xs RL; ABS Diff. < RL Sample results < 5xs RL; ABS Diff. < RL 4 of 10 CCV RSK-175 RRF %D Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples 4/29/2020 '14:39 Acceptable Acceptable Tune RSK-175 N/A Internal Standards RSK-175 Area Area Lower / Upper Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A 5 of 10 Precision:Yes No N/A No Are the laboratory duplicate RPDs ≤ 20% for (water / soil ) or within CRQL criteria? N/A Are the matrix spike duplicates RPD ≤ 20%? Yes Are the laboratory control sample duplicates RPDs ≤ 20%?Yes Field Sample (ug/L)Duplicate (ug/L)%RPD Qualifier Associated Samples Duplicates MW05R-GW120820 FD05-GW120820 (L102-02) (L102-03) Aluminum 59.7 J 100 U NC None Arsenic 1.05 1.04 NC None Cadmium 0.171 J 1.0 U NC None Chromium 0.646 J 0.681 J NC None Cobalt 0.635 J 0.437 J NC None Copper 2.16 2.0 U NC None Manganese 1.56 1 U NC None Nickel 0.438 J 0.539 J NC None Vanadium 2.04 2.09 NC None MW08A-GW120920 FD03-GW120920 (L102-16) (L102-18) Aluminum 58.2 J 55.3 J NC None Chromium 0.948 J 0.99 J NC None Cobalt 0.599 J 0.537 J NC None Iron 51.2 J 47.6 J NC None Nickel 0.599 J 0.703 J NC None Selenium 0.971 J 1 NC None Vanadium 1.79 1.81 NC None MS/MSD RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples MW08B-GW120920 MS/MSD Acceptable (L102-17) MW08B-GW120920 MS/MSD (Hg) Acceptable LCS / LCSD RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples LCS1W / LCD1W Acceptable LCS1W / LCD1W (Hg)Acceptable Laboratory Sample Duplicate RPD Qualifier Associated Samples Duplicate N/A Accuracy:Yes No N/A Were serial dilutions analyzed and within control limits of ±10% for waters (± for 15% for soils) or initial sample result less than 50x MDL?Yes Was matrix spike criteria met (frequency 20% and % recovery 75-125%)?No Was post digestion spike criteria met (if applicable)? Yes Was laboratory control sample criteria met? Yes Was laboratory blank criteria met (within control limits)? Yes Were ICV/CCV % recoveries within 90-110%? Yes Were the Detection Limit PQL Standards within 70-130?N/A Was the %D on form 16-IN for the initial calibration instrument response and concentration data <30%?N/A Were ICSA/ICSAB % recoveries acceptable or within CRQL criteria? Yes Was the tune %RPD <5% (Peak width < 0.75)? Yes Was internal standard criteria met? Yes Serial Dilution Analyte Initial Sample Result %D 50 x MDL Qualifier Acceptable Metals SW 6020A / Mercury 7470A Comments (note deviations): Comments (note deviations): Are the field duplicate relative percent differences (RPD) ≤50% (soils), <30% (water) or within CRQL criteria? Sample results < 5xs RL; ABS Diff. < RL Sample results < 5xs RL; ABS Diff. < RL Sample results < 5xs RL; ABS Diff. < RL Sample results < 5xs RL; ABS Diff. < RL Associated Samples 6 of 10 MS/MSD Analyte %R Limits Post Digestion Qualifiers MW08B-GW120920 MS/MSD (L102-17)Sodium 73 / 83 75-125 93 None ISR > 4xs the spike added Calcium 0 / -67 75-125 110 None ISR > 4xs the spike added MW08B-GW120920 MS/MSD (Hg) Acceptable LCS/LCSD Analyte %R Limits Qualifiers LCS1W / LCD1W Acceptable LCS1W / LCD1W (Hg)Acceptable ICV/CCV Analyte %R Limits Qualifier Associated Samples Acceptable Blanks Prep Blank Result (ug/L)MDL/RL (ug/L)Qualifier MBLK1W Lead 0.130 0.05 / 1 U-RL Manganese 0.380 0.25 / 1 U-RL L102-03 ICBs Analyte Result (ug/L)MDL/RL (ug/L)Qualifier Sodium 30 25 / 100 None Sample results > RL++ Calcium 30 25 / 100 None Sample results > RL** Manganese 0.7 0.25 / 1 U-RL L102-03 Iron 30 25 / 100 U-RL Arsenic 0.2 0.125 / 1 U-RL Selenium 0.3 0.15 / 1 U-RL Thallium 0.2 0.1 / 1 U-RL Lead 0.10 0.05 / 1 U-RL Mercury -0.031 0.1/0.5 None -Blank result > - RL CCBs Analyte Result (ug/L)MDL/RL (ug/L)Qualifier CCB1**Sodium 30 25 / 100 None Sample results > RL CCB2**Nondetect CCB3**Calcium 60 25 / 100 None Sample results > RL Selenium 0.2 0.15 / 1 U-RL CCB1 Mercury -0.003 0.1 / 0.5 None -Blank results > - RL CCB2 Mercury 0.009 0.1 / 0.5 None Sample results nondetect CCB3 Mercury -0.016 0.1 / 0.5 None -Blank results > - RL Field Blank 6020A Concentration (ug/L)MDL/RL (ug/L)Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A ++ ICB associated with initial analysis - analyte was reanalyzed - a majority of the reported results were from dilution ** CCB associated with diluted analysis L102-04, L102-05, L102-09, L102-10, L102-12, L102-13, L102-14, L102-16, L102-17, L102-18 L102-01, L102-02, L102-03, L102-07, L102-08, L102-12, L102-13, L102-14, L102-16 Associated Samples Associated Samples Associated Samples Associated Samples L102-02, L102-03, L102-04, L102-05, L102-08, L102-09, L102-10, L102-14, L102-16, L102-17, L102-18 L102-02, L102-03, L102-04, L102-05, L102-08, L102-09, L102-10, L102-14, L102-16, L102-17, L102-18 L102-01, L102-02, L102-03, L102-07, L102-08, L102-12, L102-13, L102-14, L102-16 L102-02, L102-04, L102-10 ** ICB associated with initial analysis - analyte was reanalyzed - reported results were from dilution Associated Samples L102-01, L102-04, L102-05, L102-07, L102-09, L102-12, L102-13, L102-16, L102-18 7 of 10 ICSA/AB Analyte - Solution A %R Found Sol. A / True A RL Qualifier Associated Samples Acceptable PQL Standard Check %R Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Tune Acceptable Internal Standards Qualifier Associated Samples Acceptable 8 of 10 Precision:Yes No N/A Yes Are the laboratory duplicate RPDs ≤ 20% for water ≤35% for soils or within CRQL criteria? Yes Yes Yes Field Sample (mg/L)Duplicate (mg/L)RPD Qualifier Duplicates MW05R-GW120820 FD05-GW120820 (L102-02) (L102-03) TOC 1.06 J 1.11 J NC None MW08A-GW120920 FD03-GW120920 (L102-16) (L102-18) 0.588 J 0.665 J NC None MS/MSD %R Limits RPD %Qualifiers Associated Samples MW08B-GW120920 MS/MSD** Acceptable (L102-17) ** Numerous MS/MSDs performed / evaluated all QC data within acceptable criteria LCS/ LCSD Limits RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable ** Numerous LCS/LCSDs performed / evaluated all QC data within acceptable criteria Laboratory Duplicate Sample Duplicate RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable Accuracy:Yes No N/A Was matrix spike criteria met (frequency 20% and % recovery 75-125%)?Yes Was post digestion spike criteria met (if applicable)? N/A Yes No Were the Field Blanks results all < RL?N/A Yes Was the tune %RSD <5% ?N/A Was internal standard criteria met?N/A MS /MSD Analyte %R Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples MW08B-GW120920 MS/MSD** Acceptable ** Numerous MS/MSD performed / evaluated all QC data within acceptable criteria LCS / LCSD Analyte %R Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable ** Numerous LCS/LCSD performed / evaluated all QC data within acceptable criteria ICV/CCV %R Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable Blanks Analyte Result MDL/RL Qualifiers Associated Samples Nondetect ** Numerous prep. blanks performed / evaluated all QC blanks were nondetect Comments (note deviations): Was laboratory control sample criteria met? Was laboratory blank criteria met (within control limits)? Were ICV/CCV % recoveries within 90-110%? Sample results < 5xs RL; ABS Diff. < RL Comments (note deviations): Are the matrix spike duplicates RPD ≤ 20%? Are the field duplicate relative percent differences (RPD) ≤30% (soils / water) or within CRQL criteria? Are the laboratory control spike duplicates RPD ≤ 20%? Sample results < 5xs RL; ABS Diff. < RL Associated Samples Wet Chemistry Parameters 9 of 10 ICB / CCBs Analyte Result MDL/RL Qualifier CCB1 TOC 0.277 0.25 / 1 None CCB2 TOC 0.392 0.25 / 1 None CCB3 TOC 0.371 0.25 / 1 None ** The remaining ICB/CCBs performed / evaluated were nondetect Field Blank Analyte Result (mg/L)MDL/RL Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Tune Analyte %RSD Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Representativeness:Yes No N/A Were sampling procedures and design criteria met? Yes Were holding times met? Yes Was preservation criteria met? (0° C - 6° C)Yes Were Chain-of-Custody records complete and provided in data package?Yes Preservation Cooler Temperature (Degrees C) Preservation Criteria Qualifier Associated Samples Acceptable Holding Times Analyte Days to Extraction HT Criteria Qualifier Associated Samples Acceptable Comparability:Yes No N/A Were analytical procedures and methods followed as defined in the QAPP or field change documentation?Yes Comments (note deviations): Completeness (90%):Yes No N/A Are all data in this SDG usable?Yes Sensitivity:Yes No N/A Are MDLs present and reported? Yes Do the reporting limits meet project requirements? Yes Comments (note deviations): Comment: Data is usable with appropriate qualifiers applied. Data Validator:Date:2/12/2021 Data Reviewer:Date: 2/13/2021Cherie Zakowski Kristine Molloy The cooler temperatures were 1.4, 1.8, 1.9 & 2.2 °C Comments (note deviations): Comments (note Associated Samples Note: The laboratory reported method blank criteria was met and the concentrations in the CCBs does not significantly affect the concentrations for TOC. Based on professional judgement, no qualifications were required. See Note 10 of 10 20L132 EMAX Laboratories, Inc. Matrix:Groundwater Collection date:12/10/2020, 12/14/2020 Volatile Organic Compounds SW 846 8260C Semivolatile Organic Compounds SW 846 8270D (1,4-Dioxane) Metals SW 846 6020A Mercury SW 846 7470A Dissolved Gases - RSK 175 Wet Chemistry Parameters: Chloride EPA 300.0 Sulfate EPA 300.0 Total Alkalinity SM 2320B Nitrate / Nitrite - N SM 4500 NO3E Total Organic Carbon (TOC) SW 9060 Lab ID Sample Number Lab ID Sample Number L132-01 MW16S-GW121020 L132-06 TB07-GW121420 L132-02 MW16D-GW121020 L132-07 MW36-GW121420 L132-03 MW04-GW121020 L132-08 FD07-GW121420 L132-04 FD02-GW121020 L132-09 MW19-GW121420 L132-05 MW06-GW121020 L132-10 TB08-GW121420 Precision:Yes No N/A Yes No Yes Field 8260C Sample Duplicate %RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples Duplicates MW04-GW121020 FD02-GW121020 (L132-03) (L132-04) Bromodichloromethane 0.36 J 0.38 J NC None Chloroform 4.2 4.1 NC None Cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 0.15 J 0.15 J NC None Trichlorothene (TCE) 0.24 J 0.22 J NC None MW36-GW121420 FD07-GW121420 (L132-07) (L132-08) Chloroform 0.79 J 0.77 J NC None Tetrachlorothene 0.28 J 0.28 J NC None MS/MSD 8260C %RPD Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples MW36-GW121420 MS/MSD (L132-07)Trichlorotrifluoroethane 22% 20 J**L132-07 ** Qualification required for detected results only - associated results nondetect - no qualification required LCS/LCSD 8260C %RPD Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples LCS1W / LCSD1W Acceptable LCS2W / LCSD2W Acceptable Samples in SDG: Data validation was performed in accordance with the specific analytical methods, National Functional Guidelines for Organic Superfund Methods Data Review (EPA January 2017), and the National Functional Guidelines for Inorganic Superfund Methods Data Review (EPA January 2017). Volatile Organic Compounds 8260C Are the field duplicate relative percent differences (RPD) ≤50% (soils), <30% (water) or within CRQL criteria? Were the Matrix Spike Duplicate RPDs ≤ 20%? (Or lab defined limits) Laboratory Control Spike Duplicates RPD within limits? Comments (note deviations): VA Salt Lake City Salt Lake City, Utah Groundwater Validation Report Laboratory: Analysis/Methods: Sample Delivery Group (SDG) Number: Sample results < 5xs RL; ABS Diff. < RL Sample results < 5xs RL; ABS Diff. < RL 1 of 11 Accuracy:Yes No N/A Was the Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate criteria met? (frequency ≥ 5% and laboratory determined control limits) Yes Laboratory Control Sample criteria met?Yes Were the Laboratory Method Blank results all < RL?Yes Were the Field Blanks results all < RL?Yes Was the ICAL criteria met? Yes Was the CCV criteria met? Yes Was the Tuning criteria met?Yes Were the Surrogate % recoveries within laboratory determined control limits?Yes Were the Internal Standard areas within ± 50 - 150%? Yes Blanks 8260C Concentration MDL /RL Qualifiers Associated Samples MBLK1W Nondetect MBLK2W Nondetect Field Blank 8260C Concentration MDL /RL Qualifiers Associated Samples Associated Samples:L132-01 through L132-05 TB07-GW121420 Nondetect Associated Samples:L132-07 through L132-09 TB08-GW121420 Nondetect Surrogates 8260C %R Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable MS/MSD 8260C %R Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples MW36-GW121420 MS/MSD Acceptable (L132-07) LCS/LCSD 8260C %R Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples LCS1W / LCSD1W Acceptable LCS2W / LCSD2W Acceptable ICAL 8260C RRF %RSD Qualifiers Associated Samples 12/03/2020 9:58 Acceptable Acceptable CCV 8260C RRF %D Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples 12/16/20 10:26 Acceptable Acceptable 12/17/20 10:21 Acceptable Acceptable Tune 8260C Acceptable Internal Standards 8260C Area Area Lower / Upper Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable Comments (note deviations): 2 of 11 Semivolatile Organic Compounds 8270D (1,4-Dioxane SIM) Precision:Yes No N/A No Were the Matrix Spike Duplicate RPDs ≤ 20%? (Or lab defined limits) Yes Laboratory Control Spike Duplicates RPD within limits? Yes Comments (note deviations): Field 8270D Sample Duplicate RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples Duplicates MW36-GW121420 FD07-GW121420 1,4-Dioxane 0.42 U 3.1 NC J / UJ MS/MSD 8270D RPD Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples MW36-GW121420 MS/MSD Acceptable (L132-07) LCS/LCSD 8270D RPD Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples LCS1W / LCSD1W Acceptable Accuracy:Yes No N/A Was the Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate criteria met? (frequency ≥ 5% and laboratory determined control limits) Yes Laboratory Control Sample criteria met?Yes Were the Laboratory Method Blank results all < RL?Yes Were the Field Blanks results all < RL?N/A Was the ICAL criteria met? Yes Was the CCV criteria met? Yes Was the Tuning criteria met?Yes Were the Surrogate % recoveries within laboratory determined control limits?Yes Were the Internal Standard areas within ± 50 - 150%? Yes Comments (note deviations): Blanks 8270D Concentration (ug/L)MDL / RL Qualifiers Associated Samples MBLK1W Nondetect Field Blank 8270D Concentration MDL / RL Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Surrogates 8270D %R Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable MS/MSD 8270D %R Limits (%)Qualifiers Associated Samples MW36-GW121420 MS/MSD Acceptable (L132-07) LCS/LCSD 8270D %R Limits Qualifiers LCS1W / LCSD1W Acceptable ICAL 8270D RRF %RSD Qualifiers 6/3/2020 14:04 Acceptable Acceptable CCV 8270D RRF %D Qualifiers Associated Samples 12/18/2020 13:27 Acceptable Acceptable Associated Samples Associated Samples Are the field duplicate relative percent differences (RPD) ≤50% (soils), <30% (water) or within CRQL criteria? MW36-GW121420 & FD07-GW121420 3 of 11 Tune 8270D Acceptable Internal Standards 8270D Area Area Lower / Upper Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable 4 of 11 Precision:Yes No N/A Yes Were the Matrix Spike Duplicate RPDs ≤ 20%? (Or lab defined limits) Yes Laboratory Control Spike Duplicates RPD within limits? Yes Are the laboratory duplicate RPDs ≤ 20% for water ≤35% for soils or within CRQL criteria? N/A Field RSK-175 Sample Duplicate %RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples Duplicates MW04-GW121020 FD02-GW121020 (L132-03) (L132-04) ND ND MW36-GW121420 FD07-GW121420 (L132-07) (L132-08) Methane 0.47 J 0.45 J NC None MS/MSD RSK-175 %RPD Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples MW36-GW121420 MS/MSD Acceptable (L132-07) LCS/LCSD RSK-175 %RPD Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples LCS1W / LCD1W Acceptable Laboratory RSK-175 Sample (ug/L)Duplicate (ug/L)RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples Duplicates N/A Accuracy:Yes No N/A Was the Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate criteria met? (frequency ≥ 5% and laboratory determined control limits) Yes Laboratory Control Sample criteria met?Yes Were the Laboratory Method Blank results all < RL?Yes Were the Field Blanks results all < RL?N/A Was the ICAL criteria met? Yes Was the CCV criteria met? Yes Was the Tuning criteria met?N/A Were the Surrogate % recoveries within laboratory determined control limits?N/A Were the Internal Standard areas within ± 50 - 150%? N/A Blanks RSK-175 Concentration (ug/L)MDL / RL Qualifiers Associated Samples MBLK1W Nondetect Field Blank RSK-175 Concentration MDL / RL Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Surrogates RSK-175 %R Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A MS/MSD RSK-175 %R Limits (%)Qualifiers Associated Samples MW36-GW121420 MS/MSD Acceptable (L132-07) LCS/LCSD RSK-175 %R Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples LCS1W / LCD1W Acceptable ICAL RSK-175 RRF %RSD Qualifiers Associated Samples 4/29/2020 Acceptable Acceptable Dissolved Gases RSK-175 Sample results < 5xs RL; ABS Diff. < RL Are the field duplicate relative percent differences (RPD) ≤50% (soils), <30% (water) or within CRQL criteria? Comments (note deviations): Comments (note deviations): 5 of 11 CCV RSK-175 RRF %D Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples 4/29/2020 14:39 Acceptable Acceptable Tune RSK-175 N/A Internal Standards RSK-175 Area Area Lower / Upper Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A 6 of 11 Precision:Yes No N/A No Are the laboratory duplicate RPDs ≤ 20% for (water / soil ) or within CRQL criteria? N/A Are the matrix spike duplicates RPD ≤ 20%? Yes Are the laboratory control sample duplicates RPDs ≤ 20%?Yes Field Sample (ug/L)Duplicate (ug/L)%RPD Qualifier Associated Samples Duplicates MW04-GW121020 FD02-GW121020 (L132-03) (L132-04) Arsenic 1.3 1.39 NC None Cobalt 0.496 J 0.512 J NC None Copper 2.97 2.85 NC None Chromium 2 2.11 NC None Lead 0.254 J 0.279 J NC None Selenium 0.655 J 0.752 J NC None Nickel 2.15 2.17 NC None Vanadium 2.66 2.76 NC None Zinc 11 J 11.6 J NC None Manganese 1.0 U** 3.23 NC J / UJ MW36-GW121420 FD07-GW121420 (L132-07) (L132-08) Aluminum 100 U 27.3 J NC None Arsenic 0.71 J 0.697 J NC None Chromium 0.26 J 0.275 J NC None Cobalt 2.46 2.49 NC None Iron 105 109 NC None Lead 0.104 J 0.109 J NC None Selenium 0.798 J 0.823 J NC None Vanadium 0.963 J 1.01 NC None ** Reported as ND at the RL based on CCB detection MS/MSD RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples MW36-GW121420 MS/MSD Acceptable (L132-07) MW36-GW121420 MS/MSD (Hg) Acceptable LCS / LCSD RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples LCS1W / LCD1W Acceptable LCS1W / LCD1W (Hg)Acceptable Laboratory Sample Duplicate RPD Qualifier Associated Samples Duplicate N/A Accuracy:Yes No N/A Were serial dilutions analyzed and within control limits of ±10% for waters (± for 15% for soils) or initial sample result less than 50x MDL?Yes Was matrix spike criteria met (frequency 20% and % recovery 75-125%)?No Was post digestion spike criteria met (if applicable)? Yes Was laboratory control sample criteria met? Yes Was laboratory blank criteria met (within control limits)? Yes Were ICV/CCV % recoveries within 90-110%? Yes Were the Detection Limit PQL Standards within 70-130?N/A Was the %D on form 16-IN for the initial calibration instrument response and concentration data <30%?N/A Were ICSA/ICSAB % recoveries acceptable or within CRQL criteria? Yes Was the tune %RPD <5% (Peak width < 0.75)? Yes Was internal standard criteria met? Yes Serial Dilution Analyte Initial Sample Result %D 50 x MDL Qualifier Acceptable Metals SW 6020A / Mercury 7470A MW04-GW121020 & FD02-GW121020 Sample results < 5xs RL; ABS Diff. < RL Comments (note deviations): Are the field duplicate relative percent differences (RPD) ≤50% (soils), <30% (water) or within CRQL criteria? Sample results < 5xs RL; ABS Diff. < RL Sample results < 5xs RL; ABS Diff. < RL Associated Samples Comments (note deviations): Sample results < 5xs RL; ABS Diff. < RL 7 of 11 MS/MSD Analyte %R Limits Post Digestion Qualifiers MW36-GW121420 MS/MSD (L132-07) Calcium 33 / 167 75-125 107 None ISR > 4xs the spike added Sodium 67 / 133 75-125 100 None ISR > 4xs the spike added MW32A-GW092220 MS/MSD (Hg) Acceptable LCS/LCSD Analyte %R Limits Qualifiers LCS1W / LCD1W Acceptable LCS1W / LCD1W (Hg)Acceptable ICV/CCV Analyte %R Limits Qualifier Associated Samples Acceptable Blanks Prep Blank Result (ug/L)MDL/RL (ug/L)Qualifier MBLK1W Nondetect MBLK1W (Hg) Nondetect ICBs Analyte Result (ug/L)MDL/RL (ug/L)Qualifier ICB Nondetect ICB (Hg)Mercury 0.023 0.1 / 0.5 U-RL L132-04 CCBs Analyte Result (ug/L)MDL/RL (ug/L)Qualifier CCB3**Sodium 30 25 / 100 None Sample results > RL CCB5**Manganese 0.3 0.25 / 1 U-RL L132-03 CCB6++Manganese 0.7 0.25 / 1 None Cadmium 0.2 0.1 / 1 None Barium 0.3 0.25 / 1 None Thallium 0.2 0.1 / 1 None Lead 0.1 0.05 / 1 None CCB7++ Manganese 0.7 0.25/1 None Thallium 0.2 0.1 / 1 None Lead 0.1 0.05 / 1 None CCB8++Manganese 0.6 0.25 / 1 None Copper 0.6 2 / 0.5 None Thalium 0.2 0.1 / 1 None Lead 0.1 0.05 / 1 None CCB2 through CCB4 Mercury -0.055 to -0.136 0.1 / 0.5 None -Blank results > - RL **Applies to initial analysis ++Applies to reanalyzed samples Field Blank 6020A Concentration (ug/L)MDL/RL (ug/L)Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A ICSA/AB Analyte - Solution A %R Found Sol. A / True A RL Qualifier Associated Samples Acceptable PQL Standard Check %R Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Associated Samples Associated Samples Associated Samples Associated Samples Associated Samples No associated samples - sample results reported from initial analysis No associated samples - sample results reported from initial analysis No associated samples - sample results reported from initial analysis 8 of 11 Tune Acceptable Internal Standards Qualifier Associated Samples Acceptable 9 of 11 Precision:Yes No N/A Yes Are the laboratory duplicate RPDs ≤ 20% for water ≤35% for soils or within CRQL criteria? Yes Yes Yes Field Sample (mg/L)Duplicate (mg/L)RPD Qualifier Duplicates MW04-GW121020 FD02-GW121020 (L132-03) (L132-04) Acceptable MW36-GW121420 FD07-GW121420 (L132-07) (L132-08) TOC 1.0 U 1.24 NC None MS/MSD %R Limits RPD %Qualifiers Associated Samples MW36-GW121420 MS/MSD Acceptable (L132-07) ** Numerous MS/MSDs performed / evaluated all QC data within acceptable criteria LCS/ LCSD Limits RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable ** Numerous LCS/LCSDs performed / evaluated all QC data within acceptable criteria Laboratory Duplicate Sample Duplicate RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable Accuracy:Yes No N/A Was matrix spike criteria met (frequency 20% and % recovery 75-125%)?Yes Was post digestion spike criteria met (if applicable)? N/A Yes Yes Were the Field Blanks results all < RL?N/A Yes Was the tune %RSD <5% ?N/A Was internal standard criteria met?N/A MS /MSD Analyte %R Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples MW36-GW121420 MS/MSD Acceptable (L132-07) ** Numerous MS/MSD performed / evaluated all QC data within acceptable criteria LCS / LCSD Analyte %R Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable ** Numerous LCS/LCSD performed / evaluated all QC data within acceptable criteria ICV/CCV %R Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable Blanks Analyte Result MDL/RL Qualifiers MBLK1 TOC 0.370 J 0.250 / 1 U - RL ** Numerous prep. blanks performed / evaluated all QC blanks were nondetect Sample results < 5xs RL; ABS Diff. < RL Associated Samples Comments (note deviations): Comments (note deviations): Was laboratory control sample criteria met? Was laboratory blank criteria met (within control limits)? Were ICV/CCV % recoveries within 90-110%? Associated Samples L132-01, L132-03, L132-04, L132-05, L132-07, L132-09 Are the field duplicate relative percent differences (RPD) ≤30% (soils / water) or within CRQL criteria? Are the matrix spike duplicates RPD ≤ 20%? Are the laboratory control spike duplicates RPD ≤ 20%? Wet Chemistry Parameters 10 of 11 ICB / CCBs Analyte Result MDL/RL Qualifier ICB Nondetect CCB3 TOC 0.371 0.25 / 1 CCB4 TOC 0.385 0.25 / 1 CCB5 TOC 0.411 0.25 / 1 CCB76 Sulfate 0.25 0.13 / 0.5 None Field Blank Analyte Result (mg/L)MDL/RL Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Tune Analyte %RSD Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Representativeness:Yes No N/A Were sampling procedures and design criteria met? Yes Were holding times met? Yes Was preservation criteria met? (0° C - 6° C)Yes Were Chain-of-Custody records complete and provided in data package?Yes Preservation Cooler Temperature (Degrees C) Preservation Criteria Qualifier Associated Samples Acceptable Holding Times Analyte Days to Extraction HT Criteria Qualifier Associated Samples Acceptable Comparability:Yes No N/A Were analytical procedures and methods followed as defined in the QAPP or field change documentation?Yes Comments (note deviations): Completeness (90%):Yes No N/A Are all data in this SDG usable?Yes Sensitivity:Yes No N/A Are MDLs present and reported? Yes Do the reporting limits meet project requirements? Yes Comments (note deviations): Comment: Data is usable with appropriate qualifiers applied. Data Validator:Date:2/12/2021 Data Reviewer:Date: 2/13/2021Cherie Zakowski Kristine Molloy The cooler temperatures were 1.2, 1.3 & 3.2 °C Comments (note deviations): Comments (note See MBLK1 Qualification See MBLK1 Qualification See MBLK1 Qualification Associated Samples Sample results > RL 11 of 11 20L133 EMAX Laboratories, Inc. Matrix:Groundwater Collection date:12/09/2020 through 12/11/2020 & 12/13/2020, 12/14/2020 Volatile Organic Compounds SW 846 8260C Semivolatile Organic Compounds SW 846 8270D (1,4-Dioxane) Metals SW 846 6020A Mercury SW 846 7470A Dissolved Gases - RSK 175 Wet Chemistry Parameters: Chloride EPA 300.0 Sulfate EPA 300.0 Total Alkalinity SM 2320B Nitrate / Nitrite - N SM 4500 NO3E Total Organic Carbon (TOC) SW 9060 Lab ID Sample Number Lab ID Sample Number L133-01 MW32A-GW121020 L133-11 MW23C-GW120920 L133-02 MW25A-GW120920 L133-12 TB02-GW121420 L133-03 MW25B-GW121020 L133-13 MW34D-GW121320 L133-04 MW25C-GW121020 L133-14 MW29A-GW121320 L133-05 MW21-GW121420 L133-15 MW29B-GW121120 L133-06 TB01-GW121420 L133-16 MW29C-GW121120 L133-07 MW32C-GW121020 L133-17 MW31A-GW121120 L133-08 MW32B-GW121020 L133-18 MW31B-GW121120 L133-09 MW23A-GW120920 L133-19 TB03-GW121420 L133-10 MW23B-GW121020 Precision:Yes No N/A N/A N/A Yes Field 8260C Sample Duplicate %RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples Duplicates N/A MS/MSD 8260C %RPD Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A LCS/LCSD 8260C %RPD Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples LCS1W / LCSD1W Acceptable LCS2W / LCSD2W Acceptable Accuracy:Yes No N/A Was the Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate criteria met? (frequency ≥ 5% and laboratory determined control limits) N/A Laboratory Control Sample criteria met?Yes Were the Laboratory Method Blank results all < RL?Yes Were the Field Blanks results all < RL?No Was the ICAL criteria met? Yes Was the CCV criteria met? Yes Was the Tuning criteria met?Yes Were the Surrogate % recoveries within laboratory determined control limits?Yes Were the Internal Standard areas within ± 50 - 150%? Yes Comments (note deviations): VA Salt Lake City Salt Lake City, Utah Groundwater Validation Report Laboratory: Analysis/Methods: Sample Delivery Group (SDG) Number: Samples in SDG: Data validation was performed in accordance with the specific analytical methods, National Functional Guidelines for Organic Superfund Methods Data Review (EPA January 2017), and the National Functional Guidelines for Inorganic Superfund Methods Data Review (EPA January 2017). Volatile Organic Compounds 8260C Are the field duplicate relative percent differences (RPD) ≤50% (soils), <30% (water) or within CRQL criteria? Were the Matrix Spike Duplicate RPDs ≤ 20%? (Or lab defined limits) Laboratory Control Spike Duplicates RPD within limits? Comments (note deviations): 1 of 8 Blanks 8260C Concentration MDL /RL Qualifiers Associated Samples MBLK1W Nondetect MBLK2W Nondetect Field Blank 8260C Concentration MDL /RL Qualifiers Associated Samples Associated Samples:L133-01 through L133-05 TB01-GW121420 Acetone 2.9 J 2.5 / 20 None Associated Samples:L133-07 through L133-11 TB02-GW121420 Nondetect Associated Samples:L133-13through L133-18 TB03-GW121420 Acetone 2.8 J 2.5 / 20 None Surrogates 8260C %R Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable MS/MSD 8260C %R Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A LCS/LCSD 8260C %R Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples LCS1W / LCSD1W Acceptable LCS2W / LCSD2W Acceptable ICAL 8260C RRF %RSD Qualifiers Associated Samples 12/03/2020 9:58 Acceptable Acceptable CCV 8260C RRF %D Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples 12/17/20 10:21 Acceptable Acceptable 12/18/20 10:55 Acceptable Acceptable Tune 8260C Acceptable Internal Standards 8260C Area Area Lower / Upper Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable Sample results nondetect Sample results nondetect 2 of 8 Precision:Yes No N/A N/A Were the Matrix Spike Duplicate RPDs ≤ 20%? (Or lab defined limits) N/A Laboratory Control Spike Duplicates RPD within limits? Yes Are the laboratory duplicate RPDs ≤ 20% for water ≤35% for soils or within CRQL criteria? N/A Field RSK-175 Sample Duplicate %RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples Duplicates N/A MS/MSD RSK-175 %RPD Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Acceptable LCS/LCSD RSK-175 %RPD Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples LCS1W / LCD1W Acceptable Laboratory RSK-175 Sample (ug/L)Duplicate (ug/L)RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples Duplicates N/A Accuracy:Yes No N/A Was the Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate criteria met? (frequency ≥ 5% and laboratory determined control limits) N/A Laboratory Control Sample criteria met?Yes Were the Laboratory Method Blank results all < RL?Yes Were the Field Blanks results all < RL?N/A Was the ICAL criteria met? Yes Was the CCV criteria met? Yes Was the Tuning criteria met?N/A Were the Surrogate % recoveries within laboratory determined control limits?N/A Were the Internal Standard areas within ± 50 - 150%? N/A Blanks RSK-175 Concentration (ug/L)MDL / RL Qualifiers Associated Samples MBLK1W Nondetect Field Blank RSK-175 Concentration MDL / RL Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Surrogates RSK-175 %R Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A MS/MSD RSK-175 %R Limits (%)Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A LCS/LCSD RSK-175 %R Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples LCS1W / LCD1W Acceptable ICAL RSK-175 RRF %RSD Qualifiers Associated Samples 4/29/2020 Acceptable Acceptable CCV RSK-175 RRF %D Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples 4/29/2020 '14:39 Acceptable Acceptable Are the field duplicate relative percent differences (RPD) ≤50% (soils), <30% (water) or within CRQL criteria? Comments (note deviations): Dissolved Gases RSK-175 Comments (note deviations): 3 of 8 Tune RSK-175 N/A Internal Standards RSK-175 Area Area Lower / Upper Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A 4 of 8 Precision:Yes No N/A N/A Are the laboratory duplicate RPDs ≤ 20% for (water / soil ) or within CRQL criteria? N/A Are the matrix spike duplicates RPD ≤ 20%? Yes Are the laboratory control sample duplicates RPDs ≤ 20%?Yes Field Sample (ug/L)Duplicate (ug/L)%RPD Qualifier Associated Samples Duplicates N/A MS/MSD RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples MW32A-GW121020 MS/MSD Acceptable (L133-01) LCS / LCSD RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples LCS1W / LCD1W Acceptable LCS1W / LCD1W (Hg)Acceptable Laboratory Sample Duplicate RPD Qualifier Associated Samples Duplicate N/A Accuracy:Yes No N/A Were serial dilutions analyzed and within control limits of ±10% for waters (± for 15% for soils) or initial sample result less than 50x MDL?Yes Was matrix spike criteria met (frequency 20% and % recovery 75-125%)?No Was post digestion spike criteria met (if applicable)? Yes Was laboratory control sample criteria met? Yes Was laboratory blank criteria met (within control limits)? No Were ICV/CCV % recoveries within 90-110%? Yes Were the Detection Limit PQL Standards within 70-130?N/A Was the %D on form 16-IN for the initial calibration instrument response and concentration data <30%?N/A Were ICSA/ICSAB % recoveries acceptable or within CRQL criteria? Yes Was the tune %RPD <5% (Peak width < 0.75)? Yes Was internal standard criteria met? Yes Serial Dilution Analyte Initial Sample Result %D 50 x MDL Qualifier Acceptable MS/MSD Analyte %R Limits Post Digestion Qualifiers MW32A-GW121020 MS/MSD (L133-01)Calcium 233 / 233 75-125 97 None ISR > 4xs the spike added Magnesium 167 / 170 75-125 97 None ISR > 4xs the spike added Sodium 207 / 243 75-125 96 None ISR > 4xs the spike added LCS/LCSD Analyte %R Limits Qualifiers LCS1W / LCD1W Acceptable LCS1W / LCD1W (Hg)Acceptable ICV/CCV Analyte %R Limits Qualifier Associated Samples Acceptable Blanks Prep Blank Result (ug/L)MDL/RL (ug/L)Qualifier MBLK1W Nondetect Associated Samples Associated Samples Comments (note deviations): Metals SW 6020A / Mercury 7470A Comments (note deviations): Are the field duplicate relative percent differences (RPD) ≤50% (soils), <30% (water) or within CRQL criteria? Associated Samples Associated Samples 5 of 8 ICBs Analyte Result (ug/L)MDL/RL (ug/L)Qualifier ICB++ Nondetect ICB** Manganese 0.4 0.25 / 1 None Sample result > RL Lead 0.10 0.05 / 1 U-RL Mercury -0.025 0.1/0.5 None -Blank result > - RL CCBs Analyte Result (ug/L)MDL/RL (ug/L)Qualifier CCB4++Nondetect CCB5++Manganese 0.3 0.25 / 1 None Sample result > RL CCB6**Manganese 0.3 0.25 / 1 None Sample result > RL Lead 0.07 0.05 / 1 U-RL CCB7**Manganese 0.3 0.25 / 1 None Sample result > RL CCB8**Manganese 0.4 0.25 / 1 None Sample result > RL Lead 0.07 0.05 / 1 U-RL Thallium 0.2 0.1 /1 None CCB8 Nondetect** CCB9 Nondetect** CCB9 Nondetect** CCB4 Mercury -0.062 0.1 / 0.5 None -Blank results > - RL CCB5 Mercury 0.026 0.1 / 0.5 None Sample results nondetect or > RL CCB6 Mercury 0.02 0.1 / 0.5 None Sample results nondetect Field Blank 6020A Concentration (ug/L)MDL/RL (ug/L)Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A ICSA/AB Analyte - Solution A %R Found Sol. A / True A RL Qualifier Associated Samples Acceptable PQL Standard Check %R Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Tune Acceptable Internal Standards Qualifier Associated Samples Acceptable ++ ICB associated with initial analysis **Applicable only to Ca, Mg, and Na results Associated Samples Associated Samples L133-02 through L133-05, L133-07, L133-08 through L133-11, L133-13 through L133-18 L133-02 through L133-05, L133-07, L133-08 through L133-11 L133-13 through L133-18 ++ CCB associated with initial analysis ** CCB associated with re-analyzed results Sample results nondetect ** ICB associated with diluted and re-analyzed results 6 of 8 Precision:Yes No N/A N/A Are the laboratory duplicate RPDs ≤ 20% for water ≤35% for soils or within CRQL criteria? Yes Yes Yes Field Sample (mg/L)Duplicate (mg/L)RPD Qualifier Duplicates N/A MS/MSD %R Limits RPD %Qualifiers Associated Samples MW32A-GW121020 MS/MSD Acceptable (L133-01) ** Numerous MS/MSDs performed / evaluated all QC data within acceptable criteria LCS/ LCSD Limits RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable ** Numerous LCS/LCSDs performed / evaluated all QC data within acceptable criteria Laboratory Duplicate Sample Duplicate RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable Accuracy:Yes No N/A Was matrix spike criteria met (frequency 20% and % recovery 75-125%)?Yes Was post digestion spike criteria met (if applicable)? N/A Yes No Were the Field Blanks results all < RL?N/A Yes Was the tune %RSD <5% ?N/A Was internal standard criteria met?N/A MS /MSD Analyte %R Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples MW32A-GW121020 MS/MSD Acceptable (L133-01) MW31A-GW121120 MS/MSD Acceptable (L133-17) ** Numerous MS/MSD performed / evaluated all QC data within acceptable criteria LCS / LCSD Analyte %R Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable ** Numerous LCS/LCSD performed / evaluated all QC data within acceptable criteria ICV/CCV %R Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable Blanks Analyte Result MDL/RL Qualifiers MBLK1 TOC 0.370 J 0.25 / 1 U - RL ** Numerous prep. blanks performed / evaluated all QC blanks were nondetect Comments (note deviations): Comments (note deviations): Was laboratory control sample criteria met? Was laboratory blank criteria met (within control limits)? Were ICV/CCV % recoveries within 90-110%? Are the matrix spike duplicates RPD ≤ 20%? Are the laboratory control spike duplicates RPD ≤ 20%? Are the field duplicate relative percent differences (RPD) ≤30% (soils / water) or within CRQL criteria? Associated Samples L133-02, L133-09, L133-11 Associated Samples Wet Chemistry Parameters 7 of 8 ICB / CCBs Analyte Result MDL/RL Qualifier CCB5 TOC 0.411 0.25 / 1 None CCB6 TOC 0.251 0.25 / 1 None CCB2 TOC 0.223 0.25 / 1 None CCB3 TOC 0.302 0.25 / 1 None CCB3 TOC 0.446 0.25 / 1 None ** The remaining ICB/CCBs performed / evaluated were nondetect Field Blank Analyte Result (mg/L)MDL/RL Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Tune Analyte %RSD Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Representativeness:Yes No N/A Were sampling procedures and design criteria met? Yes Were holding times met? Yes Was preservation criteria met? (0° C - 6° C)Yes Were Chain-of-Custody records complete and provided in data package?Yes Preservation Cooler Temperature (Degrees C) Preservation Criteria Qualifier Associated Samples Acceptable Holding Times Analyte Days to Extraction HT Criteria Qualifier Associated Samples Acceptable Comparability:Yes No N/A Were analytical procedures and methods followed as defined in the QAPP or field change documentation?Yes Comments (note deviations): Completeness (90%):Yes No N/A Are all data in this SDG usable?Yes Sensitivity:Yes No N/A Are MDLs present and reported? Yes Do the reporting limits meet project requirements? Yes Comments (note deviations): Comment: Data is usable with appropriate qualifiers applied. Data Validator:Date:2/13/2021 Data Reviewer:Date: 2/14/2021 See MBLK1 Qualification See MBLK1 Qualification See MBLK1 Qualification See MBLK1 Qualification Associated Samples See MBLK1 Qualification Cherie Zakowski Kristine Molloy The cooler temperatures were 1.0, 1.7 & 1.8 °C Comments (note deviations): Comments (note 8 of 8 20L141 EMAX Laboratories, Inc. Matrix:Groundwater Collection date:12/11/2020, 12/13/2020 & 12/14/2020 Volatile Organic Compounds SW 846 8260C Semivolatile Organic Compounds SW 846 8270D (1,4-Dioxane) Metals SW 846 6020A Mercury SW 846 7470A Dissolved Gases - RSK 175 Wet Chemistry Parameters: Chloride EPA 300.0 Sulfate EPA 300.0 Total Alkalinity SM 2320B Nitrate / Nitrite - N SM 4500 NO3E Total Organic Carbon (TOC) SW 9060 Lab ID Sample Number Lab ID Sample Number L141-01 MW17S-GW121120 L141-09 MW03RD-GW121120 L141-02 MW17D-GW121320 L141-10 TB05-GW121420 L141-03 MW22-GW121420 L141-11 MW13S-GW121120 L141-04 TB04-GW121420 L141-12 MW13D-GW121120 L141-05 MW31C-GW121120 L141-13 MW14S-GW121420 L141-06 MW03RA-GW121120 L141-14 MW14D-GW121420 L141-07 MW03RB-GW121120 L141-15 TB06-GW121420 L141-08 MW03RC-GW121120 Precision:Yes No N/A N/A No Yes Field 8260C Sample Duplicate %RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples Duplicates N/A MS/MSD 8260C %RPD Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples MW22-GW121420 (L141-03)Styrene 22% 20 J** L141-03 ** Qualification required for detected results only - assocaited results nondetect - no qualification required LCS/LCSD 8260C %RPD Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples LCS1W / LCSD1W Acceptable LCS2W / LCSD2W Acceptable Accuracy:Yes No N/A Was the Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate criteria met? (frequency ≥ 5% and laboratory determined control limits) No Laboratory Control Sample criteria met?Yes Were the Laboratory Method Blank results all < RL?Yes Were the Field Blanks results all < RL?No Was the ICAL criteria met? Yes Was the CCV criteria met? Yes Was the Tuning criteria met?Yes Were the Surrogate % recoveries within laboratory determined control limits?Yes Were the Internal Standard areas within ± 50 - 150%? Yes Comments (note deviations): VA Salt Lake City Salt Lake City, Utah Groundwater Validation Report Laboratory: Analysis/Methods: Sample Delivery Group (SDG) Number: Samples in SDG: Data validation was performed in accordance with the specific analytical methods, National Functional Guidelines for Organic Superfund Methods Data Review (EPA January 2017), and the National Functional Guidelines for Inorganic Superfund Methods Data Review (EPA January 2017). Volatile Organic Compounds 8260C Are the field duplicate relative percent differences (RPD) ≤50% (soils), <30% (water) or within CRQL criteria? Were the Matrix Spike Duplicate RPDs ≤ 20%? (Or lab defined limits) Laboratory Control Spike Duplicates RPD within limits? Comments (note deviations): 1 of 8 Blanks 8260C Concentration MDL /RL Qualifiers Associated Samples MBLK1W Nondetect MBLK2W Nondetect Field Blank 8260C Concentration MDL /RL Qualifiers Associated Samples Associated Samples:L133-01 through L133-05 TB04-GW121420 Acetone 4.2 J 2.5 / 20 None Associated Samples:L133-07 through L133-11 TB05-GW121420 Nondetect Associated Samples:L133-13through L133-18 TB06-GW121420 Nondetect Surrogates 8260C %R Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable MS/MSD 8260C %R Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples MW22-GW121420 (L141-03)Styrene 83 / 66 78-123 J / UJ L141-03 LCS/LCSD 8260C %R Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples LCS1W / LCSD1W Acceptable LCS2W / LCSD2W Acceptable ICAL 8260C RRF %RSD Qualifiers Associated Samples 10/30/2020 11:33 Acceptable Acceptable CCV 8260C RRF %D Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples 12/16/20 15:31 Acceptable Acceptable 12/17/20 11:15 Acceptable Acceptable Tune 8260C Acceptable Internal Standards 8260C Area Area Lower / Upper Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable Sample results nondetect 2 of 8 Precision:Yes No N/A N/A Were the Matrix Spike Duplicate RPDs ≤ 20%? (Or lab defined limits) Yes Laboratory Control Spike Duplicates RPD within limits? Yes Are the laboratory duplicate RPDs ≤ 20% for water ≤35% for soils or within CRQL criteria? N/A Field RSK-175 Sample Duplicate %RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples Duplicates N/A MS/MSD RSK-175 %RPD Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples MW22-GW121420 Acceptable (L141-03) LCS/LCSD RSK-175 %RPD Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples LCS1W / LCD1W Acceptable Laboratory RSK-175 Sample (ug/L)Duplicate (ug/L)RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples Duplicates N/A Accuracy:Yes No N/A Was the Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate criteria met? (frequency ≥ 5% and laboratory determined control limits) Yes Laboratory Control Sample criteria met?Yes Were the Laboratory Method Blank results all < RL?Yes Were the Field Blanks results all < RL?N/A Was the ICAL criteria met? Yes Was the CCV criteria met? Yes Was the Tuning criteria met?N/A Were the Surrogate % recoveries within laboratory determined control limits?N/A Were the Internal Standard areas within ± 50 - 150%? N/A Blanks RSK-175 Concentration (ug/L)MDL / RL Qualifiers Associated Samples MBLK1W Nondetect Field Blank RSK-175 Concentration MDL / RL Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Surrogates RSK-175 %R Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A MS/MSD RSK-175 %R Limits (%)Qualifiers Associated Samples MW22-GW121420 Acceptable (L141-03) LCS/LCSD RSK-175 %R Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples LCS1W / LCD1W Acceptable ICAL RSK-175 RRF %RSD Qualifiers Associated Samples 4/29/2020 Acceptable Acceptable CCV RSK-175 RRF %D Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples 4/29/2020 '14:39 Acceptable Acceptable Are the field duplicate relative percent differences (RPD) ≤50% (soils), <30% (water) or within CRQL criteria? Comments (note deviations): Dissolved Gases RSK-175 Comments (note deviations): 3 of 8 Tune RSK-175 N/A Internal Standards RSK-175 Area Area Lower / Upper Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A 4 of 8 Precision:Yes No N/A N/A Are the laboratory duplicate RPDs ≤ 20% for (water / soil ) or within CRQL criteria? N/A Are the matrix spike duplicates RPD ≤ 20%? Yes Are the laboratory control sample duplicates RPDs ≤ 20%?Yes Field Sample (ug/L)Duplicate (ug/L)%RPD Qualifier Associated Samples Duplicates N/A MS/MSD RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples MW22-GW121420 Acceptable (L141-03) LCS / LCSD RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples LCS1W / LCD1W Acceptable LCS1W / LCD1W (Hg)Acceptable Laboratory Sample Duplicate RPD Qualifier Associated Samples Duplicate N/A Accuracy:Yes No N/A Were serial dilutions analyzed and within control limits of ±10% for waters (± for 15% for soils) or initial sample result less than 50x MDL?Yes Was matrix spike criteria met (frequency 20% and % recovery 75-125%)?No Was post digestion spike criteria met (if applicable)? Yes Was laboratory control sample criteria met? Yes Was laboratory blank criteria met (within control limits)? Yes Were ICV/CCV % recoveries within 90-110%? Yes Were the Detection Limit PQL Standards within 70-130?N/A Was the %D on form 16-IN for the initial calibration instrument response and concentration data <30%?N/A Were ICSA/ICSAB % recoveries acceptable or within CRQL criteria? Yes Was the tune %RPD <5% (Peak width < 0.75)? Yes Was internal standard criteria met? Yes Serial Dilution Analyte Initial Sample Result %D 50 x MDL Qualifier Acceptable MS/MSD Analyte %R Limits Post Digestion Qualifiers MW22-GW121420 (L141-03)Magnesium 147 / 97 75-125 101 None ISR > 4xs the spike added Sodium 0 / 100 75-125 100 None ISR > 4xs the spike added LCS/LCSD Analyte %R Limits Qualifiers LCS1W / LCD1W Acceptable LCS1W / LCD1W (Hg)Acceptable ICV/CCV Analyte %R Limits Qualifier Associated Samples Acceptable Blanks Prep Blank Result (ug/L)MDL/RL (ug/L)Qualifier MBLK1W Nondetect Associated Samples Associated Samples Comments (note deviations): Metals SW 6020A / Mercury 7470A Comments (note deviations): Are the field duplicate relative percent differences (RPD) ≤50% (soils), <30% (water) or within CRQL criteria? Associated Samples Associated Samples 5 of 8 ICBs Analyte Result (ug/L)MDL/RL (ug/L)Qualifier ICB Manganese 0.4 0.25 / 1 None Sample results > RL Lead 0.09 0.05 / 1 U-RL Cadmium 0.2 0.1 / 1 None Mercury -0.011 0.1/0.5 None -Blank result > - RL CCBs Analyte Result (ug/L)MDL/RL (ug/L)Qualifier CCB1**Lead 0.07 0.05 / 1 U-RL L141-01 through L141-03 CCB2** Manganese 0.3 0.25 / 1 None Sample results > RL Lead 0.06 0.05 / 1 U-RL CCB3**Copper 0.6 0.5 / 2 None Sample results nondetect or > RL CCB4++Sodium 30 25 / 100 None Sample results > RL Copper 0.6 0.5 / 2 Sample results nondetect or > RL CCB5++Sodium 30 25 / 100 None Sample results > RL Copper 0.7 0.5 / 2 Sample results nondetect or > RL CCB1 Mercury -0.013 0.1 / 0.5 None -Blank results > - RL CCB2 Mercury 0.009 0.1 / 0.5 None Sample results nondetect CCB3 Mercury 0.00 0.1 / 0.5 None Sample results nondetect Field Blank 6020A Concentration (ug/L)MDL/RL (ug/L)Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A ICSA/AB Analyte - Solution A %R Found Sol. A / True A RL Qualifier Associated Samples Acceptable PQL Standard Check %R Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Tune Acceptable Internal Standards Qualifier Associated Samples Acceptable ++ CCB associated with dilution results Associated Samples Associated Samples L141-01 through L141-03, L141-06 through L141-09, L141-13, L141-14 L141-01 through L141-03, L141-06 through L141-09, L141-13, L141-14 ** CCB associated with intial analysis Samples results nondetect 6 of 8 Precision:Yes No N/A N/A Are the laboratory duplicate RPDs ≤ 20% for water ≤35% for soils or within CRQL criteria? Yes Yes Yes Field Sample (mg/L)Duplicate (mg/L)RPD Qualifier Duplicates N/A MS/MSD %R Limits RPD %Qualifiers Associated Samples MW22-GW121420 Acceptable (L141-03) ** Numerous MS/MSDs performed / evaluated all QC data within acceptable criteria LCS/ LCSD Limits RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable ** Numerous LCS/LCSDs performed / evaluated all QC data within acceptable criteria Laboratory Duplicate Sample Duplicate RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable Accuracy:Yes No N/A Was matrix spike criteria met (frequency 20% and % recovery 75-125%)?Yes Was post digestion spike criteria met (if applicable)? N/A Yes No Were the Field Blanks results all < RL?N/A Yes Was the tune %RSD <5% ?N/A Was internal standard criteria met?N/A MS /MSD Analyte %R Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples MW22-GW121420 Acceptable (L141-03) ** Numerous MS/MSD performed / evaluated all QC data within acceptable criteria LCS / LCSD Analyte %R Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable ** Numerous LCS/LCSD performed / evaluated all QC data within acceptable criteria ICV/CCV %R Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable Blanks Analyte Result MDL/RL Qualifiers Associated Samples Nondetect ** Numerous prep. blanks performed / evaluated all QC blanks were nondetect ICB / CCBs Analyte Result MDL/RL Qualifier CCB3 TOC 0.302 0.25 / 1 None CCB4 TOC 0.446 0.25 / 1 None CCB5 TOC 0.382 0.25 / 1 None CCB6 TOC 0.438 0.25 / 1 None ** The remaining ICB/CCBs performed / evaluated were nondetect See Note Note: The laboratory reported method blank criteria was met and the concentrations in the CCBs does not significantly affect the concentrations for TOC. Based on professional judgement, no qualifications were required. Sample results > RL Comments (note deviations): Comments (note deviations): Was laboratory control sample criteria met? Was laboratory blank criteria met (within control limits)? Were ICV/CCV % recoveries within 90-110%? Are the matrix spike duplicates RPD ≤ 20%? Are the laboratory control spike duplicates RPD ≤ 20%? Associated Samples Sample results > RL Associated Samples Wet Chemistry Parameters Are the field duplicate relative percent differences (RPD) ≤30% (soils / water) or within CRQL criteria? 7 of 8 Field Blank Analyte Result (mg/L)MDL/RL Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Tune Analyte %RSD Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Representativeness:Yes No N/A Were sampling procedures and design criteria met? Yes Were holding times met? Yes Was preservation criteria met? (0° C - 6° C)Yes Were Chain-of-Custody records complete and provided in data package?Yes Preservation Cooler Temperature (Degrees C) Preservation Criteria Qualifier Associated Samples Acceptable Holding Times Analyte Days to Extraction HT Criteria Qualifier Associated Samples Acceptable Comparability:Yes No N/A Were analytical procedures and methods followed as defined in the QAPP or field change documentation?Yes Comments (note deviations): Completeness (90%):Yes No N/A Are all data in this SDG usable?Yes Sensitivity:Yes No N/A Are MDLs present and reported? Yes Do the reporting limits meet project requirements? Yes Comments (note deviations): Comment: Data is usable with appropriate qualifiers applied. Data Validator:Date:2/15/2021 Data Reviewer:Date: 2/14/2021Cherie Zakowski Kristine Molloy The cooler temperatures were 1.0, 1.6 and 2.1 °C Comments (note deviations): Comments (note 8 of 8 20L175 EMAX Laboratories, Inc. Matrix:Groundwater Collection date:12/14/2020 through 12/17/2020 Volatile Organic Compounds SW 846 8260C Semivolatile Organic Compounds SW 846 8270D (1,4-Dioxane) Metals SW 846 6020A Mercury SW 846 7470A Dissolved Gases - RSK 175 Wet Chemistry Parameters: Chloride EPA 300.0 Sulfate EPA 300.0 Total Alkalinity SM 2320B Nitrate / Nitrite - N SM 4500 NO3E Total Organic Carbon (TOC) SW 9060 Lab ID Sample Number Lab ID Sample Number L175-01 MW01D-GW121520 L175-15 FB01-GW121620 L175-02 MW01S-GW121620 L175-16 TB06-GW121720 L175-03 MW02-GW121620 L175-17 MW34B-GW121720 L175-04 FD01-GW121620 L175-18 MW34C-GW121720 L175-05 FD06-GW121420 L175-19 MW26C-GW121720 L175-06 TB04-GW121720 L175-20 MW37S-GW121420 L175-07 MW20D-GW121520 L175-21 MW37D-GW121420 L175-08 MW18-GW121420 L175-22 MW26A-GW121620 L175-09 MW20S-GW121420 L175-23 TB01-GW121720 L175-10 TB03-GW121720 L175-24 MW38S-GW121620 L175-11 MW26B-GW121620 L175-25 MW38D-GW121620 L175-12 MW34A-GW121520 L175-26 MW13L-GW121620 L175-13 FD04-GW121420 L175-27 TB05-GW121720 L175-14 TB02-GW121720 Precision:Yes No N/A Yes Yes Yes Field 8260C Sample Duplicate %RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples Duplicates MW02-GW121620 FD01-GW121620 Bromodichloromethane 0.36 J 0.38 J NC None Chloroform 3.9 J 4 NC None Cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 0.43 J 0.44 J NC None Trichloroethene 0.55 J 0.6 J NC None MW18-GW121420 FD06-GW121420 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 0.61 J 0.6 J NC None 1,1-Dichloroethene 0.12 J 0.14 J NC None Bromodichloromethane 0.24 J 0.24 J NC None Chloroform 2.4 2.4 NC None Cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 0.23 J 0.21 J NC None Trichloroethene 0.44 J 0.43 J NC None MW37S-GW121420 FD04-GW121420 Bromodichloromethane 0.11 J 0.11 J NC None Chloroform 2.2 2.1 NC None Sample results < 5xs RL; ABS Diff. < RL Sample results < 5xs RL; ABS Diff. < RL VA Salt Lake City Salt Lake City, Utah Groundwater Validation Report Laboratory: Analysis/Methods: Sample Delivery Group (SDG) Number: Samples in SDG: Data validation was performed in accordance with the specific analytical methods, National Functional Guidelines for Organic Superfund Methods Data Review (EPA January 2017), and the National Functional Guidelines for Inorganic Superfund Methods Data Review (EPA January 2017). Volatile Organic Compounds 8260C Are the field duplicate relative percent differences (RPD) ≤50% (soils), <30% (water) or within CRQL criteria? Were the Matrix Spike Duplicate RPDs ≤ 20%? (Or lab defined limits) Laboratory Control Spike Duplicates RPD within limits? Comments (note deviations): Sample results < 5xs RL; ABS Diff. < RL 1 of 11 MS/MSD 8260C %RPD Limit Qualifiers MW20S-GW121420 Acceptable (L175-09) LCS/LCSD 8260C %RPD Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples LCS1W / LCSD1W Acceptable LCS2W / LCSD2W Acceptable LCS3W / LCSD3W Acceptable Accuracy:Yes No N/A Was the Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate criteria met? (frequency ≥ 5% and laboratory determined control limits) Yes Laboratory Control Sample criteria met?Yes Were the Laboratory Method Blank results all < RL?Yes Were the Field Blanks results all < RL?No Was the ICAL criteria met? Yes Was the CCV criteria met? Yes Was the Tuning criteria met?Yes Were the Surrogate % recoveries within laboratory determined control limits?Yes Were the Internal Standard areas within ± 50 - 150%? Yes Blanks 8260C Concentration MDL /RL Qualifiers Associated Samples MBLK1W Nondetect MBLK2W Nondetect MBLK3W Nondetect Field Blank 8260C Concentration MDL /RL Qualifiers Associated Samples Associated Samples:L175-01 through L175-05 TB04-GW121720 Nondetect Associated Samples:L175-07 through L175-09 TB03-GW121720 Acetone 3.1 J 2.5 / 20 None Associated Samples:L175-11 through L175-13 TB02-GW121720 Acetone 2.6 J 2.5 / 20 U-RL Associated Samples:L175-17 through L175-19 TB06-GW121720 Acetone 2.6 J 2.5 / 20 U-RL Associated Samples:L175-20 through L175-22 TB01-GW121720 Nondetect Associated Samples:L175-24 through L175-26 TB05-GW121720 Acetone 2.7 J 2.5 / 20 U-RL Associated Samples: All samples FB01-GW121620 Acetone 3.0 J 2.5 / 20 U-RL Surrogates 8260C %R Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable MS/MSD 8260C %R Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples MW20S-GW121420 Acceptable (L175-09) LCS/LCSD 8260C %R Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples LCS1W / LCSD1W Acceptable LCS2W / LCSD2W Acceptable LCS3W / LCSD3W Acceptable ICAL 8260C RRF %RSD Qualifiers Associated Samples 12/03/2020 9:58 Acceptable Acceptable Comments (note deviations): Sample results nondetect L175-11 L175-11, L175-17 through L175-19, L175-26 L175-17 through L175-19 L175-26 2 of 11 CCV 8260C RRF %D Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples 12/21/20 11:41 Acceptable Acceptable 12/22/20 12:21 Acceptable Acceptable 12/23/20 11:24 Acceptable Acceptable Tune 8260C Acceptable Internal Standards 8260C Area Area Lower / Upper Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable 3 of 11 Semivolatile Organic Compounds 8270D (1,4-Dioxane SIM) Precision:Yes No N/A Yes Were the Matrix Spike Duplicate RPDs ≤ 20%? (Or lab defined limits) N/A Laboratory Control Spike Duplicates RPD within limits? Yes Comments (note deviations): Field 8270D Sample Duplicate RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples Duplicates MW37S-GW121420 FD04-GW121420 ND ND Acceptable MS/MSD 8270D RPD Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A LCS/LCSD 8270D RPD Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples LCS1W / LCSD1W Acceptable Accuracy:Yes No N/A Was the Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate criteria met? (frequency ≥ 5% and laboratory determined control limits) N/A Laboratory Control Sample criteria met?Yes Were the Laboratory Method Blank results all < RL?Yes Were the Field Blanks results all < RL?Yes Was the ICAL criteria met? Yes Was the CCV criteria met? Yes Was the Tuning criteria met?Yes Were the Surrogate % recoveries within laboratory determined control limits?Yes Were the Internal Standard areas within ± 50 - 150%? Yes Comments (note deviations): Blanks 8270D Concentration (ug/L)MDL / RL Qualifiers Associated Samples MBLK1W Nondetect Field Blank 8270D Concentration MDL / RL Qualifiers Associated Samples FB01-GW121620 Nondetect Surrogates 8270D %R Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable MS/MSD 8270D %R Limits (%)Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A LCS/LCSD 8270D %R Limits Qualifiers LCS1W / LCSD1W Acceptable ICAL 8270D RRF %RSD Qualifiers 6/3/2020 14:04 Acceptable Acceptable CCV 8270D RRF %D Qualifiers Associated Samples 12/22/2020 12:52 Acceptable Acceptable Tune 8270D Acceptable Internal Standards 8270D Area Area Lower / Upper Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable Are the field duplicate relative percent differences (RPD) ≤50% (soils), <30% (water) or within CRQL criteria? Associated Samples Associated Samples 4 of 11 Precision:Yes No N/A Yes Were the Matrix Spike Duplicate RPDs ≤ 20%? (Or lab defined limits) Yes Laboratory Control Spike Duplicates RPD within limits? Yes Are the laboratory duplicate RPDs ≤ 20% for water ≤35% for soils or within CRQL criteria? N/A Field RSK-175 Sample Duplicate %RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples Duplicates MW02-GW121620 FD01-GW121620 ND ND Acceptable MW18-GW121420 FD06-GW121420 ND ND Acceptable MW37S-GW121420 FD04-GW121420 ND ND Acceptable MS/MSD RSK-175 %RPD Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples MW20S-GW121420 Acceptable (L175-09) LCS/LCSD RSK-175 %RPD Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples LCS1W / LCD1W Acceptable Laboratory RSK-175 Sample (ug/L)Duplicate (ug/L)RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples Duplicates N/A Accuracy:Yes No N/A Was the Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate criteria met? (frequency ≥ 5% and laboratory determined control limits) Yes Laboratory Control Sample criteria met?Yes Were the Laboratory Method Blank results all < RL?Yes Were the Field Blanks results all < RL?N/A Was the ICAL criteria met? Yes Was the CCV criteria met? Yes Was the Tuning criteria met?N/A Were the Surrogate % recoveries within laboratory determined control limits?N/A Were the Internal Standard areas within ± 50 - 150%? N/A Blanks RSK-175 Concentration (ug/L)MDL / RL Qualifiers Associated Samples MBLK1W Nondetect Field Blank RSK-175 Concentration MDL / RL Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Surrogates RSK-175 %R Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A MS/MSD RSK-175 %R Limits (%)Qualifiers Associated Samples MW20S-GW121420 Acceptable (L175-09) LCS/LCSD RSK-175 %R Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples LCS1W / LCD1W Acceptable ICAL RSK-175 RRF %RSD Qualifiers Associated Samples 4/29/2020 Acceptable Acceptable Comments (note deviations): Are the field duplicate relative percent differences (RPD) ≤50% (soils), <30% (water) or within CRQL criteria? Comments (note deviations): Dissolved Gases RSK-175 5 of 11 CCV RSK-175 RRF %D Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples 4/29/2020 '14:39 Acceptable Acceptable Tune RSK-175 N/A Internal Standards RSK-175 Area Area Lower / Upper Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A 6 of 11 Precision:Yes No N/A Yes Are the laboratory duplicate RPDs ≤ 20% for (water / soil ) or within CRQL criteria? N/A Are the matrix spike duplicates RPD ≤ 20%? Yes Are the laboratory control sample duplicates RPDs ≤ 20%?Yes Field Sample (ug/L)Duplicate (ug/L)%RPD Qualifier Associated Samples Duplicates MW02-GW121620 FD01-GW121620 Arsenic 1.44 1.43 NC None Chromium 3.08 2.84 NC None Cobalt 0.414 J 0.406 J NC None Copper 0.749 J 0.671 J NC None Nickel 1.5 1.45 NC None Vanadium 2.36 2.39 NC None MW18-GW121420 FD06-GW121420 Arsenic 1.16 1.22 NC None Chromium 1.41 1.46 NC None Cobalt 0.383 J 0.409 J NC None Iron 207 221 NC None Manganese 5.89 4.89 NC None Selenium 1 U 1.03 NC None Vanadium 1.97 2.08 NC None Zinc 20 U 6.72 J NC None MW37S-GW121420 FD04-GW121420 Cobalt 0.463 J 0.454 J NC None Copper 2 U 1.4 NC None Iron 67.7 J 73.5 J NC None Selenium 2.43 2.45 NC None Vanadium 1.44 1.44 NC None Zinc 5.05 J 11.2 J NC None MS/MSD RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples MW20S-GW121420 Acceptable (L175-09) MW20S-GW121420 (L175-09)Mercury Acceptable LCS / LCSD RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples LCS1W / LCD1W Acceptable LCS1W / LCD1W (Hg)Acceptable Laboratory Sample Duplicate RPD Qualifier Associated Samples Duplicate N/A Accuracy:Yes No N/A Were serial dilutions analyzed and within control limits of ±10% for waters (± for 15% for soils) or initial sample result less than 50x MDL?Yes Was matrix spike criteria met (frequency 20% and % recovery 75-125%)?No Was post digestion spike criteria met (if applicable)? Yes Was laboratory control sample criteria met? Yes Was laboratory blank criteria met (within control limits)? No Were ICV/CCV % recoveries within 90-110%? Yes Were the Detection Limit PQL Standards within 70-130?N/A Was the %D on form 16-IN for the initial calibration instrument response and concentration data <30%?N/A Were ICSA/ICSAB % recoveries acceptable or within CRQL criteria? Yes Was the tune %RPD <5% (Peak width < 0.75)? Yes Was internal standard criteria met? Yes Sample results < 5xs RL; ABS Diff. < RL Sample results < 5xs RL; ABS Diff. < RL Comments (note deviations): Are the field duplicate relative percent differences (RPD) ≤50% (soils), <30% (water) or within CRQL criteria? Comments (note deviations): Metals SW 6020A / Mercury 7470A Sample results < 5xs RL; ABS Diff. < RL 7 of 11 Serial Dilution Analyte Initial Sample Result %D 50 x MDL Qualifier Acceptable MS/MSD Analyte %R Limits Post Digestion Qualifiers MW20S-GW121420 MS/MSD (L175-09)Magnesium 87 / 73 75-125 83 None ISR > 4xs the spike added Calcium 100 / -33 75-125 103 None ISR > 4xs the spike added Sodium 87 / 10 75-125 105 None ISR > 4xs the spike added MW20S-GW121420 MS/MSD (L175-09)Mercury Acceptable LCS/LCSD Analyte %R Limits Qualifiers LCS1W / LCD1W Acceptable LCS1W / LCD1W (Hg)Acceptable ICV/CCV Analyte %R Limits Qualifier Associated Samples Acceptable Blanks Prep Blank Result (ug/L)MDL/RL (ug/L)Qualifier MBLK1W Nondetect ICBs Analyte Result (ug/L)MDL/RL (ug/L)Qualifier ICB++ Vanadium 0.4 0.25 / 1 U-RL L175-22 Chromium 0.4 0.1 / 1 U-RL Nickel 0.4 0.25 / 1 U-RL Arsenic 0.4 0.125 / 1 U-RL Selenium 0.2 0.15 / 1 U-RL ICB** Nondetect ICB Mercury -0.011 0.1 / 0.5 None -Blank result > - RL CCBs Analyte Result (ug/L)MDL/RL (ug/L)Qualifier CCB4++Nondetect CCB5++Manganese 0.4 0.25 / 1 U-RL Selenium 0.2 0.15 / 1 U-RL CCB6++Nondetect CCB5**Nondetect** CCB6**Nondetect** CCB7**Nondetect** CCB4 Mercury 0.002 0.1 / 0.5 None Sample results nondetect CCB5 Mercury -0.012 0.1 / 0.5 None -Blank results > - RL CCB6 Mercury -0.002 0.1 / 0.5 None -Blank results > - RL CCB7 Mercury -0.004 0.1 / 0.5 None -Blank results > - RL L175-02, L175-03, L175-04, L175-07, L175-08, L175-09, L175-11, L175-12, L175-22, L175-24, L175-25 L175-01, L175-02, L175-05, L175-08, L175-13, L175-20, L175-25 L175-01, L175-02, L175-11, L175-12, L175-13, L175-20, L175-21, L175-22, L175-24, L175-25 L175-02, L175-03, L175-04, L175-07, L175-08, L175-09, L175-11, L175-12, L175-22, L175-24, L175-25 Associated Samples Associated Samples ++ ICB associated with initial analysis L175-01, L175-03, L175-04 ++ CCB associated with initial analysis ** CCB associated with re-analyzed results ** ICB associated with re-analyzed results Associated Samples Associated Samples Associated Samples Associated Samples L175-02, L175-11, L175-13, L175-20, L175-21, L175-22 **Applicable only to Ca, Mg, and Na results 8 of 11 Field Blank 6020A Concentration (ug/L)MDL/RL (ug/L)Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A ICSA/AB Analyte - Solution A %R Found Sol. A / True A RL Qualifier Associated Samples Acceptable PQL Standard Check %R Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Tune Acceptable Internal Standards Qualifier Associated Samples Acceptable 9 of 11 Precision:Yes No N/A Yes Are the laboratory duplicate RPDs ≤ 20% for water ≤35% for soils or within CRQL criteria? Yes Yes Yes Field Sample (mg/L)Duplicate (mg/L)RPD Qualifier Duplicates MW02-GW121620 FD01-GW121620 TOC 0.855 J 0.842 J NC None MW18-GW121420 FD06-GW121420 TOC 0.577 J 0.68 J NC None MW37S-GW121420 FD04-GW121420 TOC 1.74 0.908 J NC None MS/MSD %R Limits RPD %Qualifiers MW20S-GW121420 MS/MSD Acceptable (L175-09) ** Numerous MS/MSDs performed / evaluated all QC data within acceptable criteria LCS/ LCSD Limits RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable ** Numerous LCS/LCSDs performed / evaluated all QC data within acceptable criteria Laboratory Duplicate Sample Duplicate RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable Accuracy:Yes No N/A Was matrix spike criteria met (frequency 20% and % recovery 75-125%)?Yes Was post digestion spike criteria met (if applicable)? N/A Yes No Were the Field Blanks results all < RL?N/A Yes Was the tune %RSD <5% ?N/A Was internal standard criteria met?N/A MS /MSD Analyte %R Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples MW20S-GW121420 MS/MSD Acceptable (L175-09) ** Numerous MS/MSD performed / evaluated all QC data within acceptable criteria LCS / LCSD Analyte %R Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable ** Numerous LCS/LCSD performed / evaluated all QC data within acceptable criteria ICV/CCV %R Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable Blanks Analyte Result MDL/RL Qualifiers Associated Samples Nondetect ** Numerous prep. blanks performed / evaluated all QC blanks were nondetect Sample results < 5xs RL; ABS Diff. < RL Comments (note deviations): Comments (note deviations): Was laboratory control sample criteria met? Was laboratory blank criteria met (within control limits)? Were ICV/CCV % recoveries within 90-110%? Are the matrix spike duplicates RPD ≤ 20%? Are the laboratory control spike duplicates RPD ≤ 20%? Wet Chemistry Parameters Sample results < 5xs RL; ABS Diff. < RL Sample results < 5xs RL; ABS Diff. < RL Associated Samples Are the field duplicate relative percent differences (RPD) ≤30% (soils / water) or within CRQL criteria? 10 of 11 ICB / CCBs Analyte Result MDL/RL Qualifier CCB5 TOC 0.292 0.25 / 1 None CCB6 TOC 0.329 0.25 / 1 None ** The remaining ICB/CCBs performed / evaluated were nondetect Field Blank Analyte Result (mg/L)MDL/RL Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Tune Analyte %RSD Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Representativeness:Yes No N/A Were sampling procedures and design criteria met? Yes Were holding times met? Yes Was preservation criteria met? (0° C - 6° C)Yes Were Chain-of-Custody records complete and provided in data package?Yes Preservation Cooler Temperature (Degrees C) Preservation Criteria Qualifier Associated Samples Acceptable Holding Times Analyte Days to Extraction HT Criteria Qualifier Associated Samples Acceptable Comparability:Yes No N/A Were analytical procedures and methods followed as defined in the QAPP or field change documentation?Yes Comments (note deviations): Completeness (90%):Yes No N/A Are all data in this SDG usable?Yes Sensitivity:Yes No N/A Are MDLs present and reported? Yes Do the reporting limits meet project requirements? Yes Comments (note deviations): Comment: Data is usable with appropriate qualifiers applied. Data Validator:Date:2/17/2021 Data Reviewer:Date: 2/18/2021 See Note Note: The laboratory reported method blank criteria was met and the concentrations in the CCBs does not significantly affect the concentrations for TOC. Based on professional judgement, no qualifications were required. Associated Samples Cherie Zakowski Kristine Molloy The cooler temperatures were 3.3, 2.2, 3.8, 2.5 & 3.1 °C Comments (note deviations): Comments (note 11 of 11      Attachment 2  Data Package Completeness Review Checklists   VA SLC OU‐1  Data Package Completeness Review Checklist  SDG: 20L102 Required Documentation Yes No Comments  1. Cover letter complete with the following information: X     Title of report and laboratory unique report identification  (sample delivery group number) X     Project name, site location X     Name and location of laboratory and second‐site or  subcontracted laboratory X     Client name and address X     Statement of authenticity and official signature and title of  person authorizing report release X    2. Summary of samples received that correlates field sample IDs  with the laboratory IDs X    3. Laboratory qualifier flags and definitions  X    4. Preparation and/or analytical methods  X    5. Sample results for each analyte (dry weight basis for soils)   Date received X     Date analyzed (and time of analysis if the holding time is less  than or equal to 48 hours) X     Percent solids results for soil samples   Not Applicable   Dilution factor (provide both diluted and undiluted results  when available) X     Sample‐specific reporting limit adjusted for sample size,  dilution/concentration X     Sample‐specific MDL adjusted for sample size,  dilution/concentration X     Units X    6. Case Narrative that addresses the following information at a  minimum: X     Sample receipt discrepancies X     Descriptions of all nonconformances in the sample receipt,  handling, preparation, analytical and reporting processes and  the corrective action taken in each occurrence  X     Identification and justification for sample dilution X     Sample cooler temperature at time of receipt X  1.8 °C, 2.2 °C, 1.4 °C    Final residual vacuum of each sample canister immediately  prior to analysis, or upon receipt (Air analyses only)    Not Applicable  7. Surrogate percent recoveries (surrogate result, target  concentration, percent recovery)  X    Required Documentation Yes No Comments  8. MS/MSD and LCS spike concentrations, native sample results,  spiked sample results, percent recoveries, and RPDs between  the MS and MSD results (associated QC limits must also be  provided)  X    9. Method blank results X    10. Analytical batch reference number that cross references  samples to QC sample analyses  X    11. Executed COC and sample receipt checklist X    12.  Analytical sequence or laboratory run log that contains  sufficient information to correlate samples reported in the  summary results to the associated method QC information,  such as initial and continuing calibration analyses  X    13. Calibration blank results for inorganic analyses (required in  hardcopy format only)  X    14. Inductively coupled plasma (ICP) interference check sample for  inorganic analyses, true and measured concentrations and  percent recoveries (required in hardcopy format only)  X    15. Reporting Limit Check Standard for metals analyses, true and  measured concentrations and percent recoveries (if applicable,  required in hardcopy format only)  X    16. Post‐digestion spike recoveries for metals analyses, (if  applicable; required in hardcopy format only)  X    17. Internal Standard recovery and retention time information, as  applicable  X    18. Initial calibration summary, including standard concentrations,  response factors, average response factors, RSDs or correlation  coefficients, and calibration plots or equations, if applicable  (required in hardcopy format only)  X    19. Continuing calibration verification summary, including expected  and recovered concentrations and percent differences (required  in hardcopy format only)  X    20. Instrument tuning and mass calibration information for ICP  /mass spectrometry analyses  X    21. All associated instrument printouts for all samples, standards,  and QC samples (e.g., raw data) necessary to re‐calculate  results as well as all manual integrations (if performed)  X    22. Sample preparation logs that include the following information X     Preparation start and end times (as applicable) X     Beginning and ending temperatures of water baths and  digestion blocks  X    Data package complete and ready for Validation Cherie Zakowski Date: 1/15/2021  Signature VA SLC OU‐1  Data Package Completeness Review Checklist  SDG: 20L132 Required Documentation Yes No Comments  1. Cover letter complete with the following information: X     Title of report and laboratory unique report identification  (sample delivery group number) X     Project name, site location X     Name and location of laboratory and second‐site or  subcontracted laboratory X     Client name and address X     Statement of authenticity and official signature and title of  person authorizing report release X    2. Summary of samples received that correlates field sample IDs  with the laboratory IDs X    3. Laboratory qualifier flags and definitions  X    4. Preparation and/or analytical methods  X    5. Sample results for each analyte (dry weight basis for soils)   Date received X     Date analyzed (and time of analysis if the holding time is less  than or equal to 48 hours) X     Percent solids results for soil samples   Not Applicable   Dilution factor (provide both diluted and undiluted results  when available) X     Sample‐specific reporting limit adjusted for sample size,  dilution/concentration X     Sample‐specific MDL adjusted for sample size,  dilution/concentration X     Units X    6. Case Narrative that addresses the following information at a  minimum: X     Sample receipt discrepancies X     Descriptions of all nonconformances in the sample receipt,  handling, preparation, analytical and reporting processes and  the corrective action taken in each occurrence  X     Identification and justification for sample dilution X     Sample cooler temperature at time of receipt X  1.2 °C, 1.3 °C, 3.2 °C    Final residual vacuum of each sample canister immediately  prior to analysis, or upon receipt (Air analyses only)    Not Applicable  7. Surrogate percent recoveries (surrogate result, target  concentration, percent recovery)  X    Required Documentation Yes No Comments  8. MS/MSD and LCS spike concentrations, native sample results,  spiked sample results, percent recoveries, and RPDs between  the MS and MSD results (associated QC limits must also be  provided)  X    9. Method blank results X    10. Analytical batch reference number that cross references  samples to QC sample analyses  X    11. Executed COC and sample receipt checklist X    12.  Analytical sequence or laboratory run log that contains  sufficient information to correlate samples reported in the  summary results to the associated method QC information,  such as initial and continuing calibration analyses  X    13. Calibration blank results for inorganic analyses (required in  hardcopy format only)  X    14. Inductively coupled plasma (ICP) interference check sample for  inorganic analyses, true and measured concentrations and  percent recoveries (required in hardcopy format only)  X    15. Reporting Limit Check Standard for metals analyses, true and  measured concentrations and percent recoveries (if applicable,  required in hardcopy format only)  X    16. Post‐digestion spike recoveries for metals analyses, (if  applicable; required in hardcopy format only)  X    17. Internal Standard recovery and retention time information, as  applicable  X    18. Initial calibration summary, including standard concentrations,  response factors, average response factors, RSDs or correlation  coefficients, and calibration plots or equations, if applicable  (required in hardcopy format only)  X    19. Continuing calibration verification summary, including expected  and recovered concentrations and percent differences (required  in hardcopy format only)  X    20. Instrument tuning and mass calibration information for ICP  /mass spectrometry analyses  X    21. All associated instrument printouts for all samples, standards,  and QC samples (e.g., raw data) necessary to re‐calculate  results as well as all manual integrations (if performed)  X    22. Sample preparation logs that include the following information X     Preparation start and end times (as applicable) X     Beginning and ending temperatures of water baths and  digestion blocks  X    Data package complete and ready for Validation Cherie Zakowski Date: 1/15/2021  Signature VA SLC OU‐1  Data Package Completeness Review Checklist  SDG: 20L133 Required Documentation Yes No Comments  1. Cover letter complete with the following information: X     Title of report and laboratory unique report identification  (sample delivery group number) X     Project name, site location X     Name and location of laboratory and second‐site or  subcontracted laboratory X     Client name and address X     Statement of authenticity and official signature and title of  person authorizing report release X    2. Summary of samples received that correlates field sample IDs  with the laboratory IDs X    3. Laboratory qualifier flags and definitions  X    4. Preparation and/or analytical methods  X    5. Sample results for each analyte (dry weight basis for soils)   Date received X     Date analyzed (and time of analysis if the holding time is less  than or equal to 48 hours) X     Percent solids results for soil samples   Not Applicable   Dilution factor (provide both diluted and undiluted results  when available) X     Sample‐specific reporting limit adjusted for sample size,  dilution/concentration X     Sample‐specific MDL adjusted for sample size,  dilution/concentration X     Units X    6. Case Narrative that addresses the following information at a  minimum: X     Sample receipt discrepancies X     Descriptions of all nonconformances in the sample receipt,  handling, preparation, analytical and reporting processes and  the corrective action taken in each occurrence  X     Identification and justification for sample dilution X     Sample cooler temperature at time of receipt X  1.0 °C, 1.7 °C, 1.8 °C    Final residual vacuum of each sample canister immediately  prior to analysis, or upon receipt (Air analyses only)    Not Applicable  7. Surrogate percent recoveries (surrogate result, target  concentration, percent recovery)  X    Required Documentation Yes No Comments  8. MS/MSD and LCS spike concentrations, native sample results,  spiked sample results, percent recoveries, and RPDs between  the MS and MSD results (associated QC limits must also be  provided)  X    9. Method blank results X    10. Analytical batch reference number that cross references  samples to QC sample analyses  X    11. Executed COC and sample receipt checklist X    12.  Analytical sequence or laboratory run log that contains  sufficient information to correlate samples reported in the  summary results to the associated method QC information,  such as initial and continuing calibration analyses  X    13. Calibration blank results for inorganic analyses (required in  hardcopy format only)  X    14. Inductively coupled plasma (ICP) interference check sample for  inorganic analyses, true and measured concentrations and  percent recoveries (required in hardcopy format only)  X    15. Reporting Limit Check Standard for metals analyses, true and  measured concentrations and percent recoveries (if applicable,  required in hardcopy format only)  X    16. Post‐digestion spike recoveries for metals analyses, (if  applicable; required in hardcopy format only)  X    17. Internal Standard recovery and retention time information, as  applicable  X    18. Initial calibration summary, including standard concentrations,  response factors, average response factors, RSDs or correlation  coefficients, and calibration plots or equations, if applicable  (required in hardcopy format only)  X    19. Continuing calibration verification summary, including expected  and recovered concentrations and percent differences (required  in hardcopy format only)  X    20. Instrument tuning and mass calibration information for ICP  /mass spectrometry analyses  X    21. All associated instrument printouts for all samples, standards,  and QC samples (e.g., raw data) necessary to re‐calculate  results as well as all manual integrations (if performed)  X    22. Sample preparation logs that include the following information X     Preparation start and end times (as applicable) X     Beginning and ending temperatures of water baths and  digestion blocks  X    Data package complete and ready for Validation Cherie Zakowski Date: 1/20/2021  Signature VA SLC OU‐1  Data Package Completeness Review Checklist  SDG: 20L141 Required Documentation Yes No Comments  1. Cover letter complete with the following information: X     Title of report and laboratory unique report identification  (sample delivery group number) X     Project name, site location X     Name and location of laboratory and second‐site or  subcontracted laboratory X     Client name and address X     Statement of authenticity and official signature and title of  person authorizing report release X    2. Summary of samples received that correlates field sample IDs  with the laboratory IDs X    3. Laboratory qualifier flags and definitions  X    4. Preparation and/or analytical methods  X    5. Sample results for each analyte (dry weight basis for soils)   Date received X     Date analyzed (and time of analysis if the holding time is less  than or equal to 48 hours) X     Percent solids results for soil samples   Not Applicable   Dilution factor (provide both diluted and undiluted results  when available) X     Sample‐specific reporting limit adjusted for sample size,  dilution/concentration X     Sample‐specific MDL adjusted for sample size,  dilution/concentration X     Units X    6. Case Narrative that addresses the following information at a  minimum: X     Sample receipt discrepancies X     Descriptions of all nonconformances in the sample receipt,  handling, preparation, analytical and reporting processes and  the corrective action taken in each occurrence  X     Identification and justification for sample dilution X     Sample cooler temperature at time of receipt X  1.0 °C, 1.6 °C, 2.1 °C    Final residual vacuum of each sample canister immediately  prior to analysis, or upon receipt (Air analyses only)    Not Applicable  7. Surrogate percent recoveries (surrogate result, target  concentration, percent recovery)  X    Required Documentation Yes No Comments  8. MS/MSD and LCS spike concentrations, native sample results,  spiked sample results, percent recoveries, and RPDs between  the MS and MSD results (associated QC limits must also be  provided)  X    9. Method blank results X    10. Analytical batch reference number that cross references  samples to QC sample analyses  X    11. Executed COC and sample receipt checklist X    12.  Analytical sequence or laboratory run log that contains  sufficient information to correlate samples reported in the  summary results to the associated method QC information,  such as initial and continuing calibration analyses  X    13. Calibration blank results for inorganic analyses (required in  hardcopy format only)  X    14. Inductively coupled plasma (ICP) interference check sample for  inorganic analyses, true and measured concentrations and  percent recoveries (required in hardcopy format only)  X    15. Reporting Limit Check Standard for metals analyses, true and  measured concentrations and percent recoveries (if applicable,  required in hardcopy format only)  X    16. Post‐digestion spike recoveries for metals analyses, (if  applicable; required in hardcopy format only)  X    17. Internal Standard recovery and retention time information, as  applicable  X    18. Initial calibration summary, including standard concentrations,  response factors, average response factors, RSDs or correlation  coefficients, and calibration plots or equations, if applicable  (required in hardcopy format only)  X    19. Continuing calibration verification summary, including expected  and recovered concentrations and percent differences (required  in hardcopy format only)  X    20. Instrument tuning and mass calibration information for ICP  /mass spectrometry analyses  X    21. All associated instrument printouts for all samples, standards,  and QC samples (e.g., raw data) necessary to re‐calculate  results as well as all manual integrations (if performed)  X    22. Sample preparation logs that include the following information X     Preparation start and end times (as applicable) X     Beginning and ending temperatures of water baths and  digestion blocks  X    Data package complete and ready for Validation Cherie Zakowski Date: 1/16/2021  Signature VA SLC OU‐1  Data Package Completeness Review Checklist  SDG: 20L175 Required Documentation Yes No Comments  1. Cover letter complete with the following information: X     Title of report and laboratory unique report identification  (sample delivery group number) X     Project name, site location X     Name and location of laboratory and second‐site or  subcontracted laboratory X     Client name and address X     Statement of authenticity and official signature and title of  person authorizing report release X    2. Summary of samples received that correlates field sample IDs  with the laboratory IDs X    3. Laboratory qualifier flags and definitions  X    4. Preparation and/or analytical methods  X    5. Sample results for each analyte (dry weight basis for soils)   Date received X     Date analyzed (and time of analysis if the holding time is less  than or equal to 48 hours) X     Percent solids results for soil samples   Not Applicable   Dilution factor (provide both diluted and undiluted results  when available) X     Sample‐specific reporting limit adjusted for sample size,  dilution/concentration X     Sample‐specific MDL adjusted for sample size,  dilution/concentration X     Units X    6. Case Narrative that addresses the following information at a  minimum: X     Sample receipt discrepancies X     Descriptions of all nonconformances in the sample receipt,  handling, preparation, analytical and reporting processes and  the corrective action taken in each occurrence  X     Identification and justification for sample dilution X     Sample cooler temperature at time of receipt X  3.3 °C, 3.3 °C, 2.2 °C, 3.8 °C, 2.5 °C,  3.1 °C   Final residual vacuum of each sample canister immediately  prior to analysis, or upon receipt (Air analyses only)    Not Applicable  7. Surrogate percent recoveries (surrogate result, target  concentration, percent recovery)  X    Required Documentation Yes No Comments  8. MS/MSD and LCS spike concentrations, native sample results,  spiked sample results, percent recoveries, and RPDs between  the MS and MSD results (associated QC limits must also be  provided)  X    9. Method blank results X    10. Analytical batch reference number that cross references  samples to QC sample analyses  X    11. Executed COC and sample receipt checklist X    12.  Analytical sequence or laboratory run log that contains  sufficient information to correlate samples reported in the  summary results to the associated method QC information,  such as initial and continuing calibration analyses  X    13. Calibration blank results for inorganic analyses (required in  hardcopy format only)  X    14. Inductively coupled plasma (ICP) interference check sample for  inorganic analyses, true and measured concentrations and  percent recoveries (required in hardcopy format only)  X    15. Reporting Limit Check Standard for metals analyses, true and  measured concentrations and percent recoveries (if applicable,  required in hardcopy format only)  X    16. Post‐digestion spike recoveries for metals analyses, (if  applicable; required in hardcopy format only)  X    17. Internal Standard recovery and retention time information, as  applicable  X    18. Initial calibration summary, including standard concentrations,  response factors, average response factors, RSDs or correlation  coefficients, and calibration plots or equations, if applicable  (required in hardcopy format only)  X    19. Continuing calibration verification summary, including expected  and recovered concentrations and percent differences (required  in hardcopy format only)  X    20. Instrument tuning and mass calibration information for ICP  /mass spectrometry analyses  X    21. All associated instrument printouts for all samples, standards,  and QC samples (e.g., raw data) necessary to re‐calculate  results as well as all manual integrations (if performed)  X    22. Sample preparation logs that include the following information X     Preparation start and end times (as applicable) X     Beginning and ending temperatures of water baths and  digestion blocks  X    Data package complete and ready for Validation Cherie Zakowski Date: 1/28/2021  Signature      Attachment 3  Analytical Data Packages  Note: Laboratory Data Reports removed from report and provided separately. Appendix D Transducer Hydrographs 4500 4501 4502 4503 4504 4505 4506 4507 4508 4509 4510 9/2020 10/2020 11/2020 12/2020 1/2021 El e v a t i o n ( f e e t a b o v e m e a n s e a l e v e l ) Date MW-01S WaterLevel 9/2020-12/2020 Groundwater Elevation Manual Water Level 4520 4521 4522 4523 4524 4525 4526 4527 4528 4529 4530 9/2020 10/2020 11/2020 12/2020 1/2021 El e v a t i o n ( f e e t a b o v e m e a n s e a l e v e l ) Date MW-04 WaterLevel 6/2020-12/2020 Groundwater Elevation Manual Water Level 9/2020-12/2020 4520 4521 4522 4523 4524 4525 4526 4527 4528 4529 4530 9/2020 10/2020 11/2020 12/2020 1/2021 El e v a t i o n ( f e e t a b o v e m e a n s e a l e v e l ) Date MW-05R WaterLevel 6/2020-12/2020 Groundwater Elevation Manual Water Level 9/2020-12/2020 4550 4551 4552 4553 4554 4555 4556 4557 4558 4559 4560 9/2020 10/2020 11/2020 12/2020 1/2021 El e v a t i o n ( f e e t a b o v e m e a n s e a l e v e l ) Date MW-06 WaterLevel 6/2020-12/2020 Groundwater Elevation Manual Water Level 9/2020-12/2020 4465 4466 4467 4468 4469 4470 4471 4472 4473 4474 4475 9/2020 10/2020 11/2020 12/2020 1/2021 El e v a t i o n ( f e e t a b o v e m e a n s e a l e v e l ) Date MW-13D WaterLevel 9/2020-12/2020 Groundwater Elevation Manual Water Level 4400 4402 4404 4406 4408 4410 4412 4414 4416 4418 4420 9/2020 10/2020 11/2020 12/2020 1/2021 El e v a t i o n ( f e e t a b o v e m e a n s e a l e v e l ) Date MW-14S WaterLevel 9/2020-12/2020 Groundwater Elevation Manual Water Level 4440 4441 4442 4443 4444 4445 4446 4447 4448 4449 4450 9/2020 10/2020 11/2020 12/2020 1/2021 El e v a t i o n ( f e e t a b o v e m e a n s e a l e v e l ) Date MW-16D WaterLevel 9/2020-12/2020 Groundwater Elevation Manual Water Level 4470 4471 4472 4473 4474 4475 4476 4477 4478 4479 4480 9/2020 10/2020 11/2020 12/2020 1/2021 El e v a t i o n ( f e e t a b o v e m e a n s e a l e v e l ) Date MW-20S WaterLevel 9/2020-12/2020 Groundwater Elevation Manual Water Level 4470 4471 4472 4473 4474 4475 4476 4477 4478 4479 4480 9/2020 10/2020 11/2020 12/2020 1/2021 El e v a t i o n ( f e e t a b o v e m e a n s e a l e v e l ) Date MW-20D WaterLevel 9/2020-12/2020 Groundwater Elevation Manual Water Level 4490 4491 4492 4493 4494 4495 4496 4497 4498 4499 4500 9/2020 10/2020 11/2020 12/2020 1/2021 El e v a t i o n ( f e e t a b o v e m e a n s e a l e v e l ) Date MW-21 WaterLevel 9/2020-12/2020 Groundwater Elevation Manual Water Level 4490 4491 4492 4493 4494 4495 4496 4497 4498 4499 4500 9/2020 10/2020 11/2020 12/2020 1/2021 El e v a t i o n ( f e e t a b o v e m e a n s e a l e v e l ) Date MW-22 WaterLevel 9/2020-12/2020 Groundwater Elevation Manual Water Level 4490 4491 4492 4493 4494 4495 4496 4497 4498 4499 4500 11/2020 12/2020 1/2021 El e v a t i o n ( f e e t a b o v e m e a n s e a l e v e l ) Date MW-34B WaterLevel 9/2020-12/2020 Groundwater Elevation Manual Water Level 4490 4491 4492 4493 4494 4495 4496 4497 4498 4499 4500 11/2020 12/2020 1/2021 El e v a t i o n ( f e e t a b o v e m e a n s e a l e v e l ) Date MW-34C WaterLevel 9/2020-12/2020 Groundwater Elevation Manual Water Level 4490 4491 4492 4493 4494 4495 4496 4497 4498 4499 4500 11/2020 12/2020 1/2021 El e v a t i o n ( f e e t a b o v e m e a n s e a l e v e l ) Date MW-34D WaterLevel 9/2020-12/2020 Groundwater Elevation Manual Water Level Final Data Summary Report Q1 2021 Groundwater Sampling Event 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Site Salt Lake City, Utah CONTRACT NO.: W912DQ-18-D-3008 DELIVERY ORDER NO.: W912DQ19F3048 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Kansas City District Department of Veterans Affairs Veterans Health Administration Salt Lake City Health Care System June 30, 2021 i Table of Contents Section 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Background ................................................................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Purpose and Scope ................................................................................................................................................... 1-1 Section 2 Field Sampling Activities ................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Groundwater Sampling .......................................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1.1 Synoptic Water Level Measurement ................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1.2 Groundwater Sampling Procedures .................................................................................................... 2-2 2.1.3 Sample Analysis ........................................................................................................................................... 2-2 2.2 Transducer Data Collection .................................................................................................................................. 2-3 2.3 Decontamination and Investigation-Derived Waste ................................................................................. 2-4 2.4 Deviations from the Quality Assurance Project Plan ................................................................................. 2-4 Section 3 Groundwater Monitoring Results ...................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Groundwater Elevations ........................................................................................................................................ 3-1 3.2 Groundwater Analytical Results......................................................................................................................... 3-2 3.2.1 Volatile Organic Compounds .................................................................................................................. 3-2 3.2.2 1,4-Dioxane .................................................................................................................................................... 3-3 3.2.3 General Chemistry ...................................................................................................................................... 3-3 Section 4 Summary .......................................................................................................... 4-1 Section 5 References ....................................................................................................... 5-1 Table of Contents ii List of Figures Figure 1 – Site Location Map Figure 2 – Potentiometric Groundwater Surface Map – Shallow Aquifer Figure 3 – Potentiometric Groundwater Surface Map – Deep Aquifer Figure 4 – Q1-2021 Groundwater PCE and TCE Results and Approximate Extent of PCE in Groundwater List of Tables Table 1 – Monitoring Well Survey Data and Construction Details Table 2 – Groundwater Elevations, Transducer Locations, and Download Dates Table 3 – Groundwater Sampling Analytes Table 4 – 1,4-Dioxane and Detected VOC Analytical Results Table 5 – Metals Analytical Results Table 6 – General Chemistry Analytical Results and Field Parameters Appendices Appendix A – Salt Lake City Division of Transportation Traffic Control Permit Appendix B – Field Forms Appendix C – Quality Control Summary Report Appendix D – Transducer Hydrographs Table of Contents iii Acronyms and Abbreviations bgs below ground surface CDM Smith CDM Federal Programs Corporation DO dissolved oxygen DSR data summary report EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency feet/foot feet per foot IDW investigation-derived waste MCL maximum contaminant level mg/L milligrams per liter mL/min milliliters per minute NTU nephelometric turbidity unit ORP oxidation-reduction potential OU operable unit PCE tetrachloroethene Q1-2021 first quarter 2021 QAPP quality assurance project plan RI remedial investigation RSL regional screening level SOP standard operating procedure TCE trichloroethene TOC total organic carbon VAMC Veterans Affairs Medical Center VOC volatile organic compound ZIST zone isolation sampling technology µg/L micrograms per liter 1-1 Section 1 Introduction Under the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Kansas City District Contract No. W912DQ-18-D-3008, Task Order No. W912DQ19F3048, CDM Federal Programs Corporation (CDM Smith) was directed to perform a remedial investigation (RI) for Operable Unit (OU) 1 of the 700 South 1600 East Tetrachloroethene (PCE) Plume Superfund Site (Site) in Salt Lake City, Utah. CDM Smith prepared this data summary report (DSR) to present the results of the first quarter of 2021 (Q1-2021) groundwater monitoring event as part of the RI field characterization activities. 1.1 Background The Salt Lake City Healthcare System George E. Wahlen Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC) is located in Salt Lake City, Utah (Figure 1). PCE contamination was first identified in groundwater in 1990 at the nearby Mt. Olivet Cemetery irrigation well during Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities routine monitoring. This led to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Utah Department of Environmental Quality involvement at the Site and the preliminary determination that the source of PCE in groundwater was the historical dry-cleaning facility located at the VAMC. The Veterans Health Administration operated a part-time dry- cleaning operation that used PCE over a 6-year period in the late 1970s and early 1980s. During this period, dry-cleaning residuals were disposed of in the sanitary sewer. A PCE groundwater plume is present beneath the VAMC property in areas hydraulically downgradient, extending to the East Side Springs neighborhood. In addition, elevated concentrations of PCE in soil gas and subslab vapor (up to 20,000 micrograms per cubic meter) have been observed adjacent to VAMC Buildings 6 and 7 (location of the VAMC dry-cleaning facility) (Jacobs 2019). 1.2 Purpose and Scope The purpose and scope of this DSR is to describe the work conducted and present the analytical and field data collected during the Q1-2021 groundwater monitoring event. 2-1 Section 2 Field Sampling Activities The following sections outline the field sampling activities that were completed during the Q1- 2021 sampling event, which occurred from March 15 to 23, 2021. 2.1 Groundwater Sampling The Q1-2021 groundwater monitoring event included the planned collection of 66 groundwater samples. All monitoring wells (including previously abandoned wells) are shown in Figure 1, and location data and well construction details are presented in Table 1. The sampling activities were conducted in accordance with the Phase 2 OU1 Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) (CDM Smith 2020a) and the Phase 2 OU1 RI Work Plan (CDM Smith 2020b). Several groundwater wells are in the public right-of-way and require traffic control and special work requirements to be implemented when accessing the wells. The associated traffic control permit and location-specific plans from the Salt Lake City Division of Transportation are attached (Appendix A). Field forms associated with this event, including the field logbook pages, water level measurement recordings, and sample purge forms, are included in Appendix B. 2.1.1 Synoptic Water Level Measurement Prior to sampling activities, synoptic water levels were collected from 66 wells on March 15, 2021, following procedures outlined in Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) 1-6, Groundwater Level Measurement (CDM Smith 2020a). Manual water-level measurements were recorded from the northern edge of the casing using electronic water level meters. At artesian well MW-14D, the pressure reading on the gauge was recorded and converted to feet above the top of the casing. Water levels are presented in Table 2. The collection of water level measurements in monitoring wells with dedicated Zone Isolation Sampling Technology (ZIST) pumps requires pulling the pump and allowing the water to equilibrate in the well casing. ZIST pumps provide isolation of the screen by creating a seal in the well casing when the pump is properly seated in the well screen dock. To collect water level measurements, the pumps were pulled approximately 1 foot out of the receiver in the well casing for approximately 3 hours to allow the water level to equilibrate following pump removal. After verifying that water levels had stabilized, the water level measurements were recorded manually, and the pump was properly reseated. The following wells have dedicated ZIST pumps: ▪ MW-03RA/B/C/D ▪ MW-08C ▪ MW-23A/B/C ▪ MW-25A/B/C Section 2 • Field Sampling Activities 2-2 ▪ MW-26A/B/C/D ▪ MW-29A1/B/C ▪ MW-30C ▪ MW-31A1/B/C ▪ MW-32B1/C1 ▪ MW-34A1/B1/C1/D1 2.1.2 Groundwater Sampling Procedures All wells were sampled following project-specific SOP 6-2, Low-Stress (Low-Flow) Groundwater Sampling (CDM Smith 2020a) procedures. All wells were sampled using dedicated pumps, except for MW-14D. Prior to collecting groundwater samples with low-flow sampling techniques, each well was purged to remove a minimum volume, which was calculated before the event. The minimum purge volume is three times the total amount of stagnant water in the pump and tubing. Low-flow groundwater sampling includes purging the well at a rate typically less than 500 milliliters per minute (mL/min) and with minimal drawdown (less than 0.3 feet) to ensure that the water sampled is representative of the formation surrounding the screened interval and not of the stagnant water column. If the drawdown exceeds 0.3 feet, the stagnant water column is contributing to the purge water and the minimum purge volume must be recalculated. Once the minimum purge volume was removed and water quality parameters stabilized as described in SOP 6-2, samples were collected. At MW-14D, a permanent valve and gauge were previously installed to assist in controlling the artesian flow at the well. During sampling, the team opened the valve to maximum capacity, noted the flow rate, and collected grab samples for field parameter analysis. The flow rate decreased considerably over the purging period, from an initial flow of approximately 1,000 mL/min to 500 mL/min. MW-17D has been observed to be seasonally artesian; therefore, a permanent threaded connection was previously attached to the wellhead to plug the well. As a result, the dedicated bladder pump is not permanently deployed in the well and is only used to sample the well when conditions are not artesian. During the sampling event, water was not free flowing from MW-17D; therefore, the dedicated bladder pump was used to sample the well. All groundwater sampling was completed according to the project-specific SOP 6-2, Low-Stress (Low-Flow) Groundwater Sampling (CDM Smith 2020a), except for deviations outlined in Section 2.4. Field documentation of sampling procedures is provided in Appendix B. 2.1.3 Sample Analysis The water quality parameters were analyzed continuously while purging with the use of a flow- through cell. The following parameters were recorded for each well: ___________________________________ 1 ZIST wells constructed without a pump receiver Section 2 • Field Sampling Activities 2-3 ▪ Dissolved oxygen (DO) ▪ Oxidation-reduction potential (ORP) ▪ pH ▪ Temperature ▪ Conductivity ▪ Turbidity In addition to the water quality parameters, samples collected from all wells were analyzed for: ▪ Ferrous iron (measured in the field using HACH Method 8146) ▪ Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) by EPA Method SW8260C (Table 3) Three samples (MW-13L and MW-26C/D) were analyzed for 1,4-dioxane by EPA Method 8270D (Table 3). Thirty-five samples (MW-13L and MW-23 through MW-38) were analyzed for the following additional analyses (Table 3): ▪ Total metals (unfiltered) by EPA Method SW6020A/SW7470A ▪ Alkalinity by EPA Method SM2320B ▪ Anions (sulfate, chloride) by EPA Method E300.0 ▪ Dissolved gases (methane, ethane, ethene) by RSK-175 ▪ Total organic carbon (TOC) by EPA Method SW9060A ▪ Nitrate and nitrite by EPA Method SM4500-NO3E All samples were submitted to EMAX Laboratories Inc. in Torrance, California. The analytical results are discussed in Section 3. Laboratory data are included in Appendix C. Field quality control samples were collected, including field duplicates, matrix /matrix spike duplicates, trip blanks, and field blanks, and are discussed in the Quality Control Summary Report in Appendix C. Not all samples were able to be collected as planned as further discussed in Section 2.4. The completeness for the number of samples planned versus the number of samples collected was 97 percent, thus exceeding the 90 percent project data goal. The achievement of the completeness goals provides sufficient data for project decisions. Sample results meet the data quality objectives presented in the RI Work Plan (CDM Smith 2020b). 2.2 Transducer Data Collection Transducer data was downloaded from December 2020 through March 2021. Data were collected from 15 groundwater wells during the Q1-2021 groundwater monitoring event. Table 2 presents Section 2 • Field Sampling Activities 2-4 the date, time, and location of transducer data downloads. Hydrographs were prepared from the transducer downloads and are presented in Appendix D. A drop in water levels due to groundwater sampling activities in December can be seen in the hydrograph for MW-13D and MW-14S. The hydrograph for MW-34B is only showing data from December 2020 to January 2021 because of the transducer being pulled from the well for well development purposes. A sudden rise in water level occurred at MW-05R; however, as no maintenance or investigation activities were completed at that time, it is possible the transducer cable was caught in the well and the transducer suddenly dropped. No other inconsistencies are observable in the hydrographs, and the data are useable for monitoring groundwater elevations. The transducer data will be (1) evaluated for seasonal and annual trends as well as potential variations due to anthropogenic usage (i.e., irrigation well pumping) and (2) presented in the RI report. 2.3 Decontamination and Investigation-Derived Waste All nondedicated equipment used during the groundwater sampling event was decontaminated following the procedures outlined in SOP 4-5, Field Equipment Decontamination at Nonradioactive Sites (CDM Smith 2020a). Nondedicated equipment used during this event were electronic water level meters. Investigation-derived waste (IDW) was handled per SOP 2-2, Guide to Handling Investigation-Derived Waste (CDM Smith 2020a). All decontamination water and purge water were containerized at their source and transferred to the holding tanks at the VAMC. These tanks will be emptied by a certified IDW disposal company. 2.4 Deviations from the Quality Assurance Project Plan The following QAPP deviations occurred during the Q1-2021 sampling event: ▪ Purge parameter stabilization criteria for turbidity (either less than 10 nephelometric turbidity unit [NTU] or less than 50 NTU and within 10 percent) were not met at MW-14S and MW-23B. Turbidity at these locations was less than 50 NTU, but not within 10 percent. No analytical result bias for dissolved VOCs, including chlorinated compounds (EPA 2005), is anticipated to result from turbid water samples. This deviation does not affect DQOs or data usability. As all other purge parameter stabilization criteria for these two wells were met, there is no expected impact upon data quality at these locations. ▪ Purge parameter stabilization criteria for turbidity and conductivity (within 10 percent) was not met for MW-08C. As three times the minimum purge volume had been removed and all other purge parameter stabilization criteria were met, there is no expected impact upon data quality at this location. ▪ As MW-13S was purged dry, a sample was collected the next day once sufficient recharge was observed, without meeting purge parameter stabilization. This is an acceptable procedure in the low-flow groundwater sampling SOP, and there is no impact upon data quality at this location. ▪ Because of a malfunctioning pump at MW-05R, groundwater samples could not be obtained. At MW-12S, there was insufficient water to collect a groundwater sample. As both locations have been successfully sampled in the past, there is no significant impact on the groundwater plume delineation data quality objective. Section 2 • Field Sampling Activities 2-5 ▪ Water level elevations could not be measured at MW-29A, MW-31A, and MW-34A, as the water levels were above the pump intakes but below the volume booster. As the water level of the shallow aquifer could be measured at other, deeper screened intervals at each of these locations, there is no impact upon data quality. 3-1 Section 3 Groundwater Monitoring Results Groundwater monitoring results from the Q1-2021 event, specifically groundwater elevations and analytical results, are presented below. 3.1 Groundwater Elevations Measured groundwater elevations are presented in Table 2 and on the potentiometric groundwater surface maps (Figures 2 and 3). Vertical gradients were calculated using the approach described by EPA (EPA 2016). The potentiometric groundwater contours were developed from manual groundwater elevation measurements collected during the synoptic event on March 15, 2021. The following discusses the groundwater elevation evaluations. Based on the observed piezometric heads, the subsurface was divided into the following hydraulic zones: ▪ Perched Zone: This zone is situated above the water table; it exhibits significantly higher piezometric heads than what is observed at other wells. The only well that exhibits this feature is MW-06 (screened 100 to 130 feet below the ground surface [bgs]). Perched head data has not been contoured. ▪ Shallow Aquifer Zone: This zone extends to approximately 220 feet bgs at VAMC Building 7 and gets shallower to the west as the ground surface dips. The shallow aquifer zone is contoured (using a 10-foot contour interval) in Figure 2. • Flow directions are generally east to west, with horizontal gradients approximately 0.014 feet per foot (feet/foot) over a distance of 2,500 feet between MW-24 and MW- 34. Over the next 1,000 feet between MW-34 and MW-18, the horizontal gradients are approximately 0.012 feet/foot. Between MW-13S and MW-14S (approximately 500 feet), horizontal gradients are an order of magnitude higher, at approximately 0.12 feet/foot. ▪ Deep Aquifer Zone: This zone sits below approximately 260 feet bgs at VAMC Building 7 and gets shallower to the west as the ground surface dips. The deep aquifer zone heads are contoured in Figure 3. • Flow directions are generally east to west. Horizontal gradients are approximately 0.002 feet/foot between MW-23C and MW-34C (approximately 2,500 feet), and 0.013 feet/foot between MW-34C and MW-13L (approximately 2,350 feet). • Piezometric heads at MW-03RB/C/D show that heads are approximately 10 feet lower than in the shallow aquifer zone situated approximately 40 feet above. These steep vertical gradients are indicative of hydraulic separation between the shallow and deep aquifer zones, likely because of the presence of a semiconfining unit between 220 and 260 feet bgs. Section 3 • Groundwater Monitoring Results 3-2 • Heads at MW-03RC/D are nearly identical despite spanning nearly 35 vertical feet of the aquifer. This likely indicates the lack of significant aquitard units within the deep aquifer zone. ▪ Intermediate Zone: This zone sits between the shallow and deep aquifer zones (approximately 220 to 260 feet bgs) at wells near VAMC Building 7 including MW-23B, MW-25B, MW-26B, MW-29C, and MW-30A. The zone is characterized by heads that are slightly lower than those in the shallow aquifer zone. It is unclear how laterally extensive this zone is and whether it is bounded by lower permeability units. Head data from this unit have not been contoured. Vertical gradients, which are typically strongly downward on-site, dissipate along the east to the west groundwater flow path. MW-34C/D and MW-32C are estimated to be screened in the deep aquifer zone; however, there is little distinction in heads between these wells and the shallow aquifer zone at MW-34B and MW-32A/B. West of MW-34, vertical head gradients shift upwards, with artesian conditions present in the deeper portions of the shallow aquifer zone at well MW- 14D, just east of the fault. West of the fault, the vertical head differences, and therefore, the hydraulic distinction between the shallow and deep aquifer zones was not observed. 3.2 Groundwater Analytical Results Analytical results from the Q1-2021 groundwater monitoring event are presented below. 3.2.1 Volatile Organic Compounds Groundwater samples were collected and analyzed for VOCs. Table 4 presents the concentrations of detected VOCs compared to the EPA maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) or regional screening levels (RSLs) for tap water (for compounds without an established MCL). Detections are presented as bolded values and exceedances of the MCL or RSL are presented as highlighted values. Additionally, the approximate extent of PCE in groundwater and results for PCE and trichloroethene (TCE) are shown in Figure 4. This figure also presents the projected fault traces (Davis 1983, Personius 2009) and the monitoring well transect lines. A total of 64 samples were collected for VOC analysis. Of those, PCE exceeded the MCL (5 micrograms per liter [µg/L)] in 20 samples, with concentrations ranging from 5.4 to 230 µg/L. The highest concentrations of PCE were detected in MW-02 (230 µg/L), MW-03RB (220 µg/L), and MW-01S (170 µg/L). PCE was detected at concentrations less than 5 µg/L in 17 samples and was not detected in 27 samples. PCE was non-detect or below the MCL in MW-01D, MW-03RD, MW-08B/C, MW-16D, MW-29B/C, and MW-34C/D, indicating a possible vertical boundary for the PCE plume in these locations. PCE was non-detect or below the MCL in MW-06, MW-23A/B/C, MW-24, MW-25A/B/C, MW-26A/B/C/D, MW-27, and MW-28, bounding the plume to the east. PCE was non-detect or below the MCL in MW-17S/D, MW-21, MW-22, MW-31A/B/C, and MW-36, providing a southern plume boundary. PCE was non-detect or below the MCL in MW-12D, MW- 15S/D, and MW-37S/D, bounding the plume to the west. PCE was non-detect at MW-30RA/RB/C, MW-32A/B/C, and MW-38S/D, bounding the plume to the north (Figure 4). TCE was detected at concentrations below the MCL (5 µg/L) in 26 of the 64 samples collected, with the highest detection at MW-14S (4.8 µg/L). Low-level (less than 1.2 µg/L) detections of cis- Section 3 • Groundwater Monitoring Results 3-3 1,2-dichloroethene were observed in 14 samples, with the highest detection at MW-03RB and MW-14S (both 1.2 µg/L). There were no detections of vinyl chloride. 3.2.2 1,4-Dioxane Analytical results for 1,4-dioxane are presented in Table 4. Because no MCL is established for 1,4- dioxane, results are screened against the RSL of 0.46 µg/L (EPA 2020). There were no detections of 1,4-dioxane. 3.2.3 General Chemistry Total (unfiltered) metal concentrations provide information on the general chemistry of groundwater (i.e., salinity), and redox conditions (i.e., redox sensitive metals such as arsenic). Analytical results for total (unfiltered) metals are presented in Table 5. The highest observed concentrations of redox sensitive metals were as follows: ▪ Concentrations of arsenic greater than 1 µg/L were observed at MW-25A, MW-27, MW-28, MW-29A/C, MW-31A, and MW-38S. ▪ Concentrations of iron greater than 500 µg/L were observed at MW-23A and MW-31C. ▪ Concentrations of manganese greater than 500 µg/L were observed at MW-23A and MW- 31C. DO, ORP, sulfate, nitrate, ferrous iron, and methane are geochemical parameters that can be used to evaluate redox conditions. Reductive dechlorination of PCE to TCE and cis-1,2-dichloroethene generally occurs under iron-reducing to sulfate-reducing conditions, while complete dechlorination to ethene and ethane generally occurs under sulfate-reducing to methanogenic conditions (EPA 2006). Conditions are considered aerobic when DO is greater than 0.5 milligrams per liter (mg/L), iron-reducing when ferrous iron is greater than 0.5 mg/L, and methanogenic when methane is greater than 1 mg/L (EPA 2006). As presented in Table 6, high DO (greater than 0.5 mg/L) at all locations (except for MW-37S) suggests that groundwater conditions at the site are generally aerobic. Low ferrous iron (less than 1.36 mg/L), low methane (less than 3.8 µg/L), and high sulfate (72.8 to 206 mg/L) in most wells further support the observation that conditions are generally aerobic (Table 6). Conditions are locally less aerobic at MW-23A (higher ferrous iron, negative ORP, and detectable methane), MW-31C (higher ferrous iron, low DO, negative ORP, and detectable methane), and MW-37S (low DO, negative ORP, and detectable methane). Chloride, alkalinity and TOC provide information on general water quality (i.e., salinity). Chloride concentrations ranged from 30.7 J mg/L (MW-34C) to 385 J- mg/L (MW-28). Alkalinity ranged from 212 mg/L (MW-31C) to 380 mg/L (MW-37S). TOC was less than 2 mg/L for all the samples, with the highest detection of 1.57mg/L at MW-27. 4-1 Section 4 Summary This report presents the results from the Q1-2021 groundwater monitoring event. Further analysis and evaluation of these results will be presented in the RI report. Groundwater flow directions are generally east to west. There are four distinct hydraulic zones in the subsurface: perched, shallow aquifer zone, deep aquifer zone, and intermediate zone. There is a hydraulic separation between the shallow and deep aquifer zones, likely because of the presence of a semiconfining silt/clay unit. The lateral extent of the perched and intermediate zones is unclear. Vertical gradients, which are typically strongly downward on campus, dissipate along the east to west groundwater flow path towards MW-34. West of MW-34, vertical head gradients generally shift upwards in the deeper portions of the shallow zone aquifer, with artesian conditions present in well MW-14D, just east of the fault. West of the fault, vertical head differences and the distinction between the shallow and deep aquifer zones are not observed. The piezometric head data collected allows for a more refined understanding of groundwater flow directions, gradients, and vertical head differences described above, as compared to manual water level measurements. This hydraulic framework, notably the separation of the aquifer into two distinct hydraulic zones, has been incorporated into the conceptual site model. The framework has also been compared with the other datasets collected from the wells, including lithologic and water quality data. Further refinements to the zonation of the system may be necessary upon review of the conceptual site model and will be incorporated into future reports. Non-detect wells define the vertical and horizontal extent of the PCE plume (Figure 4). The highest concentrations of PCE were detected in MW-02 (230 µg/L), MW-03RB (220 µg/L), and MW-01S (170 µg/L) (Figure 4). Along with VOCs, samples were collected for the determination of general chemistry, including ORP, DO, metals, sulfate, nitrate/nitrite, chloride, alkalinity, TOC, ferrous iron, and dissolved gases. These data were used to determine that the redox conditions at the site are generally aerobic. The observation of aerobic conditions and low concentrations of biodegradation daughter products suggest that biodegradation of PCE at the Site is limited. Further evaluation of plume delineation, concentration trends, and attenuation will be presented in the RI report. 5-1 Section 5 References CDM Smith. 2020a. Phase 2 Quality Assurance Project Plan, Operable Unit 1, 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. CDM Smith. 2020b. Phase 2 Remedial Investigation Work Plan, Operable Unit 1, 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Davis, F.D. 1983. Geologic Map of the Central Wasatch Front, Utah. Utah Geological and Mineral Survey. Map 54-A – Wasatch Front Series. EPA. 2020. Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) Generic Tables, accessed November 01, 2020, https://www.epa.gov/risk/regional-screening-levels-rsls. EPA. 2016. EPA On-line Tools for Site Assessment Calculation., accessed March 2, 2020, https://www3.epa.gov/ceampubl/learn2model/part-two/onsite/vgradient.html. EPA. 2006. Evaluation of the Role of Dehalococcoides Organisms in the Natural Attenuation of Chlorinated Ethylenes in Groundwater. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development. EPA 2005. Groundwater Sampling and Monitoring with Direct Push Technologies, Table 3.1. OSWER No. 9200.1-51, EPA 540/R-04/005 Jacobs. 2019. 2019 Indoor Air Data Summary Report, Operable Unit 2 Remedial Investigation 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Personius, S.F. and W.E. Scott. 2009. Surficial Geologic Map of the Salt Lake City Segment and Parts of Adjacent Segments of the Wasatch Fault Zone, Davis, Salt Lake, and Utah Counties, Utah. Figures &< &< !.!(!( !( !( ! ! ! &< &<&< &<&< &< &<&<&< &<&<&<&< &< &< &< &<&<&< &<&<&<&< &<&< &<&< &<&< &<&< &< &< &<&< &< &< &<&<&< &<&<&<&< &<&<&<&< &<&< &<&<&< &<&<&< &<&<&< &<&<&< &<&<&<&< ! Sunnyside Park University of Utah Well #2 University of Utah Well #1Fountain of Ute EPA-MW-03 EPA-MW-05 SLC-18EastBenchSegmentoftheWasatchFault1 EastBenchFaultSpur2 East Bench Fault Spur2 MW-01SMW-01D MW-02 MW-03R MW-04 MW-05R MW-06 MW-08 MW-12SMW-12D MW-13SMW-13D MW-14SMW-14D MW-15SMW-15D MW-16SMW-16D MW-17SMW-17D MW-18 MW-19 MW-20SMW-20D MW-21 MW-22 MW-23 MW-24MW-25 MW-26 MW-27 MW-28 MW-29 MW-30MW-30R MW-31 MW-32 MW-34 MW-36 MW-37SMW-37D MW-38SMW-38D MW-13L Mt. Olivet Well VA Medical CenterBuilding 7 East HighSchool Mt. OlivetCemetery 500 S GUARDSMAN WAY F O O T H IL L D R 700 S 800 S 500 S 1300 E 1100 E SUNNYSIDE AVE 900 S Red B utte Creek Figure 1Site Location MapLegend &<Monitoring Well &<Abandoned Monitoring Well !.Drinking Water Supply Well !(Irrigation Well !LandmarkRed Butte CreekFault Line File Path: J:\238824_VA_Medical_Salt_Lake\MXD\Sampling_2021\DSR_2021Q1\Fig1_DSR_SiteMap.mxd WAGNERA 6/14/2021 Map Area UTAH Notes:1. Location of University of Utah Well #1 is approximate; well is located less than 100 feet east of Fountain of Ute.2. Proposed monitoring wells MW-07, MW-09, MW-10, MW-11, MW-33, and MW-35 were not installed. OU = operable unitPCE = tetrachloroetheneVHA = Veterans Health Administration 1 Davis, F.D. 1983. Geologic Map of the Central Wasatch Front, Utah. Utah Geological and Mineral Survey. Map 54-A – Wasatch Front Series. May. 2 Personius, S.F. and Scott, W.E. 2009. Surficial Geologic Map of the Salt Lake City Segment and Parts of Adjacent Segments of the Wasatch Fault Zone, Davis, Salt Lake, and Utah Counties, Utah Q1 2021 Data Summary ReportOU1 700 South 1600 East PCE PlumeSalt Lake City, Utah 0 500 1,000Feet . !( ! ! &<&< &< &<&< &<&< &< &<&<&< &<&<&<&< &< &< &< &<&<&< &<&<&<&< &<&< &<&< &<&< &<&< &< &< &<&< &< &< &<&<&< &<&<&<&< &<&<&<&< &<&< &<&<&< &<&<&< &<&<&< &<&<&< &<&<&<&< ! Sunnyside Park MW-01S4508.24MW-01D4494.40 MW-024514.56 MW-03RA4509.13MW-03RB4496.45 MW-044520.71 MW-05R4523.04 MW-064555.07 MW-08A4479.72 MW-08C4487.70 MW-08B4481.47 MW-12SDRYMW-12D4305.71 MW-13S4469.04MW-13D4469.41 MW-14S4410.48MW-14D4420.55 MW-15S4298.84 MW-15D4298.07 MW-16S4443.68MW-16D4445.23 MW-17S4458.67MW-17D4465.24 MW-184477.23MW-194476.21 MW-20S4475.45MW-20D4475.27 MW-214498.34 MW-224499.26 MW-23A4523.41MW-23B4514.67 MW-244523.35 MW-26A4522.37 MW-29B4523.17 MW-29ANM MW-30RB4493.30MW-30C4493.32 MW-30RA4495.77 MW-31B4518.61 MW-31ANM MW-32A4482.89MW-32B4483.48MW-32C4484.08 MW-34C4493.34 MW-34B4492.66 MW-34ANM MW-03RC4494.21MW-03RD4494.15 MW-23C4495.37 MW-25A4522.34MW-25B4517.40MW-25C4494.87 MW-26B4517.23MW-26C4495.36MW-26D4495.21 MW-274523.77 MW-284525.12 MW-29C4520.27 MW-31C4506.29 MW-34D4493.22 MW-364384.06 MW-37S4330.24MW-37D4307.61 MW-38S4479.25MW-38D4478.35 MW-13L4466.88 4410 4 4 2 0 4530 4 4 3 0 4 4 4 0 4 4 5 0 4 4 6 0 4 4 7 0 4 4 9 0 4 4 8 0 4 5 1 0 4 5 0 0 4530 4 4 4 0 4 4 7 0 4490 4510 4 4 1 0 4 4 2 0 4 4 3 0 4 4 5 0 4 4 6 0 4 4 8 0 4520 Mt. Olivet Well VA Medical Center Building 7 East High School Mt. Olivet Cemetery 500 S F O O T H IL L D R 700 S 800 S 500 S 1300 E 1100 E SUNNYSIDE AVE 900 S Red B utte C reek Figure 2 Potentiometric Groundwater Surface Map - Shallow Aquifer Legend &<Monitoring Well !(Irrigation Well !Landmark Red Butte Creek Fault Line Groundwater Contour Groundwater Flow Direction File Path: J:\238824_VA_Medical_Salt_Lake\MXD\Sampling_2021\DSR_2021Q1\Fig2_DSR_GW_A_Aquifer.mxd WAGNERA 6/14/2021 8:23:05 AM Map Area UTAH Notes: 1. All ground surface elevations in feet amsl. 2. Measurements taken March 15th 2021. 3. Water levels shown in grey were not used for the generation of the potentiometric contours and are shown for information only. 4. Water level values for MW-14S/D and MW-17S/D were averaged during contouring. 5. Water level measurements for MW-29A, MW-31A, and MW-34A could not be obtained as the water level was above the pump intake, but below the volume boosters. Q1 2021 Data Summary Report OU1 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah 0 500 1,000Feet .Dashed Line - Inferred Extent amsl = above mean sea level OU = operable unit VHA = Veterans Health Administration !( ! ! &<&< &< &<&< &<&< &< &<&<&< &<&<&<&< &< &< &< &<&<&< &<&<&<&< &<&< &<&< &<&< &<&< &< &< &<&< &< &< &<&<&< &<&<&<&< &<&<&<&< &<&< &<&<&< &<&<&< &<&<&< &<&<&< &<&<&<&< ! Sunnyside Park EastBenchSegmentofth e W a s atc h F a ult1 East Bench Fault Spur2 E ast B e nch F a ult S p ur 2 MW-01S4508.24MW-01D4494.40 MW-024514.56 MW-044520.71 MW-05R4523.04 MW-064555.07 MW-12SDRY MW-12D4305.71 MW-13S4469.04MW-13D4469.41 MW-14S4410.48MW-14D4420.55MW-15S4298.84 MW-15D4298.07 MW-16S4443.68MW-16D4445.23 MW-17S4458.67MW-17D4465.24 MW-184477.23MW-194476.21 MW-20S4475.45MW-20D4475.27 MW-214498.34 MW-224499.26 MW-244523.35 MW-274523.77 MW-284525.12 MW-03RA4509.13MW-03RB4496.45MW-03RC4494.21MW-03RD4494.15 MW-08A4479.72 MW-08B4481.47MW-08C4487.70 MW-23A4523.41MW-23B4514.67MW-23C4495.37 MW-25A4522.34MW-25B4517.40MW-25C4494.87 MW-26A4522.37MW-26B4517.23MW-26C4495.36MW-26D4495.21 MW-29ANMMW-29B4523.17MW-29C4520.27 MW-30RA4495.77MW-30RB4493.30MW-30C4493.32 MW-31ANMMW-31B4518.61MW-31C4506.29 MW-32A4482.89MW-32B4483.48MW-32C4484.08 MW-34ANMMW-34B4492.66MW-34C4493.34MW-34D4493.22 MW-364384.06 MW-37S4330.24MW-37D4307.61 MW-38S4479.25MW-38D4478.35 MW-13L4466.88 4460 4470 4480 4500 4490 4 4 9 0 4470 4480 4500 Mt. Olivet Well VA Medical Center Building 7 East High School Mt. Olivet Cemetery 500 S F O O T H IL L D R 700 S 800 S 500 S 1300 E 1100 E SUNNYSIDE AVE 900 S Red B utte Creek Figure 3 Potentiometric Groundwater Surface Map - Deep Aquifer Legend &<Monitoring Well !(Irrigation Well !Landmark Red Butte Creek Fault Line Groundwater Contour Groundwater Flow Direction File Path: J:\238824_VA_Medical_Salt_Lake\MXD\Sampling_2021\DSR_2021Q1\Fig3_DSR_GW_B_Aquifer.mxd WAGNERA 6/14/2021 8:35:02 AM Map Area UTAH Notes: 1. All ground surface elevations in feet amsl 2. Measurements taken March 15th 2021. 3. Water levels shown in grey were not used for the generation of the potentiometric contours and are shown for information only. 4. Water level measurements for MW-29A, MW-31A, and MW-34A could not be obtained as the water level was above the pump intake, but below the volume boosters. Q1 2021 Data Summary Report OU1 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah 0 500 1,000Feet .Dashed Line - Inferred Extent amsl = above mean sea level OU = operable unit VHA = Veterans Health Administration !( &<&< &< &< &<&<&< &<&<&<&< &< &< &< &<&<&< &<&<&<&< &<&< &<&< &<&< &< &< &< &<&< &< &< &<&<&< &<&<&<&< &<&<&<&< &<&< &<&<&< &<&<&< &<&<&< &<&<&< &<&<&<&< &<&< &< MW-01S MW-02 MW-03R MW-04 MW-05R MW-06 MW-08 MW-12D MW-13S MW-14S MW-15S/D MW-16S MW-17S/D MW-18 MW-19 MW-20SMW-21 MW-22 MW-23 MW-24 MW-26 MW-27 MW-28 MW-29 MW-30 MW-31 MW-32 MW-34 MW-25 MW-38S/D MW-37S/D MW-36 MW-30R SUNNYSIDE AVE 500 S VALDEZ DR WAHLEN WAY GUARDSMAN WAY 700 S 800 S 1300 E 1100 E SUNNYSIDE AVE 900 S F O O T HIL L D R FOOTHILL DR Mt. Olivet Well R ed B utte Creek Figure 4Q1 2021 Groundwater PCE and TCE Results andApproximate Extent of PCE in Groundwater Legend &<Monitoring Well !(Irrigation WellMonitoring Well Transect LineRed Butte CreekFault Line File Path: J:\238824_VA_Medical_Salt_Lake\MXD\Sampling_2021\DSR_2021Q1\Fig4_DSR_PCE_and_TCE_in_GW_All.mxd WAGNERA 8/23/2021 Notes1. Proposed monitoring wells MW-07, MW-09, MW-10, MW-11, MW-33, and MW-35 were not installed.2. Plume contours were developed using Leapfrog 3-dimensional visualization software to interpolate data from the Q1 2021 groundwater sampling event. The contours represent a top-down view of the 3-dimensional extent of the plume as interpreted in the Leapfrog software.3. Monitoring wells without a result table did not have results above 5 μg/L for both PCE and TCE during the Q1 2021 groundwater sampling event. Dashed Line - Inferred Extent PCE Contours5 µg/L50 µg/L PCE and TCE Concentrations (µg/L) = < 5 µg/L = 5 - 50 µg/L = > 50 µg/L Q1 2021 Data Summary ReportOU1 700 South 1600 East PCE PlumeSalt Lake City, Utah ft bgs = feet below ground surfaceJ = Result is estimatedU = Analyte was not detected at the associated value 0 250 500Feet .OU = operable unitPCE = tetrachloroetheneTCE = trichloroetheneμg/L = micrograms per liter 3/17/2021PCE (μg/L)58TCE (μg/L)0.37 J 3/17/2021PCE (μg/L)4.3TCE (μg/L)1 U 3/17/2021PCE (μg/L)1 UTCE (μg/L)1 U MW-08A (91 - 106 ft bgs) MW-08B (180 - 200 ft bgs) MW-08C (304 - 309 ft bgs) 3/22/2021PCE (μg/L)25TCE (μg/L)1.1 3/21/2021PCE (μg/L)55TCE (μg/L)0.44 J 3/22/2021PCE (μg/L)51TCE (μg/L)0.29J MW-13S (15.5 - 20.5 ft bgs) MW-13D (79 - 84 ft bgs) MW-13L (150 - 160 ft bgs) 3/18/2021PCE (μg/L)6TCE (μg/L)4.8 3/18/2021PCE (μg/L)33TCE (μg/L)0.25 J MW-14S (4.5 - 14.5 ft bgs) MW-14D (49 - 54 ft bgs) 3/17/2021PCE (μg/L)23TCE (μg/L)0.16 J 3/17/2021PCE (μg/L)1 UTCE (μg/L)1 U MW-16S (9 - 19 ft bgs) MW-16D (62 - 72 ft bgs)3/21/2021PCE (μg/L)64TCE (μg/L)0.42 J MW-18 (80 - 90 ft bgs) 3/21/2021PCE (μg/L)56TCE (μg/L)0.43 J MW-19 (84 - 94 ft bgs) 3/19/2021PCE (μg/L)36TCE (μg/L)0.62 J 3/19/2021PCE (μg/L)16TCE (μg/L)0.49 J 3/19/2021PCE (μg/L)1 UTCE (μg/L)1 U 3/19/2021PCE (μg/L)1 UTCE (μg/L)1 U MW-34D (315 - 325 ft bgs) MW-34A (140 - 150 ft bgs) MW-34B (175 - 185 ft bgs) MW-34C (250 - 260 ft bgs) Building 6 Building 7 3/19/2021PCE (μg/L)5.4TCE (μg/L)0.12 J 3/19/2021PCE (μg/L)11TCE (μg/L)0.26 J MW-20S (79.5 - 89.5 ft bgs) MW-20D (119 - 129 ft bgs) 3/22/2021PCE (μg/L)42TCE (μg/L)0.19 J MW-04 (143 - 173 ft bgs) 3/21/2021PCE (μg/L)25TCE (μg/L)0.13 J 3/21/2021PCE (μg/L)220TCE (μg/L)1.7 3/21/2021PCE (μg/L)6.1TCE (μg/L)1 U 3/21/2021PCE (μg/L)1 UTCE (μg/L)1 U MW-03RD (359 - 364 ft bgs) MW-03RA (215 - 220 ft bgs) MW-03RB (267 - 272 ft bgs) MW-03RC (307 - 312 ft bgs) 3/23/2021PCE (μg/L)230TCE (μg/L)0.58 J MW-02 (175.5 - 202.5 ft bgs) 3/19/2021PCE (μg/L)11TCE (μg/L)0.17 J 3/19/2021PCE (μg/L)0.55 JTCE (μg/L)1 U 3/19/2021PCE (μg/L)1 UTCE (μg/L)1 U MW-29A (120 - 130 ft bgs) MW-29B (190 - 200 ft bgs) MW-29C (230 - 240 ft bgs) 3/22/2021PCE (μg/L)170TCE (μg/L)0.95 J 3/22/2021PCE (μg/L)1 UTCE (μg/L)1 U MW01S (184 - 224 ft bgs) MW-01D (364 - 404 ft bgs) Tables Table 1 Monitoring Well Survey Data and Construction Details Location Sample Interval Y Coordinate (Utah State Plane, ft)1 X Coordinate (Utah State Plane, ft)1 Surface Elevation (ft amsl)2 Top of casing elevation (ft amsl)2 Total Well Depth (ft bgs) Screen Start (ft bgs) Screen End (ft bgs) Pump Depth (ft bgs) Pump Type MW-01S -4664.80 224 184 224 204 Solinist bladder pump MW-01D -4664.80 404 364 404 384 Solinist bladder pump MW-02 -7443618.23 1545346.65 4685.76 4685.24 205.5 175.5 202.5 195 Solinist bladder pump A 4698.12 223 215 220 215 ZIST/Gas - with reciever B 4697.90 275 267 272 267 ZIST/Gas - with reciever C 4697.92 315 307 312 307 ZIST/Gas - with reciever D 4697.93 367 359 364 359 ZIST/Gas - with reciever MW-04 -7442902.88 1545176.20 4657.20 4656.85 173 143 173 160 Solinist bladder pump MW-05R -7444293.27 1546450.38 4738.25 4737.99 230 198 228 222 Solinist bladder pump MW-06 -7442705.05 1546174.37 4679.13 4678.66 134 100 130 128 Solinist bladder pump A 4539.81 106 91 106 99 Solinist bladder pump B 4539.77 200 180 200 190 Solinist bladder pump C 4539.68 312 304 309 304 ZIST/Gas - with reciever MW-12S -7442144.27 1540464.18 4360.35 4360.03 65 50 60 60 Solinist bladder pump MW-12D -7442139.2 1540464.27 4360.40 4360.07 95 88.5 93.5 90 Solinist bladder pump MW-13S -7442104.9 1541844.99 4483.26 4482.93 22 15.5 20.5 19 Solinist bladder pump MW-13D -7442104.65 1541840.18 4482.93 4482.62 90 79 84 82 Solinist bladder pump MW-13L -7442106.298 1541851.01 4483.67 4483.23 160 150 160 155 Solinist bladder pump MW-14S - 7441871.55 1541340.04 4415.96 4415.69 15 4.5 14.5 12 Solinist bladder pump MW-14D -7441874.22 1541345.22 4416.45 4415.93 65 49 54 NA Artesian MW-15S -7441412.92 1540276.55 4347.65 4347.35 65 52.5 55 54 Solinist bladder pump MW-15D -7441412.63 1540283.39 4347.99 4347.72 95 69 74 72 Solinist bladder pump MW-16S -7443049.27 1541188.74 4455.19 4454.83 20 9 19 16.0 Solinist bladder pump MW-16D -7443052.83 1541188.80 4455.32 4454.84 73 62 72 67 Solinist bladder pump MW-17S -7441761.45 1542156.28 4465.51 4465.18 22 6 21 20 Solinist bladder pump MW-17D - 7441762.17 1542159.83 4465.86 4465.69 70 44 54 NA Artesian/Solinst bladder pump MW-18 -7443344.52 1542789.74 4559.06 4558.76 110 80 90 88 Solinist bladder pump MW-19 -7443109.99 1542791.56 4557.51 4557.16 110 84 94 89 Solinist bladder pump MW-20S -7442822.74 1542905.98 4558.92 4558.61 90.8 79.5 89.5 88 Solinist bladder pump MW-20D -7442813.21 1542905.39 4558.46 4558.19 150 119 129 124 Solinist bladder pump MW-21 -7442343.24 1543130.25 4563.57 4563.32 80 62 72 70 Solinist bladder pump MW-22 - 7441969.31 1543122.59 4563.06 4562.72 120 64 74 72 Solinist bladder pump A 4711.80 222 210 220 210 ZIST/Gas - with reciever B 4711.77 262 250 260 250 ZIST/Gas - with reciever C 4711.69 360 348 358 348 ZIST/Gas - with reciever MW-24 -7443698.74 1546266.48 4709.77 4709.19 250 209.5 239.5 211 Solinist bladder pump A 4702.02 213 201 211 201 ZIST/Gas - with reciever B 4702.09 243 231 241 231 ZIST/Gas - with reciever C 4702.07 320 307.5 317.5 308 ZIST/Gas - with reciever A 4712.29 217 205 215 205 ZIST/Gas - with reciever B 4712.55 247 235 245 235 ZIST/Gas - with reciever C 4712.51 327 315 325 315 ZIST/Gas - with reciever D 4712.50 360 347.75 357.75 348 ZIST/Gas - with reciever MW-27 -7443766.76 1546337.14 4712.61 4712.34 220 200 220 210 Solinist bladder pump MW-28 -7443764.76 1546532.92 4712.80 4712.54 210 190 210 204 Solinist bladder pump A 4678.46 132 120 130 128 ZIST/Gas - w/o reciever B 4678.45 202 190 200 190 ZIST/Gas - with reciever C 4678.68 242 230 240 230 ZIST/Gas - with reciever RA 7445055.62 1545425.12 4722.89 4722.60 252 240 250 245 Solinist bladder pump RB 7445055.62 1545425.12 4722.89 4722.36 294 282 292 285 Solinist bladder pump C 7445073.45 1545424.98 4723.07 4721.92 329 317 327 317 ZIST/Gas - with reciever A 4654.27 150 138 148 138 ZIST/Gas - w/o reciever B 4654.39 202 190 200 190 ZIST/Gas - with reciever C 4654.35 230 228 238 228 ZIST/Gas - with reciever A 4565.67 126 114 124 119 Solinist bladder pump B 4565.63 182 170 180 170 ZIST/Gas - w/o reciever C 4565.59 272 260 270 260 ZIST/Gas - w/o reciever A 4623.09 152 140 150 148 ZIST/Gas - w/o reciever B 4622.71 187 175 185 175 ZIST/Gas - w/o reciever C 4622.63 262 250 260 250 ZIST/Gas - w/o reciever D 4622.58 327 315 325 315 ZIST/Gas - w/o reciever MW-36 -7440955.06 1541547.17 4429.01 4428.49 52 47 52 50 Solinist bladder pump MW-37S -7443160.46 1539938.63 4348.36 4348.00 35 25 35 30 Solinist bladder pump MW-37D -7443160.46 1539938.63 4348.36 4347.97 70 60 70 65 Solinist bladder pump MW-38S -7443931.79 1541593.58 4498.56 4497.64 37 27 37 32 Solinist bladder pump MW-38D -7443931.79 1541593.58 4498.56 4497.80 70 60 70 65 Solinist bladder pump Notes:Acronyms: 1 X/Y Coordinates measured using NAD 83 State Plane Coordinate System amsl = above mean sea level 2 Elevations measured using NAVD 88 vertical datum bgs = below ground surface ft = feet w/o = without ZIST = Zone Isolation Sampling Technology 7443498.84 1543745.66 4623.61 7442512.47 1545351.52 4655.22 7444416.40 1542692.62 4566.22 7442845.95 1545935.59 4679.35 7443676.94 1546071.97 4703.04 7443907.17 1546132.96 4713.25 7443625.54 1542467.21 4540.36 7443809.38 1546280.59 4712.47 7443663.78 1544832.82 4665.50 4698.747444184.94 1545418.19 MW-32 MW-34 MW-26 MW-29 MW-30 MW-03R MW-08 MW-23 MW-25 MW-31 Q1 2021 Data Summary Report Groundwater Sampling Event OU1 Remedial Investigation 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Page 1 of 1 Table 2 Groundwater Elevations and Transducer Locations and Download Dates Location Sample Interval Screen Start (ft bgs) Screen End (ft bgs) Top of Casing Elevation (ft amsl)1 Aquifer Zone Water Level Measurement Date and Time Water Level Depth (ft btoc) Water Level Elevation (ft amsl)1 Direction of Gradient2 Vertical Gradient2 Transducer Download Date and Time MW-01S - 184 224 4664.80 Shallow 3/15/21 13:40 156.56 4508.24 3/15/21 12:00 MW-01D - 364 404 4664.80 Deep 3/15/21 13:50 170.40 4494.40 3/15/21 12:00 MW-02 - 175.5 202.5 4685.24 Shallow 3/15/21 14:02 170.68 4514.56 - - - A 215 220 4698.12 Shallow 3/15/21 10:00 188.99 4509.13 - B 267 272 4697.90 Deep 3/15/21 201.45 201.45 4496.45 - C 307 312 4697.92 Deep 3/15/21 10:10 203.71 4494.21 - D 359 364 4697.93 Deep 3/15/21 10:15 203.78 4494.15 - MW-04 - 143 173 4656.85 Shallow 3/15/21 16:12 136.14 4520.71 - - 3/15/21 15:00 MW-05R - 198 228 4737.99 Shallow 3/15/21 14:40 214.95 4523.04 - - 3/15/21 13:00 MW-06 - 100 130 4678.66 Perched 3/15/21 15:18 123.59 4555.07 - - - A 91 106 4539.81 Shallow 3/15/21 15:40 60.09 4479.72 - B 180 200 4539.77 Shallow 3/15/21 15:45 58.30 4481.47 - C 304 309 4539.68 Deep 3/15/21 15:47 51.98 4487.70 - MW-12S - 50 60 4360.03 - 3/15/21 10:40 DRY DRY - MW-12D - 88.5 93.5 4360.07 - 3/15/21 13:10 54.36 4305.71 - MW-13S - 15.5 20.5 4482.93 Shallow 3/15/21 10:09 13.89 4469.04 - MW-13D - 79 84 4482.62 Shallow 3/15/21 10:12 13.21 4469.41 3/15/21 11:00 MW-13L 150 160 4483.23 Deep 3/15/21 10:14 16.35 4466.88 MW-14S - 4.5 14.5 4415.69 Shallow 3/15/21 9:41 5.21 4410.48 3/15/21 11:00 MW-14D* - 49 54 4415.93 Shallow 3/15/21 9:40 -4.62 4420.55 - MW-15S - 52.5 55 4347.35 - 3/15/21 10:26 48.51 4298.84 - MW-15D - 69 74 4347.72 - 3/15/21 10:25 49.65 4298.07 3/15/21 12:00 MW-16S - 9 19 4454.83 Shallow 3/15/21 11:04 11.15 4443.68 - MW-16D - 62 72 4454.84 Shallow 3/15/21 11:03 9.61 4445.23 3/15/21 12:00 MW-17S - 6 21 4465.18 Shallow 3/15/21 9:51 6.51 4458.67 - MW-17D - 44 54 4465.69 Shallow 3/15/21 9:55 0.45 4465.24 - MW-18 - 80 90 4558.76 Shallow 3/15/21 12:12 81.53 4477.23 - -- MW-19 - 84 94 4557.16 Shallow 3/15/21 12:10 80.95 4476.21 - -- MW-20S - 79.5 89.5 4558.61 Shallow 3/15/21 11:45 83.16 4475.45 3/15/21 10:00 MW-20D - 119 129 4558.19 Shallow 3/15/21 11:47 82.92 4475.27 3/15/21 10:00 MW-21 - 62 72 4563.32 Shallow 3/15/21 12:27 64.98 4498.34 - -3/15/21 11:00 MW-22 - 64 74 4562.72 Shallow 3/15/21 12:35 63.46 4499.26 - -3/15/21 11:00 A 210 220 4711.80 Shallow 3/15/21 12;17 188.39 4523.41 - B 250 260 4711.77 Intermediate 3/15/21 12:21 197.10 4514.67 - C 348 358 4711.69 Deep 3/15/21 12:27 216.32 4495.37 - MW-24 - 209.5 239.5 4709.19 Shallow 3/15/21 11:!9 185.84 4523.35 - - - A 201 211 4702.02 Shallow 3/15/21 10:43 179.68 4522.34 - B 231 241 4702.09 Intermediate 3/15/21 10:48 184.69 4517.40 - C 307.5 317.5 4702.07 Deep 3/15/21 10:53 207.20 4494.87 - A 205 215 4712.29 Shallow 3/15/21 11:28 189.92 4522.37 - B 235 245 4712.55 Intermediate 3/15/21 11:30 195.32 4517.23 - C 315 325 4712.51 Deep 3/15/21 11:35 217.15 4495.36 - D 347.75 357.75 4712.50 Deep 3/15/21 11:50 217.29 4495.21 - MW-27 - 200 220 4712.34 Shallow 3/15/21 12:07 188.57 4523.77 - - - MW-28 - 190 210 4712.54 Shallow 3/15/21 16:02 187.42 4525.12 - - - A 120 130 4678.46 Perched 3/15/21 12:40 NM3 NM3 - B 190 200 4678.45 Shallow 3/15/21 12:40 155.28 4523.17 - C 230 240 4678.68 Intermediate 3/15/21 13:00 158.41 4520.27 - A 240 250 4722.60 Deep 3/15/21 9:15 226.83 4495.77 - B 282 292 4722.36 Deep 3/15/21 9:20 229.06 4493.30 - MW-30 C 317 327 4721.92 Deep 3/15/21 9:25 228.60 4493.32 - A 138 148 4654.27 Shallow 3/15/21 13:10 NM3 NM3 - B 190 200 4654.39 Shallow 3/15/21 13:19 135.78 4518.61 - C 228 238 4654.35 Deep 3/15/21 13:25 148.06 4506.29 - A 114 124 4565.67 Shallow 3/15/21 15:24 82.78 4482.89 - B 170 180 4565.63 Shallow 3/15/21 15:20 82.15 4483.48 - C 260 270 4565.59 Deep 3/15/21 15:36 81.51 4484.08 - A 140 150 4623.09 Shallow 3/15/21 14:10 NM3 NM3 -- B 175 185 4622.71 Shallow 3/15/21 14:40 130.05 4492.66 3/15/21 15:00 C 250 260 4622.63 Deep 3/15/21 14:43 129.29 4493.34 3/15/21 14:00 D 315 325 4622.58 Deep 3/15/21 14:46 129.36 4493.22 3/15/21 14:00 MW-36 -47 52 4428.49 - 3/15/21 9:30 44.43 4384.06 - - - MW-37S -25 35 4348.00 - 3/15/21 10:50 17.76 4330.24 - MW-37D -60 70 4347.97 - 3/15/21 10:51 40.36 4307.61 - MW-38S -27 37 4497.64 Shallow 3/15/21 13:27 18.39 4479.25 - MW-38D -60 70 4497.80 Shallow 3/15/21 13:26 19.45 4478.35 - Notes:Acronyms: 1 Elevations measured using NAVD 88 vertical datum amsl = above mean sea level 2 Direction and magnitude of vertical gradient is calculated between shallow and deep aquifers in paired/nested wells bgs = below ground surface 3 Water level measurements could not be obtained as the water level was above the pump intake, but below the volume boosters btoc = below top of casing *Water level measured using pressure gauge, converted to height above top of casing (head [ft] = pressure [psi] x 2.31) ft = feet NA = not applicable NM = not measured psi = pounds per square inch 0.17 0.00down MW-31 MW-29 MW-26 MW-25 down 0.05 up 0.00 -- -- up MW-03R MW-23 MW-08 MW-34 MW-32 up 0.03 down 0.04 -- up 0.22 down 0.02 down 0.07 -- up 0.04 down 0.22 MW-30R 0.83 down 0.02 down 0.21 down 0.26 down 0.27 NA 0.01 NA 0.00 down Q1 2021 Data Summary Report Groundwater Sampling Event OU1 Remedial Investigation 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Page 1 of 1 Table 3 Groundwater Sampling Analytes Analysis Method Sample Container Number of Containers Preservative VOCs EPA Method SW8260C 40 mL VOA 3 HCl to pH < 2, 4°C (±2°C) 1,4-Dioxane EPA Method SW8270D 1 L amber glass 2 4°C (±2°C) Dissolved Gases EPA Method RSK-175 40 mL VOA 3 HCl to pH < 2, 4°C (±2°C) Total Metals (unfiltered) EPA Method SW6020A/SW7470A 250 mL HDPE 1 HNO3 to pH < 2, 4°C (±2°C) Alkalinity1 EPA Method SM2320B 250 mL HDPE 1 4°C (±2°C) Anions (sulfate, chloride) EPA Method E300.0 250 mL HDPE 1 4°C (±2°C) TOC EPA Method SW9060A 250 mL amber glass 1 H2SO4 to pH < 2, 4°C (±2°C) Nitrate and Nitrite as Total Nitrogen EPA Method SM4500-NO3E 125 mL HDPE 1 H2SO4 to pH < 2, 4°C (±2°C) Notes: 1 Anions and Alkalinity are collected in the same container Acronyms: °C = degrees Celcius EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency HCl = hydrochloric acid HDPE = high density polyethylene HNO3 = nitric acid H2SO4 = sulfuric acid L = liter mL = milliliter TOC = total organic carbon VOA = volatile organic analysis vial VOCs = volatile organic compounds Q1 2021 Data Summary Report Groundwater Sampling Event OU1 Remedial Investigation 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Page 1 of 1 Table 4 1,4-Dioxane and Detected VOC Analytical Results Analyte Screening Level Unit Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q 1,4-Dioxane 0.46b µg/L 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 200a µg/L 1 U 0.1 J 1 U 1 U 0.13 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1,1-Dichloroethane 2.8b µg/L 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1,1-Dichloroethene 7a µg/L 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.12 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U Acetone 1400 µg/L 20 U 4.3 J 20 U 3.5 J 3.5 J 5 J 4.2 J 4.1 J 4 J Benzene 5a µg/L 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U Bromodichloromethane 80a µg/L 1 U 0.33 J 0.34 J 0.42 J 0.44 J 0.16 J 1 U 0.29 J 0.3 J Carbon Tetrachloride 5a µg/L 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U Chloroform 80a µg/L 0.17 J 4.2 4.2 5.2 3.6 1.5 1 U 4 4 Chloromethane 190b µg/L 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 70a µg/L 1 U 0.44 J 0.36 J 1 U 1.2 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U Dichlorodifluoromethane 20 µg/L 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U Tetrachloroethene 5a µg/L 1 U 170 230 25 220 6.1 1 U 42 42 Trichloroethene 5a µg/L 1 U 0.95 J 0.58 J 0.13 J 1.7 1 U 1 U 0.2 J 0.19 J Trichlorofluoromethane 5200b µg/L 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U Vinyl Chloride 2 µg/L 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U Notes: a Screening level is EPA MCL b Screening level is EPA Tap Water RSL (target cancer risk 1 x 10-6, hazard quotient = 1) Highlight indicates values greater than screening level Bold indicates detected values Italics indicates nondetected values Acronyms: VOC = volatile organic compound µg/L = microgram per liter EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency MCL = maximum contaminant level NS = not sampled RSL = regional screening level Q = qualifier J = Result is estimated U = Analyte was not detected at the associated value, which is the reporting limit MW-03RD MW03RD- GW032121 3/21/2021 FD01- GW032221 3/22/2021 MW04- GW032221 3/22/2021 MW-04 3/23/2021 MW-03RB MW03RB- GW032121 3/21/2021 MW-03RC MW03RC- GW032121 3/21/2021 MW-02 MW-03RA NS NS NSNS NS NS NS NS Location Sample Name Sample Date MW-01D MW01D- GW032221 3/22/2021 MW-01S MW01S- GW032221 3/22/2021 MW03RA- GW032121 3/21/2021 MW02- GW032321 NS Q1 2021 Data Summary Report Groundwater Sampling Event OU1 Remedial Investigation 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Page 1 of 8 Table 4 1,4-Dioxane and Detected VOC Analytical Results Analyte Screening Level Unit 1,4-Dioxane 0.46b µg/L 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 200a µg/L 1,1-Dichloroethane 2.8b µg/L 1,1-Dichloroethene 7a µg/L Acetone 1400 µg/L Benzene 5a µg/L Bromodichloromethane 80a µg/L Carbon Tetrachloride 5a µg/L Chloroform 80a µg/L Chloromethane 190b µg/L cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 70a µg/L Dichlorodifluoromethane 20 µg/L Tetrachloroethene 5a µg/L Trichloroethene 5a µg/L Trichlorofluoromethane 5200b µg/L Vinyl Chloride 2 µg/L Notes: a Screening level is EPA MCL b Screening level is EPA Tap Water RSL (target cancer risk 1 x 10-6, hazard quotient = 1) Highlight indicates values greater than screening level Bold indicates detected values Italics indicates nondetected values Acronyms: VOC = volatile organic compound µg/L = microgram per liter EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency MCL = maximum contaminant level NS = not sampled RSL = regional screening level Q = qualifier J = Result is estimated U = Analyte was not detected at the associated value, which is the reporting limit Location Sample Name Sample Date Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q 1 U 0.49 J 0.49 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.44 J 0.43 J 0.15 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.11 J 1 U 0.14 J 0.18 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.21 J 0.21 J 1 U 4.9 J 2.5 J 20 U 3.7 J 5.4 J 3.1 J 5.6 J 20 U 20 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.12 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.27 J 0.47 J 0.46 J 0.16 J 1 U 0.42 J 0.21 J 0.2 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 2.3 4.1 4.3 1.7 0.14 J 5.7 2 1.9 1 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.18 J 0.19 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.28 J 0.26 J 0.19 J 1 U 1 U 0.17 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.18 J 56 58 4.3 1 U 1 U 56 55 25 1 U 0.38 J 0.37 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.43 J 0.44 J 1.1 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U MW-13S MW13S- GW032221 3/22/2021 MW-08C MW-12D MW-13D MW13D- GW032121 3/21/2021 MW12D- GW031721 3/17/2021 MW08C- GW031721 3/17/2021 FD03- GW032121 3/21/2021 MW08A- GW031721 3/17/2021 FD02- GW031721 3/17/2021 MW-08B MW08B- GW031721 3/17/2021 MW-08A MW06- GW032221 3/22/2021 MW-06 NS NSNS NS NSNS NS NS NS Q1 2021 Data Summary Report Groundwater Sampling Event OU1 Remedial Investigation 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Page 2 of 8 Table 4 1,4-Dioxane and Detected VOC Analytical Results Analyte Screening Level Unit 1,4-Dioxane 0.46b µg/L 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 200a µg/L 1,1-Dichloroethane 2.8b µg/L 1,1-Dichloroethene 7a µg/L Acetone 1400 µg/L Benzene 5a µg/L Bromodichloromethane 80a µg/L Carbon Tetrachloride 5a µg/L Chloroform 80a µg/L Chloromethane 190b µg/L cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 70a µg/L Dichlorodifluoromethane 20 µg/L Tetrachloroethene 5a µg/L Trichloroethene 5a µg/L Trichlorofluoromethane 5200b µg/L Vinyl Chloride 2 µg/L Notes: a Screening level is EPA MCL b Screening level is EPA Tap Water RSL (target cancer risk 1 x 10-6, hazard quotient = 1) Highlight indicates values greater than screening level Bold indicates detected values Italics indicates nondetected values Acronyms: VOC = volatile organic compound µg/L = microgram per liter EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency MCL = maximum contaminant level NS = not sampled RSL = regional screening level Q = qualifier J = Result is estimated U = Analyte was not detected at the associated value, which is the reporting limit Location Sample Name Sample Date Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q 0.44 U 0.42 U 0.59 J 0.58 J 0.42 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.27 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.23 J 0.17 J 0.2 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 20 U 3 J 4.1 J 3.4 J 20 U 3.1 J 20 U 20 U 20 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.23 J 0.22 J 0.24 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.16 J 0.19 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 2.2 2.2 1.9 0.2 J 3.5 3 1.7 5 2.3 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.51 J 0.5 J 0.29 J 1.2 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 51 51 33 6 0.16 J 0.34 J 1 U 23 2.8 0.29 J 0.29 J 0.25 J 4.8 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.16 J 0.1 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U MW-16D MW16D- GW031721 3/17/2021 MW-16S MW16S- GW031721 3/17/2021 MW-17D MW17D- GW031921 3/19/2021 MW-14S MW14S- GW031821 3/18/2021 MW-15D MW15D- GW031621 3/16/2021 MW-15S MW15S- GW031621 3/16/2021 MW13L- GW032221 3/22/2021 MW-13L MW-14D MW14D- GW031821 3/18/2021 FD04- GW032221 3/22/2021 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS Q1 2021 Data Summary Report Groundwater Sampling Event OU1 Remedial Investigation 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Page 3 of 8 Table 4 1,4-Dioxane and Detected VOC Analytical Results Analyte Screening Level Unit 1,4-Dioxane 0.46b µg/L 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 200a µg/L 1,1-Dichloroethane 2.8b µg/L 1,1-Dichloroethene 7a µg/L Acetone 1400 µg/L Benzene 5a µg/L Bromodichloromethane 80a µg/L Carbon Tetrachloride 5a µg/L Chloroform 80a µg/L Chloromethane 190b µg/L cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 70a µg/L Dichlorodifluoromethane 20 µg/L Tetrachloroethene 5a µg/L Trichloroethene 5a µg/L Trichlorofluoromethane 5200b µg/L Vinyl Chloride 2 µg/L Notes: a Screening level is EPA MCL b Screening level is EPA Tap Water RSL (target cancer risk 1 x 10-6, hazard quotient = 1) Highlight indicates values greater than screening level Bold indicates detected values Italics indicates nondetected values Acronyms: VOC = volatile organic compound µg/L = microgram per liter EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency MCL = maximum contaminant level NS = not sampled RSL = regional screening level Q = qualifier J = Result is estimated U = Analyte was not detected at the associated value, which is the reporting limit Location Sample Name Sample Date Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q 1 U 0.57 J 0.47 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.15 J 0.19 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.19 J 0.19 J 0.22 J 0.15 J 1 U 0.33 J 0.2 J 0.48 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1.7 2.5 2.2 1.8 1.7 2.6 2.7 5.4 7.5 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.17 J 0.19 J 0.12 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.88 J 64 56 11 5.4 1.3 3 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.42 J 0.43 J 0.26 J 0.12 J 1 U 0.11 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U MW-23A MW23A- GW031621 3/16/2021 MW-23B MW23B- GW031621 3/16/2021 MW-20S MW20S- GW031921 3/19/2021 MW-21 MW21- GW031621 3/16/2021 MW-22 MW22- GW032121 3/21/2021 MW-17S MW17S- GW031921 3/19/2021 MW-18 MW18- GW032121 3/21/2021 MW20D- GW031921 3/19/2021 MW19- GW032121 3/21/2021 MW-19 MW-20D NS NS NSNS NS NS NS NS NS Q1 2021 Data Summary Report Groundwater Sampling Event OU1 Remedial Investigation 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Page 4 of 8 Table 4 1,4-Dioxane and Detected VOC Analytical Results Analyte Screening Level Unit 1,4-Dioxane 0.46b µg/L 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 200a µg/L 1,1-Dichloroethane 2.8b µg/L 1,1-Dichloroethene 7a µg/L Acetone 1400 µg/L Benzene 5a µg/L Bromodichloromethane 80a µg/L Carbon Tetrachloride 5a µg/L Chloroform 80a µg/L Chloromethane 190b µg/L cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 70a µg/L Dichlorodifluoromethane 20 µg/L Tetrachloroethene 5a µg/L Trichloroethene 5a µg/L Trichlorofluoromethane 5200b µg/L Vinyl Chloride 2 µg/L Notes: a Screening level is EPA MCL b Screening level is EPA Tap Water RSL (target cancer risk 1 x 10-6, hazard quotient = 1) Highlight indicates values greater than screening level Bold indicates detected values Italics indicates nondetected values Acronyms: VOC = volatile organic compound µg/L = microgram per liter EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency MCL = maximum contaminant level NS = not sampled RSL = regional screening level Q = qualifier J = Result is estimated U = Analyte was not detected at the associated value, which is the reporting limit Location Sample Name Sample Date Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q 0.44 U 0.4 U 1 U 1 U 0.11 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.4 J 0.43 J 0.58 J 0.38 J 0.34 J 0.5 J 0.4 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.12 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 7.1 7 8.4 3.1 5.2 7.4 3.3 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.16 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1.6 1 U 1.1 1 U 1 U 0.79 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.14 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U MW-26C MW26C- GW031821 3/18/2021 MW-26D MW26D- GW031821 3/18/2021 MW-25C MW25C- GW032121 3/21/2021 MW-26A MW26A- GW031721 3/17/2021 MW-26B MW26B- GW031721 3/17/2021 MW-24 MW24- GW032121 3/21/2021 MW-25A MW25A- GW032121 3/21/2021 MW-25B MW25B- GW032121 3/21/2021 MW-23C MW23C- GW031621 3/16/2021 NS NS NS NSNS NS NS Q1 2021 Data Summary Report Groundwater Sampling Event OU1 Remedial Investigation 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Page 5 of 8 Table 4 1,4-Dioxane and Detected VOC Analytical Results Analyte Screening Level Unit 1,4-Dioxane 0.46b µg/L 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 200a µg/L 1,1-Dichloroethane 2.8b µg/L 1,1-Dichloroethene 7a µg/L Acetone 1400 µg/L Benzene 5a µg/L Bromodichloromethane 80a µg/L Carbon Tetrachloride 5a µg/L Chloroform 80a µg/L Chloromethane 190b µg/L cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 70a µg/L Dichlorodifluoromethane 20 µg/L Tetrachloroethene 5a µg/L Trichloroethene 5a µg/L Trichlorofluoromethane 5200b µg/L Vinyl Chloride 2 µg/L Notes: a Screening level is EPA MCL b Screening level is EPA Tap Water RSL (target cancer risk 1 x 10-6, hazard quotient = 1) Highlight indicates values greater than screening level Bold indicates detected values Italics indicates nondetected values Acronyms: VOC = volatile organic compound µg/L = microgram per liter EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency MCL = maximum contaminant level NS = not sampled RSL = regional screening level Q = qualifier J = Result is estimated U = Analyte was not detected at the associated value, which is the reporting limit Location Sample Name Sample Date Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.14 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.13 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 20 U 5.3 J 5 J 20 U 20 U 5.8 J 20 U 3.8 J 20 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.36 J 0.4 J 0.48 J 0.46 J 0.43 J 0.36 J 0.54 J 0.54 J 0.63 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 5.4 5.3 6.8 5.4 4.5 5.1 6.5 6.4 6 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 11 0.55 J 1 U 0.35 J 0.18 J 0.18 J 1 U 0.11 J 0.18 J 0.17 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.29 J 0.29 J 0.18 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.19 J 1 U 1 U 0.24 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U NS NS MW-29C MW29C- GW031921 3/19/2021 MW-30C MW30C- GW031621 3/16/2021 MW-30RB MW30RB- GW031621 3/16/2021 FD05- GW031621 3/16/2021 MW30RA- GW031621 3/16/2021 MW-30RAMW-28 MW28- GW032121 3/21/2021 MW-29A MW29A- GW031921 3/19/2021 MW-29B MW29B- GW031921 3/19/2021 MW-27 MW27- GW031621 3/16/2021 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS Q1 2021 Data Summary Report Groundwater Sampling Event OU1 Remedial Investigation 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Page 6 of 8 Table 4 1,4-Dioxane and Detected VOC Analytical Results Analyte Screening Level Unit 1,4-Dioxane 0.46b µg/L 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 200a µg/L 1,1-Dichloroethane 2.8b µg/L 1,1-Dichloroethene 7a µg/L Acetone 1400 µg/L Benzene 5a µg/L Bromodichloromethane 80a µg/L Carbon Tetrachloride 5a µg/L Chloroform 80a µg/L Chloromethane 190b µg/L cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 70a µg/L Dichlorodifluoromethane 20 µg/L Tetrachloroethene 5a µg/L Trichloroethene 5a µg/L Trichlorofluoromethane 5200b µg/L Vinyl Chloride 2 µg/L Notes: a Screening level is EPA MCL b Screening level is EPA Tap Water RSL (target cancer risk 1 x 10-6, hazard quotient = 1) Highlight indicates values greater than screening level Bold indicates detected values Italics indicates nondetected values Acronyms: VOC = volatile organic compound µg/L = microgram per liter EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency MCL = maximum contaminant level NS = not sampled RSL = regional screening level Q = qualifier J = Result is estimated U = Analyte was not detected at the associated value, which is the reporting limit Location Sample Name Sample Date Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.14 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 5.8 J 20 U 3.2 J 4.6 J 20 U 3.9 J 3.5 J 7.8 J 20 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.33 J 0.43 J 1 U 0.35 J 0.34 J 0.1 J 1 U 0.33 J 0.29 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 3 3.7 0.86 J 5.6 5.4 1.8 0.9 J 2.9 2.1 1 U 1 U 0.2 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.25 J 0.49 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.55 J 1 U 1 U 0.39 J 0.44 J 0.32 J 1 U 36 16 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.62 J 0.49 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U NS MW-32C MW32C- GW031721 3/17/2021 MW-34A MW34A- GW031921 3/19/2021 MW-34B MW34B- GW031921 3/19/2021 FD06- GW031721 3/17/2021 MW32A- GW031721 3/17/2021 MW-32B MW32B- GW031721 3/17/2021 MW-32AMW-31A MW31A- GW031821 3/18/2021 MW-31B MW31B- GW031821 3/18/2021 MW-31C MW31C- GW031821 3/18/2021 NS NS NS NS NS NSNS NS Q1 2021 Data Summary Report Groundwater Sampling Event OU1 Remedial Investigation 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Page 7 of 8 Table 4 1,4-Dioxane and Detected VOC Analytical Results Analyte Screening Level Unit 1,4-Dioxane 0.46b µg/L 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 200a µg/L 1,1-Dichloroethane 2.8b µg/L 1,1-Dichloroethene 7a µg/L Acetone 1400 µg/L Benzene 5a µg/L Bromodichloromethane 80a µg/L Carbon Tetrachloride 5a µg/L Chloroform 80a µg/L Chloromethane 190b µg/L cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 70a µg/L Dichlorodifluoromethane 20 µg/L Tetrachloroethene 5a µg/L Trichloroethene 5a µg/L Trichlorofluoromethane 5200b µg/L Vinyl Chloride 2 µg/L Notes: a Screening level is EPA MCL b Screening level is EPA Tap Water RSL (target cancer risk 1 x 10-6, hazard quotient = 1) Highlight indicates values greater than screening level Bold indicates detected values Italics indicates nondetected values Acronyms: VOC = volatile organic compound µg/L = microgram per liter EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency MCL = maximum contaminant level NS = not sampled RSL = regional screening level Q = qualifier J = Result is estimated U = Analyte was not detected at the associated value, which is the reporting limit Location Sample Name Sample Date Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 5.5 J 4.9 J 5.8 J 3.5 J 4.3 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.43 J 0.38 J 0.62 J 1.8 2.3 3.3 1 U 0.16 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U NS NS MW-37D MW-37S NS NS NS NS NS MW-38D MW38D- GW031821 3/18/2021 MW-38S MW38S- GW031721 3/17/2021 MW36- GW031621 3/16/2021 MW37S- GW031721 3/17/2021 MW37D- GW031721 3/17/2021 MW-34C MW34C- GW031921 3/19/2021 FD07- GW031621 3/16/2021 MW34D- GW031921 3/19/2021 MW-34D MW-36 NS Q1 2021 Data Summary Report Groundwater Sampling Event OU1 Remedial Investigation 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Page 8 of 8 Table 5 Metals Analytical Results Analyte Unit Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Aluminum µg/L 151 143 56.9 J 80.9 J 100 U 64.1 J 90.9 J 100 U 93.6 J 100 U Antimony µg/L 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U Arsenic µg/L 0.741 J 0.747 J 0.698 J 0.84 J 0.358 J 0.989 J 1.07 0.704 J 0.589 J 0.853 J Barium µg/L 47 48.2 82.3 49.4 22.7 64.9 65.2 48.9 27.8 73.6 Beryllium µg/L 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U Cadmium µg/L 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U Calcium µg/L 137000 144000 171000 148000 138000 159000 171000 156000 120000 161000 Chromium µg/L 1.19 1.24 0.255 J 0.689 J 0.452 J 15.3 0.983 J 0.488 J 0.808 J 0.646 J Cobalt µg/L 0.585 J 0.593 J 0.793 J 0.163 J 0.389 J 0.336 J 0.192 J 0.145 J 0.124 J 0.254 J Copper µg/L 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 1.47 J 2 U 2 U 2.27 Iron µg/L 303 284 1490 176 41.1 J 96.8 J 122 100 U 127 100 U Lead µg/L 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.236 J Magnesium µg/L 53000 52800 58700 53300 40300 56800 60600 54400 39100 56900 Manganese µg/L 172 175 691 22.2 166 42.5 9.45 40.9 13 43.8 Mercury µg/L 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U Nickel µg/L 1.55 1.54 9.23 1.91 4.34 3.87 13 1.08 1.84 9.6 Potassium µg/L 2300 2310 3240 1990 2170 2420 2420 2010 1890 2640 Selenium µg/L 0.901 J 0.884 J 0.436 J 0.77 J 1.09 0.714 J 0.791 J 0.889 J 1.23 0.74 J Silver µg/L 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.509 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U Sodium µg/L 37800 37700 125000 40600 28100 113000 110000 39400 25500 131000 Thallium µg/L 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U Vanadium µg/L 1.66 1.67 0.728 J 1.97 1.23 2.3 2.4 1.57 1.94 1.9 Zinc µg/L 69.7 75.3 20 U 19.2 J 6.25 J 8.52 J 18.7 J 20 U 20 U 81.5 Notes: Bold indicates detected values Italics indicates nondetected values Acronyms: µg/L = microgram per liter Q = qualifier J = Result is estimated U = Analyte was not detected at the associated value, which is the reporting limit Sample Date FD04- GW032221 3/22/2021 MW13L- GW032221 3/22/2021 Location Sample Name MW-13L 3/16/2021 MW23A- GW031621 3/16/2021 MW-23C MW23C- GW031621 3/16/2021 MW-23A MW-23B MW23B- GW031621 3/21/2021 MW-25A MW25A- GW032121 3/21/2021 MW-25B MW25B- GW032121 3/21/2021 MW-24 MW24- GW032121 3/17/2021 MW25C- GW032121 3/21/2021 MW26A- GW031721 MW-25C MW-26A Q1 2021 Data Summary Report Groundwater Sampling Event OU1 Remedial Investigation 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Page 1 of 4 Table 5 Metals Analytical Results Analyte Unit Aluminum µg/L Antimony µg/L Arsenic µg/L Barium µg/L Beryllium µg/L Cadmium µg/L Calcium µg/L Chromium µg/L Cobalt µg/L Copper µg/L Iron µg/L Lead µg/L Magnesium µg/L Manganese µg/L Mercury µg/L Nickel µg/L Potassium µg/L Selenium µg/L Silver µg/L Sodium µg/L Thallium µg/L Vanadium µg/L Zinc µg/L Notes: Bold indicates detected values Italics indicates nondetected values Acronyms: µg/L = microgram per liter Q = qualifier J = Result is estimated U = Analyte was not detected at the associated value, which is the reporting limit Sample Date Location Sample Name Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q 100 U 100 U 100 U 100 U 100 U 100 U 39 J 55.5 J 100 U 100 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.759 J 0.48 J 0.302 J 1.22 1.29 1.49 0.477 J 1.02 0.482 J 0.522 J 52.7 29.7 30.8 65.2 82.4 68 46.9 34.8 78.3 81.8 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 154000 116000 133000 165000 167000 131000 157000 146000 176000 176000 0.458 J 0.397 J 0.579 J 4.42 14.4 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.699 J 0.788 J 0.184 J 0.37 J 0.432 J 0.164 J 0.254 J 0.114 J 0.831 J 0.12 J 0.162 J 0.177 J 2 U 2 U 2 U 0.551 J 2 U 0.58 J 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 100 U 100 U 58.7 J 100 U 73.6 J 100 U 71.1 J 67.8 J 100 U 100 U 0.0704 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.101 J 0.0707 J 0.0807 J 1 U 1 U 52200 37700 39600 56900 58400 43900 52200 49400 71600 66900 34.7 91.6 91 1.45 17.4 0.384 J 200 1.79 25.5 26.6 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 1.65 2.36 2.53 2.47 4.94 2.85 2.35 0.591 J 0.528 J 0.623 J 2080 1950 2160 2590 2680 2050 2140 1960 2820 2800 0.794 J 0.958 J 0.78 J 0.742 J 0.751 J 0.664 J 0.885 J 1.07 0.607 J 0.643 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 46700 27100 29100 139000 160000 95200 38900 33400 68000 66600 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1.81 1.6 0.983 J 2.36 2.09 2.5 1.25 2.33 1.27 1.31 20 U 20 U 6.41 J 20 U 20 U 6.67 J 9.46 J 27 20 U 20 U MW26C- GW031821 3/18/2021 MW26B- GW031721 3/17/2021 3/18/2021 MW28- GW032121 3/21/2021 MW27- GW031621 3/16/2021 MW-29A MW29A- GW031921 3/19/2021 MW-26D MW26D- GW031821 3/19/2021 MW-29C MW29C- GW031921 3/19/2021 MW-29B MW29B- GW031921 MW-30RA 3/16/2021 MW30RA- GW031621 3/16/2021 FD05- GW031621 MW-26B MW-26C MW-27 MW-28 Q1 2021 Data Summary Report Groundwater Sampling Event OU1 Remedial Investigation 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Page 2 of 4 Table 5 Metals Analytical Results Analyte Unit Aluminum µg/L Antimony µg/L Arsenic µg/L Barium µg/L Beryllium µg/L Cadmium µg/L Calcium µg/L Chromium µg/L Cobalt µg/L Copper µg/L Iron µg/L Lead µg/L Magnesium µg/L Manganese µg/L Mercury µg/L Nickel µg/L Potassium µg/L Selenium µg/L Silver µg/L Sodium µg/L Thallium µg/L Vanadium µg/L Zinc µg/L Notes: Bold indicates detected values Italics indicates nondetected values Acronyms: µg/L = microgram per liter Q = qualifier J = Result is estimated U = Analyte was not detected at the associated value, which is the reporting limit Sample Date Location Sample Name Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q 100 U 100 U 35.3 J 27.4 J 28.5 J 33.1 J 41.4 J 100 U 100 U 100 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.536 J 0.289 J 1.04 0.664 J 0.703 J 0.902 J 0.965 J 0.387 J 0.367 J 0.609 J 60.5 75.4 50.5 28.3 33.8 60.1 59.4 27.1 20.6 46.1 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.314 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 164000 161000 133000 149000 133000 123000 124000 129000 115000 126000 0.766 J 0.305 J 0.592 J 0.435 J 0.13 J 1.56 1.44 0.904 J 1.17 1.76 0.161 J 1.16 0.129 J 0.158 J 1.05 0.274 J 0.25 J 0.129 J 0.106 J 0.111 J 2 U 0.508 J 4.05 2 U 0.624 J 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 100 U 205 42.8 J 32.1 J 853 119 148 100 U 100 U 100 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.151 J 1 U 0.108 J 66100 58100 48400 52100 41900 47100 47600 44200 39600 43000 15.7 367 13.3 19.1 507 84.7 77.9 9.59 16.3 8.54 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.627 J 3.26 1.43 0.93 J 1.51 0.614 J 0.529 J 3.92 1.76 4.01 2520 4120 2140 2000 2030 2680 2680 2050 1950 2020 0.669 J 0.537 J 0.633 J 1.01 0.598 J 0.636 J 0.61 J 0.937 J 1.02 0.842 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.123 J 1 U 53100 66600 79200 32200 36300 88700 85300 31300 27900 54300 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1.54 0.526 J 1.93 1.62 0.26 J 1.9 1.92 1.26 1.23 1.76 20 U 12.1 J 31.1 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 6.61 J 20 U 8.88 J MW-30C MW30C- GW031621 3/16/2021 MW-30RB MW30RB- GW031621 3/16/2021 3/18/2021 MW-31B MW31B- GW031821 3/18/2021 MW-31C MW31C- GW031821 3/18/2021 MW-31A MW31A- GW031821 3/17/2021 MW32A- GW031721 3/17/2021 MW-32B MW32B- GW031721 3/17/2021 FD06- GW031721 MW-32A 3/19/2021 MW32C- GW031721 3/17/2021 MW34A- GW031921 MW-32C MW-34A Q1 2021 Data Summary Report Groundwater Sampling Event OU1 Remedial Investigation 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Page 3 of 4 Table 5 Metals Analytical Results Analyte Unit Aluminum µg/L Antimony µg/L Arsenic µg/L Barium µg/L Beryllium µg/L Cadmium µg/L Calcium µg/L Chromium µg/L Cobalt µg/L Copper µg/L Iron µg/L Lead µg/L Magnesium µg/L Manganese µg/L Mercury µg/L Nickel µg/L Potassium µg/L Selenium µg/L Silver µg/L Sodium µg/L Thallium µg/L Vanadium µg/L Zinc µg/L Notes: Bold indicates detected values Italics indicates nondetected values Acronyms: µg/L = microgram per liter Q = qualifier J = Result is estimated U = Analyte was not detected at the associated value, which is the reporting limit Sample Date Location Sample Name Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q 100 U 100 U 100 U 100 U 100 U 100 U 100 U 51.1 J 63.5 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.473 J 0.26 J 0.26 J 0.531 J 0.541 J 0.59 J 0.537 J 0.578 J 1.27 45.5 35 23.2 103 103 48 41.2 38.9 56.6 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 127000 86700 113000 161000 160000 190000 186000 131000 140000 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.415 J 0.533 J 1.28 0.732 J 1.68 4.04 0.247 J 0.549 J 0.189 J 0.487 J 0.504 J 0.219 J 0.152 J 0.252 J 0.17 J 0.591 J 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 100 U 47.8 J 100 U 150 172 37.4 J 100 U 100 U 304 0.108 J 0.0631 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.177 J 40800 36800 36200 50000 50400 76100 85700 50100 55800 92.6 303 79.3 189 178 28.1 4.1 33.8 10.3 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 7.56 6.69 1.46 1.74 1.85 0.445 J 0.283 J 1 U 1 U 2000 1680 1640 2940 3010 3990 4100 2430 2810 0.801 J 0.703 J 0.964 J 0.605 J 0.745 J 2.04 2.47 0.96 J 0.872 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 41200 23900 24900 96000 94700 112000 208000 48700 85200 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1.28 0.756 J 0.979 J 0.807 J 0.601 J 1.66 1.5 1.62 2.52 24.5 5.86 J 20 U 9.06 J 8.18 J 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U MW-34B MW34B- GW031921 3/19/2021 MW34C- GW031921 3/19/2021 MW-34D MW34D- GW031921 3/19/2021 FD07- GW031621 3/16/2021 MW-34C MW-36 MW38D- GW031821 3/18/2021 MW-38S MW38S- GW031721 3/17/2021 MW36- GW031621 3/16/2021 MW-37D MW37D- GW031721 3/17/2021 MW-37S MW37S- GW031721 3/17/2021 MW-38D Q1 2021 Data Summary Report Groundwater Sampling Event OU1 Remedial Investigation 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Page 4 of 4 Table 6 General Chemistry Analytical Results and Field Parameters Analyte Unit Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Nitrate/Nitrite1 mg/L Chloride mg/L Sulfate mg/L Ethane µg/L Ethene µg/L Methane µg/L Alkalinity2 mg/L Total Organic Carbon mg/L Dissolved Oxygen mg/L 6.51 7.96 5.26 5.43 6.52 5.68 4.43 7.68 3.76 5.02 7.23 4.38 Ferrous Iron mg/L 0 0 0 0.31 0.05 0.25 0.21 0 0 0 0 0.3 ORP mV 85.3 157.9 185.8 59.1 71.7 93 16.7 148.8 144.9 75.7 108.4 -128.3 pH su 7.12 6.93 6.84 6.98 7.06 7.18 7.11 7.16 7.28 7.03 7.23 7.47 Specific Conductance mS/cm 1.107 1.575 2.105 1.389 1.055 0.766 0.941 1.502 0.772 1.576 0.938 0.906 Temperature deg C 12.1 12.8 12.2 10.4 10.9 11.8 11.7 11.2 11 12.3 12.4 12.7 Turbidity NTU 0.43 1.3 0.19 7.05 61.7 7.2 9.04 0.49 1.09 4.19 4.38 11.1 Notes: Bold indicates detected values Italics indicates nondetected values 1 Nitrate and Nitrite as total Nitrogen 2 Total Alkalinity as calcium carbonate Acronyms: deg C = degrees Celsius ORP = oxidation reduction potential mg/L = milligram per liter µg/L = microgram per liter mS/cm = millisiemens per centimeter mV = millivolts NTU = nephelometric turbidity unit NS = not sampled su = standard units Q = qualifier J = Result is estimated J+ = Result is estimated, biased high J- = Result is estimated, biased low U = Analyte was not detected at the associate value, which is the reporting limit NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS MW-04 MW04- GW032221 3/22/2021 MW08B- GW031721 3/17/2021 MW08A- GW031721 3/17/2021 MW06- GW032221 3/22/2021 MW08C- GW031721 3/17/2021 MW-06 MW-08A MW-08B MW-08C 3/21/2021 MW-02 MW-03RA MW-03RC MW03RC- GW032121 3/21/2021 MW-03RD MW03RD- GW032121 3/21/2021 Location Sample Name Sample Date MW-01D MW01D- GW032221 3/22/2021 MW-01S MW01S- GW032221 3/22/2021 MW03RA- GW032121 3/21/2021 MW02- GW032321 3/23/2021 MW-03RB MW03RB- GW032121 Q1 2021 Data Summary Report Groundwater Sampling Event OU1 Remedial Investigation 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Page 1 of 6 Table 6 General Chemistry Analytical Results and Field Parameters Analyte Unit Nitrate/Nitrite1 mg/L Chloride mg/L Sulfate mg/L Ethane µg/L Ethene µg/L Methane µg/L Alkalinity2 mg/L Total Organic Carbon mg/L Dissolved Oxygen mg/L Ferrous Iron mg/L ORP mV pH su Specific Conductance mS/cm Temperature deg C Turbidity NTU Notes: Bold indicates detected values Italics indicates nondetected values 1 Nitrate and Nitrite as total Nitrogen 2 Total Alkalinity as calcium carbonate Acronyms: deg C = degrees Celsius ORP = oxidation reduction potential mg/L = milligram per liter µg/L = microgram per liter mS/cm = millisiemens per centimeter mV = millivolts NTU = nephelometric turbidity unit NS = not sampled su = standard units Q = qualifier J = Result is estimated J+ = Result is estimated, biased high J- = Result is estimated, biased low U = Analyte was not detected at the associate value, which is the reporting limit Location Sample Name Sample Date Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q 4.1 J 1.22 J 182 J- 182 J- 90.3 90.9 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 0.36 J 0.28 J 217 216 0.805 J 0.735 J 5.18 1.12 7.3 3.41 3.23 0.97 3.45 5.49 2.74 4.01 1.78 0 0.12 0.21 0.31 0.09 0 0 0 0.21 0.06 0 -37.4 -55.2 62.7 64.5 -36.9 -111 -97.5 -41.6 -37.4 -41.4 -66.3 6.95 7.12 6.94 6.92 7.17 7.21 6.96 6.94 7.2 7.08 7 1.396 1.405 1.112 1.889 1.35 1.64 1.893 2.079 1.058 1.486 1.58 14 12.8 12.9 11.4 12.8 11.4 13.8 13.9 13 13 12.8 2.84 1.25 40.1 20.03 0.16 32.2 8.17 3.67 1.85 8.8 30.7 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS MW-16S MW16S- GW031721 3/17/2021 MW-17D MW17D- GW031921 3/19/2021 MW-15D MW15D- GW031621 3/16/2021 MW-15S MW15S- GW031621 3/16/2021 MW-16D MW16D- GW031721 3/17/2021 MW-13S MW13S- GW032221 3/22/2021 MW-14D MW14D- GW031821 3/18/2021 MW-14S MW14S- GW031821 3/18/2021 FD04- GW032221 3/22/2021 MW13D- GW032121 3/21/2021 MW13L- GW032221 3/22/2021 MW-13D MW-13LMW-12D MW12D- GW031721 3/17/2021 Q1 2021 Data Summary Report Groundwater Sampling Event OU1 Remedial Investigation 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Page 2 of 6 Table 6 General Chemistry Analytical Results and Field Parameters Analyte Unit Nitrate/Nitrite1 mg/L Chloride mg/L Sulfate mg/L Ethane µg/L Ethene µg/L Methane µg/L Alkalinity2 mg/L Total Organic Carbon mg/L Dissolved Oxygen mg/L Ferrous Iron mg/L ORP mV pH su Specific Conductance mS/cm Temperature deg C Turbidity NTU Notes: Bold indicates detected values Italics indicates nondetected values 1 Nitrate and Nitrite as total Nitrogen 2 Total Alkalinity as calcium carbonate Acronyms: deg C = degrees Celsius ORP = oxidation reduction potential mg/L = milligram per liter µg/L = microgram per liter mS/cm = millisiemens per centimeter mV = millivolts NTU = nephelometric turbidity unit NS = not sampled su = standard units Q = qualifier J = Result is estimated J+ = Result is estimated, biased high J- = Result is estimated, biased low U = Analyte was not detected at the associate value, which is the reporting limit Location Sample Name Sample Date Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q 1.02 2.58 1.6 1.85 2.02 329 J 184 J 62.9 J 311 J- 322 J- 90.9 81.9 206 87.1 87 0.37 J 2 U 0.6 J 2 U 2 U 0.78 J 0.52 J 2 2 U 2 U 1.1 J 0.42 J 1.4 J 2 U 2 U 285 258 224 268 276 1.13 0.82 J 0.772 J 0.385 J 0.84 J 2.53 5.26 1.91 3.01 4.13 3.16 2.67 2.87 4.01 2.37 6.07 5.87 0.04 0.36 0.16 0.24 0.05 0 0.47 1.36 0.45 0.03 0 0.02 -82.7 -28.5 -32.7 -35.7 -16.1 -79.2 -28.3 -55.9 74 9.4 22.5 76.2 7.04 6.94 7.08 7.1 7.06 7.07 7.05 7.08 7.07 7.21 7.05 7.33 1.804 1.896 1.764 0.996 1.071 1.807 1.084 1.738 1.306 1.017 1.498 1.728 12 12.1 12.6 13 12.9 13.5 12.5 12.9 14.6 13.5 13.2 9.1 16.2 5.35 4.44 3.64 1.52 3.16 7.78 11.6 38.3 7.5 4.7 19.3 NS NS NS NS NSNS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NSNS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS MW-24 MW24- GW032121 3/21/2021 MW-25A MW25A- GW032121 3/21/2021 MW-23A MW23A- GW031621 3/16/2021 MW-23B MW23B- GW031621 3/16/2021 MW-23C MW23C- GW031621 3/16/2021 MW21- GW031621 3/16/2021 MW20S- GW031921 3/19/2021 MW-22 MW22- GW032121 3/21/2021 MW-20S MW-21MW-18 MW18- GW032121 3/21/2021 MW-19 MW19- GW032121 3/21/2021 MW-20D MW20D- GW031921 3/19/2021 MW-17S MW17S- GW031921 3/19/2021 Q1 2021 Data Summary Report Groundwater Sampling Event OU1 Remedial Investigation 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Page 3 of 6 Table 6 General Chemistry Analytical Results and Field Parameters Analyte Unit Nitrate/Nitrite1 mg/L Chloride mg/L Sulfate mg/L Ethane µg/L Ethene µg/L Methane µg/L Alkalinity2 mg/L Total Organic Carbon mg/L Dissolved Oxygen mg/L Ferrous Iron mg/L ORP mV pH su Specific Conductance mS/cm Temperature deg C Turbidity NTU Notes: Bold indicates detected values Italics indicates nondetected values 1 Nitrate and Nitrite as total Nitrogen 2 Total Alkalinity as calcium carbonate Acronyms: deg C = degrees Celsius ORP = oxidation reduction potential mg/L = milligram per liter µg/L = microgram per liter mS/cm = millisiemens per centimeter mV = millivolts NTU = nephelometric turbidity unit NS = not sampled su = standard units Q = qualifier J = Result is estimated J+ = Result is estimated, biased high J- = Result is estimated, biased low U = Analyte was not detected at the associate value, which is the reporting limit Location Sample Name Sample Date Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q 2.76 3.08 2.18 2.48 2.94 1.68 2.19 2.32 2.03 2.08 2.99 2.55 187 J- 86.5 J- 352 J 189 J 81.2 J 59.3 J 309 J 385 J- 203 J 372 J 147 J 249 J 84.3 108 92.7 83.1 110 191 91.8 86.8 91.3 106 100 73.4 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 0.33 J 0.49 J 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 0.65 J 2 U 0.4 J 2 U 0.2 J 0.23 J 0.34 J 0.22 J 2 U 0.18 J 0.3 J 0.26 J 0.77 J 259 228 287 262 233 226 278 277 292 250 252 265 0.722 J 0.711 J 1.03 0.754 J 0.948 J 0.774 J 1.57 0.512 J 0.846 J 0.638 J 0.733 J 1.36 5.53 6.84 4.25 2.81 2.61 3.12 4.76 7.16 5.42 4.75 4.18 1.67 0.06 0.62 0.02 0.02 0.8 0.2 0 0.12 0 0 0 0.09 169.4 145.9 93.1 93.7 132.2 5.6 46.9 17.2 164.7 143.8 44.7 -16.5 6.97 7.08 6.92 6.91 7.06 7.3 7.05 6.97 7.17 7.08 6.94 7.19 1.313 0.952 1.917 1.359 0.943 1.023 2.087 1.703 1.19 1.292 1.197 1.641 10.8 12.1 15.5 16.4 15.9 15.8 15.1 12.9 10.1 10.9 12.3 12.8 5.9 11.4 3.44 1.16 3.51 1.79 0.71 4.11 0.35 9.53 7.34 8.78 MW-29C MW29C- GW031921 3/19/2021 MW-30C MW30C- GW031621 3/16/2021 MW-28 MW28- GW032121 3/21/2021 MW-29A MW29A- GW031921 3/19/2021 MW-29B MW29B- GW031921 3/19/2021 MW-26C MW26C- GW031821 3/18/2021 MW-26D MW26D- GW031821 3/18/2021 MW-27 MW27- GW031621 3/16/2021 MW-25C MW25C- GW032121 3/21/2021 MW-26A MW26A- GW031721 3/17/2021 MW-26B MW26B- GW031721 3/17/2021 MW-25B MW25B- GW032121 3/21/2021 Q1 2021 Data Summary Report Groundwater Sampling Event OU1 Remedial Investigation 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Page 4 of 6 Table 6 General Chemistry Analytical Results and Field Parameters Analyte Unit Nitrate/Nitrite1 mg/L Chloride mg/L Sulfate mg/L Ethane µg/L Ethene µg/L Methane µg/L Alkalinity2 mg/L Total Organic Carbon mg/L Dissolved Oxygen mg/L Ferrous Iron mg/L ORP mV pH su Specific Conductance mS/cm Temperature deg C Turbidity NTU Notes: Bold indicates detected values Italics indicates nondetected values 1 Nitrate and Nitrite as total Nitrogen 2 Total Alkalinity as calcium carbonate Acronyms: deg C = degrees Celsius ORP = oxidation reduction potential mg/L = milligram per liter µg/L = microgram per liter mS/cm = millisiemens per centimeter mV = millivolts NTU = nephelometric turbidity unit NS = not sampled su = standard units Q = qualifier J = Result is estimated J+ = Result is estimated, biased high J- = Result is estimated, biased low U = Analyte was not detected at the associate value, which is the reporting limit Location Sample Name Sample Date Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q 3.17 2.95 3.32 2.04 2.46 1.64 2.17 2.21 3.44 2.89 1.78 2 272 J 301 J 276 J 190 J- 129 J- 85.5 J- 175 J 198 J 106 J 61.3 J 157 J 132 J 72.8 73.9 72.9 88.7 146 178 98.3 93.7 132 153 86.6 98.4 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2.7 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 1 J 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 0.19 J 2 U 2 U 3.8 2 U 2 U 0.22 J 0.24 J 0.18 J 0.39 J 285 283 261 261 242 212 278 276 238 226 233 225 0.926 J 1.02 0.818 J 0.855 J 0.71 J 1.29 0.898 J 0.918 J 0.777 J 0.371 J 0.766 J 0.79 J 4.99 5.14 6.14 7.52 0.82 7.06 6.67 6.08 6 3.5 0 0 0.04 0 0.48 0.03 0.02 0.19 0.01 0.04 89.3 115.3 75.2 103.9 -72.9 110.9 34.8 -18.4 131.1 28.3 7.03 7.06 7.14 7.08 7.23 7.27 7.26 7.31 7.19 7.14 1.847 1.556 1.267 1.122 0.797 1.128 0.93 1.068 1.131 1.083 13.5 13.1 12.7 10.7 11.1 13.2 12.7 12.8 12.9 16.7 1.14 1.68 8.18 3.98 7.81 7.06 2.88 0.56 1.04 3.69 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS MW-34A MW34A- GW031921 3/19/2021 MW-34B MW34B- GW031921 3/19/2021 MW32A- GW031721 3/17/2021 MW-32B MW32B- GW031721 3/17/2021 MW-32C MW32C- GW031721 3/17/2021 MW-32AMW-31B MW31B- GW031821 3/18/2021 MW-31C MW31C- GW031821 3/18/2021 FD06- GW031721 3/17/2021 MW-31A MW31A- GW031821 3/18/2021 MW30RA- GW031621 3/16/2021 MW-30RB MW30RB- GW031621 3/16/2021 MW-30RA FD05- GW031621 3/16/2021 Q1 2021 Data Summary Report Groundwater Sampling Event OU1 Remedial Investigation 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Page 5 of 6 Table 6 General Chemistry Analytical Results and Field Parameters Analyte Unit Nitrate/Nitrite1 mg/L Chloride mg/L Sulfate mg/L Ethane µg/L Ethene µg/L Methane µg/L Alkalinity2 mg/L Total Organic Carbon mg/L Dissolved Oxygen mg/L Ferrous Iron mg/L ORP mV pH su Specific Conductance mS/cm Temperature deg C Turbidity NTU Notes: Bold indicates detected values Italics indicates nondetected values 1 Nitrate and Nitrite as total Nitrogen 2 Total Alkalinity as calcium carbonate Acronyms: deg C = degrees Celsius ORP = oxidation reduction potential mg/L = milligram per liter µg/L = microgram per liter mS/cm = millisiemens per centimeter mV = millivolts NTU = nephelometric turbidity unit NS = not sampled su = standard units Q = qualifier J = Result is estimated J+ = Result is estimated, biased high J- = Result is estimated, biased low U = Analyte was not detected at the associate value, which is the reporting limit Location Sample Name Sample Date Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q 0.709 2.54 0.842 0.695 1.92 2.09 3.88 4.43 30.7 J 44.6 J 188 J 186 J 272 J 360 J 156 J 235 J 115 132 122 129 191 198 128 97.9 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 0.88 J 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 0.44 J 0.5 J 0.21 J 2 U 0.19 J 2 U 2 U 2 U 228 235 331 330 318 380 236 262 0.753 J 0.558 J 1.09 1 U 1.06 1 U 0.726 J 0.888 J 2.99 4.41 3.8 2.71 0.05 3.31 2.43 0 0.46 0.07 0 0 0 0.29 53 69.1 -174.4 -56.5 -57.6 -30.1 -37.4 7.4 7.09 6.94 6.97 6.95 7.11 7.08 0.717 0.87 1.535 1.948 2.358 1.27 1.536 14.2 12.9 13.1 15.2 15.5 13.2 13.6 7.29 2 4.39 2.66 0.73 2.57 14.7 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS MW-37S MW37S- GW031721 3/17/2021 MW-38D MW38D- GW031821 3/18/2021 FD07- GW031621 3/16/2021 MW37D- GW031721 3/17/2021 MW36- GW031621 3/16/2021 MW-37DMW-36 MW34D- GW031921 3/19/2021 MW34C- GW031921 3/19/2021 MW-34C MW-34D MW-38S MW38S- GW031721 3/17/2021 Q1 2021 Data Summary Report Groundwater Sampling Event OU1 Remedial Investigation 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Page 6 of 6 Appendix A Salt Lake City Division of Transportation Traffic Control Permit WORK SHALL COMPLY WITH PART 6 OF THE 2009 MUTCD. PERMITS MUST BE EXTENDED 24 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF EXPIRATION. IF THE TRAFFIC CONTROL PERMIT IS ALLOWED TO EXPIRE, A NEW PERMIT, AND AN ADDITIONAL FEE WILL BE REQUIRED. CLOSURES ON A DIFFERENT STREET THAN LISTED WILL REQUIRE AN ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC CONTROL, AND ENGINEERING PERMIT. THE ORGANIZATION ISSUED THE TRAFFIC CONTROL PERMIT SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL BARRICADE PLACEMENT AND MAINTENENCE. AN ADDITIONAL PERMIT FROM SLC ENGINEERING MAY ALSO BE REQUIRED. SHALL MAINTAIN ACCESS TO ALL PROPERTIES. SHALL INFORM BUSINESSES & RESIDENTS OF PROJECT & DURATION. SHALL COORDINATE WITH BUSINESSES & RESIDENTS AFFECTED. SHALL OBTAIN A PERMIT FOR ALL PARKING METERS OR OTHER RESTRICTED PARKING MADE UNAVAILBABLE TO THE PUBLIC. TRAFFIC CONTROL PERMITS ARE NOT VALID UNTIL PAID IN FULL. CHANGES TO PERMIT MAY BE REQUIRED AND MADE UPON REVIEW and/or COMPLAINT. Traffic Control Permit Salt Lake City Community and Neighborhoods Division of Transportation 349 South 200 East #150 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Telephone (801) 535-6630 E-Mail TechPermit@slcgov.com Permit # TRN2020-02332 Organization Name: Wasatch Environmental Address: 2410 W California Ave SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84104 Contact Person: EMMA ROTT Phone: 4062413259 Cell: 406-551-5169 Barricade Company: Barricade Phone: Project Name / Description: Sampling ground water wells for the VA at various locations. Block Party Permit # General Work Type: Staging Specific Work Type: Barricade City Project # Public Way Permit # Special Event Permit # Start Date End Date Full Road Closure? Barricade Manual Fig # Description Special Requirements 03/12/2021 03/26/2021 No TA-6 TESTING GROUND WATER NOT DRILLING OR TRENCHING SHALL MAINTAIN ACCESS TO ALL PROPERTIES AND COORDINATE WITH RESIDENTS AND BUSINESSES AFFECTED. WORK HOURS SHALL BE BETWEEN 9AM & 4PM. MAY WORK FROM 6PM TO 6AM. Closure Type On Street Name From Number To Number Side of Street Street Elizabeth St.785 S 785 S E Start Date End Date Full Road Closure? Barricade Manual Fig # Description Special Requirements 03/12/2021 03/26/2021 No TA-6 TESTING GROUND WATER NOT DRILLING OR TRENCHING SHALL MAINTAIN ACCESS TO ALL PROPERTIES AND COORDINATE WITH RESIDENTS AND BUSINESSES AFFECTED. WORK HOURS SHALL BE BETWEEN 9AM & 4PM. MAY WORK FROM 6PM TO 6AM. Closure Type On Street Name From Number To Number Side of Street Street McClelland St.900 S 900 S E Page 1 of 3 Approved By: Jacob Fenton Issue Date: 9/14/2020 Start Date End Date Full Road Closure? Barricade Manual Fig # Description Special Requirements 03/12/2021 03/26/2021 No TA-6 TESTING GROUND WATER NOT DRILLING OR TRENCHING SHALL MAINTAIN ACCESS TO ALL PROPERTIES AND COORDINATE WITH RESIDENTS AND BUSINESSES AFFECTED. WORK HOURS SHALL BE BETWEEN 9AM & 4PM. MAY WORK FROM 6PM TO 6AM. Closure Type On Street Name From Number To Number Side of Street Street Alpine Place 1150 E 1150 E E Start Date End Date Full Road Closure? Barricade Manual Fig # Description Special Requirements 03/12/2021 03/26/2021 No TA-6 TESTING GROUND WATER NOT DRILLING OR TRENCHING SHALL MAINTAIN ACCESS TO ALL PROPERTIES AND COORDINATE WITH RESIDENTS AND BUSINESSES AFFECTED. WORK HOURS SHALL BE BETWEEN 9AM & 4PM. MAY WORK FROM 6PM TO 6AM. Closure Type On Street Name From Number To Number Side of Street Street Gilmer Dr 1280 E 1280 E S Start Date End Date Full Road Closure? Barricade Manual Fig # Description Special Requirements 03/12/2021 03/26/2021 No TA-6 TESTING GROUND WATER NOT DRILLING OR TRENCHING SHALL MAINTAIN ACCESS TO ALL PROPERTIES AND COORDINATE WITH RESIDENTS AND BUSINESSES AFFECTED. WORK HOURS SHALL BE BETWEEN 9AM & 4PM. MAY WORK FROM 6PM TO 6AM. Closure Type On Street Name From Number To Number Side of Street Street 14th E Sunnyside Ave Sunnyside Ave W Start Date End Date Full Road Closure? Barricade Manual Fig # Description Special Requirements 03/12/2021 03/26/2021 No TA-6 TESTING GROUND WATER NOT DRILLING OR TRENCHING SHALL MAINTAIN ACCESS TO ALL PROPERTIES AND COORDINATE WITH RESIDENTS AND BUSINESSES AFFECTED. WORK HOURS SHALL BE BETWEEN 9AM & 4PM. MAY WORK FROM 6PM TO 6AM. Closure Type On Street Name From Number To Number Side of Street Street Belmont Ave McClelland St.McClelland St.S Start Date End Date Full Road Closure? Barricade Manual Fig # Description Special Requirements 03/12/2021 03/26/2021 No TA-6 TESTING GROUND WATER NOT DRILLING OR TRENCHING SHALL MAINTAIN ACCESS TO ALL PROPERTIES AND COORDINATE WITH RESIDENTS AND BUSINESSES AFFECTED. WORK HOURS SHALL BE BETWEEN 9AM & 4PM. MAY WORK FROM 6PM TO 6AM. Closure Type On Street Name From Number To Number Side of Street Street University St.700 S 700 S S Page 2 of 3 Approved By: Jacob Fenton Issue Date: 9/14/2020 Start Date End Date Full Road Closure? Barricade Manual Fig # Description Special Requirements 03/12/2021 03/26/2021 No TA-6 TESTING GROUND WATER NOT DRILLING OR TRENCHING SHALL MAINTAIN ACCESS TO ALL PROPERTIES AND COORDINATE WITH RESIDENTS AND BUSINESSES AFFECTED. WORK HOURS SHALL BE BETWEEN 9AM & 4PM. MAY WORK FROM 6PM TO 6AM. Closure Type On Street Name From Number To Number Side of Street Street 600 S 1300 E 1305 E N Start Date End Date Full Road Closure? Barricade Manual Fig # Description Special Requirements 03/12/2021 03/26/2021 No TA-6 TESTING GROUND WATER NOT DRILLING OR TRENCHING SHALL MAINTAIN ACCESS TO ALL PROPERTIES AND COORDINATE WITH RESIDENTS AND BUSINESSES AFFECTED. WORK HOURS SHALL BE BETWEEN 9AM & 4PM. MAY WORK FROM 6PM TO 6AM. Closure Type On Street Name From Number To Number Side of Street Street HERBERT AVE 1177 E 1183 E N Start Date End Date Full Road Closure? Barricade Manual Fig # Description Special Requirements 03/12/2021 03/26/2021 No TA-6 TESTING GROUND WATER NOT DRILLING OR TRENCHING SHALL MAINTAIN ACCESS TO ALL PROPERTIES AND COORDINATE WITH RESIDENTS AND BUSINESSES AFFECTED. WORK HOURS SHALL BE BETWEEN 9AM & 4PM. MAY WORK FROM 6PM TO 6AM. Closure Type On Street Name From Number To Number Side of Street Street 1200 E 647 S 649 S E Page 3 of 3 Approved By: Jacob Fenton Issue Date: 9/14/2020 Appendix B Field Forms X X X TV 05/26/21 X X X TV 05/26/21 X X X TV 05/26/21 X X TV 05/26/21 X X X TV 05/26/21 GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL LOW-FLOW SAMPLING DATA SHEET Site Name: Date: OVM: FID … PID „ In Casing (ppm): (Initial) (Vented to) Well ID: Purging/Sampling Device: Initial Static Water Level (feet btoc): Analytical Parameters: Final Water Level (feet btoc): QC Samples Collected: Purge Start Time: Sample Time: Controller Settings: Recharge: secs Discharge: secs Pressure: psi Samplers’ Signatures: Cycles Per Minute: Time Water Level (ft btoc) Temperature (Degrees C) pH Specific Cond. (μs/cm) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) ORP (mV) Turbidity (NTU) Flow Rate (mL/min) Comments Casing Volume Calculations: Water Col. X Casing Factor = Gallons per Casing Volume Casing Factors: 2" diameter well: 0.16 / 4" diameter well: 0.65 / 6" diameter well: 1.47 PARAMETERS FOR WATER QUALITY STABILIZATION Temperature ± 1º C DO ± 10 % ± 0.1 pH unitpH ORP ± 10mV Conductivity ± 10 %Water Level ± 0.1 foot Turbidity < 50 NTU Trench RI 700S 1600E PCE Plume Compressed gas/MP-10 Pump depth (ft bgs): Ferrous Iron (mg/L):Allowable Drawdown (ft):0.3 222 Previous controller settings:Recharge:Discharge: Pressure: 15 secs 15 secs Cycles Per Minute:145 psi Flow Rate:300 mL/min Screened Interval:198-228 ft bgs Minimum purge volume:1.9 gallons VOCs None Temperature pH Specific Cond ORP Water Level ±1°C ±0.1 pH unit ±3% ±10mV ± 0.3 foot DO ±10% OR ±0.2mg/L (whichever is greater) Turbidity < 50 NTU and ±10% OR < 10 NTU MW-05R 2 Ferrous Fe Analyzed: Minimum Purge Met and Notated: Total Purge Volume Recorded: 03/21/2021 & 03/22/2021 0.0 0.0 214.95 TV 05/26/2021 TV 05/26/2021 TV 05/26/2021 TV 05/26/2021 N/A TV 05/26/2021 N/A TV 05/26/2021 N/A TV 05/26/2021 The sample was attempted to be obtained on 03/21/2021, however, no water appeared on the surface after 30 minutes of purging. The field team attempted to increase discharge time and pressure. The team also pulled the pump up, took it apart, and cleaned it. The team did observe water in the bottom five feet of tubing mixed with bubbles. The team attempted to redeploy the pump and purge. No water surfaced. On 03/22/2021, it was determined a pump replacement was needed so the malfunctioning pump was pulled and the well was not sampled. A j-plug was added to MW-05R since the protective housing was no longer in place. 15:30 TV 05/26/2021 E. Rott/M. Day TV 05/26/2021 N/A TV 05/26/2021 N/A TV 05/26/2021 N/A TV 05/26/2021 N/A TV 05/26/2021 TV 05/26/2021 TV 05/26/21 X X X TV 05/26/21 X X X TV 05/26/21 X X X TV 05/26/21 X X X TV 05/26/21 TV 05/26/21 X X X TV 05/26/21 X X X TV 05/26/21 X X X TV 05/26/21 X X X TV 05/26/21 X X X TV 05/26/21 X X X TV 05/26/21 X X X TV 05/26/21 TV 05/26/21 X X X TV 05/26/21 X X X TV 05/26/21 X X X TV 05/26/21 X X X TV 05/26/21 X X X TV 05/26/21 X X X TV 05/26/21 X X X TV 05/26/21 X X X TV 05/26/21 X TV 05/26/21 X X TV 05/26/21 X X TV 05/26/21 X X X NA TV 06/01 NA TV 06/01 TV 05/26/21 X TV 05/26/21 X TV 05/26/21 X X X TV 05/26/21 X X X TV 05/26/21 X X X TV 05/26/21 X X X TV 05/26/21 X X X TV 05/26/21 X X X TV 05/26/21 X X X 188.99 (BSC - 4/19/21) 100 OO E INCH =DEFYING MOTHER NATURE" Pce PLUME SINCE 1916 CvCLA All components of this product are recyclable Kite in the ain Rite in the Rain ALL-WEATHER A patented, environmentally responsible, all-weather writing paper that sheds water and enables you to write anywhere, in any weather. LEVEL NO 313 Using a pencil or all-weather pen, Rite in the Rain ensures that your notes survive the rigors of the field, regardless of the conditions. 2019 JL DARLING LLC Tacoma, WA 98424-1017 USA www.Riteinthe Rain.com Item No. 313 ISBN: 978-1-932149-84-5 Made in the USA US Pat No. 6,863,940 3 2281 l31 31 1 Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah DATE: 3/15/2021 Prepared by: Ben Carreon Personnel on site, including Contractors: CDM Smith – Ben Carreon, Emma Rott Wasatch – Kiel Keller, Anna Fiorini Visitors/Others: None Weather Temperature Wind Humidity Sunny Partly Cloudy Overcast Rain Snow 85+ º F 70 to 85º F 50 to 70 º F 32 to 50 º F 0 To 32 º F Still Moderate High Dry Moderate Humid Equipment in Use (field instruments, subcontractor equip, etc.) • Water level and low-flow groundwater sampling equipment Description of Field Activities – including samples/data collected, etc: • A H&S tailgate was conducted at the IDW yard area. • Synoptic Water Level Event o All water levels measurements were completed. • Groundwater Sampling o No groundwater samples were collected. Issues/Problems Encountered/Deficiencies/Deviations from QAPP (and resolutions): • Cable detached from MW-14S pump – cable and ferrules will be replaced. • Cable detached from MW-05R pump – ferrules will be replaced. • Cable detached from MW-06 transducer and the transducer was downhole. Will attempt transducer recovery at a later date. • The Denver based field team (Maria Day, Iona Campbell, and Tea Vrtlar) encountered weather delays and are tentatively expected to arrive at the site Tuesday, March 16th. • Salt Lake County has a mandatory mask mandate in effect since Saturday, June 27th. Masks are required in public. Projected Work – Near Term: • Two teams will begin groundwater sampling. • The third team will begin groundwater sampling once they arrive at the site. Other Activities/Remarks: Photos: Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 3/15/2021 Location: MW-34B Description: Panacea pump Date: 3/15/2021 Location: MW-34D Description: Panacea pump and transducer housing Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah DATE: 3/16/2021 Prepared by: Ben Carreon Personnel on site, including Contractors: CDM Smith – Ben Carreon, Maria Day, Tea Vrtlar, Emma Rott, Iona Campbell Wasatch – Anna Fiorina, Kiel Keller Visitors/Others: VA – Shannon Smith, Wynn John Weather Temperature Wind Humidity Sunny Partly Cloudy Overcast Rain Snow 85+ º F 70 to 85º F 50 to 70 º F 32 to 50 º F 0 To 32 º F Still Moderate High Dry Moderate Humid Equipment in Use (field instruments, subcontractor equip, etc.) • Low-flow groundwater sampling equipment Description of Field Activities – including samples/data collected, etc: • A H&S tailgate was conducted at the IDW yard area. • Equipment was calibrated. • Groundwater Sampling o Groundwater samples collected: ▪ MW-15S (MW15S-GW031621) • For the following parameters: o VOCs ▪ MW-15D (MW15D-GW031621) • For the following parameters: o VOCs ▪ MW-21 (MW21-GW031621) • For the following parameters: o VOCs ▪ MW-23A (MW23A-GW031621) • For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry ▪ Metals ▪ Dissolved gases ▪ Sulfate, chloride ▪ Nitrate + nitrite (total N) ▪ TOC ▪ Alkalinity ▪ MW-23B (MW23A-GW031621) • For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry ▪ MW-23C (MW23A-GW031621) • For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry ▪ MW-27 (MW27-GW031621) • For the following parameters: Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah o VOCs o Geochemistry ▪ MW-30RA (MW30RA-GW031621 and FD05-GW031621) • For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry ▪ MW-30RB (MW30RB-GW031621) • For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry ▪ MW-30C (MW30C-GW031621) • For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry ▪ MW-36 (MW36-GW031621 and FD07-GW031621) • For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry o No samples were shipped to EMAX Labs. Issues/Problems Encountered/Deficiencies/Deviations from QAPP (and resolutions): • Salt Lake County has a mandatory mask mandate in effect since Saturday, June 27. Masks are required in public. Projected Work – Near Term: • Continue groundwater sampling. Other Activities/Remarks: • None. Photos: Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 3/16/2021 Location: MW-23 Description: Equipment setup Date: 3/16/2021 Location: MW-30 Description: Groundwater early on during purge Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 3/16/2021 Location: MW-336 Description: Equipment setup Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah DATE: 3/17/2021 Prepared by: Ben Carreon Personnel on site, including Contractors: CDM Smith – Ben Carreon, Maria Day, Tea Vrtlar, Emma Rott, Iona Campbell Wasatch – Anna Fiorina Visitors/Others: VA – Wynn John Weather Temperature Wind Humidity Sunny Partly Cloudy Overcast Rain Snow 85+ º F 70 to 85º F 50 to 70 º F 32 to 50 º F 0 To 32 º F Still Moderate High Dry Moderate Humid Equipment in Use (field instruments, subcontractor equip, etc.) • Low-flow groundwater sampling equipment Description of Field Activities – including samples/data collected, etc: • A H&S tailgate was conducted at the IDW yard area. • Equipment was calibrated. • Groundwater Sampling o Groundwater samples collected: ▪ MW-08A (MW08A-GW031721, FD02-GW031721) • For the following parameters: o VOCs ▪ MW-08B (MW08B-GW031721) • For the following parameters: o VOCs ▪ MW-08C (MW08C-GW031721) • For the following parameters: o VOCs ▪ MW-12D (MW12D-GW031721) • For the following parameters: o VOCs ▪ MW-16D (MW16D-GW031721) • For the following parameters: o VOCs ▪ MW-16S (MW16S-GW031721) • For the following parameters: o VOCs ▪ MW-26A (MW26A-GW031721) • For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry ▪ Metals ▪ Dissolved gases ▪ Sulfate, chloride ▪ Nitrate + nitrite (total N) ▪ TOC ▪ Alkalinity Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah ▪ MW-26B (MW26B-GW031721) • For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry ▪ MW-32A (MW32A-GW031721, FD06-GW031721) • For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry ▪ MW-32B (MW32B-GW031721) • For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry ▪ MW-32C (MW32C-GW031721) • For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry ▪ MW-37D (MW37D-GW031721) • For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry ▪ MW-37S (MW37S-GW031721) • For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry ▪ MW-38S (MW38S-GW031721) • For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry o No samples were shipped to EMAX Labs. A sample shipment is planned for Thursday, March 18. Issues/Problems Encountered/Deficiencies/Deviations from QAPP (and resolutions): • Salt Lake County has a mandatory mask mandate in effect since Saturday, June 27. Masks are required in public. • MW-12S was dry. No groundwater samples were collected. Projected Work – Near Term: • Continue groundwater sampling. • Ship samples. Other Activities/Remarks: • None. Photos: Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 3/17/2021 Location: MW-08C Description: Turbid purge water Date: 3/17/2021 Location: MW-16S Description: Equipment setup Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 3/17/2021 Location: MW-32 Description: Excessive moisture drawing back in air line during recharge cycle Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah DATE: 3/18/2021 Prepared by: Ben Carreon Personnel on site, including Contractors: CDM Smith – Ben Carreon, Maria Day, Tea Vrtlar, Emma Rott, Iona Campbell Wasatch – Anna Fiorina Visitors/Others: VA – Wynn John Weather Temperature Wind Humidity Sunny Partly Cloudy Overcast Rain Snow 85+ º F 70 to 85º F 50 to 70 º F 32 to 50 º F 0 To 32 º F Still Moderate High Dry Moderate Humid Equipment in Use (field instruments, subcontractor equip, etc.) • Low-flow groundwater sampling equipment Description of Field Activities – including samples/data collected, etc: • A H&S tailgate was conducted at the IDW yard area. • Equipment was calibrated. • Groundwater Sampling o Groundwater samples collected: ▪ MW-14S (MW014S-GW031821) • For the following parameters: o VOCs ▪ MW-14D (MW14D-GW031821) • For the following parameters: o VOCs ▪ MW-26C (MW26C-GW031821) • For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry ▪ Metals ▪ Dissolved gases ▪ Sulfate, chloride ▪ Nitrate + nitrite (total N) ▪ TOC ▪ Alkalinity o 1,4-Dioxane ▪ MW-26D (MW26D-GW031821) • For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry o 1,4-Dioxane ▪ MW-31A (MW31A-GW031821) • For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry ▪ MW-31B (MW31B-GW031821) • For the following parameters: Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah o VOCs o Geochemistry ▪ MW-31C (MW12C-GW031821) • For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry ▪ MW-38D (MW38D-GW031821) • For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry o The following samples were shipped to EMAX labs: ▪ Collected 3/16/21 • MW15S-GW031621 • MW15D-GW031621 • MW21-GW031621 • MW23A-GW031621 • MW23B-GW031621 • MW23C-GW031621 • MW27-GW031621 • MW30RA-GW031621 • FD05-GW031621 • MW30RB-GW031621 • MW30C-GW031621 • MW36-GW031621 • FD07-GW031621 ▪ Collected 3/17/21 • MW08A-GW031721 • FD02-GW031721 • MW08B-GW031721 • MW08C-GW031721 • MW12D-GW031721 • MW16D-GW031721 • MW16S-GW031721 • MW26A-GW031721 • MW26B-GW031721 • MW32A-GW031721 • FD06-GW031721 • MW32B-GW031721 • MW32C-GW031721 • MW37D-GW031721 • MW37S-GW031721 • MW38S-GW031721 ▪ Collected 3/18/21 • MW14S-GW031821 • MW14D-GW031821 • MW26C-GW031821 • MW26D-GW031821 • MW38D-GW031821 o MW-31A pump was lowered to 143 ft bgs. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Issues/Problems Encountered/Deficiencies/Deviations from QAPP (and resolutions): • Salt Lake County has a mandatory mask mandate in effect since Saturday, June 27. Masks are required in public. • MW-31A experienced breakthrough while purging. The pump was pulled in order to gauge the water level. Water level was 133.40 ft bgs (132.40 ft btoc). The pump depth was 138 ft bgs. Although MW-31A contains a volume booster in line with the panacea pump, the minimal water column was determined to be the reason for breakthrough. As there is no pump receiver at this location, the pump was lowered by 5 feet to 143 ft bgs. The water column was rebuilt, and the well was successfully sampled. Projected Work – Near Term: • Continue groundwater sampling. • Rest day 3/20/21. Other Activities/Remarks: • None. Photos: Date: 3/18/2021 Location: MW-26 Description: Equipment setup Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 3/18/2021 Location: MW-31 Description: Equipment setup Date: 3/18/2021 Location: MW-31 Description: Pump condition Date: 3/18/2021 Location: MW-31A Description: Five-foot tubing extension to lower pump. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah DATE: 3/19/2021 Prepared by: Ben Carreon Personnel on site, including Contractors: CDM Smith – Ben Carreon, Maria Day, Tea Vrtlar, Emma Rott, Iona Campbell Wasatch – Kiel Keller Visitors/Others: Weather Temperature Wind Humidity Sunny Partly Cloudy Overcast Rain Snow 85+ º F 70 to 85º F 50 to 70 º F 32 to 50 º F 0 To 32 º F Still Moderate High Dry Moderate Humid Equipment in Use (field instruments, subcontractor equip, etc.) • Low-flow groundwater sampling equipment Description of Field Activities – including samples/data collected, etc: • A H&S tailgate was conducted at the IDW yard area. • Equipment was calibrated. • Groundwater Sampling o Groundwater samples collected: ▪ MW-17S (MW17S-GW031921) • For the following parameters: o VOCs ▪ MW-17D (MW17D-GW031921) • For the following parameters: o VOCs ▪ MW-20S (MW20S-GW031921) • For the following parameters: o VOCs ▪ MW-20D (MW20D-GW031921) • For the following parameters: o VOCs ▪ MW-29A (MW29A-GW031921) • For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry ▪ Metals ▪ Dissolved gases ▪ Sulfate, chloride ▪ Nitrate + nitrite (total N) ▪ TOC ▪ Alkalinity ▪ MW-29B (MW29B-GW031921) • For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry ▪ MW-29C (MW29C-GW031921) • For the following parameters: Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah o VOCs o Geochemistry ▪ MW-34A (MW34A-GW031921) • For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry ▪ MW-34B (MW34B-GW031921) • For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry ▪ MW-34C (MW34C-GW031921) • For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry ▪ MW-34D (MW34D-GW031921) • For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry o No samples were shipped to EMAX. Issues/Problems Encountered/Deficiencies/Deviations from QAPP (and resolutions): • Salt Lake County has a mandatory mask mandate in effect since Saturday, June 27. Masks are required in public. • MW-29C purge water was drawing back down the discharge tubing during recharge cycles. Eventually, the well experienced breakthrough while purging. The pump was pulled, cleaned, and redeployed. The water column was rebuilt, and the well was successfully sampled. Projected Work – Near Term: • Rest day 3/20/21. • Continue groundwater sampling 3/21/21. Other Activities/Remarks: • None. Photos: Date: 3/19/2021 Location: MW-20S Description: Equipment setup Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 3/19/2021 Location: MW-34 Description: Equipment setup Date: 3/19/2021 Location: MW-29 Description: Equipment setup Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 3/19/2021 Location: MW-29C Description: Pump Date: 3/19/2021 Location: MW-29C Description: Pump internals Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah DATE: 3/21/2021 Prepared by: Ben Carreon Personnel on site, including Contractors: CDM Smith – Ben Carreon, Maria Day, Tea Vrtlar, Emma Rott, Iona Campbell Wasatch – Kevin Murphy Visitors/Others: Weather Temperature Wind Humidity Sunny Partly Cloudy Overcast Rain Snow 85+ º F 70 to 85º F 50 to 70 º F 32 to 50 º F 0 To 32 º F Still Moderate High Dry Moderate Humid Equipment in Use (field instruments, subcontractor equip, etc.) • Low-flow groundwater sampling equipment Description of Field Activities – including samples/data collected, etc: • A H&S tailgate was conducted at the IDW yard area. • Equipment was calibrated. • Groundwater Sampling o Groundwater samples collected: ▪ MW-03RA (MW03RA-GW032121) • For the following parameters: o VOCs ▪ MW-03RB (MW03RB-GW032121) • For the following parameters: o VOCs ▪ MW-03RC (MW03RC-GW032121) • For the following parameters: o VOCs ▪ MW-03RD (MW03RD-GW032121) • For the following parameters: o VOCs ▪ MW-13D (MW13D-GW032121, FD03-GW032121) • For the following parameters: o VOCs ▪ MW-18 (MW18-GW032121) • For the following parameters: o VOCs ▪ MW-19 (MW19-GW032121) • For the following parameters: o VOCs ▪ MW-22 (MW22-GW032121) • For the following parameters: o VOCs ▪ MW-24 (MW24-GW032121) • For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah ▪ Metals ▪ Dissolved gases ▪ Sulfate, chloride ▪ Nitrate + nitrite (total N) ▪ TOC ▪ Alkalinity ▪ MW-25A (MW25A-GW032121) • For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry ▪ MW-25B (MW25B-GW032121) • For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry ▪ MW-25C (MW25C-GW032121) • For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry ▪ MW-28 (MW28-GW032121) • For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry o No samples were shipped to EMAX. Issues/Problems Encountered/Deficiencies/Deviations from QAPP (and resolutions): • Salt Lake County has a mandatory mask mandate in effect since Saturday, June 27. Masks are required in public. • MW-05R, MW-24, and MW-28 pump cables were all found to be disconnected from their pumps. All pumps were able to be retrieved from lifting the pumps up by the tubing. Cables were replaced for MW-24 and MW-05R. MW-28 pump was pulled and will be redeployed with a new cable. Projected Work – Near Term: • Continue groundwater sampling 3/22/21. Other Activities/Remarks: • None. Photos: Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 3/21/2021 Location: MW-05R Description: Cable reinstall Date: 3/21/2021 Location: MW-18 Description: Equipment setup Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 3/21/2021 Location: MW-24 Description: Pump Date: 3/21/2021 Location: MW-24 Description: Pump intake Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 3/21/2021 Location: MW-24 Description: Pump cable reinstall Date: 3/21/2021 Location: MW-25 Description: Equipment setup Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah DATE: 3/22/2021 Prepared by: Ben Carreon Personnel on site, including Contractors: CDM Smith – Ben Carreon, Maria Day, Tea Vrtlar, Emma Rott, Iona Campbell, Whitney Treadway Wasatch – Kevin Murphy, Kiel Keller Visitors/Others: VA – Wynn John Weather Temperature Wind Humidity Sunny Partly Cloudy Overcast Rain Snow 85+ º F 70 to 85º F 50 to 70 º F 32 to 50 º F 0 To 32 º F Still Moderate High Dry Moderate Humid Equipment in Use (field instruments, subcontractor equip, etc.) • Low-flow groundwater sampling equipment • Soil gas/vapor sampling equipment Description of Field Activities – including samples/data collected, etc: • A H&S tailgate was conducted at the IDW yard area. • Equipment was calibrated. • Groundwater Sampling o Groundwater samples collected: ▪ MW-01S (MW01S-GW032221) • For the following parameters: o VOCs ▪ MW-01D (MW01D-GW032221) • For the following parameters: o VOCs ▪ MW-04 (MW04-GW032221, FD01-GW032221) • For the following parameters: o VOCs ▪ MW-06 (MW06-GW032221) • For the following parameters: o VOCs ▪ MW-13S (MW13S-GW032221) • For the following parameters: o VOCs ▪ MW-13L (MW13L-GW032221, FD04-GW032221) • For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry ▪ Metals ▪ Dissolved gases ▪ Sulfate, chloride ▪ Nitrate + nitrite (total N) ▪ TOC ▪ Alkalinity o 1,4-Dioxane o The following samples were shipped to EMAX: Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah ▪ Collected 3/18/21 • MW31A-GW031821 • MW31B-GW031821 • MW31C-GW031821 ▪ Collected 3/19/21 • MW17S-GW031921 • MW17D-GW031921 • MW20S-GW031921 • MW20D-GW031921 • MW29A-GW031921 • MW29B-GW031921 • MW29C-GW031921 • MW34A-GW031921 • MW34B-GW031921 • MW34C-GW031921 • MW34D-GW031921 ▪ Collected 3/21/21 • MW03RA-GW032121 • MW03RB-GW032121 • MW03RC-GW032121 • MW03RD-GW032121 • MW13D-GW032121 • FD03-GW032121 • MW18-GW032121 • MW19-GW032121 • MW22-GW032121 • MW24-GW032121 • MW25A-GW032121 • MW25B-GW032121 • MW25C-GW032121 • MW28-GW032121 ▪ Collected 3/22/21 • MW01S-GW032221 • MW01D-GW032221 • MW04-GW032221 • FD01-GW032221) • MW06-GW032221 • MW13S-GW032221 • MW13L-GW032221 • FD04-GW032221 o MW-24 pump was redeployed with a new cable. o Calibration gasses were inventoried and empty and/or expired calibration gasses will be properly disposed. o Most of the groundwater sampling equipment was returned to Field Environmental. • Soil Gas Sampling o Collected the following samples: ▪ MW27-SG032221-28 ▪ SG60-SG032221 ▪ MW27-SG032221-113 ▪ SG3-SG032221 o Shipped all four soil gas samples above to Eurofins Air Toxics for TO-15 analysis. o Reviewed indoor/outdoor air sampling locations for Buildings 6 and 7 with VA. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Issues/Problems Encountered/Deficiencies/Deviations from QAPP (and resolutions): • Salt Lake County has a mandatory mask mandate in effect since Saturday, June 27. Masks are required in public. • The pump at MW-02 was not functioning. The pump was cleaned and parts were replaced (o-rings, check balls, intake screen), but the pump remained nonfunctional. A non-dedicated QED sample pro pump will be used to attempt a sample on 3/23/21. A rinsate blank will be collected and submitted if a successful sample is collected using this pump. The issues encountered at this pump were consistent with some of the past issues (including MW-05R). The pitting and corrosion occurring within the pump internals is the presumed issue for pump problems, but Solinst will be contacted for further troubleshooting. • Three depths at MW-27 (46 ft, 75 ft, and 155 ft) were too tight to properly purge or collect a soil gas sample. Two depths (28 ft and 113 ft) at this location were successfully purged and sampled. Projected Work – Near Term: • Finish groundwater sampling 3/22/21. • Ship the remaining groundwater samples and return all groundwater sampling rental field equipment. • Continue soil gas/indoor air sampling 3/23/21 to 3/26/21. Other Activities/Remarks: • None. Photos: Date: 3/22/2021 Location: MW-13L Description: Equipment setup Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 3/22/2021 Location: MW-02 Description: Pump bladder in good condition Date: 3/22/2021 Location: MW-02 Description: Pump internals with significant staining and corrosion Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 3/22/2021 Location: MW-02 Description: Pump intake screen Date: 3/22/2021 Location: MW-02 Description: Pump internals Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 3/22/2021 Location: MW-27-113' Description: Tightening soil gas tubing to summa canister prior to starting the collection. Date: 3/22/2021 Location: SG-03 Description: Soil gas probe sample collection. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 3/22/2021 Location: MW-27-75' Description: Attempting to purge soil gas probe tubing with air pump. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah DATE: 3/23/2021 Prepared by: Ben Carreon Personnel on site, including Contractors: CDM Smith – Ben Carreon, Maria Day, Tea Vrtlar, Emma Rott, Iona Campbell, Whitney Treadway Wasatch – Kevin Murphy, Kiel Keller Visitors/Others: VA – Wynn John Weather Temperature Wind Humidity Sunny Partly Cloudy Overcast Rain Snow 85+ º F 70 to 85º F 50 to 70 º F 32 to 50 º F 0 To 32 º F Still Moderate High Dry Moderate Humid Equipment in Use (field instruments, subcontractor equip, etc.) • Low-flow groundwater sampling equipment • Soil gas/vapor sampling equipment Description of Field Activities – including samples/data collected, etc: • A H&S tailgate was conducted at the IDW yard area. • Equipment was calibrated. • Groundwater Sampling completed. o Groundwater samples collected: ▪ MW-02 (MW02-GW032321) • For the following parameters: o VOCs ▪ An equipment blank (EB01-GW032321) was collected from the nondedicated pump at MW-02 • For the following parameters: o VOCs o The following samples were shipped to EMAX: ▪ FB01-GW032221 • Field blank collected at MW-13L for the following parameters: o VOCs o 1,4-dioxane ▪ EB01-GW032321 ▪ MW02-GW032321 o The remainder of the groundwater sampling equipment was returned to Field Environmental. o A j-plug was added to MW-05R since the malfunctioning pump was pulled and a protective housing was no longer in place. o Organization in the conex buildings and around the IDW yard was performed. • Soil Gas Sampling o Collected the following samples: ▪ SG10-SG032321 ▪ SG08-SG032321 ▪ SG13-SG032321 ▪ FD01-SG032321 ▪ MW28-SG032321-24 ▪ MW28-SG032321-48 ▪ MW28-SG032321-118 ▪ SG11-SG032321 Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah ▪ SG50-SG032321 ▪ SG55-SG032321 ▪ SG04-SG032321 ▪ SG05-SG032321 ▪ SG06-SG032321 ▪ MW23-SG032321-135 o Shipped all 14 soil gas samples to Eurofins Air Toxics for TO-15 analysis. Issues/Problems Encountered/Deficiencies/Deviations from QAPP (and resolutions): • Salt Lake County has a mandatory mask mandate in effect since Saturday, June 27. Masks are required in public. • The three depths at MW-27 (46 ft, 75 ft, and 155 ft) which were too tight to properly purge or sample were troubleshooted. Troubleshooting consisted of applying pressure through a nitrogen cylinder, r egulator, pneumatic hose, and a Swagelok fitted airline. Pressure was applied at approximately 1 PSI per foot of the SG probe length or 50 psi, 75 psi, and 150 psi, respectively. The SG locations were pressurized for five minutes at which point the tank valve was closed. The regulator pressure was monitored for loss in pressure. The 46 and 75 ft probes bled pressure at approximately 10 and 5 psi per minute, respectively. The 155 ft probe did not drop any pressure over a minute after the tank valve was closed. None of the three locations resulted in any change in tank pressure over the duration of the 5-minute injection tests. Attempts were then made to purge the SG locations with the vacuum pump, which were unsuccessful. Based on observations from injection testing and vacuum pump purging, blockage in these three lines is apparent. • A breaker for the conex was tripped and reset from charging a PID and running lights. Projected Work – Near Term: • Continue soil gas/indoor air sampling 3/24/21 to 3/26/21. • The groundwater sampling team with demobilize 3/24/2021. Other Activities/Remarks: • None. Photos: Date: 3/23/2021 Location: MW-02 Description: QED sample pro Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 3/23/2021 Location: MW-05R Description: J-plug at MW-05R Date: 3/23/2021 Location: SG-10 Description: Soil gas parent and duplicate sample collection with t-bar. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 3/23/2021 Location: SG-55 Description: Purging soil gas probe with hand pump. Calculated volume of soil gas inside the tubing and purged three times that volume. Date: 3/23/2021 Location: MW-23 Description: Collecting soil gas sample at 1- inch PVC probe with a screened interval of 130 to 140 ft bgs. Casing was sealed at the surface with ¼-inch tubing extending down into the casing approximately 8 feet. Appendix C Quality Control Summary Report Quality Control Summary Report Q1 2021 Groundwater Sampling  Event  Operable Unit 1 Remedial Investigation   700 South 1600 East PCE Plume,   Salt Lake City, Utah  June 2021  i  Table of Contents   Section 1 Data Usability and Assessment Review .............................................................. 1‐1  1.1 Usability Summary ................................................................................................................................................... 1-1  Section 2 Quality Assurance Objectives ............................................................................. 2‐1  Section 3 Field and Laboratory Quality Assurance Activities .............................................. 3‐1  3.1 Deviations from Field Procedures ..................................................................................................................... 3-2  3.2 Field Quality Assurance/Quality Control ....................................................................................................... 3-2  3.3 Laboratory Quality Assurance/Quality Control .......................................................................................... 3-3  3.3.1 Laboratory Methods .................................................................................................................................. 3-3  Section 4 Data Validation Procedures ................................................................................ 4‐1  Section 5 Data Quality Indicators ....................................................................................... 5‐1  5.1 Precision ....................................................................................................................................................................... 5-1  5.2 Accuracy ....................................................................................................................................................................... 5-2  5.2.1 Percent Recovery ........................................................................................................................................ 5-2  5.2.2 Blank Contamination ................................................................................................................................. 5-4  5.3 Representativeness .................................................................................................................................................. 5-6  5.4 Comparability ............................................................................................................................................................. 5-6  5.5 Completeness ............................................................................................................................................................. 5-6  5.6 Sensitivity ..................................................................................................................................................................... 5-7  Section 6 Data Usability Assessment ................................................................................. 6‐1  Section 7 References ......................................................................................................... 7‐1  List of Tables  Table 3-1 Sample List and Analyses Table 3-2 Blank Sample Results Table 4-1 Qualification Summary  Table 5-1 DQIs and Corresponding QC Parameters  Table 5-2 Summary of Field Duplicate Sampling Results  Attachments  Attachment 1 Data Validation Reports  Attachment 2 Data Package Completeness Review Checklists  Attachment 3 Analytical Data Packages    i  Acronyms  CCV continuing calibration verification CDM Smith CDM Federal Programs Corporation COC chain-of-custody DQI data quality indicator DQO data quality objective EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ICP inductively coupled plasma ICP-MS inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry ICV initial calibration verification LCS laboratory control sample LCSD laboratory control sample duplicate EMAX EMAX Laboratories, Inc. MDL method detection limit MRL method reporting limit MS matrix spike MS matrix spike duplicate NTU nephelometric turbidity unit PARCCS precision, accuracy, representativeness, comparability, completeness, and sensitivity PCE tetrachloroethene QA quality assurance QAPP quality assurance project plan QC quality control QCSR quality control summary report RPD relative percent difference RSD relative standard deviation SDG sample delivery group Site 700 South 1600 East Tetrachloroethene Plume Superfund Site SM standard method USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers VOC volatile organic compound % percent %D percent difference %R percent recovery 1-1 Section 1 Data Usability and Assessment Review Under the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Kansas City District, Contract No. W912DQ-18-D-3008, Task Order No. W912DQ19F3048, CDM Federal Programs Corporation (CDM Smith) wasdirected to perform a remedial investigation for Operable Unit 1 of the 700 South 1600 EastTetrachloroethene (PCE) Plume Superfund Site (Site) in Salt Lake City, Utah. To assist in theongoing remedial investigation at the Site, groundwater samples were collected from March 16 to23, 2021 and shipped to EMAX Laboratories, Inc. (EMAX) in Torrance, California for analysis.The purpose of this quality control summary report (QCSR) is to summarize the data validation and determine whether the sample results meet the data quality objective (DQO) of the data usability outlined in the Phase 2 OU1 Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP), (CDM Smith 2020). 1.1 Usability Summary Data collected and validated during this field investigation are usable as reported. Applicable data validation qualifiers were added if required. No sample results were rejected. Specific details are provided in the data validation reports summarized in Section 5 and presented in Attachment 1 of this report. 2-1 Section 2 Quality Assurance Objectives Quality assurance (QA) objectives for measurement data are expressed in terms of precision, accuracy, representativeness, comparability, completeness, and sensitivity (PARCCS). The PARCCS parameters characterize the quality of the data and as such are called data quality indicators (DQIs). The DQIs provide a mechanism for ongoing quality control (QC) and evaluating and measuring data quality throughout the project. A review of the collected data is necessary to determine if data measurement objectives established in the QAPP (CDM Smith 2020) were met. In general, the following data measurement objectives were considered:  Achievement of analytical method and reporting limit requirements  Adherence to and achievement of appropriate laboratory analytical and field QC requirements  Achievement of required measurement performance criteria for DQIs (the PARCCS parameters)  Adherence to sampling and sample handling procedures  Adherence to the sampling design and deviations documented on field change notifications, if required The data validation review of the DQIs and other QA objectives determines if the data are of sufficient quality to support their intended use. 3-1 Section 3 Field and Laboratory Quality Assurance Activities CDM Smith completed field sampling activities between March 16 and March 23, 2021. The following table provides a summary of the number of samples collected and the dates each sampling event occurred: EMAX SDG* 21C208 – Groundwater – March 16 through 18, 2021 15 samples 2 field duplicate samples 2 trip blank samples EMAX SDG 21C209 – Groundwater - March 16 through 18, 2021 15 samples 2 field duplicate samples 3 trip blank samples EMAX SDG 21C248– Groundwater – March 18 through 22, 2021 12 samples 1 field duplicate sample 3 trip blank samples EMAX SDG 21C250 – Groundwater – March 19 through 22, 2021 21 samples 2 field duplicate samples 2 trip blank samples EMAX SDG 21C281 – Groundwater – March 22 and 23, 2021 1 sample 1 field blank sample 1 equipment blank sample 1 trip blank sample *SDG – sample delivery group All samples were received intact with proper chain-of-custody (COC) documentation at EMAX. Sample identification was accurately documented with the exception of three samples in SDG 21C250. Samples were misidentified as MW34B-GW031922, MW34C-GW031923, MW34D-GW031924 in both the laboratory report and electronic data deliverable file. The correct sample names are MW34B-GW031921, MW34C-GW031921, and MW34D-GW031921 respectively. The laboratory was contacted and a revised data package and electronic data deliverable was resubmitted. Table 3-1 presents a list of the samples collected and the analyses performed. Attachment 2 presents the completeness review checklists of the data packages. Attachment 3 includes the analytical data packages. Sample preparation and analyses were conducted within the method-specified holding times. Section 3 • Field and Laboratory Quality Assurance Activities 3-2 The QAPP (CDM Smith 2020) defined the procedures to be followed and the data quality requirements for the field sampling events and associated analytical work. 3.1 Deviations from Field Procedures As discussed in the Data Summary Report, the following deviations were encountered during the sampling events:  Purge parameter stabilization criteria for turbidity (either less than 10 nephelometric turbidity unit [NTU] or less than 50 NTU and within 10 percent) were not met at MW-14S and MW-23B. Turbidity at these locations was less than 50 NTU, but not within 10 percent. As all other purge parameter stabilization criteria were met and turbidity was below 50 NTU, there is no expected impact upon data quality at these locations.  Purge parameter stabilization criteria for turbidity and conductivity (within 10 percent) was not met for MW-08C. As three times the minimum purge volume had been removed and all other purge parameter stabilization criteria were met, there is no expected impact upon data quality at this location.  As MW-13S was purged dry, a sample was collected the next day once sufficient recharge was observed without meeting purge parameter stabilization. This is an acceptable deviation in the low-flow groundwater sampling standard operating procedure, and there is no impact upon data quality at this location.  Because of a malfunctioning pump at MW-05R, groundwater samples could not be obtained. At MW-12S, there was insufficient water to collect a groundwater sample. As both of these locations have been successfully sampled in the past, there is no significant impact on the groundwater plume delineation DQO.  Water level elevations could not be measured at MW-29A, MW-31A, and MW-34A because the water level was above the pump intake but below the volume booster. As the water level of the shallow aquifer could be measured at other screened intervals at each of these locations, there is no impact upon data quality. These deviations do not impact the DQOs and these well locations and analyses will be sampled during upcoming sampling events. 3.2 Field Quality Assurance/Quality Control Seven field duplicate pairs, and 10 matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate (MS/MSD) samples were analyzed with the 64 environmental groundwater samples. Four MS/MSD samples were analyzed for volatiles and six other MS/MSD samples were analyzed for nitrate/nitrite, total organic carbon, sulfate, chloride, metals and mercury. The QC sample collection frequency requirements in the QAPP (CDM Smith 2020) of 10 percent for field duplicates and 5 percent for MS/MSD samples were met. One equipment blank and one field blank sample were collected. Trip blanks were submitted with each cooler sent to the laboratory, for a total of 11 trip blank samples. Table 3-2 presents the results for the field and trip blank sample results. Section 3 • Field and Laboratory Quality Assurance Activities 3-3 Field QA/QC objectives were accomplished through the use of appropriate sampling techniques and collection of the required QC samples at the required frequencies. 3.3 Laboratory Quality Assurance/Quality Control Analytical QA/QC was assessed by laboratory QC checks, method blanks, sample custody tracking, sample preservation, adherence to holding times, laboratory control samples (LCSs), MS samples, calibration verifications, surrogates, inductively coupled plasma (ICP) interference checks, and other applicable QC parameters. As presented in the data validation reports in Attachment 1 of this report, the laboratory QC samples met project criteria requirements with the appropriate qualifiers applied. All data are considered usable. 3.3.1 Laboratory Methods Samples were analyzed using the following U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) method or Standard Method (SM) (EPA 2004): Groundwater  EPA Method SW8260C – volatile organic compound (VOCs)  EPA Method SW8270D selective ion monitoring – semivolatile organic compounds – (1,4-Dioxane)  EPA Method SW6020A – Metals  EPA Method SW7470A – Mercury  Method RSK-175 – Dissolved gases (ethane, ethene, methane)  EPA Method E300.0 – Chloride, sulfate  Method SM2320B – Total alkalinity  Method SM4500-NO3E – Nitrogen, nitrate-nitrite  EPA Method SW9060 – Total organic carbon The methods used met project objectives. Table 3‐1  Sample List and Analyses Field Sample ID Matrix Date Sampled Laboratory SDG Method EB01‐GW032321 WG 3/23/2021 21C281 SW8260C FB01‐GW032221 WG 3/22/2021 21C281 SW8270D SIM SW8260C FD01‐GW032221 WG 3/22/2021 21C250 SW8260C FD02‐GW031721 WG 3/17/2021 21C209 SW8260C FD03‐GW032121 WG 3/21/2021 21C250 SW8260C FD04‐GW032221 WG 3/22/2021 21C248 SW8270D SIM A4500NE E300.0 RSK‐175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 FD05‐GW031621 WG 3/16/2021 21C208 SW8270D SIM A4500NE E300.0 RSK‐175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 FD06‐GW031721 WG 3/17/2021 21C209 SW8270D SIM A4500NE E300.0 RSK‐175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 FD07‐GW031621 WG 3/16/2021 21C208 SW8270D SIM A4500NE E300.0 RSK‐175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 MW01D‐GW032221 WG 3/22/2021 21C250 SW8260C MW01S‐GW032221 WG 3/22/2021 21C250 SW8260C MW02‐GW032321 WG 3/23/2021 21C281 SW8260C MW03RA‐GW032121 WG 3/21/2021 21C250 SW8260C MW03RB‐GW032121 WG 3/21/2021 21C250 SW8260C MW03RC‐GW032121 WG 3/21/2021 21C250 SW8260C MW03RD‐GW032121 WG 3/21/2021 21C250 SW8260C MW04‐GW032221 WG 3/22/2021 21C250 SW8260C MW06‐GW032221 WG 3/22/2021 21C250 SW8260C MW08A‐GW031721 WG 3/17/2021 21C209 SW8260C MW08B‐GW031721 WG 3/17/2021 21C209 SW8260C Page 1 of 7 Table 3‐1  Sample List and Analyses Field Sample ID Matrix Date Sampled Laboratory SDG Method MW08C‐GW031721 WG 3/17/2021 21C209 SW8260C MW12D‐GW031721 WG 3/17/2021 21C208 SW8260C MW13D‐GW032121 WG 3/21/2021 21C250 SW8260C MW13L‐GW032221 WG 3/22/2021 21C248 SW8270D SIM A4500NE E300.0 RSK‐175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 MW13S‐GW032221 WG 3/22/2021 21C250 SW8260C MW14D‐GW031821 WG 3/18/2021 21C208 SW8260C MW14S‐GW031821 WG 3/18/2021 21C208 SW8260C MW15D‐GW031621 WG 3/16/2021 21C208 SW8260C MW15S‐GW031621 WG 3/16/2021 21C208 SW8260C MW16D‐GW031721 WG 3/17/2021 21C208 SW8260C MW16S‐GW031721 WG 3/17/2021 21C208 SW8260C MW17D‐GW031921 WG 3/19/2021 21C250 SW8260C MW17S‐GW031921 WG 3/19/2021 21C250 SW8260C MW18‐GW032121 WG 3/21/2021 21C250 SW8260C MW19‐GW032121 WG 3/21/2021 21C250 SW8260C MW20D‐GW031921 WG 3/19/2021 21C248 SW8260C MW20S‐GW031921 WG 3/19/2021 21C248 SW8260C MW21‐GW031621 WG 3/16/2021 21C208 SW8260C MW22‐GW032121 WG 3/21/2021 21C248 SW8260C MW23A‐GW031621 WG 3/16/2021 21C208 A4500NE E300.0 RSK‐175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 MW23B‐GW031621 WG 3/16/2021 21C208 A4500NE E300.0 RSK‐175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 MW23C‐GW031621 WG 3/16/2021 21C208 A4500NE E300.0 RSK‐175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 Page 2 of 7 Table 3‐1  Sample List and Analyses Field Sample ID Matrix Date Sampled Laboratory SDG Method MW24‐GW032121 WG 3/21/2021 21C248 A4500NE E300.0 RSK‐175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 MW25A‐GW032121 WG 3/21/2021 21C248 A4500NE E300.0 RSK‐175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 MW25B‐GW032121 WG 3/21/2021 21C248 A4500NE E300.0 RSK‐175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 MW25C‐GW032121 WG 3/21/2021 21C248 A4500NE E300.0 RSK‐175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 MW26A‐GW031721 WG 3/17/2021 21C209 A4500NE E300.0 RSK‐175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 MW26B‐GW031721 WG 3/17/2021 21C209 A4500NE E300.0 RSK‐175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 MW26C‐GW031821 WG 3/18/2021 21C209 SW8270D SIM A4500NE E300.0 RSK‐175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 Page 3 of 7 Table 3‐1  Sample List and Analyses Field Sample ID Matrix Date Sampled Laboratory SDG Method MW26D‐GW031821 WG 3/18/2021 21C209 SW8270D SIM A4500NE E300.0 RSK‐175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 MW27‐GW031621 WG 3/16/2021 21C208 A4500NE E300.0 RSK‐175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 MW28‐GW032121 WG 3/21/2021 21C248 A4500NE E300.0 RSK‐175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 MW29A‐GW031921 WG 3/19/2021 21C250 A4500NE E300.0 RSK‐175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 MW29B‐GW031921 WG 3/19/2021 21C250 A4500NE E300.0 RSK‐175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 MW29C‐GW031921 WG 3/19/2021 21C250 A4500NE E300.0 RSK‐175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 MW30C‐GW031621 WG 3/16/2021 21C209 A4500NE E300.0 RSK‐175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 Page 4 of 7 Table 3‐1  Sample List and Analyses Field Sample ID Matrix Date Sampled Laboratory SDG Method MW30RA‐GW031621 WG 3/16/2021 21C209 A4500NE E300.0 RSK‐175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 MW30RB‐GW031621 WG 3/16/2021 21C209 A4500NE E300.0 RSK‐175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 MW31A‐GW031821 WG 3/18/2021 21C248 A4500NE E300.0 RSK‐175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 MW31B‐GW031821 WG 3/18/2021 21C248 A4500NE E300.0 RSK‐175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 MW31C‐GW031821 WG 3/18/2021 21C248 A4500NE E300.0 RSK‐175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 MW32A‐GW031721 WG 3/17/2021 21C209 A4500NE E300.0 RSK‐175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 MW32B‐GW031721 WG 3/17/2021 21C209 A4500NE E300.0 RSK‐175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 Page 5 of 7 Table 3‐1  Sample List and Analyses Field Sample ID Matrix Date Sampled Laboratory SDG Method MW32C‐GW031721 WG 3/17/2021 21C209 A4500NE E300.0 RSK‐175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 MW34A‐GW031921 WG 3/19/2021 21C250 A4500NE E300.0 RSK‐175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 MW34B‐GW031921 WG 3/19/2021 21C250 A4500NE E300.0 RSK‐175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 MW34C‐GW031921 WG 3/19/2021 21C250 A4500NE E300.0 RSK‐175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 MW34D‐GW031921 WG 3/19/2021 21C250 A4500NE E300.0 RSK‐175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 MW36‐GW031621 WG 3/16/2021 21C208 A4500NE E300.0 RSK‐175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 MW37D‐GW031721 WG 3/17/2021 21C208 A4500NE E300.0 RSK‐175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 Page 6 of 7 Table 3‐1  Sample List and Analyses Field Sample ID Matrix Date Sampled Laboratory SDG Method MW37S‐GW031721 WG 3/17/2021 21C208 A4500NE E300.0 RSK‐175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 MW38D‐GW031821 WG 3/18/2021 21C209 A4500NE E300.0 RSK‐175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 MW38S‐GW031721 WG 3/17/2021 21C209 A4500NE E300.0 RSK‐175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 TB01‐GW031821 WG 3/18/2021 21C208 SW8260C TB01‐GW032221 WG 3/22/2021 21C250 SW8260C TB01‐GW032321 WG 3/23/2021 21C281 SW8260C TB02‐GW031821 WG 3/18/2021 21C209 SW8260C TB02‐GW032221 WG 3/22/2021 21C250 SW8260C TB03‐GW031821 WG 3/18/2021 21C209 SW8260C TB03‐GW032221 WG 3/22/2021 21C248 SW8260C TB04‐GW031821 WG 3/18/2021 21C208 SW8260C TB04‐GW032221 WG 3/22/2021 21C248 SW8260C TB05‐GW031821 WG 3/18/2021 21C209 SW8260C TB05‐GW032221 WG 3/22/2021 21C248 SW8260C Acronyms: ID ‐ identificaton SDG ‐ sample delivery group WG ‐ groundwater SW8260C ‐ volatile organic compounds SW8270D SIM ‐ semivolatile organic compounds ‐ selective ion monitoring SW6020A ‐ metals SW7470A ‐ mercury RSK‐175 ‐ dissolved gases ‐ methane, ethane, ethene E300.0 ‐ chloride, sulfate SM2320B ‐ total alkalinity A4500NE ‐ nitrogen, nitrate‐nitrite SW9060 ‐ total organic carbon Page 7 of 7 Table 3‐2 Blank Sample Results Method Analyte Units Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q 8270DSIM 1,4‐Dioxane µg/L ‐‐ ‐‐0.43 U ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ SW8260C 1,1,1‐Trichloroethane µg/L 1U1U1U1U1U1U1U1U SW8260C 1,1,2,2‐Tetrachloroethane µg/L 1U1U1U1U1U1U1U1U SW8260C 1,1,2‐Trichloroethane µg/L 1U1U1U1U1U1U1U1U SW8260C 1,1,2‐Trichlorotrifluoroethane µg/L 1U1U1U1U1U1U1U1U SW8260C 1,1‐Dichloroethane µg/L 1U1U1U1U1U1U1U1U SW8260C 1,1‐Dichloroethene µg/L 1U1U1U1U1U1U1U1U SW8260C 1,2,3‐Trichlorobenzene µg/L 1U1U1U1U1U1U1U1U SW8260C 1,2,4‐Trichlorobenzene µg/L 1U1U1U1U1U1U1U1U SW8260C 1,2,4‐Trimethylbenzene µg/L 1U1U1U1U1U1U1U1U SW8260C 1,2‐Dibromo‐3‐Chloropropane µg/L 2U2U2U2U2U2U2U2U SW8260C 1,2‐Dibromoethane µg/L 1U1U1U1U1U1U1U1U SW8260C 1,2‐Dichlorobenzene µg/L 1U1U1U1U1U1U1U1U SW8260C 1,2‐Dichloroethane µg/L 1U1U1U1U1U1U1U1U SW8260C 1,2‐Dichloropropane µg/L 1U1U1U1U1U1U1U1U SW8260C 1,3,5‐Trimethylbenzene µg/L 1U1U1U1U1U1U1U1U SW8260C 1,3‐Dichlorobenzene µg/L 1U1U1U1U1U1U1U1U SW8260C 1,4‐Dichlorobenzene µg/L 1U1U1U1U1U1U1U1U SW8260C 2‐Butanone (MEK)µg/L 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U SW8260C 2‐Hexanone µg/L 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U SW8260C 4‐Methyl‐2‐Pentanone (MIBK)µg/L 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U SW8260C Acetone µg/L 3.9 J 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U SW8260C Benzene µg/L 1U1U1U1U1U1U1U1U SW8260C Bromochloromethane µg/L 1U1U1U1U1U1U1U1U SW8260C Bromodichloromethane µg/L 1U1U1U1U1U1U1U1U SW8260C Bromoform µg/L 1U1U1U1U1U1U1U1U SW8260C Bromomethane µg/L 1U1U1U1U1U1U1U1U SW8260C Carbon Disulfide µg/L 1U1U1U1U1U1U1U1U SW8260C Carbon Tetrachloride µg/L 1U1U1U1U1U1U1U1U SW8260C Chlorobenzene µg/L 1U1U1U1U1U1U1U1U SW8260C Chloroethane µg/L 1U1U1U1U1U1U1U1U SW8260C Chloroform µg/L 1U1U1U1U1U1U1U1U SW8260C Chloromethane µg/L 1U1U1U1U1U1U1U1U SW8260C cis‐1,2‐Dichloroethene µg/L 1U1U1U1U1U1U1U1U SW8260C cis‐1,3‐Dichloropropene µg/L 1U1U1U1U1U1U1U1U SW8260C Dibromochloromethane µg/L 1U1U1U1U1U1U1U1U SW8260C Dichlorodifluoromethane µg/L 1U1U1U1U1U1U1U1U SW8260C Ethylbenzene µg/L 1U1U1U1U1U1U1U1U SW8260C Isopropylbenzene µg/L 1U1U1U1U1U1U1U1U SW8260C m/p‐Xylenes µg/L 2U2U2U2U2U2U2U2U SW8260C Methyl Acetate µg/L 2U2U2U2U2U2U2U2U SW8260C Methyl Tert‐Butyl Ether µg/L 1U1U1U1U1U1U1U1U SW8260C Methylene Chloride µg/L 2U2U2U2U2U0.54 J 2U2U Sample ID Sample Type Sample Date SDG EB01‐GW032321 EB 3/23/2021 21C281 FB01‐GW032221 FB 3/22/2021 21C281 TB01‐GW031821 TB 3/18/2021 21C208 TB01‐GW032221 TB 3/22/2021 21C250 TB01‐GW032321 TB 3/23/2021 21C281 21C209 TB02‐GW032221 TB 3/22/2021 21C250 TB03‐GW031821 TB 3/18/2021 21C209 TB02‐GW031821 TB 3/18/2021 Page 1 of 4 Table 3‐2 Blank Sample Results Sample ID Sample Type Sample Date SDG EB01‐GW032321 EB 3/23/2021 21C281 FB01‐GW032221 FB 3/22/2021 21C281 TB01‐GW031821 TB 3/18/2021 21C208 TB01‐GW032221 TB 3/22/2021 21C250 TB01‐GW032321 TB 3/23/2021 21C281 21C209 TB02‐GW032221 TB 3/22/2021 21C250 TB03‐GW031821 TB 3/18/2021 21C209 TB02‐GW031821 TB 3/18/2021 SW8260C o‐Xylene µg/L 1U1U1U1U1U1U1U1U SW8260C Styrene µg/L 1U1U1U1U1U1U1U1U SW8260C Tetrachloroethene µg/L 1U1U1U1U1U1U1U1U SW8260C Toluene µg/L 1U1U1U1U1U1U1U1U SW8260C trans‐1,2‐Dichloroethene µg/L 1U1U1U1U1U1U1U1U SW8260C trans‐1,3‐Dichloropropene µg/L 1U1U1U1U1U1U1U1U SW8260C Trichloroethene µg/L 1U1U1U1U1U1U1U1U SW8260C Trichlorofluoromethane µg/L 1U1U1U1U1U1U1U1U SW8260C Vinyl Acetate µg/L 2U2U2U2U2U2U2U2U SW8260C Vinyl Chloride µg/L 1U1U1U1U1U1U1U1U Acronyms: SW8260C ‐ volatile organic compounds µg/L ‐ microgram per liter EB ‐ equipment blank FB ‐ field blank ID ‐ identification J ‐ estimated Q ‐ qualifier SDG ‐ sample delivery group TB ‐ trip blank U ‐ nondetect Highlighted and bolded results are detect. ‐‐ ‐ not analyzed 8270DSIM ‐ semivolatile organic compounds selective ion  monitoring Page 2 of 4 Table 3‐2 Blank Sample Results Method Analyte Units 8270DSIM 1,4‐Dioxane µg/L SW8260C 1,1,1‐Trichloroethane µg/L SW8260C 1,1,2,2‐Tetrachloroethane µg/L SW8260C 1,1,2‐Trichloroethane µg/L SW8260C 1,1,2‐Trichlorotrifluoroethane µg/L SW8260C 1,1‐Dichloroethane µg/L SW8260C 1,1‐Dichloroethene µg/L SW8260C 1,2,3‐Trichlorobenzene µg/L SW8260C 1,2,4‐Trichlorobenzene µg/L SW8260C 1,2,4‐Trimethylbenzene µg/L SW8260C 1,2‐Dibromo‐3‐Chloropropane µg/L SW8260C 1,2‐Dibromoethane µg/L SW8260C 1,2‐Dichlorobenzene µg/L SW8260C 1,2‐Dichloroethane µg/L SW8260C 1,2‐Dichloropropane µg/L SW8260C 1,3,5‐Trimethylbenzene µg/L SW8260C 1,3‐Dichlorobenzene µg/L SW8260C 1,4‐Dichlorobenzene µg/L SW8260C 2‐Butanone (MEK)µg/L SW8260C 2‐Hexanone µg/L SW8260C 4‐Methyl‐2‐Pentanone (MIBK)µg/L SW8260C Acetone µg/L SW8260C Benzene µg/L SW8260C Bromochloromethane µg/L SW8260C Bromodichloromethane µg/L SW8260C Bromoform µg/L SW8260C Bromomethane µg/L SW8260C Carbon Disulfide µg/L SW8260C Carbon Tetrachloride µg/L SW8260C Chlorobenzene µg/L SW8260C Chloroethane µg/L SW8260C Chloroform µg/L SW8260C Chloromethane µg/L SW8260C cis‐1,2‐Dichloroethene µg/L SW8260C cis‐1,3‐Dichloropropene µg/L SW8260C Dibromochloromethane µg/L SW8260C Dichlorodifluoromethane µg/L SW8260C Ethylbenzene µg/L SW8260C Isopropylbenzene µg/L SW8260C m/p‐Xylenes µg/L SW8260C Methyl Acetate µg/L SW8260C Methyl Tert‐Butyl Ether µg/L SW8260C Methylene Chloride µg/L Sample ID Sample Type Sample Date SDG Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 2U2U2U2U2U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 2U2U2U2U2U 2U2U2U2U2U 1U1U1U1U1U 2U2U2U0.54 J 2U TB05‐GW032221 TB 3/22/2021 21C248 TB04‐GW031821 TB 3/18/2021 21C208 TB04‐GW032221 TB 3/22/2021 21C248 TB05‐GW031821 TB 3/18/2021 21C209 TB03‐GW032221 TB 3/22/2021 21C248 Page 3 of 4 Table 3‐2 Blank Sample Results Sample ID Sample Type Sample Date SDG SW8260C o‐Xylene µg/L SW8260C Styrene µg/L SW8260C Tetrachloroethene µg/L SW8260C Toluene µg/L SW8260C trans‐1,2‐Dichloroethene µg/L SW8260C trans‐1,3‐Dichloropropene µg/L SW8260C Trichloroethene µg/L SW8260C Trichlorofluoromethane µg/L SW8260C Vinyl Acetate µg/L SW8260C Vinyl Chloride µg/L Acronyms: SW8260C ‐ volatile organic compounds µg/L ‐ microgram per liter EB ‐ equipment blank FB ‐ field blank ID ‐ identification J ‐ estimated Q ‐ qualifier SDG ‐ sample delivery group TB ‐ trip blank U ‐ nondetect Highlighted and bolded results are detect. ‐‐ ‐ not analyzed 8270DSIM ‐ semivolatile organic compounds selective ion  monitoring TB05‐GW032221 TB 3/22/2021 21C248 TB04‐GW031821 TB 3/18/2021 21C208 TB04‐GW032221 TB 3/22/2021 21C248 TB05‐GW031821 TB 3/18/2021 21C209 TB03‐GW032221 TB 3/22/2021 21C248 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 1U1U1U1U1U 2U2U2U2U2U 1U1U1U1U1U Page 4 of 4 4-1 Section 4 Data Validation Procedures For this QCSR, there were five laboratory SDGs. Qualified CDM Smith data validators not associated with project sampling activities validated the data reported in the five SDGs. Data validation was performed in accordance with specified analytical methods and performance criteria outlined in the QAPP (CDM Smith 2020) and in the EPA National Functional Guidelines for Inorganic Superfund Methods Data Review (EPA 2017a) and EPA National Functional Guidelines for Organic Superfund Methods Data Review (EPA 2017b). Validation reports were prepared and are presented in Attachment 1. The following SDG data packages were validated:  EMAX – SDG 21C208  EMAX – SDG 21C209  EMAX – SDG 21C248  EMAX – SDG 21C250  EMAX – SDG 21C281 Table 4-1 presents the results that were qualified and the reasons for the qualifications. Qualifiers applied are defined as follows:  J → Result is an estimated quantity. The associated numerical value is the approximate concentration of the analyte in the sample.  J- → Result is an estimated quantity. The associated numerical value is the approximate concentration of the analyte in the sample and is considered biased low.  U → Analyte was analyzed for but was not detected above the level of the sample method reporting limit (MRL).  UJ → Analyte was analyzed for but was not detected above the level of the sample MRL. The MRL is approximate. Table 4‐1 Qualification Summary Field Sample ID Lab SDG Method Analyte CAS #Final Result Unit Validation Qualifier Interpreted Qualifier Qualifier Reason FD04‐GW032221 21C248 A4500NE Nitrate/Nitrite 7727‐37‐94.1 mg/L J J FD FD04‐GW032221 21C248 E300.0 Chloride 16887‐00‐6 182 mg/L J‐J‐MS FD04‐GW032221 21C248 SW6020A Lead 7439‐92‐11 µg/L U‐RL U ICB FD05‐GW031621 21C208 E300.0 Chloride 16887‐00‐6 272 mg/L J J ICV FD06‐GW031721 21C209 E300.0 Chloride 16887‐00‐6 175 mg/L J J ICV FD07‐GW031621 21C208 E300.0 Chloride 16887‐00‐6 188 mg/L J J ICV MW02‐GW032321 21C281 SW8260C Acetone 67‐64‐120 µg/L U‐RL U EB MW13L‐GW032221 21C248 A4500NE Nitrate/Nitrite 7727‐37‐91.22 mg/L J J FD MW13L‐GW032221 21C248 E300.0 Chloride 16887‐00‐6 182 mg/L J‐J‐MS MW13L‐GW032221 21C248 SW6020A Lead 7439‐92‐11 µg/L U‐RL U ICB MW23A‐GW031621 21C208 E300.0 Chloride 16887‐00‐6 329 mg/L J J ICV MW23A‐GW031621 21C208 SW6020A Lead 7439‐92‐11 µg/L U‐RL U ICB MW23B‐GW031621 21C208 E300.0 Chloride 16887‐00‐6 184 mg/L J J ICV MW23B‐GW031621 21C208 SW6020A Lead 7439‐92‐11 µg/L U‐RL U ICB MW23C‐GW031621 21C208 E300.0 Chloride 16887‐00‐6 62.9 mg/L J J ICV MW24‐GW032121 21C248 E300.0 Chloride 16887‐00‐6 311 mg/L J‐J‐MS MW25A‐GW032121 21C248 E300.0 Chloride 16887‐00‐6 322 mg/L J‐J‐MS MW25A‐GW032121 21C248 SW6020A Lead 7439‐92‐11 µg/L U‐RL U ICB MW25B‐GW032121 21C248 E300.0 Chloride 16887‐00‐6 187 mg/L J‐J‐MS MW25C‐GW032121 21C248 E300.0 Chloride 16887‐00‐6 86.5 mg/L J‐J‐MS MW25C‐GW032121 21C248 SW6020A Lead 7439‐92‐11 µg/L U‐RL U ICB MW26A‐GW031721 21C209 E300.0 Chloride 16887‐00‐6 352 mg/L J J ICV MW26B‐GW031721 21C209 E300.0 Chloride 16887‐00‐6 189 mg/L J J ICV MW26C‐GW031821 21C209 E300.0 Chloride 16887‐00‐6 81.2 mg/L J J ICV MW26D‐GW031821 21C209 E300.0 Chloride 16887‐00‐6 59.3 mg/L J J ICV MW27‐GW031621 21C208 E300.0 Chloride 16887‐00‐6 309 mg/L J J ICV MW28‐GW032121 21C248 E300.0 Chloride 16887‐00‐6 385 mg/L J‐J‐MS MW28‐GW032121 21C248 SW7470A Mercury 7439‐97‐60.5 µg/L U‐RL U CCB MW29A‐GW031921 21C250 E300.0 Chloride 16887‐00‐6 203 mg/L J J ICV MW29A‐GW031921 21C250 SW6020A Chromium 7440‐47‐31 µg/L U‐RL U LB MW29B‐GW031921 21C250 E300.0 Chloride 16887‐00‐6 372 mg/L J J ICV MW29B‐GW031921 21C250 SW6020A Chromium 7440‐47‐31 µg/L U‐RL U LB MW29C‐GW031921 21C250 E300.0 Chloride 16887‐00‐6 147 mg/L J J ICV MW29C‐GW031921 21C250 SW6020A Chromium 7440‐47‐31 µg/L U‐RL U LB MW30C‐GW031621 21C209 E300.0 Chloride 16887‐00‐6 249 mg/L J J ICV MW30RA‐GW031621 21C209 E300.0 Chloride 16887‐00‐6 301 mg/L J J ICV MW30RB‐GW031621 21C209 E300.0 Chloride 16887‐00‐6 276 mg/L J J ICV MW31A‐GW031821 21C248 E300.0 Chloride 16887‐00‐6 190 mg/L J‐J‐MS MW31A‐GW031821 21C248 SW6020A Lead 7439‐92‐11 µg/L U‐RL U ICB MW31B‐GW031821 21C248 E300.0 Chloride 16887‐00‐6 129 mg/L J‐J‐MS Page 1 of 2 Table 4‐1 Qualification Summary Field Sample ID Lab SDG Method Analyte CAS #Final Result Unit Validation Qualifier Interpreted Qualifier Qualifier Reason MW31C‐GW031821 21C248 E300.0 Chloride 16887‐00‐6 85.5 mg/L J‐J‐MS MW32A‐GW031721 21C209 E300.0 Chloride 16887‐00‐6 198 mg/L J J ICV MW32B‐GW031721 21C209 E300.0 Chloride 16887‐00‐6 106 mg/L J J ICV MW32C‐GW031721 21C209 E300.0 Chloride 16887‐00‐6 61.3 mg/L J J ICV MW34A‐GW031921 21C250 E300.0 Chloride 16887‐00‐6 157 mg/L J J ICV MW34B‐GW031921 21C250 E300.0 Chloride 16887‐00‐6 132 mg/L J J ICV MW34B‐GW031921 21C250 SW6020A Chromium 7440‐47‐31 µg/L U‐RL U LB MW34C‐GW031921 21C250 E300.0 Chloride 16887‐00‐6 30.7 mg/L J J ICV MW34C‐GW031921 21C250 SW6020A Chromium 7440‐47‐31 µg/L U‐RL U LB MW34D‐GW031921 21C250 E300.0 Chloride 16887‐00‐6 44.6 mg/L J J ICV MW34D‐GW031921 21C250 SW6020A Chromium 7440‐47‐31 µg/L U‐RL U LB MW36‐GW031621 21C208 E300.0 Chloride 16887‐00‐6 186 mg/L J J ICV MW36‐GW031621 21C208 SW6020A Lead 7439‐92‐11 µg/L U‐RL U ICB MW37D‐GW031721 21C208 E300.0 Chloride 16887‐00‐6 272 mg/L J J ICV MW37S‐GW031721 21C208 E300.0 Chloride 16887‐00‐6 360 mg/L J J ICV MW38D‐GW031821 21C209 E300.0 Chloride 16887‐00‐6 156 mg/L J J ICV MW38S‐GW031721 21C209 E300.0 Chloride 16887‐00‐6 235 mg/L J J ICV Acronyms: ID ‐ identification U‐RL ‐ result is qualified as nondetect at the method reporting limit value SDG ‐ sample delivery group RL ‐ reporting limit CAS ‐ Chemical Abstract Service MS ‐ matrix spike criteria SW8260C ‐ volatile organic compounds FD ‐ field duplicate criteria SW6020A ‐ metals EB ‐ equipment blank criteria E300.0 ‐ chloride, sulfate ICB ‐ initial calibration blank criteria A4500NE ‐ nitrogen, nitrate‐nitrite ICV ‐ initial calibration verification criteria SW‐7470A ‐ mercury CCB ‐ continuing calibration blank criteria µg/L ‐ microgram per liter CCV ‐ continuing calibration verification criteria  mg/L ‐ milligram per liter LB ‐ laboratory blank criteria  U ‐ nondetect UJ ‐ estimated nondetect J ‐ estimated J‐   ‐ estimated value, biased low Page 2 of 2 5-1 Section 5 Data Quality Indicators This section summarizes the validation performed and the overall quality of the data. The validation reports are provided in Attachment 1. Achievement of the DQO regarding data usability was determined by the use of DQIs. These DQIs are expressed in terms of PARCCS. The DQIs provide a mechanism to evaluate and measure data quality throughout the project. These criteria are defined in Table 5-1 and in the following subsections. 5.1 Precision Precision is a quantitative term that estimates the reproducibility of a set of replicate measurements under a given set of conditions. It is defined as a measurement of mutual agreement between measurements of the same property and is expressed in terms of relative percent difference (RPD) between duplicate determinations. RPD is calculated as follows: RPD = absolute value [(C1 − C2)/{(C1 + C2)/2)}] × 100% Where: C1 = concentration of primary sample C2 = concentration of duplicate sample Field and analytical precision were determined from review of the field duplicate results, MS/MSDs, LCS/laboratory control sample duplicate (LCSDs), laboratory duplicates and ICP serial dilution tests. The duplicate sample results were compared after calculating their RPDs. Field duplicate samples were collected in the same manner as the original samples but collected in separate individual containers, given separate sample identifiers, and treated as unique samples by the laboratory. Table 5-2 presents the field duplicate sample results. A control limit of 30 percent RPD was used for the groundwater field duplicate samples when both sample concentrations were greater than five times the MRL. If the sample concentrations were below five times the MRL, the absolute difference between the samples is calculated; if that value is below the MRL, no qualification is required. Laboratory RPDs are specific to the QC parameter. RPD results are summarized below:  Field duplicate RPDs or the absolute criteria results were within control limits except for nitrate/nitrite in field duplicate pair MW13L-GW032221/FD04-GW032221 (absolute criteria not met) in SDG 21C248. The nitrate/nitrite results for these samples were qualified as estimated “J.” The difference between the sample results was greater than the MRL. Section 5 • Data Quality Indicators 5-2  Laboratory duplicate sample RPDs were within the control limits.  LCS/LCSD RPDs were within control limits.  MS/MSD RPDs were within control limits.  ICP serial dilution results were within criteria. No field or laboratory issues were identified from the RPD results outside criteria; the exceedances are reasonable for this type of sampling activity. 5.2 Accuracy Accuracy is the degree of agreement of a measurement with an accepted reference or true value and is a measure of the bias in a system. Two different metrics are evaluated to assess result accuracy—calculation of percent recovery (%R) for spiked analytes with known concentrations, and review of blank results for cross-contamination. 5.2.1 Percent Recovery Accuracy of the data was assessed by comparing recoveries of LCSs, MSs, calibration standards, surrogates, internal standards, and from ICP interference checks during metals analyses. Accuracy is expressed as %R, which is calculated as: Percent Recovery = (Total Analyte Found − Analyte Originally Present) × 100 Analyte Added Analytical accuracy for the entire data collection activity is difficult to measure because several sources of error exist. Errors can be introduced by any of the following:  Sampling procedure and duration of sampling  Field contamination  Sample preservation and handling  Sample matrix  Sample preparation  Analytical techniques Accuracy is maintained by adhering to the laboratory method and approved field and analytical standard operating procedures. The following is a summary of the accuracy parameters reviewed and the resulting qualifications for the data collected: Section 5 • Data Quality Indicators 5-3 SDG 21C208  LCS/LCSD %Rs were within criteria.  MS/MSD %Rs were within criteria.  Initial calibration verifications (ICVs) and continuing calibration verifications (CCVs) were within criteria except for chloride, with an ICV %R of 89.7 percent. Associated results were qualified as estimated “J/UJ.”  Surrogate results were within criteria.  ICP interference checks were within criteria.  Inorganic and organic tune results were within criteria.  Internal standard results were within criteria. SDG 21C209  LCS/LCSD %Rs were within criteria.  MS/MSD %Rs were within criteria.  ICVs and CCVs were within criteria except for chloride, with an ICV %R of 89.7 percent. Associated results were qualified as estimated “J/UJ.”  Surrogate results were within criteria.  ICP interference checks were within criteria.  Inorganic and organic tune results were within criteria.  Internal standard results were within criteria. SDG 21C248  LCS/LCSD %Rs were within criteria.  MS/MSD %Rs were within criteria except for chloride (78/78 percent). Associated results were qualified as estimated “J-/UJ.”  ICVs and CCVs were within criteria.  Surrogate results were within criteria.  ICP interference checks were within criteria.  Inorganic and organic tune results were within criteria.  Internal standard results were within criteria. Section 5 • Data Quality Indicators 5-4 SDG 21C250  LCS/LCSD %Rs were within criteria.  MS/MSD %Rs were within criteria.  ICVs and CCVs were within criteria except for chloride, with an ICV %R of 89.7 percent. Associated results were qualified as estimated “J/UJ”.  Surrogate results were within criteria.  ICP interference checks were within criteria.  Inorganic and organic tune results were within criteria.  Internal standard results were within criteria. SDG 21C281  LCS/LCSD %Rs were within criteria.  MS/MSD %Rs were within criteria.  ICVs and CCVs were within criteria.  Surrogate results were within criteria.  ICP interference checks were within criteria.  Inorganic and organic tune results were within criteria.  Internal standard results were within criteria. Sample preservation, handling, and holding times are additional measures of accuracy of the data. All cooler temperatures, sample handling information, and holding times were acceptable except for the three samples that were mislabeled as discussed in Section 3. 5.2.2 Blank Contamination Blanks are used to determine the level of laboratory and field contamination introduced into the samples, independent of the level of target analytes found in the sample source. Sources of sample contamination can include the containers and equipment used to collect the sample, preservatives added to the sample, other samples in transport coolers, laboratory sample storage refrigerators, standards and solutions used to calibrate instruments, glassware and reagents used to process samples, airborne contamination in the laboratory preparation area, and the analytical instrument sample introduction equipment. Each analyte group has its own particular suite of common laboratory contaminants. Active measures must be performed to continually measure the ambient contamination level, and steps taken to discover the source of the contamination to eliminate or minimize the levels. Random spot contamination can also occur from analytes that are not common laboratory problems but arise as a problem for a specific project or over a short period. Field blanks, equipment blanks, trip blanks, and laboratory method blanks are analyzed to identify possible sources of contamination. Section 5 • Data Quality Indicators 5-5 For this project, one field blank sample was collected to assess potential ambient background cross-contamination of sampled media. One equipment blank sample was collected to assess decontamination procedures. Eleven trip blank samples were sent with the coolers to assess potential cooler transportation cross contamination. VOC results for the field, equipment, and trip blank samples are presented in Table 3-2. The following text discusses validation actions required as a result of laboratory, field, and/or trip blank contamination. SDG 21C208  Lead was detected in the initial calibration blank. Applicable sample results for lead were qualified as nondetect “U” at the MRL. The remaining associated sample results were either nondetect or greater than the MRL and did not require qualification.  Mercury was detected in some of the laboratory blanks. Associated sample results were either nondetect, greater than the MRL, or the negative blank result was greater than the negative MRL value and did not require qualification. SDG 21C209  Methylene chloride was detected in some of the trip blank samples. Associated sample results were nondetect and did not require qualification.  Mercury was detected in some of the laboratory blanks. Associated sample results were either nondetect, greater than the MRL, or the negative blank result was greater than the negative MRL value and did not require qualification. SDG 21C248  Mercury and lead were detected in some of the laboratory blank samples. Applicable sample results for lead and mercury were qualified as nondetect “U” at the MRL. The remaining associated sample results were either nondetect, greater than the MRL, or the negative blank result was greater than the negative MRL value and did not require qualification. SDG 21C250  Chromium and mercury were detected in some of the laboratory blank samples. Applicable sample results for chromium were qualified as nondetect “U” at the MRL. The remaining associated sample results were either nondetect, greater than the MRL, or the negative blank result was greater than the negative MRL value and did not require qualification. SDG 21C281  Acetone was detected in the equipment blank sample. The associated acetone result was qualified as nondetect “U” at the MRL. Ideally, no contaminants should be found in the blank samples. Blank samples are used to determine the validity of the analytical results by determining the existence and magnitude of contamination resulting from laboratory (or field) activities or baseline drift during analysis. As discussed above, analytes were detected in some of the laboratory blank samples and/or field and trip blank samples. Concentrations were below the MRLs for all detected blank results. Analytes detected in laboratory blanks are common with laboratory analyses and almost unavoidable. Section 5 • Data Quality Indicators 5-6 Associated sample results for the laboratory blanks and/or field and trip blank samples were qualified following the appropriate guidelines. Detected blank concentrations were below the MRLs and the resulting sample qualifications as nondetect or "U” does not falsely diminish identification of site-related contaminants. 5.3 Representativeness Representativeness is a qualitative term that expresses the degree to which the sample data accurately and precisely represent the environmental conditions corresponding to the location and/or depth interval of sample collection. Requirements and procedures for sample collection were designed to maximize sample representativeness. Representativeness can be monitored by reviewing field documentation and/or performing field audits. For this report, a detailed review was performed on the COC and field data collection forms. Appropriate laboratory QA/QC requirements were described in the QAPP (CDM Smith 2020) and laboratory statement of work to confirm that the laboratory analytical results were representative of true field conditions. Field sampling representativeness was attained through strict adherence to the sampling design and the approved QAPP (CDM Smith 2020) procedures and by using EPA-approved analytical methods for sample analyses. As a result, the data represent as near as possible the actual field conditions at the time of sampling. Representativeness, as defined above, was met for the fieldwork and laboratory analyses. The data collected are suitable for project use. 5.4 Comparability Comparability is a qualitative term that expresses the confidence with which a data set can be compared with another. Strict adherence to standard sample collection procedures, analytical detection limits, and analytical methods is necessary so data from similar samples and sample conditions are comparable. This comparability is independent of laboratory personnel, data reviewers, or sampling personnel. Comparability criteria are met for the project if, based on data review, the sample collection and analytical procedures used are similar and are determined to have been followed. To achieve comparability of data generated for the Site, CDM Smith followed standard sample collection procedures and EPA-approved analytical methods during sampling activities. The sample analyses were performed by EMAX using approved standard operating procedures and reporting units. Utilizing such procedures and methods enables the current data to be comparable to future data sets generated with similar methods and units. 5.5 Completeness Completeness of the field program is defined as the percentage of samples planned for collection, as listed in the QAPP (CDM Smith 2020), versus the actual number of samples collected during the field program (see equation A). Section 5 • Data Quality Indicators 5-7 Completeness for acceptable data is defined as the percentage of acceptable data obtained judged to be valid versus the total quantity of data generated (see equation B). Acceptable data include both data that pass all the QC criteria (unqualified data) and data that may not pass all the QC criteria but had appropriate corrective actions taken (qualified but usable data). A. Where: C = actual number of samples collected n = total number of samples planned B. Where: V = number of measurements judged valid n' = total number of measurements made The overall completeness goal for this sampling event was 90 percent for all project data. Not all samples outlined in the QAPP (CDM Smith, 2020) were able to be collected as planned; this is discussed in Section 3.1. Sixty-six samples were planned to be collected (not including field duplicates). Sixty-four samples were collected. The completeness for the number of samples planned to be collected versus the number of samples collected was 97 percent, thus exceeding the 90 percent goal. The two samples that were not able to be collected have sufficient previous sample results in order to evaluate the groundwater plume delineation data quality objective. Analyses for the sampling event exceeded the 90 percent completeness goal of acceptable data for the number of measurements judged to be valid versus the total number of measurements made. One hundred percent of the data validated and reported are suitable for their intended use for site characterization. No results were rejected, and all data collected met the overall project objective for data usability. The completeness goals were met for both the number of samples collected for all sampling events and the number of measurements judged to be valid. The data usability DQO was achieved; the data reported are suitable for their intended use as stated in the QAPP (CDM Smith 2020). The achievement of the completeness goals for the data provides sufficient data for project decisions. 5.6 Sensitivity Sensitivity is related to the ability to compare analytical results with project-specific levels of interest such as delineation levels or action levels. Analytical quantitation limits for the various sample analytes should be below the level of interest to allow an effective comparison. The method detection limit (MDL) study attempts to answer the question, “What is the minimum concentration of a substance that can be measured and reported with 99 percent confidence that n 100Cxess%Completen = n' 100Vxess%Completen = Section 5 • Data Quality Indicators 5-8 the analyte concentration is greater than zero?” The study is based upon repetitive analysis of an interference-free sample spiked with a known amount of the target analyte. The MDL is a measure of the ability of the test procedure to generate a positive response for the target analyte in the absence of any other interferences from the sample. The MRL is generally defined as the lowest concentration at which an analyte can be confidently reported in a sample and its concentration reported with a reasonable degree of accuracy and precision. For samples that do not pose a particular matrix problem, the MRL is typically about three to five times higher than the MDL. Laboratory results are reported according to rules that provide established certainty of detection. The result for an analyte is flagged with a "U" if that analyte was not detected and reported at the MRL value or qualified with a "J" flag if associated QC results fall outside the appropriate QC criteria. Additionally, if an analyte is present at a concentration between the MDL and the MRL, the analytical result is flagged with a "J," indicating an estimated quantity. Qualifying the result as an estimated concentration reflects uncertainty in the reported value. When required, dilutions were performed and accounted for in the reported MRLs. All MRLs were met as specified in the QAPP, (CDM Smith 2020), however, due to the low screening level for 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane, 1,2-dicbromoethane, 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane, cis-1,3-dichloropropene, and trans-1,3-dichloropropene, the MRL is greater than the screening level. However, these analytes are not a known constituent of potential concern for the site. Section 5 • Data Quality Indicators 5-9 Table 5-1 DQIs and Corresponding QC Parameters Data Quality Indicators QC Parameters Evaluation in Data Review/Validation Precision RPD values of: 1) Laboratory duplicates 2) Field duplicates 3) MS/MSD 4) LCS/LCSD 5) Serial dilution (ICP metals) Relative standard deviation (RSD) values of: 1) Initial calibration verifications Accuracy/Bias %R or percent difference (%D) values of: 1) LCS/LCSD %R 2) MS/MSD %R 3) ICV/CCV %R 4) ICP interference check standards 5) ICP-mass spectrometry (MS) tune percent RSD 6) ICP-MS internal standard %R intensity 7) Surrogates 8) Internal standards Results of: 1) Instrument and calibration blanks 2) Method (preparation) blanks 3) Field blanks 4) Trip blanks Representativeness Results of all blanks Adherence to field standard operating procedures Sample integrity (COC and sample receipt forms) Holding times Comparability Similar reporting limits and units Similar sample collection methods Similar laboratory analytical methods Completeness Data qualifiers Laboratory deliverables Requested/Reported valid results Field sample collection (primary and QC samples) Contract compliance (i.e., method and instrument QC within limits) Sensitivity Sample method reporting limits meet QAPP criteria Adequacy of sample dilution Table 5‐2  Summary of Field Duplicate Sampling Results Method Units Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q SW8260C 1,1,1‐Trichloroethane µg/L 1 U 1 U NC 0.49 J 0.49 J ABS Criteria SW8260C 1,1,2,2‐Tetrachloroethane µg/L 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C 1,1,2‐Trichloroethane µg/L 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C 1,1,2‐Trichlorotrifluoroethane µg/L 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C 1,1‐Dichloroethane µg/L 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C 1,1‐Dichloroethene µg/L 1 U 1 U NC 0.18 J 0.14 J ABS Criteria SW8260C 1,2,3‐Trichlorobenzene µg/L 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C 1,2,4‐Trichlorobenzene µg/L 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C 1,2,4‐Trimethylbenzene µg/L 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C 1,2‐Dibromo‐3‐Chloropropaneµg/L 2 U 2 UNC 2 U 2 UNC SW8260C 1,2‐Dibromoethane µg/L 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C 1,2‐Dichlorobenzene µg/L 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C 1,2‐Dichloroethane µg/L 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C 1,2‐Dichloropropane µg/L 1 U 1 UNC 1 U 1 UNC SW8260C 1,3,5‐Trimethylbenzene µg/L 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C 1,3‐Dichlorobenzene µg/L 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C 1,4‐Dichlorobenzene µg/L 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C 2‐Butanone (MEK) µg/L 20 U 20 U NC 20 U 20 U NC SW8260C 2‐Hexanone µg/L 20 U 20 U NC 20 U 20 U NC SW8260C 4‐Methyl‐2‐Pentanone (MIBK) µg/L 20 U 20 U NC 20 U 20 U NC SW8260C Acetone µg/L 4 J 4.1 J ABS Criteria 20 U 2.5 J ABS Criteria SW8260C Benzene µg/L 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C Bromochloromethane µg/L 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C Bromodichloromethane µg/L 0.3 J 0.29 J ABS Criteria 0.46 J 0.47 J ABS Criteria SW8260C Bromoform µg/L 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C Bromomethane µg/L 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C Carbon Disulfide µg/L 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C Carbon Tetrachloride µg/L 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC Location Sample ID Sample Type 21C250 MW‐04 MW04‐GW032221 N 3/22/2021 21C250 MW‐04 FD01‐GW032221 FD MW04‐GW032221 3/22/2021 Parent Sample ID Sample Date SDG Volatile Organic Compounds  21C209 MW‐08A FD02‐GW031721 FD MW08A‐GW031721 3/17/2021 21C209 MW‐08A MW08A‐GW031721 N 3/17/2021 RPD (%) RPD (%) Page 1 of 16 Table 5‐2  Summary of Field Duplicate Sampling Results Location Sample ID Sample Type 21C250 MW‐04 MW04‐GW032221 N 3/22/2021 21C250 MW‐04 FD01‐GW032221 FD MW04‐GW032221 3/22/2021 Parent Sample ID Sample Date SDG 21C209 MW‐08A FD02‐GW031721 FD MW08A‐GW031721 3/17/2021 21C209 MW‐08A MW08A‐GW031721 N 3/17/2021 RPD (%) RPD (%) SW8260C Chlorobenzene µg/L 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C Chloroethane µg/L 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C Chloroform µg/L 4 4 ABS Criteria 4.3 4.1 ABS Criteria SW8260C Chloromethane µg/L 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C cis‐1,2‐Dichloroethene µg/L 1 U 1 U NC 0.19 J 0.18 J ABS Criteria SW8260C cis‐1,3‐Dichloropropene µg/L 1 U 1 UNC 1 U 1 UNC SW8260C Dibromochloromethane µg/L 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C Dichlorodifluoromethane µg/L 1 U 1 U NC 0.17 J 1 U ABS Criteria SW8260C Ethylbenzene µg/L 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C Isopropylbenzene µg/L 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C m/p‐Xylenes µg/L 2 U 2 UNC 2 U 2 UNC SW8260C Methyl Acetate µg/L 2 U 2 UNC 2 U 2 UNC SW8260C Methyl Tert‐Butyl Ether µg/L 1 U 1 UNC 1 U 1 UNC SW8260C Methylene Chloride µg/L 2 U 2 U NC 2 U 2 U NC SW8260C o‐Xylene µg/L 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C Styrene µg/L 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C Tetrachloroethene µg/L 42 42 0% 58 56 3.51 SW8260C Toluene µg/L 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C trans‐1,2‐Dichloroethene µg/L 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C trans‐1,3‐Dichloropropene µg/L 1 U 1 UNC 1 U 1 UNC SW8260C Trichloroethene µg/L 0.19 J 0.2 J ABS Criteria 0.37 J 0.38 J ABS Criteria SW8260C Trichlorofluoromethane µg/L 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C Vinyl Acetate µg/L 2 U 2 UNC 2 U 2 UNC SW8260C Vinyl Chloride µg/L 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 8270DSIM 1,4‐Dioxane µg/L ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ SW6020A Aluminum µg/L ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ SW6020A Antimony µg/L ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ Total Metals Semivolatile Organic Compounds SIM (1,4‐Dioxane) Page 2 of 16 Table 5‐2  Summary of Field Duplicate Sampling Results Location Sample ID Sample Type 21C250 MW‐04 MW04‐GW032221 N 3/22/2021 21C250 MW‐04 FD01‐GW032221 FD MW04‐GW032221 3/22/2021 Parent Sample ID Sample Date SDG 21C209 MW‐08A FD02‐GW031721 FD MW08A‐GW031721 3/17/2021 21C209 MW‐08A MW08A‐GW031721 N 3/17/2021 RPD (%) RPD (%) SW6020A Arsenic µg/L ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ SW6020A Barium µg/L ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ SW6020A Beryllium µg/L ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ SW6020A Cadmium µg/L ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ SW6020A Calcium µg/L ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ SW6020A Chromium µg/L ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ SW6020A Cobalt µg/L ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ SW6020A Copper µg/L ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ SW6020A Iron µg/L ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ SW6020A Lead µg/L ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ SW6020A Magnesium µg/L ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ SW6020A Manganese µg/L ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ SW6020A Nickel µg/L ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ SW6020A Potassium µg/L ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ SW6020A Selenium µg/L ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ SW6020A Silver µg/L ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ SW6020A Sodium µg/L ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ SW6020A Thallium µg/L ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ SW6020A Vanadium µg/L ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ SW6020A Zinc µg/L ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ SW7470A Mercury µg/L ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ RSK‐175 Ethane µg/L ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ RSK‐175 Ethene µg/L ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ RSK‐175 Methane µg/L ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ A4500NE Nitrate/Nitrite mg/L ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ E300.0 Chloride mg/L ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ E300.0 Sulfate mg/L ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ Dissolved Gases General Chemistry Parameters Page 3 of 16 Table 5‐2  Summary of Field Duplicate Sampling Results Location Sample ID Sample Type 21C250 MW‐04 MW04‐GW032221 N 3/22/2021 21C250 MW‐04 FD01‐GW032221 FD MW04‐GW032221 3/22/2021 Parent Sample ID Sample Date SDG 21C209 MW‐08A FD02‐GW031721 FD MW08A‐GW031721 3/17/2021 21C209 MW‐08A MW08A‐GW031721 N 3/17/2021 RPD (%) RPD (%) SM2320B Alkalinity mg/L ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ SW9060 Total Organic Carbon mg/L ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ Notes: ‐‐‐‐  not evaluated  % ‐ percent µg/L ‐ microgram per liter ABS ‐ absolute difference FD‐ field duplicate ID ‐ identification mg/L ‐ milligram per liter N ‐ normal sample NC ‐ not calculated Q ‐ qualifier RPD ‐ relative percent difference SDG ‐ sample delivery group SIM ‐ selective ion monitoring U ‐ nondetect J ‐ estimated value J‐  ‐ estimated value, biased low ABS Criteria ‐ One or both of the sample results are less than 5 times the  Yellow highlighting ‐ RPD value is outside of 30% criteria and/or the ABS Criteria is outside of control  Page 4 of 16 Table 5‐2  Summary of Field Duplicate Sampling Results Method Units SW8260C 1,1,1‐Trichloroethane µg/L SW8260C 1,1,2,2‐Tetrachloroethane µg/L SW8260C 1,1,2‐Trichloroethane µg/L SW8260C 1,1,2‐Trichlorotrifluoroethane µg/L SW8260C 1,1‐Dichloroethane µg/L SW8260C 1,1‐Dichloroethene µg/L SW8260C 1,2,3‐Trichlorobenzene µg/L SW8260C 1,2,4‐Trichlorobenzene µg/L SW8260C 1,2,4‐Trimethylbenzene µg/L SW8260C 1,2‐Dibromo‐3‐Chloropropane µg/L SW8260C 1,2‐Dibromoethane µg/L SW8260C 1,2‐Dichlorobenzene µg/L SW8260C 1,2‐Dichloroethane µg/L SW8260C 1,2‐Dichloropropane µg/L SW8260C 1,3,5‐Trimethylbenzene µg/L SW8260C 1,3‐Dichlorobenzene µg/L SW8260C 1,4‐Dichlorobenzene µg/L SW8260C 2‐Butanone (MEK) µg/L SW8260C 2‐Hexanone µg/L SW8260C 4‐Methyl‐2‐Pentanone (MIBK) µg/L SW8260C Acetone µg/L SW8260C Benzene µg/L SW8260C Bromochloromethane µg/L SW8260C Bromodichloromethane µg/L SW8260C Bromoform µg/L SW8260C Bromomethane µg/L SW8260C Carbon Disulfide µg/L SW8260C Carbon Tetrachloride µg/L Location Sample ID Sample Type Parent Sample ID Sample Date SDG Volatile Organic Compounds  Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q 0.43 J 0.44 J ABS Criteria 0.58 J 0.59 J ABS Criteria 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 0.21 J 0.21 J ABS Criteria 0.17 J 0.23 J ABS Criteria 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 2 U 2 U NC 2 U 2 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 20 U 20 U NC 20 U 20 U NC 20 U 20 U NC 20 U 20 U NC 20 U 20 U NC 20 U 20 U NC 20 U 5.6 J ABS Criteria 3 J 20 U ABS Criteria 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 0.2 J 0.21 J ABS Criteria 0.22 J 0.23 J ABS Criteria 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 21C250 MW‐13D MW13D‐GW032121 N 3/21/2021 21C250 MW‐13D FD03‐GW032121 FD MW13D‐GW032121 3/21/2021 21C248 MW‐13L MW13L‐GW032221 N 3/22/2021 21C248 MW‐13L FD04‐GW032221 FD MW13L‐GW032221 3/22/2021 RPD (%) RPD (%) Page 5 of 16 Table 5‐2  Summary of Field Duplicate Sampling Results Location Sample ID Sample Type Parent Sample ID Sample Date SDG SW8260C Chlorobenzene µg/L SW8260C Chloroethane µg/L SW8260C Chloroform µg/L SW8260C Chloromethane µg/L SW8260C cis‐1,2‐Dichloroethene µg/L SW8260C cis‐1,3‐Dichloropropene µg/L SW8260C Dibromochloromethane µg/L SW8260C Dichlorodifluoromethane µg/L SW8260C Ethylbenzene µg/L SW8260C Isopropylbenzene µg/L SW8260C m/p‐Xylenes µg/L SW8260C Methyl Acetate µg/L SW8260C Methyl Tert‐Butyl Ether µg/L SW8260C Methylene Chloride µg/L SW8260C o‐Xylene µg/L SW8260C Styrene µg/L SW8260C Tetrachloroethene µg/L SW8260C Toluene µg/L SW8260C trans‐1,2‐Dichloroethene µg/L SW8260C trans‐1,3‐Dichloropropene µg/L SW8260C Trichloroethene µg/L SW8260C Trichlorofluoromethane µg/L SW8260C Vinyl Acetate µg/L SW8260C Vinyl Chloride µg/L 8270DSIM 1,4‐Dioxane µg/L SW6020A Aluminum µg/L SW6020A Antimony µg/L Total Metals Semivolatile Organic Compounds SIM (1,4‐Dioxane) 21C250 MW‐13D MW13D‐GW032121 N 3/21/2021 21C250 MW‐13D FD03‐GW032121 FD MW13D‐GW032121 3/21/2021 21C248 MW‐13L MW13L‐GW032221 N 3/22/2021 21C248 MW‐13L FD04‐GW032221 FD MW13L‐GW032221 3/22/2021 RPD (%) RPD (%) 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1.9 2 ABS Criteria 2.2 2.2 ABS Criteria 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 0.26 J 0.28 J ABS Criteria 0.5 J 0.51 J ABS Criteria 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 2 U 2 U NC 2 U 2 U NC 2 U 2 U NC 2 U 2 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 2 U 2 U NC 2 U 2 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 55 56 1.80 51 51 0.00 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 0.44 J 0.43 J ABS Criteria 0.29 J 0.29 J ABS Criteria 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 2 U 2 U NC 2 U 2 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐0.42 U 0.44 U NC ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐143 151 ABS Criteria ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐1U 1 UNC Page 6 of 16 Table 5‐2  Summary of Field Duplicate Sampling Results Location Sample ID Sample Type Parent Sample ID Sample Date SDG SW6020A Arsenic µg/L SW6020A Barium µg/L SW6020A Beryllium µg/L SW6020A Cadmium µg/L SW6020A Calcium µg/L SW6020A Chromium µg/L SW6020A Cobalt µg/L SW6020A Copper µg/L SW6020A Iron µg/L SW6020A Lead µg/L SW6020A Magnesium µg/L SW6020A Manganese µg/L SW6020A Nickel µg/L SW6020A Potassium µg/L SW6020A Selenium µg/L SW6020A Silver µg/L SW6020A Sodium µg/L SW6020A Thallium µg/L SW6020A Vanadium µg/L SW6020A Zinc µg/L SW7470A Mercury µg/L RSK‐175 Ethane µg/L RSK‐175 Ethene µg/L RSK‐175 Methane µg/L A4500NE Nitrate/Nitrite mg/L E300.0 Chloride mg/L E300.0 Sulfate mg/L Dissolved Gases General Chemistry Parameters 21C250 MW‐13D MW13D‐GW032121 N 3/21/2021 21C250 MW‐13D FD03‐GW032121 FD MW13D‐GW032121 3/21/2021 21C248 MW‐13L MW13L‐GW032221 N 3/22/2021 21C248 MW‐13L FD04‐GW032221 FD MW13L‐GW032221 3/22/2021 RPD (%) RPD (%) ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐0.747 J 0.741 J ABS Criteria ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐48.2 47 2.52 ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐1U 1 UNC ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐1U 1 UNC ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐144000 137000 4.98 ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐1.24 1.19 ABS Criteria ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐0.593 J 0.585 J ABS Criteria ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐2U 2 UNC ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐284 303 ABS Criteria ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐1U 1 UNC ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐52800 53000 0.38 ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐175 172 1.73 ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐1.54 1.55 ABS Criteria ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐2310 2300 0.43 ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐0.884 J 0.901 J ABS Criteria ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐1U 1 UNC ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐37700 37800 0.26 ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐1U 1 UNC ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐1.67 1.66 ABS Criteria ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐75.3 69.7 ABS Criteria ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐0.5 U 0.5 U NC ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐2U 2 UNC ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐2U 2 UNC ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐0.28 J 0.36 J ABS Criteria ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐1.22 J 4.1 J ABS Criteria ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐182 J‐182 J‐ABS Criteria ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐90.9 90.3 0.66 Page 7 of 16 Table 5‐2  Summary of Field Duplicate Sampling Results Location Sample ID Sample Type Parent Sample ID Sample Date SDG SM2320B Alkalinity mg/L SW9060 Total Organic Carbon mg/L Notes: ‐‐‐‐  not evaluated  % ‐ percent µg/L ‐ microgram per liter ABS ‐ absolute difference FD‐ field duplicate ID ‐ identification mg/L ‐ milligram per liter N ‐ normal sample NC ‐ not calculated Q ‐ qualifier RPD ‐ relative percent difference SDG ‐ sample delivery group SIM ‐ selective ion monitoring U ‐ nondetect J ‐ estimated value J‐  ‐ estimated value, biased low ABS Criteria ‐ One or both of the sample results are less  Yellow highlighting ‐ RPD value is outside of 30% criteria 21C250 MW‐13D MW13D‐GW032121 N 3/21/2021 21C250 MW‐13D FD03‐GW032121 FD MW13D‐GW032121 3/21/2021 21C248 MW‐13L MW13L‐GW032221 N 3/22/2021 21C248 MW‐13L FD04‐GW032221 FD MW13L‐GW032221 3/22/2021 RPD (%) RPD (%) ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐216 217 0.46 ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐0.735 J 0.805 J ABS Criteria Page 8 of 16 Table 5‐2  Summary of Field Duplicate Sampling Results Method Units SW8260C 1,1,1‐Trichloroethane µg/L SW8260C 1,1,2,2‐Tetrachloroethane µg/L SW8260C 1,1,2‐Trichloroethane µg/L SW8260C 1,1,2‐Trichlorotrifluoroethane µg/L SW8260C 1,1‐Dichloroethane µg/L SW8260C 1,1‐Dichloroethene µg/L SW8260C 1,2,3‐Trichlorobenzene µg/L SW8260C 1,2,4‐Trichlorobenzene µg/L SW8260C 1,2,4‐Trimethylbenzene µg/L SW8260C 1,2‐Dibromo‐3‐Chloropropane µg/L SW8260C 1,2‐Dibromoethane µg/L SW8260C 1,2‐Dichlorobenzene µg/L SW8260C 1,2‐Dichloroethane µg/L SW8260C 1,2‐Dichloropropane µg/L SW8260C 1,3,5‐Trimethylbenzene µg/L SW8260C 1,3‐Dichlorobenzene µg/L SW8260C 1,4‐Dichlorobenzene µg/L SW8260C 2‐Butanone (MEK) µg/L SW8260C 2‐Hexanone µg/L SW8260C 4‐Methyl‐2‐Pentanone (MIBK) µg/L SW8260C Acetone µg/L SW8260C Benzene µg/L SW8260C Bromochloromethane µg/L SW8260C Bromodichloromethane µg/L SW8260C Bromoform µg/L SW8260C Bromomethane µg/L SW8260C Carbon Disulfide µg/L SW8260C Carbon Tetrachloride µg/L Location Sample ID Sample Type Parent Sample ID Sample Date SDG Volatile Organic Compounds  Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 2 U 2 U NC 2 U 2 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 20 U 20 U NC 20 U 20 U NC 20 U 20 U NC 20 U 20 U NC 20 U 20 U NC 20 U 20 U NC 3.8 J 20 U ABS Criteria 20 U 4.6 J ABS Criteria 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 0.54 J 0.54 J ABS Criteria 0.34 J 0.35 J ABS Criteria 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 21C209 MW‐32A FD06‐GW031721 FD MW32A‐GW031721 3/17/2021 21C208 MW‐30RA MW30RA‐GW031621 N 3/16/2021 21C209 MW‐30RA FD05‐GW031621 FD MW30RA‐GW031621 3/16/2021 RPD (%) RPD (%) 21C209 MW‐32A MW32A‐GW031721 N 3/17/2021 Page 9 of 16 Table 5‐2  Summary of Field Duplicate Sampling Results Location Sample ID Sample Type Parent Sample ID Sample Date SDG SW8260C Chlorobenzene µg/L SW8260C Chloroethane µg/L SW8260C Chloroform µg/L SW8260C Chloromethane µg/L SW8260C cis‐1,2‐Dichloroethene µg/L SW8260C cis‐1,3‐Dichloropropene µg/L SW8260C Dibromochloromethane µg/L SW8260C Dichlorodifluoromethane µg/L SW8260C Ethylbenzene µg/L SW8260C Isopropylbenzene µg/L SW8260C m/p‐Xylenes µg/L SW8260C Methyl Acetate µg/L SW8260C Methyl Tert‐Butyl Ether µg/L SW8260C Methylene Chloride µg/L SW8260C o‐Xylene µg/L SW8260C Styrene µg/L SW8260C Tetrachloroethene µg/L SW8260C Toluene µg/L SW8260C trans‐1,2‐Dichloroethene µg/L SW8260C trans‐1,3‐Dichloropropene µg/L SW8260C Trichloroethene µg/L SW8260C Trichlorofluoromethane µg/L SW8260C Vinyl Acetate µg/L SW8260C Vinyl Chloride µg/L 8270DSIM 1,4‐Dioxane µg/L SW6020A Aluminum µg/L SW6020A Antimony µg/L Total Metals Semivolatile Organic Compounds SIM (1,4‐Dioxane) 21C209 MW‐32A FD06‐GW031721 FD MW32A‐GW031721 3/17/2021 21C208 MW‐30RA MW30RA‐GW031621 N 3/16/2021 21C209 MW‐30RA FD05‐GW031621 FD MW30RA‐GW031621 3/16/2021 RPD (%) RPD (%) 21C209 MW‐32A MW32A‐GW031721 N 3/17/2021 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 6.4 6.5 1.55 5.4 5.6 3.64 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 2 U 2 U NC 2 U 2 U NC 2 U 2 U NC 2 U 2 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 2 U 2 U NC 2 U 2 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 0.18 J 0.18 J ABS Criteria 0.44 J 0.39 J ABS Criteria 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 0.29 J 0.29 J ABS Criteria 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 2 U 2 U NC 2 U 2 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ 100 U 100 U NC 41.4 J 33.1 J ABS Criteria 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC Page 10 of 16 Table 5‐2  Summary of Field Duplicate Sampling Results Location Sample ID Sample Type Parent Sample ID Sample Date SDG SW6020A Arsenic µg/L SW6020A Barium µg/L SW6020A Beryllium µg/L SW6020A Cadmium µg/L SW6020A Calcium µg/L SW6020A Chromium µg/L SW6020A Cobalt µg/L SW6020A Copper µg/L SW6020A Iron µg/L SW6020A Lead µg/L SW6020A Magnesium µg/L SW6020A Manganese µg/L SW6020A Nickel µg/L SW6020A Potassium µg/L SW6020A Selenium µg/L SW6020A Silver µg/L SW6020A Sodium µg/L SW6020A Thallium µg/L SW6020A Vanadium µg/L SW6020A Zinc µg/L SW7470A Mercury µg/L RSK‐175 Ethane µg/L RSK‐175 Ethene µg/L RSK‐175 Methane µg/L A4500NE Nitrate/Nitrite mg/L E300.0 Chloride mg/L E300.0 Sulfate mg/L Dissolved Gases General Chemistry Parameters 21C209 MW‐32A FD06‐GW031721 FD MW32A‐GW031721 3/17/2021 21C208 MW‐30RA MW30RA‐GW031621 N 3/16/2021 21C209 MW‐30RA FD05‐GW031621 FD MW30RA‐GW031621 3/16/2021 RPD (%) RPD (%) 21C209 MW‐32A MW32A‐GW031721 N 3/17/2021 0.522 J 0.482 J ABS Criteria 0.965 J 0.902 J ABS Criteria 81.8 78.3 4.37 59.4 60.1 1.17 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 176000 176000 0.00 124000 123000 0.81 0.788 J 0.699 J ABS Criteria 1.44 1.56 ABS Criteria 0.177 J 0.162 J ABS Criteria 0.25 J 0.274 J ABS Criteria 2 U 2 U NC 2 U 2 U NC 100 U 100 U NC 148 119 ABS Criteria 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 66900 71600 6.79 47600 47100 1.06 26.6 25.5 4.22 77.9 84.7 8.36 0.623 J 0.528 J ABS Criteria 0.529 J 0.614 J ABS Criteria 2800 2820 0.71 2680 2680 0.00 0.643 J 0.607 J ABS Criteria 0.61 J 0.636 J ABS Criteria 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 66600 68000 2.08 85300 88700 3.91 1 U 1 U NC 1 U 1 U NC 1.31 1.27 ABS Criteria 1.92 1.9 ABS Criteria 20 U 20 U NC 20 U 20 U NC 0.5 U 0.5 U NC 0.5 U 0.5 U NC 2 U 2 U NC 2 U 2 U NC 2 U 2 U NC 2 U 2 U NC 2 U 2 U NC 2 U 2 U NC 2.95 3.17 7.19 2.21 2.17 1.83 301 J 272 J 10.12 198 J 175 J ABS Criteria 73.9 72.8 1.50 93.7 98.3 4.79 Page 11 of 16 Table 5‐2  Summary of Field Duplicate Sampling Results Location Sample ID Sample Type Parent Sample ID Sample Date SDG SM2320B Alkalinity mg/L SW9060 Total Organic Carbon mg/L Notes: ‐‐‐‐  not evaluated  % ‐ percent µg/L ‐ microgram per liter ABS ‐ absolute difference FD‐ field duplicate ID ‐ identification mg/L ‐ milligram per liter N ‐ normal sample NC ‐ not calculated Q ‐ qualifier RPD ‐ relative percent difference SDG ‐ sample delivery group SIM ‐ selective ion monitoring U ‐ nondetect J ‐ estimated value J‐  ‐ estimated value, biased low ABS Criteria ‐ One or both of the sample results are less  Yellow highlighting ‐ RPD value is outside of 30% criteria 21C209 MW‐32A FD06‐GW031721 FD MW32A‐GW031721 3/17/2021 21C208 MW‐30RA MW30RA‐GW031621 N 3/16/2021 21C209 MW‐30RA FD05‐GW031621 FD MW30RA‐GW031621 3/16/2021 RPD (%) RPD (%) 21C209 MW‐32A MW32A‐GW031721 N 3/17/2021 283 285 0.70 276 278 0.72 1.02 0.926 J ABS Criteria 0.918 J 0.898 J ABS Criteria Page 12 of 16 Table 5‐2  Summary of Field Duplicate Sampling Results Method Units SW8260C 1,1,1‐Trichloroethane µg/L SW8260C 1,1,2,2‐Tetrachloroethane µg/L SW8260C 1,1,2‐Trichloroethane µg/L SW8260C 1,1,2‐Trichlorotrifluoroethane µg/L SW8260C 1,1‐Dichloroethane µg/L SW8260C 1,1‐Dichloroethene µg/L SW8260C 1,2,3‐Trichlorobenzene µg/L SW8260C 1,2,4‐Trichlorobenzene µg/L SW8260C 1,2,4‐Trimethylbenzene µg/L SW8260C 1,2‐Dibromo‐3‐Chloropropane µg/L SW8260C 1,2‐Dibromoethane µg/L SW8260C 1,2‐Dichlorobenzene µg/L SW8260C 1,2‐Dichloroethane µg/L SW8260C 1,2‐Dichloropropane µg/L SW8260C 1,3,5‐Trimethylbenzene µg/L SW8260C 1,3‐Dichlorobenzene µg/L SW8260C 1,4‐Dichlorobenzene µg/L SW8260C 2‐Butanone (MEK) µg/L SW8260C 2‐Hexanone µg/L SW8260C 4‐Methyl‐2‐Pentanone (MIBK) µg/L SW8260C Acetone µg/L SW8260C Benzene µg/L SW8260C Bromochloromethane µg/L SW8260C Bromodichloromethane µg/L SW8260C Bromoform µg/L SW8260C Bromomethane µg/L SW8260C Carbon Disulfide µg/L SW8260C Carbon Tetrachloride µg/L Location Sample ID Sample Type Parent Sample ID Sample Date SDG Volatile Organic Compounds  Result Q Result Q 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 2U2UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 20 U 20 U NC 20 U 20 U NC 20 U 20 U NC 5.5 J 20 U ABS Criteria 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC RPD (%) 21C208 MW‐36 MW36‐GW031621 N 3/16/2021 21C208 MW‐36 FD07‐GW031621 FD MW36‐GW031621 3/16/2021 Page 13 of 16 Table 5‐2  Summary of Field Duplicate Sampling Results Location Sample ID Sample Type Parent Sample ID Sample Date SDG SW8260C Chlorobenzene µg/L SW8260C Chloroethane µg/L SW8260C Chloroform µg/L SW8260C Chloromethane µg/L SW8260C cis‐1,2‐Dichloroethene µg/L SW8260C cis‐1,3‐Dichloropropene µg/L SW8260C Dibromochloromethane µg/L SW8260C Dichlorodifluoromethane µg/L SW8260C Ethylbenzene µg/L SW8260C Isopropylbenzene µg/L SW8260C m/p‐Xylenes µg/L SW8260C Methyl Acetate µg/L SW8260C Methyl Tert‐Butyl Ether µg/L SW8260C Methylene Chloride µg/L SW8260C o‐Xylene µg/L SW8260C Styrene µg/L SW8260C Tetrachloroethene µg/L SW8260C Toluene µg/L SW8260C trans‐1,2‐Dichloroethene µg/L SW8260C trans‐1,3‐Dichloropropene µg/L SW8260C Trichloroethene µg/L SW8260C Trichlorofluoromethane µg/L SW8260C Vinyl Acetate µg/L SW8260C Vinyl Chloride µg/L 8270DSIM 1,4‐Dioxane µg/L SW6020A Aluminum µg/L SW6020A Antimony µg/L Total Metals Semivolatile Organic Compounds SIM (1,4‐Dioxane) RPD (%) 21C208 MW‐36 MW36‐GW031621 N 3/16/2021 21C208 MW‐36 FD07‐GW031621 FD MW36‐GW031621 3/16/2021 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 0.38 J 0.43 J ABS Criteria 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 2U2UNC 2U2UNC 1U1UNC 2U2UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 2U2UNC 1U1UNC ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ 100 U 100 U NC 1U1UNC Page 14 of 16 Table 5‐2  Summary of Field Duplicate Sampling Results Location Sample ID Sample Type Parent Sample ID Sample Date SDG SW6020A Arsenic µg/L SW6020A Barium µg/L SW6020A Beryllium µg/L SW6020A Cadmium µg/L SW6020A Calcium µg/L SW6020A Chromium µg/L SW6020A Cobalt µg/L SW6020A Copper µg/L SW6020A Iron µg/L SW6020A Lead µg/L SW6020A Magnesium µg/L SW6020A Manganese µg/L SW6020A Nickel µg/L SW6020A Potassium µg/L SW6020A Selenium µg/L SW6020A Silver µg/L SW6020A Sodium µg/L SW6020A Thallium µg/L SW6020A Vanadium µg/L SW6020A Zinc µg/L SW7470A Mercury µg/L RSK‐175 Ethane µg/L RSK‐175 Ethene µg/L RSK‐175 Methane µg/L A4500NE Nitrate/Nitrite mg/L E300.0 Chloride mg/L E300.0 Sulfate mg/L Dissolved Gases General Chemistry Parameters RPD (%) 21C208 MW‐36 MW36‐GW031621 N 3/16/2021 21C208 MW‐36 FD07‐GW031621 FD MW36‐GW031621 3/16/2021 0.541 J 0.531 J ABS Criteria 103 103 0.00 1U1UNC 1U1UNC 160000 161000 0.62 0.533 J 0.415 J ABS Criteria 0.504 J 0.487 J ABS Criteria 2U2UNC 172 150 ABS Criteria 1U1UNC 50400 50000 0.80 178 189 5.99 1.85 1.74 ABS Criteria 3010 2940 2.35 0.745 J 0.605 J ABS Criteria 1U1UNC 94700 96000 1.36 1U1UNC 0.601 J 0.807 J ABS Criteria 8.18 J 9.06 J ABS Criteria 0.5 U 0.5 U NC 2U2UNC 2U2UNC 2 U 0.21 J ABS Criteria 0.695 0.842 ABS Criteria 186 J 188 J ABS Criteria 129 122 5.58 Page 15 of 16 Table 5‐2  Summary of Field Duplicate Sampling Results Location Sample ID Sample Type Parent Sample ID Sample Date SDG SM2320B Alkalinity mg/L SW9060 Total Organic Carbon mg/L Notes: ‐‐‐‐  not evaluated  % ‐ percent µg/L ‐ microgram per liter ABS ‐ absolute difference FD‐ field duplicate ID ‐ identification mg/L ‐ milligram per liter N ‐ normal sample NC ‐ not calculated Q ‐ qualifier RPD ‐ relative percent difference SDG ‐ sample delivery group SIM ‐ selective ion monitoring U ‐ nondetect J ‐ estimated value J‐  ‐ estimated value, biased low ABS Criteria ‐ One or both of the sample results are less  Yellow highlighting ‐ RPD value is outside of 30% criteria RPD (%) 21C208 MW‐36 MW36‐GW031621 N 3/16/2021 21C208 MW‐36 FD07‐GW031621 FD MW36‐GW031621 3/16/2021 330 331 0.30 1 U 1.09 ABS Criteria Page 16 of 16 6-1 Section 6 Data Usability Assessment One hundred percent of the data reported and validated in this QCSR are suitable for their intended use as stated in the QAPP (CDM Smith 2020). No sample results were rejected. The achievement of the completeness goals for the number of samples collected and the number of sample results acceptable for use provides sufficient quality data to support project decisions. Sample results that were qualified as estimated are usable for project decisions. 7-1 Section 7 References CDM Smith. 2020. Phase 2 Quality Assurance Project Plan, Operable Unit 1, 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Kansas City District. December 2020. EPA. 2017a. National Functional Guidelines for Inorganic Superfund Methods Data Review, EPA-540-R-2017-001, January 2017. EPA. 2017b. National Functional Guidelines for Organic Superfund Methods Data Review, EPA-540-R-2017-002, January 2017. EPA 2004. EPA’s Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Wastes: Physical/Chemical Methods (SW-846 2nd edition 1982, revised 1984; 3rd edition 1986; and Updates I, II, IIA, III, IIIA, and IIIB, 1996, 1998, and 2004.      Attachment 1  Data Validation Reports  21C208 EMAX Laboratories, Inc. Matrix:Groundwater Collection date:03/16/2021 through 03/18/2021 Volatile Organic Compounds SW 846 8260C Metals SW 846 6020A Mercury SW 846 7470A Dissolved Gases - RSK 175 Wet Chemistry Parameters: Chloride EPA 300.0 Sulfate EPA 300.0 Total Alkalinity SM 2320B Nitrate / Nitrite - N SM 4500 NO3E Total Organic Carbon (TOC) SW 9060 Lab ID Sample Number Lab ID Sample Number C208-01 MW12D-GW031721 C208-11 MW37D-GW031721 C208-02 MW14D-GW031821 C208-12 FD07-GW031621 C208-03 MW14S-GW031821 C208-13 TB01-GW031821 C208-04 MW15D-GW031621 C208-14 MW23A-GW031621 C208-05 MW15S-GW031621 C208-15 MW23B-GW031621 C208-06 MW16D-GW031721 C208-16 MW23C-GW031621 C208-07 MW16S-GW031721 C208-17 MW27-GW031621 C208-08 MW21-GW031621 C208-18 FD05-GW031621 C208-09 MW36-GW031621 C208-19 TB04-GW031821 C208-10 MW37S-GW031721 Precision:Yes No N/A Yes N/A Yes Field 8260C Sample Duplicate %RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples Duplicates MW36-GW031621 FD07-GW031621 Acetone 5.5 J 20 U NC None Chloroform 0.38 J 0.43 J NC None MW30RA-GW031621** FD05-GW031621 Acetone 3.8 J 20 U NC None Bromodichloromethane 0.54 J 0.54 J NC None Trichloroethylene 0.29 J 0.29 J NC None Tetrachloroethene 0.18 J 0.18 J NC None **Results reported in SDG 21C209 MS/MSD 8260C %RPD Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A LCS/LCSD 8260C %RPD Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples LCS1W / LCSD1W Acceptable Comments (note deviations): VA Salt Lake City Salt Lake City, Utah Groundwater Validation Report Laboratory: Analysis/Methods: Sample Delivery Group (SDG) Number: Samples in SDG: Data validation was performed in accordance with the specific analytical methods, National Functional Guidelines for Organic Superfund Methods Data Review (EPA January 2017), and the National Functional Guidelines for Inorganic Superfund Methods Data Review (EPA January 2017). Volatile Organic Compounds 8260C Are the field duplicate relative percent differences (RPD) ≤50% (soils), <30% (water) or within CRQL criteria? Were the Matrix Spike Duplicate RPDs ≤ 20%? (Or lab defined limits) Laboratory Control Spike Duplicates RPD within limits? Sample results < 5xs RL; ABS Diff. < RL Sample results < 5xs RL; ABS Diff. < RL 1 of 8 Accuracy:Yes No N/A Was the Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate criteria met? (frequency ≥ 5% and laboratory determined control limits) N/A Laboratory Control Sample criteria met?Yes Were the Laboratory Method Blank results all < RL?Yes Were the Field Blanks results all < RL?Yes Was the ICAL criteria met? Yes Was the CCV criteria met? Yes Was the Tuning criteria met?Yes Were the Surrogate % recoveries within laboratory determined control limits?Yes Were the Internal Standard areas within ± 50 - 150%? Yes Blanks 8260C Concentration MDL /RL Qualifiers Associated Samples MBLK1W Nondetect Field Blank 8260C Concentration MDL /RL Qualifiers Associated Samples TB01-GW031821 Nondetect TB04-GW031821 Nondetect Surrogates 8260C %R Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable MS/MSD 8260C %R Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A LCS/LCSD 8260C %R Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples LCS1W / LCSD1W Acceptable ICAL 8260C RRF %RSD Qualifiers Associated Samples 10/26/2020 13:44 Acceptable Acceptable 10/27/2020 10:49 Acceptable Acceptable CCV 8260C RRF %D Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples 03/24/21 14:37 Acceptable Acceptable 04/29/21 14:39 Acceptable Acceptable Tune 8260C Acceptable Internal Standards 8260C Area Area Lower / Upper Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable Comments (note deviations): 2 of 8 Precision:Yes No N/A Yes Were the Matrix Spike Duplicate RPDs ≤ 20%? (Or lab defined limits) N/A Laboratory Control Spike Duplicates RPD within limits? Yes Are the laboratory duplicate RPDs ≤ 20% for water ≤35% for soils or within CRQL criteria? N/A Field RSK-175 Sample Duplicate %RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples Duplicates MW36-GW031621 FD07-GW031621 Methane 2.0 U 0.21 J NC None MW30RA-GW031621** FD05-GW031621 ND ND **Results reported in SDG 21C209 MS/MSD RSK-175 %RPD Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A LCS/LCSD RSK-175 %RPD Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples LCS1W / LCD1W Acceptable Laboratory RSK-175 Sample (ug/L)Duplicate (ug/L)RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples Duplicates N/A Accuracy:Yes No N/A Was the Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate criteria met? (frequency ≥ 5% and laboratory determined control limits) N/A Laboratory Control Sample criteria met?Yes Were the Laboratory Method Blank results all < RL?Yes Were the Field Blanks results all < RL?N/A Was the ICAL criteria met? Yes Was the CCV criteria met? Yes Was the Tuning criteria met?N/A Were the Surrogate % recoveries within laboratory determined control limits?N/A Were the Internal Standard areas within ± 50 - 150%? N/A Blanks RSK-175 Concentration (ug/L)MDL / RL Qualifiers Associated Samples MBLK1W Nondetect Field Blank RSK-175 Concentration MDL / RL Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Surrogates RSK-175 %R Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A MS/MSD RSK-175 %R Limits (%)Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A LCS/LCSD RSK-175 %R Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples LCS1W / LCD1W Acceptable ICAL RSK-175 RRF %RSD Qualifiers Associated Samples 4/29/2020 Acceptable Acceptable CCV RSK-175 RRF %D Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples 4/29/2020 '14:39 Acceptable Acceptable Dissolved Gases RSK-175 Are the field duplicate relative percent differences (RPD) ≤50% (soils), <30% (water) or within CRQL criteria? Comments (note deviations): Sample results < 5xs RL; ABS Diff. < RL Comments (note deviations): 3 of 8 Tune RSK-175 N/A Internal Standards RSK-175 Area Area Lower / Upper Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A 4 of 8 Precision:Yes No N/A No Are the laboratory duplicate RPDs ≤ 20% for (water / soil ) or within CRQL criteria? N/A Are the matrix spike duplicates RPD ≤ 20%? N/A Are the laboratory control sample duplicates RPDs ≤ 20%?Yes Field Sample (ug/L)Duplicate (ug/L)%RPD Qualifier Associated Samples Duplicates MW36-GW031621 FD07-GW031621 Arsenic 0.541 J 0.531 J NC None Chromium 0.533 J 0.415 J NC None Cobalt 0.504 J 0.487 J NC None Iron 172 150 NC None Nickel 1.85 J 1.74 J NC None Selenium 0.745 J 0.605 J NC None Vanadium 0.601 J 0.807 J NC None Zinc 8.18 J 9.06 J NC None MW30RA-GW031621** FD05-GW031621 Arsenic 0.522 J 0.482 J NC None Chromium 0.788 J 0.699 J NC None Cobalt 0.177 J 0.162 J NC None Nickel 0.623 J 0.528 J NC None Selenium 0.643 J 0.607 J NC None Vanadium 1.31 1.27 NC None **Results reported in SDG 21C209 MS/MSD RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A LCS / LCSD RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples LCS1W / LCD1W Acceptable LCS1W / LCD1W (Hg)Acceptable Laboratory Sample Duplicate RPD Qualifier Associated Samples Duplicate N/A Accuracy:Yes No N/A Were serial dilutions analyzed and within control limits of ±10% for waters (± for 15% for soils) or initial sample result less than 50x MDL?N/A Was matrix spike criteria met (frequency 20% and % recovery 75-125%)?N/A Was post digestion spike criteria met (if applicable)? N/A Was laboratory control sample criteria met? Yes Was laboratory blank criteria met (within control limits)? No Were ICV/CCV % recoveries within 90-110%? Yes Were the Detection Limit PQL Standards within 70-130?N/A Was the %D on form 16-IN for the initial calibration instrument response and concentration data <30%?N/A Were ICSA/ICSAB % recoveries acceptable or within CRQL criteria? Yes Was the tune %RPD <5% (Peak width < 0.75)? Yes Was internal standard criteria met? Yes Serial Dilution Analyte Initial Sample Result %D 50 x MDL Qualifier N/A MS/MSD Analyte %R Limits Post Digestion Qualifiers N/A Sample results < 5xs RL; ABS Diff. < RL Metals SW 6020A / Mercury 7470A Are the field duplicate relative percent differences (RPD) ≤50% (soils), <30% (water) or within CRQL criteria? Comments (note deviations): Sample results < 5xs RL; ABS Diff. < RL Comments (note deviations): Associated Samples Associated Samples 5 of 8 LCS/LCSD Analyte %R Limits Qualifiers LCS1W / LCD1W Acceptable LCS1W / LCD1W (Hg)Acceptable ICV/CCV Analyte %R Limits Qualifier Associated Samples Acceptable Blanks Prep Blank Result (ug/L)MDL/RL (ug/L)Qualifier MBLK1W Nondetect ICBs Analyte Result (ug/L)MDL/RL (ug/L)Qualifier Lead 0.06 0.05 / 1 U-RL Mercury -0.036 0.1 / 0.5 None -Blank result > - RL CCBs Analyte Result (ug/L)MDL/RL (ug/L)Qualifier CCB1 through CCB4 Nondetect CCB5 Mercury 0.041 0.1 / 0.5 None CCB6 Mercury -0.029 0.1 / 0.5 None -Blank results > - RL CCB7 Mercury -0.007 0.1 / 0.5 None -Blank results > - RL Field Blank 6020A Concentration (ug/L)MDL/RL (ug/L)Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A ICSA/AB Analyte - Solution A %R Found Sol. A / True A RL Qualifier Associated Samples Acceptable PQL Standard Check %R Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Tune Acceptable Internal Standards Qualifier Associated Samples Acceptable Sample results nondetect Associated Samples C208-09, C208-14, C208-15 Associated Samples Associated Samples Associated Samples 6 of 8 Precision:Yes No N/A Yes Are the laboratory duplicate RPDs ≤ 20% for water ≤35% for soils or within CRQL criteria? Yes N/A Yes Field Sample (mg/L)Duplicate (mg/L)RPD Qualifier Duplicates MW36-GW031621 FD07-GW031621 Nitrate / Nitrite 0.695 J 0.842 J NC None TOC 1.0 U 1.09 NC None Chloride 186 J 188 J NC None MW30RA-GW031621** FD05-GW031621 TOC 1.02 0.926 J NC None ** Results reported in SDG 21C209 MS/MSD %R Limits RPD %Qualifiers Associated Samples MW23C-GW031621 MS/MSD Acceptable (C208-16) LCS/ LCSD Limits RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable ** Numerous LCS/LCSDs performed / evaluated all QC data within acceptable criteria Laboratory Duplicate Sample Duplicate RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable Accuracy:Yes No N/A Was matrix spike criteria met (frequency 20% and % recovery 75-125%)?Yes Was post digestion spike criteria met (if applicable)? N/A Yes Yes Were the Field Blanks results all < RL?N/A No Was the tune %RSD <5% ?N/A Was internal standard criteria met?N/A MS /MSD Analyte %R Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples MW23A-GW031621 MS Acceptable (C208-14) MW23C-GW031621 MS/MSD Acceptable (C208-16) LCS / LCSD Analyte %R Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable ** Numerous LCS/LCSD performed / evaluated all QC data within acceptable criteria ICV/CCV %R Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples ICV1 Chloride 89.70% 90-110 J / UJ All samples ** Multiple ICV/CCVs were reported - all were within criteria with the exception of those noted above Blanks Analyte Result MDL/RL Qualifiers Associated Samples Nondetect ** Numerous prep. blanks performed / evaluated all QC blanks were nondetect Wet Chemistry Parameters Are the field duplicate relative percent differences (RPD) ≤30% (soils / water) or within CRQL criteria? Are the matrix spike duplicates RPD ≤ 20%? Are the laboratory control spike duplicates RPD ≤ 20%? Was laboratory control sample criteria met? Was laboratory blank criteria met (within control limits)? Were ICV/CCV % recoveries within 90-110%? Comments (note deviations): Associated Samples Comments (note deviations): Sample results < 5xs RL; ABS Diff. < RL 7 of 8 ICB / CCBs Analyte Result MDL/RL Qualifier Nondetect ** Numerous ICB/CCBs performed / evaluated all QC blanks were nondetect Field Blank Analyte Result (mg/L)MDL/RL Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Tune Analyte %RSD Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Representativeness:Yes No N/A Were sampling procedures and design criteria met? Yes Were holding times met? Yes Was preservation criteria met? (0° C - 6° C)Yes Were Chain-of-Custody records complete and provided in data package?Yes Preservation Cooler Temperature (Degrees C) Preservation Criteria Qualifier Associated Samples Acceptable Holding Times Analyte Days to Extraction HT Criteria Qualifier Associated Samples Acceptable Comparability:Yes No N/A Were analytical procedures and methods followed as defined in the QAPP or field change documentation?Yes Comments (note deviations): Completeness (90%):Yes No N/A Are all data in this SDG usable?Yes Sensitivity:Yes No N/A Are MDLs present and reported? Yes Do the reporting limits meet project requirements? Yes Comments (note deviations): Comment: Data is usable with appropriate qualifiers applied. Data Validator:Date:4/29/2021 Data Reviewer:Date: 5/2/2021Cherie Zakowski Kristine Molloy The cooler temperatures were 2.2 & 3.0 °C Comments (note deviations): Comments (note Associated Samples 8 of 8 21C209 EMAX Laboratories, Inc. Matrix:Groundwater Collection date:03/16/2021 through 03/18/2021 Volatile Organic Compounds SW 846 8260C Metals SW 846 6020A Mercury SW 846 7470A Dissolved Gases - RSK 175 Wet Chemistry Parameters: Chloride EPA 300.0 Sulfate EPA 300.0 Total Alkalinity SM 2320B Nitrate / Nitrite - N SM 4500 NO3E Total Organic Carbon (TOC) SW 9060 Lab ID Sample Number Lab ID Sample Number C209-01 MW08A-GW031721 C209-11 MW26C-GW031821 C209-02 FD02-GW031721 C209-12 MW26D-GW031821 C209-03 MW08B-GW031721 C209-13 MW38S-GW031721 C209-04 MW08C-GW031721 C209-14 MW38D-GW031821 C209-05 MW30RA-GW031621 C209-15 TB02-GW031821 C209-06 MW30RB-GW031621 C209-16 MW32A-GW031721 C209-07 MW30C-GW031621 C209-17 MW32B-GW031721 C209-08 TB03-GW031821 C209-18 MW32C-GW031721 C209-09 MW26A-GW031721 C209-19 TB05-GW031821 C209-10 MW26B-GW031721 C209-20 FD06-GW031721 Precision:Yes No N/A Yes Yes Yes Field 8260C Sample Duplicate %RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples Duplicates MW08A-GW031721 FD02-GW031721 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 0.49 J 0.49 J NC None 1,1-Dichloroethene 0.18 J 0.14 J NC None Acetone 20 U 2.5 J NC None Bromodichloromethane 0.46 J 0.47 J NC None Chloroform 4.3 4.1 NC None cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 0.19 J 0.18 J NC None Dichlorodifluoromethane 0.17 J 1 U NC None Trichloroethylene 0.37 J 0.38 J NC None MW32A-GW031721 FD06-GW031721 Acetone 20 U 4.6 J NC None Bromodichloromethane 0.34 J 0.35 J NC None Tetrachloroethene 0.44 J 0.39 J NC None MS/MSD 8260C %RPD Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples MW08B-GW031721 Acceptable (C209-03) MW32A-GW031721 Acceptable (C209-16) Comments (note deviations): VA Salt Lake City Salt Lake City, Utah Groundwater Validation Report Laboratory: Analysis/Methods: Sample Delivery Group (SDG) Number: Samples in SDG: Data validation was performed in accordance with the specific analytical methods, National Functional Guidelines for Organic Superfund Methods Data Review (EPA January 2017), and the National Functional Guidelines for Inorganic Superfund Methods Data Review (EPA January 2017). Volatile Organic Compounds 8260C Are the field duplicate relative percent differences (RPD) ≤50% (soils), <30% (water) or within CRQL criteria? Were the Matrix Spike Duplicate RPDs ≤ 20%? (Or lab defined limits) Laboratory Control Spike Duplicates RPD within limits? Sample results < 5xs RL; ABS Diff. < RL Sample results < 5xs RL; ABS Diff. < RL 1 of 9 LCS/LCSD 8260C %RPD Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples LCS1W / LCSD1W Acceptable LCS2W / LCSD2W Acceptable Accuracy:Yes No N/A Was the Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate criteria met? (frequency ≥ 5% and laboratory determined control limits) Yes Laboratory Control Sample criteria met?Yes Were the Laboratory Method Blank results all < RL?Yes Were the Field Blanks results all < RL?No Was the ICAL criteria met? Yes Was the CCV criteria met? Yes Was the Tuning criteria met?Yes Were the Surrogate % recoveries within laboratory determined control limits?Yes Were the Internal Standard areas within ± 50 - 150%? Yes Blanks 8260C Concentration MDL /RL Qualifiers Associated Samples MBLK1W Nondetect MBLK2W Nondetect Field Blank 8260C Concentration MDL /RL Qualifiers Associated Samples TB02-GW031821 Methylene Chloride 0.54 J 0.5 / 2.0 None Sample results nondetect TB05-GW031821 Methylene Chloride 0.54 J 0.5 / 2.0 None Sample results nondetect TB03-GW031821 Nondetect Surrogates 8260C %R Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable MS/MSD 8260C %R Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples MW08B-GW031721 Acceptable (C209-03) MW32A-GW031721 Acceptable (C209-16) LCS/LCSD 8260C %R Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples LCS1W / LCSD1W Acceptable LCS2W / LCSD2W Acceptable ICAL 8260C RRF %RSD Qualifiers Associated Samples 10/26/2020 13:44 Acceptable Acceptable 10/27/2020 10:49 Acceptable Acceptable CCV 8260C RRF %D Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples 03/25/21 13:00 Acceptable Acceptable 03/26/21 10:38 Acceptable Acceptable Tune 8260C Acceptable Internal Standards 8260C Area Area Lower / Upper Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable Comments (note deviations): 2 of 9 Semivolatile Organic Compounds 8270D (1,4-Dioxane SIM) Precision:Yes No N/A N/A Were the Matrix Spike Duplicate RPDs ≤ 20%? (Or lab defined limits) N/A Laboratory Control Spike Duplicates RPD within limits? Yes Comments (note deviations): Field 8270D SIM Sample Duplicate RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples Duplicates N/A MS/MSD 8270D SIM RPD Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A LCS/LCSD 8270D SIM RPD Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples LCS1W / LCSD1W Acceptable Accuracy:Yes No N/A Was the Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate criteria met? (frequency ≥ 5% and laboratory determined control limits) N/A Laboratory Control Sample criteria met?Yes Were the Laboratory Method Blank results all < RL?Yes Were the Field Blanks results all < RL?N/A Was the ICAL criteria met? Yes Was the CCV criteria met? Yes Was the Tuning criteria met?Yes Were the Surrogate % recoveries within laboratory determined control limits?Yes Were the Internal Standard areas within ± 50 - 150%? Yes Comments (note deviations): Blanks 8270D SIM Concentration (ug/L)MDL / RL Qualifiers Associated Samples MBLK1W Nondetect Field Blank 8270D SIM Concentration MDL / RL Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Surrogates 8270D SIM %R Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable MS/MSD 8270D SIM %R Limits (%)Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A LCS/LCSD 8270D SIM %R Limits Qualifiers LCS1W / LCSD1W Acceptable ICAL 8270D SIM RRF %RSD Qualifiers 6/3/2020 14:04 Acceptable Acceptable CCV 8270D SIM RRF %D Qualifiers Associated Samples 03/25/2021 11:00 Acceptable Acceptable Tune 8270D SIM Acceptable Internal Standards 8270D SIM Area Area Lower / Upper Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable Associated Samples Are the field duplicate relative percent differences (RPD) ≤50% (soils), <30% (water) or within CRQL criteria? Associated Samples 3 of 9 Precision:Yes No N/A Yes Were the Matrix Spike Duplicate RPDs ≤ 20%? (Or lab defined limits) Yes Laboratory Control Spike Duplicates RPD within limits? Yes Are the laboratory duplicate RPDs ≤ 20% for water ≤35% for soils or within CRQL criteria? N/A Field RSK-175 Sample Duplicate %RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples Duplicates MW32A-GW031721 FD06-GW031721 ND ND MS/MSD RSK-175 %RPD Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples MW32A-GW031721 Acceptable (C209-16) LCS/LCSD RSK-175 %RPD Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples LCS1W / LCD1W Acceptable Laboratory RSK-175 Sample (ug/L)Duplicate (ug/L)RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples Duplicates N/A Accuracy:Yes No N/A Was the Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate criteria met? (frequency ≥ 5% and laboratory determined control limits) Yes Laboratory Control Sample criteria met?Yes Were the Laboratory Method Blank results all < RL?Yes Were the Field Blanks results all < RL?N/A Was the ICAL criteria met? Yes Was the CCV criteria met? Yes Was the Tuning criteria met?N/A Were the Surrogate % recoveries within laboratory determined control limits?N/A Were the Internal Standard areas within ± 50 - 150%? N/A Blanks RSK-175 Concentration (ug/L)MDL / RL Qualifiers Associated Samples MBLK1W Nondetect Field Blank RSK-175 Concentration MDL / RL Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Surrogates RSK-175 %R Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A MS/MSD RSK-175 %R Limits (%)Qualifiers Associated Samples MW32A-GW031721 Acceptable (C209-16) LCS/LCSD RSK-175 %R Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples LCS1W / LCD1W Acceptable ICAL RSK-175 RRF %RSD Qualifiers Associated Samples 4/29/2020 Acceptable Acceptable CCV RSK-175 RRF %D Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples 4/29/2020 '14:39 Acceptable Acceptable Comments (note deviations): Dissolved Gases RSK-175 Are the field duplicate relative percent differences (RPD) ≤50% (soils), <30% (water) or within CRQL criteria? Comments (note deviations): 4 of 9 Tune RSK-175 N/A Internal Standards RSK-175 Area Area Lower / Upper Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A 5 of 9 Precision:Yes No N/A Yes Are the laboratory duplicate RPDs ≤ 20% for (water / soil ) or within CRQL criteria? N/A Are the matrix spike duplicates RPD ≤ 20%? Yes Are the laboratory control sample duplicates RPDs ≤ 20%?Yes Field Sample (ug/L)Duplicate (ug/L)%RPD Qualifier Associated Samples Duplicates MW32A-GW031721 FD06-GW031721 Aluminum 41.4 J 33.1 J NC None Arsenic 0.965 J 0.902 J NC None Chromium 1.44 1.56 NC None Cobalt 0.25 J 0.274 J NC None Iron 148 119 NC None Nickel 0.529 J 0.614 J NC None Selenium 0.61 J 0.636 J NC None Vanadium 1.92 1.9 NC None MS/MSD RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples MW32A-GW031721 Acceptable (C209-16) LCS / LCSD RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples LCS1W / LCD1W Acceptable LCS1W / LCD1W (Hg)Acceptable Laboratory Sample Duplicate RPD Qualifier Associated Samples Duplicate N/A Accuracy:Yes No N/A Were serial dilutions analyzed and within control limits of ±10% for waters (± for 15% for soils) or initial sample result less than 50x MDL?Yes Was matrix spike criteria met (frequency 20% and % recovery 75-125%)?No Was post digestion spike criteria met (if applicable)? Yes Was laboratory control sample criteria met? Yes Was laboratory blank criteria met (within control limits)? Yes Were ICV/CCV % recoveries within 90-110%? Yes Were the Detection Limit PQL Standards within 70-130?N/A Was the %D on form 16-IN for the initial calibration instrument response and concentration data <30%?N/A Were ICSA/ICSAB % recoveries acceptable or within CRQL criteria? Yes Was the tune %RPD <5% (Peak width < 0.75)? Yes Was internal standard criteria met? Yes Serial Dilution Analyte Initial Sample Result %D 50 x MDL Qualifier Acceptable MS/MSD Analyte %R Limits Post Digestion Qualifiers MW32A-GW031721 (C209-16)Calcium 67 / 200 75-125 117 None ISR > 4xs the spike added Magnesium 53 / 63 75-125 103 None ISR > 4xs the spike added Sodium 63 / 167 75-125 112 None ISR > 4xs the spike added Mercury Acceptable ISR = Initial Sample Result LCS/LCSD Analyte %R Limits Qualifiers LCS1W / LCD1W Acceptable LCS1W / LCD1W (Hg)Acceptable Comments (note deviations): Associated Samples Metals SW 6020A / Mercury 7470A Are the field duplicate relative percent differences (RPD) ≤50% (soils), <30% (water) or within CRQL criteria? Comments (note deviations): Sample results < 5xs RL; ABS Diff. < RL Associated Samples Associated Samples 6 of 9 ICV/CCV Analyte %R Limits Qualifier Associated Samples Acceptable Blanks Prep Blank Result (ug/L)MDL/RL (ug/L)Qualifier MBLK1W Nondetect ICBs Analyte Result (ug/L)MDL/RL (ug/L)Qualifier Nondetect Mercury -0.022 0.1 / 0.5 None -Blank result > - RL CCBs Analyte Result (ug/L)MDL/RL (ug/L)Qualifier CCB1 through CCB6 Nondetect CCB1 Mercury 0.005 0.1 / 0.5 None CCB2 Mercury -0.013 0.1 / 0.5 None -Blank results > - RL CCB3 Mercury -0.025 0.1 / 0.5 None -Blank results > - RL Field Blank 6020A Concentration (ug/L)MDL/RL (ug/L)Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A ICSA/AB Analyte - Solution A %R Found Sol. A / True A RL Qualifier Associated Samples Acceptable PQL Standard Check %R Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Tune Acceptable Internal Standards Qualifier Associated Samples Acceptable Sample results nondetect Associated Samples Associated Samples Associated Samples 7 of 9 Precision:Yes No N/A Yes Are the laboratory duplicate RPDs ≤ 20% for water ≤35% for soils or within CRQL criteria? Yes Yes Yes Field Sample (mg/L)Duplicate (mg/L)RPD Qualifier Duplicates MW32A-GW031721 FD06-GW031721 Chloride 198 175 NC None TOC 0.918 J 0.0.898 J NC None MS/MSD %R Limits RPD %Qualifiers Associated Samples MW32A-GW031721 Acceptable (C209-16) MW26A-GW031721 Acceptable (C209-09) LCS/ LCSD Limits RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable ** Numerous LCS/LCSDs performed / evaluated all QC data within acceptable criteria Laboratory Duplicate Sample Duplicate RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable Accuracy:Yes No N/A Was matrix spike criteria met (frequency 20% and % recovery 75-125%)?Yes Was post digestion spike criteria met (if applicable)? N/A Yes Yes Were the Field Blanks results all < RL?N/A No Was the tune %RSD <5% ?N/A Was internal standard criteria met?N/A MS /MSD Analyte %R Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples MW32A-GW031721 Acceptable (C209-16) MW26A-GW031721 Acceptable (C209-09) LCS / LCSD Analyte %R Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable ** Numerous LCS/LCSD performed / evaluated all QC data within acceptable criteria ICV/CCV %R Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples ICV1 Chloride 89.70% 90-110 J / UJ All samples ** Multiple ICV/CCVs were reported - all were within criteria with the exception of those noted above Blanks Analyte Result MDL/RL Qualifiers Associated Samples Nondetect ** Numerous prep. blanks performed / evaluated all QC blanks were nondetect Are the laboratory control spike duplicates RPD ≤ 20%? Were ICV/CCV % recoveries within 90-110%? Comments (note deviations): Sample results < 5xs RL; ABS Diff. < RL Was laboratory control sample criteria met? Was laboratory blank criteria met (within control limits)? Associated Samples Comments (note deviations): Wet Chemistry Parameters Are the field duplicate relative percent differences (RPD) ≤30% (soils / water) or within CRQL criteria? Are the matrix spike duplicates RPD ≤ 20%? 8 of 9 ICB / CCBs Analyte Result MDL/RL Qualifier Nondetect ** Numerous ICB/CCBs performed / evaluated all QC blanks were nondetect Field Blank Analyte Result (mg/L)MDL/RL Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Tune Analyte %RSD Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Representativeness:Yes No N/A Were sampling procedures and design criteria met? Yes Were holding times met? Yes Was preservation criteria met? (0° C - 6° C)Yes Were Chain-of-Custody records complete and provided in data package?Yes Preservation Cooler Temperature (Degrees C) Preservation Criteria Qualifier Associated Samples Acceptable Holding Times Analyte Days to Extraction HT Criteria Qualifier Associated Samples Acceptable Comparability:Yes No N/A Were analytical procedures and methods followed as defined in the QAPP or field change documentation?Yes Comments (note deviations): Completeness (90%):Yes No N/A Are all data in this SDG usable?Yes Sensitivity:Yes No N/A Are MDLs present and reported? Yes Do the reporting limits meet project requirements? Yes Comments (note deviations): Comment: Data is usable with appropriate qualifiers applied. Data Validator:Date:5/1/2021 Data Reviewer:Date: 5/3/2021 Associated Samples Cherie Zakowski Kristine Molloy The cooler temperatures were 2.0, 2.8, 3.6 & 3.5 °C Comments (note deviations): Comments (note 9 of 9 21C248 EMAX Laboratories, Inc. Matrix:Groundwater Collection date:03/18/2021 03/19/2021 03/21/2021 03/22/2021 Volatile Organic Compounds SW 846 8260C Metals SW 846 6020A Mercury SW 846 7470A Dissolved Gases - RSK 175 Wet Chemistry Parameters: Chloride EPA 300.0 Sulfate EPA 300.0 Total Alkalinity SM 2320B Nitrate / Nitrite - N SM 4500 NO3E Total Organic Carbon (TOC) SW 9060 Lab ID Sample Number Lab ID Sample Number C248-01 MW20D-GW031921 C248-09 MW28-GW032121 C248-02 MW20S-GW031921 C248-10 MW31A-GW031821 C248-03 MW22-GW032121 C248-11 MW31B-GW031821 C248-04 MW24-GW032121 C248-12 MW31C-GW031821 C248-05 MW25A-GW032121 C248-13 TB04-GW032221 C248-06 MW25B-GW032121 C248-14 MW13L-GW032221 C248-07 MW25C-GW032121 C248-15 FD04-GW032221 C248-08 TB03-GW032221 C248-16 TB05-GW032221 Precision:Yes No N/A Yes Yes Yes Field 8260C Sample Duplicate %RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples Duplicates MW13L-GW032221 FD04-GW032221 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 0.58 J 0.59 J NC None 1,1-Dichloroethene 0.17 J 0.23 J NC None Acetone 3 J 20 U NC None Bromodichloromethane 0.22 J 0.23 J NC None Chloroform 2.2 2.2 NC None cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 0.50 J 0.51 J NC None Trichloroethylene 0.29 J 0.29 J NC None MS/MSD 8260C %RPD Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples MW13L-GW032221 Acceptable (C248-14) LCS/LCSD 8260C %RPD Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples LCS1W / LCSD1W Acceptable LCS2W / LCSD2W Acceptable Sample results < 5xs RL; ABS Diff. < RL Were the Matrix Spike Duplicate RPDs ≤ 20%? (Or lab defined limits) Laboratory Control Spike Duplicates RPD within limits? Comments (note deviations): Samples in SDG: Data validation was performed in accordance with the specific analytical methods, National Functional Guidelines for Organic Superfund Methods Data Review (EPA January 2017), and the National Functional Guidelines for Inorganic Superfund Methods Data Review (EPA January 2017). Volatile Organic Compounds 8260C Are the field duplicate relative percent differences (RPD) ≤50% (soils), <30% (water) or within CRQL criteria? VA Salt Lake City Salt Lake City, Utah Groundwater Validation Report Laboratory: Analysis/Methods: Sample Delivery Group (SDG) Number: 1 of 9 Accuracy:Yes No N/A Was the Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate criteria met? (frequency ≥ 5% and laboratory determined control limits) Yes Laboratory Control Sample criteria met?Yes Were the Laboratory Method Blank results all < RL?Yes Were the Field Blanks results all < RL?Yes Was the ICAL criteria met? Yes Was the CCV criteria met? Yes Was the Tuning criteria met?Yes Were the Surrogate % recoveries within laboratory determined control limits?Yes Were the Internal Standard areas within ± 50 - 150%? Yes Blanks 8260C Concentration MDL /RL Qualifiers Associated Samples MBLK1W Nondetect MBLK2W Nondetect Field Blank 8260C Concentration MDL /RL Qualifiers Associated Samples TB03-GW032221 Nondetect TB04-GW032221 Nondetect TB05-GW032221 Nondetect Surrogates 8260C %R Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable MS/MSD 8260C %R Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples MW13L-GW032221 Acceptable (C248-14) LCS/LCSD 8260C %R Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples LCS1W / LCSD1W Acceptable LCS2W / LCSD2W Acceptable ICAL 8260C RRF %RSD Qualifiers Associated Samples 02/23/2021 11:49 Acceptable Acceptable CCV 8260C RRF %D Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples 03/26/2021 11:47 Acceptable Acceptable 03/29/2021 9:31 Acceptable Acceptable Tune 8260C Acceptable Internal Standards 8260C Area Area Lower / Upper Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable Comments (note deviations): 2 of 9 Semivolatile Organic Compounds 8270D (1,4-Dioxane SIM) Precision:Yes No N/A Yes Were the Matrix Spike Duplicate RPDs ≤ 20%? (Or lab defined limits) Yes Laboratory Control Spike Duplicates RPD within limits? Yes Comments (note deviations): Field 8270D SIM Sample Duplicate RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples Duplicates MW13L-GW032221 FD04-GW032221 1,4-Dioxane ND ND MS/MSD 8270D SIM RPD Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples MW13L-GW032221 (C248-14) Acceptable LCS/LCSD 8270D SIM RPD Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples LCS1W / LCSD1W Acceptable Accuracy:Yes No N/A Was the Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate criteria met? (frequency ≥ 5% and laboratory determined control limits) Yes Laboratory Control Sample criteria met?Yes Were the Laboratory Method Blank results all < RL?Yes Were the Field Blanks results all < RL?N/A Was the ICAL criteria met? Yes Was the CCV criteria met? Yes Was the Tuning criteria met?Yes Were the Surrogate % recoveries within laboratory determined control limits?Yes Were the Internal Standard areas within ± 50 - 150%? Yes Comments (note deviations): Blanks 8270D SIM Concentration (ug/L)MDL / RL Qualifiers Associated Samples MBLK1W Nondetect Field Blank 8270D SIM Concentration MDL / RL Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Surrogates 8270D SIM %R Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable MS/MSD 8270D SIM %R Limits (%)Qualifiers Associated Samples MW13L-GW032221 Acceptable (C248-14) LCS/LCSD 8270D SIM %R Limits Qualifiers LCS1W / LCSD1W Acceptable ICAL 8270D SIM RRF %RSD Qualifiers 6/3/2020 14:04 Acceptable Acceptable CCV 8270D SIM RRF %D Qualifiers Associated Samples 03/29/2021 11:12 Acceptable Acceptable Tune 8270D SIM Acceptable Internal Standards 8270D SIM Area Area Lower / Upper Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable Are the field duplicate relative percent differences (RPD) ≤50% (soils), <30% (water) or within CRQL criteria? Associated Samples Associated Samples 3 of 9 Precision:Yes No N/A Yes Were the Matrix Spike Duplicate RPDs ≤ 20%? (Or lab defined limits) Yes Laboratory Control Spike Duplicates RPD within limits? Yes Are the laboratory duplicate RPDs ≤ 20% for water ≤35% for soils or within CRQL criteria? N/A Field RSK-175 Sample Duplicate %RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples Duplicates MW13L-GW032221 FD04-GW032221 Methane 0.28 0.36 NC None MS/MSD RSK-175 %RPD Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples MW13L-GW032221 Acceptable (C248-14) LCS/LCSD RSK-175 %RPD Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples LCS1W / LCD1W Acceptable Laboratory RSK-175 Sample (ug/L)Duplicate (ug/L)RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples Duplicates N/A Accuracy:Yes No N/A Was the Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate criteria met? (frequency ≥ 5% and laboratory determined control limits) Yes Laboratory Control Sample criteria met?Yes Were the Laboratory Method Blank results all < RL?Yes Were the Field Blanks results all < RL?N/A Was the ICAL criteria met? Yes Was the CCV criteria met? Yes Was the Tuning criteria met?N/A Were the Surrogate % recoveries within laboratory determined control limits?N/A Were the Internal Standard areas within ± 50 - 150%? N/A Blanks RSK-175 Concentration (ug/L)MDL / RL Qualifiers Associated Samples MBLK1W Nondetect Field Blank RSK-175 Concentration MDL / RL Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Surrogates RSK-175 %R Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A MS/MSD RSK-175 %R Limits (%)Qualifiers Associated Samples MW13L-GW032221 Acceptable (C248-14) LCS/LCSD RSK-175 %R Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples LCS1W / LCD1W Acceptable ICAL RSK-175 RRF %RSD Qualifiers Associated Samples 4/29/2020 Acceptable Acceptable CCV RSK-175 RRF %D Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples 4/29/2020 '14:39 Acceptable Acceptable Sample results < 5xs RL; ABS Diff. < RL Comments (note deviations): Comments (note deviations): Dissolved Gases RSK-175 Are the field duplicate relative percent differences (RPD) ≤50% (soils), <30% (water) or within CRQL criteria? 4 of 9 Tune RSK-175 N/A Internal Standards RSK-175 Area Area Lower / Upper Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A 5 of 9 Precision:Yes No N/A Yes Are the laboratory duplicate RPDs ≤ 20% for (water / soil ) or within CRQL criteria? N/A Are the matrix spike duplicates RPD ≤ 20%? Yes Are the laboratory control sample duplicates RPDs ≤ 20%?Yes Field Sample (ug/L)Duplicate (ug/L)%RPD Qualifier Associated Samples Duplicates MW13L-GW032221 FD04-GW032221 Aluminum 143 151 NC None Arsenic 0.747 J 0.741 J NC None Chromium 1.24 1.19 NC None Cobalt 0.593 J 0.585 J NC None Iron 284 303 NC None Lead 0.393 J 0.37 J NC None Nickel 1.54 1.55 NC None Selenium 0.884 J 0.901 J NC None Vanadium 1.67 1.66 NC None Zinc 75.3 69.7 NC None MS/MSD RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples MW13L-GW032221 MS / MSD Acceptable (C248-14) LCS / LCSD RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples LCS1W / LCD1W Acceptable LCS1W / LCD1W (Hg)Acceptable Laboratory Sample Duplicate RPD Qualifier Associated Samples Duplicate N/A Accuracy:Yes No N/A Were serial dilutions analyzed and within control limits of ±10% for waters (± for 15% for soils) or initial sample result less than 50x MDL?Yes Was matrix spike criteria met (frequency 20% and % recovery 75-125%)?No Was post digestion spike criteria met (if applicable)? Yes Was laboratory control sample criteria met? Yes Was laboratory blank criteria met (within control limits)? No Were ICV/CCV % recoveries within 90-110%? No Were the Detection Limit PQL Standards within 70-130?N/A Was the %D on form 16-IN for the initial calibration instrument response and concentration data <30%?N/A Were ICSA/ICSAB % recoveries acceptable or within CRQL criteria? Yes Was the tune %RPD <5% (Peak width < 0.75)? Yes Was internal standard criteria met? Yes Serial Dilution Analyte Initial Sample Result %D 50 x MDL Qualifier Acceptable MS/MSD Analyte %R Limits Post Digestion Qualifiers MW13L-GW032221 MS / MSD (C248-14)Manganese 80 / 150%75-125 103 None ISR > 4xs the spike added Sodium 67 / 127%75-125 107 None ISR > 4xs the spike added Calcium 33 / 67%75-125 113 None ISR > 4xs the spike added Magnesium 287 / 147 75-125 120 None ISR > 4xs the spike added Mercury Acceptable ISR = Initial Sample Result LCS/LCSD Analyte %R Limits Qualifiers LCS1W / LCD1W Acceptable LCS1W / LCD1W (Hg)Acceptable Sample results < 5xs RL; ABS Diff. < RL Comments (note deviations): Associated Samples Associated Samples Associated Samples Metals SW 6020A / Mercury 7470A Are the field duplicate relative percent differences (RPD) ≤50% (soils), <30% (water) or within CRQL criteria? Comments (note deviations): 6 of 9 ICV/CCV Analyte %R Limits Qualifier Associated Samples CCV7 Selenium 111% 90-110 J /UJ** ** No qualification required - CCV applies to diluted sample results - initial results reported Blanks Prep Blank Result (ug/L)MDL/RL (ug/L)Qualifier MBLK1W Nondetect MBLK1W Mercury Nondetect ICBs Analyte Result (ug/L)MDL/RL (ug/L)Qualifier Lead 0.06 0.05 / 1.0 U-RL Mercury -0.036 0.1 / 0.5 None -Blank result > - RL CCBs Analyte Result (ug/L)MDL/RL (ug/L)Qualifier CCB1 through CCB7 Nondetect CCB4 Mercury 0.027 0.1 / 0.5 U-RL CCB5 Mercury 0.041 0.1 / 0.5 U-RL CCB6 Mercury -0.029 0.1 / 0.5 None Field Blank 6020A Concentration (ug/L)MDL/RL (ug/L)Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A ICSA/AB Analyte - Solution A %R Found Sol. A / True A RL Qualifier Associated Samples Acceptable PQL Standard Check %R Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Tune Acceptable Internal Standards Qualifier Associated Samples Acceptable C248-09 -Blank results > - RL C248-09 Associated Samples C248-05, C248-07, C248-10, C248-14, C248-15 C248-10I through C248-12I, C248-14I, C248-15I Associated Samples Associated Samples 7 of 9 Precision:Yes No N/A No Are the laboratory duplicate RPDs ≤ 20% for water ≤35% for soils or within CRQL criteria? Yes N/A Yes Field Sample (mg/L)Duplicate (mg/L)RPD Qualifier Duplicates MW13L-GW032221 FD04-GW032221 Nitrogen, Nitrate-Nitrite 1.22 4.1 NC J*MW13L-GW032221 & FD04-GW032221 Chloride 182 182 NC None Total Organic Carbon 0.735 J 0.805 J NC None * Sample results < 5xs RL; ABS Diff. > RL MS/MSD %R Limits RPD %Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable ** Numerous MS/MSDs performed / evaluated all QC data within acceptable criteria LCS/ LCSD Limits RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable ** Numerous LCS/LCSDs performed / evaluated all QC data within acceptable criteria Laboratory Duplicate Sample Duplicate RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable Accuracy:Yes No N/A Was matrix spike criteria met (frequency 20% and % recovery 75-125%)?No Was post digestion spike criteria met (if applicable)? N/A Yes Yes Were the Field Blanks results all < RL?N/A Yes Was the tune %RSD <5% ?N/A Was internal standard criteria met?N/A MS /MSD Analyte %R Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples MW13L-GW032221 MS / MSD (C248-14) Chloride 78 / 78 87-111 J - / UJ MW24-GW032121 MS / MSD Acceptable LCS / LCSD Analyte %R Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable ** Numerous LCS/LCSD performed / evaluated all QC data within acceptable criteria ICV/CCV %R Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable ** Multiple ICV/CCVs were reported - all were within criteria Blanks Analyte Result MDL/RL Qualifiers Associated Samples Nondetect ** Numerous prep. blanks performed / evaluated all QC blanks were nondetect Sample results < 5xs RL; ABS Diff. < RL Wet Chemistry Parameters Are the field duplicate relative percent differences (RPD) ≤30% (soils / water) or within CRQL criteria? Are the matrix spike duplicates RPD ≤ 20%? Are the laboratory control spike duplicates RPD ≤ 20%? Comments (note deviations): C248-04 through C248-07, C248-09 through C248-12, C248-14, C248-15 Was laboratory blank criteria met (within control limits)? Were ICV/CCV % recoveries within 90-110%? Comments (note deviations): Associated Samples Was laboratory control sample criteria met? 8 of 9 ICB / CCBs Analyte Result MDL/RL Qualifier Nondetect ** Numerous ICB/CCBs performed / evaluated all QC blanks were nondetect Field Blank Analyte Result (mg/L)MDL/RL Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Tune Analyte %RSD Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Representativeness:Yes No N/A Were sampling procedures and design criteria met? Yes Were holding times met? Yes Was preservation criteria met? (0° C - 6° C)Yes Were Chain-of-Custody records complete and provided in data package?Yes Preservation Cooler Temperature (Degrees C) Preservation Criteria Qualifier Associated Samples Acceptable Holding Times Analyte Days to Extraction HT Criteria Qualifier Associated Samples Acceptable Comparability:Yes No N/A Were analytical procedures and methods followed as defined in the QAPP or field change documentation?Yes Comments (note deviations): Completeness (90%):Yes No N/A Are all data in this SDG usable?Yes Sensitivity:Yes No N/A Are MDLs present and reported? Yes Do the reporting limits meet project requirements? Yes Comments (note deviations): Comment: Data is usable with appropriate qualifiers applied. Data Validator:Date:4/30/2021 Data Reviewer:Date: 5/2/2021 Associated Samples Cherie Zakowski Kristine Molloy The cooler temperatures were 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 & 1.9 °C Comments (note deviations): Comments (note 9 of 9 21C250 EMAX Laboratories, Inc. Matrix:Groundwater Collection date:03/19/2021 03/21/2021 03/22/2021 Volatile Organic Compounds SW 846 8260C Metals SW 846 6020A Mercury SW 846 7470A Dissolved Gases - RSK 175 Wet Chemistry Parameters: Chloride EPA 300.0 Sulfate EPA 300.0 Total Alkalinity SM 2320B Nitrate / Nitrite - N SM 4500 NO3E Total Organic Carbon (TOC) SW 9060 Lab ID Sample Number Lab ID Sample Number C250-01 MW01S-GW032221 C250-14 MW13D-GW032121 C250-02 MW01D-GW032221 C250-15 FD03-GW032121 C250-03 MW03RA-GW032121 C250-16 MW13S-GW032221 C250-04 MW03RB-GW032121 C250-17 MW17D-GW031921 C250-05 MW03RC-GW032121 C250-18 MW17S-GW031921 C250-06 MW03RD-GW032121 C250-19 MW18-GW032121 C250-07 MW04-GW032221 C250-20 MW19-GW032121 C250-08 FD01-GW032221 C250-21 MW34A-GW031921 C250-09 MW29A-GW031921 C250-22 MW34B-GW031921 C250-10 MW29B-GW031921 C250-23 MW34C-GW031921 C250-11 MW29C-GW031921 C250-24 MW34D-GW031921 C250-12 TB01-GW032221 C250-25 TB02-GW032221 C250-13 MW06-GW032221 Precision:Yes No N/A Yes Yes Yes Field 8260C Sample Duplicate %RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples Duplicates MW04-GW032221 FD01-GW032221 Acetone 4.0 J 4.1 J NC None Bromodichloromethane 0.3 J 0.29 J NC None Chloroform 4.0 J 4.0 J NC None Trichloroethylene 0.19 J 0.20 J NC None MW13D-GW032121 FD03-GW032121 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 0.43 J 0.44 J NC None 1,1-Dichloroethene 0.21 J 0.21 J NC None Acetone 20 U 5.6 J NC None Bromodichloromethane 0.2 J 0.21 J NC None Chloroform 1.9 2.0 NC None cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 0.26 J 0.28 J NC None Trichloroethylene 0.44 J 0.43 J NC None MS/MSD 8260C %RPD Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples MW01D-GW032221 Acceptable (C250-02) Samples in SDG: Data validation was performed in accordance with the specific analytical methods, National Functional Guidelines for Organic Superfund Methods Data Review (EPA January 2017), and the National Functional Guidelines for Inorganic Superfund Methods Data Review (EPA January 2017). Sample results < 5xs RL; ABS Diff. < RL Sample results < 5xs RL; ABS Diff. < RL Volatile Organic Compounds 8260C Are the field duplicate relative percent differences (RPD) ≤50% (soils), <30% (water) or within CRQL criteria? VA Salt Lake City Salt Lake City, Utah Groundwater Validation Report Laboratory: Analysis/Methods: Sample Delivery Group (SDG) Number: Were the Matrix Spike Duplicate RPDs ≤ 20%? (Or lab defined limits) Laboratory Control Spike Duplicates RPD within limits? Comments (note deviations): 1 of 8 LCS/LCSD 8260C %RPD Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples LCS1W / LCSD1W Acceptable LCS2W / LCSD2W Acceptable LCS3W / LCSD3W Acceptable Accuracy:Yes No N/A Was the Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate criteria met? (frequency ≥ 5% and laboratory determined control limits) Yes Laboratory Control Sample criteria met?Yes Were the Laboratory Method Blank results all < RL?Yes Were the Field Blanks results all < RL?Yes Was the ICAL criteria met? Yes Was the CCV criteria met? Yes Was the Tuning criteria met?Yes Were the Surrogate % recoveries within laboratory determined control limits?Yes Were the Internal Standard areas within ± 50 - 150%? Yes Blanks 8260C Concentration MDL /RL Qualifiers Associated Samples MBLK1W Nondetect MBLK2W Nondetect MBLK3W Nondetect Field Blank 8260C Concentration MDL /RL Qualifiers Associated Samples TB01-GW032221 Nondetect TB02-GW032221 Nondetect Surrogates 8260C %R Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable MS/MSD 8260C %R Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples MW01D-GW032221 Acceptable (C250-02) LCS/LCSD 8260C %R Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples LCS1W / LCSD1W Acceptable LCS2W / LCSD2W Acceptable LCS3W / LCSD3W Acceptable ICAL 8260C RRF %RSD Qualifiers Associated Samples 02/23/2021 11:49 Acceptable Acceptable CCV 8260C RRF %D Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples 03/29/2021 9:31 Acceptable Acceptable 03/30/2021 10:57 Acceptable Acceptable 03/31/2021 13:31 Acceptable Acceptable Tune 8260C Acceptable Internal Standards 8260C Area Area Lower / Upper Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable Comments (note deviations): 2 of 8 Precision:Yes No N/A N/A Were the Matrix Spike Duplicate RPDs ≤ 20%? (Or lab defined limits) N/A Laboratory Control Spike Duplicates RPD within limits? Yes Are the laboratory duplicate RPDs ≤ 20% for water ≤35% for soils or within CRQL criteria? N/A Field RSK-175 Sample Duplicate %RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples Duplicates N/A MS/MSD RSK-175 %RPD Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A LCS/LCSD RSK-175 %RPD Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples LCS1W / LCD1W Acceptable Laboratory RSK-175 Sample (ug/L)Duplicate (ug/L)RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples Duplicates N/A Accuracy:Yes No N/A Was the Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate criteria met? (frequency ≥ 5% and laboratory determined control limits) N/A Laboratory Control Sample criteria met?Yes Were the Laboratory Method Blank results all < RL?Yes Were the Field Blanks results all < RL?N/A Was the ICAL criteria met? Yes Was the CCV criteria met? Yes Was the Tuning criteria met?N/A Were the Surrogate % recoveries within laboratory determined control limits?N/A Were the Internal Standard areas within ± 50 - 150%? N/A Blanks RSK-175 Concentration (ug/L)MDL / RL Qualifiers Associated Samples MBLK1W Nondetect Field Blank RSK-175 Concentration MDL / RL Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Surrogates RSK-175 %R Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A MS/MSD RSK-175 %R Limits (%)Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A LCS/LCSD RSK-175 %R Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples LCS1W / LCD1W Acceptable ICAL RSK-175 RRF %RSD Qualifiers Associated Samples 4/29/2020 Acceptable Acceptable CCV RSK-175 RRF %D Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples 4/29/2020 '14:39 Acceptable Acceptable Comments (note deviations): Dissolved Gases RSK-175 Are the field duplicate relative percent differences (RPD) ≤50% (soils), <30% (water) or within CRQL criteria? Comments (note deviations): 3 of 8 Tune RSK-175 N/A Internal Standards RSK-175 Area Area Lower / Upper Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A 4 of 8 Precision:Yes No N/A N/A Are the laboratory duplicate RPDs ≤ 20% for (water / soil ) or within CRQL criteria? N/A Are the matrix spike duplicates RPD ≤ 20%? Yes Are the laboratory control sample duplicates RPDs ≤ 20%?Yes Field Sample (ug/L)Duplicate (ug/L)%RPD Qualifier Associated Samples Duplicates N/A MS/MSD RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples MW29A-GW031921 Acceptable (C250-09) MW29B-GW031921 MS/MSD (C250-10)Mercury Acceptable LCS / LCSD RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples LCS1W / LCD1W Acceptable LCS1W / LCD1W (Hg)Acceptable Laboratory Sample Duplicate RPD Qualifier Associated Samples Duplicate N/A Accuracy:Yes No N/A Were serial dilutions analyzed and within control limits of ±10% for waters (± for 15% for soils) or initial sample result less than 50x MDL?Yes Was matrix spike criteria met (frequency 20% and % recovery 75-125%)?No Was post digestion spike criteria met (if applicable)? No Was laboratory control sample criteria met? Yes Was laboratory blank criteria met (within control limits)? No Were ICV/CCV % recoveries within 90-110%? Yes Were the Detection Limit PQL Standards within 70-130?N/A Was the %D on form 16-IN for the initial calibration instrument response and concentration data <30%?N/A Were ICSA/ICSAB % recoveries acceptable or within CRQL criteria? Yes Was the tune %RPD <5% (Peak width < 0.75)? Yes Was internal standard criteria met? Yes Serial Dilution Analyte Initial Sample Result %D 50 x MDL Qualifier Acceptable MS/MSD Analyte %R Limits Post Digestion Qualifiers MW29A-GW031921 MS/MSD (C250-09)Magnesium 20 / 70%75-125 30 None ISR > 4xs the spike added Calcium -67 / 167 75-125 107 None ISR > 4xs the spike added Sodium -23 / 147 75-125 113 None ISR > 4xs the spike added MW29B-GW031921 MS/MSD (C250-10)Mercury Acceptable ISR = Initial Sample Result LCS/LCSD Analyte %R Limits Qualifiers LCS1W / LCD1W Acceptable LCS1W / LCD1W (Hg)Acceptable ICV/CCV Analyte %R Limits Qualifier Associated Samples Acceptable Metals SW 6020A / Mercury 7470A Are the field duplicate relative percent differences (RPD) ≤50% (soils), <30% (water) or within CRQL criteria? Comments (note deviations): Comments (note deviations): Associated Samples Associated Samples Associated Samples 5 of 8 Blanks Prep Blank Result (ug/L)MDL/RL (ug/L)Qualifier MBLK1W Chromium 0.177 J 0.1 / 1.0 U-RL Mercury Nondetect ICBs Analyte Result (ug/L)MDL/RL (ug/L)Qualifier Metals Nondetect Mercury -0.036 0.1 / 0.5 None -Blank result > - RL CCBs Analyte Result (ug/L)MDL/RL (ug/L)Qualifier CCB1 through CCB4 Nondetect CCB1 Mercury 0.02 0.1 / 0.5 None CCB2 Mercury -0.019 0.1 / 0.5 None -Blank results > - RL CCB3 Mercury 0.003 0.1 / 0.5 None Field Blank 6020A Concentration (ug/L)MDL/RL (ug/L)Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A ICSA/AB Analyte - Solution A %R Found Sol. A / True A RL Qualifier Associated Samples Acceptable PQL Standard Check %R Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Tune Acceptable Internal Standards Qualifier Associated Samples Acceptable Associated Samples Associated Samples C250-09 through C250-11, C250-22 through C250-24 Sample results nondetect Sample results nondetect Associated Samples 6 of 8 Precision:Yes No N/A N/A Are the laboratory duplicate RPDs ≤ 20% for water ≤35% for soils or within CRQL criteria? Yes N/A Yes Field Sample (mg/L)Duplicate (mg/L)RPD Qualifier Duplicates N/A MS/MSD %R Limits RPD %Qualifiers Associated Samples MW29A-GW031921 Acceptable (C250-09) LCS/ LCSD Limits RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable ** Numerous LCS/LCSDs performed / evaluated all QC data within acceptable criteria Laboratory Duplicate Sample Duplicate RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable Accuracy:Yes No N/A Was matrix spike criteria met (frequency 20% and % recovery 75-125%)?Yes Was post digestion spike criteria met (if applicable)? N/A Yes Yes Were the Field Blanks results all < RL?N/A No Was the tune %RSD <5% ?N/A Was internal standard criteria met?N/A MS /MSD Analyte %R Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples MW29A-GW031921 Acceptable (C250-09) LCS / LCSD Analyte %R Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable ** Numerous LCS/LCSD performed / evaluated all QC data within acceptable criteria ICV/CCV %R Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples ICV1 Chloride 89.70% 90-110 J / UJ All samples ** Multiple ICV/CCVs were reported - all were within criteria with the exception of those noted above Blanks Analyte Result MDL/RL Qualifiers Associated Samples Nondetect ** Numerous prep. blanks performed / evaluated all QC blanks were nondetect ICB / CCBs Analyte Result MDL/RL Qualifier Nondetect ** Numerous ICB/CCBs performed / evaluated all QC blanks were nondetect Field Blank Analyte Result (mg/L)MDL/RL Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Comments (note deviations): Associated Samples Wet Chemistry Parameters Are the field duplicate relative percent differences (RPD) ≤30% (soils / water) or within CRQL criteria? Are the matrix spike duplicates RPD ≤ 20%? Are the laboratory control spike duplicates RPD ≤ 20%? Was laboratory control sample criteria met? Was laboratory blank criteria met (within control limits)? Were ICV/CCV % recoveries within 90-110%? Comments (note deviations): Associated Samples 7 of 8 Tune Analyte %RSD Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Representativeness:Yes No N/A Were sampling procedures and design criteria met? Yes Were holding times met? Yes Was preservation criteria met? (0° C - 6° C)Yes Were Chain-of-Custody records complete and provided in data package?Yes Preservation Cooler Temperature (Degrees C) Preservation Criteria Qualifier Associated Samples Acceptable Holding Times Analyte Days to Extraction HT Criteria Qualifier Associated Samples Acceptable Comparability:Yes No N/A Were analytical procedures and methods followed as defined in the QAPP or field change documentation?Yes Comments (note deviations): Completeness (90%):Yes No N/A Are all data in this SDG usable?Yes Sensitivity:Yes No N/A Are MDLs present and reported? Yes Do the reporting limits meet project requirements? Yes Comments (note deviations): Comment: Data is usable with appropriate qualifiers applied. Data Validator:Date:4/29/2021 Data Reviewer:Date: 5/1/2021Cherie Zakowski Kristine Molloy The cooler temperatures were 2.6 & 4.3 °C Comments (note deviations): Comments (note Sample results for tetrachloroethene for samples C250-01 and C250-04 were run at a dilution. The diluted results should be used in place of the initial results. There were three sample names that were wrong in the data package. The laboratory was contacted and provided updated information. The correct sample names are presented in this report. 8 of 8 21C281 EMAX Laboratories, Inc. Matrix:Groundwater Collection date:03/22/2021, 03/23/2021 Volatile Organic Compounds SW 846 8260C Semivolatile Organic Compounds SW 846 8270D (1,4-Dioxane) Lab ID Sample Number C281-01 TB01-GW032321 C281-02 MW02-GW032321 C281-03 FB01-GW032221 C281-04 EB01-GW032321 Precision:Yes No N/A N/A N/A Yes Field 8260C Sample Duplicate %RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples Duplicates N/A MS/MSD 8260C %RPD Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A LCS/LCSD 8260C %RPD Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples LCS1W / LCSD1W Acceptable LCS2W / LCSD2W Acceptable Accuracy:Yes No N/A Was the Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate criteria met? (frequency ≥ 5% and laboratory determined control limits) N/A Laboratory Control Sample criteria met?Yes Were the Laboratory Method Blank results all < RL?Yes Were the Field Blanks results all < RL?No Was the ICAL criteria met? Yes Was the CCV criteria met? Yes Was the Tuning criteria met?Yes Were the Surrogate % recoveries within laboratory determined control limits?Yes Were the Internal Standard areas within ± 50 - 150%? Yes Blanks 8260C Concentration MDL /RL Qualifiers Associated Samples MBLK1W Nondetect MBLK2W Nondetect Field Blank 8260C Concentration MDL /RL Qualifiers Associated Samples TB01-GW032321 Nondetect FB01-GW032221 Nondetect EB01-GW032321** Acetone 3.9 J 2.5 / 20 U- RL C281-02 ** EB associated with sampling location MW-02. Volatile Organic Compounds 8260C Are the field duplicate relative percent differences (RPD) ≤50% (soils), <30% (water) or within CRQL criteria? Were the Matrix Spike Duplicate RPDs ≤ 20%? (Or lab defined limits) Laboratory Control Spike Duplicates RPD within limits? Comments (note deviations): Comments (note deviations): VA Salt Lake City Salt Lake City, Utah Groundwater Validation Report Laboratory: Analysis/Methods: Sample Delivery Group (SDG) Number: Samples in SDG: Data validation was performed in accordance with the specific analytical methods and the National Functional Guidelines for Organic Superfund Methods Data Review (EPA January 2017). 1 of 4 Surrogates 8260C %R Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable MS/MSD 8260C %R Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A LCS/LCSD 8260C %R Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples LCS1W / LCSD1W Acceptable LCS2W / LCSD2W Acceptable ICAL 8260C RRF %RSD Qualifiers Associated Samples 2/23/2021 11:49 Acceptable Acceptable CCV 8260C RRF %D Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples 03/25/20 9:39 Acceptable Acceptable 03/26/20 11:47 Acceptable Acceptable Tune 8260C Acceptable Internal Standards 8260C Area Area Lower / Upper Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable 2 of 4 Semivolatile Organic Compounds 8270D (1,4-Dioxane SIM) Precision:Yes No N/A N/A Were the Matrix Spike Duplicate RPDs ≤ 20%? (Or lab defined limits) N/A Laboratory Control Spike Duplicates RPD within limits? Yes Comments (note deviations): Field 8270D SIM Sample Duplicate RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples Duplicates N/A MS/MSD 8270D SIM RPD Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A LCS/LCSD 8270D SIM RPD Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples LCS1W / LCSD1W Acceptable Accuracy:Yes No N/A Was the Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate criteria met? (frequency ≥ 5% and laboratory determined control limits) N/A Laboratory Control Sample criteria met?Yes Were the Laboratory Method Blank results all < RL?Yes Were the Field Blanks results all < RL?Yes Was the ICAL criteria met? Yes Was the CCV criteria met? Yes Was the Tuning criteria met?Yes Were the Surrogate % recoveries within laboratory determined control limits?Yes Were the Internal Standard areas within ± 50 - 150%? Yes Comments (note deviations): Blanks 8270D SIM Concentration (ug/L)MDL / RL Qualifiers Associated Samples MBLK1W Nondetect Field Blank 8270D SIM Concentration MDL / RL Qualifiers Associated Samples FB01-GW032221 Nondetect Surrogates 8270D SIM %R Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable MS/MSD 8270D SIM %R Limits (%)Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A LCS/LCSD 8270D SIM %R Limits Qualifiers LCS1W / LCSD1W Acceptable ICAL 8270D SIM RRF %RSD Qualifiers 6/3/2020 14:04 Acceptable Acceptable CCV 8270D SIM RRF %D Qualifiers Associated Samples 03/29/2021 11:12 Acceptable Acceptable Tune 8270D SIM Acceptable Internal Standards 8270D SIM Area Area Lower / Upper Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable Associated Samples Associated Samples Are the field duplicate relative percent differences (RPD) ≤50% (soils), <30% (water) or within CRQL criteria? 3 of 4 Representativeness:Yes No N/A Were sampling procedures and design criteria met? Yes Were holding times met? Yes Was preservation criteria met? (0° C - 6° C)Yes Were Chain-of-Custody records complete and provided in data package?Yes Preservation Cooler Temperature (Degrees C) Preservation Criteria Qualifier Associated Samples Acceptable Holding Times Analyte Days to Extraction HT Criteria Qualifier Associated Samples Acceptable Comparability:Yes No N/A Were analytical procedures and methods followed as defined in the QAPP or field change documentation?Yes Comments (note deviations): Completeness (90%):Yes No N/A Are all data in this SDG usable?Yes Sensitivity:Yes No N/A Are MDLs present and reported? Yes Do the reporting limits meet project requirements? Yes Comments (note deviations): Comment: Data is usable with appropriate qualifiers applied. Data Validator:Date:4/13/2021 Data Reviewer:Date: 4/15/2021Cherie Zakowski Kristine Molloy The cooler temperature was 1.0 °C Comments (note deviations): Comments (note Sample results for tetrachloroethene for sample C281-02 was run at a dilution. The diluted results should be used in place of the initial results. 4 of 4      Attachment 2  Data Package Completeness Review Checklists   VA SLC OU‐1  Data Package Completeness Review Checklist  SDG: 21C208 Required Documentation Yes No Comments  1. Cover letter complete with the following information: X     Title of report and laboratory unique report identification  (sample delivery group number) X     Project name, site location X     Name and location of laboratory and second‐site or  subcontracted laboratory X     Client name and address X     Statement of authenticity and official signature and title of  person authorizing report release X    2. Summary of samples received that correlates field sample IDs  with the laboratory IDs X    3. Laboratory qualifier flags and definitions  X    4. Preparation and/or analytical methods  X    5. Sample results for each analyte (dry weight basis for soils)   Date received X     Date analyzed (and time of analysis if the holding time is less  than or equal to 48 hours) X     Percent solids results for soil samples   Not Applicable   Dilution factor (provide both diluted and undiluted results  when available) X     Sample‐specific reporting limit adjusted for sample size,  dilution/concentration X     Sample‐specific MDL adjusted for sample size,  dilution/concentration X     Units X    6. Case Narrative that addresses the following information at a  minimum: X     Sample receipt discrepancies X     Descriptions of all nonconformances in the sample receipt,  handling, preparation, analytical and reporting processes and  the corrective action taken in each occurrence  X      Identification and justification for sample dilution X     Sample cooler temperature at time of receipt X  2.2 °C & 3.0 °C    Final residual vacuum of each sample canister immediately  prior to analysis, or upon receipt (Air analyses only)    Not Applicable  7. Surrogate percent recoveries (surrogate result, target  concentration, percent recovery)  X    Required Documentation Yes No Comments  8. MS/MSD and LCS spike concentrations, native sample results,  spiked sample results, percent recoveries, and RPDs between  the MS and MSD results (associated QC limits must also be  provided)  X    9. Method blank results X    10. Analytical batch reference number that cross references  samples to QC sample analyses  X    11. Executed COC and sample receipt checklist X    12.  Analytical sequence or laboratory run log that contains  sufficient information to correlate samples reported in the  summary results to the associated method QC information,  such as initial and continuing calibration analyses  X    13. Calibration blank results for inorganic analyses (required in  hardcopy format only)  X    14. Inductively coupled plasma (ICP) interference check sample for  inorganic analyses, true and measured concentrations and  percent recoveries (required in hardcopy format only)  X    15. Reporting Limit Check Standard for metals analyses, true and  measured concentrations and percent recoveries (if applicable,  required in hardcopy format only)  X    16. Post‐digestion spike recoveries for metals analyses, (if  applicable; required in hardcopy format only)  X    17. Internal Standard recovery and retention time information, as  applicable  X    18. Initial calibration summary, including standard concentrations,  response factors, average response factors, RSDs or correlation  coefficients, and calibration plots or equations, if applicable  (required in hardcopy format only)  X    19. Continuing calibration verification summary, including expected  and recovered concentrations and percent differences (required  in hardcopy format only)  X    20. Instrument tuning and mass calibration information for ICP  /mass spectrometry analyses  X    21. All associated instrument printouts for all samples, standards,  and QC samples (e.g., raw data) necessary to re‐calculate  results as well as all manual integrations (if performed)  X    22. Sample preparation logs that include the following information X     Preparation start and end times (as applicable) X     Beginning and ending temperatures of water baths and  digestion blocks  X    Data package complete and ready for Validation Cherie Zakowski Date: 4/30/2021  Signature VA SLC OU‐1  Data Package Completeness Review Checklist  SDG: 21C209 Required Documentation Yes No Comments  1. Cover letter complete with the following information: X     Title of report and laboratory unique report identification  (sample delivery group number) X     Project name, site location X     Name and location of laboratory and second‐site or  subcontracted laboratory X     Client name and address X     Statement of authenticity and official signature and title of  person authorizing report release X    2. Summary of samples received that correlates field sample IDs  with the laboratory IDs X    3. Laboratory qualifier flags and definitions  X    4. Preparation and/or analytical methods  X    5. Sample results for each analyte (dry weight basis for soils)   Date received X     Date analyzed (and time of analysis if the holding time is less  than or equal to 48 hours) X     Percent solids results for soil samples   Not Applicable   Dilution factor (provide both diluted and undiluted results  when available) X     Sample‐specific reporting limit adjusted for sample size,  dilution/concentration X     Sample‐specific MDL adjusted for sample size,  dilution/concentration X     Units X    6. Case Narrative that addresses the following information at a  minimum: X     Sample receipt discrepancies X     Descriptions of all nonconformances in the sample receipt,  handling, preparation, analytical and reporting processes and  the corrective action taken in each occurrence  X      Identification and justification for sample dilution X     Sample cooler temperature at time of receipt X  2.0 °C, 2.8 °C, 3.5 °C, 3.6 °C   Final residual vacuum of each sample canister immediately  prior to analysis, or upon receipt (Air analyses only)    Not Applicable  7. Surrogate percent recoveries (surrogate result, target  concentration, percent recovery)  X    Required Documentation Yes No Comments  8. MS/MSD and LCS spike concentrations, native sample results,  spiked sample results, percent recoveries, and RPDs between  the MS and MSD results (associated QC limits must also be  provided)  X    9. Method blank results X    10. Analytical batch reference number that cross references  samples to QC sample analyses  X    11. Executed COC and sample receipt checklist X    12.  Analytical sequence or laboratory run log that contains  sufficient information to correlate samples reported in the  summary results to the associated method QC information,  such as initial and continuing calibration analyses  X    13. Calibration blank results for inorganic analyses (required in  hardcopy format only)  X    14. Inductively coupled plasma (ICP) interference check sample for  inorganic analyses, true and measured concentrations and  percent recoveries (required in hardcopy format only)  X    15. Reporting Limit Check Standard for metals analyses, true and  measured concentrations and percent recoveries (if applicable,  required in hardcopy format only)  X    16. Post‐digestion spike recoveries for metals analyses, (if  applicable; required in hardcopy format only)  X    17. Internal Standard recovery and retention time information, as  applicable  X    18. Initial calibration summary, including standard concentrations,  response factors, average response factors, RSDs or correlation  coefficients, and calibration plots or equations, if applicable  (required in hardcopy format only)  X    19. Continuing calibration verification summary, including expected  and recovered concentrations and percent differences (required  in hardcopy format only)  X    20. Instrument tuning and mass calibration information for ICP  /mass spectrometry analyses  X    21. All associated instrument printouts for all samples, standards,  and QC samples (e.g., raw data) necessary to re‐calculate  results as well as all manual integrations (if performed)  X    22. Sample preparation logs that include the following information X     Preparation start and end times (as applicable) X     Beginning and ending temperatures of water baths and  digestion blocks  X    Data package complete and ready for Validation Cherie Zakowski Date: 5/1/2021  Signature VA SLC OU‐1  Data Package Completeness Review Checklist  SDG: 21C248 Required Documentation Yes No Comments  1. Cover letter complete with the following information: X     Title of report and laboratory unique report identification  (sample delivery group number) X     Project name, site location X     Name and location of laboratory and second‐site or  subcontracted laboratory X     Client name and address X     Statement of authenticity and official signature and title of  person authorizing report release X    2. Summary of samples received that correlates field sample IDs  with the laboratory IDs X    3. Laboratory qualifier flags and definitions  X    4. Preparation and/or analytical methods  X    5. Sample results for each analyte (dry weight basis for soils)   Date received X     Date analyzed (and time of analysis if the holding time is less  than or equal to 48 hours) X     Percent solids results for soil samples   Not Applicable   Dilution factor (provide both diluted and undiluted results  when available) X     Sample‐specific reporting limit adjusted for sample size,  dilution/concentration X     Sample‐specific MDL adjusted for sample size,  dilution/concentration X     Units X    6. Case Narrative that addresses the following information at a  minimum: X     Sample receipt discrepancies X     Descriptions of all nonconformances in the sample receipt,  handling, preparation, analytical and reporting processes and  the corrective action taken in each occurrence  X      Identification and justification for sample dilution X     Sample cooler temperature at time of receipt X  1.1 °C, 1.2 °C, 1.3 °C & 1.9 °C   Final residual vacuum of each sample canister immediately  prior to analysis, or upon receipt (Air analyses only)    Not Applicable  7. Surrogate percent recoveries (surrogate result, target  concentration, percent recovery)  X    Required Documentation Yes No Comments  8. MS/MSD and LCS spike concentrations, native sample results,  spiked sample results, percent recoveries, and RPDs between  the MS and MSD results (associated QC limits must also be  provided)  X    9. Method blank results X    10. Analytical batch reference number that cross references  samples to QC sample analyses  X    11. Executed COC and sample receipt checklist X    12.  Analytical sequence or laboratory run log that contains  sufficient information to correlate samples reported in the  summary results to the associated method QC information,  such as initial and continuing calibration analyses  X    13. Calibration blank results for inorganic analyses (required in  hardcopy format only)  X    14. Inductively coupled plasma (ICP) interference check sample for  inorganic analyses, true and measured concentrations and  percent recoveries (required in hardcopy format only)  X    15. Reporting Limit Check Standard for metals analyses, true and  measured concentrations and percent recoveries (if applicable,  required in hardcopy format only)  X    16. Post‐digestion spike recoveries for metals analyses, (if  applicable; required in hardcopy format only)  X    17. Internal Standard recovery and retention time information, as  applicable  X    18. Initial calibration summary, including standard concentrations,  response factors, average response factors, RSDs or correlation  coefficients, and calibration plots or equations, if applicable  (required in hardcopy format only)  X    19. Continuing calibration verification summary, including expected  and recovered concentrations and percent differences (required  in hardcopy format only)  X    20. Instrument tuning and mass calibration information for ICP  /mass spectrometry analyses  X    21. All associated instrument printouts for all samples, standards,  and QC samples (e.g., raw data) necessary to re‐calculate  results as well as all manual integrations (if performed)  X    22. Sample preparation logs that include the following information X     Preparation start and end times (as applicable) X     Beginning and ending temperatures of water baths and  digestion blocks  X    Data package complete and ready for Validation Cherie Zakowski Date: 5 /1/2021  Signature VA SLC OU‐1  Data Package Completeness Review Checklist  SDG: 21C250 Required Documentation Yes No Comments  1. Cover letter complete with the following information: X     Title of report and laboratory unique report identification  (sample delivery group number) X     Project name, site location X     Name and location of laboratory and second‐site or  subcontracted laboratory X     Client name and address X     Statement of authenticity and official signature and title of  person authorizing report release X    2. Summary of samples received that correlates field sample IDs  with the laboratory IDs X    3. Laboratory qualifier flags and definitions  X    4. Preparation and/or analytical methods  X    5. Sample results for each analyte (dry weight basis for soils)   Date received X     Date analyzed (and time of analysis if the holding time is less  than or equal to 48 hours) X     Percent solids results for soil samples   Not Applicable   Dilution factor (provide both diluted and undiluted results  when available) X     Sample‐specific reporting limit adjusted for sample size,  dilution/concentration X     Sample‐specific MDL adjusted for sample size,  dilution/concentration X     Units X    6. Case Narrative that addresses the following information at a  minimum: X     Sample receipt discrepancies   X  Three samples were mis‐labeled in  the laboratory report and EDD. The  laboratory was contacted and a  resubmittal was provided with the  correct sample numbers.   Descriptions of all nonconformances in the sample receipt,  handling, preparation, analytical and reporting processes and  the corrective action taken in each occurrence  X      Identification and justification for sample dilution X     Sample cooler temperature at time of receipt X  2.6 °C & 4.3 °C    Final residual vacuum of each sample canister immediately  prior to analysis, or upon receipt (Air analyses only)    Not Applicable  Required Documentation Yes No Comments  7. Surrogate percent recoveries (surrogate result, target  concentration, percent recovery)  X    8. MS/MSD and LCS spike concentrations, native sample results,  spiked sample results, percent recoveries, and RPDs between  the MS and MSD results (associated QC limits must also be  provided)  X    9. Method blank results X    10. Analytical batch reference number that cross references  samples to QC sample analyses  X    11. Executed COC and sample receipt checklist X    12.  Analytical sequence or laboratory run log that contains  sufficient information to correlate samples reported in the  summary results to the associated method QC information,  such as initial and continuing calibration analyses  X    13. Calibration blank results for inorganic analyses (required in  hardcopy format only)  X    14. Inductively coupled plasma (ICP) interference check sample for  inorganic analyses, true and measured concentrations and  percent recoveries (required in hardcopy format only)  X    15. Reporting Limit Check Standard for metals analyses, true and  measured concentrations and percent recoveries (if applicable,  required in hardcopy format only)  X    16. Post‐digestion spike recoveries for metals analyses, (if  applicable; required in hardcopy format only)  X    17. Internal Standard recovery and retention time information, as  applicable  X    18. Initial calibration summary, including standard concentrations,  response factors, average response factors, RSDs or correlation  coefficients, and calibration plots or equations, if applicable  (required in hardcopy format only)  X    19. Continuing calibration verification summary, including expected  and recovered concentrations and percent differences (required  in hardcopy format only)  X    20. Instrument tuning and mass calibration information for ICP  /mass spectrometry analyses  X    21. All associated instrument printouts for all samples, standards,  and QC samples (e.g., raw data) necessary to re‐calculate  results as well as all manual integrations (if performed)  X    22. Sample preparation logs that include the following information X     Preparation start and end times (as applicable) X     Beginning and ending temperatures of water baths and  digestion blocks  X    Data package complete and ready for Validation Cherie Zakowski Date: 4/30/2021  Signature VA SLC OU‐1  Data Package Completeness Review Checklist  SDG: 21C281 Required Documentation Yes No Comments  1. Cover letter complete with the following information: X     Title of report and laboratory unique report identification  (sample delivery group number) X     Project name, site location X     Name and location of laboratory and second‐site or  subcontracted laboratory X     Client name and address X     Statement of authenticity and official signature and title of  person authorizing report release X    2. Summary of samples received that correlates field sample IDs  with the laboratory IDs X    3. Laboratory qualifier flags and definitions  X    4. Preparation and/or analytical methods  X    5. Sample results for each analyte (dry weight basis for soils)   Date received X     Date analyzed (and time of analysis if the holding time is less  than or equal to 48 hours) X     Percent solids results for soil samples   Not Applicable   Dilution factor (provide both diluted and undiluted results  when available) X     Sample‐specific reporting limit adjusted for sample size,  dilution/concentration X     Sample‐specific MDL adjusted for sample size,  dilution/concentration X     Units X    6. Case Narrative that addresses the following information at a  minimum: X     Sample receipt discrepancies X     Descriptions of all nonconformances in the sample receipt,  handling, preparation, analytical and reporting processes and  the corrective action taken in each occurrence  X      Identification and justification for sample dilution X     Sample cooler temperature at time of receipt X  1.0 °C   Final residual vacuum of each sample canister immediately  prior to analysis, or upon receipt (Air analyses only)    Not Applicable  7. Surrogate percent recoveries (surrogate result, target  concentration, percent recovery)  X    Required Documentation Yes No Comments  8. MS/MSD and LCS spike concentrations, native sample results,  spiked sample results, percent recoveries, and RPDs between  the MS and MSD results (associated QC limits must also be  provided)  X    9. Method blank results X    10. Analytical batch reference number that cross references  samples to QC sample analyses  X    11. Executed COC and sample receipt checklist X    12.  Analytical sequence or laboratory run log that contains  sufficient information to correlate samples reported in the  summary results to the associated method QC information,  such as initial and continuing calibration analyses  X    13. Calibration blank results for inorganic analyses (required in  hardcopy format only)  X    14. Inductively coupled plasma (ICP) interference check sample for  inorganic analyses, true and measured concentrations and  percent recoveries (required in hardcopy format only)  X    15. Reporting Limit Check Standard for metals analyses, true and  measured concentrations and percent recoveries (if applicable,  required in hardcopy format only)  X    16. Post‐digestion spike recoveries for metals analyses, (if  applicable; required in hardcopy format only)  X    17. Internal Standard recovery and retention time information, as  applicable  X    18. Initial calibration summary, including standard concentrations,  response factors, average response factors, RSDs or correlation  coefficients, and calibration plots or equations, if applicable  (required in hardcopy format only)  X    19. Continuing calibration verification summary, including expected  and recovered concentrations and percent differences (required  in hardcopy format only)  X    20. Instrument tuning and mass calibration information for ICP  /mass spectrometry analyses  X    21. All associated instrument printouts for all samples, standards,  and QC samples (e.g., raw data) necessary to re‐calculate  results as well as all manual integrations (if performed)  X    22. Sample preparation logs that include the following information X     Preparation start and end times (as applicable) X     Beginning and ending temperatures of water baths and  digestion blocks  X    Data package complete and ready for Validation Cherie Zakowski Date: 4/12/2021  Signature      Attachment 3  Analytical Data Packages  Note: Laboratory Data Reports removed from report and provided separately. Appendix D Transducer Hydrographs 4500 4501 4502 4503 4504 4505 4506 4507 4508 4509 4510 11/2020 12/2020 1/2021 2/2021 3/2021 4/2021 El e v a t i o n ( f e e t a b o v e m e a n s e a l e v e l ) Date MW-01S WaterLevel 12/2020-3/2021 Groundwater Elevation Manual Water Level Date 4490 4491 4492 4493 4494 4495 4496 4497 4498 4499 4500 11/2020 12/2020 1/2021 2/2021 3/2021 4/2021 El e v a t i o n ( f e e t a b o v e m e a n s e a l e v e l ) Date MW-01D WaterLevel 12/2020-3/2021 Groundwater Elevation Manual Water Level Date 4515 4516 4517 4518 4519 4520 4521 4522 4523 4524 4525 11/2020 12/2020 1/2021 2/2021 3/2021 4/2021 El e v a t i o n ( f e e t a b o v e m e a n s e a l e v e l ) Date MW-04 WaterLevel 12/2020-3/2021 Groundwater Elevation Manual Water Level 4518 4519 4520 4521 4522 4523 4524 4525 4526 4527 4528 11/2020 12/2020 1/2021 2/2021 3/2021 4/2021 El e v a t i o n ( f e e t a b o v e m e a n s e a l e v e l ) Date MW-05R WaterLevel 12/2020-03/2021 Groundwater Elevation Manual Water Level Date 4467 4468 4469 4470 4471 4472 4473 4474 4475 4476 4477 11/2020 12/2020 1/2021 2/2021 3/2021 4/2021 El e v a t i o n ( f e e t a b o v e m e a n s e a l e v e l ) Date MW-13D WaterLevel 12/2020-3/2021 Groundwater Elevation Manual Water Level Date 4405 4406 4407 4408 4409 4410 4411 4412 4413 4414 4415 11/2020 12/2020 1/2021 2/2021 3/2021 4/2021 El e v a t i o n ( f e e t a b o v e m e a n s e a l e v e l ) Date MW-14S WaterLevel 12/2020-3/2021 Groundwater Elevation Manual Water Level Date 4290 4291 4292 4293 4294 4295 4296 4297 4298 4299 4300 11/2020 12/2020 1/2021 2/2021 3/2021 4/2021 El e v a t i o n ( f e e t a b o v e m e a n s e a l e v e l ) Date MW-15D WaterLevel 12/2020-3/2021 Groundwater Elevation Manual Water Level Date 4440 4441 4442 4443 4444 4445 4446 4447 4448 4449 4450 11/2020 12/2020 1/2021 2/2021 3/2021 4/2021 El e v a t i o n ( f e e t a b o v e m e a n s e a l e v e l ) Date MW-16D WaterLevel 12/2020-3/2021 Groundwater Elevation Manual Water Level Date 4470 4471 4472 4473 4474 4475 4476 4477 4478 4479 4480 11/2020 12/2020 1/2021 2/2021 3/2021 4/2021 El e v a t i o n ( f e e t a b o v e m e a n s e a l e v e l ) Date MW-20D WaterLevel 12/2020-03/2021 Groundwater Elevation Manual Water Level Date 4470 4471 4472 4473 4474 4475 4476 4477 4478 4479 4480 11/2020 12/2020 1/2021 2/2021 3/2021 4/2021 El e v a t i o n ( f e e t a b o v e m e a n s e a l e v e l ) Date MW-20S WaterLevel 12/2020-3/2021 Groundwater Elevation Manual Water Level Date 4495 4496 4497 4498 4499 4500 4501 4502 4503 4504 4505 11/2020 12/2020 1/2021 2/2021 3/2021 4/2021 El e v a t i o n ( f e e t a b o v e m e a n s e a l e v e l ) Date MW-21 WaterLevel 12/2020-3/2021 Groundwater Elevation Manual Water Level Date 4495 4496 4497 4498 4499 4500 4501 4502 4503 4504 4505 11/2020 12/2020 1/2021 2/2021 3/2021 4/2021 El e v a t i o n ( f e e t a b o v e m e a n s e a l e v e l ) Date MW-22 WaterLevel 12/2020-3/2021 Groundwater Elevation Manual Water Level Date 4485 4486 4487 4488 4489 4490 4491 4492 4493 4494 4495 11/2020 12/2020 1/2021 2/2021 El e v a t i o n ( f e e t a b o v e m e a n s e a l e v e l ) Date MW-34B WaterLevel 12/2020-1/2021 Groundwater Elevation Manual Water Level Date 4490 4491 4492 4493 4494 4495 4496 4497 4498 4499 4500 11/2020 12/2020 1/2021 2/2021 3/2021 4/2021 El e v a t i o n ( f e e t a b o v e m e a n s e a l e v e l ) Date MW-34C WaterLevel 12/2020-3/2021 Groundwater Elevation Manual Water Level Date 4490 4491 4492 4493 4494 4495 4496 4497 4498 4499 4500 11/2020 12/2020 1/2021 2/2021 3/2021 4/2021 El e v a t i o n ( f e e t a b o v e m e a n s e a l e v e l ) Date MW-34D WaterLevel 12/2020-3/2021 Groundwater Elevation Manual Water Level Date Data Summary Report Phase 2 2020 Drilling Investigation 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Site Salt Lake City, Utah CONTRACT NO.: W912DQ -18-D-3008 DELIVERY ORDER NO.: W912DQ19F3048 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Kansas City District Department of Veterans Affairs Veterans Health Administration Salt Lake City Health Care System July 7, 2021 Cover This page intentionally left blank. i Table of Contents Section 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Background ................................................................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Purpose and Scope ................................................................................................................................................... 1-2 Section 2 Monitoring Well Installation ............................................................................. 2-1 2.1 Utility Clearance and Permitting ........................................................................................................................ 2-1 2.1.1 Borehole Preclearing ................................................................................................................................. 2-1 2.1.2 Permitting ...................................................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Drilling ........................................................................................................................................................................... 2-2 2.3 Groundwater Sampling .......................................................................................................................................... 2-3 2.4 Well Construction ..................................................................................................................................................... 2-3 2.4.1 MW-13L ........................................................................................................................................................... 2-3 2.4.2 MW-30R .......................................................................................................................................................... 2-4 2.4.3 MW-36 ............................................................................................................................................................. 2-4 2.4.4 MW-37 S/D .................................................................................................................................................... 2-4 2.4.5 MW-38 S/D .................................................................................................................................................... 2-4 2.5 Well Development .................................................................................................................................................... 2-4 2.6 Decontamination and Investigation-Derived Waste ................................................................................. 2-5 2.7 Deviations from the Quality Assurance Project Plan ................................................................................. 2-5 Section 3 Summary .......................................................................................................... 3-1 Section 4 References ....................................................................................................... 4-1 Table of Contents ii List of Figures Figure 1 Site Location Map List of Tables Table 1 Hydrovac Summary Table 2 Monitoring Well Survey Data and Construction Details (Attached) Table 3 Monitoring Well Development Summary (Attached) Appendices Appendix A Daily Quality Control Reports Appendix B Field Logbook Notes Appendix C Utility Locate Reports Appendix D Traffic Control Plan Appendix E Salt Lake City Traffic Control, Engineering, and Right-of-Way Permits Appendix F Salt Lake City VHA Daily Excavation Checklists Appendix G Borehole Logs with Well Construction Diagrams Appendix H Soil Core Photo Log Appendix I Laboratory Data Package and Data Validation Report Appendix J Survey Data Appendix K Well Development Appendix L Investigation-Derived Waste Manifests Table of Contents iii Acronyms and Abbreviations bgs below ground surface CDM Smith CDM Federal Programs Corporation DSR data summary report EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ESS East Side Springs IDW investigation-derived waste Jacobs Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. OU operable unit PCE tetrachloroethene PID photoionization detector PVC polyvinyl chloride QAPP quality assurance project plan RI remedial investigation ROW right-of-way SOP standard operating procedure SVP soil vapor probe USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers VAMC Veterans Affairs Medical Center VHA Veterans Health Administration VOC volatile organic compound ZIST zone isolation sampling technology 1-1 Section 1 Introduction Under the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Kansas City District, Contract No. W912DQ-18- D-3008, Task Order No. W912DQ19F3048, CDM Federal Programs Corporation (CDM Smith) was directed to perform a remedial investigation (RI) for Operable Unit (OU) 1 of the 700 South 1600 East Tetrachloroethene (PCE) Plume Superfund Site in Salt Lake City, Utah. CDM Smith prepared this data summary report (DSR) to present the results of the Phase 2 2020 drilling investigation as part of the RI field characterization activities. 1.1 Background The Salt Lake City Healthcare System George E. Wahlen Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC) is in Salt Lake City, Utah (Figure 1). PCE contamination was first identified in groundwater in 1990 at the nearby Mt. Olivet Cemetery irrigation well during routine monitoring by the Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities. This led to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Utah Department of Environmental Quality involvement at the site and the preliminary determination that the source of PCE in groundwater was the historic dry cleaning facility at the VAMC. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) operated a part-time dry cleaning operation that used PCE over a 6-year period in the late 1970s and early 1980s. During this period, dry cleaning residuals were disposed in the sanitary sewer. The PCE plume is present beneath the VAMC property and in areas hydraulically downgradient, extending to the East Side Springs (ESS) neighborhood. In 2018, as part of the RI for the former OU2, 18 shallow monitoring wells (including 7 monitoring well pairs and 4 individual wells) were constructed at the site. Additionally, two deep monitoring wells were installed: MW-03R on the VAMC campus, installed as a multilevel completion with four screened intervals, and MW-08, installed on 700 South near 1300 East as a multilevel completion with three screened intervals (Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. [Jacobs] 2019). Soil vapor investigations and surface water and groundwater sampling were also conducted as part of the RI effort. The soil vapor investigation identified elevated PCE concentrations around Buildings 6 and 7 on the VAMC campus and along the sanitary sewer line that runs from Building 7 through Sunnyside Park to the main sewer line on 900 South, specifically near a manhole in Sunnyside Park (Jacobs 2019). As part of the Phase 1 RI field investigation, 27 groundwater monitoring wells were installed at 11 boring locations. Seven boring locations (MW-23 through MW-29) were selected to evaluate conditions in and immediately downgradient of suspected source areas. Four boring locations (MW-30, MW-31, MW-32, and MW-34) were advanced to laterally and vertically delineate the plume (CDM Smith 2021a). Section 1 • Introduction 1-2 1.2 Purpose and Scope The purpose of this DSR is to present the field work conducted and data collected during the 2020 Phase 2 groundwater monitoring well installation event. The rationale and approach for completing the Phase 2 groundwater monitoring well installation were presented in the Final Phase 2 OU1 RI Work Plan (CDM Smith 2020a), and minor field modification #1 to the Phase 2 Field Sampling Plan (CDM Smith 2020b). The well installation described in the Phase 2 OU1 RI Work Plan was planned to delineate the extent of the PCE plume to the north, northwest, and south within the ESS area, as well as any additional locations that were not adequately delineated by wells installed during Phase 1. Following completion of Phase 1 drilling activities, the remaining investigation activities included installation of wells in the ESS area for plume delineation and replacement of two wells at MW-30 which were damaged during installation. While Phase 1 included the collection and analysis of groundwater and soil samples during drilling to characterize the subsurface in suspected source areas and inform the monitoring well installation, Phase 2 well installation was primarily focused on lateral delineation of the plume outside of the suspected source areas; therefore, limited soil or groundwater sampling was necessary during Phase 2. Two monitoring wells were installed as replacement wells for MW-30A and MW-30B, which were damaged during installation in the Phase 1 well installation event. A total of seven new groundwater monitoring wells were installed at four boring locations. The boring locations were selected to evaluate subsurface conditions in the downgradient area (ESS) to vertically and spatially delineate the extent of the plume. Soil profiling included field screening of soil cores using a photoionization detector (PID). Push-ahead groundwater samples were collected at one location and screened using AQ Colortec and submitted for laboratory volatile organic compound (VOC) analysis to evaluate the vertical distribution of VOCs in the aquifer (CDM Smith 2019). This report summarizes the field work conducted and presents the field data collected during the event. Appendix A includes the daily quality control reports submitted to USACE and VHA during the event. Appendix B includes copies of field logbook notes for the field work. 2-1 Section 2 Monitoring Well Installation The following sections outline the field activities completed during the Phase 2 2020 drilling event. The field activities were conducted per the agency-approved OU1 Phase 2 OU1 RI Work Plan and Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) (CDM Smith 2020a) and Modification #1 to the Phase 2 Field Sampling Plan (CDM Smith 2020b), with deviations outlined in Section 2.7. 2.1 Utility Clearance and Permitting Prior to drilling, all locations were surveyed for utilities using geophysical survey methods. Location clearance requests were submitted to Blue Stakes of Utah, and the utility location notifications were updated as required during the drilling event. TWS Environmental conducted the geophysical surveys for the boring locations in the ESS area. GPRS conducted the geophysical survey for MW-13 near East High School. Utility locate reports are included in Appendix C. 2.1.1 Borehole Preclearing Prior to drilling, all of the boring locations were precleared using a hydrovac-excavation or hand auger. Excavation to 15 feet below ground surface (bgs) was attempted on the VAMC campus at MW-30R. VHA safety staff approved the location prior to drilling and issued an excavation permit. The ESS boring locations were hydrovac-excavated to at least 5 feet bgs. The MW-13L location was precleared with a hand auger to 5 feet bgs. The preclearing cuttings were managed as soil and water investigation-derived waste (IDW). Table 1 summarizes the well locations, dates, depths, and issues/comments related to the hydrovac excavation. Table 1 Hydrovac Summary Well ID Date Depth (feet bgs) Issues/Comments MW-30R 11/4/2020 9 Unable to advance to 15 feet bgs. Approved by VHA Safety MW-13L 12/1/2020 5 Hand-augured; Off campus well located near East High School MW-36 11/11/2020 7 Off campus well located on Herbert Avenue MW-37 11/11/2020 7 Off campus well located on 1000 East; due to marked utilities boring location moved to planting strip on west side of road MW-38 1/11/2020 5.5 Off campus well located on 1200 East 2.1.2 Permitting The Salt Lake City Corporation Engineering Division issued a right-of-way (ROW) permit for MW- 36, MW-37, MW-38, and MW-13L in the ESS area. A performance bond and certificate of liability insurance accompanied the ROW permit application. Utah Barricade created traffic control plans, included in Appendix D, which were submitted to the Salt Lake City Division of Transportation for traffic control permits at the boring locations. Section 2 • Monitoring Well Installation 2-2 Copies of the ROW permit, traffic control permit, and associated documents can be found in Appendix E. Excavation permits were issued by VHA Safety for the duration of MW-30R on the VAMC campus. Daily excavation checklists were completed by CDM Smith and are included in Appendix F. 2.2 Drilling Drilling occurred between November 5 and December 3, 2020. MW-30R was drilled to replace the A and B well zones of MW-30, which were damaged during the Phase 1 installation (CDM Smith 2021a). Four plume delineation borings were advanced in the ESS area and completed as either multilevel wells or single-screen intervals (CDM Smith 2020a). MW-13L was installed near MW-13S/D south of East High School along 900 South (CDM Smith 2020b). MW-36 is on Herbert Avenue, near the intersection with 1200 East. MW-37S/D is along 1000 East, north of 800 South. MW-38 S/D is on 1200 East, north of 700 South. New and existing monitoring well locations are presented on Figure 1. Holt Services used a Terrasonic 150 track-mounted mini-rotosonic drill rig to advance the borings. Continuous soil cores were collected and field screened using a PID. The lithology was logged and photos were taken of the core intervals. Borehole logs are included in Appendix G and photos of the soil cores are included in Appendix H. Well construction details are discussed in Section 2.4 and presented in Table 2. Soil cuttings were managed as IDW. The plume delineation wells include MW-30, in the northwest corner of the VAMC campus near Foothill Drive, north of MW-03R, and is part of the Guardsman Way transect to delineate the plume to the north. MW-30 A and B zones were damaged during installation and were abandoned by grouting in place. The MW-30C zone and the soil vapor point remain installed at the original location. MW-30R was relocated approximately 20 feet south of the original location. The hydrovac excavation encountered refusal at 9 feet bgs. The rotosonic drilling began November 5, 2020 and reached a total depth of 295 feet bgs on November 10, 2020. Groundwater was encountered at approximately 235 feet bgs. MW-30R was installed with two well screens on November 11, 2020. MW-36, on Herbert Avenue, is south of MW-14S/D and east of MW-15S/D. MW-36 was installed to delineate the plume to the south-southwest. The hydrovac excavation was completed to 7 feet bgs. The rotosonic drilling occurred November 17, 2020 and reached a total depth of 110 feet bgs. Groundwater was encountered at approximately 32 feet bgs. MW-36 was installed with one screen interval on November 18, 2020. MW-37, on 1000 East, is north of 800 South and west of MW-16S/D. MW-37 was installed to delineate the plume to the west of MW-16. The hydrovac excavation was completed to 7 feet bgs. The rotosonic drilling began and reached a total depth of 70 feet bgs on November 12, 2020. Groundwater was encountered at approximately 20 feet bgs. MW-37 was completed with two screen intervals and one soil vapor point on November 13, 2020. MW-38, on 1200 East, is north of 700 South. MW-38 was installed to delineate the plume northwest of MW-08 and northeast of MW-16. The hydrovac excavation was completed to 5.5 feet bgs. The rotosonic drilling reached a total depth of 80 feet bgs on November 14, 2020. Section 2 • Monitoring Well Installation 2-3 Groundwater was encountered at approximately 18 feet bgs. MW-36 was completed with two screened intervals and one soil vapor point on November 15, 2020. MW-13L (lower), located along 900 South near East High School, was installed to vertically delineate the plume in an area with known PCE (MW-13S/D) (CDM Smith 2021b). MW-13D is screened from 79-84 feet bgs and has had a PCE concentration greater than 50 µg/L. The rotosonic drilling began on December 2, 2020 and reached a total depth of 160 feet bgs on December 3, 2020. MW-13L was completed with one screened interval on December 3, 2020. 2.3 Groundwater Sampling Two push-ahead groundwater samples were collected during the MW-37 boring in the water- bearing zones (CDM Smith 2019). These samples were used to determine if the MW-37 boring was outside the boundary of the plume and verify whether a step-out boring to the north was necessary. Push-ahead grab groundwater samples were collected for laboratory VOC analysis by EPA method 8260C with a 24-hour turnaround. There was no detectable PCE or trichloroethene in the groundwater samples. The data validation report and complete laboratory package for these data is included in the Appendix I. 2.4 Well Construction Final well construction designs were determined following a review of the lithology. A summary of the well construction information for the wells installed during this event is presented in Table 2. Two-inch-diameter polyvinyl chloride (PVC) well casings were installed with the rotosonic drill casing in place. Wells were installed according to the procedures described in the Phase 2 OU1 RI Work Plan (CDM Smith 2020a). Screens consisted of a 0.02-inch slot screen in 5- or 10-foot intervals. The filter pack was constructed using 10/20 silica sand and extended 2 to 3 feet above the top of the screened intervals. At locations where multilevel wells were installed, hydrated bentonite chips were installed between filter pack intervals to seal the borehole between intervals. Hydrated bentonite chips were installed above the shallowest sand filter pack interval to approximately 3 feet bgs. Soil vapor probes (SVPs) were installed at MW-37S and MW-38S at 8 feet bgs to assess potential vapor hazards in the ESS. SVPs are AMS, 6-inch-long, double-woven stainless-steel wire screens (0.0057-inch pore) with Swagelok fittings connected to 0.25-inch outer diameter Teflon-lined tubing. SVPs were installed within a 2-foot sand pack using 10/20 silica sand. Each monitoring well location was completed at the surface with a flush-mounted manhole vault. MW-36 and MW-38 required a Salt Lake City-approved concrete batch mix for the surface completion because the location was in the ROW. Well completion diagrams, including screen, sand, and bentonite intervals, and SVP depths, are included on the boring logs in Appendix G. Survey data for the well locations are presented in Appendix J. 2.4.1 MW-13L The MW-13L well design consists of one 2-inch conventional well to allow for monitoring groundwater chemistry and water level to assess deeper groundwater in the ESS area. Section 2 • Monitoring Well Installation 2-4 ▪ A 2-inch PVC monitoring well was installed with a 0.020 slot screen from 150 to 160 ft bgs in a saturated zone deeper than the screened interval at MW-13D (79 to 84 feet bgs). 2.4.2 MW-30R The well design at MW-30R consists of two 2-inch conventional wells to replace the A and B zones at MW-30, which were damaged during installation. ▪ Zone A was installed with 0.020 slot screen from 240 to 250 feet bgs. ▪ Zone B was installed with 0.020 slot screen from 280 to 290 feet bgs. 2.4.3 MW-36 The well design at MW-36 consists of one 2-inch conventional well. ▪ A 2-inch PVC monitoring well was installed with a 0.020 slot screen from 47 to 52 feet bgs. The boring was advanced to 110 feet bgs. No significant water-bearing zones were encountered deeper than the screened interval. 2.4.4 MW-37 S/D The well design at MW-37S/D consists of two 2-inch conventional wells with one SVP installed at the following intervals: ▪ MW-37S (shallow) was installed with 0.020 slot screen from 25 to 35 feet bgs. ▪ MW-37D (deep) was installed with 0.020 slot screen from 60 to 70 feet bgs. ▪ The SVP was installed at 8 feet bgs with sand pack from 7 to 9 feet bgs. 2.4.5 MW-38 S/D The well design at MW-38S/D consists of two 2-inch conventional wells with one SVPs installed at the following intervals: ▪ MW-38S (shallow) was installed with 0.020 slot screen from 27 to 37 feet bgs. ▪ MW-38D (deep) was installed with 0.020 slot screen from 60 to 70 feet bgs. ▪ The SVP was installed at 8 feet bgs with sand pack from 7 to 9 feet bgs. 2.5 Well Development The 2-inch monitoring wells installed during Phase 2 were developed by purging with a bailer (to remove sediment from the screened interval) and a pump, according to methods described in Section 3.2.4 of the OU1 RI Work Plan (CDM Smith 2020a). A minimum purge volume was calculated prior to development. The wells were purged until the minimum volume had been removed and parameter stabilization and turbidity requirements were met. Table 3 lists the development technique used and volume purged from each well. Well development field forms are included in Appendix K. The development water was handled as IDW. Because of accumulated sediment in the well screen and the depth of the well, MW-13L required additional Section 2 • Monitoring Well Installation 2-5 development using a development rig with a winch line to bail sediment, followed by pumping until parameter stabilization and turbidity requirements were met. Additional development was required for some of the zone isolation sampling technology (ZIST) wells installed during spring and summer 2020, specifically MW-26B/C/D and MW-34B/C. The ZIST wells were developed in accordance with manufacturer recommendations (Appendix K), using a gas lifting method with compressed nitrogen to purge water and sediment from the well casing while simultaneously surging the well to remove sediment from the filter pack. The gas lifting method consists of lowering a stinger tube to approximately the center of the water column above the well screen, delivering nitrogen to the water column and lifting the water in the well casing to the surface and into a tote. At locations requiring a more aggressive approach, gas lifting was completed by delivering nitrogen into the well casing and forcing water to the surface through the stinger tubing and into a tote. As ZIST wells have a receiver that restricts the placement of any objects into the well screen, surging refers to the agitation that occurs during gas lifting. Gas lifting continued until visible clearing of the extracted water. Water quality parameters were not measured during gas lifting because of the disturbance to the water during the process. For ZIST wells in which air lifting development was insufficient or unsuccessful, development was attempted with a Waterra inertial pump (MW-34A). 2.6 Decontamination and Investigation-Derived Waste All decontamination waste produced during the drilling effort was collected and managed in accordance with Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) 4-5, Field Equipment Decontamination at Nonradioactive Sites (CDM Smith 2020a). Waste was produced from decontaminating all downhole drilling equipment prior to drilling activities, between boreholes, and after the drilling investigation, and the decontamination of the push-ahead groundwater sampler after each use. Additional equipment decontaminated after each use include the drilling tag line, water level meters, development pump, swab, and nondedicated bailer. All IDW was handled per SOP 2-2, Guide to Handling Investigation-Derived Waste (CDM Smith 2020a). All decontamination, hydrovac, and purge/development water was transferred to the holding tanks at the VAMC campus IDW yard. The excavated soils from drilling and pre-clearing were placed in lined roll-off bins. Prior to disposal, groundwater and soil were characterized and determined to be nonhazardous. Approximately 1,800 gallons of decontamination and IDW water and approximately 19 tons of soil, contained in three soil roll-off bins, were disposed off-site at Wasatch Regional Landfill. Waste profiles and nonhazardous manifests are included in Appendix L. 2.7 Deviations from the Quality Assurance Project Plan Monitoring well MW-13L was developed by bailing with a PVC bailer and submersible pump. A well development form was not completed during development of this well. Purging was conducted until the water was clear. Approximately 550 gallons of water was purged during development. Well development forms were also not completed during development of some of the ZIST wells. The work that was completed is recorded in the field logbook and a summary is provided in Table 3. As sufficient detail of the development activities were recorded in the field logbook, data quality objectives were met. Section 2 • Monitoring Well Installation 2-6 Soil samples were not collected for total ferrous mineral analysis as described in the OU1 RI Work Plan (CDM Smith 2020a, Appendix A, Section 3.3) during the Phase 2 drilling investigation. It was determined that an adequate number of samples to meet data quality objectives had been collected during the Phase 1 drilling investigation. As soil and groundwater samples were collected at MW-30 during the Phase 1 2020 drilling investigation, no samples were collected during the Phase 2 drilling of the replacement well MW- 30R. 3-1 Section 3 Summary This report presents a summary of field activities, monitoring well construction details, and observed lithology from the Phase 2 groundwater monitoring well installation event. Further analysis and evaluation of these results will be presented in the RI report. The MW-30 A and B zones installed during the summer 2020 drilling, which were determined to be damaged, were abandoned by grouting in place. MW-30R was drilled to replace the zones with 2-inch conventional wells. Four plume delineation borings were installed as part of this investigation. MW-13L was installed near East High School along 900 South. MW-36 was installed along Herbert Avenue near the intersection with 1200 East. MW-37 S/D were installed along 1000 East, north of 800 South. MW- 38 S/D were installed along 1200 East, north of 700 South. SVPs were installed at MW-37S and MW-38S. The addition of these eight sampling points at five locations will lead to a better understanding of the groundwater gradients and lateral and vertical extent of the PCE plume. Data collected during this investigation will be evaluated further to refine the conceptual site model and will be summarized in the RI report. 4-1 Section 4 References CDM Smith. 2021a. Data Summary Report Spring and Summer 2020 Drilling Investigation, 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. CDM Smith. 2021b. Data Summary Report Q3 2020 Groundwater Sampling Event, 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. CDM Smith. 2020a. Final Phase 2 Remedial Investigation Work Plan, Operable Unit 1, 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. CDM Smith. 2020b. Minor Field Modification #1 to the Phase 2 Field Sampling Plan, 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. CDM Smith. 2019. Modification #3 to OU-2 Remedial Investigation Work Plan and Sampling and Analysis Plan, 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Jacobs. 2019. OU-2 Data Summary Report, Operable Unit 2 Remedial Investigation 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Figures s &< &< !.!(!( !( !( ! ! &<&<&< &<&<&<&< &< &< &< &<&<&< &<&<&<&< &<&< &<&< &<&< &<&< &< &< &<&< &< &< &<&<&< &<&<&<&< &<&<&<&< &<&< &<&<&< &<&<&< &<&<&< &<&<&< &<&<&<&< &<&< &< &<&< &<&< &< ! Sunnyside Park University of Utah Well #2 University of Utah Well #1Fountain of Ute Mt. Olivet Well EPA-MW-03 EPA-MW-05 SLC-18EastBenchSegmentoftheWasatchFault1 EastBenchFaultSpur2 East Bench Fault Spur2 MW-01SMW-01D MW-02 MW-03R MW-04 MW-05R MW-06 MW-08 MW-12SMW-12D MW-13SMW-13D MW-14SMW-14D MW-15SMW-15D MW-16SMW-16D MW-17SMW-17D MW-18 MW-19 MW-20SMW-20D MW-21 MW-22 MW-23 MW-24MW-25 MW-26 MW-27 MW-28 MW-29 MW-30 MW-31 MW-32 MW-34 MW-36 MW-37SMW-37D MW-38SMW-38D MW-30R MW-13L VA Medical CenterBuilding 7 East HighSchool Mt. OlivetCemetery 500 S GUARDSMAN WAY F O O T H IL L D R 700 S 800 S 500 S 1300 E 1100 E SUNNYSIDE AVE 900 S Red B utte Creek Figure 1Site Location MapLegend &<Monitoring Well &<Monitoring Well installed during Phase 2 &<Abandoned Monitoring Well !.Drinking Water Supply Well !(Irrigation Well !LandmarkRed Butte CreekFault Line File Path: J:\238824_VA_Medical_Salt_Lake\MXD\Drilling_Field_Modification\Fig1_DrillingPh2_DSR_SiteMap.mxd WAGNERA 4/21/2021 Map Area UTAH Notes:(1) Location of University of Utah Well #1 is approximate; well is located less than 100 feet east of Fountain of Ute.(2) Proposed monitoring wells MW-07, MW-09, MW-10, MW-11, MW-33, and MW-35 were not installed. OU = operable unitPCE = tetrachloroetheneVHA = Veterans Health Administration 1 Davis, F.D. 1983. Geologic Map of the Central Wasatch Front, Utah. Utah Geological and Mineral Survey. Map 54-A – Wasatch Front Series. May. 2 Personius, S.F. and Scott, W.E. 2009. Surficial Geologic Map of the Salt Lake City Segment and Parts of Adjacent Segments of the Wasatch Fault Zone, Davis, Salt Lake, and Utah Counties, Utah Phase 2 Drilling DSROU1 700 South 1600 East PCE PlumeSalt Lake City, Utah 0 500 1,000Feet 1 inch = 800 feet . Tables Table 2 Monitoring Well Survey Data and Construction Details Location Sample Interval Soil Vapor Point Depth (ft bgs) X Coordinate (Utah State Plane, ft)1 Y Coordinate (Utah State Plane, ft)1 Surface Elevation (ft amsl)2 Top of Casing Elevation (ft amsl)2 Total Well Depth (ft bgs) Screen Start (ft bgs) Screen End (ft bgs) Pump Depth (ft bgs) Pump Type MW-13L - -1541851.01 7442106.30 4483.67 4483.23 160 150 160 155 Solinst bladder pump A - 4722.60 252 240 250 245 Solinst bladder pump B -4722.36 291 280 290 285 Solinst bladder pump MW-36 - -1541547.17 7440955.06 4429.01 4428.49 54 47 52 50 Solinst bladder pump MW-37D - -4347.97 70 60 70 65 Solinst bladder pump MW-37S - 8 4348.00 35 25 35 30 Solinst bladder pump MW-38D --4497.80 70 60 70 65 Solinst bladder pump MW-38S - 8 4497.64 37 27 37 32 Solinst bladder pump Notes: 1 X/Y coordinates measured using NAD 83 State Plane Coordinate System 2 Elevations measured using NAVD 88 vertical datum Acronyms: amsl = above mean sea level bgs = below ground surface ft = feet MW-30R 7445055.62 7443931.791541593.58 4498.56 1545425.12 4722.89 7443160.461539938.63 4348.36 Phase II 2020 Drilling Data Summary Report OU1 Remedial Investigation 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Page 1 of 1 Table 3 Monitoring Well Development Summary Location Sample Interval Development Approach Date Developed Volume of Water Added During Drilling (gallons) Volume of Water Removed During Development (gallons) Pump Type A Not developed NA NA ZIST w/ reciever B Not developed NA NA ZIST w/ reciever C Air lift 6/12/2020 NR ZIST w/ reciever MW-24 -Bail and pump (submersible) by Holt 6/18/2020 200 640 Solinst bladder pump A Pump (Panacea) by CDM Smith 6/9/2020 4 ZIST w/ reciever B Air lift 6/8/2020 NR ZIST w/ reciever C Pump (Panacea) by CDM Smith 6/9/2020 4 ZIST w/ reciever A Bailer 11/10/2020 0 ZIST w/ reciever B Air lift 12/9/2020 27 ZIST w/ reciever 11/10/2020 60 1/20/2021 125 Air lift 6/11/2020 NR Air lift 11/10/2020 70 Air lift 1/18/2021 95 MW-27 -Bail and pump by Holt 6/17/2020 0 360 Solinst bladder pump MW-28 -Bail and pump by Holt 6/18/2020 0 370 Solinst bladder pump A Pump (Panacea) by CDM Smith 7/31/2020 NR ZIST w/o reciever B Pump (Panacea) by CDM Smith 7/31/2020 NR ZIST - w/ reciever C Air lift 7/29/2020 20 ZIST - w/ reciever RA Bail and pump by Holt 12/1/2020 28 Solinst bladder pump RB Bail and pump by Holt 12/2/2020 62 Solinst bladder pump C Air lift 7/27/2020 20 ZIST w/ reciever A Pump (Panacea) by CDM Smith 7/29/2020 NR ZIST w/o reciever B Pump (Panacea) by CDM Smith 7/29/2020 NR ZIST w/ reciever C Air lift 7/29/2020 27 ZIST w/ reciever A Bail and pump by CDM Smith 7/31/2020 47 Solinst bladder pump B Air lift 7/31/2020 20 ZIST w/o reciever C Air lift 7/31/2020 30 ZIST w/o reciever A Waterra Pump 12/7/2020 89 ZIST w/o reciever Pump (Panacea) by CDM Smith 7/30/2020 NR 1/19/2021 30 1/21/2021 95 Air lift 7/30/2020 20 Air lift 1/19/2021 20 D Air lift 7/30/2020 40 ZIST w/o reciever MW-36 -Bail and pump 12/3/2020 0 46 Solinst bladder pump MW-37S -Bail and pump 12/5/2020 0 64 Solinst bladder pump MW-37D -Bail and pump 12/6/2020 0 68 Solinst bladder pump MW-38S -Bail and pump 12/4/2020 0 46 Solinst bladder pump MW-38D -Bail and pump 12/4/2020 0 116 Solinst bladder pump -Bail and pump (submersible) by CDM Smith 12/7/2020 0 120 Solinst bladder pump -Bail and pump (submersible) by Conetec 2/3/2021 0 550 Solinst bladder pump Notes: Grey shading indicates wells that were developed during Phase 2 Acronyms: amsl = above mean sea level bgs = below ground surface ft = feet NA = not applicable NR = not recorded ZIST = zone isolation sampling technology B MW-13L MW-23 300 MW-26 D 0Air liftC C Air lift ZIST w/o reciever ZIST w/o reciever MW-25 0 MW-34 MW-31 MW-32 MW-30 MW-29 0 0 0 0 0 ZIST w/ reciever ZIST w/ reciever Phase 2 Drilling Data Summary Report OU1 Remedial Investigation 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Page 1 of 1 Appendix A Daily Quality Control Reports Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah DATE: 11/3/2020 Prepared by: Whitney Treadway Personnel on site, including Contractors: CDM Smith – Whitney Treadway Wasatch Env. – Kevin Murphy Badger – Levi Patterson TWS – Jeff Baker Holt Services – Jeff Jones (Driller) Holt Services – Andrew Mengle Holt Services – Alex Langdon VA Safety – Linda Gallegor Visitors/Others: Weather Temperature Wind Humidity Sunny Partly Cloudy Overcast Rain Snow 85+ º F 70 to 85º F 50 to 70 º F 32 to 50 º F To 32 º F Still Moderate High Dry Moderate Humid Equipment in Use (field instruments, subcontractor equip, etc.) · Terrasonic 150 mini-sonic drill rig (x2) (mobilized, not used) · Skid Steer (Bobcat) · Rig Hauler · Air Vac Truck · HNu PID Description of Field Activities – including borings completed/started (include footages), samples/data collected, etc.: H&S tailgate was conducted at MW-30R and laydown area Drilling: MW-30R: Borehole was cleared by vac truck (Badger) to 9 ft bgs. Large cobbles and boulders encountered at 9 ft bgs. Kevin with Wasatch oversaw. VA approved excavation permit. MW-30 A and B wells were tagged for total depth to ensure correct wells will be abandoned tomorrow. Utility Markout: TWS encountered vehicles on/near some locations, so markings had to be completed around the vehicles. MW-36 S/D: TWS identified and unmarked linear anomaly near the proposed MW-36 location. This boring will be shifted closer to the curb (north) to avoid this anomaly. MW-37 S/D: 1000 East has utilities on both sides of the road. Without closing the lanes of traffic for installation and sampling, after TWS marking and consultation with Jeff (driller) from Holt, the best place to completed MW-37 would be on the grass planter strip (near sidewalk) to the west of the street. MW-38 S/D: TWS located both proposed locations for MW-38. The location on Elizabeth street north of 700 S had identifiable utilities. TWS did not identify any underground utilities on 1200 E north of 700 S. Issues/Problems Encountered/Deficiencies/Deviations from QAPP (and resolutions): United Site Services did not deliver porta-potty or fencing today. Projected Work – Near Term: 11/4/2020 – abandon MW-30 A and B wells. 11/4/2020 through end of week – drill MW-30R to 295 ft bgs Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Other Activities/Remarks: Holt Crew arrived onsite, unloaded equipment and supplies, and decontaminated drill steel. TWS located utilities at MW-37, 2 MW-38 alternate locations, MW-36, GW-10, GW-11, GW-16, GW-20, GW-49, GW-50, GW-52, GW-53, GW-59, and GW-61. Photos: Date: 11/3/2020 Location: MW-30R Description: Rolloff delivered to MW-30R Date: 11/3/2020 Location: MW-30R Description: Air vac clearing by Badger Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 11/3/2020 Location: MW-36 Description: Utility markings Date: 11/3/2020 Location: MW-36 Description: Utility markings where proposed boring location was selected. Will shift boring towards the curb. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah DATE: 11/4/2020 Prepared by: Whitney Treadway Personnel on site, including Contractors: CDM Smith – Whitney Treadway Holt Services – Jeff Jones (Driller) Holt Services – Andrew Mengle Holt Services – Alex Langdon Visitors/Others: Weather Temperature Wind Humidity Sunny Partly Cloudy Overcast Rain Snow 85+ º F 70 to 85º F 50 to 70 º F 32 to 50 º F To 32 º F Still Moderate High Dry Moderate Humid Equipment in Use (field instruments, subcontractor equip, etc.) • Terrasonic 150 mini-sonic drill rig • Skid Steer (Bobcat) • Rig Hauler • HNu PID Description of Field Activities – including borings completed/started (include footages), samples/data collected, etc.: H&S tailgate was conducted at laydown area. Drilling: MW-30: Zones A and B at original MW-30 location were grouted using Quik Grout through ½-inch tubing with hand pump. Grout was brought to top of casing. Will top off later, if needed, and capped with cement. A and B zones were checked for total depth yesterday and again today. MW-30A tagged at approx. 240 ft bgs and MW-30B was tagged at approx. 282 ft bgs (both top of screen). MW-30R: Holt drill crew moved 200 feet of 8-inch casing, drill pipe, and other equipment to site. Rig was set up on MW-30R, but no footage drilled today. See below. Issues/Problems Encountered/Deficiencies/Deviations from QAPP (and resolutions): United Site Services did not deliver porta-potty or fencing today. At approx. 13:15, rig was set up on hole and it was noticed that it had been dripping diesel. It was a small leak, Shannon Smith was notified. Sorbent rags were used to wipe up the spilled fuel. Holt added plastic under rig. Holt crew left site to purchase casing and new part for rig. Holt replaced the part that leaked and identified another piece that needs repaired or replaced. Rig maintenance will resume in the morning. Projected Work – Near Term: 11/5/2020 – complete part replacement and start up rig 11/5/2020 through end of week – drill MW-30R to 295 ft bgs Other Activities/Remarks: Photos: Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 11/4/2020 Location: MW-30 A/B Description: Mixing and pumping grout through tubing in MW-30A and MW-30B. Grout was mixed with water and a paddle mixer was used to agitate. Grout was poured into bucket in yellow holding box and hand-pumped down well through tubing. Date: 11/4/2020 Location: MW-30 Description: MW-30C is covered with ZIST tubing. MW- 30A and MW-30B are open and were tagged for total depth prior to grouting. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 11/4/2020 Location: MW-30R Description: Drill set up on MW-30R. Plastic sheeting underneath length of rig in order to catch any leaks during part replacement. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah DATE: 11/5/2020 Prepared by: Whitney Treadway Personnel on site, including Contractors: CDM Smith – Whitney Treadway Holt Services – Jeff Jones (Driller) Holt Services – Andrew Mengle Holt Services – Alex Langdon Visitors/Others: Weather Temperature Wind Humidity Sunny Partly Cloudy Overcast Rain Snow 85+ º F 70 to 85º F 50 to 70 º F 32 to 50 º F To 32 º F Still Moderate High Dry Moderate Humid Equipment in Use (field instruments, subcontractor equip, etc.) • Terrasonic 150 mini-sonic drill rig • Skid Steer (Bobcat) • Rig Hauler • HNu PID Description of Field Activities – including borings completed/started (include footages), samples/data collected, etc.: H&S tailgate was conducted at laydown area. Drilling: MW-30R: Rig repairs were completed and Holt resumed drilling from 9 ft bgs (previously cleared to 9 ft bgs by Badger). The boring was advanced to 110 ft bgs with the 7-inch core barrel and 8” sonic casing (currently to 100’). The soil cores were screened with a PID and logged. No laboratory samples were collected. Grab samples were collected for magnetic susceptibility screening. Issues/Problems Encountered/Deficiencies/Deviations from QAPP (and resolutions): United Site Services did not deliver porta-potty or fencing today. Magnetic susceptibility meter will be delivered to Wasatch on Friday, 11/6. Projected Work – Near Term: 11/6/2020 through end of week – continue to drill MW-30R to 295 ft bgs Other Activities/Remarks: Photos: Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 11/5/2020 Location: MW-30R Description: Soil collection from core barrel to bags for description. Date: 11/5/2020 Location: MW-30R Description: Drilling set-up. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 11/5/2020 Location: MW-30R Description: Core barrel drill bit (7-inch). Date: 11/5/2020 Location: MW-30R Description: Soil cores laid out on plastic sheeting for easy description, screening, and photos. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah DATE: 11/6/2020 Prepared by: Whitney Treadway Personnel on site, including Contractors: CDM Smith – Whitney Treadway Holt Services – Jeff Jones (Driller) Holt Services – Andrew Mengle Holt Services – Alex Langdon Visitors/Others: Weather Temperature Wind Humidity Sunny Partly Cloudy Overcast Rain Snow 85+ º F 70 to 85º F 50 to 70 º F 32 to 50 º F To 32 º F Still Moderate High Dry Moderate Humid Equipment in Use (field instruments, subcontractor equip, etc.) • Terrasonic 150 mini-sonic drill rig • Skid Steer (Bobcat) • Rig Hauler • HNu PID Description of Field Activities – including borings completed/started (include footages), samples/data collected, etc.: H&S tailgate was conducted at MW-30R well site. Drilling: MW-30R: Drilling was advanced from 110 ft bgs to 183 ft bgs. The soil cores were screened with PID and logged. No laboratory samples were collected. Grab samples were collected for magnetic susceptibility screening. Drilling was completed using a 7-inch core barrel and 8-inch casing (currently at 170 ft bgs). Issues/Problems Encountered/Deficiencies/Deviations from QAPP (and resolutions): United Site Services delivered the jobsite toilet today. The temporary fencing will be delivered on Monday, 11/9. Projected Work – Near Term: 11/7/2020 and 11/9/2020: Continue to drill MW-30R to 295 ft bgs. 11/9/2020: Meet with ELM locating services to confirm MW-37 location clear to drill. There is a 16” natural gas line approximately 20 feet from the proposed boring location. Other Activities/Remarks: Vac truck soil from MW-30R in containment area was transferred into the rolloff at MW-30R. Driller took measurements of drilling set up at MW-36 and MW-37 in order to decide the most appropriate well location for pre-clearing. Photos: Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 11/6/2020 Location: MW-30R Description: Clearing core barrel during drilling. Date: 11/6/2020 Location: MW-36R Description: Photo from near potential well location to back of drill pipes to estimate footprint of drilling set-up. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 11/6/2020 Location: MW-37R Description: Measuring from sewer line to potential well location. Date: 11/6/2020 Location: MW-30R Description: Photo of soil core with large cobble with diameter of core barrel (7 inches) cut by sonic drill bit, at 167 ft bgs. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah DATE: 11/7/2020 Prepared by: Whitney Treadway Personnel on site, including Contractors: CDM Smith – Whitney Treadway Holt Services – Jeff Jones (Driller) Holt Services – Andrew Mengle Holt Services – Alex Langdon Visitors/Others: Weather Temperature Wind Humidity Sunny Partly Cloudy Overcast Rain Snow 85+ º F 70 to 85º F 50 to 70 º F 32 to 50 º F To 32 º F Still Moderate High Dry Moderate Humid Equipment in Use (field instruments, subcontractor equip, etc.) • Terrasonic 150 mini-sonic drill rig • Skid Steer (Bobcat) • Rig Hauler • HNu PID Description of Field Activities – including borings completed/started (include footages), samples/data collected, etc.: H&S tailgate was conducted at MW-30R well site. Drilling: MW-30R: Drilling was completed from 183 ft bgs to 250 ft bgs. Lithology was logged and soil was screened with PID. No laboratory samples were collected. Grab samples were collected for magnetic susceptibility screening. Drilling was completed using a 7- inch core barrel and 8-inch casing (currently at 250 ft bgs). Crew offloaded fresh water totes and winterized their decontamination unit in preparation for freezing temperatures. Issues/Problems Encountered/Deficiencies/Deviations from QAPP (and resolutions): United Site Services delivered the jobsite toilet today. The temporary fencing will be delivered on Monday, 11/9. Projected Work – Near Term: 11/9/2020 – continue to drill MW-30R to 295 ft bgs, now with 4-inch core barrel and 6-inch casing 11/10-2020 – set and install dual nested wells at MW-30R Other Activities/Remarks: Photos: Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 11/7/2020 Location: MW-30R Description: Tripping in drill pipe with core barrel for sampling. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 11/7/2020 Location: MW-30R Description: Offloading soil from tilt hopper to rolloff onsite. Date: 11/7/2020 Location: MW-30R Description: Tripping out drill pipe to collect lithology sample. Rainy weather. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah DATE: 11/9/2020 Prepared by: Whitney Treadway Personnel on site, including Contractors: CDM Smith – Whitney Treadway Holt Services – Jeff Jones (Driller) Holt Services – Andrew Mengle Holt Services – Alex Langdon Visitors/Others: Weather Temperature Wind Humidity Sunny Partly Cloudy Overcast Rain Snow 85+ º F 70 to 85º F 50 to 70 º F 32 to 50 º F To 32 º F Still Moderate High Dry Moderate Humid Equipment in Use (field instruments, subcontractor equip, etc.) • Terrasonic 150 mini-sonic drill rig • Skid Steer (Bobcat) • Rig Hauler • HNu PID Description of Field Activities – including borings completed/started (include footages), samples/data collected, etc.: H&S tailgate was conducted at MW-30R well site. Drilling: MW-30R: Trip in 6-inch casing to 250 feet. Drilling was completed from 250 ft bgs to 295 ft bgs. Lithology was logged and soil was screened with PID. No laboratory samples were collected. Grab samples were collected for magnetic susceptibility screening. Drilling was completed using a 4- inch core barrel and 6-inch casing (currently at 290 ft bgs). MW-37: Reviewed utilities onsite with ELM and Jeff Jones. There is an abandoned, underground gas line near our proposed location, but based on measurements from ELM, our proposed location is still ok (2 feet to the east of sidewalk in planter strip). Issues/Problems Encountered/Deficiencies/Deviations from QAPP (and resolutions): United Site Services delivered fencing today. Rig had trouble starting up this morning due to cold weather. Crew had to take some this morning to troubleshoot before they got it working properly. Projected Work – Near Term: 11/10/2020 – set and install dual nested wells at MW-30R 11/11/2020 – decontamination, clean-up and demobilize from MW-30R. Other Activities/Remarks: Photos: Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 11/9/2020 Location: MW-30R Description: Snowy weather onsite. 6-inch casing in foreground. Date: 11/9/2020 Location: MW-30R Description: Water-bearing clayey sand zone near 280 feet bgs. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 11/9/2020 Location: MW-30R Description: Collecting soil sample in bags from 4-inch core barrel. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah DATE: 11/10/2020 Prepared by: Whitney Treadway Personnel on site, including Contractors: CDM Smith – Whitney Treadway CDM Smith – Emma Rott Holt Services – Jeff Jones (Driller) Holt Services – Andrew Mengle Holt Services – Alex Langdon Wasatch Env. – Anna Fiorni Visitors/Others: Weather Temperature Wind Humidity Sunny Partly Cloudy Overcast Rain Snow 85+ º F 70 to 85º F 50 to 70 º F 32 to 50 º F To 32 º F Still Moderate High Dry Moderate Humid Equipment in Use (field instruments, subcontractor equip, etc.) • Terrasonic 150 mini-sonic drill rig • Skid Steer (Bobcat) • Rig Hauler • HNu PID • Water level meter • Compressed gas for development Description of Field Activities – including borings completed/started (include footages), samples/data collected, etc.: H&S tailgate was conducted at MW-30R well site. Drilling: (Whitney Treadway and Holt crew) MW-30R: Well zones A and B were installed as follows: Zone A: 2-inch SCH 40 blank PVC 0 – 240 ft bgs 2-inch SCH 40 0.020 slot PVC screen 240 – 250 ft bgs Hydrated bentonite chip seal 8 – 237 ft bgs 10/20 sand filter pack 237 – 252 ft bgs Zone B: 2-inch SCH 40 blank PVC 0 – 280 ft bgs 2-inch SCH 40 0.020 slot PVC screen 280 – 290 ft bgs Hydrated bentonite chip seal 252– 277 ft bgs 10/20 sand filter pack 277 – 291 ft bgs MW-37: MP Environmental roll-off delivered. Development: (Emma Rott and Anna Fiorni) Air lifting was used to remove sediment and water from MW-26D and MW-26C. Approximately 60 gallons of water was removed from MW-26D. Parameter stabilization was not reached (turbidity continued to decrease), however, the team purged 10x the well volume and saw visible decrease in turbidity. Approximately 40 gallons of water was removed from MW-26C. The team will continue to develop at this location tomorrow. Issues/Problems Encountered/Deficiencies/Deviations from QAPP (and resolutions): The development team attempted to develop MW-26A using a stainless steel bailer. The team was unable to get the bailer past approximately 206’ below top of casing. The team does not plan on returning to develop this interval. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Projected Work – Near Term: 11/11/2020 – Drilling: decontamination, clean-up and demobilize from MW-30R. Development: return to MW-26 for development of the C and B intervals. Plan to develop MW-34A. 11/12/2020 – mobilize to MW-37 and begin drilling Other Activities/Remarks: Photos: Date: 11/10/2020 Location: MW-30R Description: Installation of 10/20 sand filter pack through 6-inch casing. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 11/10/2020 Location: MW-30R Description: Installation of medium bentonite chips through 6-inch casing. Date: 11/10/2020 Location: MW-30R Description: Installation of 2- inch PVC well casing. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 11/10/2020 Location: MW-326C Description: Development set- up with compressed gas and purge water collected in 55- gallon drums. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah DATE: 11/11/2020 Prepared by: Whitney Treadway Personnel on site, including Contractors: CDM Smith – Whitney Treadway CDM Smith – Emma Rott Holt Services – Jeff Jones (Driller) Holt Services – Andrew Mengle Holt Services – Alex Langdon Wasatch Env. – Anna Fiorni Wasatch Env. – Kiel Keller Badger – Trevor Kindschy Visitors/Others: Weather Temperature Wind Humidity Sunny Partly Cloudy Overcast Rain Snow 85+ º F 70 to 85º F 50 to 70 º F 32 to 50 º F To 32 º F Still Moderate High Dry Moderate Humid Equipment in Use (field instruments, subcontractor equip, etc.) • Terrasonic 150 mini-sonic drill rig • Skid Steer (Bobcat) • JCB 550-170 forklift • Rig Hauler • HNu PID • Water level meter • Compressed gas for development Description of Field Activities – including borings completed/started (include footages), samples/data collected, etc.: H&S tailgate was conducted at MW-30R well site and MW-37 with Badger. Drilling: (Whitney Treadway, Kiel Keller, and Holt crew) MW-30R: Add pea gravel from 8 ft bgs to 2 ft bgs Completed 12-inch traffic-rated flush-mount well box with concrete from 2 ft bgs. 8-inch casing, core barrels, and drill pipe decontaminated on decontamination pad. MW-36: Cleared to 7 ft bgs by vac truck (Kiel oversaw). Steel plate placed on top of open hole. Soil offloaded to containment area on VA campus. MW-37: Cleared to 7 ft bgs by vac truck (Kiel oversaw). Mobilized rig, Bobcat, and fencing to site. Soil offloaded to containment area on VA campus. MW-38: Cleared to 5.5 ft bgs by vac truck (Kiel oversaw). Steel plate placed on top of open hole. Soil offloaded to containment area on VA campus. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Development: (Emma Rott and Anna Fiorni) MW-26C: Air lifting was used to remove sediment and water. Approximately 60 gallons total of water was removed. Decreasing turbidity values were observed. MW-26B: Development using air lifting was attempted, however, there was not enough water column available to produce the lift needed for water to surface. The team then attempted to develop using the ZIST pump (with the filter removed); but they were unable to produce water through this method. Lastly, the team attempted to use a stainless-steel bailer, but was unable to get the bailer past approximately 114 ft below top of casing. MW-34A: Attempted development using a stainless-steel bailer but was unable to get the bailer past approximately 130’ below top of casing. MW-34B, MW-34C, and MW-34D: Transducers were installed at all three zones. Issues/Problems Encountered/Deficiencies/Deviations from QAPP (and resolutions): See issues with development above. Second forklift was delivered onsite for Holt crew. There were three VA vehicles blocking the entrance to the containment area onsite for the Badger pre-clearing crew. We were able to find someone who found the keys and was able move the three vehicles. Projected Work – Near Term: 11/12/2020 – begin drilling at MW-37, begin development at MW-30RA and MW-30RB Other Activities/Remarks: Photos: Date: 11/11/2020 Location: MW-37 Description: Rig, bobcat, and drill rods mobilized at MW-37 with fencing. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 11/11/2020 Location: MW-30R/laydown area Description: Decontamination of sonic casing and drill rods. Date: 11/11/2020 Location: MW-38 Description: Installation of steel plate at MW-38 after pre- clearing. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 11/10/2020 Location: MW-30R Description: Installation of concrete at well box. Date: 11/10/2020 Location: MW-34B Description: IntelliPump attachment added on to the ZIST pump to house transducer. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah DATE: 11/12/2020 Prepared by: Whitney Treadway Personnel on site, including Contractors: CDM Smith – Whitney Treadway CDM Smith – Joe Miller CDM Smith – Emma Rott Holt Services – Jeff Jones (Driller) Holt Services – Andrew Mengle Holt Services – Alex Langdon Wasatch Env. – Anna Fiorni Visitors/Others: Weather Temperature Wind Humidity Sunny Partly Cloudy Overcast Rain Snow 85+ º F 70 to 85º F 50 to 70 º F 32 to 50 º F To 32 º F Still Moderate High Dry Moderate Humid Equipment in Use (field instruments, subcontractor equip, etc.) • Terrasonic 150 mini-sonic drill rig • Skid Steer (Bobcat) • JCB 550-170 forklift • Rig Hauler • HNu PID • Water level meter • Compressed gas for development Description of Field Activities – including borings completed/started (include footages), samples/data collected, etc.: H&S tailgate was conducted at laydown area on VA campus. Drilling: (Whitney Treadway, Joe Miller, and Holt crew) MW-37: Drilled to 70 ft bgs using 7-inch core barrel and 8-inch sonic casing (to 70 ft bgs). One groundwater sample was collected at 30 ft bgs using a bailer in a push-ahead sampler. Two other samples were attempted: one at 20 ft bgs and one at 70 ft bgs. Both were muddy, but no water. Casing was pushed to 70 ft bgs and borehole was cleaned out at end of day. Another attempt at collecting groundwater sample at 70 ft bgs will occur tomorrow morning. Samples were labeled, bagged, and on ice. Lithology was logged, and soil was screened with a PID and magnetic susceptibly meter. Lithology included sandy clay with wet sand lenses, and a hard clay confining layer at 45 ft bgs to approximately 54 ft bgs. Site was contained in fencing and rolloff locked and end of day. Development: (Emma Rott and Anna Fiorni) MW-30RB: Began development at MW-30RB. The team encountered issues with removing sediment and water with a bailer and the Grundfos pump. The team plans to continue troubleshooting these issues tomorrow. Issues/Problems Encountered/Deficiencies/Deviations from QAPP (and resolutions): See issues with development above. Due to the soft, flowing nature of the lithology, in some cases the soil sample in the core barrel was lost back down the borehole. The drill crew used a “flapper” drill bit to contain sample in core barrel, and when possible, retrieve unrecovered interval. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Projected Work – Near Term: 11/13/2020 – install MW-37, demobilize from MW-37 and mobilize to MW-38, continue development at MW-30RA and MW- 30RB. Other Activities/Remarks: Photos: Date: 11/12/2020 Location: MW-37 Description: Push-ahead sampler screen. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 11/12/2020 Location: MW-37 Description: Hard clay layer at 45 ft bgs. Date: 11/12/2020 Location: MW-37 Description: Collecting soil from core barrel in plastic bags. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 11/12/2020 Location: MW-37 Description: Bailer for groundwater sampling lowered down into drill pipe and push- ahead sampler. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah DATE: 11/13/2020 Prepared by: Joe Miller Personnel on site, including Contractors: CDM Smith – Joe Miller CDM Smith – Emma Rott Holt Services – Jeff Jones (Driller) Holt Services – Andrew Mengle Holt Services – Alex Langdon Wasatch Env. – Anna Fiorni Visitors/Others: MP Environmental Weather Temperature Wind Humidity Sunny Partly Cloudy Overcast Rain Snow 85+ º F 70 to 85º F 50 to 70 º F 32 to 50 º F To 32 º F Still Moderate High Dry Moderate Humid Equipment in Use (field instruments, subcontractor equip, etc.) • Terrasonic 150 mini-sonic drill rig • Skid Steer (Bobcat) • JCB 550-170 forklift • Rig Hauler • HNu PID • Water level meter • Compressed gas for development Description of Field Activities – including borings completed/started (include footages), samples/data collected, etc.: H&S tailgate was conducted at laydown area on VA campus. Drilling: (Joe Miller, and Holt crew) MW-37: Depth to water was in tagged at 50.96’ with 8” sonic casing to 70’ bgs. A groundwater sample was collected at the 70’ bgs interval. The MW-37D zone was installed with 2” PVC 0.020 slot screen from 60-70’ bgs and a sand pack from 57-70’ bgs. The MW-37S zone was installed with 2” PVC 0.020 slot screen from 25-35’ bgs and a sand pack from 22-39’ bgs. A soil vapor probe was installed on the MW-37S casing at 8’ bgs with a sand pack from 6.5-9’ bgs. MW-38: The drill rig and support equipment was mobilized to the MW-38 location. MP Environmental relocated the rolloff from MW-37 to MW-38. MP also staged a roll off near the MW-36 location. Development: (Emma Rott and Anna Fiorni) Began development at MW-30RA. The team attempted to use the Grundfos pump and a Solinst pump to remove sediment from the well. Both pumps were unable to due to filter and valve clogging in the pumps. Installed tamper proof bolts at MW-17D. Issues/Problems Encountered/Deficiencies/Deviations from QAPP (and resolutions): See issues with development above. Projected Work – Near Term: 11/14/2020 – Drill MW-38. Development crew will mobilize from the site. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Other Activities/Remarks: Photos: Date: 11/13/2020 Location: MW-37 Description: Holt installing bentonite between MW-37D and MW-37S zones. Date: 11/13/2020 Location: MW-37 Description: Wells installed prior to installing surface completion. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 11/13/2020 Location: MW-38 Description: MP Environmental delivering roll off to MW-38 location. Date: 11/13/2020 Location: MW-30R Description: Bladder pump installation and purge attempt at MW-30RA. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah DATE: 11/14/2020 Prepared by: Joe Miller Personnel on site, including Contractors: CDM Smith – Joe Miller Holt Services – Jeff Jones (Driller) Holt Services – Andrew Mengle Holt Services – Alex Langdon Visitors/Others: None Weather Temperature Wind Humidity Sunny Partly Cloudy Overcast Rain Snow 85+ º F 70 to 85º F 50 to 70 º F 32 to 50 º F To 32 º F Still Moderate High Dry Moderate Humid Equipment in Use (field instruments, subcontractor equip, etc.) • Terrasonic 150 mini-sonic drill rig • Skid Steer (Bobcat) • JCB 550-170 forklift • Rig Hauler • HNu PID • Water level meter Description of Field Activities – including borings completed/started (include footages), samples/data collected, etc.: H&S tailgate was conducted at laydown area on VA campus. Drilling: (Joe Miller and Holt crew) The MW-38 boring was advanced to 80 feet bgs with the 7-inch core barrel. The 8-inch sonic casing is installed to 70 feet bgs. The soil cores were screened and logged. There were no elevated PID readings and no samples were collected. With the boring drilled and cased to 70 feet bgs, the DTW was 27.23 feet bgs. Issues/Problems Encountered/Deficiencies/Deviations from QAPP (and resolutions): None Projected Work – Near Term: 11/15/2020 – Rest Day 11/16/2020 – Install MW-38; mob to MW-36 Other Activities/Remarks: None Photos: Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 11/14/2020 Location: MW-38 Description: Holt setting up work zone at MW-38. Date: 11/14/2020 Location: MW-38 Description: Saturated soil cuttings at 30-32 feet bgs interval. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 11/14/2020 Location: MW-38 Description: Soil cuttings from 46-48 feet bgs. Dry lean clay, very stiff, trace fine gravel. Date: 11/14/2020 Location: MW-38 Description: Soil cuttings from 60-62 feet bgs. Wet gravel with sand and clay. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah DATE: 11/16/2020 Prepared by: Joe Miller Personnel on site, including Contractors: CDM Smith – Joe Miller Holt Services – Jeff Jones (Driller) Holt Services – Andrew Mengle Holt Services – Alex Langdon Visitors/Others: USACE – Greg Hattan Weather Temperature Wind Humidity Sunny Partly Cloudy Overcast Rain Snow 85+ º F 70 to 85º F 50 to 70 º F 32 to 50 º F To 32 º F Still Moderate High Dry Moderate Humid Equipment in Use (field instruments, subcontractor equip, etc.) • Terrasonic 150 mini-sonic drill rig • Skid Steer (Bobcat) • JCB 550-170 forklift • Rig Hauler • HNu PID • Water level meter Description of Field Activities – including borings completed/started (include footages), samples/data collected, etc.: H&S tailgate was conducted at laydown area on VA campus. Drilling: The MW-38 S/D wells were installed in the boring. MW-38D was installed with 0.020 slot screen from 60-70 feet bgs. The sand pack was installed from 57-71 feet bgs. MW-38S was installed with 0.020 slot screen from 27-37 feet bgs. The filter pack was installed from 25-39 feet bgs. A soil vapor probe was installed at 8 feet bgs on the MW-38S casing. Holt mobilized the drill rig and bobcat to the MW-36 boring location. The 8” casing and drill rods were deconned back at the VA. Issues/Problems Encountered/Deficiencies/Deviations from QAPP (and resolutions): None Projected Work – Near Term: 11/17/2020 – Drill MW-36 boring Other Activities/Remarks: Greg Hattan verified one of the piezometer replacement locations. Photos: Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 11/16/2020 Location: MW-38 Description: Holt crew installing MW-38S Date: 11/16/2020 Location: MW-36 Description: Work zone setup at MW-36 location. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 11/16/2020 Location: MW-36 Description: Precleared boring location after road plate was removed. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah DATE: 11/17/2020 Prepared by: Joe Miller Personnel on site, including Contractors: CDM Smith – Joe Miller Holt Services – Jeff Jones (Driller) Holt Services – Andrew Mengle Holt Services – Alex Langdon Visitors/Others: USACE – Greg Hattan Weather Temperature Wind Humidity Sunny Partly Cloudy Overcast Rain Snow 85+ º F 70 to 85º F 50 to 70 º F 32 to 50 º F To 32 º F Still Moderate High Dry Moderate Humid Equipment in Use (field instruments, subcontractor equip, etc.) • Terrasonic 150 mini-sonic drill rig • Skid Steer (Bobcat) • JCB 550-170 forklift • Rig Hauler • HNu PID • Water level meter Description of Field Activities – including borings completed/started (include footages), samples/data collected, etc.: H&S tailgate was conducted at laydown area on VA campus. Drilling: MW-36 boring was drilled to 110 feet bgs. The soil cores were screened and logged. No soil samples were collected. Groundwater was encountered during the 30-40 feet run. The soil below 52 feet bgs was mostly silt and clay and did not have a good water bearing zone. Discussion with the VA and USACE decided to install a 5’ screen from 47-52 feet bgs. Issues/Problems Encountered/Deficiencies/Deviations from QAPP (and resolutions): None Projected Work – Near Term: 11/18/2020 – Install MW-36 well, mobilize equipment back to the VA laydown. Other Activities/Remarks: Photos: Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 11/17/2020 Location: MW-36 Description: Soil core from 50- 52.5 feet bgs was a saturated gravel with sand. Date: 11/17/2020 Location: MW-36 Description: Soil core from 102-104 feet bgs was laminated clayey silt. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 11/17/2020 Location: MW-36 Description: Holt extracting soil core from sonic core barrel. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah DATE: 11/18/2020 Prepared by: Joe Miller Personnel on site, including Contractors: CDM Smith – Joe Miller Holt Services – Jeff Jones (Driller) Holt Services – Andrew Mengle Holt Services – Alex Langdon Visitors/Others: USACE – Greg Hattan Weather Temperature Wind Humidity Sunny Partly Cloudy Overcast Rain Snow 85+ º F 70 to 85º F 50 to 70 º F 32 to 50 º F To 32 º F Still Moderate High Dry Moderate Humid Equipment in Use (field instruments, subcontractor equip, etc.) • Terrasonic 150 mini-sonic drill rig • Skid Steer (Bobcat) • JCB 550-170 forklift • Rig Hauler • HNu PID • Water level meter Description of Field Activities – including borings completed/started (include footages), samples/data collected, etc.: H&S tailgate was conducted at laydown area on VA campus. Drilling: The MW-36 well was installed with 0.020 slot screen from 47-52 feet bgs. The sand filter pack was installed from 44-54 feet bgs. Holt mobilized equipment back to the VA laydown area. Issues/Problems Encountered/Deficiencies/Deviations from QAPP (and resolutions): Holt planned to complete MW-38 and MW-36 surface completions in the road, however due to ROW concrete requirements they could not schedule a delivery this week. The wells are secured with road 5x5’ steel road plates and cones indicating the hazard. The concrete truck has been scheduled for when Holt returns from Thanksgiving. Projected Work – Near Term: 11/19/2020 – Develop MW-30R A/B with 5’ PVC bailer; decon drill steel Other Activities/Remarks: Photos: Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 11/18/2020 Location: MW-36 Description: Holt preparing to install 2” PVC at MW-36. Date: 11/18/2020 Location: MW-36 Description: Holt towered down rig and preparing to move it to install the road plate. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah DATE: 11/19/2020 Prepared by: Joe Miller Personnel on site, including Contractors: CDM Smith – Joe Miller Holt Services – Jeff Jones (Driller) Holt Services – Andrew Mengle Holt Services – Alex Langdon Visitors/Others: Weather Temperature Wind Humidity Sunny Partly Cloudy Overcast Rain Snow 85+ º F 70 to 85º F 50 to 70 º F 32 to 50 º F To 32 º F Still Moderate High Dry Moderate Humid Equipment in Use (field instruments, subcontractor equip, etc.) • Terrasonic 150 mini-sonic drill rig • Skid Steer (Bobcat) • JCB 550-170 forklift • Rig Hauler • HNu PID • Water level meter Description of Field Activities – including borings completed/started (include footages), samples/data collected, etc.: H&S tailgate was conducted at laydown area on VA campus. Development: Holt used a 5-foot weighted PVC bailer to develop MW-30RA. Prior to bailing the depth to bottom was 250.56 feet BTOC. After bailing ~16 gallons, the depth to bottom was 251.23 feet BTOC. Bailing removed 0.67 feet of accumulated sediment. Issues/Problems Encountered/Deficiencies/Deviations from QAPP (and resolutions): Holt had drill issues turning the spool to lift the bailer. Wasatch Environmental provided a generator that helped run the corded drill to lift the bailer. Projected Work – Near Term: 11/20/2020 – Holt crew mob home for days off; MP stage roll off bins at VA campus laydown. Other Activities/Remarks: Holt topped of the grout at MW-30 A and B abandonments. Photos: Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 11/19/2020 Location: MW-30R Description: Holt spooling cable to lift the PVC bailer. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 11/19/2020 Location: MW-30R Description: Sediment filled water removed by bailer. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah DATE: 11/20/2020 Prepared by: Joe Miller Personnel on site, including Contractors: CDM Smith – Joe Miller Visitors/Others: MP Environmental Weather Temperature Wind Humidity Sunny Partly Cloudy Overcast Rain Snow 85+ º F 70 to 85º F 50 to 70 º F 32 to 50 º F To 32 º F Still Moderate High Dry Moderate Humid Equipment in Use (field instruments, subcontractor equip, etc.) • Terrasonic 150 mini-sonic drill rig • Skid Steer (Bobcat) • JCB 550-170 forklift • Rig Hauler • HNu PID • Water level meter Description of Field Activities – including borings completed/started (include footages), samples/data collected, etc.: H&S tailgate was conducted at laydown area on VA campus. No Drilling activities occurred on 11/20/2020. MP Environmental relocated roll offs from MW-30R, MW-36 and MW-38 S/D locations to the VA campus laydown area for staging during drilling break. Issues/Problems Encountered/Deficiencies/Deviations from QAPP (and resolutions): Holt had drill issues turning the spool to lift the bailer. Wasatch Environmental provided a generator that helped run the corded drill to lift the bailer. Projected Work – Near Term: 11/30/2020 – Holt crew return to Salt Lake. 12/1/2020 – Develop MW-30RB zone and set up drill rig at MW-13 additional well; Install flush mount Augustyn vaults at MW- 36 and MW-38 S/D. Other Activities/Remarks: Photos: Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 11/20/2020 Location: MW-38 S/D Description: MP Environmental picking up Roll off bin. Date: 11/20/2020 Location: VA Laydown Area Description: MP Environmental staging bin from MW-36 at laydown area. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah DATE: 11/30/2020 Prepared by: Joe Miller Personnel on site, including Contractors: Wasatch Environmental – Kevin Murphy Holt Services – Jeff Jones (Driller) Holt Services – Andrew Mengle Holt Services – Alex Langdon Visitors/Others: Ready Made Concrete Weather Temperature Wind Humidity Sunny Partly Cloudy Overcast Rain Snow 85+ º F 70 to 85º F 50 to 70 º F 32 to 50 º F To 32 º F Still Moderate High Dry Moderate Humid Equipment in Use (field instruments, subcontractor equip, etc.) · Terrasonic 150 mini-sonic drill rig · Skid Steer (Bobcat) · JCB 550-170 forklift · Rig Hauler · HNu PID · Water level meter Description of Field Activities – including borings completed/started (include footages), samples/data collected, etc.: H&S tailgate was conducted at laydown area on VA campus. Ready Made Concrete arrived and Holt installed the Augustyn flush mount vaults at MW-36 and MW-38 boring locations. Issues/Problems Encountered/Deficiencies/Deviations from QAPP (and resolutions): Projected Work – Near Term: 12/1/2020 – Develop MW-30RB with a bailer, develop MW-30RA with a development pump, complete geophysical survey at MW-13L, and mobilize drilling equipment to MW-13L. Other Activities/Remarks: Photos: Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 11/30/2020 Location: MW-36 Description: Augustyn vault installed at MW-36 Date: 11/30/2020 Location: MW-38 Description: Augustyn Vault installed at MW-38 location. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah DATE: 12/1/2020 Prepared by: Joe Miller Personnel on site, including Contractors: CDM Smith – Joe Miller CDM Smith – Tea Vrtlar Wasatch Environmental – Kevin Murphy Holt Services – Jeff Jones (Driller) Holt Services – Andrew Mengle Holt Services – Alex Langdon Visitors/Others: MP Environmental GPRS – Geophysical survey Weather Temperature Wind Humidity Sunny Partly Cloudy Overcast Rain Snow 85+ º F 70 to 85º F 50 to 70 º F 32 to 50 º F To 32 º F Still Moderate High Dry Moderate Humid Equipment in Use (field instruments, subcontractor equip, etc.) • Terrasonic 150 mini-sonic drill rig • Skid Steer (Bobcat) • JCB 550-170 forklift • Rig Hauler • HNu PID (x2) • Water level meter Description of Field Activities – including borings completed/started (include footages), samples/data collected, etc.: H&S tailgate was conducted at laydown area on VA campus. Development: The Holt crew used a bailer to develop MW-30RB. Approximately 25 gallons of water was bailed from MW-30RB. CDM Smith and Wasatch developed MW-30RA with a Geotech double valve pump. Approximately 12 gallons was purged. Drilling at MW-13L: GPRS performed a geophysical locate at MW-13L. They identified a potential irrigation line south of the proposed boring area. MP Environmental relocated one of the roll-off bins from the VA to the boring location. Holt set up the drill rig, fencing and traffic control at the MW-13L drill location. The MW-13L boring was hand augured to 5 feet bgs. Issues/Problems Encountered/Deficiencies/Deviations from QAPP (and resolutions): Upon arrival at the IDW area connex there was no electricity. The breakers were checked and had not been tripped. Maintenance shop personnel were contacted, and they had flipped the breaker in the shop across from the IDW area. Projected Work – Near Term: 12/2/2020 – Develop MW-30RB zone with Geotech double valve pump and install dedicated pumps at MW-30RA/B 12/2/2020 – Drill MW-13L Other Activities/Remarks: None. Photos: Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 12/1/2020 Location: MW-13L Description: GPRS identified potential irrigation lines and estimated less than 1 foot bgs. Date: 12/1/2020 Location: MW-30RB Description: Silty water from bailer development at MW- 30RB. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 12/1/2020 Location: MW-13L Description: Holt hand digging MW-13L to 5 feet bgs. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah DATE: 12/2/2020 Prepared by: Joe Miller Personnel on site, including Contractors: CDM Smith – Joe Miller CDM Smith – Tea Vrtlar Wasatch Environmental – Kevin Murphy Holt Services – Jeff Jones (Driller) Holt Services – Andrew Mengle Holt Services – Alex Langdon Visitors/Others: Weather Temperature Wind Humidity Sunny Partly Cloudy Overcast Rain Snow 85+ º F 70 to 85º F 50 to 70 º F 32 to 50 º F To 32 º F Still Moderate High Dry Moderate Humid Equipment in Use (field instruments, subcontractor equip, etc.) • Terrasonic 150 mini-sonic drill rig • Skid Steer (Bobcat) • JCB 550-170 forklift • Rig Hauler • HNu PID (x2) • Water level meter • YSI Multiparameter meter • Apera instruments pH60 pH meter • Geotech Reclaimer pump • QED Model 3020 Driver Compressor • Solinst bladder pump Description of Field Activities – including borings completed/started (include footages), samples/data collected, etc.: H&S tailgate was conducted at laydown area on VA campus. Development: CDM Smith and Wasatch developed MW-30RB with the Geotech Reclaimer double valve pump and removed approximately 37 gallons of water. The dedicated Solinst bladder pump was deployed at MW-30RA. Drilling at MW-13L: The MW-13L boring was advanced to 150 feet bgs. The 6-inch sonic casing has also been advanced to the bottom of the borehole. The soil cores were screened and logged no samples were collected. Groundwater was first encountered about 23 feet bgs. A clay confining unit was encountered about 104 feet bgs. There were wet sand stringers below the confining unit, but no distinct layer. All PID readings were less than 5 ppm. Issues/Problems Encountered/Deficiencies/Deviations from QAPP (and resolutions): No electricity at connex after attempting to plug in a single heater. The breakers were checked and had not been tripped. Maintenance shop personnel will be attempted to be contacted again tomorrow, they need to flip the breaker again in the shop across from the IDW area. Projected Work – Near Term: 12/3/2020 – Develop MW-36, MW-38S and potentially MW-38D zone by bailing and pumping with Geotech Reclaimer pump. 12/3/2020 – Drill MW-13L to 160 feet. Discuss well design and begin installation at MW-13L. Other Activities/Remarks: Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah None. Photos: Date: 12/2/2020 Location: MW-13L Description: Holt work zone setup at MW-13L. Preparing to resume drilling. Date: 12/2/2020 Location: MW-13L Description: Soil cuttings from 102.5-105 feet bgs. Encountered clay confining layer. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 12/2/2020 Location: MW-13L Description: Soil cuttings from 135-137 feet bgs. Moist to we gravelly sand stringer at ~136 feet bgs. Date: 12/2/2020 Location: MW-30RB Description: Pump development discharge water prior to development (final turbidity reading after purging additional 37 gallons was <20NTU). Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 12/2/2020 Location: MW-30RA Description: Deployment of dedicated bladder pump at MW-30RA. Date: 12/2/2020 Location: MW-30RA Description: Completed deployment of dedicated bladder pump at MW-30RA. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah DATE: 12/3/2020 Prepared by: Joe Miller and Tea Vrtlar Personnel on site, including Contractors: CDM Smith – Joe Miller CDM Smith – Tea Vrtlar Wasatch Environmental – Kevin Murphy Holt Services – Jeff Jones (Driller) Holt Services – Andrew Mengle Holt Services – Alex Langdon Visitors/Others: Weather Temperature Wind Humidity Sunny Partly Cloudy Overcast Rain Snow 85+ º F 70 to 85º F 50 to 70 º F 32 to 50 º F To 32 º F Still Moderate High Dry Moderate Humid Equipment in Use (field instruments, subcontractor equip, etc.) • Terrasonic 150 mini-sonic drill rig • Skid Steer (Bobcat) • JCB 550-170 forklift • Rig Hauler • HNu PID (x2) • Water level meter • YSI Multiparameter meter • Apera instruments pH60 pH meter • Geotech Reclaimer pump • QED Model 3020 Driver Compressor • Solinst bladder pump Description of Field Activities – including borings completed/started (include footages), samples/data collected, etc.: H&S tailgate was conducted at laydown area on VA campus. Development: CDM Smith and Wasatch developed MW-36: they surged with the bailer, removed approximately 25 gallons by bailing, and removed approximately 21 gallons by pumping. The dedicated Solinst bladder pump was deployed at MW-30RB. Locks were added to MW-30RA and MW-36. MW-13L: The MW-13L boring was advanced to 160 feet bgs. The zone from 156-160 feet bgs was a saturated sandy gravel. Following discussion with the VA, the 2-inch PVC well was set with 10 feet of 0.020 slot screen from 150-160 feet bgs. The sand pack was installed from 147-160 feet bgs. Holt completed backfilling and the surface completion at MW-13L. The drill rig and drilling equipment was mobilized back to the VA laydown area. Holt decontaminated the drill steel used for MW-13L. Issues/Problems Encountered/Deficiencies/Deviations from QAPP (and resolutions): No electricity at connex. The breakers behind the connex were checked and had not been tripped. Maintenance shop personnel were contacted. The connex breaker in the shop across from the IDW area was checked and had not been tripped, but the breaker was flipped off and on again to try to resolve the issue. The same procedure was repeated at the breakers behind the connex. Still unable to get electricity to connex. Casings for MW-30RA and MW-30RB are too close to each other where Solinst well cap assembly couldn’t be placed on MW- 30RB. No lock was placed on MW-30RB since the lid couldn’t be closed. Projected Work – Near Term: 12/4/2020 – Develop MW-38S/D. Deploy dedicated Solinst bladder pump at MW-36 and potentially MW-38S and D. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah 12/4/2020 – Move fencing from MW-13L location back to VA; load equipment and mobilize home. Other Activities/Remarks: None. Photos: Date: 12/3/2020 Location: MW-13L Description: Soil core from MW-13L from 157-160 feet bgs. Saturated sandy gravel layer. Date: 12/3/2020 Location: MW-13L Description: Holt preparing to install 2” PVC at MW-13L. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 12/3/2020 Location: MW-36 Description: Pump discharge water during development. Date: 12/3/2020 Location: MW-36 Description: Pump discharge water after development. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 12/3/2020 Location: MW-30RB Description: Dedicated pump deployment at MW-30RB complete. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah DATE: 12/4/2020 Prepared by: Joe Miller and Tea Vrtlar Personnel on site, including Contractors: CDM Smith – Joe Miller CDM Smith – Tea Vrtlar Wasatch Environmental – Kevin Murphy Holt Services – Jeff Jones (Driller) Holt Services – Andrew Mengle Holt Services – Alex Langdon Visitors/Others: Weather Temperature Wind Humidity Sunny Partly Cloudy Overcast Rain Snow 85+ º F 70 to 85º F 50 to 70 º F 32 to 50 º F To 32 º F Still Moderate High Dry Moderate Humid Equipment in Use (field instruments, subcontractor equip, etc.) • Terrasonic 150 mini-sonic drill rig • Skid Steer (Bobcat) • JCB 550-170 forklift • Rig Hauler • HNu PID (x2) • Water level meter • YSI Multiparameter meter • Apera instruments pH60 pH meter • Geotech Reclaimer pump • QED Model 3020 Driver Compressor • Solinst bladder pump Description of Field Activities – including borings completed/started (include footages), samples/data collected, etc.: H&S tailgate was conducted at laydown area on VA campus. Development: CDM Smith and Wasatch developed MW-38S by bailing approximately 10 gallons and pumping (with the Geotech Reclaimer pump) approximately 36 gallons. At MW-38D, 18 gallons were bailed, and 40 gallons were pumped, however, well development was not complete and will continue tomorrow. The dedicated Solinst bladder pump was installed at MW-38S Drilling Demob: Holt picked up fencing and remaining equipment from MW-13L. They loaded all their equipment and mobilized from site. Issues/Problems Encountered/Deficiencies/Deviations from QAPP (and resolutions): VA Electricians informed us that the connex boxes have been tripping the breaker at the main circuit. They reset the breaker and asked us to reduce our load on the circuits. All equipment has been unplugged and only minimal equipment will be allowed to be plugged in at the connex boxes (eg printer/copier, battery chargers). Projected Work – Near Term: 12/5/2020 – Complete development at MW-38D. Develop MW-37S and, if time permits develop MW-37D and deploy dedicated Solinst bladder pumps at MW-36, MW-38S and MW-38D. Other Activities/Remarks: None. Photos: Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 12/4/2020 Location: MW-13L Description: SMW-13L pad near the MW-13 S/D pads. The well was offset due to underground utilities identified during the geophysical survey. Date: 12/4/2020 Location: VA laydown area Description: Holt has loaded casing, the drill rig and bobcat for demobilization. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 12/4/2020 Location: MW-38S Description: Pump discharge water during development. Date: 12/4/2020 Location: MW-38S Description: Pump discharge water after development. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah DATE: 12/5/2020 Prepared by: Joe Miller and Tea Vrtlar Personnel on site, including Contractors: CDM Smith – Joe Miller CDM Smith – Tea Vrtlar Wasatch Environmental – Kevin Murphy Visitors/Others: Weather Temperature Wind Humidity Sunny Partly Cloudy Overcast Rain Snow 85+ º F 70 to 85º F 50 to 70 º F 32 to 50 º F To 32 º F Still Moderate High Dry Moderate Humid Equipment in Use (field instruments, subcontractor equip, etc.) • HNu PID (x2) • Water level meter • YSI Multiparameter meter • Apera instruments pH60 pH meter • Geotech Reclaimer pump • QED Model 3020 Driver Compressor • Solinst bladder pump Description of Field Activities – including borings completed/started (include footages), samples/data collected, etc.: H&S tailgate was conducted at connex. Development: The development at MW-38D was completed; approximately 116 gallons were pumped from the well. CDM Smith and Wasatch developed MW-37S by bailing approximately 16 gallons and pumping approximately 48 gallons. Development was initiated at MW-37D; 20 gallons were bailed. The dedicated Solinst bladder pump was deployed at MW-36. Locks were placed on MW-36 and MW-38S/D. Issues/Problems Encountered/Deficiencies/Deviations from QAPP (and resolutions): None. Projected Work – Near Term: 12/6/2020 –Complete development at MW-37D, and initiate development at MW-13L. If time permits, deploy dedicated Solinst bladder pumps at MW-38S/D. Other Activities/Remarks: None. Photos: Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 12/5/2020 Location: MW-37S and MW- 37D Description: MW-37S (right) and MW-37D (left) wells. Date: 12/5/2020 Location: MW-37S Description: Pump discharge water prior to development. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 12/5/2020 Location: MW-37S Description: Pump discharge water after development. Date: 12/5/2020 Location: MW-36 Description: Dedicated pump deployment Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah DATE: 12/6/2020 Prepared by: Joe Miller and Tea Vrtlar Personnel on site, including Contractors: CDM Smith – Joe Miller CDM Smith – Tea Vrtlar Visitors/Others: Weather Temperature Wind Humidity Sunny Partly Cloudy Overcast Rain Snow 85+ º F 70 to 85º F 50 to 70 º F 32 to 50 º F To 32 º F Still Moderate High Dry Moderate Humid Equipment in Use (field instruments, subcontractor equip, etc.) • HNu PID • Water level meter • YSI Multiparameter meter • Hach 2100Q turbiditimeter • Geotech Reclaimer pump • QED Model 3020 Driver Compressor Description of Field Activities – including borings completed/started (include footages), samples/data collected, etc.: H&S tailgate was conducted at connex. Development: CDM Smith completed development of MW-37D by pumping approximately 48 gallons. Development was initiated at MW-13L by bailing approximately 8 gallons and pumping approximately 17 gallons. The development was paused due to lack of sunlight and will be continued tomorrow. Issues/Problems Encountered/Deficiencies/Deviations from QAPP (and resolutions): None Projected Work – Near Term: Development: 12/7/2020 – Complete development at MW-13L. Initiate development of MW-34A or MW-26B with Waterra pump. If time permits, deploy dedicated Solinst bladder pumps at MW-37S/D and MW-38S/D. Groundwater Sampling: 12/7/2020 – Complete synoptic water level measurements. Obtain/renew all badges for groundwater sampling team. Confirm receipt of all groundwater sampling equipment. Other Activities/Remarks: None. Photos: Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 12/6/2020 Location: MW-37D Description: Development of MW-37D. Date: 12/6/2020 Location: MW-13L Description: Bailing of MW- 13L. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 12/6/2020 Location: MW-13L Description: Development of MW-13L. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah DATE: 12/7/2020 Prepared by: Ben Carreon Personnel on site, including Contractors: CDM Smith – Ben Carreon, Maria Day, Tea Vrtlar, Emma Rott, Joe Miller, Iona Campbell, Connor Kelley Wasatch – Kevin Murphy Visitors/Others: None Weather Temperature Wind Humidity Sunny Partly Cloudy Overcast Rain Snow 85+ º F 70 to 85º F 50 to 70 º F 32 to 50 º F 0 To 32 º F Still Moderate High Dry Moderate Humid Equipment in Use (field instruments, subcontractor equip, etc.) • Development equipment • Water level and low-flow groundwater sampling equipment Description of Field Activities – including samples/data collected, etc: • A H&S tailgate was conducted at the IDW yard area. • Equipment was calibrated. • Synoptic Water Level Event o All water levels were completed except at monitoring wells: MW-08A/B/C, MW-14D, MW-17S, MW-28, MW-29 A/B/C, and MW-32A/B/C. These locations will be completed 12/8/20. • Groundwater Sampling o No groundwater samples were collected. • Development o MW-13L ▪ Prior to development, the total depth at MW-13L was 151.06’ below top of casing; anticipated depth should be 160’ below top of casing. Eight gallons bailed and 17 gallons were pumped on 12/6/20. Depth to bottom was measured at 152.1’ below top of casing. Today (12/7/20), surging and pumping with the Geotech reclaimer pump removed approximately 100 gallons and depth to water at the end of the day was 154.15’ below top of casing. Depth to bottom will be measured tomorrow (12/8/20), at that time we will assess how to move forward with further development and sampling during this event. o MW-34A ▪ Development was initiated at MW-34A using the Waterra pump, and 15 gallons were removed. At the end of the day turbidity was still high; development will continue tomorrow. o MW-38S/D ▪ Dedicated pumps were deployed. • Samples collected: o IDW15-GW120720 – Poly water tank o IDW16-GW120720 – Drum with sediment water and hydraulic fluid from phase I of investigation • Samples to be collected tomorrow: o 2x IDW soil samples from remaining roll off bins. Issues/Problems Encountered/Deficiencies/Deviations from QAPP (and resolutions): • MP10H controller solenoid was sticking until the temperature was above 35F. All controllers will be kept in the hotel rooms to prevent any moisture build up and reduce sticking at low temperatures. • Development at MW-13L (see above). • The teams were short one water level meter due to a shipping issue with Field Environmental. Everything else shipped for the groundwater sampling event was accounted for except 50’ of silicone and a regulator. The missing equipment and supplies are expected to arrive 12/7/20. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah • Salt Lake County has a mandatory mask mandate in effect since Saturday, June 27. Masks are required in public. Projected Work – Near Term: • One team will continue development of MW-34A and will begin development of MW-26B. Following development, pumps will be deployed at MW-37S/D (time permitting). • One team will complete the synoptic water level event and then begin sampling. • Two teams will begin groundwater sampling. Other Activities/Remarks: Photos: Date: 12/7/2020 Location: MW-06 Description: Measuring water level Date: 12/7/2020 Location: MW-02 Description: Stockpile of salt/gravel near well Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah DATE: 12/8/2020 Prepared by: Ben Carreon Personnel on site, including Contractors: CDM Smith – Ben Carreon, Maria Day, Tea Vrtlar, Emma Rott, Joe Miller, Iona Campbell, Connor Kelley Wasatch – Kevin Murphy Visitors/Others: None Weather Temperature Wind Humidity Sunny Partly Cloudy Overcast Rain Snow 85+ º F 70 to 85º F 50 to 70 º F 32 to 50 º F 0 To 32 º F Still Moderate High Dry Moderate Humid Equipment in Use (field instruments, subcontractor equip, etc.) · Development equipment · Water level and low-flow groundwater sampling equipment Description of Field Activities – including samples/data collected, etc: · A H&S tailgate was conducted at the IDW yard area. · Equipment was calibrated. · Synoptic Water Level Event o The remaining water levels were measured. · Groundwater Sampling o Groundwater samples collected:  MW-05R (MW05R-GW120820 and FD05-GW120820) · For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry  Metals  Dissolved gases  Sulfate, chloride  Nitrate + nitrite (total N)  TOC  Alkalinity  MW-24 (MW24-GW120820) · For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry  MW-27 (MW27-GW120820) · For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry  MW-28 (MW28-GW120820) · For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry  MW-30RA (MW30RA-GW120820) · For the following parameters: o VOCs o 1,4-Dioxane Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah o Geochemistry  MW-30RB (MW30RB-GW120820) · For the following parameters: o VOCs o 1,4-Dioxane o Geochemistry o No samples were shipped to EMAX Labs. · Development o MW-13L  DTB was measured at 153.91’ BTOC. o MW-34A  Development was completed. A total of 88.5 gallons were purged with the Waterra pump. o MW-26B  Began development however not much progress was made with the limited daylight available. · Drilling IDW o Samples collected:  Roll off bin #5843  Roll off bin #6030 o IDW samples collected 12/7 and 12/8 were shipped to the lab. Issues/Problems Encountered/Deficiencies/Deviations from QAPP (and resolutions): · At the beginning of purging MW-30RB, water did not surface at expected pressures. The pump was pulled and rinsed to remove sediment which corrected the issue and the well was sampled. · MW-12S was dry. Water level was not measured, and samples will not be collected. · The water level at MW-31A was below the top of the volume booster. As the installation of the volume booster was difficult at this location, the pump was not pulled, and a water level was not measured. · The water level at MW-29A was below the top of the volume booster. After pulling the pump, the airline was noted to be twisted. Spare swagelok fittings will be purchased should any issues be encountered while sampling. The tubing was straightened however the tubing should be trimmed as preventative maintenance in the near future. · MP10H controller solenoids were again sticking despite keeping the controllers in hotel rooms overnight. · One YSI had a pH sensor in need of replacement. A replacement YSI was requested and will arrive 12/9/20. · Salt Lake County has a mandatory mask mandate in effect since Saturday, June 27. Masks are required in public. Projected Work – Near Term: · Continue development of MW-26B. Following development, pumps will be deployed at MW-37S/D. · Continue groundwater sampling. Other Activities/Remarks: · United services picked up the fencing and jobsite toilet. · Drilling PIDs and Mag Sep meters were packed for shipment. Photos: Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 12/8/2020 Location: MW-29A Description: Twisted tubing Date: 12/8/2020 Location: MW-26B Description: Waterra foot valve Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 12/8/2020 Location: MW-26B Description: Development setup Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah DATE: 1/18/2021 Prepared by: Karla Leslie Personnel Onsite, including Contractors: Wasatch Environmental – Kevin Murphy Visitors/Others: Weather Temperature Wind Humidity Sunny Partly Cloudy Overcast Rain Snow 85+ º F 70 to 85º F 50 to 70 º F 32 to 50 º F To 32 º F Still Moderate High Dry Moderate Humid Equipment in Use (field instruments, subcontractor equip, etc.) • Development Equipment Description of Field Activities – including borings completed/started (include footages), samples/data collected, etc.: MW-26D was developed using air lifting techniques until turbidity was below 50 NTU. A total of 95 gallons of water was removed. Initial total depth was 353.40 feet below top of casing (btoc) and after development the new total depth was 358.30 feet btoc, suggesting approximately 5 feet of sediment was removed from the well. Issues/Problems Encountered/Deficiencies/Deviations from QAPP (and resolutions): Work had been planned at MW-34, however, as Rowland Hall was closed for the holiday and the gate was closed but not locked, the field team was concerned about accidently getting locked in. Development at MW-34 will begin tomorrow (Tuesday January 19). Projected Work – Near Term: Development of MW-34B/C. Other Activities/Remarks: None. Photos: Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 1/18/2021 Location: MW-26D Description: Development equipment set up at MW-26D Date: 1/18/2021 Location: MW-26D Description: Purge water at the start of development Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah DATE: 1/19/2021 Prepared by: Karla Leslie Personnel Onsite, including Contractors: Wasatch Environmental – Kevin Murphy VA – Wynn John Visitors/Others: None Weather Temperature Wind Humidity Sunny Partly Cloudy Overcast Rain Snow 85+ º F 70 to 85º F 50 to 70 º F 32 to 50 º F To 32 º F Still Moderate High Dry Moderate Humid Equipment in Use (field instruments, subcontractor equip, etc.) • Development Equipment Description of Field Activities – including borings completed/started (include footages), samples/data collected, etc.: MW-34C was developed using air lifting techniques until turbidity was below 50 NTU. A total of 20 gallons of water was removed. Initial total depth was 262.5 feet below top of casing (btoc) and after development the total depth was 263.1 feet btoc, suggesting less than 1 foot of sediment was removed from the well. Development was initiated at MW-34B using air lifting techniques. A total of 30 gallons was removed. Initial total depth was 186.9 ft btoc, and after removing 30 gallons the total depth was 188.8 ft btoc. As turbidity was not improving, this well will be further developed on Thursday (1/21). Issues/Problems Encountered/Deficiencies/Deviations from QAPP (and resolutions): Development was not completed at MW-34B and will be continued on Thursday (January 21). Projected Work – Near Term: Development of MW-26C on Wednesday, January 20. Development of MW-34B and surveying of new well locations on Thursday, January 21. Other Activities/Remarks: None. Photos: Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 1/19/2021 Location: MW-34C Description: Development purge water Date: 1/19/2021 Location: MW-34B Description: Sediment that was dried from the purge water Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah DATE: 1/20/2021 Prepared by: Karla Leslie Personnel Onsite, including Contractors: Wasatch Environmental – Kevin Murphy Visitors/Others: Weather Temperature Wind Humidity Sunny Partly Cloudy Overcast Rain Snow 85+ º F 70 to 85º F 50 to 70 º F 32 to 50 º F To 32 º F Still Moderate High Dry Moderate Humid Equipment in Use (field instruments, subcontractor equip, etc.) • Development Equipment Description of Field Activities – including borings completed/started (include footages), samples/data collected, etc.: MW-26C was developed using air lifting techniques. A total of 125 gallons of water was removed. Initial total depth was 320.05 feet below top of casing (btoc) and after development the total depth was 327.57 feet btoc, suggesting approximately 7.5 feet of sediment was removed from the well. Turbidity did not stabilize below 50 NTU, however, however, due to the large volume removed and time spent developing this location, development is considered complete. Issues/Problems Encountered/Deficiencies/Deviations from QAPP (and resolutions): Development was completed at MW-26C; however, turbidity did not stabilize below 50 NTU. Projected Work – Near Term: Development of MW-34B and surveying of new well locations on Thursday, January 21. Other Activities/Remarks: None. Photos: Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 1/20/2021 Location: MW-26C Description: Purge water at the start of development. Date: 1/20/2021 Location: MW-26C Description: Purge water at the end of development Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah DATE: 1/21/2021 Prepared by: Karla Leslie Personnel Onsite, including Contractors: Wasatch Environmental – Kevin Murphy RECON Land Surveying – Tony Marturello and Jack Nisogi Visitors/Others: Weather Temperature Wind Humidity Sunny Partly Cloudy Overcast Rain Snow 85+ º F 70 to 85º F 50 to 70 º F 32 to 50 º F To 32 º F Still Moderate High Dry Moderate Humid Equipment in Use (field instruments, subcontractor equip, etc.) • Development Equipment • Surveying Equipment Description of Field Activities – including borings completed/started (include footages), samples/data collected, etc.: New wells (MW-36, MW-37S/D, MW-38S/D, MW-30RA/B, and MW-13L) were surveyed by REDCON Land Surveying. Development at MW-34B was completed using air lifting techniques. A total of 125 gallons of water was removed (30 gallons on 1/19 and 95 gallons on 1/21). Initial total depth on 1/19 was 186.9 ft btoc, and after removing 30 gallons the total depth was 188.8 ft btoc. The initial and final total depth on 1/21 was 188.8 feet btoc. Turbidity did not stabilize below 50 NTU, however, however, due to the large volume removed and time spent developing this location, development is considered complete. Issues/Problems Encountered/Deficiencies/Deviations from QAPP (and resolutions): Development was completed at MW-34B; however, turbidity did not stabilize below 50 NTU. Projected Work – Near Term: None. Other Activities/Remarks: None. Photos: Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 1/21/2021 Location: MW-34B Description: Purge water at the start of development on 1/21/2021. Date: 1/21/2021 Location: MW-34B Description: Purge water at the end of development Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 1/21/2021 Location: MW-13L Description: Surveying new well MW-13L Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah DATE: 2/12/2021 Prepared by: Joe Miller Personnel Onsite, including Contractors: CDM Smith – Whitney Treadway Wasatch Environmental – Kiel Keller VA- Shannon Smith MP Environmental Visitors/Others: Weather Temperature Wind Humidity Sunny Partly Cloudy Overcast Rain Snow 85+ º F 70 to 85º F 50 to 70 º F 32 to 50 º F To 32 º F Still Moderate High Dry Moderate Humid Equipment in Use (field instruments, subcontractor equip, etc.) • Skid Steer for soil transfer Description of Field Activities – including borings completed/started (include footages), samples/data collected, etc.: CDM Smith redeployed pumps from MW-26A and MW-13S, and shipped slug testing equipment to vendors and wrapped up site activities. Wasatch Environmental transferred soil generated from hydrovacing into roll off bin. MP Environmental hauled soil roll off bin #6030 from site. MP also hauled 1800 gallons of IDW water from one of the poly tanks onsite. Issues/Problems Encountered/Deficiencies/Deviations from QAPP (and resolutions): None. Projected Work – Near Term: None. Other Activities/Remarks: None. Photos: Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 2/12/2021 Location: VA IDW area Description: MP environmental connected to poly IDW water tank. Appendix B Field Logbook Notes Location 97 Project/Client Date l1b/zoDate otionSLC VA Projiect/ Client Vft T00 1bDC E PCE Pu, ne PC l Location pped sampus, pee Water Cvw, 30F TAs GW wel cdivelopment PPE Qvel D Pvsonill: E.KoTT (Author ), A. horni (wasatch) 0 100 LiTT ensite.|CaubvaBe PiD. Bin l0allino hviptminT 000 A Horn ovsitCaubratt Ys. H+SMinvV 000 Ttam to MW -Zb. Plan to diue ep CTaned coe unldinns landlA0 Cm al 4-nttyvals. ICCO |10+ n Devlupvnintat M -ZD airutt. Stt strwer z3° Ft btoc E EU FoCMIux to aivoas dicpett |130 E EoT back t Mw-2eD 1220 End diveloptent at MW-ZL0. Did net Rac pauaulev stiuty.w vSiblt d tveAx n hurbidih. P d Atotal 1230 To connX to emptu PU watev nd Suitch itvocR h tanks 1245 2tuvn to MW-2.Becjun developinent at Mw-2C. t sttnOAr at p8 ft btoc. 98 99 Location C VA Date 1/20 Date L1e2sProject/Client 7b0S oODE PCE Plum Location Project/Clent00S oL0E PCE Plum SLC VA MW-2A 400 Atempt developLnt at MW-uAwitm 34 staunss Steu vauw Weatur: Snow kain,30 -40°F TOS Well PPE vel D PersoneilE. RTT CAutnor), A. Ftvni Wasateh 071S Feld ttOin cnsie. 0730 HS L tin 30-40 F 15 Eudunt 0ailr S opting stuet Development COsi PUiled up loaiw and no wat, hadn t dropped far enouoh430 Atenmpt baur in Mw-2eR 0un 0735 Cali brat PID. YS was droppd No Lunor taubiratiie wrrictuj 07S0 Anna to Wasa tci to e funMenue waltr guau ty ni ter 0830 E. Ro bailer wil w0rk tor divepOinehT O346 baulr oitro stuck at uTUnd 30'btuc a 344, 0850 E RUTr back t coihuxs,Meets .rn Ond loads egoiptmiint 030 Ttam to Mw-2.Sctup en Mi-2B, 1009 Brojin airuFt at muW -zeB.Sct shour at 222 btoc. 015 No walt pre stit.ower stnger Pprox.S. !030 No warer, Dtttrnune Ot encuh uwatt Coturn t iQurluttrr tov divelopnint Obu to 0pt t Sughtu tutwrhan preVivsuy Stuck'om wau Up 1500 bu to ot bailly aut ef MW-2b tMW-34A t CalledJoe Millor (Dm Cmu t) t duscussSUes Assumus casivo Sugnty Cropkecland win't be ahl to Ot to wattr cowmn Decisin tonot develop at Mw-2oA 700 End dewelopmunt at Mu-zbl t t dauy Povoyd approx. 33 galu Waltv Stu vy urbid, but dicreaSi wil retun tomavvou to Contnue 1800 Held team offsite Cmma Pa /10/2 Locatio VA SLC 100 101 Date t/Z 101 Date Project/Client 00S lb00E PCE Pwme Location VH SUC 700S ilo0bE PCE Pwe 1045 e.ReT call Muus hoelov BEssT to duscuSS Usino UST pUwp wlo tut tor duwelopimnt Ht Stütts we can attnp but uL, too coay of maitnal ar he pump h nchon Team Lonhnues dwelopvnent at Ml Project/Cient 1z30 At emyo ted bauly atMW-ZoB 1z4S Uhab e to t bu past 114'btod 300 Team to COnuxto prep transdiues tor depiyment at muw-34 1500 Team to MW-34 51S WL 1316' MW-34B. Install pump transduu attachnunt b remvino frlter avd Hwtadivo n ittllupmp 1535 WL= 130.4 MW -34D. installpupt ansdwAr attacnmint. 1557 WL130.12 MW 34C. tenpi 1100 look clear at tirst. I1SE.PT Atempts to U UST punp t M-ZuB w/o thtey Swo of watt cus wt dt MW-2%P ASS Umed to be waltr remaun n tobing yom ast SamplungNo murt walar tYOm -2, Ttum puls pump and clans wt. No vis bu Sdiment witun puup. Ke-duploy pummo at muW-UB NO Watc preut.Dete/und 130 install pump transdicaN attachmin loIS Team to CuvmnexE KIT spoke uitth uSue N Siutn te dutvmu nUt to lnStal tvansdluw at muW-34ynti itCAn be dyeloptd iHE RuT to mw and Mw-17 make duhtvunahons fer famper proof bolt, 730 Field tam offsitet. 11S0 12D0 PUMip WIU tWov for dwe lupmu TEaM pUUS pump and bvinos lt CUp uk duwe lop muut at MUW-2tPOvoycl0 qaluns total.SAw 9ua ttncrea t turblelu tu fouCUdsfu end. stopped based on vo UwM nmaUt 120 metrics 103 Date 1/12/z 102 VA SLC Project/Client00S IvOOEPCE PU Location LocationVH SLC TDOS TDOS 100E PCE Pwmi 115 Sudpou bulr diU wwigt COes up parttally tull wi Hu swdaywater 1145 Coutnutdto bail,but kept pullun UP tmp ty ba ur. Itam assvnuÍ Hu loall cant sit well b/c edUmeni. Aytuun haf does fall uafs ov t ttutsbrughte surfau Project/Chent Wuthoy.un, 30-50F TOsk: Well dwilopmnt PPE Wvel D Personnel E.RIT(aw thar),Hua rni Je MauW (COm Sauith)0 700 Fieldttam ansit.CaubratePID Brin paUANgvelhuclis. H+S mthro 0120 E. RrTT to Hose tRubberto purchaetublngYz"oD) Ar qudts PUMp U. 0730 A. FrornuCalubrats YSI 0140 E. RIT onsitt. 1000 eam to w-30et/B /B. 1z00 Btgn cettvoup Crund tos Redi flo 2 1Z 20 Depy e iso btsc max ung Ha 0V PUinp (ord ). Usy Wasatch's o vator3iS0 Watt champin 1230 Bin puup Gvaduall 1005 WL = 2Z. 75 btoc MW-30 RB TD 243-0te290.42'btot 1010 Tcam to vse 2po bailerto SUVO /coluctsedmiit. 020 Baur doesnt weugh enngh 7eaun to attuwptusi Stainluslawlr (3/4) to s vope dupt,OHS Staunussbaiurcoms vp tull ot swdo. E. Rou to Conrex a tind weigt te acld fu poly baur. Stanlessu too Small to be tfechve. 1245 Contvolufautsat pprex 300 ttz 300 Atr vestar tivo Covntveileu faults Qgaun at 336Hz Spote witn Soe utlr, ditudidto attpt venhivo w avcuv cayaci tu oveator 131S Tedm pulls Pviup 4D Teanm to SunbvrsentalsQanted Hovnda EU70001SU$O0 wel 104 Location VA SLC Project/Client 100S l00E PCE 105 Date 11/13/2e Daezu CE PU 430 Feld ttaM nsitt. MUW-30Re 145 Teou dupuys puup. Ervar w PCE Pwme ocation VP SLC 7005 1obOE PCE PwMe Project/Client WatV: Task Nell developMLNt PPE uel D Prsonnl:E, PutT (Autnor ), A Fro rni l Wasu 0100E. RaT Cnsite.H.|Fernu to SUnbet Veutals to dwop oft renttd gnuvato. 071S Caulovale |PID. 0730 E Ruu t etiu to dinlu no pwogrd vto uw hwae FwttUnduw vo t doe ) 530 Team CUtiwes to énwwwr A Frorni l Wasu to Sunoett to enwvwtr A.FaruFoultPols pumap To CoVwx, Plan to t punup 1549 5-0allon bucut ot uatr'h SeL pumyp was H li. lo 20 PUmp ut funcho/uno wl uHy Crew. OXDOERUTomsite. 0100 H, Frorvi onst tc. 01S Teanm tAA 2O MW-36RA.P lan tu attewpt UstgCrundtos pup tor clevelupment. TD 250 u btoc 025 DepLoyed avund fes Pedi F Z at approx 240 toc Ustuo UWasatchs eurato 0 rattr,E RTt calls Piw wIVOnmntal 30 Kewwe bottom ot pump.Dirt Watt CUmes 0vt. Rinud wtpu tmes lot e-run pump, wovcA ng Hu's Te uteu clo cond. Vine Vepre sntah ve gtattd Hat Vunww puup ct max 400 Hz)is VIst for vey g 0940 Punup fow ttedat appro 306 te Teauin to pull Pump 0150 PLud pump and Aw suWdOL uatc awe + wwn clLauy"Hssurned to Ne clooced with scaiet.l000 Team to dhUl cvew at MU-37.Packed pusnaniacl Sampl 1030 Team to fedek to Suip Ampls 7o0 A. Fiovnu offtr I740J utlr,E Cu fo MW-30 WL =227,46 C MW-30R A TtAm natt u 0uker in well wwt MUW-30L.Ttam siBt 10 6 LO c a t i o n VA P l U Da t e 1 1 3 / z s P w n 10 7 11 3 2 0 TD O S b0 0 E PC E Pu m Lo c a t i o n U P L U M e P r o j e c t / C i e n t D O S l b 0 D E P C E Pr o j e c t / Ch e n t Da t e 10 3 6 Su p p e d So u n s t CO n t Y o l an d YS ac k . Te a m to Wa s a t c h to pic k u p tu b i fo r so u vi s t pu m p in s t a l . Il 2 6 Pi v w Su p p e d 4 x 25 0 ' ro l l s , On l y MW 3 0 C 3 0 T e a m t C O n L x to U n l o a d v e u c i s , T a k i w e n t o y O ey p 1 4 15 P l a u d P U n p h a c k i n m W 3 0 C u n l o a d 10 0 S m p u n g b o t t U s wi l l be a b e to in s t a l l a t mw z 0 R 4 0 Te a m on s i t t to c o n u x to lv a d 1 5 3 0 T e a m t o M U - 1 7 D to t y p we l l t a p . N t t d La v C e r t u p e0 i p t e n t to u « to v So u n s t pu a p di p lu y m U n t an d pu r g i v e De p l r y u d so u n s t pU r n p n MuW 30R AC E W v e n c n . T e a m t H C E i o 0 0 e t u r n t M - I 7 D . T p w e l l Ca p . a m p e r pv 0 0 b o l t s n i w t h v pr o p e r u s P t u r n t o 12 1 5 a t 24 0 bt o c . Hu g on l wi v e Co u b e . 4 " x J4 " on d e d tw b i n g 12 2 0 Be g i n pu o L to at t e m p t dw c t t p w e u t 12 40 CO m n t l u 30 Pa c k ve n m a u N U n O e G u i p t m i n t to S u p TO 0 Te a m o f f s i t t Wa t t r at s u r t a . Ve tu r b i d , Al d wi t h St d i m e n t . 2 4 5 Wa t t r st o P p e d HM I n g Tt a m tu n l o t Co n t r o l u r Hs s u m e t t cd o o o p d 3 1 5 Pu l u d pu n m p Ba l l va l w e s t i l l a u n a l e d 3 / 2 w t u sd A m e n t TR C u M cu L a r e d u u av d ci a n e d pU M p . Br o g u t ba c k to Co n n X 14 0 0 Pu l l t d MW 3 0 C an d to o TD T D 3 2 5 . 8 bt o c . dP f r c u t to u a o w t h sk n n y du p p e r . N o sq cf r a v t . 108 LOcation Date /G/ 24 Project/Client WEATHEQ JUV1, L P/E LEEL RSL T. RTLK (c7 SHIDAvW) (WAiL ENIILYT7 GESO TE CNS TE 0320 0730 C:LIAn./4 0920 wTT N EENLTY FON VTA 08i5 0915 31 WiT 0930 GW MavKN; TETNY CGivDVNN} JwAVTy EVN 101S CAUIgUnN rCisnON NTSH, NT AUsi THE CUIS 122 SLC V+ Date LILO LOcation Project/ Client IL2 E E fLun WEMTHE SML,v 2, liG4 43F GW WE 0UFLOPNeNsT D PenawE TEA VTvAN (Con Saim, 4TMat) KEVIN Tdfny uTEMulnNTEL joE DILLEr, Enn4 nT (Con 5h) OL30 ABAArD 730 FTM 1,7 N ieed LIuv Fton&n TUB)N, SienuihlAH Sivl6 MaV Ri F TUGN c2NLAL MeV.U (oRM T ET OIFArANT (vMFC. 020 eVN ANS TE AA ETRSIH ss oFLA. TMES Date h. 124 LocationSLCA Project/Client 1613 PCE PLUH 1545 OF wD P |AT ThuIN STAED CA B NAED Aig WRENCE tVs/NG 4S Srurey SwseT Svnil4MT . ILL CNDNE IN HE N°AU THE QVEormENi ND ker TeHL OPA TE CHAULE4ES EUCUTETED T W HIS FGLD NTEb. HEW (w DEVETnENT MW3L tu THE Twwt, HELAD IDW 5A/ncs. 93S FIELDEAI RPSE N A n 22 (D Appendix C Utility Locate Reports Utility Locate Report SITE VA Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah 11/3/2020 PREPARED FOR CDM Smith PREPARED BY TWS ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC Denver, CO TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1 PROJECT IDENTIFICATION ........................................................................... 2-4 Section 2 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 5 2.1 Site Location ............................................................................................................................... 6 2.2 Equipment On Site .................................................................................................................... 6 2.3 Equipment Capabilities .............................................................................................................. 7 Section 3 Description of Utility Clearance Work Preformed…………. ..………………8 3.1 Physical setting. ........................................................................................................................... 8 3.2 Results .......................................................................................................................................... 8 3.3 Photos ................................................................................................................................... 9-12 Section 1 – Project Identification CLIENT NAME: CDM Smith CLIENT ADDRESS: 555 17th Street Suite 500 Denver, CO 80202 PROJECT NAME & LOCATION ADDRESS: VA Plume – Salt Lake City, Utah TWS PROJECT MANAGER: Jeff Baker TWS TEAM REPRESENTATIVE: Jeff Baker Fig 1. MW-37 S/D Fig 2. MW-36 S/D Fig 3. MW-38 S/D Fig 4. AOU-1 Section 2 – Introduction 2.1 Site Location The sites are located across East Side Springs and are part of OU-2 Remedial Investigation 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah. 2.2 Equipment on Site:  SeekTech SR-20 Line Tracer and Underground Utility Locator  SeekTech ST-305 Line Transmitter  Schonstedt GA-52-Cx Magnetometer  Ground-penetrating radar: GSSI UtilityScan/ rough terrain cart 2.3 Equipment Capabilities: Electromagnetic Induction Electromagnetic Inductions consists of two steps. First, a transmitter is used to transfer an alternating electrical current to the pipe or wire to be located. Next, a receiver is used to analyze the transmitted signal, and localize the position and depth of the facility. The transmitter can transfer the signal to the facility either by a direct connections, or by inducing a signal. The direct connect method introduces a signal into pipes or cables (or the fluids within pipes) that is radiated from the facility to aid its detection and location. The surface-induced method generates a signal a t the ground surface that will induce a response in the cable, pipe or tracer wire underground. Typical applications:  Conductive utilities: Steel or copper pipes (water service, gas service) Copper telecom cables.  Tracer lines on non-conductive utilities Limitations:  EM/RF locating requires a conductive object (pipe, cable, conduit, or tracer) into which a radio signal can be introduced. The signal cannot travel through non-conductive (insulating) materials. The signal may be interrupted or lost on a conductive utility that is not continuous (damaged, broken, corroded, repaired with non-conductive materials, or constructed of segments with non-conductive gaskets, i.e. rubber)  RF locating requires some level of access or prior knowledge to effectively introduce the radio signal. An exposed portion (or end) of a utility is needed for direct connections or to utilize an inductive clamp. A point of well-known location and direction is needed for an inductive drop.  RF locating signals are susceptible to “bleeding” onto nearby conductive utilities. Due care will be taken to recognize and minimize bleed-off, and to confirm utility locations with alternate methods. All utility marks should be afforded and industry-standard tolerance zone of 24” to either side.  A known (or visible) point of connection is generally needed to identify the function of a utility.  A hand-dug or vacuum-excavated test hole should be used to precisely confirm horizontal or vertical locations of any utility. Magnetometer The GA-52Cx magnetic locator detects the magnetic field of ferromagnetic objects. It responds to the difference in the magnetic field between two sensors that are spaced approximately 20 inches apart. This difference is referred to as the “signal strength” and is represented in the instrument by an audio tone. Typical applications:  Locating ferrous pipes/utilities: Steel or other ferrous metal objects or pipes can be located with this tool. Limitations:  The instrument will not detect non-ferrous metals, such as gold, silver, copper, brass and aluminum. Ground-Penetrating Radar (GPR) 350 MHz “HyperStacking” GPR Antenna – GPR works by sending a tiny pulse of energy into a material and recording the strength and the time required for the return of any reflected signal. Our GPR system uses state of the art HyperStacking Technology which provides excellent near-surface resolution and increased depth penetration in all soil types. We will be able to quickly search the location and depth of service utilities such as gas, communications, and sewer lines – as well as other metallic and nonmetallic targets including underground storage tanks and PVC pipes. For rough terrain conditions, we are able to place the unit into a rugged utility cart to complete the search. Principle of operation:  Ground- penetrating radar (GPR) uses a pair of radio antennas (transmitting and receiving), moved together across the ground surface. The transmitted radar wave penetrates into the ground until it reaches an “interface”, or boundary, between materials of differing electrical properties. The wave is then reflected and detected by the receiving antenna. Typical applications:  Non- conductive utilities: Plastic pipes, gas and water main/services, etc. Bituminous fiber pipe (“Orangeburg”, “Bermico”), asbestos-cement pipes (“Transite”). Cast iron pipe with rubber gaskets, or other insulating materials.  Subsurface structures: Buried tanks, cisterns, septic tanks, cesspools, dry wells and oil- water separators. Buried vaults, manholes, and utility tunnels. Historical building foundations and other structures. Limitations:  For an object to produce a signal that is able to be interpreted by operations, the transmitted radar wave must penetrate to the depth of the object of interest, reflect, and return the receiving antenna.  Depth of penetration is reduced by soils that are electrically conductive, due to water saturation or otherwise. Depth of penetrating is reduced by especially rocky, mixed, or inconsistent soil. A metallic ground surface (i.e. steel plate), or standing water, interferes with penetration of the transmitted signal into the soil.  A reflection of the radar signal depends on the “interface”, or boundary, of materials of differing electrical properties – such as the encountered at boundaries between soil layers of differing compaction, or at the surface of a hard object embedded in the soil. The reflection is weakened when the boundary has a lower contrast in electrical properties. An object of a give diameter will producte a reflection of decreasing strength with increasing depth to cover. Generally, one inch of diameter is required, per foot of cover, to produce a strong reflection.  A known (or visible) point of connecting is generally needed to identify the function of a utility.  Any utility, subsurface structure, or anomaly located with GPR and marked on site should be afforded an industry – standard tolerance zoned of 24’.  A hand-dug or vacuum-excavated test hole should be used to precisely confirm horizontal or vertical location of any utility. Section 3 – Description of Utility Clearance Work Preformed 3.1 Physical Setting The sites are located in Salt Lake City, Utah. These sites are a combination of neighbor hoods that are near the VA hospital campus including residential neighborhoods to the West of the campus. There are a total of three (3) proposed well locations MW 37, MW 36 and MW 38 (MW-38 had two areas scanned as options) and 10 ground water locations that were scanned on this round of work. There were no locations on the VA campus on this round of work. The well locations were all in or near parking lanes on the street. The majority of the ground water locations were located in landscaped/grass areas near residential homes and included GW-20, GW-16, GW-59, GW-11, GW-10, GW-53, GW52, GW-49, GW-50 and GW-61. Once all health and safety discussions and a tailgate meeting with the CDM field staff was completed, the crew proceeded to clear the area around each proposed location. This occurred over the course of one day on Tuesday, November 3rd, 2020. The temperature was in the low to mid 60’s during this engagement. Skies were mostly clear. 3.2 Results TWS personnel worked on site to locate and mark utilities, and to survey the areas of the proposed boring/well locations residential locations on November 3rd, 2020. Methods used include both radio- frequency (EM/RF) locating and ground-penetrating radar (GPR) as well as utilizing a magnetometer/pipe locator. As disclosed at the bidding stage, GPR penetration rates in the Salt Lake area were expected to be between 0-3 feet bgs. Depths beyond that may be impacted by soil conditions and data quality may be affected. Utilities located and marked in the vicinity of the work areas included anomalies/unknowns electrical, gas, water, and communication. There were also storm water drains and sewer networks across the properties. A combination of paint on the ground and paint and pin flags in the grassy areas were utilized to mark out utilities and anomalies in the general areas where there are proposed boring/well locations are planned. It is recommended that the areas for MW-38 (both the location off Elizabeth and 1200 E) as well as all of the ground water (GW) locations be called in to Blue Stake of Utah 811 prior to any drilling activities. 3.3 Project Photos MW-36, anomaly (pink) located running through the proposed boring location, gas and sewer marked as well.. MW-37, gas and sewer (located in the grass parallel to the roadway) located and marked. MW 38 (Elizabeth Street option) note proximity of water line markings. Sewer in center of street, recommend engaging Blue Stake before proceeding. MW 38 (1200 E option) Water located along sidewalk and crossing the street to the North of the proposed location. Recommend engaging Blue Stake before proceeding. GW-10, multiple communication and sewer lines nearby proposed location. GW-11, storm water drainage runs down the alley approximately in the middle of the road. Storm water lines and unknown line located in street adjacent form existing GW-16 location Water line located running up the street adjacent to planter where GW-20 was located in the planter area. Vault filled with salt (?) near proposed work area for MW-23. Water, electric and anomaly (pink) near proposed work area for MW-27. GW-49, possible storm water line running along the road parallel to the site. GW-52, Communication running along the road, gas and power between the sidewalk and GW-52. Water, sewer and power near intersection near proposed work area for GW-53. Water near proposed work area for GW-53. (Relocated by CDM Staff) Water and drain lines near proposed work area for GW-59. Electrical lines in planter near proposed work area for GW-61 Metal landscaping rings potentially interfering with magnetometer readings near. MW-61. Appendix D Traffic Control Plan Date:11/4/20 Author:ERNESTO Comments: CDM SMITH 1000 E LOWELL AVE SOUTH SALT LAKE, UTAH SB-SHOULDER WORK & SIDEWALK UTAH BARRICADE -TRAFFIC CONTROL ROAD WORK AHEAD SHOULDER WORK AHEAD 100' LOWELL AVE 800 S 10 0 0 E WORK AREA 100' SIDEWALK CLOSED SIDEWALK CLOSED SIDEWALK CLOSED AHEAD CROSS HERE www.invarion.com Date:11/4/20 Author:ERNESTO Comments: CDM SMITH BUILDERS 12TH E 700 S SOUTH SALT LAKE, UTAH NB-NO PARKING UTAH BARRICADE -TRAFFIC CONTROL WORK AREA ROAD WORK AHEAD 100' NO PARK I N G NO PARK I N G NO PARK I N G www.invarion.com WORK AREA RO A D WO R K AH E A D HERBERT AVE 12 T H E Date:10/29/20 Author:ERNESTO Comments: CDM SMITH HERBERT AVE 12TH E SOUTH SALT LAKE, UTAH SHOULDER WORK UTAH BARRICADE -TRAFFIC CONTROL www.invarion.com MW-13L Well Appendix E Salt Lake City Traffic Control, Engineering, and Right-of-Way Permits PERMIT TO WORK IN THE PUBLIC WAY ENG2020-02422SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION ENGINEERING DIVISION 349 SOUTH 200 EAST, SUITE 100 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 PHONE (801) 535-6396 FAX (801) 535-6093 engpermit@slcgov.com Assigned Inspector: Jack Crockett Office Phone: 801.703.5964 Cell Phone: Job Address:Contractor Phone Numbers:1183 E HERBERT Ave Phone1: Phone2: FAX: Applicant Name: Business Name: CDM FEDERAL PROGRAMS CORPORATION Mailing Address: SALT LAKE CITY, UT Traffic Control Plan Starting and Ending Dates Fee Barricade Manual Figure No.: TA6 Begin Date:11/09/2020 Total Fee:$123.75 Traffic Permit Number:TRN2020-02820, 2821, 2822 Expiration Date: 12/07/2020 Certificate of Insurance as Per City Ordinance – Chapter 14.32.065 Number:TB7611B8T8Z6040T Bonds As Per City Ordinance – Chapter 14.32.070 Number:9340850 State Contractors License As Per City Ordinance – Chapter 14.32.025 Number: Work Type:Test Bore Drawing Included:Yes APWA Standard: Field Contact: Joe Phone: 513.602.1619 Comments or Additional Requirements: Installation of 3 monitoring wells. 1183 E Herbert 752 S 1000 E 647 S 1200 E Work will only take 3-4 days. Project manager will call Jack when complete. Joe 513.602.1619 additional monitoring well is being added to the project. A week fee and well fee has been added. -Jack Crockett 11/24/2020 Added approximately 2 week(s) to the permit The old completion date was 11/27/2020 The new completion date is 12/07/2020 Changes performed by Jack Crockett on 11/24/2020 Extension fees not charged because: A fee was already applied. The amount of time occupying the public way is reflected in that fee. The drilling schedule is tentative so a wide range was provided. Notice: CALL 24 HOURS BEFORE COMMENCING WORK (535-6727) for Public Utility inspections or assigned inspector for all other inspections or 48 hours if work is scheduled on holidays and weekends. Digging within ten feet (10’) of any parkstrip street tree requires written authorization from Salt Lake City Urban Forestry. Contact Urban Forestry at (801) 535-7818, before any excavation with in ten feet of a street tree, for inspection and authorization. BEFORE EXCAVATION CONTACT BLUE STAKES – 811 or 1-800-662-4111 PERMIT APPLICATION:Application is hereby made for a permit to work in the public way as specified above. Applicant agrees to the terms on the reverse side and to any increase in fees should they be required by Engineering. Print name of Applicant: Signature of Applicant:Date: 11/24/2020 Joe Miller Permit Issued By: Jack Crockett ** WORK GUARANTEED - 3 YEARS FROM ACCEPTANCE DATE ** Please contact inspector 24 hours before beginning work GENERAL CONDITIONS ACCEPTANCE OF CONDITIONS. It is understood and agreed by the Permittee that performing any work under this permit constitutes acceptance of Title 14 Chapter 32 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City and the City's Regulations for controlling construction, excavation and obstructions in the Public Right ¬of ¬Way, latest revision. PROXIMATE WORK. Applicant agrees that no other work shall be done under this permit except that specifically set forth herein. It is the applicants responsibility to verify the exact location of city and private facilities prior to commencing excavation operations. PERMIT AND DRAWINGS AT JOB SITE. The permittee shall have at the work site a copy of the permit, the traffic control plan, and the City approved drawings. NOTIFICATION. Notify the assigned inspector 24 hours before commencing work. Provide the following information: permit number, name and telephone number of permittee, date/time work is to commence, location of work and any other information which may be relevant to the work. CONFORMANCE TO EXISTING LAWS AND CITY SPECIFICATIONS. Permittee agrees to be fully informed of all federal, state and local laws, ordinances, rules, regulations, and City Construction Specifications which, in any manner, affect the work, and at all times shall observe and comply with such laws, ordinances, rules, regulations and specifications. The City Engineer reserves the right to shut down and/or issue a citation for violation of these provisions. ENVIRONMENTAL LIABILITY. Permittee agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless Salt Lake City, its officers, agents and employees against any claims, losses, damages, or expenses, including, without limitation, any fees or penalties imposed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the Utah State Department of Environmental Protection Agency, the Utah State Department of Environmental Quality or any other government or regulatory agency and any attorney's fees or costs sustained on account of, or related to, the presence, release, discovery or creation of hazardous wastes or similar materials as those materials are defined under applicable federal or state statutes or regulations, including, without limitation, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976. STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS AND STANDARD DRAWINGS. Comply with all Salt Lake City Standard Specifications and Standard Drawings for cutting surface, traffic control, backfill, compaction, selection of subgrade materials, asphalt and concrete surfacing requirements. Printed copies of the Regulations and Specifications can be obtained through the City Engineer's Office. WARRANTY. Permittee shall guarantee the worksite restoration for a period of three years from completion and acceptance of the work, reasonable wear and tear excepted. SPECIAL CONDITIONS EXCAVATION OPERATIONS BLUE STAKES. Before commencing excavation operations, Permittee shall call "Blue Stakes" at 811 TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES. Traffic control devices must be in place before excavation begins. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL DUST AND DEBRIS. Keep dust and debris controlled at the work site at all times. If necessary, wet down dusty areas with water and provide containers for debris. WHEEL CLEANING ORDINANCE. Conform to Section 18.20.210 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, 1987. The ordinance describes the City's requirements for keeping the public way clean. NOISE. Permittee shall control noise in accordance with the Salt Lake County Health Department Noise Ordinance. CLEANUP. Remove all equipment, material, barricades and similar items from the right of way. Areas used for storage of excavated material will be smoothed and returned to their original contour. Vacuum sweeping or hand sweeping is required when Engineer determines cleaning equipment is ineffective. CONFORMANCE TO ENGINEERING REGULATIONS. All provisions of Salt Lake City Engineering Regulation 5¬R¬4, "Regulations for Controlling Construction in the City's Public Way", and other pertinent Engineering Regulations, will be adhered to. Engineering Regulations can be obtained in the office of the City Engineer, 349 South 200 East, Suite 100, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111. TRAFFIC INTERRUPTION. Construction operations will be conducted in a manner to minimize the amount of interference or interruption of roadway traffic. Except during emergency conditions or unless authorized by the Engineer, construction operations such as excavation, backfill and pavement restoration on major/collector and CBD streets are prohibited during peak traffic hours of 7:00 to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. TRAFFIC CONTROL MANUAL. All provisions of the current "Traffic Control Manual" shall be adhered to. This manual provides regulations concerning traffic control construction barricades, road closures, public and private access, traffic control signing, traffic control in Central Business Area and traffic control devices. EMERGENCY INFORMATION. Permittee shall clearly post on barricades in letters not less than two inches (2 in.) high emergency information consisting of the name and emergency telephone number of the permittee, and the permittee shall cause at least one such barricade per block to be erected at every job site until the work is complete and formally accepted by the City. STREET EXCAVATION IN WINTER. Excavation of City Streets during the winter months (herein defined as November 15 to April 1) will be allowed only if the work is a new service connection, required maintenance or emergency, or otherwise approved by the Engineer. Permanent patching of City streets excavated in the winter may be delayed until April 1, provided the permittee provides and maintains a temporary asphalt surface until such time as the permanent surfacing is accomplished. PRECONSTRUCTION PICTURES OF EXISTING PUBLIC WAY IMPROVEMENTS. Prior to commencing the permit work, the permittee is encouraged to secure pictures of the conditions of the existing public way improvements such as curbing, sidewalk, landscaping, asphalt surfaces, etc. TIME LIMIT. Unless authorized otherwise by the Engineer on the permit, all paving and replacement of street facilities shall be done within seven (7) calendar days from the time the excavation commences, or within three (3) calendar days on major or collector streets from the time excavation commences, except as provided for during excavation in winter or during weather conditions that do not allow paving according to applicable standards and specifications. If work is expected to exceed the above duration, the permittee shall submit a detailed construction schedule for approval. The schedule will address means and methods to minimize traffic disruption and complete the construction as soon as possible. EXCAVATION WITHIN 10 FEET OF STREET TREES. Before commencing excavation activities, Permittee shall contact Salt Lake City Urban Forestry (801) 535-7818 for an inspection. PERMIT NUMBER: ENG2020-02422SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION ENGINEERING DIVISION 349 SOUTH 200 EAST, SUITE 100 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 PHONE (801) 535-6248 FAX (801) 535-6093 engpermit@slcgov.com PERMIT TO WORK IN THE PUBLIC WAY Assigned Inspector: Jack Crockett Office Phone: 801.703.5964 Cell Phone: Job Address:Contractor Phone Numbers:1183 E HERBERT Ave Phone1: Phone2: FAX: Applicant Name: Business Name: CDM FEDERAL PROGRAMS CORPORATION Mailing Address: SALT LAKE CITY, UT Traffic Control Plan Starting and Ending Dates Fee Barricade Manual Figure No.: TA6 Begin Date:11/09/2020 Total Fee:$123.75 Traffic Permit Number:TRN2020-02820, 2821, 2822 Expiration Date: 11/27/2020 Certificate of Insurance as Per City Ordinance – Chapter 14.32.065 Number:TB7611B8T8Z6040T Bonds As Per City Ordinance – Chapter 14.32.070 Number:9340850 State Contractors License As Per City Ordinance – Chapter 14.32.025 Number: Work Type:Test Bore Drawing Included:Yes APWA Standard: Comments or Additional Requirements: Installation of 3 monitoring wells. 1183 E Herbert 752 S 1000 E 647 S 1200 E Notice: Work shall be completed within 30 days from the date the permit is granted unless extended by the City Engineer. CALL 24 HOURS BEFORE COMMENCING WORK (535-6727) for Public Utility inspections or assigned inspector for all other inspections) or 48 hours if work is scheduled on holidays and weekends. Contact Urban Forestry 972-7818, 48 hours prior of work to be done if work impacts a city tree. BEFORE EXCAVATION CONTACT BLUE STAKES – 811 or 1-800-662-4111 PERMIT APPLICATION:Application is hereby made for a permit to work in the public way as specified above. Applicant agrees to the terms on the reverse side and to any increase in fees should they be required by Engineering. Print name of Applicant: Signature of Applicant: Date: 11/10/2020 Joe Miller Permit Issued By: CJ9250 ** WORK GUARANTEED - 3 YEARS FROM ACCEPTANCE DATE ** GENERAL CONDITIONS ACCEPTANCE OF CONDITIONS. It is understood and agreed by the Permittee that performing any work under this permit constitutes acceptance of Title 14 Chapter 32 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City and the City's Regulations for controlling construction, excavation and obstructions in the Public Right ¬of ¬Way, latest revision. PROXIMATE WORK. Applicant agrees that no other work shall be done under this permit except that specifically set forth herein. It is the applicants responsibility to verify the exact location of city and private facilities prior to commencing excavation operations. PERMIT AND DRAWINGS AT JOB SITE. The permittee shall have at the work site a copy of the permit, the traffic control plan, and the City approved drawings. NOTIFICATION. Notify the assigned inspector 24 hours before commencing work. Provide the following information: permit number, name and telephone number of permittee, date/time work is to commence, location of work and any other information which may be relevant to the work. CONFORMANCE TO EXISTING LAWS AND CITY SPECIFICATIONS. Permittee agrees to be fully informed of all federal, state and local laws, ordinances, rules, regulations, and City Construction Specifications which, in any manner, affect the work, and at all times shall observe and comply with such laws, ordinances, rules, regulations and specifications. The City Engineer reserves the right to shut down and/or issue a citation for violation of these provisions. ENVIRONMENTAL LIABILITY. Permittee agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless Salt Lake City, its officers, agents and employees against any claims, losses, damages, or expenses, including, without limitation, any fees or penalties imposed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the Utah State Department of Environmental Protection Agency, the Utah State Department of Environmental Quality or any other government or regulatory agency and any attorney's fees or costs sustained on account of, or related to, the presence, release, discovery or creation of hazardous wastes or similar materials as those materials are defined under applicable federal or state statutes or regulations, including, without limitation, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976. STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS AND STANDARD DRAWINGS. Comply with all Salt Lake City Standard Specifications and Standard Drawings for cutting surface, traffic control, backfill, compaction, selection of subgrade materials, asphalt and concrete surfacing requirements. Printed copies of the Regulations and Specifications can be obtained through the City Engineer's Office. WARRANTY. Permittee shall guarantee the worksite restoration for a period of three years from completion and acceptance of the work, reasonable wear and tear excepted. SPECIAL CONDITIONS EXCAVATION OPERATIONS BLUE STAKES. Before commencing excavation operations, Permittee shall call "Blue Stakes" at 811 TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES. Traffic control devices must be in place before excavation begins. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL DUST AND DEBRIS. Keep dust and debris controlled at the work site at all times. If necessary, wet down dusty areas with water and provide containers for debris. WHEEL CLEANING ORDINANCE. Conform to Section 18.20.210 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, 1987. The ordinance describes the City's requirements for keeping the public way clean. NOISE. Permittee shall control noise in accordance with the Salt Lake County Health Department Noise Ordinance. CLEANUP. Remove all equipment, material, barricades and similar items from the right of way. Areas used for storage of excavated material will be smoothed and returned to their original contour. Vacuum sweeping or hand sweeping is required when Engineer determines cleaning equipment is ineffective. CONFORMANCE TO ENGINEERING REGULATIONS. All provisions of Salt Lake City Engineering Regulation 5¬R¬4, "Regulations for Controlling Construction in the City's Public Way", and other pertinent Engineering Regulations, will be adhered to. Engineering Regulations can be obtained in the office of the City Engineer, 349 South 200 East, Suite 100, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111. TRAFFIC INTERRUPTION. Construction operations will be conducted in a manner to minimize the amount of interference or interruption of roadway traffic. Except during emergency conditions or unless authorized by the Engineer, construction operations such as excavation, backfill and pavement restoration on major/collector and CBD streets are prohibited during peak traffic hours of 7:00 to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. TRAFFIC CONTROL MANUAL. All provisions of the current "Traffic Control Manual" shall be adhered to. This manual provides regulations concerning traffic control construction barricades, road closures, public and private access, traffic control signing, traffic control in Central Business Area and traffic control devices. EMERGENCY INFORMATION. Permittee shall clearly post on barricades in letters not less than two inches (2 in.) high emergency information consisting of the name and emergency telephone number of the permittee, and the permittee shall cause at least one such barricade per block to be erected at every job site until the work is complete and formally accepted by the City. STREET EXCAVATION IN WINTER. Excavation of City Streets during the winter months (herein defined as November 15 to April 1) will be allowed only if the work is a new service connection, required maintenance or emergency, or otherwise approved by the Engineer. Permanent patching of City streets excavated in the winter may be delayed until April 1, provided the permittee provides and maintains a temporary asphalt surface until such time as the permanent surfacing is accomplished. PRECONSTRUCTION PICTURES OF EXISTING PUBLIC WAY IMPROVEMENTS. Prior to commencing the permit work, the permittee is encouraged to secure pictures of the conditions of the existing public way improvements such as curbing, sidewalk, landscaping, asphalt surfaces, etc. TIME LIMIT. Unless authorized otherwise by the Engineer on the permit, all paving and replacement of street facilities shall be done within seven (7) calendar days from the time the excavation commences, or within three (3) calendar days on major or collector streets from the time excavation commences, except as provided for during excavation in winter or during weather conditions that do not allow paving according to applicable standards and specifications. If work is expected to exceed the above duration, the permittee shall submit a detailed construction schedule for approval. The schedule will address means and methods to minimize traffic disruption and complete the construction as soon as possible. WORK SHALL COMPLY WITH PART 6 OF THE 2009 MUTCD. PERMITS MUST BE EXTENDED 24 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF EXPIRATION. IF THE TRAFFIC CONTROL PERMIT IS ALLOWED TO EXPIRE, A NEW PERMIT, AND AN ADDITIONAL FEE WILL BE REQUIRED. CLOSURES ON A DIFFERENT STREET THAN LISTED WILL REQUIRE AN ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC CONTROL, AND ENGINEERING PERMIT. THE ORGANIZATION ISSUED THE TRAFFIC CONTROL PERMIT SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL BARRICADE PLACEMENT AND MAINTENENCE. AN ADDITIONAL PERMIT FROM SLC ENGINEERING MAY ALSO BE REQUIRED. SHALL MAINTAIN ACCESS TO ALL PROPERTIES. SHALL INFORM BUSINESSES & RESIDENTS OF PROJECT & DURATION. SHALL COORDINATE WITH BUSINESSES & RESIDENTS AFFECTED. SHALL OBTAIN A PERMIT FOR ALL PARKING METERS OR OTHER RESTRICTED PARKING MADE UNAVAILBABLE TO THE PUBLIC. TRAFFIC CONTROL PERMITS ARE NOT VALID UNTIL PAID IN FULL. CHANGES TO PERMIT MAY BE REQUIRED AND MADE UPON REVIEW and/or COMPLAINT. Traffic Control Permit Salt Lake City Community and Neighborhoods Division of Transportation 349 South 200 East #150 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Telephone (801) 535-6630 E-Mail TechPermit@slcgov.com Permit # TRN2020-02820 Organization Name: CDM Federal Programs Corp Address: 10560 Arrowhead Drive Suite 500 Fairfax, 22030 Contact Person: Joseph Miller Phone: 3033832328 Cell: 5136021619 Barricade Company: Barricade Phone: Project Name / Description: Monitoring well installation for 700 S 1600 E PCE Plume site. Parking lane closure with minor encroachment Block Party Permit # General Work Type: Staging Specific Work Type: Excavation City Project # Public Way Permit # Special Event Permit # Start Date End Date Full Road Closure? Barricade Manual Fig # Description 11/09/2020 11/27/2020 No TA-6 Closure of parking lane with minor encroachment. Closure Type On Street Name From Number To Number Side of Street Street Herbert 1177 1183 N Page 1 of 1 Approved By: Joseph Jacobsen Issue Date: 11/4/2020 WORK SHALL COMPLY WITH PART 6 OF THE 2009 MUTCD. PERMITS MUST BE EXTENDED 24 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF EXPIRATION. IF THE TRAFFIC CONTROL PERMIT IS ALLOWED TO EXPIRE, A NEW PERMIT, AND AN ADDITIONAL FEE WILL BE REQUIRED. CLOSURES ON A DIFFERENT STREET THAN LISTED WILL REQUIRE AN ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC CONTROL, AND ENGINEERING PERMIT. THE ORGANIZATION ISSUED THE TRAFFIC CONTROL PERMIT SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL BARRICADE PLACEMENT AND MAINTENENCE. AN ADDITIONAL PERMIT FROM SLC ENGINEERING MAY ALSO BE REQUIRED. SHALL MAINTAIN ACCESS TO ALL PROPERTIES. SHALL INFORM BUSINESSES & RESIDENTS OF PROJECT & DURATION. SHALL COORDINATE WITH BUSINESSES & RESIDENTS AFFECTED. SHALL OBTAIN A PERMIT FOR ALL PARKING METERS OR OTHER RESTRICTED PARKING MADE UNAVAILBABLE TO THE PUBLIC. TRAFFIC CONTROL PERMITS ARE NOT VALID UNTIL PAID IN FULL. CHANGES TO PERMIT MAY BE REQUIRED AND MADE UPON REVIEW and/or COMPLAINT. Traffic Control Permit Salt Lake City Community and Neighborhoods Division of Transportation 349 South 200 East #150 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Telephone (801) 535-6630 E-Mail TechPermit@slcgov.com Permit # TRN2020-02821 Organization Name: CDM Federal Programs Corp Address: 10560 Arrowhead Drive Suite 500 Fairfax, 22030 Contact Person: Joseph Miller Phone: 3033832328 Cell: 5136021619 Barricade Company: Barricade Phone: Project Name / Description: Work area will be sidewalk and planting strip on west side 1000 E south of Lowell. Block Party Permit # General Work Type: Staging Specific Work Type: Excavation City Project # Public Way Permit # Special Event Permit # Start Date End Date Full Road Closure? Barricade Manual Fig # Description Special Requirements 11/09/2020 11/20/2020 No TA-6 Closure of parking lane on west side of 1000 E. Sidewalk Closure for 70'. Closure Type On Street Name From Number To Number Side of Street Street S 1000 E 746 752 W Page 1 of 1 Approved By: Joseph Jacobsen Issue Date: 11/4/2020 WORK SHALL COMPLY WITH PART 6 OF THE 2009 MUTCD. PERMITS MUST BE EXTENDED 24 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF EXPIRATION. IF THE TRAFFIC CONTROL PERMIT IS ALLOWED TO EXPIRE, A NEW PERMIT, AND AN ADDITIONAL FEE WILL BE REQUIRED. CLOSURES ON A DIFFERENT STREET THAN LISTED WILL REQUIRE AN ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC CONTROL, AND ENGINEERING PERMIT. THE ORGANIZATION ISSUED THE TRAFFIC CONTROL PERMIT SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL BARRICADE PLACEMENT AND MAINTENENCE. AN ADDITIONAL PERMIT FROM SLC ENGINEERING MAY ALSO BE REQUIRED. SHALL MAINTAIN ACCESS TO ALL PROPERTIES. SHALL INFORM BUSINESSES & RESIDENTS OF PROJECT & DURATION. SHALL COORDINATE WITH BUSINESSES & RESIDENTS AFFECTED. SHALL OBTAIN A PERMIT FOR ALL PARKING METERS OR OTHER RESTRICTED PARKING MADE UNAVAILBABLE TO THE PUBLIC. TRAFFIC CONTROL PERMITS ARE NOT VALID UNTIL PAID IN FULL. CHANGES TO PERMIT MAY BE REQUIRED AND MADE UPON REVIEW and/or COMPLAINT. Traffic Control Permit Salt Lake City Community and Neighborhoods Division of Transportation 349 South 200 East #150 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Telephone (801) 535-6630 E-Mail TechPermit@slcgov.com Permit # TRN2020-02822 Organization Name: CDM Federal Programs Corp Address: 10560 Arrowhead Drive Suite 500 Fairfax, 22030 Contact Person: Joseph Miller Phone: 3033832328 Cell: 5136021619 Barricade Company: Barricade Phone: Project Name / Description: Work area for monitoring well installation on east side of S 1200 E, north of 700 S. Block Party Permit # General Work Type: Staging Specific Work Type: Excavation City Project # Public Way Permit # Special Event Permit # Start Date End Date Full Road Closure? Barricade Manual Fig # Description 11/09/2020 11/20/2020 No TA-6 Parking lane closure with minor encroachment. Closure Type On Street Name From Number To Number Side of Street Street S 1200 E 647 659 E Page 1 of 1 Approved By: Joseph Jacobsen Issue Date: 11/4/2020 WORK SHALL COMPLY WITH PART 6 OF THE 2009 MUTCD. PERMITS MUST BE EXTENDED 24 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF EXPIRATION. IF THE TRAFFIC CONTROL PERMIT IS ALLOWED TO EXPIRE, A NEW PERMIT, AND AN ADDITIONAL FEE WILL BE REQUIRED. CLOSURES ON A DIFFERENT STREET THAN LISTED WILL REQUIRE AN ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC CONTROL, AND ENGINEERING PERMIT. THE ORGANIZATION ISSUED THE TRAFFIC CONTROL PERMIT SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL BARRICADE PLACEMENT AND MAINTENENCE. AN ADDITIONAL PERMIT FROM SLC ENGINEERING MAY ALSO BE REQUIRED. SHALL MAINTAIN ACCESS TO ALL PROPERTIES. SHALL INFORM BUSINESSES & RESIDENTS OF PROJECT & DURATION. SHALL COORDINATE WITH BUSINESSES & RESIDENTS AFFECTED. SHALL OBTAIN A PERMIT FOR ALL PARKING METERS OR OTHER RESTRICTED PARKING MADE UNAVAILBABLE TO THE PUBLIC. TRAFFIC CONTROL PERMITS ARE NOT VALID UNTIL PAID IN FULL. CHANGES TO PERMIT MAY BE REQUIRED AND MADE UPON REVIEW and/or COMPLAINT. Traffic Control Permit Salt Lake City Community and Neighborhoods Division of Transportation 349 South 200 East #150 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Telephone (801) 535-6630 E-Mail TechPermit@slcgov.com Permit # TRN2020-02973 Organization Name: CDM Federal Programs Corp Address: 10560 Arrowhead Drive Suite 500 Fairfax, 22030 Contact Person: Joseph Miller Phone: 3033832328 Cell: 5136021619 Barricade Company: Barricade Phone: Project Name / Description: Equipment staging for monitoring well installation in planting strip near the curb. Block Party Permit # General Work Type: Staging Specific Work Type: Excavation City Project # Public Way Permit # Special Event Permit # Start Date End Date Full Road Closure? Barricade Manual Fig # Description 12/01/2020 12/08/2020 No TA-6 Parking lane closure for equipment staging for monitoring well installation in planting strip north of the curb Closure Type On Street Name From Number To Number Side of Street Street E 900 S 1217 1235 N Page 1 of 1 Approved By: Joseph Jacobsen Issue Date: 11/23/2020 Appendix F Salt Lake City VHA Daily Excavation Checklists Appendix G Borehole Logs with Well Construction Diagrams 5.0 6.0 7.0 12.0 12.7 16.5 20.0 No recovery. Hand augered to 5 ft bgs. Silty SAND: brown (10YR 5/4); 70% fine sand, poorly graded; 30% silt; loose; moist. Sandy SILT: yellowish brown (10YR 5/4); 60% silt; 40% sand; soft; moist. Sandy CLAY: mottled gray and light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/3); 80% clay; 20% fine sand; stiff; cohesive; moist. Silty SAND: yellowish brown (10YR 5/4); 70% sand, poorly graded, fine to coarse; 30% silt; loose; wet. SAND: yellowish brown (10YR 5/4); fine to coarse, poorly graded; loose; wet. Silty GRAVEL with Sand: reddish brown (5YR 4/3); 60% gravel, fine to coarse, subangular to subrounded; 20% silt; 20% sand, fine to coarse; medium dense; cohesive in places; wet. 0.528 0.371 0.138 0.182 0.135 0.254 Flush-mounted vault (10-inch). Hydrated bentonite chips (2 to 147 ft bgs). 2-inch SCH 40 PVC blank. 0 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.1 SM ML CL SM SP GM WELL DIAGRAMLITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION PI D ( p p m ) CO N T A C T DE P T H DE P T H (f t . B G L ) EX T E N T U. S . C . S . SA M P L E I D . GR A P H I C LO G Ma g n e t i c Su s c e p t i b i l i t y GROUT TYPE/QUANTITY Sonic Grab GROUND ELEVATION (FT MSL) TOP OF CASING (FT MSL) 4463.84 CASING TYPE/DIAMETER Joe Miller Salt Lake City, UT GRAVEL PACK TYPE Sonic SCREEN TYPE/SLOT LOGGED BY DRILLING METHOD SAMPLING METHOD 19.83 LOCATION 2-inch Schedule 40 0.020-slot #10/20 sand REMARKS 4483.67 4483.23 Groundwater measured while drilling GROUND WATER ELEVATION (FT MSL) DEPTH TO WATER (FT BGS) Hydrated Bentonite Chips 2-inch Schedule 40 PVC 12/2/2020 - 12/3/2020 5 10 15 20 700 S 1600 E PCE Plume BORING/WELL NUMBER Continued Next Page 238824.6495-F3048-005.DRILL BORING/WELL CONSTRUCTION LOG 555 17th Street, Suite 500 Denver, CO 80202 (303) 383-2300 PROJECT NAME MW-13L PAGE 1 OF 8 DATE DRILLED PROJECT NUMBER WH I T N E Y ' S B O R I N G L O G S L C V A P L U M E D R A F T D E C 2 0 2 0 _ W T J M . G P J L A E W N N 0 1 . G D T 3 / 1 0 / 2 1 21.5 25.0 28.0 30.0 37.0 40.0 Silty SAND: reddish brown (5YR 4/3); 60% sand, poorly graded, fine to coarse; 40% silt; cohesive; compact; wet. At 24.5 feet bgs, trace gravel. Silty GRAVEL with Sand: reddish brown (5YR 4/3); 70% gravel, fine to coarse; 20% silt; 10% sand; compact; cohesive; wet. SAND: reddish brown (5YR 4/3); 60% sand, well graded, fine to coarse, subangular to subrounded; 40% gravel, fine to coarse, loose; wet. Silty GRAVEL with Sand: reddish brown (5YR 4/3); 50% gravel, fine to coarse, subangular to subrounded; 30% silt; 20% sand; compact; cohesive in places; wet. At 33.3 feet bgs, increase in sand content, decrease in silt content. At 34.5 feet bgs, decrease in sand content, increase in silt content. Clayey SILT: reddish brown (7.5YR 5/4); 100% fines, low to medium plasticity; firm to stiff; cohesive; moist to wet. At 39 feet bgs, trace sand, wet. Sandy SILT: reddish brown (7.5YR 5/4); 80% silt, low plasticity; 20% sand; stiff; moist to wet. 0.085 0.112 0.103 0.062 0.58 0.78 0.123 0.998 0.962 Hydrated bentonite chips (2 to 147 ft bgs). 2-inch SCH 40 PVC blank. 0.7 0.4 1.1 0.7 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.5 GM SM GM SW GM ML ML WELL DIAGRAMLITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION PI D ( p p m ) CO N T A C T DE P T H DE P T H (f t . B G L ) EX T E N T U. S . C . S . SA M P L E I D . GR A P H I C LO G Ma g n e t i c Su s c e p t i b i l i t y Continued from Previous Page 12/2/2020 - 12/3/2020 25 30 35 40 700 S 1600 E PCE Plume BORING/WELL NUMBER Continued Next Page 238824.6495-F3048-005.DRILL BORING/WELL CONSTRUCTION LOG 555 17th Street, Suite 500 Denver, CO 80202 (303) 383-2300 PROJECT NAME MW-13L PAGE 2 OF 8 DATE DRILLED PROJECT NUMBER WH I T N E Y ' S B O R I N G L O G S L C V A P L U M E D R A F T D E C 2 0 2 0 _ W T J M . G P J L A E W N N 0 1 . G D T 3 / 1 0 / 2 1 43.0 45.0 50.0 52.0 52.8 54.0 58.5 60.0 63.0 At 44 feet bgs, trace fine gravel. Silty GRAVEL: reddish brown (5YR 5/4); 60% gravel, fine to coarse, subangular to subrounded; 30% silt; 10% sand, fine to coarse; cohesive in places; compact; wet. At 48 feet bgs, large clasts. At 49.5 feet bgs, less moisture. SAND: brown (7.5YR 4/4); 90% sand, poorly graded, fine to coarse; 10% fine gravel; loose; wet. Clayey GRAVEL: brown (7.5YR 4/4); 70% coarse gravel; 30% clay; dense; moist. SAND with Gravel: light reddish brown (5YR 6/4); 85% fine sand, poorly graded; 15% fine gravel; loose; moist. Clayey GRAVEL: brown (7.5YR 4/4); 70% gravel, fine to coarse; 30% clay; dense; moist to wet. At 57.5 feet bgs, increase in moisture. CLAY: brown (7.5YR 4/4); low to medium plasticity clay; stiff; cohesive; dry to moist. Clayey SILT: brown (7.5YR 5/4); low to medium plasticity; stiff; cohesive; moist. CLAY: brown (7.5YR 5/4); lean clay; very stiff; cohesive; cemented in places; dry to moist. 0.335 0.128 0.334 0.543 0.351 0.478 0.682 0.262 0.274 Hydrated bentonite chips (2 to 147 ft bgs). 2-inch SCH 40 PVC blank. 0.4 0.4 1 1 0.5 2.1 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.7 ML GM SP GC SP GC CL ML CL WELL DIAGRAMLITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION PI D ( p p m ) CO N T A C T DE P T H DE P T H (f t . B G L ) EX T E N T U. S . C . S . SA M P L E I D . GR A P H I C LO G Ma g n e t i c Su s c e p t i b i l i t y Continued from Previous Page 12/2/2020 - 12/3/2020 45 50 55 60 65 700 S 1600 E PCE Plume BORING/WELL NUMBER Continued Next Page 238824.6495-F3048-005.DRILL BORING/WELL CONSTRUCTION LOG 555 17th Street, Suite 500 Denver, CO 80202 (303) 383-2300 PROJECT NAME MW-13L PAGE 3 OF 8 DATE DRILLED PROJECT NUMBER WH I T N E Y ' S B O R I N G L O G S L C V A P L U M E D R A F T D E C 2 0 2 0 _ W T J M . G P J L A E W N N 0 1 . G D T 3 / 1 0 / 2 1 66.0 67.0 68.0 74.5 79.0 80.0 87.0 SAND with Gravel: light reddish brown (5YR 6/4); 85% sand, poorly graded, fine to coarse; 15% gravel, fine to coarse; dry. Clayey SILT: brown (7.5YR 5/4); low to medium plasticity; firm to stiff; cohesive; moist. At 72 feet bgs, wet sandy lens. Clayey GRAVEL: brown (7.5YR 5/4); 70% gravel, fine to coarse, subrounded to rounded; 30% clay; dense; cohesive; moist. Sandy SILT: brown (7.5YR 5/4); 60% silt; 40% sand; trace fine gravel; firm; cohesive; moist; wet in places. Sandy SILT: light brown (7.5YR 6/4); 70% silt, low plasticity; 30% sand; firm; cohesive; moist. Clayey SILT: light brown (7.5YR 6/4); low to medium plasticity; 10% sand; firm; cohesive; moist. 0.273 0.218 0.38 0.582 0.542 0.243 0.379 0.515 0.507 Hydrated bentonite chips (2 to 147 ft bgs). 2-inch SCH 40 PVC blank. 0.8 0.9 1.2 1 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.2 CL SP ML GC ML ML ML WELL DIAGRAMLITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION PI D ( p p m ) CO N T A C T DE P T H DE P T H (f t . B G L ) EX T E N T U. S . C . S . SA M P L E I D . GR A P H I C LO G Ma g n e t i c Su s c e p t i b i l i t y Continued from Previous Page 12/2/2020 - 12/3/2020 70 75 80 85 700 S 1600 E PCE Plume BORING/WELL NUMBER Continued Next Page 238824.6495-F3048-005.DRILL BORING/WELL CONSTRUCTION LOG 555 17th Street, Suite 500 Denver, CO 80202 (303) 383-2300 PROJECT NAME MW-13L PAGE 4 OF 8 DATE DRILLED PROJECT NUMBER WH I T N E Y ' S B O R I N G L O G S L C V A P L U M E D R A F T D E C 2 0 2 0 _ W T J M . G P J L A E W N N 0 1 . G D T 3 / 1 0 / 2 1 89.0 90.0 91.5 94.8 104.0 111.0 SILT with Sand and Gravel: light brown (7.5YR 6/4); 60% silt; 20% sand; 20% gravel; firm; cohesive; moist to wet. Gravelly CLAY: light brown (7.5YR 6/4); low to medium plasticity; moist. At 94.25 feet bgs, large clast. CLAY: light brown (7.5YR 6/4); 80% clay, low to medium plasticity; 10% sand, fine to coarse; 10% gravel, fine to coarse; firm to stiff; cohesive; moist. CLAY: light olive brown (2.5Y 5/3); lean clay; trace fine gravel; hard; cohesive; dry. 0.604 0.395 0.282 0.61 0.226 0.448 0.222 0.118 0.131 0.093 Hydrated bentonite chips (2 to 147 ft bgs). 2-inch SCH 40 PVC blank. 1 1.8 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.8 2.1 1 0.6 1.7 ML ML CL CL CL WELL DIAGRAMLITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION PI D ( p p m ) CO N T A C T DE P T H DE P T H (f t . B G L ) EX T E N T U. S . C . S . SA M P L E I D . GR A P H I C LO G Ma g n e t i c Su s c e p t i b i l i t y Continued from Previous Page 12/2/2020 - 12/3/2020 90 95 100 105 110 700 S 1600 E PCE Plume BORING/WELL NUMBER Continued Next Page 238824.6495-F3048-005.DRILL BORING/WELL CONSTRUCTION LOG 555 17th Street, Suite 500 Denver, CO 80202 (303) 383-2300 PROJECT NAME MW-13L PAGE 5 OF 8 DATE DRILLED PROJECT NUMBER WH I T N E Y ' S B O R I N G L O G S L C V A P L U M E D R A F T D E C 2 0 2 0 _ W T J M . G P J L A E W N N 0 1 . G D T 3 / 1 0 / 2 1 113.0 116.5 124.0 124.5 125.0 126.0 131.5 CLAY with Sand: light olive brown (2.5Y 5/3) with brown mottling; 85% lean clay, low to medium plasticity; 15% sand; trace silt; laminated; firm to stiff; cohesive; moist. CLAY: light olive brown (2.5Y 5/3) with brown mottling; lean clay, low to medium plasticity; hard; cohesive; dry. At 122.25 feet bgs, increase in silt. Silty SAND: pale brown (10YR 6/3); 70% fine sand, poorly graded; 30% silt; loose; moist to wet. Sample is closer to wet than moist, but not saturated. Sandy SILT: light olive brown with brown mottling; low plasticity; moist to wet. Silty SAND: pale brown (10YR 6/3); 70% fine sand, poorly graded; 30% silt; loose; moist to wet. Sample is closer to wet than moist, but not saturated. Sandy SILT: pale brown (10YR 6/3) with trace iron oxide staining in places; 70% silt, low plasticity; 30% sand; laminated; firm to stiff; cohesive; moist. At 130.3 feet bgs, increase in clay. Sandy SILT: brown (7.5YR 4/4); 70% silt; 30% sand; laminated; firm to stiff; cohesive; moist to wet. 0.092 0.082 0.126 0.171 0.343 0.508 0.141 0.118 0.802 Hydrated bentonite chips (2 to 147 ft bgs). 2-inch SCH 40 PVC blank. 1.8 2.1 1.7 1.2 1.5 1.5 1.3 1.8 CL CL CL SM ML SM ML ML WELL DIAGRAMLITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION PI D ( p p m ) CO N T A C T DE P T H DE P T H (f t . B G L ) EX T E N T U. S . C . S . SA M P L E I D . GR A P H I C LO G Ma g n e t i c Su s c e p t i b i l i t y Continued from Previous Page 12/2/2020 - 12/3/2020 115 120 125 130 700 S 1600 E PCE Plume BORING/WELL NUMBER Continued Next Page 238824.6495-F3048-005.DRILL BORING/WELL CONSTRUCTION LOG 555 17th Street, Suite 500 Denver, CO 80202 (303) 383-2300 PROJECT NAME MW-13L PAGE 6 OF 8 DATE DRILLED PROJECT NUMBER WH I T N E Y ' S B O R I N G L O G S L C V A P L U M E D R A F T D E C 2 0 2 0 _ W T J M . G P J L A E W N N 0 1 . G D T 3 / 1 0 / 2 1 134.5 135.5 137.0 146.5 148.0 150.0 153.0 156.0 157.0 Sandy SILT: brown (7.5YR 4/4); 60% silt; 30% sand; 10% fine gravel; moist to wet. Silty SAND: brown (7.5YR 4/4); 60% sand, fine to coarse; 30% silt; 10% fine gravel; dense; wet. SILT with SAND: brown (7.5YR 4/4); 70% silt; 20% sand; 10% gravel; moist. At 140 feet bgs, less gravel. Gravelly SILT: brown (7.5YR 5/5); 60% silt; 40% gravel, fine to coarse; stiff; cohesive; moist to wet. At 147.5 feet bgs, less stiff and wetter. SILT with Gravel: brown (7.5YR 5/5); 85% silt; 15% gravel; stiff; cohesive; moist. Sandy SILT: brown (7.5YR 5/4); 60% silt, low plasticity; 40% sand, fine to coarse; trace fine gravel; firm; cohesive; moist to wet. At 152.5 feet bgs, increase in gravel. SILT with Sand: brown (7.5YR 5/5); 85% silt; 15% sand; firm to stiff; cohesive; moist to wet. GRAVEL with Sand and Silt: brown (7.5YR 5/4); 50% gravel; poorly graded, fine to coarse, subangular to subrounded; 35% sand, fine to coarse; 15% silt; saturated; wet. 0.273 0.446 0.265 0.416 0.612 Hydrated bentonite chips (2 to 147 ft bgs). 2-inch SCH 40 PVC blank. #10/20 sand filter pack (147 to 160 ft bgs). 2-inch SCH 40 PVC 0.020-slot screen (150 to 160 ft bgs). 1.6 1.9 1.6 2.5 1.9 1.8 2.9 2.1 2.2 2.4 ML SM ML ML ML ML ML GM WELL DIAGRAMLITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION PI D ( p p m ) CO N T A C T DE P T H DE P T H (f t . B G L ) EX T E N T U. S . C . S . SA M P L E I D . GR A P H I C LO G Ma g n e t i c Su s c e p t i b i l i t y Continued from Previous Page 12/2/2020 - 12/3/2020 135 140 145 150 155 700 S 1600 E PCE Plume BORING/WELL NUMBER Continued Next Page 238824.6495-F3048-005.DRILL BORING/WELL CONSTRUCTION LOG 555 17th Street, Suite 500 Denver, CO 80202 (303) 383-2300 PROJECT NAME MW-13L PAGE 7 OF 8 DATE DRILLED PROJECT NUMBER WH I T N E Y ' S B O R I N G L O G S L C V A P L U M E D R A F T D E C 2 0 2 0 _ W T J M . G P J L A E W N N 0 1 . G D T 3 / 1 0 / 2 1 160.0 At 158 feet bgs, decrease in silt. End of boring at 160 feet bgs. 0.1052.7 GM WELL DIAGRAMLITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION PI D ( p p m ) CO N T A C T DE P T H DE P T H (f t . B G L ) EX T E N T U. S . C . S . SA M P L E I D . GR A P H I C LO G Ma g n e t i c Su s c e p t i b i l i t y Continued from Previous Page 12/2/2020 - 12/3/2020 160 700 S 1600 E PCE Plume BORING/WELL NUMBER238824.6495-F3048-005.DRILL BORING/WELL CONSTRUCTION LOG 555 17th Street, Suite 500 Denver, CO 80202 (303) 383-2300 PROJECT NAME MW-13L PAGE 8 OF 8 DATE DRILLED PROJECT NUMBER WH I T N E Y ' S B O R I N G L O G S L C V A P L U M E D R A F T D E C 2 0 2 0 _ W T J M . G P J L A E W N N 0 1 . G D T 3 / 1 0 / 2 1 9.0 18.5 20.0 No recovery. Hydrovac to 9 ft bgs. Silty SAND: dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/6); 50% sand, well graded, fine to coarse, subangular to subrounded; 30% silt, non-plastic; 20% gravel and cobbles, well graded, fine to coarse, subrounded, maximum diameter is 4 inches; dry. At 10 feet bgs, cobbles are up to 6 inches. At 12 feet bgs, color changes to yellowish red (5YR 5/6). At 13 feet bgs, color changes to brown (7.5YR 4/4). At 16 feet bgs, cobbles are up to 7 inches. Silty SAND: brown (7.5YR 5/4); 45% sand, poorly graded, fine to coarse, mostly fine, subangular to subrounded; 40% silt, non-plastic; 15% gravel, poorly graded, fine to coarse, mostly fine, subrounded to subangular, maximum diameter is 4 0.009 0.236 Flush-mounted vault (10-inch). Pea gravel (2 to 8 ft bgs) Hydrated bentonite chips (8 to 237 ft bgs). 2-inch SCH 40 PVC blank. 0 0 0 0 0 0 SM SM WELL DIAGRAMLITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION PI D ( p p m ) CO N T A C T DE P T H DE P T H (f t . B G L ) EX T E N T U. S . C . S . SA M P L E I D . GR A P H I C LO G Ma g n e t i c Su s c e p t i b i l i t y GROUT TYPE/QUANTITY Sonic Grab GROUND ELEVATION (FT MSL) TOP OF CASING (FT MSL) CASING TYPE/DIAMETER Whitney Treadway Salt Lake City, UT GRAVEL PACK TYPE Sonic SCREEN TYPE/SLOT LOGGED BY DRILLING METHOD SAMPLING METHOD A: 227.57 B: 229.56 LOCATION 2-inch Schedule 40 0.020-slot #10/20 sand REMARKS 4722.89 A: 4722.60 B: 4722.36 Groundwater measured after installation. GROUND WATER ELEVATION (FT MSL) DEPTH TO WATER (FT BGS) Hydrated Bentonite Chips 2-inch Schedule 40 PVC 11/5/2020 - 11/10/2020 5 10 15 20 700 S 1600 E PCE Plume BORING/WELL NUMBER Continued Next Page 238824.6495-F3048-005.DRILL BORING/WELL CONSTRUCTION LOG 555 17th Street, Suite 500 Denver, CO 80202 (303) 383-2300 PROJECT NAME MW-30R PAGE 1 OF 14 DATE DRILLED PROJECT NUMBER WH I T N E Y ' S B O R I N G L O G S L C V A P L U M E D R A F T D E C 2 0 2 0 _ W T J M . G P J L A E W N N 0 1 . G D T 3 / 1 0 / 2 1 A: 4495.03 B: 4492.8 20.3 22.0 23.0 24.0 26.0 30.0 36.0 38.0 39.0 40.0 inches; moist. CLAY: light brown (7.5YR 6/4); high plasticity clay with dark red and light green stained nodules. Clayey SAND with Gravel: brown (7.5YR 4/4); 55% sand, poorly graded, fine to coarse, mostly fine to medium, subangular to subrounded; 30% high plasticity clay; 15% gravel, poorly graded, fine to coarse, mostly fine; moist. Silty SAND: brown (7.5YR 4/4); 85% sand, poorly graded, fine, subangular to subrounded; 15% silt, non-plastic; moist. Gravelly CLAY: brown (7.5YR 5/4); 60% high plasticity clay; 40% gravel, well graded, fine to coarse, subangular to subrounded, maximum diameter is 5 inches; moist. Clayey GRAVEL with Sand: brown (7.5YR 5/4); 50% gravel, well graded, fine to coarse, subangular to subrounded; 30% sand, well graded, fine to coarse, subangular to subrounded; 20% high plasticity clay with light green staining. Gradual transition from gravelly clay above. Silty Clayey SAND: brown (7.5YR 4/4); 60% sand, poorly graded, fine to coarse, mostly fine, subangular to subrounded; 20% clay, medium to high plasticity (in nodules and layers); 20% silt, non-plastic; trace fine gravel; moist. Silty SAND with Gravel: brown (7.5YR 4/4); 60% sand, well graded, fine to coarse, subangular to subrounded; 20% silt, non-plastic; 20% gravel, well graded, fine to coarse, subangular to subrounded, maximum diameter is 6 inches; moist. At 32 feet bgs, sandy gravelly CLAY lens; 32 to 33 feet bgs. Gravelly CLAY: reddish brown (5YR 4/4); 70% high plasticity clay; 40% gravel, well graded, fine to coarse, subangular to subrounded; moist. Silty SAND with Gravel: brown (7.5Y 5/4); 40% sand, well graded, fine to coarse; 20% silt, non-plastic; 20% gravel, well graded; 10% clay. Silty SAND with Gravel: light brownish gray (2.5Y 6/2); 60% sand, poorly graded, mostly fine, angular to subangular; 30% silt, non-plastic; 10% gravel, poorly graded, mostly fine, angular to subangular; dry. Crushed rock. Clayey GRAVEL: brown (7.5YR 4/3); 70% gravel, well graded, fine to coarse, angular to suangular, maximum diameter is 4 inches; 30% medium plasticity clay matrix; moist. At 42 feet bgs, large tan to light gray boulder, approximately 1 foot in diameter. 0.08 0.122 0.069 0.065 0 Hydrated bentonite chips (8 to 237 ft bgs). 2-inch SCH 40 PVC blank. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.7 CH SC SM CH GC SC SM SM CH SM SM GC WELL DIAGRAMLITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION PI D ( p p m ) CO N T A C T DE P T H DE P T H (f t . B G L ) EX T E N T U. S . C . S . SA M P L E I D . GR A P H I C LO G Ma g n e t i c Su s c e p t i b i l i t y Continued from Previous Page 11/5/2020 - 11/10/2020 25 30 35 40 700 S 1600 E PCE Plume BORING/WELL NUMBER Continued Next Page 238824.6495-F3048-005.DRILL BORING/WELL CONSTRUCTION LOG 555 17th Street, Suite 500 Denver, CO 80202 (303) 383-2300 PROJECT NAME MW-30R PAGE 2 OF 14 DATE DRILLED PROJECT NUMBER WH I T N E Y ' S B O R I N G L O G S L C V A P L U M E D R A F T D E C 2 0 2 0 _ W T J M . G P J L A E W N N 0 1 . G D T 3 / 1 0 / 2 1 43.0 44.5 47.0 48.0 50.0 54.5 55.0 60.0 Silty SAND with Gravel: light brownish gray (2.5Y 6/2); 40% sand, well graded, fine to coarse, angular to subrounded; 30% gravel, well graded, fine to coarse, angular to subrounded, maximum diameter is 5 inches; 30% silt, non-plastic; moist. Clayey SAND with Gravel: red boulders, gravel, and sand with clay matrix. Maximum diameter is 6 inches. Silty SAND with Gravel: light brownish gray (2.5Y 6/2); 40% sand, well graded, fine to coarse, angular to subrounded; 30% gravel, well graded, fine to coarse, angular to subrounded, maximum diameter is 5 inches; 30% silt, non-plastic; moist. CLAY: light brown (7.5YR 6/3); 95% high plasticity clay, slightly mottled; 5% gravel, well graded, fine to coarse, subangular to subrounded, maximum diameter is 4 inches. At 52 feet bgs, small, olive silt nodules. At 53.5 feet bgs, clay is mottled with red. Clayey SAND with Gravel: brown (7.5YR 5/4); 40% sand, well graded, fine to coarse, sunangular to subrounded; 35% gravel, well graded, fine to coarse, angular to subangular, maximum diamter is 4 inches; 15% medium plasticity clay; 10% silt, non-plastic; moist. SAND with Gravel: brown (7.5YR 4/4); 60% sand, poorly graded, fine to coarse, mostly fine to medium; 40% gravel, well graded, fine to coarse, subangular to subrounded, maximum diameter is 6 inches; trace silt; moist. At 58 feet bgs, trace clay. At 60 feet bgs, light gray pulverized rock; limestone. Silty SAND with Gravel: brown (7.5YR 5/4); 50% sand, poorly graded, fine to coarse, mostly fine, subangular to subrounded; 30% gravel, well graded, fine to coarse, subangular to subrounded, maximum diameter is 5 inches; 20% silt, non-plastic; moist. At 63 feet bgs, lithified fragment with clay. 0 0.098 0.029 0.048 0.02 Hydrated bentonite chips (8 to 237 ft bgs). 2-inch SCH 40 PVC blank. 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.7 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.1 0 0 0 GC SM SC SM CH SC SP SM WELL DIAGRAMLITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION PI D ( p p m ) CO N T A C T DE P T H DE P T H (f t . B G L ) EX T E N T U. S . C . S . SA M P L E I D . GR A P H I C LO G Ma g n e t i c Su s c e p t i b i l i t y Continued from Previous Page 11/5/2020 - 11/10/2020 45 50 55 60 65 700 S 1600 E PCE Plume BORING/WELL NUMBER Continued Next Page 238824.6495-F3048-005.DRILL BORING/WELL CONSTRUCTION LOG 555 17th Street, Suite 500 Denver, CO 80202 (303) 383-2300 PROJECT NAME MW-30R PAGE 3 OF 14 DATE DRILLED PROJECT NUMBER WH I T N E Y ' S B O R I N G L O G S L C V A P L U M E D R A F T D E C 2 0 2 0 _ W T J M . G P J L A E W N N 0 1 . G D T 3 / 1 0 / 2 1 66.0 69.0 70.5 75.0 80.0 At 66 feet bgs, clay content increases to 15%, silt content decreases to 5%. At 68 feet bgs, 8 inches cobble. Sandy CLAY: brown (7.5YR 4/4); 75% high plasticity clay; 20% sand, poorly graded, fine; 5% gravel, well graded; small nodules of red sand in clay. Mostly lithified. At 70 feet bgs, white to light gray crushed rock; gray limestone. Clayey GRAVEL with Sand: brown (7.5YR 4/4); 40% gravel, well graded, fine to coarse, subangular to subrounded, maximum diameter is 7 inches; 30% medium plasticity clay; 30% sand, poorly graded, fine to medium, subangular to subrounded; moist. Silty SAND with Gravel: brown (7.5YR 4/4); 45% sand, well graded, fine to coarse, subangular to subrounded; 35% gravel, well graded, fine to coarse, subangular to subrounded, maximum diameter is 4 inches; 20% silt, non-plastic; moist. At 79 feet bgs, cobble of crystalline rock. Silty Clayey SAND with Gravel: brown (7.5YR 4/4); 55% sand, well graded, fine to coarse, subangular to subrounded; 30% gravel, well graded, fine to coarse, subangular to subrounde, maximum diameter is 6 inches; 15% clay and silt (varies by depth), low plasticity; moist. 0.058 0.016 0 0.056 Hydrated bentonite chips (8 to 237 ft bgs). 2-inch SCH 40 PVC blank. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SM CH GC SM SC SM WELL DIAGRAMLITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION PI D ( p p m ) CO N T A C T DE P T H DE P T H (f t . B G L ) EX T E N T U. S . C . S . SA M P L E I D . GR A P H I C LO G Ma g n e t i c Su s c e p t i b i l i t y Continued from Previous Page 11/5/2020 - 11/10/2020 70 75 80 85 700 S 1600 E PCE Plume BORING/WELL NUMBER Continued Next Page 238824.6495-F3048-005.DRILL BORING/WELL CONSTRUCTION LOG 555 17th Street, Suite 500 Denver, CO 80202 (303) 383-2300 PROJECT NAME MW-30R PAGE 4 OF 14 DATE DRILLED PROJECT NUMBER WH I T N E Y ' S B O R I N G L O G S L C V A P L U M E D R A F T D E C 2 0 2 0 _ W T J M . G P J L A E W N N 0 1 . G D T 3 / 1 0 / 2 1 89.0 91.0 92.5 94.0 99.0 100.0 103.5 110.0 111.0 Silty Clayey SAND with Gravel: brown (7.5YR 4/4); 55% sand, well graded, fine to coarse, subangular to subrounded; 30% gravel, well graded, fine to coarse, subangular to subrounde, maximum diameter is 6 inches; 15% clay and silt (varies by depth), low plasticity; moist. Gravelly CLAY: brown (7.5YR 4/4); 60% high plasticity clay; 25% gravel, well graded, fine to coarse, subangular to subrounded; 15% sand, poorly graded, fine to medium, subangular to subrounded; moist. Lenses of light yellow sand. Clayey GRAVEL: reddish brown (5YR 4/4); 60% gravel, well graded, fine to coarse, subangular to subrounded; 20% medium plasticity clay; 20% sand, poorly graded, mostly fine to medium, subangular to subrounded; moist. Silty SAND with Gravel: reddish brown (5YR 5/3); 50% sand, poorly graded, fine to coarse, mostly fine to medium; 30% gravel, well graded, fine to coarse, subangular to subrounded; 20% silt, non-plastic; moist. Some large, 6-inch cobbles. Silty SAND: brown (7.5YR 4/4); 60% sand, poorly graded, fine to medium; 30% silt, non-plastic; 10% gravel, poorly graded, fine, subrounded; moist. Clayey Silty GRAVEL with Sand: yellowish red (5YR 5/6); 50% gravel and cobbles, poorly graded, mostly coarse, maximum diameter is 7 inches, subangular to subrounded; 30% sand, poorly graded, mostly fine to medium, subangular to subrounded; 20% silt and clay, low plasticity; moist. At 102 feet bgs, broken, light pink boulder. Clayey Silty SAND with Gravel: yellowish red (5YR 5/6); 50% sand, well graded, fine to coarse, subangular to subrounded; 30% gravel, poorly graded, mostly fine; 10% silt and clay, low plasticity; moist. Clayey GRAVEL with Sand: reddish brown (5YR 4/4); 45% gravel and cobbles, well graded, fine to coarse, subangular to subrounded, maximum diameter is 6 inches; 35% sand, well graded, fine to coarse, subangular to subrounded; 20% 0.069 0.074 0.013 0.052 0.012 Hydrated bentonite chips (8 to 237 ft bgs). 2-inch SCH 40 PVC blank. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SC SM CH GC SM SM GC SC SM GC WELL DIAGRAMLITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION PI D ( p p m ) CO N T A C T DE P T H DE P T H (f t . B G L ) EX T E N T U. S . C . S . SA M P L E I D . GR A P H I C LO G Ma g n e t i c Su s c e p t i b i l i t y Continued from Previous Page 11/5/2020 - 11/10/2020 90 95 100 105 110 700 S 1600 E PCE Plume BORING/WELL NUMBER Continued Next Page 238824.6495-F3048-005.DRILL BORING/WELL CONSTRUCTION LOG 555 17th Street, Suite 500 Denver, CO 80202 (303) 383-2300 PROJECT NAME MW-30R PAGE 5 OF 14 DATE DRILLED PROJECT NUMBER WH I T N E Y ' S B O R I N G L O G S L C V A P L U M E D R A F T D E C 2 0 2 0 _ W T J M . G P J L A E W N N 0 1 . G D T 3 / 1 0 / 2 1 117.0 medium plasticity clay with some non-plastic silt; moist. Samples look like clay matrix around gravel that was more lithified before it was drilled. At 114 feet bgs, largest cobbles. Clayey SAND with Gravel: reddish brown (5YR 4/4); 45% sand, well graded, fine to coarse, subangular to subrounded; 35% gravel and cobbles, well graded, fine to coarse, subangular to subrounded, maximum diameter is 7 inches; 20% medium plasticity clay with some non-plastic silt; moist. Gradual transition from above. Similar to sample above, looks like clay matrix around sand and gravel that was once more lithified. More clay from 120 to 122 feet bgs. More clay from 130 to 131 feet bgs. At 133 feet bgs, 6-inch lens of reddish yellow (5YR 7/8) medium sand. 0.03 0.041 0.158 0.052 Hydrated bentonite chips (8 to 237 ft bgs). 2-inch SCH 40 PVC blank. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GC SC WELL DIAGRAMLITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION PI D ( p p m ) CO N T A C T DE P T H DE P T H (f t . B G L ) EX T E N T U. S . C . S . SA M P L E I D . GR A P H I C LO G Ma g n e t i c Su s c e p t i b i l i t y Continued from Previous Page 11/5/2020 - 11/10/2020 115 120 125 130 700 S 1600 E PCE Plume BORING/WELL NUMBER Continued Next Page 238824.6495-F3048-005.DRILL BORING/WELL CONSTRUCTION LOG 555 17th Street, Suite 500 Denver, CO 80202 (303) 383-2300 PROJECT NAME MW-30R PAGE 6 OF 14 DATE DRILLED PROJECT NUMBER WH I T N E Y ' S B O R I N G L O G S L C V A P L U M E D R A F T D E C 2 0 2 0 _ W T J M . G P J L A E W N N 0 1 . G D T 3 / 1 0 / 2 1 135.0 137.0 142.0 147.5 150.0 157.0 Clayey GRAVEL with Sand: reddish brown (5YR 4/4); 40% gravel and cobbles, well graded, fine to coarse, subangular to subrounded, maximum diameter is 6 inches; 30% sand, well graded, fine to coarse, subangular to subrounded; 30% medium to high plasticity clay matrix around sand and gravel; moist. Clayey SAND with Gravel: reddish brown (5YR 4/4); 50% sand, well graded, fine to coarse, subangular to subrounded; 35% gravel and cobbles, well graded, fine to coarse, subangular to subrounded, maximum diameter is 6 inches; 15% medium plasticity clay matrix with non-plastic silt; moist. Clayey SAND with Gravel: reddish brown (5YR 4/4); 60% sand, poorly graded, fine to coarse, mostly fine to medium, subangular to subrounded; 20% medium plasticity clay matrix; 20% gravel, well graded, fine to coarse, subangular to subrounded, maximum diameter is 3 inches; moist. Sand becomes well graded, fine to coarse. Silty SAND with Gravel: brown (7.5YR 4/4); 60% sand, poorly graded, fine to coarse, mostly fine; 20% silt, non-plastic; 20% gravel, well graded, fine to ccoarse; trace clay; moist. SAND with Gravel and Clay: reddish brown (5YR 4/4); 50% sand, well graded, fine to coarse, subangular to subrounded; 40% gravel, well graded, fine to coarse, maximum diameter is 7 inches; 10% medium plasticity clay; moist. At 153 feet bgs, lighter 6-inch layer with silt (not clay); brown (5YR 6/4). 0.035 0.076 0.078 0.049 0.122 Hydrated bentonite chips (8 to 237 ft bgs). 2-inch SCH 40 PVC blank. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GC SC SC SM SW SC WELL DIAGRAMLITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION PI D ( p p m ) CO N T A C T DE P T H DE P T H (f t . B G L ) EX T E N T U. S . C . S . SA M P L E I D . GR A P H I C LO G Ma g n e t i c Su s c e p t i b i l i t y Continued from Previous Page 11/5/2020 - 11/10/2020 135 140 145 150 155 700 S 1600 E PCE Plume BORING/WELL NUMBER Continued Next Page 238824.6495-F3048-005.DRILL BORING/WELL CONSTRUCTION LOG 555 17th Street, Suite 500 Denver, CO 80202 (303) 383-2300 PROJECT NAME MW-30R PAGE 7 OF 14 DATE DRILLED PROJECT NUMBER WH I T N E Y ' S B O R I N G L O G S L C V A P L U M E D R A F T D E C 2 0 2 0 _ W T J M . G P J L A E W N N 0 1 . G D T 3 / 1 0 / 2 1 159.0 164.0 166.0 166.5 167.5 168.5 170.0 172.0 174.0 178.0 180.0 Clayey GRAVEL with Sand: reddish brown (5YR 4/4); 50% gravel, well graded, fine to coarse, subangular to subrounded, maximum diameter is 7 inches; 35% sand, well graded, fine to coarse, subangular to subrounded; 15% low to medium plasticity clay matris; moist. Clayey Silty SAND with Gravel: reddish brown (5YR 4/4); 55% sand, well graded, fine to coarse, mostly fine, subangular to subrounded; 25% clay and silt intermixed; 20% gravel, poorly graded, fine to coarse, mostly fine, subangular to subrounded, maximum diameter is 4 inches; moist. Gravelly CLAY: reddish brown (5YR 4/4); 75% medium plasticity clay; 25% gravel, well graded, fine to coarse, subangular to subrounded, maximum diameter is 4 inches; moist; slightly lithified. Gravelly SILT: reddish brown (5YR 4/4); 75% silt, non-plastic; 25% gravel, poorly graded, coarse, subangular to subrounded, maximum diameter is 4 inches; moist; lithified. Large, white to light pink cobble/boulder, cut by core barrel, including silt and fine sand from cutting and grinding. Silty SAND with Gravel: reddish brown (5YR 4/4); 40% sand, poorly graded, fine to coarse, mostly fine, subangular to subrounded; 30% gravel, well graded, fine to coarse, subangular to subrounded; 30% silt; moist. Clayey SAND and GRAVEL: reddish brown (5YR 4/4); 40% sand, poorly graded, fine to coarse, subangular to subrounded; 40% gravel, well graded, fine to coarse, subangular to subrounded; 20% low plasticity clay; moist; with lenses of light-colored, fine sand. Clayey SAND with Gravel: reddish brown (5YR 4/4); 45% sand, well graded, fine to coarse, subangular to subrounded; 35% gravel, well graded, fine to coarse, subangular to subrounded, maximum diameter is 6 inches; 20% medium plasticity clay; moist. Clayey GRAVEL with Sand: reddish brown (5YR 4/4); 40% gravel, well graded, fine to coarse, subangular to subrounded; 30% medium plasticity clay; 30% sand, well graded, fine to coarse, subangular to subrounded; moist. Silty SAND and GRAVEL: reddish brown (5YR 5/4); 40% sand, poorly graded, fine to coarse, mostly fine, subangular to subrounded; 40% gravel, well graded, fine to coarse, subangular to subrounded, maximum diameter is 6 inches; 20% silt, non-plastic; moist. At 175 feet bgs, large pulverized cobbles, light gray powder with dark gray cobbles. At 176 feet bgs, 6-inch fine sand layer (trace coarse). Silty SAND with Gravel: reddish brown (5YR 4/3); 40% sand, well graded, fine to coarse, subangular to subrounded; 35% gravel, well graded, fine to coarse, subangular to subrounded, maximum diameter is 5 inches; 25% clay and silt; moist. Most gravel and cobbles are of dark gray limestone. 0.099 0.067 Hydrated bentonite chips (8 to 237 ft bgs). 2-inch SCH 40 PVC blank. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 1.1 2.1 GC SC SM CH ML SM SC SC GC SM SM WELL DIAGRAMLITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION PI D ( p p m ) CO N T A C T DE P T H DE P T H (f t . B G L ) EX T E N T U. S . C . S . SA M P L E I D . GR A P H I C LO G Ma g n e t i c Su s c e p t i b i l i t y Continued from Previous Page 11/5/2020 - 11/10/2020 160 165 170 175 180 700 S 1600 E PCE Plume BORING/WELL NUMBER Continued Next Page 238824.6495-F3048-005.DRILL BORING/WELL CONSTRUCTION LOG 555 17th Street, Suite 500 Denver, CO 80202 (303) 383-2300 PROJECT NAME MW-30R PAGE 8 OF 14 DATE DRILLED PROJECT NUMBER WH I T N E Y ' S B O R I N G L O G S L C V A P L U M E D R A F T D E C 2 0 2 0 _ W T J M . G P J L A E W N N 0 1 . G D T 3 / 1 0 / 2 1 183.0 186.0 187.5 188.5 190.0 194.0 195.0 197.0 199.5 200.0 Silty SAND with Gravel: brown (7.5YR 4/4); 65% sand, poorly graded, fine to coarse, mostly fine to medium, subangular to subrounded; 20% gravel, poorly graded, fine to coarse, mostly fine, subangular to subrounded, maximum diameter is 3 inches; 15% silt, slight plasticity; moist. SILT with Gravel: brown (7.5YR 4/4); 85% silt, non-plastic; 15% gravel, poorly graded, mostly fine, subangular to subrounded; trace sand lenses; moist. Gradual transition to clay below. CLAY with Sand and Gravel: brown (7.5YR 4/4); 80% medium to high plasticity clay; 10% fine gravel, subangular to subrounded; 10% fine to medium sand; moist. Transition to silty sand below is a thin silt layer. Silty SAND: brown (7.5YR 4/4); 70% sand, poorly graded, mostly fine, subangular to subrounded; 20% silt, non-plastic; 10% gravel, well graded, fine to coarse, maximum diameter is 3 inches; moist. Silty SAND with Gravel: brown (7.5YR 4/4); 45% sand, well graded, fine to coarse, subangular to subrounded; 35% gravel and cobbles, well graded, fine to coarse, subangular to subrounded, maximum diameter is 7 inches; 20% silt, slightly plastic; moist. CLAY with Sand and Gravel: brown (7.5YR 4/4); 70% medium to high plasticity clay; 15% gravel, poorly graded, fine, subangular to subrounded; 15% sand, well graded, fine to coarse, subangular to subrounded; moist. Silty SAND with Gravel: brown (7.5YR 4/4); 45% sand, well graded, fine to coarse, subangular to subrounded; 35% gravel, well graded, fine to coarse, subangular to subrounded; 20% silt, slightly plastic; moist. Clayey SAND: brown (7.5YR 4/4); 45% sand, well graded, fine to coarse, subangular to subrounded; 35% gravel, well graded, fine to coarse, subangular to subrounded; 20% clay; moist. Silty Clayey SAND with Gravel: brown (7.5YR 4/4); 40% sand, well graded, fine to coarse, subangular to subrounded; 40% silt and clay; 20% gravel, well graded, fine to coarse, subangular to subrounded; moist. Silty SAND with Gravel: brown (7.5YR 4/4); 45% sand, well graded, fine to coarse, subangular to subrounded; 35% gravel, well graded, fine to coarse, subangular to subrounded, maximum diameter is 6 inches; 20% medium plasticity clay; moist. 0.06 0.058 0.173 0.058 0.068 Hydrated bentonite chips (8 to 237 ft bgs). 2-inch SCH 40 PVC blank. 1.3 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SM SM ML CH SM SM CH SM SC SC SM SM WELL DIAGRAMLITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION PI D ( p p m ) CO N T A C T DE P T H DE P T H (f t . B G L ) EX T E N T U. S . C . S . SA M P L E I D . GR A P H I C LO G Ma g n e t i c Su s c e p t i b i l i t y Continued from Previous Page 11/5/2020 - 11/10/2020 185 190 195 200 700 S 1600 E PCE Plume BORING/WELL NUMBER Continued Next Page 238824.6495-F3048-005.DRILL BORING/WELL CONSTRUCTION LOG 555 17th Street, Suite 500 Denver, CO 80202 (303) 383-2300 PROJECT NAME MW-30R PAGE 9 OF 14 DATE DRILLED PROJECT NUMBER WH I T N E Y ' S B O R I N G L O G S L C V A P L U M E D R A F T D E C 2 0 2 0 _ W T J M . G P J L A E W N N 0 1 . G D T 3 / 1 0 / 2 1 203.0 204.5 208.5 210.5 220.0 CLAY: yellowish brown (10YR 5/4); 100% low to medium plasticity clay; trace coarse gravel and cobbles; moist. Clay is slightly mottled. Silty SAND with Gravel: brown (7.5YR 5/4); 60% sand, poorly graded, fine to coarse, mostly fine, subangular to subrounded; 20% gravel, well graded, fine to coarse, subangular to subrounded, maximum diameter is 6 inches; 20% silt, non-plastic; moist. Clayey SAND with Gravel: brown (7.5YR 4/4); 60% sand, well graded, fine to coarse, subangular to subrounded; 20% gravel, poorly graded, fine to coarse, mostly fine, subangular to subrounded, maximum diameter is 4 inches; 20% clay, medium plasticity clay; moist. At 210 feet bgs, 3-inch clay layer. Silty Clayey SAND with Gravel: brown (7.5YR 4/4); 65% sand, poorly graded, fine to coarse, mostly fine, subangular to subrounded; 20% clay and silt (alternating layers of none to medium plasticity); 15% gravel, poorly graded, fine to coarse, mostly fine, subangular to subrounded; moist. At 218 feet bgs, 3-inch clay later. Silty Clayey SAND with Gravel: brown (7.5YR 4/3); 60% sand, well graded, fine to coarse, subangular to subrounded; 20% gravel, well graded, fine to coarse, subangular to subrounded; 20% clay and silt (varying degrees of plasticity); moist. Gradual transition to clayey sand below. 0.016 0.07 0.188 0.063 Hydrated bentonite chips (8 to 237 ft bgs). 2-inch SCH 40 PVC blank. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CL SM SC SC SM SC SM WELL DIAGRAMLITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION PI D ( p p m ) CO N T A C T DE P T H DE P T H (f t . B G L ) EX T E N T U. S . C . S . SA M P L E I D . GR A P H I C LO G Ma g n e t i c Su s c e p t i b i l i t y Continued from Previous Page 11/5/2020 - 11/10/2020 205 210 215 220 225 700 S 1600 E PCE Plume BORING/WELL NUMBER Continued Next Page 238824.6495-F3048-005.DRILL BORING/WELL CONSTRUCTION LOG 555 17th Street, Suite 500 Denver, CO 80202 (303) 383-2300 PROJECT NAME MW-30R PAGE 10 OF 14 DATE DRILLED PROJECT NUMBER WH I T N E Y ' S B O R I N G L O G S L C V A P L U M E D R A F T D E C 2 0 2 0 _ W T J M . G P J L A E W N N 0 1 . G D T 3 / 1 0 / 2 1 226.0 228.0 231.0 231.5 235.0 240.0 242.0 244.0 247.5 248.3 Clayey SAND and GRAVEL: brown (7.5YR 4/3); 40% sand, well graded, fine to coarse, subangular to subrounded; 40% gravel, well graded, fine to coarse, subangular to subrounded; 20% clay; moist. Sandy CLAY: brown (7.5YR 4/3); 60% medium to high plasticity clay; 30% sand, poorly graded, fine to medium, subangular to subrounded; 10% gravel, poorly graded, fine to coarse, mostly fine, subangular to subrounded; moist. CLAY: brown (7.5YR 4/3); 100% low plasticity clay; trace sand and gravel; moist. Gravelly CLAY: brown (7.5YR 5/4); 50% medium to high plasticity clay; 30% gravel, well graded, fine to coarse, subangular to subrounded; 20% sand, well graded, fine to coarse, subangular to subrounded; moist. At 233 feet bgs, large, 7-inch cobble. Gravel is coarse, including cobbles, with lenses of wet sand. Clayey SAND with Gravel: yellowish brown (10YR 5/4); 40% sand, well graded, fine to coarse, subangular to subrounded; 30% gravel, well graded, fine to coarse, subangular to subrounded; 30% high plasticity clay; wet. Clayey GRAVEL with Sand: yellowish brown (10YR 5/4); 60% gravel, poorly graded, fine to coarse, mostly fine, subangular to subrounded; 20% sand, poorly graded, coarse, subangular to subrounded; 20% high plasticity clay; wet. Gravelly CLAY: yellowish brown (10YR 5/4); 50% high plasticity clay; 30% gravel, poorly graded, fine to coarse, mostly fine with some large cobbles, maximum diameter is 5 inches; 20% sand, poorly graded, coarse, subangular to subrounded; wet. SAND with Clay and Gravel: yellowish brown (10YR 5/4); 70% sand, poorly graded, medium to coarse, subangular to subrounded; 20% gravel, poorly graded, mostly fine, subangular to subrounded; 10% medium plasticity clay; wet. From 246 to 246.5 feet bgs, more clay. SILT: reddish brown (5YR 5/4); 100% silt, slightly mottled; trace coarse groavel and cobbles at lower contact. 0.018 0.008 Hydrated bentonite chips (8 to 237 ft bgs). #10/20 sand filter pack (237 to 252 ft bgs). 2-inch SCH 40 PVC 0.020-slot screen nested well (240 to 250 ft bgs). 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SC CH CL CH SC GC CH SP SC ML WELL DIAGRAMLITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION PI D ( p p m ) CO N T A C T DE P T H DE P T H (f t . B G L ) EX T E N T U. S . C . S . SA M P L E I D . GR A P H I C LO G Ma g n e t i c Su s c e p t i b i l i t y Continued from Previous Page 11/5/2020 - 11/10/2020 230 235 240 245 700 S 1600 E PCE Plume BORING/WELL NUMBER Continued Next Page 238824.6495-F3048-005.DRILL BORING/WELL CONSTRUCTION LOG 555 17th Street, Suite 500 Denver, CO 80202 (303) 383-2300 PROJECT NAME MW-30R PAGE 11 OF 14 DATE DRILLED PROJECT NUMBER WH I T N E Y ' S B O R I N G L O G S L C V A P L U M E D R A F T D E C 2 0 2 0 _ W T J M . G P J L A E W N N 0 1 . G D T 3 / 1 0 / 2 1 250.0 255.0 259.0 260.0 264.0 265.0 268.0 269.0 271.0 Clayey GRAVEL: yellowish brown (10YR 5/4); 50% gravel, poorly graded, mostly fine, some coarse and cobbles; 30% sand, poorly graded, medium to coarse, subangular to subrounded; 20% high plasticity clay; wet. CLAY: reddish brown (5YR 4/4); 95% medium to high plasticity clay; 5% gravel, well graded, fine to coarse, subangular to subrounded, maximum diameter is 3 inches; moist. Silty Clayey SAND with Gravel: reddish brown (5YR 4/4); 40% sand, poorly graded, fine to medium, subangular to subrounded; 30% gravel, well graded, fine to coarse, subangular to subrounded, maximum diameter is 3 inches; 15% clay; 15% silt (in layers of differing plasticity); moist. CLAY: reddish brown (5YR 4/4); 90% medium to high plasticity clay; 10% gravel, well graded, fine to coarse, subangular to subrounded, maximum diameter is 3 inches; moist. Gravelly CLAY: reddish brown (5YR 4/3); 70% low plasticity clay; 30% gravel, well graded, fine to coarse, subangular to subrounded, maximum diameter is 3 inches; trace sand; moist. CLAY: reddish brown (5YR 4/4); 100% high plasticity clay; trace sand and gravel; moist. Gravelly CLAY: reddish brown (5YR 4/4); 70% low plasticity clay; 30% gravel, poorly graded, mostly fine, maximum diameter is 2 inches; moist. Silty GRAVEL with Sand: reddish brown (5YR 5/4); 45% gravel, poorly graded, mostly fine; 35% sand, poorly graded, mostly fine; 20% silt; moist. Lithified fragments. Gravelly CLAY: reddish brown (5YR 4/4); 60% low to medium plasticity clay; 40% gravel, well graded, fine to coarse, maximum diameter is 4 inches; moist. At 270 feet bgs, clay content increases to 70%, gravel content decreases to 30%. 0.062 0.144 0.111 0.08 #10/20 sand filter pack (237 to 252 ft bgs). 2-inch SCH 40 PVC blank. Hydrated bentonite chips (252 to 277 ft bgs). 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GC CH SC SM CH CL CH CL GM CL WELL DIAGRAMLITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION PI D ( p p m ) CO N T A C T DE P T H DE P T H (f t . B G L ) EX T E N T U. S . C . S . SA M P L E I D . GR A P H I C LO G Ma g n e t i c Su s c e p t i b i l i t y Continued from Previous Page 11/5/2020 - 11/10/2020 250 255 260 265 270 700 S 1600 E PCE Plume BORING/WELL NUMBER Continued Next Page 238824.6495-F3048-005.DRILL BORING/WELL CONSTRUCTION LOG 555 17th Street, Suite 500 Denver, CO 80202 (303) 383-2300 PROJECT NAME MW-30R PAGE 12 OF 14 DATE DRILLED PROJECT NUMBER WH I T N E Y ' S B O R I N G L O G S L C V A P L U M E D R A F T D E C 2 0 2 0 _ W T J M . G P J L A E W N N 0 1 . G D T 3 / 1 0 / 2 1 273.0 278.0 281.0 284.0 286.0 288.0 290.0 292.5 Clayey GRAVEL with Sand: reddish brown (5YR 4/4); 40% gravel, well graded, fine to coarse, subangular to subrounded, maximum diameter is 3 inches; 30% sand, well graded, fine to coarse, subangular to subrounded; 30% low plasticity clay; moist. Lithified fragments. Clayey SAND: reddish brown (5YR 4/4); 60% sand, poorly graded, coarse, subangular to subrounded; 40% high plasticity clay; wet. At 280 feet bgs, some gravel. Clayey GRAVEL: reddish brown (5YR 4/4); 60% gravel, well graded, fine to coarse, subangular to subrounded, maximum diameter is 3 inches; 40% low to medium plasticity clay; moist. Clayey GRAVEL: reddish brown (5YR 4/4); 45% gravel, poorly graded, fine to coarse, mostly fine, some cobbles; 35% sand, well graded, fine to coarse, subangular to subrounded; 20% low to medium plasticity clay; moist. Silty SAND with Gravel: very pale brown (10YR 7/3); 40% sand, poorly graded, mostly fine, subangular to subrounded; 30% gravel, poorly graded, mostly fine, some coarse and cobbles; 30% silt, non-plastic; moist. Possibly crushed rock. Thin, reddish yellow (5YR 6/6) sand lens at 288 feet bgs, then Gravelly CLAY: reddish brown (5YR 4/4); 70% low to medium plasticity clay; 30% gravel, well graded, fine to coarse, subangular to subrounded; moist. Clayey SAND with Gravel: reddish brown (5YR 4/4); 40% sand, well graded, fine to coarse, subangular to subrounded; 40% medium plasticity clay; 20% gravel, poorly graded, mostly fine, subangular to subrounded; wet. Gravelly CLAY: reddish brown (5YR 4/4); 60% low to medium plasticity clay; 30% gravel, well graded, fine to coarse; 10% sand, poorly graded, coarse; moist. 0.018 0.175 0.184 0.16 Hydrated bentonite chips (252 to 277 ft bgs). #10/20 sand filter pack (277 to 291 ft bgs). 2-inch SCH 40 PVC 0.020-slot screen nested well (280 to 290 ft bgs). Native soil sluff (291 to 295 ft bgs). 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CL GC SC GC GC SM CL SC CL WELL DIAGRAMLITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION PI D ( p p m ) CO N T A C T DE P T H DE P T H (f t . B G L ) EX T E N T U. S . C . S . SA M P L E I D . GR A P H I C LO G Ma g n e t i c Su s c e p t i b i l i t y Continued from Previous Page 11/5/2020 - 11/10/2020 275 280 285 290 700 S 1600 E PCE Plume BORING/WELL NUMBER Continued Next Page 238824.6495-F3048-005.DRILL BORING/WELL CONSTRUCTION LOG 555 17th Street, Suite 500 Denver, CO 80202 (303) 383-2300 PROJECT NAME MW-30R PAGE 13 OF 14 DATE DRILLED PROJECT NUMBER WH I T N E Y ' S B O R I N G L O G S L C V A P L U M E D R A F T D E C 2 0 2 0 _ W T J M . G P J L A E W N N 0 1 . G D T 3 / 1 0 / 2 1 295.0 End of boring at 295 feet bgs.0.064 WELL DIAGRAMLITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION PI D ( p p m ) CO N T A C T DE P T H DE P T H (f t . B G L ) EX T E N T U. S . C . S . SA M P L E I D . GR A P H I C LO G Ma g n e t i c Su s c e p t i b i l i t y Continued from Previous Page 11/5/2020 - 11/10/2020 295 700 S 1600 E PCE Plume BORING/WELL NUMBER238824.6495-F3048-005.DRILL BORING/WELL CONSTRUCTION LOG 555 17th Street, Suite 500 Denver, CO 80202 (303) 383-2300 PROJECT NAME MW-30R PAGE 14 OF 14 DATE DRILLED PROJECT NUMBER WH I T N E Y ' S B O R I N G L O G S L C V A P L U M E D R A F T D E C 2 0 2 0 _ W T J M . G P J L A E W N N 0 1 . G D T 3 / 1 0 / 2 1 6.0 8.0 11.0 12.5 14.5 15.0 20.0 Hydrovac to 6 ft bgs. SILT: light yellowish brown (10YR 5/6); 60% silt; 30% clay; 10% fine sand; cohesive; moist to wet. SAND: yellowish brown (10YR 5/6); 100% sand, poorly graded, fine to medium; loose; moist. Silty SAND: brown (10YR 4/3); 80% sand; 20% silt; cohesive; firm; moist to wet. SAND: brown (10YR 4/3); 100% sand, poorly graded, fine; loose; moist. Silty SAND: light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/4); 80% sand; 20% silt; cohesive; firm; moist to wet. SAND: brown (10YR 4/3); 100% sand, poorly graded, fine; loose; moist. At 18 feet bgs, silty layer; moist to wet. At 19.5 feet bgs, silty layer; moist to wet; light yellowish brown 0.519 0.185 0.369 0.158 0.117 0.061 0.098 Flush-mounted Augustyn vault (10-inch). Hydrated bentonite chips (3 to 44 ft bgs). 2-inch SCH 40 PVC blank. 0.6 1.1 0.5 1.7 0.7 0.6 1.6 ML SP SM SP SM SP WELL DIAGRAMLITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION PI D ( p p m ) CO N T A C T DE P T H DE P T H (f t . B G L ) EX T E N T U. S . C . S . SA M P L E I D . GR A P H I C LO G Ma g n e t i c Su s c e p t i b i l i t y GROUT TYPE/QUANTITY Sonic Grab GROUND ELEVATION (FT MSL) TOP OF CASING (FT MSL) 4384.29 CASING TYPE/DIAMETER Joe Miller Salt Lake City, UT GRAVEL PACK TYPE Sonic SCREEN TYPE/SLOT LOGGED BY DRILLING METHOD SAMPLING METHOD 44.72 LOCATION 2-inch Schedule 40 0.020-slot #10/20 sand REMARKS 4429.01 4428.49 Groundwater measured while drilling GROUND WATER ELEVATION (FT MSL) DEPTH TO WATER (FT BGS) Hydrated Bentonite Chips 2-inch Schedule 40 PVC 11/17/2020 5 10 15 20 700 S 1600 E PCE Plume BORING/WELL NUMBER Continued Next Page 238824.6495-F3048-005.DRILL BORING/WELL CONSTRUCTION LOG 555 17th Street, Suite 500 Denver, CO 80202 (303) 383-2300 PROJECT NAME MW-36 PAGE 1 OF 5 DATE DRILLED PROJECT NUMBER WH I T N E Y ' S B O R I N G L O G S L C V A P L U M E D R A F T D E C 2 0 2 0 _ W T J M . G P J L A E W N N 0 1 . G D T 3 / 1 0 / 2 1 24.5 25.0 30.0 32.0 35.0 38.0 40.0 (2.5Y light yellowish brown). SAND: brown (10YR 4/3); 100% sand, poorly graded, fine; loose; moist. Silty SAND: yellowish brown (10YR 5/4); 80% sand; 20% silt; cohesive; firm; moist to wet. SAND: yellowish brown (10YR 5/4); 100% sand, poorly graded, fine; loose; moist. At 28.5 feet bgs, silty layer; moist to wet. Silty SAND: 70% sand; 30% silt; cohesive in places; loose to firm; moist to wet. NOTE: sample slid out of core barrel. Depth to water at time of drilling: 30.82 feet bgs. Silty SAND: 60% sand; 40% silt; laminated; loose; saturated wet. NOTE: most of sample lost. SILT with SAND: dark grayish brown (2.5Y 4/2); 80% silt; 20% sand; laminated; soft to firm; wet but not saturated. No recovery; shoe sample was muck. Sandy SILT: dark grayish brown (2.5Y 4/2); 80% silt; 40% sand; cohesive; moist to wet. At 42 feet bgs, color changes to brown (7.5YR 4/2). 0.438 0.442 0.121 0.251 0.348 0.127 0.631 0.558 0.935 Hydrated bentonite chips (3 to 44 ft bgs). 2-inch SCH 40 PVC blank. 5.7 2.2 1.7 1.9 7.5 0 0.4 0.1 0 SP SM SP SM SM ML ML WELL DIAGRAMLITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION PI D ( p p m ) CO N T A C T DE P T H DE P T H (f t . B G L ) EX T E N T U. S . C . S . SA M P L E I D . GR A P H I C LO G Ma g n e t i c Su s c e p t i b i l i t y Continued from Previous Page 11/17/2020 25 30 35 40 700 S 1600 E PCE Plume BORING/WELL NUMBER Continued Next Page 238824.6495-F3048-005.DRILL BORING/WELL CONSTRUCTION LOG 555 17th Street, Suite 500 Denver, CO 80202 (303) 383-2300 PROJECT NAME MW-36 PAGE 2 OF 5 DATE DRILLED PROJECT NUMBER WH I T N E Y ' S B O R I N G L O G S L C V A P L U M E D R A F T D E C 2 0 2 0 _ W T J M . G P J L A E W N N 0 1 . G D T 3 / 1 0 / 2 1 43.0 45.0 49.0 49.8 50.0 52.2 60.0 65.0 At 43 feet bgs, wetter zone. At 44.5 feet bgs, wetter zone, increased sand. Silty SAND: 70% sand; 30% silt; some iron oxide staining; cohesive; loose. SAND: brown (7.5YR 5/2); fine to coarse sand; trace fine gravel; loose; saturated wet. Silty SAND: 70% sand; 30% silt; some iron oxide staining; cohesive; loose. GRAVEL with Sand and Silt: brown (7.5YR 5/2); 70% gravel, poorly graded, fine to coarse, subangular to rounded; 20% sand, coarse; 10% silt; wet. SILT: very dark gray (7.5YR 3/1); laminated; trace iron oxide staining; trace clay; trace fine gravel; stiff; moist, decreasing moisture with depth. At 56 ft bgs, dry to moist. SILT: black (10YR 2/1); clayey silt; trace fine to coarse gravel; cohesive; very stiff; dry. At 62 feet bgs, color changes to dark gray (7.5YR 4/1); firm to stiff; trace fine gravel; moist. CLAY: brown (7YR 5/4); 50% clay; 40% silt; 10% gravel, fine to coarse, subangular to surounded; dry to moist. 0.435 0.432 0.17 0.36 0.158 0.663 0.68 0.765 1.07 0.876 0.555 #10/20 sand filter pack (44 to 54 ft bgs). 2-inch SCH 40 PVC 0.020-slot screen nested well (47 to 52 ft bgs). Hydrated bentonite chips (54 to 105 ft bgs). 0.7 0.3 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.8 1.2 0.8 0.3 0.5 ML SM SP SM GP ML ML WELL DIAGRAMLITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION PI D ( p p m ) CO N T A C T DE P T H DE P T H (f t . B G L ) EX T E N T U. S . C . S . SA M P L E I D . GR A P H I C LO G Ma g n e t i c Su s c e p t i b i l i t y Continued from Previous Page 11/17/2020 45 50 55 60 65 700 S 1600 E PCE Plume BORING/WELL NUMBER Continued Next Page 238824.6495-F3048-005.DRILL BORING/WELL CONSTRUCTION LOG 555 17th Street, Suite 500 Denver, CO 80202 (303) 383-2300 PROJECT NAME MW-36 PAGE 3 OF 5 DATE DRILLED PROJECT NUMBER WH I T N E Y ' S B O R I N G L O G S L C V A P L U M E D R A F T D E C 2 0 2 0 _ W T J M . G P J L A E W N N 0 1 . G D T 3 / 1 0 / 2 1 68.0 69.0 70.0 76.0 76.5 78.0 79.0 82.0 84.0 85.0 CLAY: brown (7YR 5/4); 50% clay; 40% silt; 10% gravel, fine to coarse, subangular to surounded; dry to moist. SILT: trace fine gravel; cohesive; stiff; moist. Clayey GRAVEL: brown (7.5YR 5/4); 60% gravel, fine to coarse; 40% clay; moist. SILT: brown (7.5YR 5/4); 80% silt; 15% clay; 5% fine gravel; cohesive; very stiff; moist. Gravelly SILT: brown (7.5YR 5/4); 60% silt; 40% gravel; moist. SILT: brown (7.5YR 5/4); trace gravel; cohesive; stiff; laminated; dry to moist. Gravelly SILT: brown (7.5YR 5/4); 70% silt; 30% fine gravel; cohesive; stiff; moist. Silty GRAVEL: light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/3); 60% gravel, fine to coarse, angular to subangular; 30% silt; 10% sand; cohesive; medium dense; moist to wet. At 80 feet bgs, color changes to light yellowish brown (10YR 6/4). Silty GRAVEL: light yellowish brown (10YR 6/4); 60% gravel, fine to coarse, angular to subrounded; 40% silt; cohesive; dense; moist. Silty SAND: light yellowish brown (10YR 6/4); 60% sand, fine to coarse; 30% silt; 10% fine gravel; loose to medium dense; moist to wet. Silty GRAVEL: light yellowish brown (10YR 6/4); 60% gravel, fine to coarse, subangular to subrounded, cobbles up to 4 inches in diameter; 40% silt; cohesive; dense; moist; socketed matrix. 0.48 0.12 0.572 0.58 0.286 0.421 0.348 0.54 0.45 0.129 0.103 Hydrated bentonite chips (54 to 105 ft bgs). 0.7 0.8 1 0.4 0.6 1.6 1.4 0.9 0.6 4.6 6.7 CL ML GC ML ML ML ML GM GM SM GM WELL DIAGRAMLITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION PI D ( p p m ) CO N T A C T DE P T H DE P T H (f t . B G L ) EX T E N T U. S . C . S . SA M P L E I D . GR A P H I C LO G Ma g n e t i c Su s c e p t i b i l i t y Continued from Previous Page 11/17/2020 70 75 80 85 700 S 1600 E PCE Plume BORING/WELL NUMBER Continued Next Page 238824.6495-F3048-005.DRILL BORING/WELL CONSTRUCTION LOG 555 17th Street, Suite 500 Denver, CO 80202 (303) 383-2300 PROJECT NAME MW-36 PAGE 4 OF 5 DATE DRILLED PROJECT NUMBER WH I T N E Y ' S B O R I N G L O G S L C V A P L U M E D R A F T D E C 2 0 2 0 _ W T J M . G P J L A E W N N 0 1 . G D T 3 / 1 0 / 2 1 89.0 98.5 100.0 110.0 Silty GRAVEL: light yellowish brown (10YR 6/4); 60% gravel, fine to coarse, subangular to subrounded, cobbles up to 4 inches in diameter; 40% silt; cohesive; dense; moist; socketed matrix. At 90 feet bgs, moist to wet. At 91 feet bgs, moist to wet sandy lens. At 92.5 feet bgs, wet, sandy lens. At 95 feet bgs, 5-inch cobble. At 96 feet bgs, wet, sandy lens. CLAY: pale olive (5Y 6/3); iron oxide staining in places; laminated; very stiff; dry to moist. SILT: dary gray (5Y 4/1); clayey silt; laminated; cohesive; very stiff; moist; possibly lake bed sediments. End of boring at 110 feet bgs. 0.237 0.176 0.073 0.11 0.057 0.119 0.785 1.4 2.34 2.89 2.25 Hydrated bentonite chips (54 to 105 ft bgs). Native sluff (105 to 110 feet bgs). 7 3.1 1.8 1.8 2.2 4 0.4 0.8 0.7 0.7 1.1 GM CL ML WELL DIAGRAMLITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION PI D ( p p m ) CO N T A C T DE P T H DE P T H (f t . B G L ) EX T E N T U. S . C . S . SA M P L E I D . GR A P H I C LO G Ma g n e t i c Su s c e p t i b i l i t y Continued from Previous Page 11/17/2020 90 95 100 105 110 700 S 1600 E PCE Plume BORING/WELL NUMBER238824.6495-F3048-005.DRILL BORING/WELL CONSTRUCTION LOG 555 17th Street, Suite 500 Denver, CO 80202 (303) 383-2300 PROJECT NAME MW-36 PAGE 5 OF 5 DATE DRILLED PROJECT NUMBER WH I T N E Y ' S B O R I N G L O G S L C V A P L U M E D R A F T D E C 2 0 2 0 _ W T J M . G P J L A E W N N 0 1 . G D T 3 / 1 0 / 2 1 7.0 10.0 11.3 14.5 17.5 18.5 18.8 20.0 Hydrovac to 7 ft bgs. CLAY with Gravel: light olive brown (2.5Y 5/3) with red iron oxide staining; 90% low to medium plasticity clay; 10% gravel, poorly graded, mostly fine, subangular to subrounded; moist. SILT: light olive brown (2.5Y 5/3) with red iron oxide staining; 100% silt with none to low plasticity; moist. At 11 feet bgs, 3-inch medium sand layer, dark reddish brown (5YR 3/4); wet. Sandy CLAY: dark brown (7.5YR 3/4); 70% medium to high plasticity; 30% sand, poorly graded, fine, subangular to subrounded; wet. CLAY: dark brown (7.5YR 3/4); 100% high plasticity clay; moist. Sandy CLAY/Clayey SAND: dark brown (7.5YR 3/4); moist. SAND: medium to coarse sand and fine gravel; wet. 4-inch layer. Sandy CLAY/Clayey SAND: dark brown (7.5YR 3/4); moist. 0.135 0.089 0.01 0.157 0.135 0.168 0.067 0.037 Flush-mounted vault (10-inch). Hydrated bentonite chips (3 to 7 ft bgs). 6-inch stainless steel vapor probe at 8 feet bgs with #10/20 sand filter pack (7 to 9 ft bgs). 2-inch SCH 40 PVC blank. Hydrated bentonite chips (9 to 22 ft bgs). 1.7 1.6 1.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 CL ML CH CH SC SP SC WELL DIAGRAMLITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION PI D ( p p m ) CO N T A C T DE P T H DE P T H (f t . B G L ) EX T E N T U. S . C . S . SA M P L E I D . GR A P H I C LO G Ma g n e t i c Su s c e p t i b i l i t y GROUT TYPE/QUANTITY Sonic Grab GROUND ELEVATION (FT MSL) TOP OF CASING (FT MSL) CASING TYPE/DIAMETER Joe Miller and Whitney Treadway Salt Lake City, UT GRAVEL PACK TYPE Sonic SCREEN TYPE/SLOT LOGGED BY DRILLING METHOD SAMPLING METHOD S: 18.45 D: 42.28 BTOC LOCATION 2-inch Schedule 40 0.020-slot #10/20 sand REMARKS 4348.36 S: 4348.00 D: 4347.97 Groundwater measured after installation. GROUND WATER ELEVATION (FT MSL) DEPTH TO WATER (FT BGS) Hydrated Bentonite Chips 2-inch Schedule 40 PVC 11/12/2020-11/13/2020 5 10 15 20 700 S 1600 E PCE Plume BORING/WELL NUMBER Continued Next Page 238824.6495-F3048-005.DRILL BORING/WELL CONSTRUCTION LOG 555 17th Street, Suite 500 Denver, CO 80202 (303) 383-2300 PROJECT NAME MW-37 PAGE 1 OF 4 DATE DRILLED PROJECT NUMBER WH I T N E Y ' S B O R I N G L O G S L C V A P L U M E D R A F T D E C 2 0 2 0 _ W T J M . G P J L A E W N N 0 1 . G D T 3 / 1 0 / 2 1 S: 4329.55 D: 4305.69 27.5 30.0 34.5 35.8 36.5 40.5 CLAY: yellowish brown (5YR 4/6); 100% high plasticity clay; wet. NOTE: recovery was not in-situ. Clayey SAND: yellowish red (5YR 4/6); 70% sand, poorly graded, fine to medium subangular to subrounded; 30% high plasticity clay; wet. NOTE: recovery was not in-situ, depth may not be exact. CLAY with SAND: yellowish red (5YR 4/6); high plasticity clay with orange and black staining; sand content varies, mostly fine to medium; moist. At 31 feet bgs, thin, wet, fine sand lense with red/orange and black staining. At 32.5 feet bgs, thin, wet, fine sand lense with red/orange and black staining. At 33 feet bgs, thin, wet, fine sand lense with red/orange and black staining. At 34 feet bgs, thin, wet, fine sand lense with red/orange and black staining. CLAY: yellowish red (5YR 4/6) mottled with light greenish gray; hard clay; moist. Sandy CLAY: yellowish red (5YR 4/6); 50% high plasticity clay with orange and black staining; 30% sand, well graded, fine to coarse, subangular to subrounded; 20% gravel, poorly graded, fine; wet. At 36.5 feet bgs, thin, wet, fine sand lense with red/orange and black staining, then CLAY with SAND: yellowish red (5YR 4/6); high plasticity clay with orange and black staining; sand content varies, mostly fine to medium; moist. At 38.5 feet bgs, thin, wet, fine sand lense with red/orange and black staining. At 40 feet bgs, thin, wet, fine sand lense with red/orange and black staining. Sandy CLAY: yellowish red (5YR 4/6); high plasticity clay; sand content varies; moist. At 42 feet bgs, thin, wet, fine sand lense with red/orange and black staining. 0.095 0.103 0.063 0.1 0.042 0.087 0.172 0.062 0.276 0.202 0.153 #10/20 sand filter pack (22 to 39 ft bgs). 2-inch SCH 40 PVC 0.020-slot screen nested well (25 to 35 ft bgs). 2-inch SCH 40 PVC blank. Hydrated bentonite chips (39 to 57 ft bgs). 0 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.7 CH SC CH CH CH CH CH Attempted bailer sample; no water. MW37- GW111220- 30 WELL DIAGRAMLITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION PI D ( p p m ) CO N T A C T DE P T H DE P T H (f t . B G L ) EX T E N T U. S . C . S . SA M P L E I D . GR A P H I C LO G Ma g n e t i c Su s c e p t i b i l i t y Continued from Previous Page 11/12/2020-11/13/2020 25 30 35 40 700 S 1600 E PCE Plume BORING/WELL NUMBER Continued Next Page 238824.6495-F3048-005.DRILL BORING/WELL CONSTRUCTION LOG 555 17th Street, Suite 500 Denver, CO 80202 (303) 383-2300 PROJECT NAME MW-37 PAGE 2 OF 4 DATE DRILLED PROJECT NUMBER WH I T N E Y ' S B O R I N G L O G S L C V A P L U M E D R A F T D E C 2 0 2 0 _ W T J M . G P J L A E W N N 0 1 . G D T 3 / 1 0 / 2 1 43.5 44.3 50.0 60.0 64.5 At 43 feet bgs, large cobble. Sandy CLAY with Gravel: yellowish red (5YR 4/6); 50% high plasticity clay; 30% sand, well graded; 20% fine gravel; wet. CLAY: mottled dark reddish brown (5YR 3/4) and pale brown (10YR 6/3); 100% high plasticity clay; hard; moist. At 46 feet bgs, color changes to mottled light olive gray (5Y 6/2) and yellowish brown (10YR 4/6) (possible staining); softer than above. No recover from 50 to 60 feet bgs due to rock in drill bit. At 54 feet bgs approximate contact per driller. CLAY: mottled dark reddish brown (5YR 3/4) with dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4); 85% high plasticity clay, firm to stiff; 10% fine sand; 5% silt; cohesive in places; moist to wet. Mixed recovery. NOTE: likely soft material pushed down from above. CLAY with Gravel: 70% medium to high plasticity clay; 30% gravel, fine to coarse, angular to subrounded; cohesive in placest; wet. Mixed Recovery. 0.124 0.43 0.205 0.143 0.217 0.237 0.351 Hydrated bentonite chips (39 to 57 ft bgs). 2-inch SCH 40 PVC blank. #10/20 sand filter pack (57 to 70 ft bgs). 2-inch SCH 40 PVC 0.020-slot screen nested well (60 to 70 ft bgs). 1 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.9 2 CH CH CH CH WELL DIAGRAMLITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION PI D ( p p m ) CO N T A C T DE P T H DE P T H (f t . B G L ) EX T E N T U. S . C . S . SA M P L E I D . GR A P H I C LO G Ma g n e t i c Su s c e p t i b i l i t y Continued from Previous Page 11/12/2020-11/13/2020 45 50 55 60 65 700 S 1600 E PCE Plume BORING/WELL NUMBER Continued Next Page 238824.6495-F3048-005.DRILL BORING/WELL CONSTRUCTION LOG 555 17th Street, Suite 500 Denver, CO 80202 (303) 383-2300 PROJECT NAME MW-37 PAGE 3 OF 4 DATE DRILLED PROJECT NUMBER WH I T N E Y ' S B O R I N G L O G S L C V A P L U M E D R A F T D E C 2 0 2 0 _ W T J M . G P J L A E W N N 0 1 . G D T 3 / 1 0 / 2 1 66.0 67.5 70.0 CLAY with Gravel: 70% medium to high plasticity clay; 30% gravel, fine to coarse, angular to subrounded; cohesive in placest; wet. Mixed Recovery. Gravelly CLAY: reddish brown (5YR 4/3); 55% medium to high plasticity clay, soft; 30% fine gravel; 15% fine sand; very wet. Mixed recovery. NOTE: boring open to 68 feet bgs, boring making water. End of boring at 70 feet bgs. 0.458 0.36 #10/20 sand filter pack (57 to 70 ft bgs). 2-inch SCH 40 PVC 0.020-slot screen nested well (60 to 70 ft bgs). 2.3 1.8 CH CH MW37- GW111320- 70 WELL DIAGRAMLITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION PI D ( p p m ) CO N T A C T DE P T H DE P T H (f t . B G L ) EX T E N T U. S . C . S . SA M P L E I D . GR A P H I C LO G Ma g n e t i c Su s c e p t i b i l i t y Continued from Previous Page 11/12/2020-11/13/2020 70 700 S 1600 E PCE Plume BORING/WELL NUMBER238824.6495-F3048-005.DRILL BORING/WELL CONSTRUCTION LOG 555 17th Street, Suite 500 Denver, CO 80202 (303) 383-2300 PROJECT NAME MW-37 PAGE 4 OF 4 DATE DRILLED PROJECT NUMBER WH I T N E Y ' S B O R I N G L O G S L C V A P L U M E D R A F T D E C 2 0 2 0 _ W T J M . G P J L A E W N N 0 1 . G D T 3 / 1 0 / 2 1 7.0 9.0 12.0 13.0 19.5 Hydrovac to 7 ft bgs. Silty SAND: brown (7.5YR 5/4); 75% loose, fine sand; 25% silt; moist. Sandy CLAY: brown (7.5YR 5/4); 70% cohesive, laminated clay; 30% sand; moist. At 10 feet bgs, sample is stiff. Sandy CLAY: brown (7.5YR 5/4); 60% clay, less cohesive, firm; 40% sand; moist. Sandy CLAY: brown (7.5YR 5/4); 75% clay, cohesive, stiff; 25% sand; trace fine, rounded gravel; moist. At 16 feet bgs, increase in moisture; firm. At 18 feet bgs, wet, sandy lens. GRAVEL with Sand and Clay: brown (7.5YR 5/4); 60% 0.385 0.646 0.305 0.518 0.442 Flush-mounted Augustyn vault (10-inch). Portland cement seal (3 to 7 ft bgs). 6-inch stainless steel vapor probe at 8 feet bgs with #10/20 sand filter pack (7 to 9 ft bgs). 2-inch SCH 40 PVC blank. Hydrated bentonite chips (9 to 25 ft bgs). 0.7 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 SM CL CL CL WELL DIAGRAMLITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION PI D ( p p m ) CO N T A C T DE P T H DE P T H (f t . B G L ) EX T E N T U. S . C . S . SA M P L E I D . GR A P H I C LO G Ma g n e t i c Su s c e p t i b i l i t y GROUT TYPE/QUANTITY Sonic Grab GROUND ELEVATION (FT MSL) TOP OF CASING (FT MSL) CASING TYPE/DIAMETER Joe Miller Salt Lake City, UT GRAVEL PACK TYPE Sonic SCREEN TYPE/SLOT LOGGED BY DRILLING METHOD SAMPLING METHOD S: 19.59 D: 18.53 BTOC LOCATION 2-inch Schedule 40 0.020-slot #10/20 sand REMARKS 4498.56 S: 4497.64 D: 4497.8 Groundwater measured after installation. GROUND WATER ELEVATION (FT MSL) DEPTH TO WATER (FT BGS) Hydrated Bentonite Chips 2-inch Schedule 40 PVC 11/14/2020 5 10 15 20 700 S 1600 E PCE Plume BORING/WELL NUMBER Continued Next Page 238824.6495-F3048-005.DRILL BORING/WELL CONSTRUCTION LOG 555 17th Street, Suite 500 Denver, CO 80202 (303) 383-2300 PROJECT NAME MW-38 PAGE 1 OF 4 DATE DRILLED PROJECT NUMBER WH I T N E Y ' S B O R I N G L O G S L C V A P L U M E D R A F T D E C 2 0 2 0 _ W T J M . G P J L A E W N N 0 1 . G D T 3 / 1 0 / 2 1 S: 4478.05 D: 4479.27 20.5 28.5 30.0 32.0 38.0 39.0 42.0 gravel, fine to coarse, angular to subrounded; 30% fine sand; 10% clay; loose; moist to wet. Sandy CLAY: brown (7.5YR 5/4); 80% clay, soft, cohesive; 20% fine sand; moist to wet. At 22 feet bgs, trace coarse gravel. Depth to water at time of drilling: 22.09 feet bgs. At 22.5 feet bgs, wet lens. At 23.75 feet bgs, 2 to 3 inch clast, less moisture. At 25.5 feet bgs, 2 to 3 inch clast, increase in fine sand. At 27.5 feet bgs, wet, sandy lens with trace gravel. Sandy CLAY: brown (7.5YR 5/3); 70% clay, cohesive, stiff to firm; 20% fine sand; 10% gravel, fine to coarse, subangular to subrounded; dry to moist. Clayey SAND: brown (7.5YR 5/3); 75% sand, fine to coarse, loose; 25% clay; trace fine gravel; cohesive; wet. Clayey SAND with Gravel: brown (7.5YR 5/3); 60% sand, fine to coarse; 25% clay; 15% gravel, fine to coarse; loose to compact; moist to wet. At 35 feet bgs, wet lens, increase in gravel. At 37 feet bgs, wet lens, increase in gravel. Sandy CLAY: brown (7.5YR 5/4); 70% clay, cohesive; 30% sand; trace fine gravel; wet. GRAVEL with Sand and Clay: 80% gravel, fine to coarse, subangular to subrounded; 20% sand and clay; sand is poorly graded, fine to coarse; loose; wet (saturated). At 41 feet bgs, increase in clay (gray layer). At 42 feet bgs, 6 to 8 inch clast, then Sandy CLAY with Gravel: brown (7.5YR 5/4); 60% lean clay, cohesive, firm to 0.503 0.467 0.355 0.485 0.507 0.397 0.498 0.395 0.103 0.42 Hydrated bentonite chips (9 to 25 ft bgs). #10/20 sand filter pack (25 to 39 ft bgs). 2-inch SCH 40 PVC 0.020-slot screen nested well (27 to 37 ft bgs). Hydrated bentonite chips (39 to 57 ft bgs). 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 1.1 GW GC CL CL SC SC CL GP GC WELL DIAGRAMLITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION PI D ( p p m ) CO N T A C T DE P T H DE P T H (f t . B G L ) EX T E N T U. S . C . S . SA M P L E I D . GR A P H I C LO G Ma g n e t i c Su s c e p t i b i l i t y Continued from Previous Page 11/14/2020 25 30 35 40 700 S 1600 E PCE Plume BORING/WELL NUMBER Continued Next Page 238824.6495-F3048-005.DRILL BORING/WELL CONSTRUCTION LOG 555 17th Street, Suite 500 Denver, CO 80202 (303) 383-2300 PROJECT NAME MW-38 PAGE 2 OF 4 DATE DRILLED PROJECT NUMBER WH I T N E Y ' S B O R I N G L O G S L C V A P L U M E D R A F T D E C 2 0 2 0 _ W T J M . G P J L A E W N N 0 1 . G D T 3 / 1 0 / 2 1 45.5 52.5 54.0 56.0 59.0 60.0 62.5 63.5 64.0 stiff; 30% fine sand; 10% fine to coarse gravel, subangular to subrounded; moist to wet. CLAY: light gray (5Y 7/2) mottled with brown; lean clay, very stiff to hard; cohesive; dry. SAND with Gravel: dark reddish brown (5YR 3/4); 60% sand, fine to coarse; 40% gravel, fine to coarse, rounded; loose; wet. Clayey GRAVEL with Sand: yellowish brown (10YR 5/4); 60% gravel, fine to coarse, subangular to subrounded; 20% clay; 20% sand; cohesive; dense; moist to wet. SILT: yellowish brown (10YR 5/4); 80% silt; 10% fine sand; 10% fine gravel; very stiff; cohesive; moist. Silty GRAVEL with Sand: yellowish brown (10YR 5/4); 60% gravel, poorly graded, fine to coarse, subangular to subrounded; 20% silt; 20% sand; cohesive; medium dense; moist to wet. SAND: dark brown (10YR 3/3); poorly graded sand; loose; saturated; wet. GRAVEL with Clay: brown (7.5YR 4/4); 80% gravel, fine to coarse, subangular to subrounded; 10% clay; 10% sand, medium to coarse; loose; wet. SILT: brown (7.5YR 4/4); cohesive; stiff; moist to wet. GRAVEL with Sand: brown (7.5YR 4/4); 70% gravel, poorly graded, fine to coarse, subangular to subrounded; 25% sand, fine to coarse; 5% clay; loose; wet. 0.446 0.394 0.095 0.088 0.27 0.252 0.22 0.239 0.243 0.15 0.12 0.112 Hydrated bentonite chips (39 to 57 ft bgs). 2-inch SCH 40 PVC blank. #10/20 sand filter pack (57 to 71 ft bgs). 2-inch SCH 40 PVC 0.020-slot screen nested well (60 to 70 ft bgs). 1.1 1 1 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1 1 1 1.1 1 CL CL SP GC ML GM SP GP GC ML GP WELL DIAGRAMLITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION PI D ( p p m ) CO N T A C T DE P T H DE P T H (f t . B G L ) EX T E N T U. S . C . S . SA M P L E I D . GR A P H I C LO G Ma g n e t i c Su s c e p t i b i l i t y Continued from Previous Page 11/14/2020 45 50 55 60 65 700 S 1600 E PCE Plume BORING/WELL NUMBER Continued Next Page 238824.6495-F3048-005.DRILL BORING/WELL CONSTRUCTION LOG 555 17th Street, Suite 500 Denver, CO 80202 (303) 383-2300 PROJECT NAME MW-38 PAGE 3 OF 4 DATE DRILLED PROJECT NUMBER WH I T N E Y ' S B O R I N G L O G S L C V A P L U M E D R A F T D E C 2 0 2 0 _ W T J M . G P J L A E W N N 0 1 . G D T 3 / 1 0 / 2 1 66.0 67.5 70.0 71.0 74.0 75.0 80.0 GRAVEL with Sand: brown (7.5YR 4/4); 70% gravel, poorly graded, fine to coarse, subangular to subrounded; 25% sand, fine to coarse; 5% clay; loose; wet. Silty GRAVEL: brown (7.5YR 4/3); fine to coarse gravel, rounded; cohesive; dense; moist. GRAVEL with Sand and Silt: brown (7.5YR 4/3); 70% gravel, poorly graded, fine to coarse; 20% sand, fine to coarse; 10% silt; loose; wet. Sandy SILT: brown (7.5YR 4/4); 80% silt, 20% sand; cohesive; firm to stiff; moist to wet. GRAVEL with Sand and Silt: brown (7.5YR 4/3); 70% gravel, poorly graded, fine to coarse; 20% sand, fine to coarse; 10% silt; loose; wet. Sandy SILT: 80% silt; 20% sand; trace gravel, fine to coarse; cohesive; firm; moist. At 79.5 feet bgs, increase in clay; stiff. End of boring at 80 feet bgs. 0.172 0.344 0.183 0.406 0.27 0.66 0.423 2-inch SCH 40 PVC 0.020-slot screen nested well (60 to 70 ft bgs). #10/20 sand filter pack (57 to 71 ft bgs). Hydrated bentonite chips (71 to 72 ft bgs). Native soil sluff (72 to 80 ft bgs). 0.9 1.2 1.2 1 0.9 1.2 1.3 GP GM GP GM ML GP GM ML WELL DIAGRAMLITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION PI D ( p p m ) CO N T A C T DE P T H DE P T H (f t . B G L ) EX T E N T U. S . C . S . SA M P L E I D . GR A P H I C LO G Ma g n e t i c Su s c e p t i b i l i t y Continued from Previous Page 11/14/2020 70 75 80 700 S 1600 E PCE Plume BORING/WELL NUMBER238824.6495-F3048-005.DRILL BORING/WELL CONSTRUCTION LOG 555 17th Street, Suite 500 Denver, CO 80202 (303) 383-2300 PROJECT NAME MW-38 PAGE 4 OF 4 DATE DRILLED PROJECT NUMBER WH I T N E Y ' S B O R I N G L O G S L C V A P L U M E D R A F T D E C 2 0 2 0 _ W T J M . G P J L A E W N N 0 1 . G D T 3 / 1 0 / 2 1 Appendix H Soil Core Photo Log PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 1 Date: 11/6/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 9-10’ Photo No. 2 Date: 11/6/2020 Location: MW-30R Description: 10-12’ Photo No. 3 Date: 11/6/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 12-14’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 4 Date: 11/6/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 14-16’ Photo No. 5 Date: 11/6/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 16-18’ Photo No. 6 Date: 11/6/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 18-20’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 7 Date: 11/6/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 20-21.5’ Photo No. 8 Date: 11/6/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 21.5-24’ Photo No. 9 Date: 11/6/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 24-26’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 10 Date: 11/6/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 26-28’ Photo No. 11 Date: 11/6/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 28-30’ Photo No. 12 Date: 11/6/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 30-32.5’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 13 Date: 11/6/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 32.5-35’ Photo No. 14 Date: 11/6/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 35-37’ Photo No. 15 Date: 11/6/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 37-39’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 16 Date: 11/6/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 39-40’ Photo No. 17 Date: 11/6/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 40-42’ Photo No. 18 Date: 11/6/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 42-44’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 19 Date: 11/6/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 44-46’ Photo No. 20 Date: 11/6/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 46-48’ Photo No. 21 Date: 11/6/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 48-50’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 22 Date: 11/6/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 50-52.5’ Photo No. 23 Date: 11/6/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 52.5-55’ Photo No. 24 Date: 11/6/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 55-57.5’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 25 Date: 11/6/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 57.5-60’ Photo No. 26 Date: 11/6/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 60-62’ Photo No. 27 Date: 11/6/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 62.5-65’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 28 Date: 11/6/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 65-67’ Photo No. 29 Date: 11/6/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 67-70’ Photo No. 30 Date: 11/6/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 70-72’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 31 Date: 11/6/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 72-74’ Photo No. 32 Date: 11/6/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 74-76’ Photo No. 33 Date: 11/6/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 76-78’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 34 Date: 11/6/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 78-80’ Photo No. 35 Date: 11/6/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 80-82’ Photo No. 36 Date: 11/6/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 82.5-85’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 37 Date: 11/6/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 85-87.5’ Photo No. 38 Date: 11/6/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 87.5-90’ Photo No. 39 Date: 11/6/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 90-92.5’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 40 Date: 11/6/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 92.5-95’ Photo No. 41 Date: 11/6/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 95-97.5’ Photo No. 42 Date: 11/6/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 97.5-100’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 43 Date: 11/6/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 100-102’ Photo No. 44 Date: 11/6/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 102-104’ Photo No. 45 Date: 11/6/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 104-106’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 46 Date: 11/6/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 106-108’ Photo No. 47 Date: 11/6/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 108-110’ Photo No. 48 Date: 11/6/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 110-112’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 49 Date: 11/6/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 112-114.5’ Photo No. 50 Date: 11/6/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 114.5-117’ Photo No. 51 Date: 11/6/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 117-119.5’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 52 Date: 11/6/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 119.5-121.5’ Photo No. 53 Date: 11/6/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 121.5-123.5’ Photo No. 54 Date: 11/6/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 123.5-125’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 55 Date: 11/6/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 125-127’ Photo No. 56 Date: 11/6/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 127-129.5’ Photo No. 57 Date: 11/6/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 129.5-132’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 58 Date: 11/6/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 132-133.5’ Photo No. 59 Date: 11/6/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 133.5-135’ Photo No. 60 Date: 11/6/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 135-137’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 61 Date: 11/6/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 137-139’ Photo No. 62 Date: 11/6/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 139-142’ Photo No. 63 Date: 11/6/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 142-144’ ฀PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 64 Date: 11/6/20 MW-30R Description: 144-146’ Photo No. 65 Date: 11/6/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 146-148’ Photo No. 66 Location: MW-30R Description: 148-150’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 23882 4 Photo No. 67 Date: 11/6/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 150-152’ Photo No. 68 Date: 11/6/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 152-155’ Photo No. 69 Date: 11/6/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 155-157’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 70 Date: 11/6/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 157-159’ Photo No. 71 Date: 11/6/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 159-162’ Photo No. 72 Date: 11/6/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 162-164’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 73 Date: 11/6/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 164-166’ Photo No. 74 Date: 11/6/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 166-168’ Photo No. 75 Date: 11/6/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 168-170’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 76 Date: 11/6/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 170-172.5’ Photo No. 77 Date: 11/6/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 172.5-174’ Photo No. 78 Date: 11/6/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 174-176’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 79 Date: 11/6/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 176-178’ Photo No. 80 Date: 11/6/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 178-180.5’ Photo No. 81 Date: 11/6/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 180.5-183’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 82 Date: 11/7/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 183-185’ Photo No. 83 Date: 11/7/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 185-187.5’ Photo No. 84 Date: 11/7/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 187.5-190’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 85 Date: 11/7/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 190-192’ Photo No. 86 Date: 11/7/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 192-194’ Photo No. 87 Date: 11/7/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 194-196’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 88 Date: 11/7/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 196-198’ Photo No. 89 Date: 11/7/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 198-200’ Photo No. 90 Date: 11/7/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 200-202’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 91 Date: 11/7/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 202-203.5’ Photo No. 92 Date: 11/7/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 203.5-2-5.5’ Photo No. 93 Date: 11/7/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 205.5-207.5’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 94 Date: 11/7/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 207.5-210’ Photo No. 95 Date: 11/7/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 210-212’ Photo No. 96 Date: 11/7/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 212-213.5’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 97 Date: 11/7/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 213.5-216’ Photo No. 98 Date: 11/7/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 216-218’ Photo No. 99 Date: 11/7/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 218-220’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 100 Date: 11/7/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 220-221.5’ Photo No. 101 Date: 11/7/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 221.5-223’ Photo No. 102 Date: 11/7/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 223-225.5’ ฀PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 103 Date: 11/7/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 225.5-228’ Photo No. 104 Date: 11/7/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 228-229.5’ Photo No. 105 Date: 11/7/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 229.5-231.5’ ฀PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 106 Date: 11/7/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 231.5-233’ Photo No. 107 Date: 11/7/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 233-235’ Photo No. 108 Date: 11/7/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 235-237’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 109 Date: 11/7/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 237-240’ Photo No. 110 Date: 11/7/2020 Location: MW-30R Description: 240-242’ Photo No. 111 Date: 11/7/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 242-243.5’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 112 Date: 11/7/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 243.5-246’ Photo No. 113 Date: 11/7/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 246-247.5’ Photo No. 114 Date: 11/7/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 247.5-250’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 115 Date: 11/9/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 250-252.5’ Photo No. 116 Date: 11/9/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 252.5-255’ Photo No. 117 Date: 11/9/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 255-257’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 118 Date: 11/9/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 257-259’ Photo No. 119 Date: 11/9/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 259-261’ Photo No. 120 Date: 11/9/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 261-263’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 121 Date: 11/9/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 263-265’ Photo No. 122 Date: 11/9/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 265-268’ Photo No. 123 Date: 11/9/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 268-270’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 124 Date: 11/9/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 270-272’ Photo No. 125 Date: 11/9/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 272-274’ Photo No. 126 Date: 11/9/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 274-276’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 127 Date: 11/9/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 276-278’ Photo No. 128 Date: 11/9/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 280-282’ Photo No. 129 Date: 11/9/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 282-284’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 130 Date: 11/9/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 284-286’ Photo No. 131 Date: 11/9/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 286-288’ Photo No. 132 Date: 11/9/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 288-290’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 133 Date: 11/9/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 290-292.5’ Photo No. 134 Date: 11/9/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 292.5-295’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 1 Date: 12/2/20 Location: MW-13L Description: 0-5’ No Photo – Pre-cleared with hand auger Photo No. 2 Date: 12/2/2020 Location: MW-13L Description: 5-6’ Photo No. 3 Date: 12/2/20 Location: MW-13L Description: 6-10’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 4 Date: 12/2/20 Location: MW-13L Description: 10-11’ Photo No. 5 Date: 12/2/20 Location: MW-13L Description: 11-14’ Photo No. 6 Date: 12/2/20 Location: MW-13L Description: 14-17’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 7 Date: 12/2/20 Location: MW-13L Description: 17-20’ Photo No. 8 Date: 12/2/20 Location: MW-13L Description: 20-22.5’ Photo No. 9 Date: 12/2/20 Location: MW-13L Description: 22.5-25’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 10 Date: 12/2/20 Location: MW-13L Description: 25-27.5’ Photo No. 11 Date: 12/2/20 Location: MW-13L Description: 27.5-30’ Photo No. 12 Date: 12/2/20 Location: MW-13L Description: 30-33’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 13 Date: 12/2/20 Location: MW-13L Description: 33-36’ Photo No. 14 Date: 12/2/20 Location: MW-13L Description: 36-38’ Photo No. 15 Date: 12/2/20 Location: MW-13L Description: 38-40’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 16 Date: 12/2/20 Location: MW-13L Description: 40-44’ Photo No. 17 Date: 12/2/20 Location: MW-13L Description: 44-47’ Photo No. 18 Date: 12/2/20 Location: MW-13L Description: 47-50’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 19 Date: 12/2/20 Location: MW-13L Description: 50-53’ Photo No. 20 Date: 12/2/20 Location: MW-13L Description: 53-56’ Photo No. 21 Date: 12/2/20 Location: MW-13L Description: 56-58’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 22 Date: 12/2/20 Location: MW-13L Description: 58-60’ Photo No. 23 Date: 12/2/20 Location: MW-13L Description: 60-63.5’ Photo No. 24 Date: 12/2/20 Location: MW-13L Description: 63.5-65’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 25 Date: 12/2/20 Location: MW-13L Description: 65-68’ Photo No. 26 Date: 12/2/20 Location: MW-13L Description: 68-70’ Photo No. 27 Date: 12/2/20 Location: MW-13L Description: 70-73’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 28 Date: 12/2/20 Location: MW-13L Description: 73-75’ Photo No. 29 Date: 12/2/20 Location: MW-13L Description: 75-77.5’ Photo No. 30 Date: 12/2/20 Location: MW-13L Description: 77.5-80’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 31 Date: 12/2/20 Location: MW-13L Description: 80-82.5’ Photo No. 32 Date: 12/2/20 Location: MW-13L Description: 82.5-85’ Photo No. 33 Date: 12/2/20 Location: MW-13L Description: 85-87.5’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 34 Date: 12/2/20 Location: MW-13L Description: 87.5-90’ Photo No. 35 Date: 12/2/20 Location: MW-13L Description: 90-92.5’ Photo No. 36 Date: 12/2/20 Location: MW-13L Description: 92.5-95’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 37 Date: 12/2/20 Location: MW-13L Description: 95-97.5’ Photo No. 38 Date: 12/2/20 Location: MW-13L Description: 97.5-100’ Photo No. 39 Date: 12/2/20 Location: MW-13L Description: 100-102.5’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 40 Date: 12/2/20 Location: MW-13L Description: 102.5-105’ Photo No. 41 Date: 12/2/20 Location: MW-13L Description: 105-107.5’ Photo No. 42 Date: 12/2/20 Location: MW-13L Description: 107.5-110’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 43 Date: 12/2/20 Location: MW-13L Description: 110-112.5’ Photo No. 44 Date: 12/2/20 Location: MW-13L Description: 112.5-115’ Photo No. 45 Date: 12/2/20 Location: MW-13L Description: 115-117.5’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 46 Date: 12/2/20 Location: MW-13L Description: 117.5-120’ Photo No. 47 Date: 12/2/20 Location: MW-13L Description: 120-122.5’ Photo No. 48 Date: 12/2/20 Location: MW-13L Description: 122.5-125’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 49 Date: 12/2/20 Location: MW-13L Description: 125-127.5’ Photo No. 50 Date: 12/2/20 Location: MW-13L Description: 127.5-130’ Photo No. 51 Date: 12/2/20 Location: MW-13L Description: 130-132.5’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 52 Date: 12/2/20 Location: MW-13L Description: 132.5-135’ Photo No. 53 Date: 12/2/20 Location: MW-13L Description: 135-137.5’ Photo No. 54 Date: 12/2/20 Location: MW-13L Description: 137.5-140’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 55 Date: 12/2/20 Location: MW-13L Description: 140-142.5’ Photo No. 56 Date: 12/2/20 Location: MW-13L Description: 142.5-145’ Photo No. 57 Date: 12/2/20 Location: MW-13L Description: 145-147.5’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 58 Date: 12/2/20 Location: MW-13L Description: 147.5-150’ Photo No. 59 Date: 12/3/20 Location: MW-13L Description: 150-152.5’ Photo No. 60 Date: 12/3/20 Location: MW-13L Description: 152.5-155’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 61 Date: 12/3/20 Location: MW-13L Description: 155-157.5’ Photo No. 62 Date: 12/3/20 Location: MW-13L Description: 157.5-160’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 1 Date: 11/12/20 Location: MW-37 Description: 0-7’ No photo – Vacuum Excavated Photo No. 2 Date: 11/12/2020 Location: MW-37 Description: 7-8’ Photo No. 3 Date: 11/12/20 Location: MW-37 Description: 8-9’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 4 Date: 11/12/20 Location: MW-37 Description: 9-10’ Photo No. 5 Date: 11/12/20 Location: MW-37 Description: 10-12’ Photo No. 6 Date: 11/12/20 Location: MW-37 Description: 12-14’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 7 Date: 11/12/20 Location: MW-37 Description: 14-16’ Photo No. 8 Date: 11/12/20 Location: MW-37 Description: 16-18’ Photo No. 9 Date: 11/12/20 Location: MW-37 Description: 18-20’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 10 Date: 11/12/20 Location: MW-37 Description: 20-22’ Photo No. 11 Date: 11/12/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 22-24’ Photo No. 12 Date: 11/12/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 24-26’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 13 Date: 11/12/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 26-28’ Photo No. 14 Date: 11/12/2020 Location: MW-30R Description: 28-30’ Photo No. 15 Date: 11/12/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 30-32’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 16 Date: 11/12/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 32-34’ Photo No. 17 Date: 11/12/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 34-36’ Photo No. 18 Date: 11/12/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 36-38’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 19 Date: 11/12/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 38-40’ Photo No. 20 Date: 11/12/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 40-42.5’ Photo No. 21 Date: 11/12/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 42-45’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 22 Date: 11/12/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 45-47.5’ Photo No. 23 Date: 11/12/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 47.5-50’ Photo No. 24 Date: 11/12/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 50-60’ No photo due to no recovery PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 28 Date: 11/12/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 60-61’ Photo No. 29 Date: 11/12/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 61-63’ Photo No. 30 Date: 11/12/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 63-65’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 31 Date: 11/12/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 65-66’ Photo No. 32 Date: 11/12/20 Location: MW-30R Description: 66-68’ Photo No. 33 Date: 11/12/20 Location: MW-30R Description: PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 1 Date: 11/14/20 Location: MW-38 Description: 0-7’ No Photo – Vacuum Excavated Photo No. 2 Date: 11/14/2020 Location: MW-38 Description: 7-10’ Photo No. 3 Date: 11/14/20 Location: MW-38 Description: 10-12.5’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 4 Date: 11/14/20 Location: MW-38 Description: 12.5-15’ Photo No. 5 Date: 11/14/20 Location: MW-38 Description: 15-17.5’ Photo No. 6 Date: 11/14/20 Location: MW-38 Description: 17.5-20’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 7 Date: 11/14/20 Location: MW-38 Description: 20-22’ Photo No. 8 Date: 11/14/20 Location: MW-38 Description: 22-24’ Photo No. 9 Date: 11/14/20 Location: MW-38 Description: 24-26’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 10 Date: 11/14/20 Location: MW-38 Description: 26-28’ Photo No. 11 Date: 11/14/20 Location: MW-38 Description: 28-30’ Photo No. 12 Date: 11/14/20 Location: MW-38 Description: 30-32’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 13 Date: 11/14/20 Location: MW-38 Description: 32-35’ Photo No. 14 Date: 11/14/2020 Location: MW-38 Description: 35-37.5’ Photo No. 15 Date: 11/14/20 Location: MW-38 Description: 37.5-40’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 16 Date: 11/14/20 Location: MW-38 Description: 40-42’ Photo No. 17 Date: 11/14/20 Location: MW-38 Description: 42-44’ Photo No. 18 Date: 11/14/20 Location: MW-38 Description: 44-46’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 19 Date: 11/14/20 Location: MW-38 Description: 46-48’ Photo No. 20 Date: 11/14/20 Location: MW-38 Description: 48-50’ Photo No. 21 Date: 11/14/20 Location: MW-38 Description: 50-52’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 22 Date: 11/14/20 Location: MW-38 Description: 52-54’ Photo No. 23 Date: 11/14/20 Location: MW-38 Description: 54-56’ Photo No. 24 Date: 11/14/20 Location: MW-38 Description: 56-58’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 25 Date: 11/14/20 Location: MW-38 Description: 58-60’ Photo No. 26 Date: 11/14/2020 Location: MW-38 Description: 60-62’ Photo No. 27 Date: 11/14/20 Location: MW-38 Description: 62-64’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 28 Date: 11/14/20 Location: MW-38 Description: 64-66’ Photo No. 29 Date: 11/14/20 Location: MW-38 Description: 66-68’ Photo No. 30 Date: 11/14/20 Location: MW-38 Description: 68-70’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 31 Date: 11/14/20 Location: MW-38 Description: 70-72’ Photo No. 32 Date: 11/14/2020 Location: MW-38 Description: 72-74’ Photo No. 33 Date: 11/6/20 Location: MW-38 Description: 74-76’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 34 Date: 11/14/20 Location: MW-38 Description: 76-78’ Photo No. 35 Date: 11/14/2020 Location: MW-38 Description: 78-80’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 1 Date: 11/17/20 Location: MW-36 Description: 0-6’ No Photo – Vacuum excavated Photo No. 2 Date: 11/17/2020 Location: MW-36 Description: 6-6.5’ Photo No. 3 Date: 11/17/20 Location: MW-36 Description: 6.5-8’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 4 Date: 11/17/20 Location: MW-36 Description: 8-10’ Photo No. 5 Date: 11/17/20 Location: MW-36 Description: 10-12’ Photo No. 6 Date: 11/17/20 Location: MW-36 Description: 12-14’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 7 Date: 11/17/20 Location: MW-36 Description: 14-16’ Photo No. 8 Date: 11/17/20 Location: MW-36 Description: 16-18’ Photo No. 9 Date: 11/17/20 Location: MW-36 Description: 18-20’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 10 Date: 11/17/20 Location: MW-36 Description: 20-22.5’ Photo No. 11 Date: 11/17/20 Location: MW-36 Description: 22.5-25’ Photo No. 12 Date: 11/17/20 Location: MW-36 Description: 25-27.5’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 13 Date: 11/17/20 Location: MW-36 Description: 27.5-30’ Photo No. 14 Date: 11/17/20 Location: MW-36 Description: 30-32’ Photo No. 15 Date: 11/17/20 Location: MW-36 Description: 33-35’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 16 Date: 11/17/20 Location: MW-36 Description: 35-37’ Photo No. 17 Date: 11/17/20 Location: MW-36 Description: 37-40’ Photo No. 18 Date: 11/17/20 Location: MW-36 Description: 40-42’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 19 Date: 11/17/20 Location: MW-36 Description: 42-44’ Photo No. 20 Date: 11/17/20 Location: MW-36 Description: 44-45’ Photo No. 21 Date: 11/17/20 Location: MW-36 Description: 45-47.5’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 22 Date: 11/17/20 Location: MW-36 Description: 47.5-50’ Photo No. 23 Date: 11/17/20 Location: MW-36 Description: 50-52.5’ Photo No. 24 Date: 11/17/20 Location: MW-36 Description: 52.5-55’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 25 Date: 11/17/20 Location: MW-36 Description: 55-57.5’ Photo No. 26 Date: 11/17/20 Location: MW-36 Description: 57.5-60’ Photo No. 27 Date: 11/17/20 Location: MW-36 Description: 60-61’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 28 Date: 11/17/20 Location: MW-36 Description: 61-64’ Photo No. 29 Date: 11/17/20 Location: MW-36 Description: 64-66’ Photo No. 30 Date: 11/17/20 Location: MW-36 Description: 66-68’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 31 Date: 11/17/20 Location: MW-36 Description: 68-70’ Photo No. 32 Date: 11/17/20 Location: MW-36 Description: 70-73’ Photo No. 33 Date: 11/17/20 Location: MW-36 Description: 73-75’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 34 Date: 11/17/20 Location: MW-36 Description: 75-76’ Photo No. 35 Date: 11/17/20 Location: MW-36 Description: 76-78’ Photo No. 36 Date: 11/17/20 Location: MW-36 Description: 78-80’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 37 Date: 11/17/20 Location: MW-36 Description: 80-82’ Photo No. 38 Date: 11/17/20 Location: MW-36 Description: 82-85’ Photo No. 39 Date: 11/17/20 Location: MW-36 Description: 85-87.5’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 40 Date: 11/17/20 Location: MW-36 Description: 87.5-90’ Photo No. 41 Date: 11/17/20 Location: MW-36 Description: 90-92’ Photo No. 42 Date: 11/17/20 Location: MW-36 Description: 92-94’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 43 Date: 11/17/20 Location: MW-36 Description: 94-96’ Photo No. 44 Date: 11/17/20 Location: MW-36 Description: 96-98’ Photo No. 45 Date: 11/17/20 Location: MW-36 Description: 98-100’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 46 Date: 11/17/20 Location: MW-36 Description: 100-102’ Photo No. 48 Date: 11/17/2020 Location: MW-36 Description: 102-104’ Photo No. 49 Date: 11/17/20 Location: MW-36 Description: 104-106’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 50 Date: 11/17/20 Location: MW-36 Description: 106-108’ Photo No. 51 Date: 11/17/2020 Location: MW-36 Description: 108-110’ Appendix I Laboratory Data Package and Data Validation Report Note: Laboratory Data Reports removed from report and provided separately. 20K141 EMAX Laboratories, Inc. Matrix:Groundwater Collection date:11/12/2020, 11/13/2020 Volatile Organic Compounds SW 846 8260C Lab ID Sample Number JK141-01 MW37-GW111220-30 JK141-02 TB56-GW111220 JK141-03 EB49-GW111220 JK141-04 MW37-GW111320-70 Precision:Yes No N/A N/A N/A Yes Field 8260C Sample Duplicate %RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples Duplicates N/A MS/MSD 8260C %RPD Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A LCS/LCSD 8260C %RPD Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples LCS1W / LCSD1W Acceptable Accuracy:Yes No N/A Was the Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate criteria met? (frequency ≥ 5% and laboratory determined control limits) N/A Laboratory Control Sample criteria met?Yes Were the Laboratory Method Blank results all < RL?Yes Were the Field Blanks results all < RL?No Was the ICAL criteria met? Yes Was the CCV criteria met? Yes Was the Tuning criteria met?Yes Were the Surrogate % recoveries within laboratory determined control limits?Yes Were the Internal Standard areas within ± 50 - 150%? Yes Blanks 8260C Concentration (ug/L)MDL /RL Qualifiers Associated Samples MBLK1W Nondetect Field Blank 8260C Concentration MDL /RL Qualifiers Associated Samples TB56-GW111220 Acetone 3.3 J 2.5 / 20 U - RL K141-01, K141-04 Bromodichloromethane 0.23 J 0.1 / 1.0 None Sample results nondetect Bromoform 0.17 J 0.15 / 1.0 None Sample results nondetect Chloroform 0.1 J 0.1 / 1.0 U - RL K141-04 Dibromochloromethane 0.38 J 0.1 / 1.0 None Sample results nondetect EB49-GW111220 Acetone 3.7 J 2.5 / 20 U - RL K141-01, K141-04 Were the Matrix Spike Duplicate RPDs ≤ 20%? (Or lab defined limits) Laboratory Control Spike Duplicates RPD within limits? Comments (note deviations): Comments (note deviations): Samples in SDG: Data validation was performed in accordance with the specific analytical methods and the National Functional Guidelines for Organic Superfund Methods Data Review (EPA January 2017). Volatile Organic Compounds 8260C Are the field duplicate relative percent differences (RPD) ≤50% (soils), <30% (water) or within CRQL criteria? VA Salt Lake City Salt Lake City, Utah Groundwater Validation Report Laboratory: Analysis/Methods: Sample Delivery Group (SDG) Number: 1 of 2 Surrogates 8260C %R Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable MS/MSD 8260C %R Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A LCS/LCSD 8260C %R Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples LCS1W / LCSD1W Acceptable ICAL 8260C RRF %RSD Qualifiers Associated Samples 10/30/2020 11:33 Acceptable Acceptable CCV 8260C RRF %D Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples 11/16/20 12:21 Acceptable Acceptable Tune 8260C Acceptable Internal Standards 8260C Area Area Lower / Upper Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable Representativeness:Yes No N/A Were sampling procedures and design criteria met? Yes Were holding times met? Yes Was preservation criteria met? (0° C - 6° C)Yes Were Chain-of-Custody records complete and provided in data package?Yes Preservation Cooler Temperature (Degrees C) Preservation Criteria Qualifier Associated Samples Acceptable Holding Times Analyte Days to Extraction HT Criteria Qualifier Associated Samples Acceptable Comparability:Yes No N/A Were analytical procedures and methods followed as defined in the QAPP or field change documentation?Yes Comments (note deviations): Completeness (90%):Yes No N/A Are all data in this SDG usable?Yes Sensitivity:Yes No N/A Are MDLs present and reported? Yes Do the reporting limits meet project requirements? Yes Comments (note deviations): Comment: Data is usable with appropriate qualifiers applied. Data Validator:Date:11/19/2020 Data Reviewer:Date: 11/20/2020Cherie Zakowski Kristine Molloy The cooler temperature was 3.6 °C Comments (note deviations): Comments (note 2 of 2 Appendix J Survey Data Point Northing Easting Elevation ID 121600 7445055.62 1545425.12 4722.89 CL MW-30R 121601 7445056.12 1545425.09 4722.95 NO MW-30R 121602 7445055.90 1545425.16 4722.60 MW-30RA 121603 7445055.64 1545425.20 4722.36 MW-30RB 121604 7440955.06 1541547.17 4429.01 CL MW-36 121605 7440955.57 1541547.14 4428.96 NO MW-36 121606 7440955.13 1541547.30 4428.49 MW-36 121607 7443160.46 1539938.63 4348.36 CL MW-37 121608 7443160.98 1539938.61 4348.36 NO MW-37 121609 7443160.41 1539938.84 4348.00 MW-37 S 121610 7443160.68 1539938.71 4347.97 MW-37 D 121611 7443931.79 1541593.58 4498.56 CL MW-38 121612 7443932.26 1541593.53 4498.55 NO MW-38 121613 7443931.72 1541593.35 4497.64 MW-38 S 121614 7443931.93 1541593.53 4497.80 MW-38 D 121615 7442106.30 1541851.01 4483.67 CL MW-13L 121616 7442106.64 1541851.07 4483.66 NO MW-13L 121617 7442106.40 1541851.05 4483.23 MW-13L Appendix K Well Development Purge Logs Airlifting procedure: A: Assembling the diverter: 1. Measure out length of airlift line (nylon tubing) that will be inside the well. It should be set 3-5 feet above the well screen. BE SURE THE AIRLIFT WEIGHT DOES NOT HANG WITHIN THE WELL SCREEN. MAKE SURE IT IS IN THE BLANK CASING, AS PRESSURIZING INSIDE THE WELL SCREEN CAN DAMAGE THE SCREEN AND COMPROMISE THE INTEGRITY OF THE CASING ALLOWING SEDIMENT OR SAND INVASION AND RUINING THE WELL. 2. Thread the uphole or surface end of the nylon tube through the bored through fitting at the top of the plastic diverter and tighten it down. 3. Attach the airlift weight (stainless steel weight with fitting on top) to the nylon tube with the Swagelok connection. 4. Tighten down the airlift weight connection and diverter gas-line connection (on top of the diverter). 5. Feed airlift weight and nylon tube into well, thread diverter piece onto threads at the top of the well casing. 6. Attach a garden hose to the fitting on the diverter piece. Put the other end of the hose into discharge vessel. 7. Attach the loose nylon tube to nitrogen tank regulator. B: Development: 1. Calculate needed lift pressure with the following equation: depth of the airlift weight/2.31x1.1=airlift pressure (in psi) NEVER EXCEED 150 PSI WHICH IS THE WORKING PRESSURE OF 1” SCHED 80 THREADED PVC PIPE OR THE WELL THREADS AND WELL SCREEN COULD BE DAMAGED. 2. In order for this procedure to work about 25% of the casing above the airlift weight needs to be full of water. If static conditions aren’t such that there is enough head above the screen and the airlift device then water needs to be added for each slug. 1” Schedule 80 pvc holds about .35gal/10ft so you can plan accordingly with the volume that will need to be added. 3. When all connections are tight and discharge tube is securely in discharge vessel, dial in the nitrogen to the pressure calculated above. 4. Let the nitrogen gas flow in until a slug of water comes into the diverter, turn off the pressure, let the water flow out of the diverter. 5. Repeat this process, giving enough time for recharge between cycles, until water either (A)is clear or (B)is no longer changing in its sediment load with each volume purged. 6. For example, at the beginning it may look like mud, ten cycles later it may look like chocolate milk, and five cycles after that it may look like murky water, but ten cycles later it still looks like murky water, then murky water is what the well is going to produce and the well is developed. Appendix A.3. Well Development Log Monitoring Point: M 2 A Date: llo 20 Sampler A hen Weather: Visitors Casing Dia. DTW: 10. 9 Boring Dia. TD: Pump Intake Depth: Pump Top Depth: Purge/Sampling Method: Vial pH: Depth to Water @Sampling: Calculated Purge Volume (Method 1) x 2 Calculate the purge volume using both methods. Purge the well to whichever volume is greater. Water added during construction (gal) Purge Volume (gal) (0.0) Casing and Annular Volume Vol. Above Filter Pack Calculated Purge Volume' [( 2 (Method 2) -10.T8)x( TD (t) DTW (ft) .23 CF BF Casing Leng.(ft) CF i67 Water added during construction (gal) Purge Volume (gai) (0.0) Casing Volume Factors (galift): 2"= 0.17:4"=0.66;5"=0.95 Borehole Factor Vols.(Cas.Dia/Bor.Dia. )in):2/8"=0.71 galit,4/10"=0.98 galift:4/12"=1.18 galift;5/12"=1.38 gal/ft Site Safety PPE Disposal: Disposition of Purge Water:90% Recharge Level: Specific Purge Vol specify ml or gal Temp pH (0.0) (C) (0.0) pH (0.0) Cond.GW Level (ft below MP) Comments Turbidity (NTU) (0.0) Time (mS/cm) .000) (Color/Odor) |400 Attempt to Stat 436 A ty pul ho up andtiv analnb u w 1500 ble ouu -barlu_ Oettne stuck Is Stvck whill_pulllroUp to vetieveCttiStucE bal' MA`Ded röpe rom (OCatnon we_baur was Ht aOArOx 20' btod 20' PAGE 1 OF 2 Appendix A.3. Well Development Lo0g Monitoring Point: 1W-3oA _Date: l2ARez Sampler:. za_ /LRAPA Weather SUAN iw 2F lG4OF Visitors: Casing Dia. Zhdrs NiN 222.34 TD: 2523 Pump Intake Depth: 2473 Pump Top Depth:2443- Boring Dia. DTW: Purge/Sampling Method: Vial pH: NI Depth to Water@Sampling: Calculated Purge Volume (Method 1) N/A NA x 2 -Calculate the purge votume using both methods. Purge the well to whichever voBume is greater Water added during construction (gal) Purge Volume (gal) (0.0) Casing and Annular Volume Vol. Above Filter Pack Calculated Purge Volume t 2- 2x o I 2-2%2x5 (Method 2) TD () DTW () Casing Leng. ( Water added during construction (gal) Purge Volume (gal) (0.0) Casing Volume Factors (galft): 2'= 0.17; 4'-0.66; 5"-0.95 Borehole Factor Vols. (Cas.Dia/Bor. Dia )in): 2/8-0.71 galut: 4/10- 098 galft: 4/12"= 1.18 galft 5/12"- 1.38 galift Site Safety PPE Disposal: Disposition of Purge Water: 90% Recharge Level Specific Purge Vol Temp specify(C) (0.0) Comments Turbidity (NTU) (0.0) GW Level (ft below MP) Cond. Time (Color/Odor) (mS/cm) (0.000) 3.12 232,S mi or gal)C) 0.0) pH (0.0) 23 . .113 L33325 22123 127 221.23 1522 2 23 10S,2 SS| 23 .2 13,S 22).23 279,22 413221 77 S C3 3 4 221.23 24, 12 24 127. 2123 22.5 24 ap dn 224 3 |43 4,41 3/ 322, 1y2 , 37 |/6. S 227,23 27723 725 2 skped desrk/_ PAGE 1 OF 2 Specific Cond. Purge Vol specify mi or gal (C) (0.0) PH (0.0) GW Level (ft below MP) Comments Turbidity (NTU) (0.0) Temp Time (mSlcm) (0.000) (Color/Odor) Field parameters N N N N stable? Flow-through Cell Calibration Total Purge Volume (mL or allons 45 Meter Calibration within Specifications ParameterCalibrationCheck pH Turbidity Spec Cond Date Time Calibration Standards Initial Reading Final Reading General Notes: FNIED PAGE 2 OF 2 Appendix A.3. Well Development Log Hi-3:L5 H4IE 4 F Date: 12/2IZ Sampler / Mut7 Monitoring Point: Weather Boring Dia. Visitors: Casing Dia. DTW: 221 35 Pump Top Depth:3G3 pal Pang TD:213 Pump Intake Depth:7.3 Vial pH: Purge/Sampling Method Depth to Water @Sampling: Calculated Purge Volume (Method 1) Nin Water added during construction (gal) x 2 Calculate the purge volume using both methods. Purge the well to whichever volume is greater. Purge Volume (gal) (0.0) Casing and Annular Volume Vol. Above Filter Pack Calculated Purge Volume' [ + i eaT x5 25 N (Method 2) Water Water added during constructuon (ga1) Purge volume (gal) (0.0) Casing Volume Factors (galit): 2"- 0.17; 4'-0.66; 5-0.95 Borehole Factor Vols. (Cas.Dia/Bor. Dia )0n): 2/8"- 0.71 gauft 4/10"- 0.98 galt; 4/12"- 1.18 galit: 5/12"- 1 38 gal/ft Site Safety PPE Disposal Disposition of Purge Water: 90% Recharge Level: t Purge Vol specir (C) (0.0) m or gaY| Specific Cond. (mSlcm) (0.000) Temp pH (0.0) GW Level (ft below MP) Ape Comments Turbidity (NTU) (0.0) Time (Color/Odor) AV H3 31 5 2S4 2243 C4422435 7L 12,3112o 152 2. 4713 2213S 3118 244 33 351 IS 21 01151 2_ 12 S 12.1712.1o 51 S 14 2293 2213 z21, 35 221.S 22 13 221.3S 365 30.3 38 718 725 1L 13 lL I3 | 12 21 i 0,1S 305 PAGE 1 OF 2 Specific Purge Vol specity (C) (0.0) ml or gal Temp pH (0.0) Cond. Comments Turbidity (NTU) (0.0) GW Level (ft below MP) Time (mS/cm) (0.000) (Color/Odor) Field stable? parameters N N| N N Total Purge Volume (mL orgallons) S7 Flow-through Cell Calibration Meter: Parameter CalibrationCheck Calibration within Specifications Date Time Calibration Standards Initial Reading Final Reading pH Turbidity Spec Cond General Notes: &ot Vir CAUIERITN PAGE 2 OF 2 Appendix A.3. Well Development Log Monitoring Point: Mw-34 Date 1213/73 Sampler: Vierlue [L_eslhy_ Weather: Visitors: Pump Intake Depth: Pump Top Depth: Y TD: 5S NI Depth to Water @Sampling: Boring Dia. Casing Dia. 2 DTW: L4,bo Purge/Sampling Method: Vial pH: x 2 NI Calculated Purge Volume (Method 1) ' Calculate the purge volume using both methods. Purge the well to whichever volume is greater Water added during construction (gal) Purge Volume (gal) (0.0) Casing and Annular Volume Vol. Above Filter Pack Calculated Purge Volume"'t( 5 * DTW ( x I) = il.yx5 Casing Leng. ( CF Water added during construction (gal) Purge Volume (gal) (0.0) (Method 2) TD () Casing Volume Factors (galft): 2"=0.17; 4"-0.66; 5-0.95 Borehole Factor Vols. (Cas.Dia/Bor.Dia.)in): 2/8"- 0.71 galft; 4/10"= 0.98 galt; 4/12"-1.18 galift: 5'/12"= 1.38 galt Site Safety: PPE Disposal: Disposition of Purge Water: 90% Recharge Level: Specific Comments Purge Vol specify mi or (ga Turbidity (NTU) (0.0) GW Level (ft below MP) Temp Cond. Time (Color/Odor) (mS/cm) | (C) (0.0) pH (0.0) (0.000) 44 S4 41.54 0.9 1043 13 |3SL 41.54 S2. 44.5 43.0 C12h3o_ S.4 33.33 31 1310 1315 132 LS 135 4110.43 131 L4.5 S 3S2 PAGE 1 OF 2 Specific Purge Vol specify ml or gal Commentss Temp pH (0.0) (C) (0.0) Turbidity (NTU) (0.0) GW Level (ft below MP) Cond. Time (Color/Odor) (mS/cm) (0.000) Field parameters N N N N Total Purge Volume (mL orkgallons 25 stable? Flow-through Cell Calibration Meter: Calibration within Specifications Final Reading Parameter Calibration Check pH Turbidity Spec Cond Date Time Calibration Standards Initial Reading General Notes: PAGE 2 OF 2 Appendix A.3. Well Development Log Date: 12/SN Nore Monitoring Point 15 SamplerI, VRTLAL/ K DULAH 1LLEL LOW 24'F il4H 4 Casing Dia. Purge/Sampling Method Paa2 Weather Visitors DTW 32_ 25S Boring Dia. TD: Pump Intake Depth: 28,5S Pump Top Depth Vial pH Depth to Water@Sampling: Calculated Purge Volume (Method 1) NA x 2 = Calculate the purge volume using both methods. Purge Water added during construction (gal) Purge Volume (gal) (0.0) the well to whichever volume is greater. Casing and Annular Volume Vol. Above Filter Pack Calculated Purge Volume'T1S * 0+ oi-ltLx5* (Method 2) Water added during construction (gal) Purge Volume (gal) (0.0) Casing Volume Factors (gal/t): 2"= 0.17; 4"=0.66; 5"=0.95 Borehole Factor Vols. (Cas.Dia/Bor. Dia.)Gin): 2/80.71 gal/ft, 4/10= 0.98 gal/t, 4/12"= 1.18 gal/ft; 5'/12"= 1.38 galift Site Safety PPE Disposal: Disposition of Purge Water 90% Recharge Levvel: t Specific Purge Vol ORP Comments TemppH (0.0) (C) (0.0) Cond. GW Level (ft specify ml orga Turbidity (NTU) (0.0) Time (mS/cm) below MP) (Color/Odor) 0.000) 620 6 232 2420.4# 26o7 6sa L520 5.8E1412-36 373 44| 2 36 132643 2.36 r3.06H27 35o 7H23 44.0t |Z0 e 132215 2364G 20,HS 21241|2.36 ZE| 20, 4 4 S.il 4|2E &S20. 3 L3B44234 Us02 20 43232.3744 P 737| |246 Z 24816735 Z48738 24522 749330 242 7Z7| SS03/ 46./2 20 t4 4234 C3042 - PAGE 1 OF 2 Specific Purge Vol specify Temp Cond. GW Level (ft Turbidity (NTU) (0.0) Time Comments mi or gali(C) (0.0)| PH (0.0) (mS/cm) below MP) (Color/Odor) .000) Field parameters NN N N Total Purge Volume (mL ogallons) = 49 stable? Flow-through Cell Calibration Meter Calibration within Specifications Parameter Calibration Check pH Turbidity Spec Cond Date Calibration Standards Initial Reading_ Time Final Reading General Notes: PAGF OF 2 Appendix A.3. WelI Development Log Monitoring Point:-2 Date: il0Z Sampler t Weather Visitors: DTW:21E A TD:2 Vial pH: Boring Dia. Casing Dia. Pump Intake Depth: Pump Top Depth: Purge/Sampling Method Depth to Water @Sampling Calculated Purge Volume (Method 1) x2 = Water added during construction (gal) Purge Volume (gal) (0.0) Calculate the purge volume using both methods.Purge the well to whichever volume is greater. Casing and Annular Volume Vol. Above Filter Pack Calculated Purge Volume' I3leU -218.S0) x(o.0-+ BF DTW ( + 210 5.30x5 + (Method 2) TD (ft) Casing Leng.(ft) CF Water added during construction (gal) Purge Volume (gal) (0.0) Casing Volume Factors (gal/ft): 2"= 0.17;4-0.66;5"=0.95 Borehole Factor Vols.(Cas.Dia/Bor.Dia.)in): 2/8"=0.71 gal/t;4/10"=0.98 galft;4/12"=1.18 gal/ft:;5"/12"=1.38 gal/ft Site Safety: PPE Disposal: Disposition of Purge Water oRP -WtevetHA betow-MP) 90% Recharge Level:ft SpecificPurgeVol TemppH (0.0) (C) (0.0)| Cond.CommentsTurbidity (NTU)(0.0) Time specify (mS/cm) .000) (Color/Odor) ml or gal loa 2 32 B.00|1.035 325 3.7 12.S0 8, 2p|0.995 i017 12.45 32 1.012|13. 7 SUituy sMeu 13. 2 U3330 oal|12 4g850 0.76T|1.121 unum_pur2g ut_ Switu AS 2.433v.04732.+A 202 S0 gal 2 4S 3.32 0.198 |232.7 i207 S aai| 12.l\| &.35| 0. qTK |2s4,I -80. 21Z l nai |170433 0.a0|ib7 ||-7e.7 |PuDAd 1OX_well volwim 200 Dall_ tdLQvQL o3 PAGE 1 OF 2 ST comou M, hut ip puccdoli Appendix A.3. Well Development Log u/1o/20 MW-2b C Date: tt Sampler.E POT_A horni Monitoring Point: Weather:_ Visitors Boring Dia. Casing Dia. DTW: 2 .L7 TD Pump Intake Depth: Depth to Water @Sampling: Pump Top Depth Purge/Sampling Method:Vial pH: Calculated Purge Volume' (Method 1) x 2 Calculate the purge volume using both methods.Purge the well to whichever volume is greater. Water added during construction (gal)Purge Volume (gal)(0.0) Casing and Annular Volumee Vol. Above Filter Pack Calculated Purge Volume'[(15-2144D x(o cA + TD (ft) = 4.4 x5 CF 22 Purge Volume (gal)(0.0)(Method 2) DTW (ft) BF Casing Leng.(ft) CF Water added during construction (gal) Casing Volume Factors (gal/ft): 2"= 0.17; 4"=0.66; 5"=0.95 Borehole Factor Vols.(Cas.Dia/Bor.Dia.)in): 2/8"=0.71 gal/ft;4/10=0.98 gal/ft;4/12"=1.18 gal/ft;5"/12"=1.38 galt Site Safety:PPE Disposal: Disposition of Purge Water 90% Recharge Level:ft ORp GWtevelHt betow-M Specific Purge Vol specify ml or gal Temp pH (0.0) (C) (0.0)pH (0.0)| Cond. CommentsTurbidity (NTU) (0.0) Time (mS/cm) (Color/Odor) (0.000) 13 1232 3-1 13 DUVL 3.1o2.30|iCH3e047-1,2 12.15 I.02j 4.223.e 3.31 .a puYK1 NITThCS -120 1|urb _O rh 143 13.05 5| 2 12. 2 35| C 7017i,|3?. _ViSIbiy TS SMrbic1 12 PL| 05 271 15 13422,Y 195530 p13,01 1201S [|6,0|21,9 |3wtch Qis IS 12. 1.2 232|33 -Z2| 214 32 45.1-24. 5 H0gal |2 322| 00 444,0 12,D_ LL/2d0 V 21 u2 ted at O0Ve tuyhrd 342.13 043.u3|231.02| 2-73 uG|3A|M22| 12.13 1.1515.04133n.2 12.45 4 0 453.v 10*. 2.29.77 fi.52 6.038 VISil clecv eas LA tvbrluty mut ioX well vCivne_.0 24.7 206 32. Total puvOLd between daus t"/lo "|u) Is PAGEOF2231-v 230200al Location 97 Project/Client Date l1b/zoDate otionSLC VA Projiect/ Client Vft T00 1bDC E PCE Pu, ne PC l Location pped sampus, pee Water Cvw, 30F TAs GW wel cdivelopment PPE Qvel D Pvsonill: E.KoTT (Author ), A. horni (wasatch) 0 100 LiTT ensite.|CaubvaBe PiD. Bin l0allino hviptminT 000 A Horn ovsitCaubratt Ys. H+SMinvV 000 Ttam to MW -Zb. Plan to diue ep CTaned coe unldinns landlA0 Cm al 4-nttyvals. ICCO |10+ n Devlupvnintat M -ZD airutt. Stt strwer z3° Ft btoc E EU FoCMIux to aivoas dicpett |130 E EoT back t Mw-2eD 1220 End diveloptent at MW-ZL0. Did net Rac pauaulev stiuty.w vSiblt d tveAx n hurbidih. P d Atotal 1230 To connX to emptu PU watev nd Suitch itvocR h tanks 1245 2tuvn to MW-2.Becjun developinent at Mw-2C. t sttnOAr at p8 ft btoc. 98 99 Location C VA Date 1/20 Date L1e2sProject/Client 7b0S oODE PCE Plum Location Project/Clent00S oL0E PCE Plum SLC VA MW-2A 400 Atempt developLnt at MW-uAwitm 34 staunss Steu vauw Weatur: Snow kain,30 -40°F TOS Well PPE vel D PersoneilE. RTT CAutnor), A. Ftvni Wasateh 071S Feld ttOin cnsie. 0730 HS L tin 30-40 F 15 Eudunt 0ailr S opting stuet Development COsi PUiled up loaiw and no wat, hadn t dropped far enouoh430 Atenmpt baur in Mw-2eR 0un 0735 Cali brat PID. YS was droppd No Lunor taubiratiie wrrictuj 07S0 Anna to Wasa tci to e funMenue waltr guau ty ni ter 0830 E. Ro bailer wil w0rk tor divepOinehT O346 baulr oitro stuck at uTUnd 30'btuc a 344, 0850 E RUTr back t coihuxs,Meets .rn Ond loads egoiptmiint 030 Ttam to Mw-2.Sctup en Mi-2B, 1009 Brojin airuFt at muW -zeB.Sct shour at 222 btoc. 015 No walt pre stit.ower stnger Pprox.S. !030 No warer, Dtttrnune Ot encuh uwatt Coturn t iQurluttrr tov divelopnint Obu to 0pt t Sughtu tutwrhan preVivsuy Stuck'om wau Up 1500 bu to ot bailly aut ef MW-2b tMW-34A t CalledJoe Millor (Dm Cmu t) t duscussSUes Assumus casivo Sugnty Cropkecland win't be ahl to Ot to wattr cowmn Decisin tonot develop at Mw-2oA 700 End dewelopmunt at Mu-zbl t t dauy Povoyd approx. 33 galu Waltv Stu vy urbid, but dicreaSi wil retun tomavvou to Contnue 1800 Held team offsite Cmma Pa /10/2 Locatio VA SLC 100 101 Date t/Z 101 Date Project/Client 00S lb00E PCE Pwme Location VH SUC 700S ilo0bE PCE Pwe 1045 e.ReT call Muus hoelov BEssT to duscuSS Usino UST pUwp wlo tut tor duwelopimnt Ht Stütts we can attnp but uL, too coay of maitnal ar he pump h nchon Team Lonhnues dwelopvnent at Ml Project/Cient 1z30 At emyo ted bauly atMW-ZoB 1z4S Uhab e to t bu past 114'btod 300 Team to COnuxto prep transdiues tor depiyment at muw-34 1500 Team to MW-34 51S WL 1316' MW-34B. Install pump transduu attachnunt b remvino frlter avd Hwtadivo n ittllupmp 1535 WL= 130.4 MW -34D. installpupt ansdwAr attacnmint. 1557 WL130.12 MW 34C. tenpi 1100 look clear at tirst. I1SE.PT Atempts to U UST punp t M-ZuB w/o thtey Swo of watt cus wt dt MW-2%P ASS Umed to be waltr remaun n tobing yom ast SamplungNo murt walar tYOm -2, Ttum puls pump and clans wt. No vis bu Sdiment witun puup. Ke-duploy pummo at muW-UB NO Watc preut.Dete/und 130 install pump transdicaN attachmin loIS Team to CuvmnexE KIT spoke uitth uSue N Siutn te dutvmu nUt to lnStal tvansdluw at muW-34ynti itCAn be dyeloptd iHE RuT to mw and Mw-17 make duhtvunahons fer famper proof bolt, 730 Field tam offsitet. 11S0 12D0 PUMip WIU tWov for dwe lupmu TEaM pUUS pump and bvinos lt CUp uk duwe lop muut at MUW-2tPOvoycl0 qaluns total.SAw 9ua ttncrea t turblelu tu fouCUdsfu end. stopped based on vo UwM nmaUt 120 metrics 103 Date 1/12/z 102 VA SLC Project/Client00S IvOOE PCE PU Location Location VH SLC TDOS TDOS 100E PCE Pwmi 115 Sud pou bulr diU wwigt COes up parttally tull wi Hu swday water 1145 Coutnutd to bail,but kept pullun UP tmp ty ba ur. Itam assvnuÍ Hu loall cant sit well b/c edUmeni. Aytuun haf does fall uafs ov t ttutsbrught e surfau Project/Chent Wuthoy.un, 30-50F TOsk: Well dwilopmnt PPE Wvel D Personnel E.RIT (aw thar),Hua rni Je MauW (COm Sauith)0 700 Field ttam ansit.Caubrate PID Brin paUANg velhuclis. H+S mthro0120 E. RrTT to Hose tRubber to purchae tublng Yz"oD ) Ar qudts PUMp U. 0730 A. Frornu Calubrats YSI 0140 E. RIT onsitt. 1000 eam to w-30et/B /B. 1z00 Btgn cettvo up Crund tos Redi flo 2 1Z 20 Depy e iso btsc max ung Ha 0V PUinp (ord ). Usy Wasatch's o vator3iS0 Watt champin 1230 Bin puup Gvaduall1005 WL = 2Z. 75 btoc MW-30 RB TD 243-0te 290.42'btot 1010 Tcam to vse 2po bailer to SUVO /coluct sedmiit. 020 Baur doesnt weugh enngh 7eaun to attuwpt usi Stainlus lawlr (3/4) to s vope dupt,OHS Staunuss baiur coms vp tull ot swdo. E. Rou to Conrex a tind weigt te acld fu poly baur. Stanless u too Small to be tfechve. 1245 Contvolu fauts at pprex 300 ttz 300 Atr vestar tivo Covntve ileu faults Qgaun at 336Hz Spote witn Soe utlr, ditudid to attpt venhivo w avcuv cayaci tu oveator 131S Tedm pulls Pviup 4D Teanm to Sunbvrs entals Qanted Hovnda EU70001S U$O0 wel 104 Location VA SLC Project/Client 100S l00E PCE 105 Date 11/13/2e Daezu CE PU 430 Feld ttaM nsitt. MUW-30Re 145 Teou dupuys puup. Ervar w PCE Pwme ocation VP SLC 7005 1obOE PCE PwMe Project/Client WatV: Task Nell developMLNt PPE uel D Prsonnl:E, PutT (Autnor ), A Fro rni l Wasu 0100E. RaT Cnsite.H.|Fernu to SUnbet Veutals to dwop oft renttd gnuvato. 071S Caulovale |PID. 0730 E Ruu t etiu to dinlu no pwogrd vto uw hwae FwttUnduw vo t doe ) 530 Team CUtiwes to énwwwr A Frorni l Wasu to Sunoett to enwvwtr A.FaruFoultPols pumap To CoVwx, Plan to t punup 1549 5-0allon bucut ot uatr'h SeL pumyp was H li. lo 20 PUmp ut funcho/uno wl uHy Crew. OXDOERUTomsite. 0100 H, Frorvi onst tc. 01S Teanm tAA 2O MW-36RA.P lan tu attewpt UstgCrundtos pup tor clevelupment. TD 250 u btoc 025 DepLoyed avund fes Pedi F Z at approx 240 toc Ustuo UWasatchs eurato 0 rattr,E RTt calls Piw wIVOnmntal 30 Kewwe bottom ot pump.Dirt Watt CUmes 0vt. Rinud wtpu tmes lot e-run pump, wovcA ng Hu's Te uteu clo cond. Vine Vepre sntah ve gtattd Hat Vunww puup ct max 400 Hz)is VIst for vey g 0940 Punup fow ttedat appro 306 te Teauin to pull Pump 0150 PLud pump and Aw suWdOL uatc awe + wwn clLauy"Hssurned to Ne clooced with scaiet.l000 Team to dhUl cvew at MU-37.Packed pusnaniacl Sampl 1030 Team to fedek to Suip Ampls 7o0 A. Fiovnu offtr I740J utlr,E Cu fo MW-30 WL =227,46 C MW-30R A TtAm natt u 0uker in well wwt MUW-30L.Ttam siBt 106 LOcation VA PlU Date 113/zs Pwn 107 11320 TDOS b00 E PCE Pum Location U PLUMe Project/ CientDOS lb0DE PCE Project/Chent Date 1036 Supped Sounst COntYol and YS ack. Team to Wasatch to pickup tubi for sou vist pump instal.Il26 Pivw Supped 4x 250' rolls,Only MW 30 C 30 Team t COnLx to Unload veucis , Tak iwentoy O eyp 14 15 Plaud PUnp hack in mW 30C unload100 Smpung bottUs will be abe to install at mwz0R40 Team onsitt to conux to lvad 1530 Team to MU-17D to typ well tap. Nttd LavCer tup e0iptent to u« tov Sounst puap dip luymUnt and purgive Deplryud sounst pUrnp n MuW 30R ACE Wvencn. Team t HCE io00 eturn tM-I7D.Tp well Cap. amper pv00 bolts niw thv properus Pturn to 1215 at 240 btoc.Hug on l wive Coube.4"x J4" onded twbing1220 Begin puoL to attempt dwcttpweut 12 40 COmnt lu 30 Pack venmauNUnO eGuiptmint to Sup TO0 Team offsittWattr at surta. Ve turbid,Ald with Stdiment. 245 Wattr stoPped HMIng Ttam tunl ot Controlur Hssumett cdooopd315 Pulud punmp Ball valwes tilla unaled 3/2 wtu sdAment TRCuM cuLared uu avd cianed pUMp.Brog ut back to ConnX 1400 Pulltd MW30C and too TD TD 325.8 btoc. dPfrcu t to uao wth sknny dupper.No sq cf ravt. 108 LOcation Date /G/ 24 Project/Client WEATHEQ JUV1, L P/E LEEL RSL T. RTLK (c7 SHIDAvW) (WAiL ENIILYT7 GESO TE CNS TE 0320 0730 C:LIAn./4 0920 wTT N EENLTY FON VTA 08i5 0915 31 WiT 0930 GW MavKN; TETNY CGivDVNN} JwAVTy EVN 101S CAUIgUnN rCisnON NTSH, NT AUsi THE CUIS 122 SLC V+ Date LILO LOcation Project/ Client IL2 E E fLun WEMTHE SML,v 2, liG4 43F GW WE 0UFLOPNeNsT D PenawE TEA VTvAN (Con Saim, 4TMat) KEVIN Tdfny uTEMulnNTEL joE DILLEr, Enn4 nT (Con 5h) OL30 ABAArD 730 FTM 1,7 N ieed LIuv Fton&n TUB)N, SienuihlAH Sivl6 MaV Ri F TUGN c2NLAL MeV.U (oRM T ET OIFArANT (vMFC. 020 eVN ANS TE AA ETRSIH ss oFLA. TMES Date h. 124 LocationSLCA Project/Client 1613 PCE PLUH 1545 OF wD P |AT ThuIN STAED CA B NAED Aig WRENCE tVs/NG 4S Srurey SwseT Svnil4MT . ILL CNDNE IN HE N°AU THE QVEormENi ND ker TeHL OPA TE CHAULE4ES EUCUTETED T W HIS FGLD NTEb. HEW (w DEVETnENT MW3L tu THE Twwt, HELAD IDW 5A/ncs. 93S FIELDEAI RPSE N A n 22 (D Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah DATE: 11/11/2020 Prepared by: Whitney Treadway Personnel on site, including Contractors: CDM Smith – Whitney Treadway CDM Smith – Emma Rott Holt Services – Jeff Jones (Driller) Holt Services – Andrew Mengle Holt Services – Alex Langdon Wasatch Env. – Anna Fiorni Wasatch Env. – Kiel Keller Badger – Trevor Kindschy Visitors/Others: Weather Temperature Wind Humidity Sunny Partly Cloudy Overcast Rain Snow 85+ º F 70 to 85º F 50 to 70 º F 32 to 50 º F To 32 º F Still Moderate High Dry Moderate Humid Equipment in Use (field instruments, subcontractor equip, etc.) • Terrasonic 150 mini-sonic drill rig • Skid Steer (Bobcat) • JCB 550-170 forklift • Rig Hauler • HNu PID • Water level meter • Compressed gas for development Description of Field Activities – including borings completed/started (include footages), samples/data collected, etc.: H&S tailgate was conducted at MW-30R well site and MW-37 with Badger. Drilling: (Whitney Treadway, Kiel Keller, and Holt crew) MW-30R: Add pea gravel from 8 ft bgs to 2 ft bgs Completed 12-inch traffic-rated flush-mount well box with concrete from 2 ft bgs. 8-inch casing, core barrels, and drill pipe decontaminated on decontamination pad. MW-36: Cleared to 7 ft bgs by vac truck (Kiel oversaw). Steel plate placed on top of open hole. Soil offloaded to containment area on VA campus. MW-37: Cleared to 7 ft bgs by vac truck (Kiel oversaw). Mobilized rig, Bobcat, and fencing to site. Soil offloaded to containment area on VA campus. MW-38: Cleared to 5.5 ft bgs by vac truck (Kiel oversaw). Steel plate placed on top of open hole. Soil offloaded to containment area on VA campus. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Development: (Emma Rott and Anna Fiorni) MW-26C: Air lifting was used to remove sediment and water. Approximately 60 gallons total of water was removed. Decreasing turbidity values were observed. MW-26B: Development using air lifting was attempted, however, there was not enough water column available to produce the lift needed for water to surface. The team then attempted to develop using the ZIST pump (with the filter removed); but they were unable to produce water through this method. Lastly, the team attempted to use a stainless-steel bailer, but was unable to get the bailer past approximately 114 ft below top of casing. MW-34A: Attempted development using a stainless-steel bailer but was unable to get the bailer past approximately 130’ below top of casing. MW-34B, MW-34C, and MW-34D: Transducers were installed at all three zones. Issues/Problems Encountered/Deficiencies/Deviations from QAPP (and resolutions): See issues with development above. Second forklift was delivered onsite for Holt crew. There were three VA vehicles blocking the entrance to the containment area onsite for the Badger pre-clearing crew. We were able to find someone who found the keys and was able move the three vehicles. Projected Work – Near Term: 11/12/2020 – begin drilling at MW-37, begin development at MW-30RA and MW-30RB Other Activities/Remarks: Photos: Date: 11/11/2020 Location: MW-37 Description: Rig, bobcat, and drill rods mobilized at MW-37 with fencing. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 11/11/2020 Location: MW-30R/laydown area Description: Decontamination of sonic casing and drill rods. Date: 11/11/2020 Location: MW-38 Description: Installation of steel plate at MW-38 after pre- clearing. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 11/10/2020 Location: MW-30R Description: Installation of concrete at well box. Date: 11/10/2020 Location: MW-34B Description: IntelliPump attachment added on to the ZIST pump to house transducer. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah DATE: 11/30/2020 Prepared by: Joe Miller Personnel on site, including Contractors: Wasatch Environmental – Kevin Murphy Holt Services – Jeff Jones (Driller) Holt Services – Andrew Mengle Holt Services – Alex Langdon Visitors/Others: Ready Made Concrete Weather Temperature Wind Humidity Sunny Partly Cloudy Overcast Rain Snow 85+ º F 70 to 85º F 50 to 70 º F 32 to 50 º F To 32 º F Still Moderate High Dry Moderate Humid Equipment in Use (field instruments, subcontractor equip, etc.) · Terrasonic 150 mini-sonic drill rig · Skid Steer (Bobcat) · JCB 550-170 forklift · Rig Hauler · HNu PID · Water level meter Description of Field Activities – including borings completed/started (include footages), samples/data collected, etc.: H&S tailgate was conducted at laydown area on VA campus. Ready Made Concrete arrived and Holt installed the Augustyn flush mount vaults at MW-36 and MW-38 boring locations. Issues/Problems Encountered/Deficiencies/Deviations from QAPP (and resolutions): Projected Work – Near Term: 12/1/2020 – Develop MW-30RB with a bailer, develop MW-30RA with a development pump, complete geophysical survey at MW-13L, and mobilize drilling equipment to MW-13L. Other Activities/Remarks: Photos: Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 11/30/2020 Location: MW-36 Description: Augustyn vault installed at MW-36 Date: 11/30/2020 Location: MW-38 Description: Augustyn Vault installed at MW-38 location. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah DATE: 12/1/2020 Prepared by: Joe Miller Personnel on site, including Contractors: CDM Smith – Joe Miller CDM Smith – Tea Vrtlar Wasatch Environmental – Kevin Murphy Holt Services – Jeff Jones (Driller) Holt Services – Andrew Mengle Holt Services – Alex Langdon Visitors/Others: MP Environmental GPRS – Geophysical survey Weather Temperature Wind Humidity Sunny Partly Cloudy Overcast Rain Snow 85+ º F 70 to 85º F 50 to 70 º F 32 to 50 º F To 32 º F Still Moderate High Dry Moderate Humid Equipment in Use (field instruments, subcontractor equip, etc.) • Terrasonic 150 mini-sonic drill rig • Skid Steer (Bobcat) • JCB 550-170 forklift • Rig Hauler • HNu PID (x2) • Water level meter Description of Field Activities – including borings completed/started (include footages), samples/data collected, etc.: H&S tailgate was conducted at laydown area on VA campus. Development: The Holt crew used a bailer to develop MW-30RB. Approximately 25 gallons of water was bailed from MW-30RB. CDM Smith and Wasatch developed MW-30RA with a Geotech double valve pump. Approximately 12 gallons was purged. Drilling at MW-13L: GPRS performed a geophysical locate at MW-13L. They identified a potential irrigation line south of the proposed boring area. MP Environmental relocated one of the roll-off bins from the VA to the boring location. Holt set up the drill rig, fencing and traffic control at the MW-13L drill location. The MW-13L boring was hand augured to 5 feet bgs. Issues/Problems Encountered/Deficiencies/Deviations from QAPP (and resolutions): Upon arrival at the IDW area connex there was no electricity. The breakers were checked and had not been tripped. Maintenance shop personnel were contacted, and they had flipped the breaker in the shop across from the IDW area. Projected Work – Near Term: 12/2/2020 – Develop MW-30RB zone with Geotech double valve pump and install dedicated pumps at MW-30RA/B 12/2/2020 – Drill MW-13L Other Activities/Remarks: None. Photos: Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 12/1/2020 Location: MW-13L Description: GPRS identified potential irrigation lines and estimated less than 1 foot bgs. Date: 12/1/2020 Location: MW-30RB Description: Silty water from bailer development at MW- 30RB. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 12/1/2020 Location: MW-13L Description: Holt hand digging MW-13L to 5 feet bgs. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah DATE: 12/2/2020 Prepared by: Joe Miller Personnel on site, including Contractors: CDM Smith – Joe Miller CDM Smith – Tea Vrtlar Wasatch Environmental – Kevin Murphy Holt Services – Jeff Jones (Driller) Holt Services – Andrew Mengle Holt Services – Alex Langdon Visitors/Others: Weather Temperature Wind Humidity Sunny Partly Cloudy Overcast Rain Snow 85+ º F 70 to 85º F 50 to 70 º F 32 to 50 º F To 32 º F Still Moderate High Dry Moderate Humid Equipment in Use (field instruments, subcontractor equip, etc.) • Terrasonic 150 mini-sonic drill rig • Skid Steer (Bobcat) • JCB 550-170 forklift • Rig Hauler • HNu PID (x2) • Water level meter • YSI Multiparameter meter • Apera instruments pH60 pH meter • Geotech Reclaimer pump • QED Model 3020 Driver Compressor • Solinst bladder pump Description of Field Activities – including borings completed/started (include footages), samples/data collected, etc.: H&S tailgate was conducted at laydown area on VA campus. Development: CDM Smith and Wasatch developed MW-30RB with the Geotech Reclaimer double valve pump and removed approximately 37 gallons of water. The dedicated Solinst bladder pump was deployed at MW-30RA. Drilling at MW-13L: The MW-13L boring was advanced to 150 feet bgs. The 6-inch sonic casing has also been advanced to the bottom of the borehole. The soil cores were screened and logged no samples were collected. Groundwater was first encountered about 23 feet bgs. A clay confining unit was encountered about 104 feet bgs. There were wet sand stringers below the confining unit, but no distinct layer. All PID readings were less than 5 ppm. Issues/Problems Encountered/Deficiencies/Deviations from QAPP (and resolutions): No electricity at connex after attempting to plug in a single heater. The breakers were checked and had not been tripped. Maintenance shop personnel will be attempted to be contacted again tomorrow, they need to flip the breaker again in the shop across from the IDW area. Projected Work – Near Term: 12/3/2020 – Develop MW-36, MW-38S and potentially MW-38D zone by bailing and pumping with Geotech Reclaimer pump. 12/3/2020 – Drill MW-13L to 160 feet. Discuss well design and begin installation at MW-13L. Other Activities/Remarks: Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah None. Photos: Date: 12/2/2020 Location: MW-13L Description: Holt work zone setup at MW-13L. Preparing to resume drilling. Date: 12/2/2020 Location: MW-13L Description: Soil cuttings from 102.5-105 feet bgs. Encountered clay confining layer. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 12/2/2020 Location: MW-13L Description: Soil cuttings from 135-137 feet bgs. Moist to we gravelly sand stringer at ~136 feet bgs. Date: 12/2/2020 Location: MW-30RB Description: Pump development discharge water prior to development (final turbidity reading after purging additional 37 gallons was <20NTU). Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 12/2/2020 Location: MW-30RA Description: Deployment of dedicated bladder pump at MW-30RA. Date: 12/2/2020 Location: MW-30RA Description: Completed deployment of dedicated bladder pump at MW-30RA. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah DATE: 12/3/2020 Prepared by: Joe Miller and Tea Vrtlar Personnel on site, including Contractors: CDM Smith – Joe Miller CDM Smith – Tea Vrtlar Wasatch Environmental – Kevin Murphy Holt Services – Jeff Jones (Driller) Holt Services – Andrew Mengle Holt Services – Alex Langdon Visitors/Others: Weather Temperature Wind Humidity Sunny Partly Cloudy Overcast Rain Snow 85+ º F 70 to 85º F 50 to 70 º F 32 to 50 º F To 32 º F Still Moderate High Dry Moderate Humid Equipment in Use (field instruments, subcontractor equip, etc.) • Terrasonic 150 mini-sonic drill rig • Skid Steer (Bobcat) • JCB 550-170 forklift • Rig Hauler • HNu PID (x2) • Water level meter • YSI Multiparameter meter • Apera instruments pH60 pH meter • Geotech Reclaimer pump • QED Model 3020 Driver Compressor • Solinst bladder pump Description of Field Activities – including borings completed/started (include footages), samples/data collected, etc.: H&S tailgate was conducted at laydown area on VA campus. Development: CDM Smith and Wasatch developed MW-36: they surged with the bailer, removed approximately 25 gallons by bailing, and removed approximately 21 gallons by pumping. The dedicated Solinst bladder pump was deployed at MW-30RB. Locks were added to MW-30RA and MW-36. MW-13L: The MW-13L boring was advanced to 160 feet bgs. The zone from 156-160 feet bgs was a saturated sandy gravel. Following discussion with the VA, the 2-inch PVC well was set with 10 feet of 0.020 slot screen from 150-160 feet bgs. The sand pack was installed from 147-160 feet bgs. Holt completed backfilling and the surface completion at MW-13L. The drill rig and drilling equipment was mobilized back to the VA laydown area. Holt decontaminated the drill steel used for MW-13L. Issues/Problems Encountered/Deficiencies/Deviations from QAPP (and resolutions): No electricity at connex. The breakers behind the connex were checked and had not been tripped. Maintenance shop personnel were contacted. The connex breaker in the shop across from the IDW area was checked and had not been tripped, but the breaker was flipped off and on again to try to resolve the issue. The same procedure was repeated at the breakers behind the connex. Still unable to get electricity to connex. Casings for MW-30RA and MW-30RB are too close to each other where Solinst well cap assembly couldn’t be placed on MW- 30RB. No lock was placed on MW-30RB since the lid couldn’t be closed. Projected Work – Near Term: 12/4/2020 – Develop MW-38S/D. Deploy dedicated Solinst bladder pump at MW-36 and potentially MW-38S and D. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah 12/4/2020 – Move fencing from MW-13L location back to VA; load equipment and mobilize home. Other Activities/Remarks: None. Photos: Date: 12/3/2020 Location: MW-13L Description: Soil core from MW-13L from 157-160 feet bgs. Saturated sandy gravel layer. Date: 12/3/2020 Location: MW-13L Description: Holt preparing to install 2” PVC at MW-13L. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 12/3/2020 Location: MW-36 Description: Pump discharge water during development. Date: 12/3/2020 Location: MW-36 Description: Pump discharge water after development. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 12/3/2020 Location: MW-30RB Description: Dedicated pump deployment at MW-30RB complete. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah DATE: 12/4/2020 Prepared by: Joe Miller and Tea Vrtlar Personnel on site, including Contractors: CDM Smith – Joe Miller CDM Smith – Tea Vrtlar Wasatch Environmental – Kevin Murphy Holt Services – Jeff Jones (Driller) Holt Services – Andrew Mengle Holt Services – Alex Langdon Visitors/Others: Weather Temperature Wind Humidity Sunny Partly Cloudy Overcast Rain Snow 85+ º F 70 to 85º F 50 to 70 º F 32 to 50 º F To 32 º F Still Moderate High Dry Moderate Humid Equipment in Use (field instruments, subcontractor equip, etc.) • Terrasonic 150 mini-sonic drill rig • Skid Steer (Bobcat) • JCB 550-170 forklift • Rig Hauler • HNu PID (x2) • Water level meter • YSI Multiparameter meter • Apera instruments pH60 pH meter • Geotech Reclaimer pump • QED Model 3020 Driver Compressor • Solinst bladder pump Description of Field Activities – including borings completed/started (include footages), samples/data collected, etc.: H&S tailgate was conducted at laydown area on VA campus. Development: CDM Smith and Wasatch developed MW-38S by bailing approximately 10 gallons and pumping (with the Geotech Reclaimer pump) approximately 36 gallons. At MW-38D, 18 gallons were bailed, and 40 gallons were pumped, however, well development was not complete and will continue tomorrow. The dedicated Solinst bladder pump was installed at MW-38S Drilling Demob: Holt picked up fencing and remaining equipment from MW-13L. They loaded all their equipment and mobilized from site. Issues/Problems Encountered/Deficiencies/Deviations from QAPP (and resolutions): VA Electricians informed us that the connex boxes have been tripping the breaker at the main circuit. They reset the breaker and asked us to reduce our load on the circuits. All equipment has been unplugged and only minimal equipment will be allowed to be plugged in at the connex boxes (eg printer/copier, battery chargers). Projected Work – Near Term: 12/5/2020 – Complete development at MW-38D. Develop MW-37S and, if time permits develop MW-37D and deploy dedicated Solinst bladder pumps at MW-36, MW-38S and MW-38D. Other Activities/Remarks: None. Photos: Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 12/4/2020 Location: MW-13L Description: SMW-13L pad near the MW-13 S/D pads. The well was offset due to underground utilities identified during the geophysical survey. Date: 12/4/2020 Location: VA laydown area Description: Holt has loaded casing, the drill rig and bobcat for demobilization. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 12/4/2020 Location: MW-38S Description: Pump discharge water during development. Date: 12/4/2020 Location: MW-38S Description: Pump discharge water after development. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah DATE: 12/5/2020 Prepared by: Joe Miller and Tea Vrtlar Personnel on site, including Contractors: CDM Smith – Joe Miller CDM Smith – Tea Vrtlar Wasatch Environmental – Kevin Murphy Visitors/Others: Weather Temperature Wind Humidity Sunny Partly Cloudy Overcast Rain Snow 85+ º F 70 to 85º F 50 to 70 º F 32 to 50 º F To 32 º F Still Moderate High Dry Moderate Humid Equipment in Use (field instruments, subcontractor equip, etc.) • HNu PID (x2) • Water level meter • YSI Multiparameter meter • Apera instruments pH60 pH meter • Geotech Reclaimer pump • QED Model 3020 Driver Compressor • Solinst bladder pump Description of Field Activities – including borings completed/started (include footages), samples/data collected, etc.: H&S tailgate was conducted at connex. Development: The development at MW-38D was completed; approximately 116 gallons were pumped from the well. CDM Smith and Wasatch developed MW-37S by bailing approximately 16 gallons and pumping approximately 48 gallons. Development was initiated at MW-37D; 20 gallons were bailed. The dedicated Solinst bladder pump was deployed at MW-36. Locks were placed on MW-36 and MW-38S/D. Issues/Problems Encountered/Deficiencies/Deviations from QAPP (and resolutions): None. Projected Work – Near Term: 12/6/2020 –Complete development at MW-37D, and initiate development at MW-13L. If time permits, deploy dedicated Solinst bladder pumps at MW-38S/D. Other Activities/Remarks: None. Photos: Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 12/5/2020 Location: MW-37S and MW- 37D Description: MW-37S (right) and MW-37D (left) wells. Date: 12/5/2020 Location: MW-37S Description: Pump discharge water prior to development. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 12/5/2020 Location: MW-37S Description: Pump discharge water after development. Date: 12/5/2020 Location: MW-36 Description: Dedicated pump deployment Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah DATE: 12/6/2020 Prepared by: Joe Miller and Tea Vrtlar Personnel on site, including Contractors: CDM Smith – Joe Miller CDM Smith – Tea Vrtlar Visitors/Others: Weather Temperature Wind Humidity Sunny Partly Cloudy Overcast Rain Snow 85+ º F 70 to 85º F 50 to 70 º F 32 to 50 º F To 32 º F Still Moderate High Dry Moderate Humid Equipment in Use (field instruments, subcontractor equip, etc.) • HNu PID • Water level meter • YSI Multiparameter meter • Hach 2100Q turbiditimeter • Geotech Reclaimer pump • QED Model 3020 Driver Compressor Description of Field Activities – including borings completed/started (include footages), samples/data collected, etc.: H&S tailgate was conducted at connex. Development: CDM Smith completed development of MW-37D by pumping approximately 48 gallons. Development was initiated at MW-13L by bailing approximately 8 gallons and pumping approximately 17 gallons. The development was paused due to lack of sunlight and will be continued tomorrow. Issues/Problems Encountered/Deficiencies/Deviations from QAPP (and resolutions): None Projected Work – Near Term: Development: 12/7/2020 – Complete development at MW-13L. Initiate development of MW-34A or MW-26B with Waterra pump. If time permits, deploy dedicated Solinst bladder pumps at MW-37S/D and MW-38S/D. Groundwater Sampling: 12/7/2020 – Complete synoptic water level measurements. Obtain/renew all badges for groundwater sampling team. Confirm receipt of all groundwater sampling equipment. Other Activities/Remarks: None. Photos: Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 12/6/2020 Location: MW-37D Description: Development of MW-37D. Date: 12/6/2020 Location: MW-13L Description: Bailing of MW- 13L. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 12/6/2020 Location: MW-13L Description: Development of MW-13L. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah DATE: 12/7/2020 Prepared by: Ben Carreon Personnel on site, including Contractors: CDM Smith – Ben Carreon, Maria Day, Tea Vrtlar, Emma Rott, Joe Miller, Iona Campbell, Connor Kelley Wasatch – Kevin Murphy Visitors/Others: None Weather Temperature Wind Humidity Sunny Partly Cloudy Overcast Rain Snow 85+ º F 70 to 85º F 50 to 70 º F 32 to 50 º F 0 To 32 º F Still Moderate High Dry Moderate Humid Equipment in Use (field instruments, subcontractor equip, etc.) • Development equipment • Water level and low-flow groundwater sampling equipment Description of Field Activities – including samples/data collected, etc: • A H&S tailgate was conducted at the IDW yard area. • Equipment was calibrated. • Synoptic Water Level Event o All water levels were completed except at monitoring wells: MW-08A/B/C, MW-14D, MW-17S, MW-28, MW-29 A/B/C, and MW-32A/B/C. These locations will be completed 12/8/20. • Groundwater Sampling o No groundwater samples were collected. • Development o MW-13L ▪ Prior to development, the total depth at MW-13L was 151.06’ below top of casing; anticipated depth should be 160’ below top of casing. Eight gallons bailed and 17 gallons were pumped on 12/6/20. Depth to bottom was measured at 152.1’ below top of casing. Today (12/7/20), surging and pumping with the Geotech reclaimer pump removed approximately 100 gallons and depth to water at the end of the day was 154.15’ below top of casing. Depth to bottom will be measured tomorrow (12/8/20), at that time we will assess how to move forward with further development and sampling during this event. o MW-34A ▪ Development was initiated at MW-34A using the Waterra pump, and 15 gallons were removed. At the end of the day turbidity was still high; development will continue tomorrow. o MW-38S/D ▪ Dedicated pumps were deployed. • Samples collected: o IDW15-GW120720 – Poly water tank o IDW16-GW120720 – Drum with sediment water and hydraulic fluid from phase I of investigation • Samples to be collected tomorrow: o 2x IDW soil samples from remaining roll off bins. Issues/Problems Encountered/Deficiencies/Deviations from QAPP (and resolutions): • MP10H controller solenoid was sticking until the temperature was above 35F. All controllers will be kept in the hotel rooms to prevent any moisture build up and reduce sticking at low temperatures. • Development at MW-13L (see above). • The teams were short one water level meter due to a shipping issue with Field Environmental. Everything else shipped for the groundwater sampling event was accounted for except 50’ of silicone and a regulator. The missing equipment and supplies are expected to arrive 12/7/20. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah • Salt Lake County has a mandatory mask mandate in effect since Saturday, June 27. Masks are required in public. Projected Work – Near Term: • One team will continue development of MW-34A and will begin development of MW-26B. Following development, pumps will be deployed at MW-37S/D (time permitting). • One team will complete the synoptic water level event and then begin sampling. • Two teams will begin groundwater sampling. Other Activities/Remarks: Photos: Date: 12/7/2020 Location: MW-06 Description: Measuring water level Date: 12/7/2020 Location: MW-02 Description: Stockpile of salt/gravel near well Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah DATE: 12/8/2020 Prepared by: Ben Carreon Personnel on site, including Contractors: CDM Smith – Ben Carreon, Maria Day, Tea Vrtlar, Emma Rott, Joe Miller, Iona Campbell, Connor Kelley Wasatch – Kevin Murphy Visitors/Others: None Weather Temperature Wind Humidity Sunny Partly Cloudy Overcast Rain Snow 85+ º F 70 to 85º F 50 to 70 º F 32 to 50 º F 0 To 32 º F Still Moderate High Dry Moderate Humid Equipment in Use (field instruments, subcontractor equip, etc.) · Development equipment · Water level and low-flow groundwater sampling equipment Description of Field Activities – including samples/data collected, etc: · A H&S tailgate was conducted at the IDW yard area. · Equipment was calibrated. · Synoptic Water Level Event o The remaining water levels were measured. · Groundwater Sampling o Groundwater samples collected:  MW-05R (MW05R-GW120820 and FD05-GW120820) · For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry  Metals  Dissolved gases  Sulfate, chloride  Nitrate + nitrite (total N)  TOC  Alkalinity  MW-24 (MW24-GW120820) · For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry  MW-27 (MW27-GW120820) · For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry  MW-28 (MW28-GW120820) · For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry  MW-30RA (MW30RA-GW120820) · For the following parameters: o VOCs o 1,4-Dioxane Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah o Geochemistry  MW-30RB (MW30RB-GW120820) · For the following parameters: o VOCs o 1,4-Dioxane o Geochemistry o No samples were shipped to EMAX Labs. · Development o MW-13L  DTB was measured at 153.91’ BTOC. o MW-34A  Development was completed. A total of 88.5 gallons were purged with the Waterra pump. o MW-26B  Began development however not much progress was made with the limited daylight available. · Drilling IDW o Samples collected:  Roll off bin #5843  Roll off bin #6030 o IDW samples collected 12/7 and 12/8 were shipped to the lab. Issues/Problems Encountered/Deficiencies/Deviations from QAPP (and resolutions): · At the beginning of purging MW-30RB, water did not surface at expected pressures. The pump was pulled and rinsed to remove sediment which corrected the issue and the well was sampled. · MW-12S was dry. Water level was not measured, and samples will not be collected. · The water level at MW-31A was below the top of the volume booster. As the installation of the volume booster was difficult at this location, the pump was not pulled, and a water level was not measured. · The water level at MW-29A was below the top of the volume booster. After pulling the pump, the airline was noted to be twisted. Spare swagelok fittings will be purchased should any issues be encountered while sampling. The tubing was straightened however the tubing should be trimmed as preventative maintenance in the near future. · MP10H controller solenoids were again sticking despite keeping the controllers in hotel rooms overnight. · One YSI had a pH sensor in need of replacement. A replacement YSI was requested and will arrive 12/9/20. · Salt Lake County has a mandatory mask mandate in effect since Saturday, June 27. Masks are required in public. Projected Work – Near Term: · Continue development of MW-26B. Following development, pumps will be deployed at MW-37S/D. · Continue groundwater sampling. Other Activities/Remarks: · United services picked up the fencing and jobsite toilet. · Drilling PIDs and Mag Sep meters were packed for shipment. Photos: Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 12/8/2020 Location: MW-29A Description: Twisted tubing Date: 12/8/2020 Location: MW-26B Description: Waterra foot valve Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 12/8/2020 Location: MW-26B Description: Development setup Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah DATE: 12/9/2020 Prepared by: Ben Carreon Personnel on site, including Contractors: CDM Smith – Ben Carreon, Maria Day, Emma Rott, Iona Campbell, Connor Kelley Wasatch – Kevin Murphy Visitors/Others: None Weather Temperature Wind Humidity Sunny Partly Cloudy Overcast Rain Snow 85+ º F 70 to 85º F 50 to 70 º F 32 to 50 º F 0 To 32 º F Still Moderate High Dry Moderate Humid Equipment in Use (field instruments, subcontractor equip, etc.) • Development equipment • Water level and low-flow groundwater sampling equipment Description of Field Activities – including samples/data collected, etc: • A H&S tailgate was conducted at the IDW yard area. • Equipment was calibrated. • Groundwater Sampling o Groundwater samples collected: ▪ MW-08A (MW08A-GW120920 and FD03-GW120920) • For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry ▪ Metals ▪ Dissolved gases ▪ Sulfate, chloride ▪ Nitrate + nitrite (total N) ▪ TOC ▪ Alkalinity ▪ MW-08B (MW08B-GW120920) • For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry ▪ MW-08C (MW08C-GW120920) • For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry ▪ MW-12D (MW12D-GW120920) • For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry ▪ MW-15S (MW15S-GW120920) • For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry ▪ MW-15D (MW15D-GW120920) • For the following parameters: o VOCs Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah o Geochemistry ▪ MW-23A (MW23A-GW120920) • For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry ▪ MW-23C (MW23C-GW120920) • For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry ▪ MW-25A (MW25A-GW120920) • For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry ▪ MW-30C (MW30C-GW120920) • For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry o Difficulties were encountered while purging MW-25B. Breakthrough was experienced despite staying under the maximum allowable volume per discharge cycle. When rebuilding the water column, breakthrough was again experienced. The pump filter will be replaced 12/10/20 in an effort to resolve breakthrough issues. o The following samples were shipped to EMAX Labs: ▪ MW05R-GW120820 ▪ FD05-GW120820 ▪ MW08A-GW120920 ▪ FD03-GW120920 ▪ MW08B-GW120920 ▪ MW08C-GW120920 ▪ MW12D-GW120920 ▪ MW15S-GW120920 ▪ MW15D-GW120920 ▪ MW24-GW120820 ▪ MW27-GW120820 ▪ MW28-GW120820 ▪ MW30RA-GW120820 ▪ MW30RB-GW120820 ▪ MW30C-GW120920 • Development o MW-26B ▪ Development with the Waterra pump was not successful. Instead, development was completed using the air lifting apparatus, but by slightly pressurizing the well casing during air lift. A total of 27 gallons were purged using this method for development, until the water had significantly cleared. Issues/Problems Encountered/Deficiencies/Deviations from QAPP (and resolutions): • Breakthrough during purging and during water column building at MW-25B. • One additional YSI was also displaying erroneous pH measurements. The readings had later normalized however a second replacement YSI was still requested. • Salt Lake County has a mandatory mask mandate in effect since Saturday, June 27. Masks are required in public. Projected Work – Near Term: • Continue groundwater sampling. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Other Activities/Remarks: • None. Photos: Date: 12/9/2020 Location: MW-23 Description: Equipment setup Date: 12/9/2020 Location: MW-26B Description: Development setup Appendix L Investigation-Derived Waste Manifest Memorandum To: Josephine Newton-Lund, PMP, Senior Project Manager, Environmental Branch, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Shannon Smith, PE, Program Manager, Veterans Health Administration From: Nathan Smith, PMP, Senior Project Manager, CDM Federal Programs Corporation Neil Smith, Project Technical Leader, CDM Federal Programs Corporation Date: July 21, 2021 Subject:Plan for Surface Water Sampling and Flow Measurement 700 South 1600 East Tetrachloroethene Plume Superfund Site, Salt Lake City, Utah On behalf of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), CDM Federal Programs Corporation (CDM Smith) prepared this plan for surface water sampling at select locations within the East Side Springs (ESS) area of the 700 South 1600 East Tetrachloroethene (PCE) Plume Site, located near the George E. Wahlen Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC) in Salt Lake City, Utah. This plan adds details for the surface water sampling described in the Phase 2 Field Sampling Plan (FSP) and describes surface water flow measurement techniques. The Phase 2 FSP is an appendix to the Operable Unit 1 Remedial Investigation Work Plan (CDM Smith 2020). The data addressed in this plan are necessary to aid in delineation of the PCE plume extent, evaluate temporal variation in surface water volatile organic compound concentrations, and to support the risk assessment. These data support data quality objectives E1 (Hydrogeologic Features), E2 (Plume Characterization), D3 (Groundwater Risk), and D4 (Surface Water Risk) presented in Table 4-1 of the RIWP (CDM Smith 2020). The data will be used as follows: Flow rate measurements will assist with hydrogeologic model refinement and fate and transport evaluation. Collection of VOC concentration data will support evaluation of risk to human and ecological exposures. 1.0 Scope of Work This plan includes the rationale and description of work for surface water sampling in the ESS area. During the Accelerated Operable Unit 1 Remedial Investigation, 33 samples from seeps, springs and sumps in the ESS area were collected. Several springs have been diverted into the municipal storm water system; therefore, an additional18 samples from the stormwater system were collected (EA 2019). These locations and the data results are included in Attachments 1 and 2. In 2018, two July 21, 2021 Page 2 Memo_Phase 2_OU1_SW_Rev1.docx rounds of samples from nine locations were collected as part of the Operable Unit 2 (OU2) Remedial Investigation (Jacobs 2019). The OU2 surface water sampling was conducted to potentially better correlate PCE groundwater and surface water concentrations, assess human and ecological exposures, refine the groundwater flow paths, and evaluate lateral and down gradient extent of the PCE plume (CH2M Hill 2018). PCE concentrations in samples ranged from less than 0.15 µg/L to 82 µg/L (Attachment 3). As part of the OU1 remedial investigation eight to ten locations may be sampled, pending property access. The sample locations are presented in Table 1 and on Figure 1. If access is not granted or the seep/spring is not currently flowing, alternative locations will be selected which are accessible and in close proximity to the previously-identified locations. The surface water sampling will consist of flow rate and groundwater quality parameters measurements, and collection and shipment of samples for analytical testing. Flow measurements will be completed for all sampling locations using a variety of methods. These may include area velocity measurements for flow in pipes or channels, bucket and stopwatch, or estimated visually if no other measurement is possible. The area velocity method includes measurement of a single water velocity reading and water depth at the pipe centerline. Estimation of the velocity and cross-sectional area will be used to calculate a flow rate. Select locations may only include flow measurements and not be sampled for laboratory analyses or field parameters. In low-flow conditions or where velocity measurements are impractical, flow will be channeled and collected in a container with a known volume, if feasible. A piece of rain gutter will be keyed into the spring to route the water downstream to where volume per time measurements can be collected. The time taken to fill the known volume container will be used to calculate the flow rate. For estimating low flows at seep locations, a small hole may be dug and a syringe used to remove a known volume of water, followed by measuring the time for the hole to re-fill. All volume and time measurements will be collected in triplicate. If none of the above methods can be used, such as for low-flow springs less than 0.1 to 0.5 gallon per minute, flow rates will be estimated visually. Water quality parameters will include pH, specific conductivity, temperature, oxidation-reduction potential, dissolved oxygen, and turbidity. Analytical samples will be collected for volatile organic compounds, total metals, dissolved gases, anions, nitrate/nitrite, total organic carbon, and alkalinity. Ferrous iron will be measured in the field. Analytical methods are included in Table 1. These geochemical analyses will aid the evaluation of attenuation of the PCE plume and interactions of the groundwater and surface water (e.g., rainwater and snowmelt). 2.0 References CDM Smith. 2020. Phase 2 Remedial Investigation Work Plan, Operable Unit 1, 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. November. CH2M Hill Inc. 2018. Remedial Investigation Work Plan, OU-2 Remedial Investigation, 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. February. July 21, 2021 Page 3 Memo_Phase 2_OU1_SW_Rev1.docx EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. 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. January. Jacobs. 2019. 2018 OU-2 Data Summary Report, Operable Unit 2 Remedial Investigation 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. June. Figures Figure 1 Proposed Surface Water Sample Locations Tables Table 1 Proposed Surface Water Sampling Summary Attachments Attachment 1 Figure 6-2, Surface Water Sampling and Soil Sampling Results; Table 5-5, Surface Water Sampling Locations, 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume AOU- 1: East Side Springs Remedial Investigation Report. Salt Lake City, Utah; Table 17, Surface Water Sampling Locations, 2018 OU-2 Data Summary Report. Attachment 2 Table 6-3, Surface Water and Stormwater Data, 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume AOU-1: East Side Springs Remedial Investigation Report. Salt Lake City, Utah. Attachment 3 Figure 4, Q3 and Q4 Surface Water PCE and TCE Data, 2018 OU-2 Data Summary Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume. Salt Lake City, Utah. ! ! ")") &<&< &<&< &< &< &< &< &< &<&<&< XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XWXW XW XWXW XWXW XW XW XWXW XW XW XW !Sunnyside Park East Side Springs East HighSchool VHA Medical CenterBuilding 7 E a s t B e n ch SegmentoftheWasatchFault1 EastBenchFaultSpur2 MW-23 MW-25 MW-29 MW-32 MW-34 MW-28 MW-27MW-24 MW-37 MW-38 SB-42SB-43 RG-01 RG-04 RG-05 RG-07 RG-08 RG-10 RG-11SW-08 SW-16I SW-16E SW-34 SW-35 SW-39 SW-53 SW-54 SW-166 SW-12 RG-02 RG-03 RG-06 RG-09 500 S GUARDSMAN WAY F O O T H IL L D R 700 S 800 S 1300 E 1100 E SUNNYSIDE AVE 500 S 900 S R e d B u tteCreek Residential Groundwater, Surface Water, and OU1 Soil Gas Sampling Locations Legend &<Monitoring Well with Soil Vapor Probe XW Residential Groundwater SamplingLocation XW Residential Groundwater SamplingLocation with Soil Vapor Probe XW Surface Water Sampling Location ")Multi-Depth Soil Vapor Probe !Landmark Red Butte CreekSewer LineFault Line File Path: J:\238824_VA_Medical_Salt_Lake\MXD\Sampling_2021\RI_2021\Fig3-XX_SW_GW_and_SoilGas.mxd WAGNERA 4/21/2021 Notes:OU = operable unitPCE = tetrachloroetheneVHA = Veterans H ealth AdministrationRG = Residential Groundwater Sampling Location 1 Davis, F.D. 1983. Geologic Map of the Central Wasatch Front, Utah. Utah Geological and Mineral Survey. Map 54-A – Wasatch Front Series. May. 2 Personius, S.F. and Scott, W.E. 2009. Surficial Geologic Map of the Salt Lake City Segment and Parts of Adjacent Segments of the Wasatch Fault Zone, Davis, Salt Lake, and Utah Counties, Utah Remedial Investigation ReportOU1 700 South 1600 East PCE PlumeSalt Lake City, Utah 0 500 1,000Feet ¯ Figure 3-14b ") ") &< MW-29 MW-31 SB-42 SB-43 Red Butte Creek Sunnyside Park Figure 1 Table 1 Proposed Surface Water Sampling Summary Location Description Longitude Latitude Rationale Analyses and Methods (deg)1 (deg)1 SW-06 Spring-fed Sump -111.857629 40.7495 Evaluate VOC concentration trends over time, and evaluate groundwater discharge rates in the area of Alpine Place. SW-06 was sampled in 2018. Note that water from this sump appears to discharge to location SW-39. VOCs - EPA SW-846, 8260C to assess risk from chlorinated solvent plume, provide mass discharge estimates and evalute trends SW-08 Seep -111.857528 40.75326 Verify VOC concentrations and groundwater discharge near northern estimated plume boundary (Benson Spring area). Consider also sampling SW-48 (described as "Pond Inlet" at Benson Spring and sampled in 2018) Dissolved Gases - RSK175 SW-16 Our Lady of Lourdes Spring -111.860455 40.754333 Evaluate groundwater discharge rates in northern portion of ESS area, and verify previous VOC results from the AOU-1 RI (previously ND for PCE) Nitrate/Nitrite - SM4500-N03E SW-34 Spring -111.857193 40.748231 Evalaute VOC concentration trends over time, and evaluate groundwater discharge rates near Gilmer Drive (Gilmer Pipeline area). SW-34 was sampled in 2018. Alkalinity - SM2320B; Anions - EPA E300.0 SW-35 Seep -111.858565 40.751494 Evaluate VOC concentration trends over time near Sunnyside Avenue (former high-concentration location). Evaluate groundwater discharge rates in springs near Sunnyside Avenue. SW-35 was sampled in 2018. Ferrous Iron - Field measurement, HACH 8146 SW-39 Storm Drain - Mitigated Spring Water -111.857669 40.749314 Evalaute VOC concentration trends over time, and evaluate groundwater discharge rates at Alpine Place. SW-39 was sampled in 2018. Total Metals (unfiltered) - EPA SW-846, 6020A/7470A SW-43 Spring -111.857909 40.747961 Evaluate VOC concentrations in surface water near southern/southwestern extent of plume, evaluate groundwater discharge rates south of the Gilmer Drive area. All parameters assess aquifer geochemistry and potential for natural attenuation to be occurring, and allow for discerning potential for surface runoff to influence spring sample results SW-53 Pond Inlet -111.857435 40.749308 Evaluate VOC concentration trends over time, and evaluate groundwater discharge rates in the area of Alpine Place. SW-53 was sampled in 2018. 1 Latitude/Longitude measured using NAD 83 Notes: deg - degrees VOC - volatile organic compound EPA - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency SM - Standard Methods @A @A @A@A @A @A @A #* #* #* #* #*#*#*#* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #*#* #* #* #*#* #*#*#* #* #* #* !?!?!?!?!? !? !?!?!?!? !?!?!?!?!?!? !?!?!?!?!? !?!?!?!? !?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? !?!? !? !? !?!?!?!?!? !?!? !?!?!?!?!?!? !?!?!?!?!? !? !?!?!?!?!? !?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? !? !? !?!? !? !?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? !? !?!? !? !? !?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? !?!?!? !?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? !?!? !?!?!?!? !?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? !? !?!? !?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? !?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? !?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? !?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? !?!?!?!?!?!?!? !?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? !?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? !? !?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? !?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? !? !?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? !?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? !?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? !?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? !?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? !?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? !?!?!? !?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? !?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? !? !?!? !? !?!? !?!? !? !? !?!?!? !?!?!?!?!? !?!?!?!? !?!?!? !? !? !?!? !?!?!? !?!? !? !? !? !?!? !? !? !? !? !? !? !? !?!? !?!? !? !? !?!? !? !?!? !? !? !? !? !? !?!? !?!? !?!?!? !?!?!?!?!?!?!? !?!?!?!?!? !?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? !? !?!?!?!?!? !?!? !? !? !? !? !? !?!?!?!? !?!?!? !? !?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? !? !?!? !? !?!?!?!? !? !?!?!? !?!? !?!? !?!? !?!?!?!?!? !?!?!?!?!?!? !? !? !? !? i i i i (!X (!X (!X Former USFSHelicopter Pad Sunnyside Park Utah Army National Guard Mount Olivet Cemetery Salt Lake City Sports Complex Carmen BPingreeCenter Rowland HallSt Mark'sSchool The McGillisSchool Judge MemorialCatholic HighSchool EastHighSchool ! Our Lady of LourdesCatholic School EPA-MW -03 EPA-MW -01S EPA-MW -01D EPA-MW -02 EPA-MW -04 Mount OlivetIrrigationW ell TesoroRefining andMarketing Co. SW-48 PCE TCE DCE<0.50 U <0.50 U <0.50 U SW-47 PCE TCE DCE<0.50 U <0.50 U <0.50 U SW-46 PCE TCE DCE2.4 <0.50 U <0.50 U SW-44 PCE TCE DCE2.2 <0.50 U <0.50 U SW-36 PCE TCE DCE1.2 2.3 0.69 SW-35 PCE TCE DCE82 0.67 0.54 SW-31 PCE TCE DCE20 0.48 J 0.27 J SW-30 PCE TCE DCE0.50 0.090 J <0.50 U SW-22 PCE TCE DCE2.9 0.47 J 0.13 J SW-16 PCE TCE DCE<0.50 U <0.50 U <0.50 U SW-15 PCE TCE DCE14 0.32 J <0.50 U SW-13 PCE TCE DCE1.8 0.37 J <0.50 U SW-43 PCE TCE DCE4.1 0.10 J <0.50 U SW-42 PCE TCE DCE16 0.19 J <0.50 U SW-40 PCE TCE DCE28 0.38 J 0.18 J SW-34 PCE TCE DCE13 0.27 J 0.13 J SW-33 PCE TCE DCE35 0.78 0.15 J SW-19 PCE TCE DCE0.18 J <0.50 U <0.50 U SW-14 PCE TCE DCE18 0.53 <0.50 U SW-11 PCE TCE DCE20 0.61 0.60 SW-08 PCE TCE DCE7.5 0.13 J <0.50 U SW-07 PCE TCE DCE2.9 <0.50 U <0.50 U SW-06 PCE TCE DCE74 0.96 0.58 SW-04 PCE TCE DCE27 0.34 J 0.19 J SW-50 PCE TCE DCE6.3 0.13 J <0.50 UJ SW-29 PCE TCE DCE26 0.28 J <0.50 U SW-27 PCE TCE DCE19 0.61 0.57 13 0.46 J 0.46 J SW-23 PCE TCE DCE25 0.46 J 0.15 J 22 0.47 J <0.50 U SW-21 PCE TCE DCE6.5 0.62 0.44 J 5.2 0.49 J 0.41 J SW-12 PCE TCE DCE23 0.39 J 0.12 J17 0.36 J <0.50 U SW-01PCE TCE DCE0.13 J <0.50 U <0.50 UA-SS-01PCE TCE DCE<0.011 U <0.011 U < 0.011 U SW-26PCE TCE DCE23 0.30 J <0.50 UA-SS-26PCE TCE DCE0.022 <0.01 U <0.01 U SW-09PCE TCE DCE19 0.88 0.11 JA-SS-09 PCE TCE DCE<0.01 U <0.01 U <0.01 U Dry Gulch Red Butte Creek 935 S ALPINE PL MA Y F A I R C I R UINT A H C I R LAIRD C I R ELW OODPL PEN N S T ING L E W O O D CT 1150 S N O R M A N D I E CIR T Y L E R S T 1400 E MU S S E R CT KILBO U R N E C T T H O R N T O N A V E PA R K R O W S T GALLACHERPL LY M A N C T NAY L O R C T AMAND A A V E 1500 E DIES T E L R D W I L L I A M S AVE ELY PL ME N D O N C T HAW T H O R N E AVE EG L I C T HA R M O N Y C T LIBERT Y A V E LOW E L L AVE BELMONTAVE FAIR V I E W A V E MILI T A R Y D R 1700 E HUBBARD AVE 700 S G R E E N W O O D T E R 800 S 800 E BR I X E N C T G R A N D S T Y A L E C R E S T A V E 1040 S CO N S T I T U T I O N D R 1020 S VAL D E Z D R MICHIGAN AVE 900 S 1200 E LINC O L N S T 1300 E DO U G L A S S T 600 S GR E E N S T 600 E 1000 E UN I V E R S I T Y S T 900 E PAR K S T ELIZ A B E T H S T S E G O AVE PRINCET O N A V E 1100 E HERBERT A V E W I N D S O R S T MC C L E L L A N D S T HARVARD AVE GILMER DR S U N N Y S I D E A V E LAK E S T 700 E 1300 S Y A L E A V E LAIRD AVE GU A R D S M A N W A Y 50 40 30 20 10 Bowen S pring S m ith S pring BensonS pring Our Lady ofLourdes S pring FIGURE 6-2 SURFACE WATER SAMPLING AND SOIL SAMPLING RESULTS (2016)700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, AOU-1: East Side Springs Remedial Investigation ReportSalt Lake City, Utah DATUM: NAD83 PROJECTION: TransverseMercator DWN. BP SCALE 1" = 600' APPRVD. SHEET 1 of 1 µ 0 300 600150 Feet Fi l e : A l b u q u e r q u e E A \ \ l o v e t o n g i s \ G I S d a t a \ F e d e r a l \ W e s t \ U t a h \ S a l t L a k e C i t y _ V e t e r a n s A f f a i r s \ M X D \ R I R e p o r t \ F i g 6 - 2 S W S a m p l i n g R e s u l t s . m x d b p a w l i n g 6 / 8 / 2 0 1 8 9 : 4 4 : 3 7 A M US Departmentof VeteransAffairs East Ben c h Fault S p u r E a s t B e n c h Fa u l t Note(s) :1. S urface water and storm water sam ples were collected between 26 February to 11 May 2016.2. T able 6-3 lists surface water and storm water analytical results for the PCOPCs.3. S urface water results are in ug/l; soil results are in m g/kg.4. PCE contour concentrations are in µg/L.5. PCE contours are in shallow groundwater less than 45 ft.6. Vinyl chloride results were all <0.5 µg/L.7. 1,4-dioxane results were <2.0 µg/L.8. T here were no surface water or storm water results that exceeded the surface water-related S Ls in Table 3-7. S ource(s) :Utah Autom ated Geographic Reference Center (AGRC)AOU-1 S ource = Figure 2 of the RI W ork Plan (First Environm ent 2015a) Acronym (s) and Abbreviation(s):μg/L = m icrogram s per literAOU = Accelerated Operable UnitDCE = cis-1,2-dichloroetheneEPA = U.S . Environm ental Protection Agencyft = feetJ = estim ated valuem g/kg = m illigram s per kilogramMW = Monitoring W ellPCE = tetrachloroethenePCOPC = Prelim inary Contam inant of Potential ConcernRI = Rem edial InvestigationS L = S creening LevelT CE = trichloroetheneU = non detect valueUJ = estim ated non detect value DATE 6-15-18 Legend @A Monitoring W ells @A Production/Irrigation W ells @A Abandoned Monitoring W ells #*S urface W ater S am ple Location (!X S oil S am ple Location i S pring Location Infered PCE Contour Near S urface Groundwater PCE Contour Near S urface Groundwater W asatch Fault Line !? S torm water S ystem S tructure(drain, m anhole, culvert) S torm water Line J ordan River Canal (subterranean) S tream s Approxim ate Occurrence of S prings (East S ide S prings Area) Page 1 of 2 TABLE 5-5 Surface Water Sampling Locations 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume AOU-1: East Side Springs Remedial Investigation Report Department of Veterans Affairs Salt Lake City Health Care System Location ID Type of Surface Water Sampled Sample Location Specified in RI Work Plan (1) Sample Location Deviates From RI Work Plan (1)? Reason for Moving Sample Location SW -01 Seep Spring SL33 Yes Homeowner indicated there were no seeps or springs on property, therefore the location was moved to a property with an active seep or spring SW -04 Spring-fed ponds Spring SL30 No NA SW -06 Spring-fed sump Spring SL28 No NA SW -07 Spring box Spring SL85 Yes Homeowner indicated there were no seeps or springs on property, therefore the location was moved to a property with an active seep or spring SW -08 Seep Spring SL25 Yes Homeowner indicated there were no seeps or springs on property, therefore the location was moved to a property with an active seep or spring SW -09 Seep Spring SL28, near residential sampling location IA-13/SG-13 Yes Based on the RIWP figure, this location should be collocated with SL23 or SL24 SW -11 Seep Spring SL82, near residential sampling location IA-15/SG-15 No NA SW -12 Spring Spring SL18, near residential sampling location IA-14/SG-14 No NA SW -13 Seep Spring SL88, near residential sampling location IA-16/SG-16 Yes Moved sample near SL27 because it was closer to indoor air sampling location 0001H on parcel to the north SW -14 Spring-fed sump Spring SL100 No NA SW -15 Seep Benson Spring No NA SW -16 Spring (Our Lady of Lourdes) Our Lady of Lourdes Spring No NA SW -19 Spring (Bowen) Spring SL35 Yes Homeowner indicated there were no seeps or springs on property, therefore the location was moved to a property with an active seep or spring that was confirmed as Bowen Spring SW -21 Spring-fed sump NA NA NA SW -22 Spring-fed sump NA NA NA SW -23 Spring-fed sump NA NA NA Page 2 of 2 TABLE 5-5 Surface Water Sampling Locations 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume AOU-1: East Side Springs Remedial Investigation Report Department of Veterans Affairs Salt Lake City Health Care System Location ID Type of Surface Water Sampled Sample Location Specified in RI Work Plan (1) Sample Location Deviates From RI Work Plan (1)? Reason for Moving Sample Location SW -26 Seep NA NA NA SW -27 Seep NA NA NA SW -29 Spring NA NA NA SW -30 Spring (Smith) NA NA NA SW -31 Seep NA NA NA SW -33 Seep NA NA NA SW -34 Spring NA NA NA SW -35 Seep NA NA NA SW -36 Seep NA NA NA SW -40 Spring-fed sump NA NA NA SW -42 Spring NA NA NA SW -43 Spring NA NA NA SW -44 Spring NA NA NA SW -46 Spring NA NA NA SW -47 Creek (Red Butte) NA NA NA SW -48 Spring (Benson) NA NA NA SW -50 Spring NA NA NA NOTES: 1. First Environment. 2015a. Final Remedial Investigation Work Plan, AOU-1: East Side Springs, 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah. July. ID = Identification. NA = Not applicable. Sample locations were not defined within the RI Work Plan. RIWP = Remedial Investigation. Table 17. Surface Water Sampling Locations 2018 OU-2 Data Summary Report Location ID Location Type Approximate Address Sample Method Northing (feet) Easting (feet)Comment SW-06 Decorative Well 1123 Alpine Place Peristaltic Pump 7441992.663 1541334.318 SW-34 Spring 1160 East Gilmer Drive Peristaltic Pump 7441495.553 1541442.897 SW-35 Seep 1122 East 800 South Peristaltic Pump 7442664.485 1541000.308 SW-39 Storm Water Drain 1121 Alpine Place Peristaltic Pump 7441891.751 1541279.016 SW-48 Pond Inlet (Benson Spring) 741 East Elizabeth Street Grab 7443316.646 1541297.116 SW-53 Pond Inlet 1125 Alpine Place Grab 7441888.372 1541374.951 New Location added in 2018 SW-47 Red Butte Creek 1248 Yale Avenue Grab 7440350.580 1541979.127 SW-51 Red Butte Creek 1150 Yale Avenue Grab 7440309.741 1541185.251 New Location added in 2018 SW-52 Red Butte Creek 1109 Harvard Avenue Grab 7440347.941 1540859.677 New Location added in 2018 Notes Northing / Easting measured using the NAD 83 State Plain Coordinate System; UT Central Zone ID = Identification Seep/Spring Locations Red Butte Creek Locations AX0325191211SLC Page 1 of 1 Memorandum To: Josephine Newton-Lund, PMP, Senior Project Manager, Environmental Branch, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Shannon Smith, PE, Program Manager, Veterans Health Administration From: Nathan Smith, PMP, Senior Project Manager, CDM Federal Programs Corporation Neil Smith, Project Technical Leader, CDM Federal Programs Corporation Date: March 19, 2021 Subject: Plan for Soil Vapor Probe Sampling and Indoor Air Sampling at Building s 6 and 7 700 South 1600 East Tetrachloroethene Plume Superfund Site, Salt Lake City, Utah On behalf of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), CDM Federal Programs Corporation (CDM Smith) prepared this plan for soil vapor sampling of previous and recently installed soil vapor probes and indoor air sampling at Buildings 6 and 7 at the 700 South 1600 East Tetrachloroethene (PCE) Plume Site located near the George E. Wahlen Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC) in Salt Lake City, Utah. This plan adds details for sampling of soil vapor and indoor air, as presented in the Phase 2 Field Sampling Plan (FSP). The Phase 2 FSP is an appendix to the OU1 Remedial Investigation Work Plan (RIWP) (CDM Smith 2020). 1.0 Scope of Work This plan details the collection of samples from soil vapor probes and indoor air within Buildings 6 and 7. The objective for the collection of soil vapor volatile organic compound (VOC) data is the delineation of the VOC soil vapor plume to support the data quality objectives D1 (source mass) and D2 (source area vapor intrusion risk), as presented in Table 4-1 of the RIWP (CDM Smith 2020). The soil vapor data will be evaluated for the following: ▪ Assess whether there is evidence of sufficient source mass in the vadose zone to further consider it as an ongoing source of PCE to groundwater. ▪ Delineate the extent of the soil vapor plume to assess the potential for vapor intrusion in nearby structures. The objective for the collection of indoor air within Buildings 6 and 7 is to evaluate the potential for vapor intrusion and thereby support the data quality objective D2 (source area vapor intrusion risk). The indoor air data will be evaluated for the following: ▪ Further assess the potential for vapor intrusion occurring at Buildings 6 and 7 and determine if an unacceptable risk is present. March 19, 2021 Page 2 Memo_Phase 2_OU1_SG_03192021_Final 2.0 Soil Vapor Sampling This plan includes the rationale and description of work for soil vapor probe sampling. As part of the 2018 OU-2 investigation, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) installed and sampled 47 soil vapor probes at 43 locations around the VAMC and along the sewer line from the VAMC through Sunnyside Park (Jacobs 2019a). Location and depth information for the soil vapor probes are presented in Table 1 and shown in Figures 1 and 2. The soil VOC sample results are provided in Table 2 (Jacobs 2019). The VHA sampled these locations using a combination of HAPSITE® gas chromatograph/mass spectrometer (GC/MS) and EPA method TO-15 using SUMMA canisters. The soil gas samples between Buildings 6 and 7 (SG-03, SG-04, SG-05, and SG-06) had the highest concentrations of PCE during the December 2018 sampling. The soil gas samples taken at manhole MH-22658 (along the sewer line in Sunnyside Park) also had elevated PCE concentrations. In June and July 2019, the VHA installed an additional 11 soil vapor probes and 22 sub-slab vapor pins near Buildings 6 and 7. In July 2019, these 33 new locations (along with 28 of the locations installed in 2018) were sampled and screened using the HAPSITE. Ten of the samples were also analyzed using EPA method TO-15. This event identified elevated PCE concentrations in the sub- slab samples below the basements of Buildings 6 and 7 (Table 2). Between March and December 2020, CDM Smith installed 23 additional soil vapor probes at 12 monitoring well locations during the 2020 Phase 1 and Phase 2 drilling field investigations. The locations installed in 2020 have not yet been sampled. Location and depth information for the soil vapor probes is presented in Table 1. A total of 54 locations including the 23 recently installed locations, will be sampled to evaluate potential source area mass based on lateral and vertical distribution of VOCs in soil vapor and identify potential areas of vapor intrusion risk. The soil vapor samples will be collected following the CDM Smith SOP 1-8 – Vapor Sampling Using a SUMMA Canister (CDM Smith 2020) and analyzed by EPA method TO-15 for VOCs. If any existing soil vapor probes cannot be located or are found damaged, these locations will not be sampled. 3.0 Buildings 6 and 7 Indoor Air Sampling In January 2019, the VHA collected indoor air samples at Buildings 6, 7, 13, and 20 for PCE, TCE, and DCE analysis by HAPSITE (Jacobs 2019b). Sampling results from this investigation are included in Attachment 1. Eighteen sample locations were selected in Building 6; seven locations had detectable PCE and six locations had detectable TCE. The highest PCE concentration detected was 915 g/m3, and the highest TCE concentration was 7.13 g/m3. Prior to the collection of further indoor air samples, the building was screened for potential indoor air sources and all identified sources were removed. These locations had significantly reduced PCE concentrations when sampled after removal of suspected indoor PCE sources. After the identified sources were removed, the highest PCE concentration was 25.46 g/m3 and the highest TCE concentration was 2.54 g/m3. Sixteen sample locations were selected in Building 7, and nine of the locations had detectable PCE below the commercial/industrial indoor air risk-based screening level (RBSL) of 47 g/m3. None of March 19, 2021 Page 3 Memo_Phase 2_OU1_SG_03192021_Final the locations sampled at Buildings 13 or 20 had detectable PCE during this screening event (Jacobs 2019b). In September 2019, the VHA conducted follow-up sampling at nine locations in Building 6 and seven locations in Building 7 (Table 3). These locations are shown in Attachment 2 and Attachment 3. This round of sampling used 24-hour SUMMA canister sampling and analysis by EPA method TO-15. Eight of the sample locations in Building 6 had detectable PCE, but all sample results were less than the RBSL of 47 g/m3. Six of the sampling locations in Building 7 had detectable PCE at concentrations less than 1 g/m3. Six samples also had detectable TCE, but only location B7-IA05 (8 g/m3) exceeded the RBSL of 3 g/m3. A subset of locations will be selected from the September 2019 sampling event. In Building 6, one basement location (B6-IA08) and one ground floor location in occupied office space (B6-IA03) will be sampled. Building 6 sampling location are shown on Figure 3. In Building 7, the one basement location (B7-IA05) and one occupied space location (B7-IA02) will be sampled. Building 7 locations are shown on Figure 4. This round of sampling will use 24-hour SUMMA canister sampling analyzed by EPA method TO-15. An indoor source assessment will be conducted prior to collecting the indoor air samples, and suspected indoor sources will be removed prior to sampling. 4.0 References CDM Smith. 2020. Phase 2 Remedial Investigation Work Plan, Operable Unit 1, 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Jacobs. 2019a. 2018 OU-2 Data Summary Report, Operable Unit 2 Remedial Investigation 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Jacobs. 2019b. 2019 Indoor Air Data Summary Report, Operable Unit 2 Remedial Investigation 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Figures Figure 1 Site Map Figure 2 Buildings 6 and 7 area soil vapor sampling locations Figure 3 Building 6 indoor air sampling locations Figure 4 Building 7 indoor air sampling locations Tables Table 1 Soil vapor monitoring probe locations Table 2 Results from soil vapor sampling Table 3 Indoor air sampling results September 2019 March 19, 2021 Page 4 Memo_Phase 2_OU1_SG_03192021_Final Attachments Attachment 1 HAPSITE indoor air sampling results tables January 2019 Attachment 2 Building 6 24-Hour Indoor Air TO-15 Sample Locations Attachment 3 Building 7 24-Hour Indoor Air TO-15 Sample Locations ")") &< &< !.!(!( !( !( &<&< &< &<&< &<&< &< &<&<&< &<&<&<&< &< &< &< &<&<&< &<&<&<&< &<&< &<&< &<&< &<&< &< &< &<&< &< &< &< &< &< &< &< &< &< &< &<&<&< ! ! !Sunnyside Park University of Utah Well #2 University of Utah Well #1 Fountain of Ute Mt. Olivet Well East Side Springs East HighSchool VHA Medical CenterBuilding 7 EPA-MW-03 EPA-MW-05 SLC-18 MW-01DMW-01S MW-02 MW-03R MW-04 MW-05R MW-06 MW-08 MW-12DMW-12S MW-13DMW-13S MW-14DMW-14S MW-15DMW-15S MW-16DMW-16S MW-17DMW-17S MW-18 MW-19 MW-20DMW-20S MW-21 MW-22 E a s t B e n ch SegmentoftheWasatchFault1 EastBenchFaultSpur2 MW-23 MW-25 MW-26 MW-29 MW-32 MW-34 MW-31 MW-30 MW-28 MW-27MW-24 MW-30R MW-36 MW-37SMW-37D MW-38SMW-38D MW-13L SB-42SB-43 500 S GUARDSMAN WAY F O O T H IL L D R 700 S 800 S 1300 E 1100 E SUNNYSIDE AVE 500 S 900 S R e d B u tteCreek Figure 1Site MapLegend &<Monitoring Well &<Monitoring Well with Soil Vapor ")Sampling Location &<Decommissioned Monitoring Well !.Drinking Water Supply Well !(Irrigation Well !LandmarkRed Butte CreekSewer LineFault Line File Path: J:\238824_VA_Medical_Salt_Lake\MXD\Sampling_2021\MFM_2021\Fig1_SewerLineSamples.mxd WAGNERA 3/9/2021 Notes:(1) Location of University of Utah Well #1 is approximate; well is located less than 100 feet east of Fountain of Ute. OU = operable unitPCE = tetrachloroetheneVHA = Veterans H ealth Administration 1 Davis, F.D. 1983. Geologic Map of the Central Wasatch Front, Utah. Utah Geological and Mineral Survey. Map 54-A – Wasatch Front Series. May. 2 Personius, S.F. and Scott, W.E. 2009. Surficial Geologic Map of the Salt Lake City Segment and Parts of Adjacent Segments of the Wasatch Fault Zone, Davis, Salt Lake, and Utah Counties, Utah Field Modification700 South 1600 East PCE PlumeSalt Lake City, Utah 0 500 1,000Feet ¯ Figure 2 ") ")&< &< MW-06 MW-29 MW-31 SB-42 SB-43 Red Butte Creek Sunnyside Park ") ") ") ")") ") VHA Medical CenterBuilding 7 VHA Medical CenterBuilding 6 MW-27 MW-23 MW-26 MW-25 MW-24 VP-01 VP-14 VP-13 VP-12 VP-11 VP-10 VP-09 VP-08 VP-07 VP-06 VP-05 VP-04 VP-03 VP-02 MW-28 SG-03 SG-04 SG-05 SG-06 SG-07 SG-08 SG-09 SG-10 SG-11 SG-12 SG-13 SG-45 VP-21 SG-48 SG-49 SG-50 SG-51 SG-52 SG-53 SG-54SG-55 VP-15 VP-16 VP-17 VP-18 VP-19 VP-20 SG-60 SG-46 VP-22 Figure 2Soil Vapor SamplesBuilding 6/7 Area 0 25 50Feet ")Boring Location - Phase 1 ") Monitoring Well with Soil Vapor !(PCE Soil Vapor Concentrations < 10% Screening Level !(PCE Soil Vapor Concentrations between 10% of Screening Level and Screening Level !(PCE Soil Vapor Concentrations > Screening Level !(PCE Soil Vapor Concentrations > 10 times Screening LevelPerimeter of Building 7 in 1981 J:\238824_VA_Medical_Salt_Lake\MXD\Sampling_2021\MFM_2021\Fig2_SewerLineSamples_Bldg6_7.mxd WAGNERA 3/19/2021 4:31:20 PM Notes:SG = soil gas probeVP = vapor pin. Locations for vapor pins are approximate.-Color coding based on the maximum of the December 2018 or March 2019 TO-15 / HAPSITE data and July 2019 HAPSITE data for each location. The screening level for PCE in soil gas is 600 µg/m3.-Locations labeled in gray are not planned for further sampling at this time.¯Field Modification700 South 1600 East PCE PlumeSalt Lake City, UtahUnderground Storage Tank or Foundation !( !( VHA Medical CenterBuilding 7 VHA Medical CenterBuilding 6 Figure 3Building 6 Indoor Air Sampling 0 25Feet !(Potential indoor air samples locations (ground level) !(Potential indoor air samples locations (basement)Basement J:\238824_VA_Medical_Salt_Lake\MXD\Sampling_2021\MFM_2021\Fig3_Bldg6_Indoor_Air.mxd WAGNERA 3/19/2021 4:36:25 PM 1 inch = 25 feet ¯Field Modification700 South 1600 East PCE PlumeSalt Lake City, Utah B6-IA08 B6-IA03 !( !( VHA Medical CenterBuilding 7 VHA Medical CenterBuilding 6 Figure 4Building 7 Indoor Air Sampling 0 30Feet !(Potential indoor air samples locations (ground level) !(Potential indoor air samples locations (basement)BasementPerimeter of Building 7 in 1981 J:\238824_VA_Medical_Salt_Lake\MXD\Sampling_2021\MFM_2021\Fig4_Bldg7_Indoor_Air.mxd WAGNERA 3/19/2021 4:50:53 PM 1 inch = 30 feet ¯Field Modification700 South 1600 East PCE PlumeSalt Lake City, Utah B7-IA05 B7-IA02 Table 1. Soil Vapor Probe Locations and Sample Depths Location ID Sample Area Installation Date Northing (feet) Easting (feet) Surface Elevation (ft amsl) Sample Depth (ft bgs) MW-30 6/15/2020 7445073.45 1545424.98 4723.07 30 SG-03 12/10/2018 7443809.00 1546268.75 4712.59 7.8 - 8.1 SG-04 12/11/2018 7443816.69 1546312.02 4712.07 5.5 - 5.8 SG-05 12/11/2018 7443799.27 1546338.69 4712.11 5.9 - 6.3 SG-06 12/10/2018 7443762.75 1546386.92 4712.83 5.8 - 6.1 SG-07 12/4/2018 7443784.75 1546450.84 4714.08 5.2 - 5.5 SG-08 12/13/2018 7443773.66 1546492.04 4712.58 3.0 - 3.3 SG-09 12/13/2018 7443773.33 1546536.79 4712.53 2.3 - 2.7 SG-10 12/14/2018 7443772.95 1546567.85 4717.55 6.3 - 6.8 SG-11 12/12/2018 7443747.47 1546510.21 4713.06 4.7 - 5.0 SG-12 12/12/2018 7443725.84 1546489.30 4713.04 4.8 - 5.2 SG-13 12/11/2018 7443677.39 1546495.82 4711.88 5.3 - 6.0 SG-14 12/14/2018 7443627.33 1546384.14 4709.79 7.4 - 7.8 SG-15 12/4/2018 7443603.43 1546481.25 4711.53 8.0 - 8.3 SG-45 6/26/2019 7443963.21 1546350.55 *7 - 7.5 SG-46 6/26/2019 7443880.46 1546451.98 *4.8 - 5.2 SG-48 6/26/2019 7443904.46 1546209.77 *5.0 - 5.5 SG-50 6/27/2019 7443840.69 1546271.18 *6.7 - 7.3 SG-52 6/27/2019 7443803.46 1546425.45 *4.6 - 5.1 VP-07 7443824.09 1546511.16 *Sub-Slab VP-08 7443854.91 1546432.21 *Sub-Slab VP-09 7443829.16 1546323.72 *Sub-Slab VP-10 7443892.50 1546318.66 *Sub-Slab VP-11 7443865.08 1546289.95 *Sub-Slab VP-20 6/18/2019 7443871.29 1546258.19 *Sub-Slab VP-12 7443894.26 1546376.10 *Sub-Slab VP-13 7443820.00 1546392.95 *Sub-Slab VP-21 6/18/2019 7443931.96 1546400.75 *Sub-Slab VP-22 7443798.36 1546398.78 *Sub-Slab SG-49 6/27/2019 7443876.64 1546186.02 *6.1 - 6.7 SG-51 6/28/2019 7443769.87 1546313.33 *8.8 - 9.3 SG-53 7/1/2019 7443735.42 1546341.14 *4.5 - 5.0 SG-54 7/2/2019 7443710.81 1546331.09 *4.5 - 5.1 SG-55 7/2/2019 7443710.81 1546281.23 *4.5 - 5.0 SG-60 7443765.87 1546315.60 *3.8 - 4.3 VP-01 7443674.65 1546362.13 *Sub-Slab VP-02 7443663.25 1546330.89 *Sub-Slab VP-03 7443729.11 1546371.42 *Sub-Slab VP-05 7443856.18 1546245.83 *Sub-Slab VP-06 7443845.41 1546178.70 *Sub-Slab VP-18 7443780.01 1546221.38 *Sub-Slab VP-19 7443810.95 1546225.98 *Sub-Slab VP-04 7443750.08 1546280.28 *Sub-Slab VP-14 7443729.23 1546244.48 *Sub-Slab VP-15 6/18/019 7443784.84 1546278.00 *Sub-Slab VP-16 6/20/2019 7443740.98 1546332.69 *Sub-Slab VP-17 6/20/2019 7443730.05 1546273.15 *Sub-Slab MW-23 4/20/2020 7443809.38 1546280.59 4712.47 130-140 32 60 104 130 28 100 28 48 75 113 155 VA Building 7 Area MW-24 MW-25 MW-27 Building 6/7 Area VHA Building 6 Interior - Ground Level VHA Building 6 Interior - Basement 5/20/2020 5/10/2020 3/26/2020 7443698.74 1546266.48 4709.77 7443676.94 1546071.97 4703.04 7443766.76 1546337.14 4712.61 VA North Area Building 6 Area VHA Building 7 Interior - Basement VHA Building 7 Exterior VHA Building 7 Interior - Ground Level AX0325191211SLC Page 1 of 2 Table 1. Soil Vapor Probe Locations and Sample Depths Location ID Sample Area Installation Date Northing (feet) Easting (feet) Surface Elevation (ft amsl) Sample Depth (ft bgs) 24 48 118 6 - 7 12 - 13 16 - 17 24.8 - 26 7 - 8 14.7 - 15.7 42 66 98 MW-34 Rowland Hall School 7/14/2020 7443498.84 1543745.66 4623.61 20 MW-32 7/1/2020 7444416.40 1542692.62 4566.22 18 MW-37 11/13/2020 7443160.46 1539938.63 4348.36 8 MW-38 11/16/2020 7443931.79 1541593.58 4498.56 8 Notes Shaded cells are planned for sampling in March 2021. Northing / Easting measured using the NAD 83 State Plane Coordinate Sytem; UT Central Zone Surface and top of casing elevations measured using the NAVD 88 vertical datum amsl = above mean sea level bgs = below ground surface ft = feet * = Elevation information not provided (1) Point not installed as utilities could not be located in proposed sample location due to surface obstacles SB-42 7442828.84 1545936.88 4679.06 SB-43 7442771.79 1545921.39 4676.97 MW-28 MW-29 East Side Springs Building 6/7 Area 7443764.76 1546532.92 Sunnyside Park 3/20/2020 6/7/2020 12/7/2018 12/7/2018 4712.80 7442845.95 1545935.59 4679.35 AX0325191211SLC Page 2 of 2 Table 2. Soil Gas and Soil PCE and TCE Concentrations PCE TCE PCE TCE SG-01 5.9 - 6.25 12/20/2018 7.3 < 2.7 - - SG-01 5.9 - 6.3 7/12/2019 19 < 2.7 - - SG-02 5.5 - 5.8 12/20/2018 21.8 < 2.7 - - SG-02 5.5 - 5.8 7/12/2019 41 < 2.7 - - SG-03 7.8 - 8.1 12/17/2018 2,887 < 27 - - SG-03 7.8 - 8.1 7/10/2019 3,800 < 27 - - SG-04 5.5 - 5.8 12/17/2018 1,045 6.3 - - SG-04 5.5 - 5.8 7/10/2019 2,400 24 - - SG-05 5.9 - 6.3 12/17/2018 3,039 < 27 2,900 11 J SG-05 5,300 < 27 4,700 19 SG-05 (dup)- -4,400 18 SG-06 5.8 - 6.1 12/17/2018 3,129 31.3 - - SG-06 5.8 - 6.1 7/16/2019 2,000 30 - - SG-07 5.2 - 5.5 12/10/2018 212.2 < 2.7 - - SG-07 5.2 - 5.5 7/9/2019 240 < 2.7 - - SG-08 3.0 - 3.3 12/17/2018 331.2 < 2.7 180 0.37 J SG-08 3.0 - 3.3 7/9/2019 1,300 < 5.4 - - SG-09 2.3 - 2.7 12/17/2018 114 < 2.7 - - SG-09 2.3 - 2.7 7/9/2019 1,100 < 5.4 - - SG-10 6.3 - 6.8 12/17/2018 14.8 < 2.7 - - SG-10 6.3 - 6.8 7/9/2019 9.5 < 2.7 - - SG-11 4.7 - 5.0 12/17/2018 344.7 < 2.7 240 0.43 J SG-11 4.7 - 5.0 7/9/2019 1,200 < 5.4 - - SG-12 4.8 - 5.2 12/17/2018 123.8 < 2.7 - - SG-12 4.8 - 5.2 7/12/2019 380 < 2.7 - - SG-13 5.3 - 6.0 12/17/2018 546.8 < 2.7 360 0.86 J SG-13 5.3 - 6.0 7/12/2019 1,600 < 11 - - SG-14 7.4 - 7.8 12/17/2018 338.5 < 2.7 - - SG-14 7.4 - 7.8 7/12/2019 290 < 2.7 - - SG-15 8.0 - 8.3 12/10/2018 41.8 < 2.7 - - SG-15 8.0 - 8.3 7/12/2019 52 < 2.7 - - SG-45 7 - 7.5 7/9/2019 23 < 2.7 - - SG-46 4.8 - 5.2 7/9/2019 12 < 2.7 - - SG-48 5.0 - 5.5 7/9/2019 10 < 2.7 - - SG-49 6.1 - 6.7 7/9/2019 13 < 2.7 - - SG-50 6.7 - 7.3 7/10/2019 420 2.9 - - SG-51 8.8 - 9.3 7/10/2019 45 < 2.7 33 1.4 J SG-52 4.6 - 5.1 7/9/2019 26 < 2.7 11 < 0.34 SG-53 4.5 - 5.0 7/10/2019 49 < 2.7 - - SG-54 4.5 - 5.1 7/10/2019 26 < 2.7 25 < 0.35 SG-55 4.5 - 5.0 7/9/2019 62 < 2.7 - - SG-60 3.8 - 4.3 7/16/2019 450 20 - - VA North Area 5.9 - 6.3 7/10/2019 VA Building 6 and 7 Area TO-15 (µg/m3) Sample Area Location ID Sample Depth (ft bgs) HAPSITE Run Date HAPSITE (µg/m3) AX0325191211SLC Page 1 of 3 Table 2. Soil Gas and Soil PCE and TCE Concentrations PCE TCE PCE TCE TO-15 (µg/m3) Sample Area Location ID Sample Depth (ft bgs) HAPSITE Run Date HAPSITE (µg/m3) VP-01 Sub-Slab 7/16/2019 39 < 2.7 - - VP-02 Sub-Slab 7/16/2019 520 < 2.7 - - VP-03 Sub-Slab 7/16/2019 330 < 2.7 - - VP-05 Sub-Slab 7/11/2019 77 < 2.7 - - VP-06 Sub-Slab 7/11/2019 28 < 2.7 - - VP-18 Sub-Slab 7/16/2019 46 < 27 - - VP-19 Sub-Slab 7/11/2019 < 3.4 < 2.7 - - VP-04 Sub-Slab 7/16/2019 46,000 54 20,000 35 J VP-14 Sub-Slab 7/16/2019 110 < 2.7 - - VP-15 Sub-Slab 7/16/2019 11,000 180 21,000 160 VP-16 Sub-Slab 7/16/2019 5,200 < 27 3,600 5.7 J VP-17 Sub-Slab 7/16/2019 1,800 < 11 1,400 2 J VP-07 Sub-Slab 7/11/2019 47 < 2.7 - - VP-08 Sub-Slab 7/11/2019 190 < 2.7 - - VP-09 Sub-Slab 7/11/2019 840 < 5.4 - - VP-10 Sub-Slab 7/11/2019 29 < 2.7 - - VP-11 Sub-Slab 7/11/2019 580 < 2.7 440 3.4 VP-20 Sub-Slab 7/11/2019 22 < 2.7 17 0.33 J VP-12 Sub-Slab 7/11/2019 35 < 2.7 - - VP-13 Sub-Slab 7/11/2019 640 < 2.7 - - VP-21 Sub-Slab 7/9/2019 < 3.4 < 2.7 - - VP-22 Sub-Slab 7/11/2019 22 < 2.7 - - SG-16a -- - SG-17 6.3 - 6.7 12/10/2018 75.5 < 2.7 - - SG-17 6.3 - 6.7 7/10/2019 190 < 2.7 - - SG-18 4.7 - 5.2 12/10/2018 18.0 < 2.7 - - SG-18 4.7 - 5.2 7/10/2019 49 < 2.7 - - SG-19 3.8 - 4.1 12/10/2018 15.1 < 2.7 - - SG-19 3.8 - 4.1 7/10/2019 110 < 2.7 - - SG-20 6.1 - 6.5 12/10/2018 21.2 < 2.7 - - SG-20 6.1 - 6.5 7/10/2019 42 < 2.7 - - SG-21 7.8 - 8.1 12/20/2018 56.3 < 2.7 - - SG-21 7.8 - 8.1 7/10/2019 30 < 2.7 - - SG-22 5.3 - 5.6 12/10/2018 14.0 < 2.7 - - SG-22 5.3 - 5.6 7/10/2019 14 < 2.7 - - SG-23 5.8 - 6.1 12/20/2018 14.1 < 2.7 - - SG-23 5.8 - 6.1 7/10/2019 10 < 2.7 - - SG-24b 14 - 14.5 12/3/2018 19.0 < 2.7 - - SG-25b 13.5 - 14.5 12/3/2018 187.1 < 2.7 - - SG-26b 14 - 15 12/3/2018 212.5 < 2.7 - - SG-27b 14 - 15 12/3/2018 181.0 < 2.7 - - SG-28b 14 - 15 12/3/2018 133.6 < 2.7 9 < 0.31 SG-29b 14 - 15 12/4/2018 49.2 < 2.7 - - SG-30b 14 - 15 12/4/2018 159.8 < 2.7 - - SG-31b 14 - 15 12/4/2018 115.2 < 2.7 - - SG-32 14 - 15 12/4/2018 310.2 < 2.7 - - SG-33 14 - 15 12/4/2018 1,281 < 2.7 - - SG-34 14 - 15 12/4/2018 819.0 < 8.1 550 1.1 J SG-35 14 - 15 12/5/2018 554.7 < 5.4 330 1.3 J SG-36 13 - 15 12/6/2018 462.3 < 2.7 - - SG-37 14 - 15 12/5/2018 170.4 < 2.7 91 < 0.31 SG-38 14 - 15 12/6/2018 10.4 < 2.7 - - SG-39 14 - 15 12/6/2018 < 34 < 2.7 - - SG-40 14 - 15 12/6/2018 305.8 < 2.7 - - SG-41 14 - 15 12/6/2018 1,387 < 8.1 - - 6 - 7 12/10/2018 144.5 < 2.7 - - 12 - 13 12/10/2018 513.6 5.4 - - 16 - 17 12/10/2018 819.4 9.5 - - 24.8 - 26 12/10/2018 1201 18.8 - - Building 7 Subslab VA Sewer Line Area Building 6 Subslab SB-42 Sunnyside Park Not Sampled AX0325191211SLC Page 2 of 3 Table 2. Soil Gas and Soil PCE and TCE Concentrations PCE TCE PCE TCE TO-15 (µg/m3) Sample Area Location ID Sample Depth (ft bgs) HAPSITE Run Date HAPSITE (µg/m3) SB-42A 6 - 7 7/15/2019 330 < 2.7 - - SB-42B 12 - 13 7/15/2019 1,100 < 27 - - SB-42C 16 - 17 7/15/2019 210 < 2.7 - - SB-42D 24.8 - 26 7/15/2019 370 < 2.7 - - 7 - 8 95.0 < 2.7 - - 14.7 - 15.7 376.0 < 2.7 330 3.7 7 - 8 7/15/2019 150 < 2.7 - - 14.7 - 15.7 7/15/2019 330 < 2.7 - - SG-44 14 - 15 12/6/2018 11.9 < 2.7 8.9 < 0.3 Notes a Point not installed as utilities could not be located in proposed sample location due to surface obstacles bHAPSITE PCE concentrations biased high due to PCE build-up in purge pump. All other locations were sampled via lung box. Bolded values exceed the Industrial Vapor Instrusion Soil Gas Screening Level of 600 µg/m3 (PCE) and 29.3 µg/m3 (TCE) µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter bgs = below ground surface ID = identification ft = feet mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram PCE = tetrachloroethylene TCE = trichloroethylene SB-43 12/10/2018Sunnyside Park AX0325191211SLC Page 3 of 3 Table 3. Indoor Air Sampling Results - September 2019 Sample Type Location ID Floor Sample Location Description Date of Canister Collection LOQ (µg/m3) Results (µg/m3) Lab Qualifier LOQ (µg/m3) Results (µg/m3) Lab Qualifier LOQ (µg/m3) Results (µg/m3) Lab Qualifier Indoor Air B6-IA01 Main RPM's office 9/6/2019 0.9 0.26 J 0.9 0.15 J 0.9 0.13 U Indoor Air B6-IA02 Main Adjacent to receptionist cubicle 9/6/2019 0.91 0.3 J 0.91 0.12 U 0.91 0.13 U Indoor Air B6-IA03 Main ???9/6/2019 0.92 0.39 J 0.92 0.12 U 0.92 0.13 U Indoor Air B6-IA04 Main ???9/17/2019 0.85 0.11 U 0.85 0.12 U 0.85 0.12 U Indoor Air B6-IA05 Main South side of annex 9/6/2019 0.98 0.24 J 0.98 0.13 U 0.98 0.14 U Indoor Air B6-IA06 Main Control room for boiler 9/6/2019 1 0.32 J 1 0.14 U 1 0.14 U Indoor Air B6-IA08 Basement South end of basement boiler room 9/6/2019 0.82 4.4 0.82 0.11 U 0.82 0.12 U Indoor Air B6-IA09 Main Room outside of maintenance supervisor's office 9/7/2019 1.2 1.2 1.2 0.16 U 1.2 0.16 U Indoor Air B6-IA90 Basement North end of basement boiler room 9/8/2019 0.91 5 0.91 0.12 U 0.91 0.13 U Outdoor Air B6-OA02 Outdoor South of annex 9/9/2019 1 1.5 1 0.14 U 1 0.15 U Indoor Air B7-IA01 Main Hallway near east exit in animal lab 9/6/2019 0.8 0.35 J 0.8 0.11 U 0.8 0.11 U Indoor Air B7-IA02 Main Laundry manager's office 9/6/2019 0.95 0.33 J 0.95 0.96 0.95 0.14 U Indoor Air B7-IA03 Main East corner of loading dock area 9/17/2019 0.9 0.15 J 0.9 0.47 J 0.9 0.13 U Indoor Air B7-IA04 Main Break Room?9/6/2019 1.8 0.23 U 1.8 0.83 J 1.8 0.26 U Indoor Air B7-IA04 Main East corner of loading dock area 9/17/2019 0.9 0.12 U 0.9 0.44 J 0.9 0.13 U Indoor Air B7-IA05 Basement Basement 9/6/2019 1.2 0.5 J 1.2 8 1.2 1 J Indoor Air B7-IA06 Main Corner of ??9/6/2019 0.79 0.47 J 0.79 0.21 J 0.79 0.11 U Indoor Air B7-IA07 Main East corner of loading dock area 9/6/2019 1.7 0.38 J 1.7 0.26 J 1.7 0.23 U Indoor Air B7-IA07 Main East corner of loading dock area 9/17/2019 0.92 0.19 J 0.92 0.13 U 0.92 0.13 U Indoor Air B7-IA92 (FD)Main East corner of loading dock area 9/17/2019 0.88 0.63 J 0.88 0.62 J 0.88 0.12 U Indoor Air B7-IA93 (FD)Main East corner of loading dock area 9/17/2019 0.92 0.13 J 0.92 0.5 J 0.92 0.13 U Outdoor Air B7-OA01 Outdoor East corner of loading dock area 9/17/2019 0.9 0.12 U 0.9 0.12 U 0.9 0.13 U Notes: a The Indoor Air RBSLs are the indoor air RSLs from the EPA RSL table (EPA, 2018b). The Indoor Air RBSLs are based on either a target cancer risk of 1 x 10-6 or a non-cancer hazard quotient of 1, whichever results in the lower SL. b The Indoor Air Tier 1 RALs are based on the indoor air RSLs from the EPA RSL table (EPA, 2018a) using either a target cancer risk of 1 x 10-5 or a non-cancer hazard quotient of 1, whichever results in the lower RAL. c The Indoor Air Tier 2 RALs are based on the indoor air RSLs from the EPA RSL table (EPA, 2018a) using either a target cancer risk of 1 x 10-4 or a non-cancer hazard quotient of 3, whichever results in the lower RAL. Bold indicates detection Yellow highlight indicates detection above screening level, but below the Tier 1 RAL. All results are unvalidated and subject to change during data validation. µg/m3 = microgram(s) per cubic meter CAS = Chemical Abstracts Service EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FD = field duplicate HAPSITE = Inficon HAPSITE IA = indoor air J = approximate result below the reporting limit and above the method detection limit LOQ = limit of quantification; value that is reported for a non-detect sample OA = outdoor air PCE = tetrachloroethene RAL = removal action level RBSL = risk-based screening level RSL = regional screening level SL = screening level U = not detected Buildings 6 and 7 Analyte Tetrachloroethene Trichloroethene cis-1,2-Dichloroethene CAS 127-18-4 79-01-6 156-59-2 Risk-Based Screening Levela (µg/m3)47 3 No Toxicity Information Tier 1 Removal Action Levelb (µg/m3) 180 8.8 Tier 2 Removal Action Levelc (µg/m3)540 26 Attachment 1 Table 2. Veterans Health Administration Building 6 Indoor Air Results 2019 Indoor Air Data Summary Report, Operable Unit 2 Remedial Investigation, 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah cis-1,2-Dichloroethene Sample Type Location ID Sample ID Sample Location Description Date & Time LOQ (µg/m3) Results (µg/m3)Q LOQ (µg/m3) Results (µg/m3)Q LOQ (µg/m3) Results (µg/m3)Q Indoor Air B6-IA-001 B6-IA-001-01 Hallway near room 1A07 1/24/2019 11:14 0.68 0.68 U 0.54 0.54 U 0.40 0.40 U Indoor Air B6-IA-001 B6-IA-001-01 Hallway near room 1A07 1/24/2019 11:40 0.68 0.68 U 0.54 0.54 U 0.40 0.40 U Indoor Air B6-IA-002 B6-IA-002-01 Hallway near room 1A13 1/24/2019 11:29 0.68 0.68 U 0.54 0.54 U 0.40 0.40 U Indoor Air B6-IA-003 B6-IA-003-01 Document storage room 1/24/2019 11:50 0.68 0.68 U 0.54 0.54 U 0.40 0.40 U Indoor Air B6-IA-004 B6-IA-004-01 Room 1A19 1/24/2019 12:00 0.68 0.68 U 0.54 0.54 U 0.40 0.40 U Indoor Air B6-IA-005 B6-IA-005-01 Break room near boiler control room 1/24/2019 12:11 0.68 0.68 U 0.54 0.54 U 0.40 0.40 U Indoor Air B6-IA-006 B6-IA-006-01 Boiler control room 1/24/2019 12:19 0.68 0.68 U 0.54 0.54 U 0.40 0.40 U Indoor Air B6-IA-007 B6-IA-007-01 Bldg 6 Office Annex (NW corner)1/24/2019 12:29 0.68 0.68 U 0.54 0.54 U 0.40 0.40 U Indoor Air B6-IA-008 B6-IA-008-01 Bldg 6 Office Annex (NE corner)1/24/2019 12:37 0.68 0.68 U 0.54 0.54 U 0.40 0.40 U Indoor Air B6-IA-009 B6-IA-009-01 Bldg 6 Office Annex (SE corner)1/24/2019 12:48 0.68 0.68 U 0.54 0.54 U 0.40 0.40 U Indoor Air B6-IA-010 B6-IA-010-01 Bldg 6 Office Annex (SW corner)1/24/2019 12:54 0.68 0.68 U 0.54 0.54 U 0.40 0.40 U Indoor Air B6-IA-011 B6-IA-011-01 Operations Supervisor Office (S end of Bldg 6)1/24/2019 13:37 0.68 74.65 0.54 0.54 U 0.40 0.40 U Indoor Air B6-IA-011 B6-IA-011-02 Operations Supervisor Office(S end of Bldg 6)1/24/2019 15:06 0.68 129.22 0.54 1.88 0.40 0.40 U Indoor Air B6-IA-011 B6-IA-011-03 Operations Supervisor Office (S end of Bldg 6)1/24/2019 15:34 0.68 74.23 0.54 0.73 0.40 0.40 U Indoor Air B6-IA-011 B6-IA-011-04 Operations Supervisor Office (S end of Bldg 6)1/30/2019 9:37 0.68 2.50 0.54 0.54 U 0.40 0.40 U Indoor Air B6-IA-012 B6-IA-012-01 Break room (S end of Bldg 6)1/24/2019 13:46 0.68 22.39 0.54 0.54 U 0.40 0.40 U Indoor Air B6-IA-012 B6-IA-012-02 Break room (S end of Bldg 6)1/30/2019 9:20 0.68 3.28 0.54 0.54 U 0.40 0.40 U Indoor Air B6-IA-013 B6-IA-013-01 Wood shop (S end of Bldg 6)1/24/2019 13:56 0.68 41.53 0.54 0.54 U 0.40 0.40 U Indoor Air B6-IA-013 B6-IA-013-02 Wood shop (S end of Bldg 6)1/30/2019 9:57 0.68 2.61 0.54 0.54 U 0.40 0.40 U Indoor Air B6-IA-014 B6-IA-014-01 Plumbing Shop (S end of Bldg 6)1/24/2019 14:02 0.68 17.40 0.54 0.54 U 0.40 0.40 U Indoor Air B6-IA-014 B6-IA-014-02 Plumbing Shop (S end of Bldg 6)1/30/2019 9:28 0.68 2.76 0.54 0.54 U 0.40 0.40 U Indoor Air B6-IA-015 B6-IA-015-01 Electrician Shop (S end of Bldg 6)1/24/2019 14:21 0.68 915.69 0.54 7.13 0.40 0.40 U Indoor Air B6-IA-015 B6-IA-015-02 Electrician Shop (S end of Bldg 6)1/30/2019 9:46 0.68 25.46 0.54 2.54 0.40 0.40 U Indoor Air B6-IA-016 B6-IA-016-01 Basement Boiler Parts Room 1/24/2019 16:21 0.68 4.88 0.54 0.54 U 0.40 0.40 U Indoor Air B6-IA017 B6-IA-017-01 Bldg 6 basement main room 1/24/2019 16:40 0.68 4.67 0.54 0.54 U 0.40 0.40 U Indoor Air B6-IA-018 B6-IA-018-01 HVAC Shop 1/25/2019 10:33 0.68 1.02 0.54 0.54 U 0.40 0.40 U Indoor Air B6-NB-002 B6-NB-002-01 Floor drain in basement boiler parts room 1/24/2019 16:31 0.68 3.52 0.54 0.54 U 0.40 0.40 U Outdoor Air B6-OA-001 B6-OA-001-01 Outdoor air near south end of Bldg 6 1/24/2019 15:46 0.68 8.31 0.54 0.54 U 0.40 0.40 U Outdoor Air B6-OA-001 B6-OA-001-02 Outdoor air near south end of Bldg 6 1/30/2019 9:11 0.68 0.68 U 0.54 0.54 U 0.40 0.40 U Outdoor Air B6-OA-002 B6-OA-002-01 Outdoor air near south end of Bldg 6 1/24/2019 15:53 0.68 5.46 0.54 0.54 U 0.40 0.40 U Outdoor Air B6-OA-003 B6-OA-003-01 Outdoor air between Bldg 6 and 7 1/25/2019 16:00 0.68 0.68 U 0.54 0.54 U 0.40 0.40 U Indoor Sourced B6-NB-001 B6-NB-001-01 Multiple purpose grease in Operation Supervisor Office (S end of Bldg 6) 1/24/2019 15:30 0.68 72.78 0.54 1.51 0.40 0.40 U Indoor Sourced B6-NB-003 B6-NB-003-01 Flammables cabinet in wood shop Bldg 6 1/25/2019 10:17 0.68 6.78 0.54 0.96 0.40 0.40 U Indoor Sourced B6-NB-004 B6-NB-004-01 LPS Greaseless Lubricant (Wood Shop) 1/30/2019 10:24 0.68 2.00 0.54 0.54 U 0.40 0.40 U Indoor Sourced B6-NB-005 B6-NB-005-01 Moisture Displacer For Electrical Equipment (Electricians Shop) 1/30/2019 10:46 0.68 2238.35 0.54 19.85 0.40 0.40 U Indoor Sourced B6-NB-006 B6-NB-006-01 Lektrikleen can (Electricians Shop) 1/30/2019 11:02 0.68 101.83 0.54 2.16 0.40 0.40 U Indoor Sourced B6-NB-007 B6-NB-007-01 Brake & Wheel Bearing Cleaner (Electricians Shop) 1/30/2019 11:13 0.68 9357.69 0.54 1024.53 0.40 0.40 U Indoor Sourced B6-NB-008 B6-NB-008-01 Graf-Coat Dry Graphite Lubricant (Electrician Shop) 1/30/2019 11:20 0.68 215.96 0.54 275.92 0.40 0.40 U Indoor Sourced B6-NB-009 B6-NB-009-01 CAP Battery Cleaner and Protector (Electrician Shop) 1/30/2019 11:29 0.68 181.08 0.54 1441.25 0.40 0.40 U Sewer Vapor B6-SV-001 B6-SV-001-01 Sewer vapor from Manhole near electricians shop of Bldg 6 1/25/2019 9:57 0.68 0.81 0.54 0.54 U 0.40 0.40 U Notes: a The Indoor Air RBSLs are the indoor air RSLs from the EPA RSL table (EPA, 2018b). The Indoor Air RBSL are based on either a target cancer risk of 1 x 10-6 or a non-cancer hazard quotient of 1, whichever results in the lower SL. b The Indoor Air Tier 1 RALs are based on the indoor air RSLs from the EPA RSL table (EPA, 2018a) using either a target cancer risk of 1 x 10-5 or a non-cancer hazard quotient of 1, whichever results in the lower RAL. c The Indoor Air Tier 2 RALs are based on the indoor air RSLs from the EPA RSL table (EPA, 2018a) using either a target cancer risk of 1 x 10-4 or a non-cancer hazard quotient of 3, whichever results in the lower RAL. d = HAPSITE sample probe positioned at top of indoor source to collect sample. Bold indicates detection Red text are follow-up HAPSITE screening results from 1/30/19 after indoor sources were removed on 1/25/19 Shading indicates that a PSL was exceeded. PSLs are not applied to outdoor air samples. Shading indicates that a Tier 2 RAL was exceeded. RALs are not applied to outdoor air samples. µg/m3 = microgram(s) per cubic meter CAS = Chemical Abstracts Service EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency HAPSITE = Inficon HAPSITE IA = indoor air LOQ = limit of quantification; value that is reported for a non-detect sample NB = non-breathing zone OA = outdoor air PCE = tetrachloroethene PSL = project screening level RAL = removal action level RBSL = risk-based screening level RSL = regional screening level SL = screening level SV = sewer vapor U = not detected Tetrachloroethene 127-18-4 47 180 540Building 6 Analyte CAS Risk-Based Screening Levela (µg/m3) Tier 1 Removal Action Levelb (µg/m3) Tier 2 Removal Action Levelc (µg/m3) 8.8 26 No Toxicity Information 156-59-2 Trichloroethene 79-01-6 3 BI0417190809SLC Page 1 of 1 Table 3. Veterans Health Administration Building 7 Indoor Air Results 2019 Indoor Air Data Summary Report, Operable Unit 2 Remedial Investigation, 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah Sample Type Location ID Sample ID Sample Location Description Test Type Pressure Value Date & Time LOQ (µg/m3) Results (µg/m3)Q LOQ (µg/m3) Results (µg/m3)Q LOQ (µg/m3) Results (µg/m3)Q Indoor Air B7-IA-001 B7-IA-001-01 NW corner of laundry facility Initial Baseline 1/25/2019 10:54 0.68 0.68 U 0.54 0.54 U 0.4 0.4 U Indoor Air B7-IA-002 B7-IA-002-01 Hallway near room 1B05 Initial Baseline 1/25/2019 11:01 0.68 0.68 U 0.54 0.54 U 0.4 0.4 U Indoor Air B7-IA-003 B7-IA-003-01 Basement room BA05 Initial Baseline 1/25/2019 11:12 0.68 0.68 U 0.54 0.54 U 0.4 0.4 U Indoor Air B7-IA-004 B7-IA-004-01 Basement room BA06 Initial Baseline 1/25/2019 11:20 0.68 0.68 U 0.54 0.54 U 0.4 0.4 U Indoor Air B7-IA-005 B7-IA-005-01 East laundry room (dirty side)Initial Baseline 1/25/2019 11:31 0.68 0.68 U 0.54 0.54 U 0.4 0.4 U Indoor Air B7-IA-006 B7-IA-006-01 South end of laundry facility Initial Baseline 1/25/2019 11:38 0.68 0.68 U 0.54 0.54 U 0.4 0.4 U Indoor Air B7-IA-007 B7-IA-007-01 Center of laundry room Initial Baseline 1/25/2019 11:49 0.68 0.68 U 0.54 0.54 U 0.4 0.4 U Indoor Air B7-IA-008 B7-IA-008-01 Center of freight room Initial Baseline 1/25/2019 12:03 0.68 0.77 0.54 0.54 U 0.4 0.4 U Indoor Air B7-IA-009 B7-IA-009-01 Hallway near restroom Initial Baseline 1/25/2019 12:10 0.68 0.82 0.54 0.54 U 0.4 0.4 U Indoor Air B7-IA-010 B7-IA-010-01 East storage room Initial Baseline 1/25/2019 12:18 0.68 0.70 0.54 0.54 U 0.4 0.4 U Indoor Air B7-IA-011 B7-IA-011-01 West storage room Initial Baseline 1/25/2019 12:28 0.68 0.72 0.54 0.54 U 0.4 0.4 U Indoor Air B7-IA-012 B7-IA-012-01 Hallway near room 1A15B Initial Baseline 1/25/2019 13:31 0.68 4.76 0.54 0.54 U 0.4 0.4 U Indoor Air B7-IA-013 B7-IA-013-01 Hallway near east exit in animal lab Initial Baseline 1/25/2019 13:52 0.68 0.95 0.54 0.54 U 0.4 0.4 U Indoor Air B7-IA-014 B7-IA-014-01 Hallway near room 1A03 Initial Baseline 1/25/2019 13:59 0.68 1.54 0.54 0.54 U 0.4 0.4 U Indoor Air B7-IA-015 B7-IA-015-01 Hallway near room 1A22 Initial Baseline 1/25/2019 14:19 0.68 1.23 0.54 0.54 U 0.4 0.4 U Indoor Air B7-IA-016 B7-IA-016-01 Hallway near room 1A28C Initial Baseline 1/25/2019 14:25 0.68 0.86 0.54 0.54 U 0.4 0.4 U Outdoor Air B6-OA-003 B6-OA-003-01 Outdoor air between Bldg 6 and 7 Initial Baseline 1/25/2019 16:00 0.68 0.68 U 0.54 0.54 U 0.40 0.40 U Notes: a The Indoor Air RBSLs are the indoor air RSLs from the EPA RSL table (EPA, 2018b). The Indoor Air RBSLs are based on either a target cancer risk of 1 x 10-6 or a non-cancer hazard quotient of 1, whichever results in the lower SL. b The Indoor Air Tier 1 RALs are based on the indoor air RSLs from the EPA RSL table (EPA, 2018a) using either a target cancer risk of 1 x 10-5 or a non-cancer hazard quotient of 1, whichever results in the lower RAL. c The Indoor Air Tier 2 RALs are based on the indoor air RSLs from the EPA RSL table (EPA, 2018a) using either a target cancer risk of 1 x 10-4 or a non-cancer hazard quotient of 3, whichever results in the lower RAL. Bold indicates detection µg/m3 = microgram(s) per cubic meter CAS = Chemical Abstracts Service EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency HAPSITE = Inficon HAPSITE IA = indoor air LOQ = limit of quantification; value that is reported for a non-detect sample OA = outdoor air PCE = tetrachloroethene RAL = removal action level RBSL = risk-based screening level RSL = regional screening level SL = screening level U = not detected cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 156-59-2 Risk-Based Screening Levela (µg/m3)47 3 No Toxicity InformationTier 1 Removal Action Levelb (µg/m3) 180 8.8 Tier 2 Removal Action Levelc (µg/m3)540Building 7 Analyte Tetrachloroethene Trichloroethene CAS 127-18-4 79-01-6 26 BI0417190809SLC Page 1 of 1 Attachment 2 LEGEND Bh Kitsap Series (formed on glacial lacustrine deposits) Kitsap silt loam No Norma Series (formed on alluvium) Norma sandy loam Study Area North 0 1,000500 Approximate scale in feet Figure 1. Building 6 24-Hour Indoor Air TO-15 Sample Locations Investigation of Veterans Healthcare Administration Buildings 6 and 7 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah BI0111190949SLC VI_Investigation_VHA_Building6.ai 30 feet (approximately) Note: Drawing provided by Department of Veterans Affairs engineering group. Drawing titled “B.6 & 7 FIRST FLOOR PLAN” and dated 2/17. File name = CAD/B.6/ARCH/B.6, 7-A-1.DWG Basement Proposed outdoor air TO-15 sample location Proposed indoor air TO-15 ground level sample locations Proposed indoor air TO-15 basement sample location B.6, 1st FLOOR ~-I ,--, I I . __ _. ti TRUE NORTH @ PROJECT NORTH JAcoas· B6-IA05 B6-OA02 B6-IA01 B6-IA02 B6-IA03 B6-IA06 B6-IA08B6-IA07 B6-IA90 B6-IA09 B6-IA04 Attachment 3 LEGEND Bh Kitsap Series (formed on glacial lacustrine deposits) Kitsap silt loam No Norma Series (formed on alluvium) Norma sandy loam Study Area North 0 1,000500 Approximate scale in feet Figure 2. Building 7 24-Hour Indoor Air TO-15 Sample Locations Investigation of Veterans Healthcare Administration Buildings 6 and 7 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah BI0111190949SLC VI_Investigation_VHA_Building7.ai 20 feet (approximately) Note: Drawing provided by Department of Veterans Affairs engineering group. Drawing titled “B.6 & 7 FIRST FLOOR PLAN” and dated 2/17. File name = CAD/B.6/ARCH/B.6, 7-A-1.DWG Basement Proposed outdoor air TO-15 sample location Proposed indoor air TO-15 ground level sample locations Proposed indoor air TO-15 basement sample location B.7 1st FLOOR .--, I I ·--..1 JAcoas· B7-OA01 B7-IA01 B7-IA03 B7-IA04 B7-IA05 B7-IA02 B7-IA06 B7-IA07 Data Summary Report 2021 Source Area Soil Gas and Indoor Air Sampling 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Site Salt Lake City, Utah CONTRACT NO.: W912DQ -18-D-3008 DELIVERY ORDER NO.: W912DQ19F3048 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Kansas City District Department of Veterans Affairs Veterans Health Administration Salt Lake City Health Care System August 18, 2021 i Table of Contents Section 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Background ................................................................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Purpose and Scope ................................................................................................................................................... 1-1 Section 2 Field Sampling Activities ................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Soil Vapor and Indoor Air Sampling ................................................................................................................. 2-1 2.1.1 Soil Vapor Probe Sampling Procedures ............................................................................................. 2-1 2.1.2 Sub-Slab Vapor Pin Sampling Procedures ........................................................................................ 2-2 2.1.3 Indoor Air Sampling Procedures .......................................................................................................... 2-2 2.2 Sample Analysis ......................................................................................................................................................... 2-3 2.3 Decontamination and Investigation-Derived Waste ................................................................................. 2-3 2.4 Data Quality Summary ............................................................................................................................................ 2-3 Section 3 Soil Vapor and Indoor Air Sampling Results ....................................................... 3-1 3.1 Soil Vapor Probe Results ....................................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Sub-Slab Vapor Pin Results .................................................................................................................................. 3-1 3.3 Indoor Air Results..................................................................................................................................................... 3-2 Section 4 Summary .......................................................................................................... 4-1 Section 5 References ....................................................................................................... 5-1 Table of Contents ii List of Figures Figure 1 – Site Map Figure 2 – OU1 Source Area Soil Vapor Sampling Locations Figure 3 – Source Area OU1 Soil Vapor PCE and TCE Results Figure 4 – Source Area OU1 Vapor Pin and Indoor Air PCE and TCE Sampling Results Figure 5 – OU1 Sunnyside Park Soil Vapor PCE and TCE Results List of Tables Table 1 – Soil Vapor Probe and Vapor Pin Construction Details Table 2 – Source Area OU1 Soil Vapor Analytical Results Table 3 – Source Area OU1 Indoor Air Analytical Results Appendices Appendix A Field Forms Appendix B Quality Control Summary Report Table of Contents iii Acronyms and Abbreviations CDM Smith CDM Federal Programs Corporation DQO data quality objective DSR data summary report EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ft feet MCL maximum contaminant level OU operable unit PCE tetrachloroethene QAPP quality assurance project plan RBSL risk-based screening level RI remedial investigation RSL regional screening level SOP standard operating procedure TCE trichloroethene VAMC Veterans Affairs Medical Center VHA Veterans Health Administration VOC volatile organic compound µg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter 1-1 Section 1 Introduction Under the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Kansas City District Contract No. W912DQ-18-D-3008, Task Order No. W912DQ19F3048, CDM Federal Programs Corporation (CDM Smith) was directed to perform a remedial investigation (RI) for Operable Unit (OU) 1 of the 700 South 1600 East Tetrachloroethene (PCE) Plume Superfund Site (Site) in Salt Lake City, Utah. CDM Smith prepared this data summary report (DSR) to present the results of soil vapor and indoor air sampling completed near Buildings 6 and 7 and Sunnyside Park. Sampling was completed to evaluate the extent of subsurface impacts at suspected source areas and provide multiple lines of evidence for evaluation of risks in these areas of the Site. 1.1 Background The Salt Lake City Healthcare System George E. Wahlen Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC) is in Salt Lake City, Utah (Figure 1). PCE contamination was first identified in groundwater in 1990 at the nearby Mt. Olivet Cemetery irrigation well during Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities routine monitoring. This led to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Utah Department of Environmental Quality involvement at the Site and the preliminary determination that the source of PCE in groundwater was the historical dry-cleaning facility located at the VAMC. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) operated a part-time dry-cleaning operation that used PCE over a 6-year period in the late 1970s and early 1980s. During this period, dry cleaning residuals were disposed in the sanitary sewer. A PCE groundwater plume is present beneath the VAMC property and in areas hydraulically downgradient, extending to the East Side Springs neighborhood. In addition, elevated concentrations of PCE in soil vapor and sub-slab vapor (up to 20,000 micrograms per cubic meter [µg/m3]) have been observed adjacent to VAMC Buildings 6 and 7 (location of the former VAMC dry-cleaning facility) (Jacobs 2019). 1.2 Purpose and Scope The purpose and scope of this DSR is to describe the work conducted and present the analytical and field data collected during the March 2021 soil vapor and indoor air sampling event. Soil vapor sampling in March 2021 was conducted to delineate the soil vapor plume as support for data quality objectives D1 (source mass) and D2 (source area vapor intrusion risk) as specified in the Phase 2 OU1 RI work plan (CDM Smith 2020b). As stated in the 2021 Source Area Soil Gas and Indoor Air Sampling Plan (CDM Smith 2021b), soil vapor data would be evaluated to assess whether there is evidence of sufficient source mass in the vadose zone to further consider it as an ongoing source of PCE to groundwater, and to delineate the extent of the soil vapor plume and the potential for vapor intrusion in nearby structures. Indoor air data would be evaluated to further assess the potential for vapor intrusion occurring at Buildings 6 and 7 and determine if an unacceptable risk is present. The data evaluation will be presented in the RI Report. 2-1 Section 2 Field Sampling Activities The following sections describe the field sampling activities that were completed during the March 2021 soil vapor sampling event, which occurred from March 22 to 26, 2021. 2.1 Soil Vapor and Indoor Air Sampling A total of 46 soil vapor locations/depths and 5 indoor/outdoor air locations were sampled during the March 2021 sampling event, including previously sampled probes and newly installed probes. Soil vapor locations included 12 single-depth soil vapor probes, 2 multi-depth soil vapor probes (SB-42 and SB-43), 5 multi-depth probes installed within monitoring well boreholes (MW-24, MW-25, MW-27, MW-28, and MW-29), one monitoring well installed with a screen interval in the vadose zone (MW-23), and 13 sub-slab vapor pins. Indoor air samples were collected at two locations, one on the ground floor and one in the basement, in both Building 6 and Building 7. One outdoor air sample was collected on the roof between Buildings 6 and 7 to be representative of ambient air. All sampling locations are shown in Figures 1 and 2, and location data and construction details are presented in Table 1. Soil gas analytical data for MW-32, MW-34, MW-37, and MW-38 are presented in the East Side Springs Investigation Data Summary Report (CDM Smith 2021a). MW-30 is a monitoring well with a soil vapor point (Figure 1) that was not sampled during this event. Field forms associated with this event, including the field logbook pages, daily quality control reports, field logs, checklists, equipment calibration forms, and health and safety tailgate forms, are included in Appendix A. The sampling activities were conducted in accordance with the Phase 2 OU1 Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) (CDM Smith 2020a), the Phase 2 OU1 RI Work Plan (CDM Smith 2020b), and the Plan for Soil Vapor Probe Sampling and Indoor Air Sampling at Buildings 6 and 7 (CDM Smith 2021). 2.1.1 Soil Vapor Probe Sampling Procedures All soil vapor probes were sampled in accordance with Technical Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) 1-8, Vapor Sampling Using SUMMA Canister presented in Appendix A of the QAPP (CDM Smith 2020a). Soil vapor probes were purged before sample collection. Purge volume was calculated based on tubing diameter (1/4-inch inner diameter) and probe depth. Three times the volume of the probe tubing was purged at each location. Shallow probes were purged using a hand vacuum pump. A flow rate of 70 pumps per one liter was calculated using the hand pump and a Tedlar® bag. Deeper probes were purged using an electric vacuum pump with an attached flow meter. The flow rate was adjusted to 1 liter per minute for most locations. At MW-23, a flow rate of two liters per minute was used because this location had a much larger purge volume, as the soil vapor probe is constructed of 1-inch diameter polyvinyl chloride casing with a screened interval in the vadose zone. Once the probe was purged to remove the minimum volume, a 6-liter SUMMA® canister was connected using dedicated tubing. In some cases, new Swagelok connections were added to the Section 2 • Field Sampling Activities 2-2 tubing to connect the canister. Soil vapor samples were collected using a 30-minute flow controller connected to the canister. Sample collection began when the valve on the canister was opened, and the initial vacuum reading was recorded. When the vacuum gauge was between two and five inches of mercury (approximately 30 minutes after start), the final vacuum reading was recorded, and the valve was closed. Field duplicate samples were collected by connecting dedicated probe tubing to a “T-bar.” The T-bar was then connected to two canisters and the valves were opened simultaneously. Sample canisters were labeled and shipped in boxes (with the flow controllers) to Eurofins Air Toxics, LLC for analysis. 2.1.2 Sub-Slab Vapor Pin Sampling Procedures Previously installed vapor pins were used to collect sub-slab samples in accordance with Technical SOP 1-8, Vapor Sampling Using SUMMA Canister presented in Appendix A of the QAPP (CDM Smith, 2020a). Sub-slab vapor pins were leak checked prior to connecting SUMMA canisters for sample collection. A hand vacuum pump was connected to the vapor pin, and distilled water was poured around the pin. The vapor pin was then purged briefly with the hand pump and observed for any leaks. This leak check procedure was completed in accordance with the Standard Operating Procedure Leak Testing Vapor Pin Sampling Device Via Mechanical Means (VaporPin 2021). During this event, no leaks were observed in any of the sampled vapor pins. Due to the shallow depth of the sub-slab vapor pins, no further purging was necessary following the leak check. Following the leak check, new Teflon-lined tubing was used to connect the vapor pin and the 6- liter SUMMA canister. Sub-slab vapor pin samples were collected using a 30-minute flow controller connected to the canister. Sample collection began when the valve on the canister was opened, and the initial vacuum reading was recorded. When the vacuum gauge was between two and five inches of mercury (approximately 30 minutes after start), the final vacuum reading was recorded, and the valve was closed. Field duplicate samples were collected by connecting dedicated vapor pin tubing to a “T-bar.” The T-bar was then connected to two canisters and the valves were opened simultaneously. Sample canisters were labeled and shipped in boxes (with the flow controllers) to Eurofins Air Toxics, LLC for analysis. 2.1.3 Indoor Air Sampling Procedures All indoor air locations were sampled in accordance with Technical SOP 1-8, Vapor Sampling Using SUMMA Canister presented in Appendix A of the QAPP (CDM Smith 2020a). Indoor air sampling locations were determined prior to the event; however, exact canister placement was chosen at the time of sampling in consultation with VHA personnel. Canister placement was completed to ensure the intake level was above ground surface and as close to the area breathing zone as possible (generally three to five feet above ground surface). Canisters were also placed in specific locations to minimize interference from walking traffic/movement in the area, and to avoid potential features that could make a sample less representative of typical indoor air conditions (i.e., close proximity to vents, drains, cleaning supplies). Indoor air samples were collected using 24-hour flow controllers with 6-liter SUMMA canisters. Sample collection began when the valve on the canister was opened and the initial vacuum reading was recorded. Sample collection was completed 24 hours after the start. The final vacuum reading was recorded, and the valve was closed. A field duplicate sample was collected by Section 2 • Field Sampling Activities 2-3 connecting dedicated tubing to a “T-bar.” The T-bar was then connected to two canisters and the valves were opened simultaneously. Sample canisters were labeled and shipped in boxes (with the flow controllers) to Eurofins Air Toxics, LLC for analysis. A representative outdoor, or ambient, air sample was collected following the same procedures stated above for indoor air samples. The outdoor air sample was located on the roof between Buildings 6 and 7away from air intake or exhaust vents. 2.2 Sample Analysis All soil vapor and indoor air samples were analyzed by EPA Method TO-15/TO-15 SIM for VOCs. SUMMA canisters were submitted to Eurofins Air Toxics, LLC in Folsom, California. The analytical results are discussed in Section 3. Laboratory data are included in Appendix B. Field quality control samples (field duplicates) were collected at a rate of 1 in 10 samples for both soil vapor and indoor air samples and are discussed in the Quality Control Summary Report in Appendix B. 2.3 Decontamination and Investigation-Derived Waste Dedicated tubing and fittings were used at all locations. Sampling accessories not dedicated to a specific location were decontaminated following the procedures outlined in SOP 4-5, Field Equipment Decontamination at Nonradioactive Sites (CDM Smith 2020a). Any newly added fittings were dedicated and kept with that specific probe for use during any future sampling events. One T-bar used for duplicate sample collection was decontaminated in accordance with SOP 4-5 because of a broken T-bar provided by the laboratory. Investigation-derived waste included nitrile gloves and excess sample tubing, and was handled per SOP 2-2, Guide to Handling Investigation-Derived Waste presented in Appendix A of the QAPP (CDM Smith 2020a). 2.4 Data Quality Summary During the March 2021 event, sample collection was unsuccessful at four of the proposed sampling locations/depths: MW-27 at depths of 48 feet (ft), 75 ft, and 155 ft, and VP-16. At the MW-27 depths, purging of the probes was attempted, but probes and/or the tubing were plugged or the formation at the screened interval was too tight, and air flow could not be initiated with a vacuum pump. VP-16, located in the basement of Building 6, was covered with water during the event, because of nearby construction and could not be accessed for sampling. Data quality objectives are detailed in the Phase 2 OU1 RI Work Plan (CDM Smith 2020b). Specific data quality objectives addressed during this sampling event, detailed in the Plan for Soil Vapor Probe Sampling and Indoor Air Sampling at Buildings 6 and 7 (CDM Smith 2021b), are as follows: D1: Assess evidence of sufficient source mass in the vadose zone and delineate the extent of the soil vapor plume. D2: Assess potential risks for vapor intrusion at Buildings 6 and 7. The soil vapor and indoor air data collected during this sampling event represent the source area spatially as described in D1 and provide measured VOC concentrations to evaluate human risk as described in D2. In addition to the data quality objectives, the completeness goal of 90 percent was achieved, with a completeness of 93 percent for the event. Data are usable for their intended Section 2 • Field Sampling Activities 2-4 purpose. A detailed description of data quality and completeness goals is provided in the Quality Control Summary Report in Appendix B. 3-1 Section 3 Soil Vapor and Indoor Air Sampling Results Soil vapor and indoor air sampling results are summarized below. Concentrations were compared with risk-based screening levels (RBSLs) based on EPA’s Regional Screening Levels for composite worker air, updated in May 2021, and Vapor Intrusion Screening Levels and Removal Action Levels, 700 South 1600 East Street PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah (CH2M Hill, 2015). Commercial/industrial ambient indoor air RBSLs correspond to an excess lifetime cancer risk of 1 × 10-6 and a hazard quotient of 1. Commercial/industrial soil vapor RBSLs correspond to an excess lifetime cancer risk of 1 × 10-6 and a hazard quotient of 1 divided by an attenuation factor of 0.03. 3.1 Soil Vapor Probe Results Soil vapor probe analytical results for detected compounds are presented in Table 2. Detected results are summarized below. ▪ PCE was detected in all 33 soil vapor probes sampled during this event. PCE concentrations exceeded the industrial/commercial screening level of 1600 µg/m3 in eight of the soil vapor probes (MW-23, MW-27 at 28 ft and 113ft, MW-28 at 48 ft and 118 ft, SG-03, SG-05, and SG- 06). Overall, concentrations ranged from 0.2 µg/m3 to 39,000 µg/m3 (MW-27 at 28 ft). PCE results are shown in Figures 3 and 5. ▪ TCE was detected in 25 of the 33 soil vapor probes sampled during this event. TCE concentrations did not exceed the industrial/commercial screening level of 100 µg/m3 in any of the soil vapor probes sampled. Detected concentrations ranged from 0.017 J µg/m3 (at SG-60) to 52 µg/m3 (at MW-27 at 28 ft). TCE results are shown in Figures 3 and 5. ▪ Trihalomethanes (specifically, chloroform and bromodichloromethane) were reported at multiple soil gas locations (Table 2). These chemicals are associated with water chlorination, along with other disinfection byproducts, and are commonly present in municipal tap water. Their detection in soil gas is likely associated with sprinkler irrigation or leaking water piping. They are not associated with PCE or its degradation products. Other compounds were detected in soil vapor probes sampled during this event but below industrial/commercial screening levels. Note that J-flagged results are estimated results based on the data validation. 3.2 Sub-Slab Vapor Pin Results Sub-slab vapor pin analytical results for detected compounds are presented in Table 2. Detected results are summarized below. ▪ PCE was detected in all 13 sub-slab vapor pins sampled during this event. PCE concentrations exceeded the industrial/commercial screening level of 1600 µg/m3 in two of the sub-slab vapor pins: VP-04 (30,000 µg/m3) and VP-15 (23,000 µg/m3) located in the Section 3 • Groundwater Monitoring Results 3-2 basement of Building 6. Concentrations ranged from 0.58 µg/m3 to 30,000 µg/m3. PCE results are shown in Figure 4. ▪ TCE was detected in 9 of the 13 sub-slab vapor pins sampled during this event. TCE concentrations exceeded the industrial/commercial screening level of 100 µg/m3 in 1 of the sub-slab vapor pins; VP-15 (180 µg/m3). Detected concentrations ranged from 0.073 J µg/m3 (at VP-06) to 180 µg/m3 (at VP-15). TCE results are shown in Figure 4. ▪ Trihalomethanes (chloroform and bromodichloromethane) were also reported at multiple vapor pin locations (Table 2). For samples that required dilutions, some of the non-detect reporting limit values exceeded screening levels, including for bromodichloromethane. These chemicals are associated with water chlorination, along with other disinfection byproducts, and are commonly present in municipal tap water. Their detection in sub-slab vapor is likely associated with sprinkler irrigation, leaking water piping, or boiler plant operations. They are not associated with PCE or its degradation products. Other compounds were detected in many of the sub-slab vapor pins sampled during this event, but below industrial/commercial screening levels. Note that J-flagged results are estimated results based on the data validation. 3.3 Indoor Air Results Indoor air analytical results for detected compounds are presented in Table 3. Detected results are summarized below. ▪ PCE was detected in all four indoor air samples and one outdoor air sample during this event. PCE concentrations did not exceed the industrial/commercial screening level of 47 µg/m3 in any of the indoor/outdoor air samples. Concentrations ranged from 0.098 J µg/m3 to 2.3 µg/m3 (at B7-IA02). PCE results are shown in Figure 4. ▪ TCE was detected in three of the four indoor air samples during this event. TCE was not detected in the outdoor air sample. TCE concentrations did not exceed the industrial/commercial screening level of 3 µg/m3 in any of the indoor/outdoor air samples. Detected concentrations ranged from 0.042 J µg/m3 (at B6-IA06) to 0.13 J µg/m3 (at B7- IA02). TCE results are shown in Figure 4. ▪ Chloroform (a trihalomethane) was reported at multiple indoor and outdoor air sample locations (Table 3). Trihalomethanes are associated with water chlorination and are commonly present in municipal tap water. Its detection in air at these locations is likely associated with boiler plant operations. It is not associated with PCE or its degradation products. ▪ 1,2-Dibromoethane was detected slightly above the industrial/commercial screening level of 0.02 µg/m3 in one of the indoor air samples: B6-IA06 (0.028 J µg/m3). Other non-detect results had detection limits which were slightly greater than the indoor air screening levels. This compound was historically used as a fuel additive and a fumigant. It is not associated with PCE or its degradation products. 1,2-Dibromoethane was not detected in any of the other indoor or outdoor air samples. Section 3 • Groundwater Monitoring Results 3-3 ▪ 1,1-dichloroethene, cis-1,2-dichloroethene, and vinyl chloride were not detected in any of the indoor air samples. Other compounds were detected in indoor and outdoor air samples during this event but below industrial/commercial screening levels. Note that J-flagged results are estimated results based on the data validation. 4-1 Section 4 Summary This report presents the results from the March 2021 soil vapor and indoor air sampling event. Further analysis and evaluation of these results will be presented in the RI report. PCE was detected in all 33 soil vapor locations sampled during this event. The industrial/commercial screening level was exceeded in eight of these locations which were located between Buildings 6 and 7, beneath Building 6, and near the southern perimeter of Building 7. Detections that exceeded the screening level occurred at depths ranging from 6 ft to 135 ft. In general, PCE concentrations decrease as distance from midpoint between Buildings 6 and 7 increases, with the lowest concentrations occurring at locations MW-25 (28 ft and 100 ft), SG-10, VP-12, and VP-19. PCE was detected in all Sunnyside Park locations and depths at concentrations ranging from 37 µg/m3 to 560 µg/m3, but not exceeding the industrial/commercial screening level of 1600 µg/m3. TCE was detected in most of the soil vapor and vapor pin locations but not above the commercial/industrial screening level, except in VP-15. The highest TCE concentrations also occurred in locations between Buildings 6 and 7 and beneath Building 6 at depths ranging from 6 ft to 135 ft. VP-15, which is located in the basement of Building 6, had the highest concentrations of TCE (180 µg/m3). TCE was also detected in eight of the nine location depths in Sunnyside Park, at concentrations ranging from 0.27 µg/m3 to 11 µg/m3, but not exceeding the industrial/commercial screening level of 100 µg/m3. Soil vapor results are presented in Table 2 and in Figures 3 and 5. PCE was detected in all of the indoor/outdoor air locations but was below the industrial/commercial screening level at all locations. The highest concentrations of PCE occurred in the basement sample in Building 6 (2.4 µg/m3) and the ground floor sample in Building 7 (2.3 µg/m3) were both well below the screening level of 47 µg/m3. TCE was detected at concentrations well below the screening level of 3 µg/m3 in the ground floor sample of Building 6 (0.042 J µg/m3) and both samples in Building 7 (0.081 J µg/m3 and 0.13 J µg/m3). Indoor air PCE results are presented in Table 3 and in Figure 4. Trihalomethanes (chloroform and bromodichloromethane) were reported at multiple sample locations (Table 2 and 3). These chemicals are associated with water chlorination, along with other disinfection byproducts, and are commonly present in municipal tap water. Their detection is likely associated with sprinkler irrigation, leaking water piping, or boiler plant operations. They are not associated with PCE or its degradation products. Data collected during this event are suitable to support evaluation of the Data Quality Objectives, D1 and D2, as described in the Phase 2 OU1 RI Work Plan (CDM Smith 2020b). Soil vapor and indoor air sample locations represent the source area spatially, and data collected provide measured VOC concentrations to further evaluate human health risk. Section 5 References CDM Smith. 2020a. Phase 2 Quality Assurance Project Plan, Operable Unit 1, 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. CDM Smith. 2020b. Phase 2 Remedial Investigation Work Plan, Operable Unit 1, 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. CDM Smith 2021a. East Side Springs Investigation Data Summary Report, 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. CDM Smith. 2021b. Memorandum. Plan for Soil Vapor Probe Sampling and Indoor Air Sampling at Buildings 6 and 7, 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. CH2M Hill. 2015. Vapor Intrusion Screening Levels and Removal Action Levels, 700 South 1600 East Street PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah. EPA. 2021. Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) Generic Tables. May. Available online at https://www.epa.gov/risk/regional-screening-levels-rsls. Jacobs. 2019. 2019 Indoor Air Data Summary Report, Operable Unit 2 Remedial Investigation 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. VaporPin. 2021. Standard Operating Procedure Leak Testing Vapor Pin Sampling Device Via Mechanical Means. Figures ")") &< &< !.!(!( !( !( &<&< &< &< &<&<&< &<&<&<&< &< &< &< &<&<&< &<&<&<&< &<&< &<&< &<&< &<&< &< &< &<&< &< &< &< &< &< &< &< &< &< &< &<&<&< ! ! XW XW XW XW XW XW XWXW XW XW XW !Sunnyside Park University of Utah Well #2 University of Utah Well #1 Fountain of Ute Mt. Olivet Well East Side Springs East HighSchool VHA Medical CenterBuilding 7 EPA-MW-03 EPA-MW-05 SLC-18 MW-01DMW-01S MW-02 MW-03R MW-04 MW-05R MW-06 MW-08 MW-12DMW-12S MW-13DMW-13S MW-14DMW-14S MW-15DMW-15S MW-16D MW-16S MW-17DMW-17S MW-18 MW-19 MW-20DMW-20S MW-21 MW-22 E a s t B e n ch SegmentoftheWasatchFault1 EastBenchFaultSpur2 MW-23 MW-25 MW-26 MW-29 MW-32 MW-34 MW-31 MW-30 MW-28 MW-27MW-24 MW-30R MW-36 MW-37SMW-37D MW-38SMW-38D MW-13L SB-42SB-43 RG-01 RG-02 RG-03 RG-04 RG-05 RG-06 RG-07RG-08 RG-09 RG-10 RG-11 500 S GUARDSMAN WAY F O O T H IL L D R 700 S 800 S 1300 E 1100 E SUNNYSIDE AVE 500 S 900 S R e d B u tteCreek Figure 1Site Map Legend &<Monitoring Well &<Monitoring Well with Soil Vapor ")Sampling Location &<Decommissioned Monitoring Well !.Drinking Water Supply Well !(Irrigation Well XW Residential Groundwater Monitoring Well !LandmarkRed Butte CreekSewer LineFault LineFile Path: Q:\238824_VA_Medical_Salt_Lake\MXD\Sampling_2021\SoilGas_DSR_2021\Fig1_SiteMap.mxd JADHAVA 10/8/2021 Notes:(1) Location of University of Utah Well #1 is approximate; well is located less than 100 feet east of Fountain of Ute. OU = operable unitPCE = tetrachloroetheneVHA = Veterans Health Administration 1 Davis, F.D. 1983. Geologic Map of the Central Wasatch Front, Utah. Utah Geological and Mineral Survey. Map 54-A – Wasatch Front Series. May. 2 Personius, S.F. and Scott, W.E. 2009. Surficial Geologic Map of the Salt Lake City Segment and Parts of Adjacent Segments of the Wasatch Fault Zone, Davis, Salt Lake, and Utah Counties, Utah 2021 Source Area Soil Gas andIndoor Air Sampling Data Summary Report700 South 1600 East PCE PlumeSalt Lake City, Utah 0 500 1,000Feet ¯ Figure 2 ") ")&< &< MW-06 MW-29 MW-31 SB-42 SB-43 Red Butte Creek Sunnyside Park &< &< !( !( !( !(!( VHA Medical CenterBuilding 7 VHA Medical CenterBuilding 6 MW-27 B7-IA05 B7-IA02B6-0A01 B6-IA08B6-IA06 MW-23 MW-25 MW-24 VP-14 VP-13 VP-12 VP-11 VP-10 VP-09 VP-08 VP-06 VP-04 VP-02 MW-28 SG-03 SG-04 SG-05 SG-06 SG-08 SG-10 SG-11 SG-13 SG-49 SG-50 SG-55 VP-15 VP-17 VP-19 SG-60 Figure 2OU1 Source Area Soil Vapor andIndoor Air Sampling Locations 0 25 50Feet !(Monitoring Well with Soil Vapor Probe ")Soil Vapor Probe #*Vapor Pin !(Indoor air samples locations (ground level) !(Indoor air samples locations (basement) !(Outdoor air sample location (roof top) Perimeter of Building 7 in 1981BasementsUnderground Storage Tank or Foundation Q:\238824_VA_Medical_Salt_Lake\MXD\Sampling_2021\SoilGas_DSR_2021\Fig2_SourceArea_SoilGas_OU1.mxd JADHAVA 10/8/2021 7:19:35 AM Notes:SG = soil gas probeVP = vapor pin. Locations for vapor pins are approximate.VHA = Veterans Health AdministrationPCE = tetrachloroetheneOU = operable unit ¯2021 Source Area Soil Gas andIndoor Air Sampling Data Summary Report700 South 1600 East PCE PlumeSalt Lake City, Utah Tables Table 1 Soil Vapor Probe and Vapor Pin Construction Details Location ID Sample Area Installation Date Northing (feet)Easting (feet)Surface Elevation (ft amsl) Sample Depth (ft bgs) SG-03 12/10/2018 7443809 1546268.75 4712.59 7.8 - 8.1 SG-04 12/11/2018 7443816.69 1546312.02 4712.07 5.5 - 5.8 SG-05 12/11/2018 7443799.27 1546338.69 4712.11 5.9 - 6.3 SG-06 12/10/2018 7443762.75 1546386.92 4712.83 5.8 - 6.1 SG-08 12/13/2018 7443773.66 1546492.04 4712.58 3.0 - 3.3 SG-10 12/14/2018 7443772.95 1546567.85 4717.55 6.3 - 6.8 SG-11 12/12/2018 7443747.47 1546510.21 4713.06 4.7 - 5.0 SG-13 12/11/2018 7443677.39 1546495.82 4711.88 5.3 - 6.0 SG-50 6/27/2019 7443840.69 1546271.18 *6.7 - 7.3 VP-08 7443854.91 1546432.21 *Sub-Slab VP-09 7443829.16 1546323.72 *Sub-Slab VP-10 7443892.5 1546318.66 *Sub-Slab VP-11 7443865.08 1546289.95 *Sub-Slab VP-12 7443894.26 1546376.1 *Sub-Slab VP-13 7443820 1546392.95 *Sub-Slab SG-49 6/27/2019 7443876.64 1546186.02 *6.1 - 6.7 SG-55 7/2/2019 7443710.81 1546281.23 *4.5 - 5.0 SG-60 7443765.87 1546315.6 *3.8 - 4.3 VP-02 7443663.25 1546330.89 *Sub-Slab VP-06 7443845.41 1546178.7 *Sub-Slab VP-19 7443810.95 1546225.98 *Sub-Slab VP-04 7443750.08 1546280.28 *Sub-Slab VP-14 7443729.23 1546244.48 *Sub-Slab VP-15 6/18/2019 7443784.84 1546278 *Sub-Slab VP-16 6/20/2019 7443740.98 1546332.69 *Sub-Slab VP-17 6/20/2019 7443730.05 1546273.15 *Sub-Slab MW-23 4/20/2020 7443809.38 1546280.59 4712.47 130-140 32 60 104 130 28 100 28 113 24 48 118 6 - 7 12 - 13 16 - 17 24.8 - 26 7 - 8 14.7 - 15.7 42 66 98 Notes Surface and top of casing elevations measured using the NAVD 88 vertical datum amsl = above mean sea level bgs = below ground surface ft = feet * = Elevation information not provided MW-29 6/7/2020 7442845.95 1545935.59 4679.35 Sunnyside Park 12/7/2018 7442828.84 1545936.88 4679.06 SB-43 12/7/2018 7442771.79 1545921.39 SB-42 MW-24 5/20/2020 7443698.74 1546266.48 4676.97 4712.8 4703.04 MW-27 3/26/2020 7443766.76 1546337.14 4712.61 MW-25 5/10/2020 7443676.94 1546071.97 MW-28 3/20/2020 7443764.76 1546532.92 Building 6/7 Area 4709.77 VHA Building 6 Interior - Basement VHA Building 7 Area VHA Building 7 Interior - Ground Level VHA Building 7 Interior - Basement Building 6 Area VHA Building 6 Interior - Ground Level Table 2 Source Area OU1 Soil Vapor Analytical Results Sample ID Sample Date Analytical Method Start Depth (ft) End Depth (ft) Industrial / Commercial Screening Level for Soil Gas (µg/m3) MW23-SG032321-135 3/23/2021 TO15 130 140 15 J 14 J 30 U 150 U 30 U 53 U TO15 104 104 9.2 4 U TO15SIM 104 104 1.7 0.32 U 0.66 U 0.95 J TO15 130 130 14 3.4 U TO15SIM 130 130 7.8 2.3 0.57 U 1.3 TO15 60 60 2.3 J 8.3 U TO15SIM 60 60 2 0.67 U 1.4 U 0.72 J TO15 32 32 1.9 J 7 U TO15SIM 32 32 2.1 0.57 U 1.2 U 0.37 J TO15 100 100 6.6 0.089 J TO15SIM 100 100 0.47 0.082 U 0.17 U 0.14 J TO15 28 28 0.62 J 0.15 J TO15SIM 28 28 0.98 0.12 U 0.24 U 0.18 J MW27-SG032221-113 3/22/2021 TO15 113 113 8.8 J 11 J 29 U 140 U 30 U 51 U MW27-SG032221-28 3/22/2021 TO15 28 28 6.3 J 58 U 30 U 37 U 31 U 53 U TO15 118 118 7.8 J 8 U TO15SIM 118 118 7.2 0.65 U 1.3 U 0.67 J TO15 24 24 2.1 J 6.9 U TO15SIM 24 24 1.5 U 0.56 U 1.1 U 0.2 J TO15 48 48 2.4 J 7 U TO15SIM 48 48 2 0.56 U 1.1 U 0.34 J TO15 42 42 2.9 J 0.27 J TO15SIM 42 42 0.68 J 0.3 U 0.62 U 0.68 J TO15 66 66 2.1 J 0.39 J TO15SIM 66 66 0.5 0.12 U 0.26 U 0.36 J TO15 98 98 15 7 U TO15SIM 98 98 1.7 1.6 1.1 U 2 U TO15 12 13 0.66 J 0.61 J TO15SIM 12 13 0.26 J 0.21 U 0.43 U 0.11 J TO15 16 17 5.7 U 0.63 J TO15SIM 16 17 0.31 J 0.3 U 0.6 U 1 U TO15 24.8 26 5.8 U 0.5 J TO15SIM 24.8 26 0.47 J 0.3 U 0.62 U 1.1 U TO15 6 7 0.67 J 0.44 J TO15SIM 6 7 0.091 J 0.06 U 0.12 U 0.11 J TO15 14.7 15.7 1.2 J 0.67 J TO15SIM 14.7 15.7 0.56 0.066 U 0.14 U 0.1 J TO15 7 8 0.78 J 0.6 J TO15SIM 7 8 0.2 0.062 U 0.13 U 0.1 J TO15 7.8 8.1 12 U 7.8 U TO15SIM 7.8 8.1 1.7 U 0.63 U 1.3 U 2.2 U TO15 5.5 5.8 0.51 J 0.42 J TO15SIM 5.5 5.8 0.39 U 0.14 U 0.29 U 0.11 J TO15 5.9 6.3 12 U 0.59 J TO15SIM 5.9 6.3 1.7 U 0.61 U 1.2 U 2.1 U TO15 5.8 6.1 11 U 7.3 U TO15SIM 5.8 6.1 1.6 U 0.59 U 1.2 U 2.1 U TO15 3 3.3 1.1 J 2.4 U TO15SIM 3 3.3 0.54 U 0.2 U 0.4 U 0.11 J 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane 1,1-Dichloroethene 1,2-Dichloroethane 1,2-Dichlorotetrafluoroethane1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 730000 730000 16 #N/A29000 8700 MW29-SG032521-66 MW29-SG032521-98 SB42-SG032521-13 SB42-SG032521-17 SB42-SG032521-26 SB42-SG032521-7 SB43-SG032521-15 SB43-SG032521-8 MW24-SG032521-104 MW24-SG032521-130 MW24-SG032521-60 MW24-SG032621-32 MW25-SG032421-100 MW25-SG032421-28 MW28-SG032321-118 MW28-SG032321-24 MW28-SG032321-48 SG08-SG032321 SG06-SG032321 SG05-SG032321 SG04-SG032321 SG03-SG032221 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 3/26/2021 3/24/2021 3/24/2021 3/23/2021 3/23/2021 3/23/2021 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 MW29-SG032521-42 3/22/2021 3/23/2021 3/23/2021 3/23/2021 3/23/2021 Table 2 Source Area OU1 Soil Vapor Analytical Results Sample ID Sample Date Analytical Method Start Depth (ft) End Depth (ft) Industrial / Commercial Screening Level for Soil Gas (µg/m3) 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane 1,1-Dichloroethene 1,2-Dichloroethane 1,2-Dichlorotetrafluoroethane1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 730000 730000 16 #N/A29000 8700 TO15 6.3 6.8 0.52 J 0.54 J TO15SIM 6.3 6.8 1.2 0.059 U 0.12 U 0.1 J TO15 4.7 5 1.1 J 1.8 U TO15SIM 4.7 5 0.39 U 0.14 U 0.29 U 0.11 J TO15 5.3 6 0.51 J 0.07 J TO15SIM 5.3 6 0.16 U 0.06 U 0.064 J 0.11 J TO15 6.1 6.7 0.6 J 0.75 U TO15SIM 6.1 6.7 0.16 U 0.06 U 0.12 U 0.11 J TO15 6.7 7.3 0.57 J 1.2 U TO15SIM 6.7 7.3 0.26 U 0.095 U 0.19 U 0.14 J TO15 4.5 5 0.56 J 0.69 U TO15SIM 4.5 5 0.35 0.056 U 0.11 U 0.13 J TO15 3.8 4.3 0.54 J 0.74 U TO15SIM 3.8 4.3 0.16 U 0.059 U 0.12 U 0.11 J TO15 1.2 J 0.13 J TO15SIM 0.96 0.15 U 0.3 U 0.12 J VP04-SG032421 3/24/2021 TO15 83 U 120 U 60 U 300 U 62 U 110 U TO15 0.59 J 0.1 J TO15SIM 0.89 0.057 U 0.12 U 0.13 J TO15 0.98 J 0.12 J TO15SIM 0.18 J 0.11 U 0.23 U 0.13 J TO15 4 U 0.47 J TO15SIM 0.054 J 0.21 U 0.42 U 0.1 J TO15 0.37 J 0.17 J TO15SIM 0.16 U 0.06 U 0.12 U 0.11 J TO15 5.8 U 0.72 J TO15SIM 0.83 U 0.3 U 0.62 U 0.16 J TO15 0.67 J 0.11 J TO15SIM 0.032 J 0.069 0.13 U 0.12 J TO15 0.95 J 0.11 J TO15SIM 0.035 J 0.12 U 0.25 U 0.11 J TO15 0.72 J 0.25 J TO15SIM 0.28 0.063 U 0.026 J 0.24 VP15-SG032421 3/24/2021 TO15 80 U 110 U 58 U 290 U 59 U 100 U TO15 1.7 J 3.8 U TO15SIM 1.7 0.31 U 0.63 U 0.25 J TO15 0.32 J 0.14 J TO15SIM 0.16 U 0.058 U 0.12 U 0.14 J Notes Results are in µg/m3 Industrial / Commercial Screening Levels for Soil Gas from EPA Regional Screening Levels updated May 2021. U = not detected above reporting limit J = results is estimated. Results in bold are detected over the reporting limit Results in bold and shaded gray exceed the screening level VP19-SG032421 VP17-SG032421 VP14-SG032421 VP13-SG032421 VP12-SG032421 VP11-SG032421 VP10-SG032421 VP09-SG032421 VP08-SG032421 VP06-SG032421 VP02-SG032421 SG60-SG032221 SG55-SG032321 SG50-SG032321 SG49-SG032421 SG13-SG032321 SG11-SG032321 SG10-SG032321 3/23/2021 3/23/2021 3/23/2021 3/24/2021 3/24/2021 3/24/2021 3/24/2021 3/24/2021 3/24/2021 3/23/2021 3/23/2021 3/22/2021 3/24/2021 3/24/2021 3/24/2021 3/24/2021 3/24/2021 3/24/2021 Table 2 Source Area OU1 Soil Vapor Analytical Results Sample ID Sample Date Analytical Method Start Depth (ft) End Depth (ft) Industrial / Commercial Screening Level for Soil Gas (µg/m3) MW23-SG032321-135 3/23/2021 TO15 130 140 TO15 104 104 TO15SIM 104 104 TO15 130 130 TO15SIM 130 130 TO15 60 60 TO15SIM 60 60 TO15 32 32 TO15SIM 32 32 TO15 100 100 TO15SIM 100 100 TO15 28 28 TO15SIM 28 28 MW27-SG032221-113 3/22/2021 TO15 113 113 MW27-SG032221-28 3/22/2021 TO15 28 28 TO15 118 118 TO15SIM 118 118 TO15 24 24 TO15SIM 24 24 TO15 48 48 TO15SIM 48 48 TO15 42 42 TO15SIM 42 42 TO15 66 66 TO15SIM 66 66 TO15 98 98 TO15SIM 98 98 TO15 12 13 TO15SIM 12 13 TO15 16 17 TO15SIM 16 17 TO15 24.8 26 TO15SIM 24.8 26 TO15 6 7 TO15SIM 6 7 TO15 14.7 15.7 TO15SIM 14.7 15.7 TO15 7 8 TO15SIM 7 8 TO15 7.8 8.1 TO15SIM 7.8 8.1 TO15 5.5 5.8 TO15SIM 5.5 5.8 TO15 5.9 6.3 TO15SIM 5.9 6.3 TO15 5.8 6.1 TO15SIM 5.8 6.1 TO15 3 3.3 TO15SIM 3 3.3 MW29-SG032521-66 MW29-SG032521-98 SB42-SG032521-13 SB42-SG032521-17 SB42-SG032521-26 SB42-SG032521-7 SB43-SG032521-15 SB43-SG032521-8 MW24-SG032521-104 MW24-SG032521-130 MW24-SG032521-60 MW24-SG032621-32 MW25-SG032421-100 MW25-SG032421-28 MW28-SG032321-118 MW28-SG032321-24 MW28-SG032321-48 SG08-SG032321 SG06-SG032321 SG05-SG032321 SG04-SG032321 SG03-SG032221 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 3/26/2021 3/24/2021 3/24/2021 3/23/2021 3/23/2021 3/23/2021 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 MW29-SG032521-42 3/22/2021 3/23/2021 3/23/2021 3/23/2021 3/23/2021 150 U 45 U 110 U 89 U 120 U 37 U 4 U 4.9 U 3 U 12 U 17 U 4 U 3.4 U 4.2 U 2.5 U 1.5 J 14 U 3.4 U 8.3 U 10 U 6.1 U 25 U 35 U 8.3 U 7 U 8.6 U 5.2 U 21 U 29 U 7 U 1 U 1.2 U 0.74 U 5 0.74 J 1 U 1.5 U 1.8 U 0.14 J 5.4 0.65 J 0.11 J 140 U 44 U 100 U 87 U 120 U 36 U 37 U 46 U 110 U 90 U 120 U 37 U 8 U 9.8 U 5.9 U 24 U 33 U 8 U 6.9 U 8.5 U 5.1 U 21 U 29 U 6.9 U 7 U 8.5 U 5.1 U 21 U 29 U 7 U 3.7 U 4.6 U 2.7 U 11 U 16 U 3.7 U 1.6 U 1.9 U 1.1 U 4.6 U 6.5 U 1.6 U 7 U 8.5 U 5.1 U 21 U 29 U 7 U 2.6 U 3.2 U 1.9 U 7.8 U 11 U 2.6 U 3.7 U 4.5 U 2.7 U 11 U 15 U 3.7 U 3.7 U 4.6 U 2.7 U 11 U 16 U 0.46 J 0.14 J 0.91 U 0.54 U 0.48 J 3.1 U 0.29 J 0.27 J 1 U 0.6 U 0.92 J 3.4 U 0.5 J 0.24 J 0.94 U 0.15 J 1.2 J 3.2 U 0.44 J 7.8 U 9.6 U 5.7 U 23 U 32 U 7.8 U 0.17 J 2.2 U 1.3 U 5.3 U 7.3 U 1.8 U 7.5 U 9.2 U 5.5 U 22 U 31 U 7.5 U 7.3 U 8.9 U 5.3 U 22 U 30 U 7.3 U 2.4 U 3 U 1.8 U 7.4 U 10 U 2.4 U 1,4-Dioxane 2-Butanone (MEK) 2-Hexanone 4-Ethyltoluene1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 82 730000 4300 #N/A8700 NA Table 2 Source Area OU1 Soil Vapor Analytical Results Sample ID Sample Date Analytical Method Start Depth (ft) End Depth (ft) Industrial / Commercial Screening Level for Soil Gas (µg/m3) TO15 6.3 6.8 TO15SIM 6.3 6.8 TO15 4.7 5 TO15SIM 4.7 5 TO15 5.3 6 TO15SIM 5.3 6 TO15 6.1 6.7 TO15SIM 6.1 6.7 TO15 6.7 7.3 TO15SIM 6.7 7.3 TO15 4.5 5 TO15SIM 4.5 5 TO15 3.8 4.3 TO15SIM 3.8 4.3 TO15 TO15SIM VP04-SG032421 3/24/2021 TO15 TO15 TO15SIM TO15 TO15SIM TO15 TO15SIM TO15 TO15SIM TO15 TO15SIM TO15 TO15SIM TO15 TO15SIM TO15 TO15SIM VP15-SG032421 3/24/2021 TO15 TO15 TO15SIM TO15 TO15SIM Notes Results are in µg/m3 Industrial / Commercial Screening Levels for Soil Gas from EPA Regional Screening Levels updated May 2021. U = not detected above reporting limit J = results is estimated. Results in bold are detected over the reporting limit Results in bold and shaded gray exceed the screening level VP19-SG032421 VP17-SG032421 VP14-SG032421 VP13-SG032421 VP12-SG032421 VP11-SG032421 VP10-SG032421 VP09-SG032421 VP08-SG032421 VP06-SG032421 VP02-SG032421 SG60-SG032221 SG55-SG032321 SG50-SG032321 SG49-SG032421 SG13-SG032321 SG11-SG032321 SG10-SG032321 3/23/2021 3/23/2021 3/23/2021 3/24/2021 3/24/2021 3/24/2021 3/24/2021 3/24/2021 3/24/2021 3/23/2021 3/23/2021 3/22/2021 3/24/2021 3/24/2021 3/24/2021 3/24/2021 3/24/2021 3/24/2021 1,4-Dioxane 2-Butanone (MEK) 2-Hexanone 4-Ethyltoluene1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 82 730000 4300 #N/A8700 NA 0.22 J 0.9 U 0.32 J 0.37 J 3.1 U 0.74 U 1.8 U 2.2 U 1.3 U 5.3 U 7.4 U 1.8 U 0.74 U 0.91 U 0.087 J 0.93 J 3.1 U 0.073 J 0.75 U 0.91 U 0.092 J 0.27 J 3.1 U 0.75 U 1.2 U 1.4 U 0.86 U 0.36 J 4.9 U 1.2 U 0.69 U 0.85 U 0.068 J 2.2 0.24 J 0.69 U 0.74 U 0.9 U 0.54 U 0.27 J 3.1 U 0.74 U 1.8 U 6.5 1.4 U 2 J 7.7 U 1.8 U 300 U 92 U 220 U 180 U 250 U 75 U 0.7 U 3.6 0.066 J 2 J 2.9 U 0.063 J 1.4 U 7 1 U 2.2 J 5.8 U 1.4 U 2.6 U 19 1.9 U 8.3 11 U 0.31 J 0.74 U 9.2 0.54 U 2.7 3.1 U 0.12 J 3.7 U 36 2.7 U 6.8 J 16 U 0.49 J 0.77 U 2.7 0.56 U 2.2 J 3.2 U 0.77 U 1.5 U 3.4 1.1 U 1.3 J 6.2 U 1.5 U 0.066 J 15 0.13 J 4.6 3.2 U 0.17 J 290 U 88 U 210 U 170 U 240 U 72 U 3.8 U 5.6 0.21 J 1.5 J 16 U 3.8 U 0.72 U 4.7 0.12 J 2.4 3 U 0.1 J Table 2 Source Area OU1 Soil Vapor Analytical Results Sample ID Sample Date Analytical Method Start Depth (ft) End Depth (ft) Industrial / Commercial Screening Level for Soil Gas (µg/m3) MW23-SG032321-135 3/23/2021 TO15 130 140 TO15 104 104 TO15SIM 104 104 TO15 130 130 TO15SIM 130 130 TO15 60 60 TO15SIM 60 60 TO15 32 32 TO15SIM 32 32 TO15 100 100 TO15SIM 100 100 TO15 28 28 TO15SIM 28 28 MW27-SG032221-113 3/22/2021 TO15 113 113 MW27-SG032221-28 3/22/2021 TO15 28 28 TO15 118 118 TO15SIM 118 118 TO15 24 24 TO15SIM 24 24 TO15 48 48 TO15SIM 48 48 TO15 42 42 TO15SIM 42 42 TO15 66 66 TO15SIM 66 66 TO15 98 98 TO15SIM 98 98 TO15 12 13 TO15SIM 12 13 TO15 16 17 TO15SIM 16 17 TO15 24.8 26 TO15SIM 24.8 26 TO15 6 7 TO15SIM 6 7 TO15 14.7 15.7 TO15SIM 14.7 15.7 TO15 7 8 TO15SIM 7 8 TO15 7.8 8.1 TO15SIM 7.8 8.1 TO15 5.5 5.8 TO15SIM 5.5 5.8 TO15 5.9 6.3 TO15SIM 5.9 6.3 TO15 5.8 6.1 TO15SIM 5.8 6.1 TO15 3 3.3 TO15SIM 3 3.3 MW29-SG032521-66 MW29-SG032521-98 SB42-SG032521-13 SB42-SG032521-17 SB42-SG032521-26 SB42-SG032521-7 SB43-SG032521-15 SB43-SG032521-8 MW24-SG032521-104 MW24-SG032521-130 MW24-SG032521-60 MW24-SG032621-32 MW25-SG032421-100 MW25-SG032421-28 MW28-SG032321-118 MW28-SG032321-24 MW28-SG032321-48 SG08-SG032321 SG06-SG032321 SG05-SG032321 SG04-SG032321 SG03-SG032221 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 3/26/2021 3/24/2021 3/24/2021 3/23/2021 3/23/2021 3/23/2021 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 MW29-SG032521-42 3/22/2021 3/23/2021 3/23/2021 3/23/2021 3/23/2021 31 U 180 U 94 UJ 24 U 8 J 94 U 3.4 U 19 U 13 U 12 13 U 0.19 J 2.9 U 69 11 U 6.4 11 U 0.42 J 6.9 U 40 U 26 U 40 26 U 0.26 J 5.8 U 34 U 22 U 81 22 U 0.28 J 0.84 U 56 3.2 U 13 0.41 J 0.14 J 1.2 U 86 4.7 UJ 8.4 4.7 U 0.19 J 30 U 170 U 92 UJ 23 U 49 U 92 U 31 U 72 U 95 UJ 24 U 51 U 95 U 6.7 U 39 U 26 UJ 5.8 J 25 U 0.5 J 0.63 J 33 U 22 UJ 0.96 J 22 U 0.49 J 1 J 34 U 22 UJ 3.4 J 4.2 J 0.36 J 3.1 U 9.5 J 12 U 3.7 J 6.1 J 0.87 J 1.3 U 3.7 J 4.9 U 2.1 U 0.66 J 0.67 5.8 U 34 U 22 U 2.1 J 7.1 J 0.47 J 2.2 U 12 U 8.3 U 3.5 U 8.2 U 0.07 J 3 U 18 U 12 U 5 U 12 U 0.12 J 3.1 U 18 U 12 U 0.82 J 12 U 0.16 J 0.62 U 7.8 2.4 U 1 U 0.73 J 0.034 J 0.68 U 7 2.6 U 1.1 U 1.1 J 0.054 J 0.64 U 7.3 2.4 U 1 U 0.89 J 0.035 J 6.5 U 38 U 25 UJ 11 U 25 U 2.5 U 1.5 U 8.5 U 5.6 UJ 2.4 U 5.6 U 0.13 J 6.3 U 36 U 24 UJ 10 U 24 U 2.4 U 6.1 U 35 U 23 UJ 38 23 U 2.4 U 2 U 12 U 7.8 UJ 3.4 U 7.8 U 0.8 U Carbon Disulfide4-Methyl-2-Pentanone (MIBK) Acetone Allyl Chloride Benzene Bromodichloromethane 100000430000 4700000 #N/A 53 11 Table 2 Source Area OU1 Soil Vapor Analytical Results Sample ID Sample Date Analytical Method Start Depth (ft) End Depth (ft) Industrial / Commercial Screening Level for Soil Gas (µg/m3) TO15 6.3 6.8 TO15SIM 6.3 6.8 TO15 4.7 5 TO15SIM 4.7 5 TO15 5.3 6 TO15SIM 5.3 6 TO15 6.1 6.7 TO15SIM 6.1 6.7 TO15 6.7 7.3 TO15SIM 6.7 7.3 TO15 4.5 5 TO15SIM 4.5 5 TO15 3.8 4.3 TO15SIM 3.8 4.3 TO15 TO15SIM VP04-SG032421 3/24/2021 TO15 TO15 TO15SIM TO15 TO15SIM TO15 TO15SIM TO15 TO15SIM TO15 TO15SIM TO15 TO15SIM TO15 TO15SIM TO15 TO15SIM VP15-SG032421 3/24/2021 TO15 TO15 TO15SIM TO15 TO15SIM Notes Results are in µg/m3 Industrial / Commercial Screening Levels for Soil Gas from EPA Regional Screening Levels updated May 2021. U = not detected above reporting limit J = results is estimated. Results in bold are detected over the reporting limit Results in bold and shaded gray exceed the screening level VP19-SG032421 VP17-SG032421 VP14-SG032421 VP13-SG032421 VP12-SG032421 VP11-SG032421 VP10-SG032421 VP09-SG032421 VP08-SG032421 VP06-SG032421 VP02-SG032421 SG60-SG032221 SG55-SG032321 SG50-SG032321 SG49-SG032421 SG13-SG032321 SG11-SG032321 SG10-SG032321 3/23/2021 3/23/2021 3/23/2021 3/24/2021 3/24/2021 3/24/2021 3/24/2021 3/24/2021 3/24/2021 3/23/2021 3/23/2021 3/22/2021 3/24/2021 3/24/2021 3/24/2021 3/24/2021 3/24/2021 3/24/2021 Carbon Disulfide4-Methyl-2-Pentanone (MIBK) Acetone Allyl Chloride Benzene Bromodichloromethane 100000430000 4700000 #N/A 53 11 0.61 U 3.6 U 2.3 UJ 0.12 J 0.44 J 0.24 U 0.17 J 8.6 U 5.6 UJ 2.4 U 5.6 U 0.58 U 0.11 J 5.8 2.4 UJ 1 U 2.4 U 0.35 0.62 U 7.6 2.4 UJ 1 U 2.4 U 0.092 J 0.98 U 5.7 U 3.8 UJ 1.6 U 3.7 U 0.038 J 0.58 U 18 2.2 UJ 0.94 U 2.2 U 0.034 J 0.61 U 7 2.3 UJ 1 U 2.3 U 0.24 U 1.5 U 12 5.9 UJ 2.5 U 5.8 U 0.6 U 62 U 360 U 190 UJ 49 U 100 U 190 U 0.58 U 9.2 2.2 UJ 0.96 U 2.2 U 0.08 J 1.2 U 7.7 4.4 U 1.9 U 4.4 U 0.049 J 2.1 U 16 8.2 UJ 3.5 U 8.1 U 0.12 J 0.62 U 8.6 2.4 UJ 1 U 2.4 U 0.054 J 3.1 U 14 J 12 UJ 5.1 U 12 U 0.19 J 0.64 U 7.6 2.4 UJ 1 U 2.4 U 0.05 J 1.2 U 5.7 J 4.8 U 13 4.7 U 0.42 J 0.65 U 12 2.5 UJ 0.62 J 2.5 U 0.12 J 60 U 350 U 180 UJ 47 U 37 J 180 U 3.2 U 18 U 12 UJ 18 12 U 0.14 J 0.6 U 8.8 2.3 U 0.98 U 2.3 U 0.047 J Table 2 Source Area OU1 Soil Vapor Analytical Results Sample ID Sample Date Analytical Method Start Depth (ft) End Depth (ft) Industrial / Commercial Screening Level for Soil Gas (µg/m3) MW23-SG032321-135 3/23/2021 TO15 130 140 TO15 104 104 TO15SIM 104 104 TO15 130 130 TO15SIM 130 130 TO15 60 60 TO15SIM 60 60 TO15 32 32 TO15SIM 32 32 TO15 100 100 TO15SIM 100 100 TO15 28 28 TO15SIM 28 28 MW27-SG032221-113 3/22/2021 TO15 113 113 MW27-SG032221-28 3/22/2021 TO15 28 28 TO15 118 118 TO15SIM 118 118 TO15 24 24 TO15SIM 24 24 TO15 48 48 TO15SIM 48 48 TO15 42 42 TO15SIM 42 42 TO15 66 66 TO15SIM 66 66 TO15 98 98 TO15SIM 98 98 TO15 12 13 TO15SIM 12 13 TO15 16 17 TO15SIM 16 17 TO15 24.8 26 TO15SIM 24.8 26 TO15 6 7 TO15SIM 6 7 TO15 14.7 15.7 TO15SIM 14.7 15.7 TO15 7 8 TO15SIM 7 8 TO15 7.8 8.1 TO15SIM 7.8 8.1 TO15 5.5 5.8 TO15SIM 5.5 5.8 TO15 5.9 6.3 TO15SIM 5.9 6.3 TO15 5.8 6.1 TO15SIM 5.8 6.1 TO15 3 3.3 TO15SIM 3 3.3 MW29-SG032521-66 MW29-SG032521-98 SB42-SG032521-13 SB42-SG032521-17 SB42-SG032521-26 SB42-SG032521-7 SB43-SG032521-15 SB43-SG032521-8 MW24-SG032521-104 MW24-SG032521-130 MW24-SG032521-60 MW24-SG032621-32 MW25-SG032421-100 MW25-SG032421-28 MW28-SG032321-118 MW28-SG032321-24 MW28-SG032321-48 SG08-SG032321 SG06-SG032321 SG05-SG032321 SG04-SG032321 SG03-SG032221 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 3/26/2021 3/24/2021 3/24/2021 3/23/2021 3/23/2021 3/23/2021 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 MW29-SG032521-42 3/22/2021 3/23/2021 3/23/2021 3/23/2021 3/23/2021 48 U 35 U 80 U 82 21 J 6.7 J 3.8 U 3 1.1 U 570 8.5 U 0.65 U 3.2 U 2.7 0.92 U 490 7.2 U 0.56 U 7.8 U 3 2.2 U 970 17 U 1.3 U 6.6 U 2.8 1.9 U 1200 15 U 1.1 U 0.95 U 0.96 0.082 J 200 0.086 J 0.16 U 1.4 U 0.18 J 0.19 J 170 0.5 J 0.24 U 46 U 14 J 78 U 150 150 U 9 J 48 U 35 U 80 U 52 63 U 30 U 7.5 U 2 U 0.15 J 100 17 U 1.3 U 6.5 U 1.8 U 0.16 J 29 0.63 J 1.1 U 6.5 U 1.8 U 0.29 J 98 15 U 1.1 U 3.5 U 1.6 1 U 560 0.87 J 0.65 1.4 U 1.1 0.42 U 290 0.074 J 0.49 6.5 U 2.9 1.9 U 820 0.29 J 1.3 2.4 U 0.17 J 0.7 U 15 5.5 U 0.21 J 3.4 U 0.94 U 0.98 U 24 7.7 U 0.55 J 3.5 U 0.49 J 1 U 82 7.8 U 3 0.7 U 0.19 U 0.2 U 2.5 1.6 U 0.12 U 0.77 U 0.081 J 0.22 U 25 1.7 U 0.033 J 0.72 U 0.2 U 0.21 U 16 1.6 U 0.12 U 7.3 U 2 U 2.1 U 0.3 J 16 U 1.3 U 1.6 U 0.45 U 0.47 U 0.35 U 3.7 U 0.13 J 7 U 1.9 U 2 U 1.5 U 16 U 0.24 J 6.8 U 0.88 J 0.14 J 480 15 U 1.2 U 2.3 U 0.63 U 0.66 U 0.49 U 5.2 U 0.4 U Carbon Tetrachloride Chlorobenzene Chloroethane Chloroform Chloromethane cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 67 7300 1500000 18 13000 NA Table 2 Source Area OU1 Soil Vapor Analytical Results Sample ID Sample Date Analytical Method Start Depth (ft) End Depth (ft) Industrial / Commercial Screening Level for Soil Gas (µg/m3) TO15 6.3 6.8 TO15SIM 6.3 6.8 TO15 4.7 5 TO15SIM 4.7 5 TO15 5.3 6 TO15SIM 5.3 6 TO15 6.1 6.7 TO15SIM 6.1 6.7 TO15 6.7 7.3 TO15SIM 6.7 7.3 TO15 4.5 5 TO15SIM 4.5 5 TO15 3.8 4.3 TO15SIM 3.8 4.3 TO15 TO15SIM VP04-SG032421 3/24/2021 TO15 TO15 TO15SIM TO15 TO15SIM TO15 TO15SIM TO15 TO15SIM TO15 TO15SIM TO15 TO15SIM TO15 TO15SIM TO15 TO15SIM VP15-SG032421 3/24/2021 TO15 TO15 TO15SIM TO15 TO15SIM Notes Results are in µg/m3 Industrial / Commercial Screening Levels for Soil Gas from EPA Regional Screening Levels updated May 2021. U = not detected above reporting limit J = results is estimated. Results in bold are detected over the reporting limit Results in bold and shaded gray exceed the screening level VP19-SG032421 VP17-SG032421 VP14-SG032421 VP13-SG032421 VP12-SG032421 VP11-SG032421 VP10-SG032421 VP09-SG032421 VP08-SG032421 VP06-SG032421 VP02-SG032421 SG60-SG032221 SG55-SG032321 SG50-SG032321 SG49-SG032421 SG13-SG032321 SG11-SG032321 SG10-SG032321 3/23/2021 3/23/2021 3/23/2021 3/24/2021 3/24/2021 3/24/2021 3/24/2021 3/24/2021 3/24/2021 3/23/2021 3/23/2021 3/22/2021 3/24/2021 3/24/2021 3/24/2021 3/24/2021 3/24/2021 3/24/2021 Carbon Tetrachloride Chlorobenzene Chloroethane Chloroform Chloromethane cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 67 7300 1500000 18 13000 NA 0.69 U 0.19 U 0.2 U 39 0.032 J 0.12 U 1.6 U 0.45 U 0.47 U 3.9 3.7 U 0.28 U 0.7 U 0.43 0.057 J 0.15 U 0.57 J 0.035 J 0.7 U 0.19 U 0.2 U 0.52 0.24 J 0.12 U 1.1 U 0.3 U 0.32 U 0.23 U 0.073 J 0.19 U 0.65 U 0.15 J 0.19 U 14 0.02 J 0.11 U 0.69 U 0.12 J 0.2 U 0.048 J 0.026 J 0.12 U 1.7 U 0.27 J 0.49 U 0.37 U 0.082 J 0.3 U 96 U 70 U 160 U 43 J 310 U 60 U 0.66 U 0.29 0.19 U 0.055 J 0.26 J 0.11 U 1.3 U 0.36 U 0.37 U 0.062 J 2.9 U 0.22 U 2.4 U 0.35 J 0.69 U 0.51 U 5.4 U 0.41 U 0.7 U 0.52 0.05 J 0.11 J 1.6 U 0.12 U 3.5 U 0.28 J 1 U 0.74 U 7.8 U 0.6 U 0.72 U 0.5 0.2 U 0.64 1.6 U 0.12 U 1.4 U 0.68 0.087 J 240 3.1 U 0.24 U 0.73 U 0.17 J 0.21 U 73 0.099 J 0.12 U 92 U 67 U 150 U 180 300 U 58 U 3.6 U 1.4 1 U 370 8 U 0.61 U 0.67 U 0.48 0.19 U 0.052 J 1.5 U 0.12 U Table 2 Source Area OU1 Soil Vapor Analytical Results Sample ID Sample Date Analytical Method Start Depth (ft) End Depth (ft) Industrial / Commercial Screening Level for Soil Gas (µg/m3) MW23-SG032321-135 3/23/2021 TO15 130 140 TO15 104 104 TO15SIM 104 104 TO15 130 130 TO15SIM 130 130 TO15 60 60 TO15SIM 60 60 TO15 32 32 TO15SIM 32 32 TO15 100 100 TO15SIM 100 100 TO15 28 28 TO15SIM 28 28 MW27-SG032221-113 3/22/2021 TO15 113 113 MW27-SG032221-28 3/22/2021 TO15 28 28 TO15 118 118 TO15SIM 118 118 TO15 24 24 TO15SIM 24 24 TO15 48 48 TO15SIM 48 48 TO15 42 42 TO15SIM 42 42 TO15 66 66 TO15SIM 66 66 TO15 98 98 TO15SIM 98 98 TO15 12 13 TO15SIM 12 13 TO15 16 17 TO15SIM 16 17 TO15 24.8 26 TO15SIM 24.8 26 TO15 6 7 TO15SIM 6 7 TO15 14.7 15.7 TO15SIM 14.7 15.7 TO15 7 8 TO15SIM 7 8 TO15 7.8 8.1 TO15SIM 7.8 8.1 TO15 5.5 5.8 TO15SIM 5.5 5.8 TO15 5.9 6.3 TO15SIM 5.9 6.3 TO15 5.8 6.1 TO15SIM 5.8 6.1 TO15 3 3.3 TO15SIM 3 3.3 MW29-SG032521-66 MW29-SG032521-98 SB42-SG032521-13 SB42-SG032521-17 SB42-SG032521-26 SB42-SG032521-7 SB43-SG032521-15 SB43-SG032521-8 MW24-SG032521-104 MW24-SG032521-130 MW24-SG032521-60 MW24-SG032621-32 MW25-SG032421-100 MW25-SG032421-28 MW28-SG032321-118 MW28-SG032321-24 MW28-SG032321-48 SG08-SG032321 SG06-SG032321 SG05-SG032321 SG04-SG032321 SG03-SG032221 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 3/26/2021 3/24/2021 3/24/2021 3/23/2021 3/23/2021 3/23/2021 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 MW29-SG032521-42 3/22/2021 3/23/2021 3/23/2021 3/23/2021 3/23/2021 26 U 64 U 7 J 140 U 33 U 27 U 14 U 7 U 15 U 14 U 3.9 0.71 U 12 U 6 U 13 U 12 U 5 0.12 J 29 U 14 U 32 U 30 U 2.9 J 1.5 U 25 U 1.8 J 27 U 25 U 3 J 1.2 U 3.5 U 0.82 J 3.9 U 3.6 U 3.6 0.034 J 5.2 U 0.37 J 2.3 J 5.3 U 2.3 0.069 J 25 U 63 U 36 U 140 U 32 U 26 U 26 U 65 U 38 U 57 U 33 U 27 U 28 U 14 U 150 U 5.2 J 5.3 1.4 U 24 U 12 U 3.2 J 25 U 4.8 1.2 U 24 U 12 U 130 U 2.2 J 4.9 1.2 U 13 U 6.5 U 14 U 1.7 J 3 0.2 J 1.2 J 2.7 U 6 U 5.6 U 3 0.081 J 24 U 12 U 27 U 25 U 5.6 1.2 U 9.1 U 4.5 U 10 U 9.3 U 3.1 0.27 J 13 U 6.3 U 14 U 13 U 3.4 0.22 J 13 U 6.5 U 14 U 13 U 3.7 0.4 J 2.6 U 1.3 U 1.1 J 2.7 U 2.6 0.2 2.9 U 1.4 U 3.1 U 0.35 J 5.5 0.41 2.7 U 1.3 U 1.2 J 2.8 U 3.4 0.32 27 U 14 U 150 U 28 U 3.1 J 1.4 U 6.2 U 3 U 3.5 J 6.3 U 2.4 0.11 J 26 U 13 U 140 U 27 U 2.7 J 1.3 U 25 U 4 J 140 U 26 U 2.7 J 1.3 U 8.6 U 4.2 U 1.7 J 8.8 U 3.7 0.43 U Dibromochloromethane Dichlorodifluoromethane Ethanol Ethylbenzene HexaneCyclohexane 15000 #N/A 160 #N/A#N/A NA Table 2 Source Area OU1 Soil Vapor Analytical Results Sample ID Sample Date Analytical Method Start Depth (ft) End Depth (ft) Industrial / Commercial Screening Level for Soil Gas (µg/m3) TO15 6.3 6.8 TO15SIM 6.3 6.8 TO15 4.7 5 TO15SIM 4.7 5 TO15 5.3 6 TO15SIM 5.3 6 TO15 6.1 6.7 TO15SIM 6.1 6.7 TO15 6.7 7.3 TO15SIM 6.7 7.3 TO15 4.5 5 TO15SIM 4.5 5 TO15 3.8 4.3 TO15SIM 3.8 4.3 TO15 TO15SIM VP04-SG032421 3/24/2021 TO15 TO15 TO15SIM TO15 TO15SIM TO15 TO15SIM TO15 TO15SIM TO15 TO15SIM TO15 TO15SIM TO15 TO15SIM TO15 TO15SIM VP15-SG032421 3/24/2021 TO15 TO15 TO15SIM TO15 TO15SIM Notes Results are in µg/m3 Industrial / Commercial Screening Levels for Soil Gas from EPA Regional Screening Levels updated May 2021. U = not detected above reporting limit J = results is estimated. Results in bold are detected over the reporting limit Results in bold and shaded gray exceed the screening level VP19-SG032421 VP17-SG032421 VP14-SG032421 VP13-SG032421 VP12-SG032421 VP11-SG032421 VP10-SG032421 VP09-SG032421 VP08-SG032421 VP06-SG032421 VP02-SG032421 SG60-SG032221 SG55-SG032321 SG50-SG032321 SG49-SG032421 SG13-SG032321 SG11-SG032321 SG10-SG032321 3/23/2021 3/23/2021 3/23/2021 3/24/2021 3/24/2021 3/24/2021 3/24/2021 3/24/2021 3/24/2021 3/23/2021 3/23/2021 3/22/2021 3/24/2021 3/24/2021 3/24/2021 3/24/2021 3/24/2021 3/24/2021 Dibromochloromethane Dichlorodifluoromethane Ethanol Ethylbenzene HexaneCyclohexane 15000 #N/A 160 #N/A#N/A NA 2.6 U 1.3 U 0.56 J 2.6 U 2.4 0.12 J 6.2 U 3.1 U 2.2 J 6.3 U 3.7 0.31 U 2.6 U 1.3 U 2 J 0.6 J 2.4 0.078 J 2.6 U 1.3 U 0.6 J 2.7 U 2.3 0.029 J 4.1 U 2 U 23 U 4.2 U 2.6 0.21 U 2.4 U 1.2 U 1.2 J 2.5 U 2.4 0.12 U 2.6 U 1.3 U 0.8 J 2.6 U 2.5 0.13 U 6.4 U 3.2 U 1.3 J 6.6 U 3.1 0.1 J 52 U 130 U 75 U 290 U 66 U 54 U 2.5 U 1.2 U 1.9 J 2.5 U 2.5 0.076 J 4.9 U 2.4 U 5.4 U 5 U 2.8 0.1 J 9 U 4.4 U 9.8 U 9.2 U 2.3 0.44 J 2.6 U 1.3 U 1.8 J 2.7 U 2.2 0.12 J 13 U 6.5 U 14 U 13 U 2.2 0.45 J 2.7 U 1.3 U 2.6 J 2.7 U 2.2 0.13 J 5.2 U 0.33 J 5.7 U 1.2 J 2.4 0.067 J 2.7 U 1.3 U 2.4 J 2.8 U 2.8 0.22 50 U 120 U 72 U 280 U 63 U 51 U 13 U 6.6 U 73 U 14 U 3.2 0.58 J 2.5 U 1.2 U 14 2.6 U 2.3 0.095 J Table 2 Source Area OU1 Soil Vapor Analytical Results Sample ID Sample Date Analytical Method Start Depth (ft) End Depth (ft) Industrial / Commercial Screening Level for Soil Gas (µg/m3) MW23-SG032321-135 3/23/2021 TO15 130 140 TO15 104 104 TO15SIM 104 104 TO15 130 130 TO15SIM 130 130 TO15 60 60 TO15SIM 60 60 TO15 32 32 TO15SIM 32 32 TO15 100 100 TO15SIM 100 100 TO15 28 28 TO15SIM 28 28 MW27-SG032221-113 3/22/2021 TO15 113 113 MW27-SG032221-28 3/22/2021 TO15 28 28 TO15 118 118 TO15SIM 118 118 TO15 24 24 TO15SIM 24 24 TO15 48 48 TO15SIM 48 48 TO15 42 42 TO15SIM 42 42 TO15 66 66 TO15SIM 66 66 TO15 98 98 TO15SIM 98 98 TO15 12 13 TO15SIM 12 13 TO15 16 17 TO15SIM 16 17 TO15 24.8 26 TO15SIM 24.8 26 TO15 6 7 TO15SIM 6 7 TO15 14.7 15.7 TO15SIM 14.7 15.7 TO15 7 8 TO15SIM 7 8 TO15 7.8 8.1 TO15SIM 7.8 8.1 TO15 5.5 5.8 TO15SIM 5.5 5.8 TO15 5.9 6.3 TO15SIM 5.9 6.3 TO15 5.8 6.1 TO15SIM 5.8 6.1 TO15 3 3.3 TO15SIM 3 3.3 MW29-SG032521-66 MW29-SG032521-98 SB42-SG032521-13 SB42-SG032521-17 SB42-SG032521-26 SB42-SG032521-7 SB43-SG032521-15 SB43-SG032521-8 MW24-SG032521-104 MW24-SG032521-130 MW24-SG032521-60 MW24-SG032621-32 MW25-SG032421-100 MW25-SG032421-28 MW28-SG032321-118 MW28-SG032321-24 MW28-SG032321-48 SG08-SG032321 SG06-SG032321 SG05-SG032321 SG04-SG032321 SG03-SG032221 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 3/26/2021 3/24/2021 3/24/2021 3/23/2021 3/23/2021 3/23/2021 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 MW29-SG032521-42 3/22/2021 3/23/2021 3/23/2021 3/23/2021 3/23/2021 74 U 33 U 260 U 120 U 37 U 33 U 10 U 5.7 U 17 U 4 U 0.21 J 0.18 J 8.6 U 4.9 U 14 U 3.4 U 0.28 J 0.24 J 21 U 12 U 35 U 8.3 U 2.9 U 1.5 U 18 U 9.9 U 29 U 7 U 2.5 U 1.2 U 1.1 J 1.4 U 4.2 U 1 U 0.13 J 0.075 J 4.6 2.1 U 0.51 J 1.5 U 0.27 J 0.14 J 72 U 32 U 260 U 120 U 36 U 32 U 75 U 33 U 100 U 31 U 37 U 33 U 6.2 J 11 U 33 U 8 U 2.8 U 1.4 U 17 U 9.8 U 29 U 6.9 U 0.41 J 1.2 U 17 U 9.9 U 29 U 7 U 2.5 U 1.2 U 9.3 U 5.3 U 16 U 3.7 U 0.27 J 0.29 J 3.6 J 2.2 U 6.5 U 1.6 U 0.17 J 0.22 J 17 U 9.9 U 29 U 7 U 2.5 U 1.2 U 1.8 J 3.7 U 11 U 2.6 U 0.69 J 0.3 J 9.2 U 5.2 U 15 U 3.7 U 0.53 J 0.24 J 9.3 U 5.3 U 16 U 3.7 U 0.88 J 0.38 J 6.4 1 U 3.1 U 0.14 J 0.46 0.2 2 J 1.2 U 3.4 U 0.2 J 0.76 0.45 8.7 1.1 U 3.2 U 0.15 J 0.65 0.34 20 U 11 U 32 U 7.8 U 2.8 U 1.4 U 4.9 2.5 U 7.3 U 1.8 U 0.37 J 0.27 J 19 U 11 U 31 U 7.5 U 0.3 J 1.3 U 18 U 10 U 30 U 7.3 U 2.6 U 1.3 U 9.9 3.5 U 10 U 2.4 U 0.87 U 0.43 U n-Propylbenzene o-XyleneIsopropyl Alcohol m,p-Xylene Methylene Chloride n-Heptane #N/A 15000 40000 #N/A #N/A 15000 Table 2 Source Area OU1 Soil Vapor Analytical Results Sample ID Sample Date Analytical Method Start Depth (ft) End Depth (ft) Industrial / Commercial Screening Level for Soil Gas (µg/m3) TO15 6.3 6.8 TO15SIM 6.3 6.8 TO15 4.7 5 TO15SIM 4.7 5 TO15 5.3 6 TO15SIM 5.3 6 TO15 6.1 6.7 TO15SIM 6.1 6.7 TO15 6.7 7.3 TO15SIM 6.7 7.3 TO15 4.5 5 TO15SIM 4.5 5 TO15 3.8 4.3 TO15SIM 3.8 4.3 TO15 TO15SIM VP04-SG032421 3/24/2021 TO15 TO15 TO15SIM TO15 TO15SIM TO15 TO15SIM TO15 TO15SIM TO15 TO15SIM TO15 TO15SIM TO15 TO15SIM TO15 TO15SIM VP15-SG032421 3/24/2021 TO15 TO15 TO15SIM TO15 TO15SIM Notes Results are in µg/m3 Industrial / Commercial Screening Levels for Soil Gas from EPA Regional Screening Levels updated May 2021. U = not detected above reporting limit J = results is estimated. Results in bold are detected over the reporting limit Results in bold and shaded gray exceed the screening level VP19-SG032421 VP17-SG032421 VP14-SG032421 VP13-SG032421 VP12-SG032421 VP11-SG032421 VP10-SG032421 VP09-SG032421 VP08-SG032421 VP06-SG032421 VP02-SG032421 SG60-SG032221 SG55-SG032321 SG50-SG032321 SG49-SG032421 SG13-SG032321 SG11-SG032321 SG10-SG032321 3/23/2021 3/23/2021 3/23/2021 3/24/2021 3/24/2021 3/24/2021 3/24/2021 3/24/2021 3/24/2021 3/23/2021 3/23/2021 3/22/2021 3/24/2021 3/24/2021 3/24/2021 3/24/2021 3/24/2021 3/24/2021 n-Propylbenzene o-XyleneIsopropyl Alcohol m,p-Xylene Methylene Chloride n-Heptane #N/A 15000 40000 #N/A #N/A 15000 0.92 J 1 U 3.1 U 0.74 U 0.44 0.18 16 2.5 U 7.4 U 1.8 U 0.62 U 0.31 U 1.7 J 1 U 0.36 J 0.74 U 0.28 0.096 J 1.9 1 U 3.1 U 0.75 U 0.038 J 0.13 U 0.98 J 1.7 U 4.9 U 1.2 U 0.42 U 0.21 U 1.8 0.98 U 2.9 U 0.69 U 0.028 J 0.12 U 2 1 U 3.1 U 0.74 U 0.26 U 0.13 U 3 J 2.6 U 7.7 U 1.8 U 0.32 J 0.12 J 150 U 66 U 530 U 250 U 75 U 66 U 3.2 1.2 2.9 U 0.7 U 0.23 J 0.089 J 4.4 2 U 5.8 U 1.4 U 0.34 J 0.13 J 8.4 3.6 U 11 U 2.6 U 1.5 0.48 7.7 0.54 J 3.1 U 0.74 U 0.42 0.15 12 5.3 U 16 U 3.7 U 1.6 0.57 J 16 1.1 U 3.2 U 0.77 U 0.42 0.14 2.9 J 1.6 J 6.2 U 1.5 U 0.26 J 0.12 J 3.6 1.1 U 3.2 U 0.06 J 0.72 0.28 25 J 63 U 510 U 240 U 72 U 63 U 2.2 J 5.4 U 16 U 3.8 U 1.4 0.6 J 13 1 U 3 U 0.72 U 0.32 0.12 J Table 2 Source Area OU1 Soil Vapor Analytical Results Sample ID Sample Date Analytical Method Start Depth (ft) End Depth (ft) Industrial / Commercial Screening Level for Soil Gas (µg/m3) MW23-SG032321-135 3/23/2021 TO15 130 140 TO15 104 104 TO15SIM 104 104 TO15 130 130 TO15SIM 130 130 TO15 60 60 TO15SIM 60 60 TO15 32 32 TO15SIM 32 32 TO15 100 100 TO15SIM 100 100 TO15 28 28 TO15SIM 28 28 MW27-SG032221-113 3/22/2021 TO15 113 113 MW27-SG032221-28 3/22/2021 TO15 28 28 TO15 118 118 TO15SIM 118 118 TO15 24 24 TO15SIM 24 24 TO15 48 48 TO15SIM 48 48 TO15 42 42 TO15SIM 42 42 TO15 66 66 TO15SIM 66 66 TO15 98 98 TO15SIM 98 98 TO15 12 13 TO15SIM 12 13 TO15 16 17 TO15SIM 16 17 TO15 24.8 26 TO15SIM 24.8 26 TO15 6 7 TO15SIM 6 7 TO15 14.7 15.7 TO15SIM 14.7 15.7 TO15 7 8 TO15SIM 7 8 TO15 7.8 8.1 TO15SIM 7.8 8.1 TO15 5.5 5.8 TO15SIM 5.5 5.8 TO15 5.9 6.3 TO15SIM 5.9 6.3 TO15 5.8 6.1 TO15SIM 5.8 6.1 TO15 3 3.3 TO15SIM 3 3.3 MW29-SG032521-66 MW29-SG032521-98 SB42-SG032521-13 SB42-SG032521-17 SB42-SG032521-26 SB42-SG032521-7 SB43-SG032521-15 SB43-SG032521-8 MW24-SG032521-104 MW24-SG032521-130 MW24-SG032521-60 MW24-SG032621-32 MW25-SG032421-100 MW25-SG032421-28 MW28-SG032321-118 MW28-SG032321-24 MW28-SG032321-48 SG08-SG032321 SG06-SG032321 SG05-SG032321 SG04-SG032321 SG03-SG032221 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 3/26/2021 3/24/2021 3/24/2021 3/23/2021 3/23/2021 3/23/2021 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 MW29-SG032521-42 3/22/2021 3/23/2021 3/23/2021 3/23/2021 3/23/2021 32 U 16000 22 U 28 U 30 U 32 J 3.5 U 12 U 23 0.1 J 3.2 U 0.88 U 3 U 10 U 67 0.32 J 2.8 U 0.75 U 7.2 U 25 U 120 3.2 U 6.7 U 1.8 U 6.1 U 21 U 240 2.7 U 5.7 U 1.5 U 0.88 U 3 U 0.2 J 0.12 J 0.82 U 0.22 U 0.06 J 4.4 U 0.21 J 0.53 J 1.2 U 0.32 U 31 U 17000 22 U 28 U 29 U 27 J 32 U 39000 22 U 29 U 30 U 52 6.9 U 3600 24 U 0.65 J 6.5 U 6.6 6 U 21 U 1400 0.98 J 5.6 U 1.4 J 6 U 2200 2.5 J 0.45 J 5.6 U 4.1 3.2 U 11 U 260 1.9 3 U 4.4 1.3 U 4.6 U 250 0.26 J 1.2 U 4.7 6 U 21 U 170 0.28 J 5.6 U 3.6 2.2 U 7.8 U 360 0.18 J 2.1 U 3.6 3.2 U 11 U 520 0.2 J 3 U 6 3.2 U 11 U 560 0.28 J 3 U 11 0.64 U 2.2 U 100 0.14 J 0.6 U 0.27 0.71 U 2.5 U 160 0.24 J 0.66 U 0.64 0.67 U 2.3 U 37 0.19 J 0.62 U 0.17 U 6.8 U 23 U 2200 3 U 6.3 U 14 1.5 U 5.3 U 480 0.34 J 0.064 J 13 6.5 U 22 U 1800 2.9 U 6.1 U 7.9 6.3 U 22 U 1800 2.8 U 5.9 U 30 2.1 U 7.4 U 460 0.94 U 2 U 0.23 J trans-1,2-Dichloroethene TrichloroetheneStyrene Tetrachloroethene Tetrahydrofuran Toluene 6000 100150000 1600 #N/A 730000 Table 2 Source Area OU1 Soil Vapor Analytical Results Sample ID Sample Date Analytical Method Start Depth (ft) End Depth (ft) Industrial / Commercial Screening Level for Soil Gas (µg/m3) TO15 6.3 6.8 TO15SIM 6.3 6.8 TO15 4.7 5 TO15SIM 4.7 5 TO15 5.3 6 TO15SIM 5.3 6 TO15 6.1 6.7 TO15SIM 6.1 6.7 TO15 6.7 7.3 TO15SIM 6.7 7.3 TO15 4.5 5 TO15SIM 4.5 5 TO15 3.8 4.3 TO15SIM 3.8 4.3 TO15 TO15SIM VP04-SG032421 3/24/2021 TO15 TO15 TO15SIM TO15 TO15SIM TO15 TO15SIM TO15 TO15SIM TO15 TO15SIM TO15 TO15SIM TO15 TO15SIM TO15 TO15SIM VP15-SG032421 3/24/2021 TO15 TO15 TO15SIM TO15 TO15SIM Notes Results are in µg/m3 Industrial / Commercial Screening Levels for Soil Gas from EPA Regional Screening Levels updated May 2021. U = not detected above reporting limit J = results is estimated. Results in bold are detected over the reporting limit Results in bold and shaded gray exceed the screening level VP19-SG032421 VP17-SG032421 VP14-SG032421 VP13-SG032421 VP12-SG032421 VP11-SG032421 VP10-SG032421 VP09-SG032421 VP08-SG032421 VP06-SG032421 VP02-SG032421 SG60-SG032221 SG55-SG032321 SG50-SG032321 SG49-SG032421 SG13-SG032321 SG11-SG032321 SG10-SG032321 3/23/2021 3/23/2021 3/23/2021 3/24/2021 3/24/2021 3/24/2021 3/24/2021 3/24/2021 3/24/2021 3/23/2021 3/23/2021 3/22/2021 3/24/2021 3/24/2021 3/24/2021 3/24/2021 3/24/2021 3/24/2021 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene TrichloroetheneStyrene Tetrachloroethene Tetrahydrofuran Toluene 6000 100150000 1600 #N/A 730000 0.64 U 2.2 U 3.2 0.13 J 0.59 U 0.16 U 1.5 U 5.3 U 360 0.68 U 1.4 U 0.3 J 0.031 J 2.2 U 20 0.51 0.6 U 0.057 J 0.65 U 2.2 U 21 0.026 J 0.6 U 0.081 J 1 U 3.5 U 320 0.029 J 0.95 U 1.7 0.6 U 2.1 U 50 0.072 J 0.56 U 0.15 J 0.64 U 2.2 U 56 0.027 J 0.59 U 0.017 J 1.6 U 1.5 J 340 0.14 J 1.5 U 0.084 J 65 U 30000 45 U 57 U 60 U 51 J 0.025 J 1.6 J 33 0.15 J 0.57 U 0.073 J 1.2 U 1.6 J 210 0.18 J 1.1 U 0.3 U 2.2 U 6.8 J 470 0.52 J 2.1 U 1.8 0.64 U 1.8 J 23 0.17 J 0.025 J 0.16 U 3.2 U 4.4 J 500 0.69 J 3 U 2.9 0.66 U 1.8 J 3 0.14 J 0.62 U 0.13 J 1.3 U 1.2 J 110 0.27 J 1.2 U 0.33 U 0.057 J 3.7 49 0.4 0.63 U 0.73 62 U 23000 43 U 55 U 58 U 180 3.3 U 4.5 J 680 0.5 J 3.1 U 1.2 0.62 U 2.4 0.58 0.14 J 0.046 J 0.16 U Table 2 Source Area OU1 Soil Vapor Analytical Results Sample ID Sample Date Analytical Method Start Depth (ft) End Depth (ft) Industrial / Commercial Screening Level for Soil Gas (µg/m3) MW23-SG032321-135 3/23/2021 TO15 130 140 TO15 104 104 TO15SIM 104 104 TO15 130 130 TO15SIM 130 130 TO15 60 60 TO15SIM 60 60 TO15 32 32 TO15SIM 32 32 TO15 100 100 TO15SIM 100 100 TO15 28 28 TO15SIM 28 28 MW27-SG032221-113 3/22/2021 TO15 113 113 MW27-SG032221-28 3/22/2021 TO15 28 28 TO15 118 118 TO15SIM 118 118 TO15 24 24 TO15SIM 24 24 TO15 48 48 TO15SIM 48 48 TO15 42 42 TO15SIM 42 42 TO15 66 66 TO15SIM 66 66 TO15 98 98 TO15SIM 98 98 TO15 12 13 TO15SIM 12 13 TO15 16 17 TO15SIM 16 17 TO15 24.8 26 TO15SIM 24.8 26 TO15 6 7 TO15SIM 6 7 TO15 14.7 15.7 TO15SIM 14.7 15.7 TO15 7 8 TO15SIM 7 8 TO15 7.8 8.1 TO15SIM 7.8 8.1 TO15 5.5 5.8 TO15SIM 5.5 5.8 TO15 5.9 6.3 TO15SIM 5.9 6.3 TO15 5.8 6.1 TO15SIM 5.8 6.1 TO15 3 3.3 TO15SIM 3 3.3 MW29-SG032521-66 MW29-SG032521-98 SB42-SG032521-13 SB42-SG032521-17 SB42-SG032521-26 SB42-SG032521-7 SB43-SG032521-15 SB43-SG032521-8 MW24-SG032521-104 MW24-SG032521-130 MW24-SG032521-60 MW24-SG032621-32 MW25-SG032421-100 MW25-SG032421-28 MW28-SG032321-118 MW28-SG032321-24 MW28-SG032321-48 SG08-SG032321 SG06-SG032321 SG05-SG032321 SG04-SG032321 SG03-SG032221 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 3/26/2021 3/24/2021 3/24/2021 3/23/2021 3/23/2021 3/23/2021 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 MW29-SG032521-42 3/22/2021 3/23/2021 3/23/2021 3/23/2021 3/23/2021 46 19 U 41 J 0.42 U 24 J 0.36 U 20 J 0.86 U 18 J 0.15 J 170 J 0.1 U 74 0.039 J 43 19 U 30 J 19 U 66 0.83 U 12 0.72 U 21 0.72 U 4.7 J 0.23 J 3.8 J 0.073 J 13 J 0.17 J 1.9 J 0.27 U 2 J 0.38 U 2.5 J 0.39 U 1.5 J 0.077 U 2.1 J 0.085 U 1.6 J 0.08 U 5.9 J 0.81 U 1.6 J 0.18 U 2.4 J 0.78 U 3.7 J 0.76 U 7.1 0.26 U Trichlorofluoromethane Vinyl Chloride NA 93 Table 2 Source Area OU1 Soil Vapor Analytical Results Sample ID Sample Date Analytical Method Start Depth (ft) End Depth (ft) Industrial / Commercial Screening Level for Soil Gas (µg/m3) TO15 6.3 6.8 TO15SIM 6.3 6.8 TO15 4.7 5 TO15SIM 4.7 5 TO15 5.3 6 TO15SIM 5.3 6 TO15 6.1 6.7 TO15SIM 6.1 6.7 TO15 6.7 7.3 TO15SIM 6.7 7.3 TO15 4.5 5 TO15SIM 4.5 5 TO15 3.8 4.3 TO15SIM 3.8 4.3 TO15 TO15SIM VP04-SG032421 3/24/2021 TO15 TO15 TO15SIM TO15 TO15SIM TO15 TO15SIM TO15 TO15SIM TO15 TO15SIM TO15 TO15SIM TO15 TO15SIM TO15 TO15SIM VP15-SG032421 3/24/2021 TO15 TO15 TO15SIM TO15 TO15SIM Notes Results are in µg/m3 Industrial / Commercial Screening Levels for Soil Gas from EPA Regional Screening Levels updated May 2021. U = not detected above reporting limit J = results is estimated. Results in bold are detected over the reporting limit Results in bold and shaded gray exceed the screening level VP19-SG032421 VP17-SG032421 VP14-SG032421 VP13-SG032421 VP12-SG032421 VP11-SG032421 VP10-SG032421 VP09-SG032421 VP08-SG032421 VP06-SG032421 VP02-SG032421 SG60-SG032221 SG55-SG032321 SG50-SG032321 SG49-SG032421 SG13-SG032321 SG11-SG032321 SG10-SG032321 3/23/2021 3/23/2021 3/23/2021 3/24/2021 3/24/2021 3/24/2021 3/24/2021 3/24/2021 3/24/2021 3/23/2021 3/23/2021 3/22/2021 3/24/2021 3/24/2021 3/24/2021 3/24/2021 3/24/2021 3/24/2021 Trichlorofluoromethane Vinyl Chloride NA 93 1.4 0.077 U 6.9 0.18 U 1.6 0.077 U 22 0.078 U 3.4 0.12 U 1.9 0.072 U 1.4 0.077 U 6.9 0.19 U 34 J 39 U 17 0.073 U 4.8 J 0.14 U 2.2 J 0.27 U 0.84 J 0.077 U 1.9 J 0.39 U 1.2 J 0.08 U 1.9 J 0.16 U 7 0.013 J 23 J 37 U 11 0.4 U 0.8 J 0.075 U Table 3 Source Area OU1 Indoor Air Analytical Results Location Sample ID Analytical Method Sample Date Industrial / Commercial Screening Level for Soil Gas (µg/m3) TO15 0.48 J 0.22 J TO15SIM 0.16 U 0.028 J 0.083 J TO15 0.54 J 0.12 J TO15SIM 0.02 J 0.63 U 0.13 U TO15 0.56 J 0.093 J TO15SIM 0.16 U 0.56 U 0.12 U TO15 0.48 J 0.75 U TO15SIM 0.16 U 0.58 U 0.094 J TO15 0.44 J 0.062 J TO15SIM 0.16 U 0.56 U 0.074 J Notes Results are in µg/m3 Industrial / Commercial Screening Levels for Indoor Air from EPA Regional Screening Levels updated May 2021. U = not detected above reporting limit J = result is estimated. Results in bold are detected over the reporting limit Results in bold and shaded gray exceed the screening level 260 0.02 0.4722000 22000 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 1,2-Dibromoethane 1,2-Dichloroethane1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane1,1,1-Trichloroethane Building 6 Building 7 B6-IA06-IA032521 B6-IA08-IA032521 B6-OA01-OA032521 B7-IA02-IA032521 B7-IA05-IA032521 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 Table 3 Source Area OU1 Indoor Air Analytical Results Location Sample ID Analytical Method Sample Date Industrial / Commercial Screening Level for Soil Gas (µg/m3) TO15 TO15SIM TO15 TO15SIM TO15 TO15SIM TO15 TO15SIM TO15 TO15SIM Notes Results are in µg/m3 Industrial / Commercial Screening Levels for Indoor Air from EPA Regional Screening Levels updated May 2021. U = not detected above reporting limit J = result is estimated. Results in bold are detected over the reporting limit Results in bold and shaded gray exceed the screening level Building 6 Building 7 B6-IA06-IA032521 B6-IA08-IA032521 B6-OA01-OA032521 B7-IA02-IA032521 B7-IA05-IA032521 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 0.09 J 0.54 U 0.74 J 0.26 J 0.1 J 0.8 U 0.59 U 5.4 0.15 J 0.098 J 0.72 U 0.53 U 0.72 J 0.092 J 0.11 J 0.75 U 0.55 U 0.64 J 0.049 J 0.1 J 0.71 U 0.053 J 0.3 J 0.052 J 0.1 J 2.5 22000 #N/A#N/A 260 2-Butanone (MEK) 4-Ethyltoluene1,2-Dichlorotetrafluoroethane 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 1,4-Dioxane Table 3 Source Area OU1 Indoor Air Analytical Results Location Sample ID Analytical Method Sample Date Industrial / Commercial Screening Level for Soil Gas (µg/m3) TO15 TO15SIM TO15 TO15SIM TO15 TO15SIM TO15 TO15SIM TO15 TO15SIM Notes Results are in µg/m3 Industrial / Commercial Screening Levels for Indoor Air from EPA Regional Screening Levels updated May 2021. U = not detected above reporting limit J = result is estimated. Results in bold are detected over the reporting limit Results in bold and shaded gray exceed the screening level Building 6 Building 7 B6-IA06-IA032521 B6-IA08-IA032521 B6-OA01-OA032521 B7-IA02-IA032521 B7-IA05-IA032521 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 0.61 U 73 2.3 UJ 1 U 0.34 0.19 J 24 2.6 U 0.17 J 0.38 0.6 U 7.4 2.3 U 0.98 U 0.32 0.62 U 36 2.4 UJ 1 U 0.33 0.59 U 10 2.3 UJ 0.97 U 0.31 #N/A 1.6 0.3313000 140000 4-Methyl-2-Pentanone (MIBK) Acetone Allyl Chloride Benzene Bromodichloromethane Table 3 Source Area OU1 Indoor Air Analytical Results Location Sample ID Analytical Method Sample Date Industrial / Commercial Screening Level for Soil Gas (µg/m3) TO15 TO15SIM TO15 TO15SIM TO15 TO15SIM TO15 TO15SIM TO15 TO15SIM Notes Results are in µg/m3 Industrial / Commercial Screening Levels for Indoor Air from EPA Regional Screening Levels updated May 2021. U = not detected above reporting limit J = result is estimated. Results in bold are detected over the reporting limit Results in bold and shaded gray exceed the screening level Building 6 Building 7 B6-IA06-IA032521 B6-IA08-IA032521 B6-OA01-OA032521 B7-IA02-IA032521 B7-IA05-IA032521 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 0.46 0.029 J 0.15 0.68 J 2.3 0.5 0.22 U 1.4 0.78 J 2.2 0.49 0.19 U 0.062 J 0.78 J 2.1 0.46 0.021 J 0.11 J 0.68 J 2.3 0.46 0.014 J 0.13 J 0.68 J 2.3 4403902 44000 0.53 DichlorodifluoromethaneCarbon Tetrachloride Chloroethane Chloroform Chloromethane Table 3 Source Area OU1 Indoor Air Analytical Results Location Sample ID Analytical Method Sample Date Industrial / Commercial Screening Level for Soil Gas (µg/m3) TO15 TO15SIM TO15 TO15SIM TO15 TO15SIM TO15 TO15SIM TO15 TO15SIM Notes Results are in µg/m3 Industrial / Commercial Screening Levels for Indoor Air from EPA Regional Screening Levels updated May 2021. U = not detected above reporting limit J = result is estimated. Results in bold are detected over the reporting limit Results in bold and shaded gray exceed the screening level Building 6 Building 7 B6-IA06-IA032521 B6-IA08-IA032521 B6-OA01-OA032521 B7-IA02-IA032521 B7-IA05-IA032521 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 180 J 0.23 J 39 1.5 8.7 7.9 0.34 J 3.8 0.28 1.1 3.2 0.28 J 5.8 0.073 J 0.28 28 0.22 J 14 0.55 1.6 6.4 J 0.24 J 22 0.08 J 0.29 #N/A 440#N/A 4.9 #N/A m,p-XyleneEthylbenzene HexaneEthanol Isopropyl Alcohol Table 3 Source Area OU1 Indoor Air Analytical Results Location Sample ID Analytical Method Sample Date Industrial / Commercial Screening Level for Soil Gas (µg/m3) TO15 TO15SIM TO15 TO15SIM TO15 TO15SIM TO15 TO15SIM TO15 TO15SIM Notes Results are in µg/m3 Industrial / Commercial Screening Levels for Indoor Air from EPA Regional Screening Levels updated May 2021. U = not detected above reporting limit J = result is estimated. Results in bold are detected over the reporting limit Results in bold and shaded gray exceed the screening level Building 6 Building 7 B6-IA06-IA032521 B6-IA08-IA032521 B6-OA01-OA032521 B7-IA02-IA032521 B7-IA05-IA032521 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 1 U 0.18 J 0.068 J 0.63 U 2.6 1.1 J 3.3 U 0.8 U 0.69 U 0.43 1 U 3 U 0.72 U 0.62 U 0.093 J 4.7 0.78 J 0.75 U 0.068 J 0.41 1 U 0.21 J 0.71 U 0.03 J 0.11 J #N/A #N/A 440 44001200 o-Xylene StyreneMethylene Chloride n-Heptane n-Propylbenzene Table 3 Source Area OU1 Indoor Air Analytical Results Location Sample ID Analytical Method Sample Date Industrial / Commercial Screening Level for Soil Gas (µg/m3) TO15 TO15SIM TO15 TO15SIM TO15 TO15SIM TO15 TO15SIM TO15 TO15SIM Notes Results are in µg/m3 Industrial / Commercial Screening Levels for Indoor Air from EPA Regional Screening Levels updated May 2021. U = not detected above reporting limit J = result is estimated. Results in bold are detected over the reporting limit Results in bold and shaded gray exceed the screening level Building 6 Building 7 B6-IA06-IA032521 B6-IA08-IA032521 B6-OA01-OA032521 B7-IA02-IA032521 B7-IA05-IA032521 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 0.29 J 0.098 J 0.64 0.025 J 0.042 J 26 2.4 0.66 0.027 J 0.18 U 2.2 U 0.09 J 0.55 0.024 J 0.16 U 2.2 U 2.3 4.7 0.02 J 0.13 J 2.1 U 0.18 J 0.41 0.026 J 0.081 J #N/A 22000 180 347 Tetrachloroethene Tetrahydrofuran Toluene trans-1,2-Dichloroethene Trichloroethene Table 3 Source Area OU1 Indoor Air Analytical Results Location Sample ID Analytical Method Sample Date Industrial / Commercial Screening Level for Soil Gas (µg/m3) TO15 TO15SIM TO15 TO15SIM TO15 TO15SIM TO15 TO15SIM TO15 TO15SIM Notes Results are in µg/m3 Industrial / Commercial Screening Levels for Indoor Air from EPA Regional Screening Levels updated May 2021. U = not detected above reporting limit J = result is estimated. Results in bold are detected over the reporting limit Results in bold and shaded gray exceed the screening level Building 6 Building 7 B6-IA06-IA032521 B6-IA08-IA032521 B6-OA01-OA032521 B7-IA02-IA032521 B7-IA05-IA032521 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 3/25/2021 1.2 1.3 J 1.4 J 1.2 1.2 NA Trichlorofluoromethane Appendix A Field Forms Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah DATE: 3/22/2021 Prepared by: Ben Carreon Personnel on site, including Contractors: CDM Smith – Ben Carreon, Maria Day, Tea Vrtlar, Emma Rott, Iona Campbell, Whitney Treadway Wasatch – Kevin Murphy, Kiel Keller Visitors/Others: VA – Wynn John Weather Temperature Wind Humidity Sunny Partly Cloudy Overcast Rain Snow 85+ º F 70 to 85º F 50 to 70 º F 32 to 50 º F 0 To 32 º F Still Moderate High Dry Moderate Humid Equipment in Use (field instruments, subcontractor equip, etc.) • Low-flow groundwater sampling equipment • Soil gas/vapor sampling equipment Description of Field Activities – including samples/data collected, etc: • A H&S tailgate was conducted at the IDW yard area. • Equipment was calibrated. • Groundwater Sampling o Groundwater samples collected: ▪ MW-01S (MW01S-GW032221) • For the following parameters: o VOCs ▪ MW-01D (MW01D-GW032221) • For the following parameters: o VOCs ▪ MW-04 (MW04-GW032221, FD01-GW032221) • For the following parameters: o VOCs ▪ MW-06 (MW06-GW032221) • For the following parameters: o VOCs ▪ MW-13S (MW13S-GW032221) • For the following parameters: o VOCs ▪ MW-13L (MW13L-GW032221, FD04-GW032221) • For the following parameters: o VOCs o Geochemistry ▪ Metals ▪ Dissolved gases ▪ Sulfate, chloride ▪ Nitrate + nitrite (total N) ▪ TOC ▪ Alkalinity o 1,4-Dioxane o The following samples were shipped to EMAX: Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah ▪ Collected 3/18/21 • MW31A-GW031821 • MW31B-GW031821 • MW31C-GW031821 ▪ Collected 3/19/21 • MW17S-GW031921 • MW17D-GW031921 • MW20S-GW031921 • MW20D-GW031921 • MW29A-GW031921 • MW29B-GW031921 • MW29C-GW031921 • MW34A-GW031921 • MW34B-GW031921 • MW34C-GW031921 • MW34D-GW031921 ▪ Collected 3/21/21 • MW03RA-GW032121 • MW03RB-GW032121 • MW03RC-GW032121 • MW03RD-GW032121 • MW13D-GW032121 • FD03-GW032121 • MW18-GW032121 • MW19-GW032121 • MW22-GW032121 • MW24-GW032121 • MW25A-GW032121 • MW25B-GW032121 • MW25C-GW032121 • MW28-GW032121 ▪ Collected 3/22/21 • MW01S-GW032221 • MW01D-GW032221 • MW04-GW032221 • FD01-GW032221) • MW06-GW032221 • MW13S-GW032221 • MW13L-GW032221 • FD04-GW032221 o MW-24 pump was redeployed with a new cable. o Calibration gasses were inventoried and empty and/or expired calibration gasses will be properly disposed. o Most of the groundwater sampling equipment was returned to Field Environmental. • Soil Gas Sampling o Collected the following samples: ▪ MW27-SG032221-28 ▪ SG60-SG032221 ▪ MW27-SG032221-113 ▪ SG3-SG032221 o Shipped all four soil gas samples above to Eurofins Air Toxics for TO-15 analysis. o Reviewed indoor/outdoor air sampling locations for Buildings 6 and 7 with VA. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Issues/Problems Encountered/Deficiencies/Deviations from QAPP (and resolutions): • Salt Lake County has a mandatory mask mandate in effect since Saturday, June 27. Masks are required in public. • The pump at MW-02 was not functioning. The pump was cleaned and parts were replaced (o-rings, check balls, intake screen), but the pump remained nonfunctional. A non-dedicated QED sample pro pump will be used to attempt a sample on 3/23/21. A rinsate blank will be collected and submitted if a successful sample is collected using this pump. The issues encountered at this pump were consistent with some of the past issues (including MW-05R). The pitting and corrosion occurring within the pump internals is the presumed issue for pump problems, but Solinst will be contacted for further troubleshooting. • Three depths at MW-27 (46 ft, 75 ft, and 155 ft) were too tight to properly purge or collect a soil gas sample. Two depths (28 ft and 113 ft) at this location were successfully purged and sampled. Projected Work – Near Term: • Finish groundwater sampling 3/22/21. • Ship the remaining groundwater samples and return all groundwater sampling rental field equipment. • Continue soil gas/indoor air sampling 3/23/21 to 3/26/21. Other Activities/Remarks: • None. Photos: Date: 3/22/2021 Location: MW-13L Description: Equipment setup Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 3/22/2021 Location: MW-02 Description: Pump bladder in good condition Date: 3/22/2021 Location: MW-02 Description: Pump internals with significant staining and corrosion Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 3/22/2021 Location: MW-02 Description: Pump intake screen Date: 3/22/2021 Location: MW-02 Description: Pump internals Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 3/22/2021 Location: MW-27-113' Description: Tightening soil gas tubing to summa canister prior to starting the collection. Date: 3/22/2021 Location: SG-03 Description: Soil gas probe sample collection. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 3/22/2021 Location: MW-27-75' Description: Attempting to purge soil gas probe tubing with air pump. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah DATE: 3/23/2021 Prepared by: Ben Carreon Personnel on site, including Contractors: CDM Smith – Ben Carreon, Maria Day, Tea Vrtlar, Emma Rott, Iona Campbell, Whitney Treadway Wasatch – Kevin Murphy, Kiel Keller Visitors/Others: VA – Wynn John Weather Temperature Wind Humidity Sunny Partly Cloudy Overcast Rain Snow 85+ º F 70 to 85º F 50 to 70 º F 32 to 50 º F 0 To 32 º F Still Moderate High Dry Moderate Humid Equipment in Use (field instruments, subcontractor equip, etc.) • Low-flow groundwater sampling equipment • Soil gas/vapor sampling equipment Description of Field Activities – including samples/data collected, etc: • A H&S tailgate was conducted at the IDW yard area. • Equipment was calibrated. • Groundwater Sampling completed. o Groundwater samples collected: ▪ MW-02 (MW02-GW032321) • For the following parameters: o VOCs ▪ An equipment blank (EB01-GW032321) was collected from the nondedicated pump at MW-02 • For the following parameters: o VOCs o The following samples were shipped to EMAX: ▪ FB01-GW032221 • Field blank collected at MW-13L for the following parameters: o VOCs o 1,4-dioxane ▪ EB01-GW032321 ▪ MW02-GW032321 o The remainder of the groundwater sampling equipment was returned to Field Environmental. o A j-plug was added to MW-05R since the malfunctioning pump was pulled and a protective housing was no longer in place. o Organization in the conex buildings and around the IDW yard was performed. • Soil Gas Sampling o Collected the following samples: ▪ SG10-SG032321 ▪ SG08-SG032321 ▪ SG13-SG032321 ▪ FD01-SG032321 ▪ MW28-SG032321-24 ▪ MW28-SG032321-48 ▪ MW28-SG032321-118 ▪ SG11-SG032321 Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah ▪ SG50-SG032321 ▪ SG55-SG032321 ▪ SG04-SG032321 ▪ SG05-SG032321 ▪ SG06-SG032321 ▪ MW23-SG032321-135 o Shipped all 14 soil gas samples to Eurofins Air Toxics for TO-15 analysis. Issues/Problems Encountered/Deficiencies/Deviations from QAPP (and resolutions): • Salt Lake County has a mandatory mask mandate in effect since Saturday, June 27. Masks are required in public. • The three depths at MW-27 (46 ft, 75 ft, and 155 ft) which were too tight to properly purge or sample were troubleshooted. Troubleshooting consisted of applying pressure through a nitrogen cylinder, r egulator, pneumatic hose, and a Swagelok fitted airline. Pressure was applied at approximately 1 PSI per foot of the SG probe length or 50 psi, 75 psi, and 150 psi, respectively. The SG locations were pressurized for five minutes at which point the tank valve was closed. The regulator pressure was monitored for loss in pressure. The 46 and 75 ft probes bled pressure at approximately 10 and 5 psi per minute, respectively. The 155 ft probe did not drop any pressure over a minute after the tank valve was closed. None of the three locations resulted in any change in tank pressure over the duration of the 5-minute injection tests. Attempts were then made to purge the SG locations with the vacuum pump, which were unsuccessful. Based on observations from injection testing and vacuum pump purging, blockage in these three lines is apparent. • A breaker for the conex was tripped and reset from charging a PID and running lights. Projected Work – Near Term: • Continue soil gas/indoor air sampling 3/24/21 to 3/26/21. • The groundwater sampling team with demobilize 3/24/2021. Other Activities/Remarks: • None. Photos: Date: 3/23/2021 Location: MW-02 Description: QED sample pro Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 3/23/2021 Location: MW-05R Description: J-plug at MW-05R Date: 3/23/2021 Location: SG-10 Description: Soil gas parent and duplicate sample collection with t-bar. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 3/23/2021 Location: SG-55 Description: Purging soil gas probe with hand pump. Calculated volume of soil gas inside the tubing and purged three times that volume. Date: 3/23/2021 Location: MW-23 Description: Collecting soil gas sample at 1- inch PVC probe with a screened interval of 130 to 140 ft bgs. Casing was sealed at the surface with ¼-inch tubing extending down into the casing approximately 8 feet. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah DATE: 3/24/2021 Prepared by: Whitney Personnel on site, including Contractors: CDM Smith – Whitney Treadway Wasatch – Kevin Murphy, Kiel Keller Visitors/Others: VA – Wynn John Weather Temperature Wind Humidity Sunny Partly Cloudy Overcast Rain Snow 85+ º F 70 to 85º F 50 to 70 º F 32 to 50 º F 0 To 32 º F Still Moderate High Dry Moderate Humid Equipment in Use (field instruments, subcontractor equip, etc.) • Soil gas/vapor sampling equipment Description of Field Activities – including samples/data collected, etc: • A H&S tailgate was conducted at the IDW yard area. • Soil Gas Sampling o Collected the following samples: ▪ VP13-SG032421 ▪ FD-SG032421 ▪ VP08-SG032421 ▪ VP06-SG032421 ▪ VP19-SG032421 ▪ MW25-SG032421-28 ▪ MW25-SG032421-100 ▪ VP12-SG032421 ▪ VP10-SG032421 ▪ VP11-SG032421 ▪ VP09-SG032421 ▪ VP15-SG032421 ▪ VP17-SG032421 ▪ VP14-SG032421 ▪ VP04-SG032421 ▪ FD03-SG032421 ▪ VP02-SG032421 ▪ SG49-SG032421 o Started the following 24-hour indoor and outdoor air samples: ▪ B7-IA05-IA032521 ▪ B7-IA02-IA032521 ▪ B6-IA06-IA032521 ▪ FD01-IA032521 ▪ B6-IA08-IA032521 ▪ B6-OA01-0A1032521 o Shipped 16 of the 18 soil gas samples to Eurofins Air Toxics for TO-15 analysis. ▪ VP13-SG032421 ▪ FD-SG032421 ▪ VP08-SG032421 Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah ▪ VP06-SG032421 ▪ VP19-SG032421 ▪ MW25-SG032421-28 ▪ VP12-SG032421 ▪ VP10-SG032421 ▪ VP11-SG032421 ▪ VP09-SG032421 ▪ VP15-SG032421 ▪ VP17-SG032421 ▪ VP14-SG032421 ▪ VP04-SG032421 ▪ VP02-SG032421 ▪ SG49-SG032421 Issues/Problems Encountered/Deficiencies/Deviations from QAPP (and resolutions): • Salt Lake County has a mandatory mask mandate in effect since Saturday, June 27. Masks are required in public. • One vapor pin, VP-16, is currently under water in the basement of Building 6. It is expected that this is due to the construction work going on directly above that area and likely will be under water through the end of the week. The team will check each day to confirm conditions at this location. Projected Work – Near Term: • Continue soil gas/indoor air sampling 3/25/21 to 3/26/21. Other Activities/Remarks: • None. Photos: Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 3/24/2021 Location: B6-IA08-IA032421 Description: Indoor air sampling locations in basement of building 6 Date: 3/24/2021 Location: VP-13 Description: Leak checking vapor pin with distilled water around the pin and hand pump to evacuate the vapor pin. No water loss observed. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 3/24/2021 Location: VP-06 Description: Vapor pin sampling set-up in building 6. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah DATE: 3/25/2021 Prepared by: Whitney Treadway Personnel on site, including Contractors: CDM Smith – Whitney Treadway Wasatch – Kevin Murphy, Kiel Keller Visitors/Others: Weather Temperature Wind Humidity Sunny Partly Cloudy Overcast Rain Snow 85+ º F 70 to 85º F 50 to 70 º F 32 to 50 º F 0 To 32 º F Still Moderate High Dry Moderate Humid Equipment in Use (field instruments, subcontractor equip, etc.) • Soil gas/vapor sampling equipment Description of Field Activities – including samples/data collected, etc: • A H&S tailgate was conducted at the IDW yard area. • Soil Gas Sampling o Collected the following samples: ▪ SB42-SG032521-7 ▪ SB42-SG032521-13 ▪ SB42-SG032521-17 ▪ SB42-SG032521-26 ▪ SB43-SG032521-8 ▪ SB43-SG032521-15 ▪ MW29-SG032521-42 ▪ MW29-SG032521-66 ▪ MW29-SG032521-98 ▪ MW24-SG032521-60 ▪ MW24-SG032521-104 ▪ MW24-SG032521-130 ▪ FD04-SG032521 o Stopped and collected the following 24-hour indoor and outdoor air samples: ▪ B7-IA05-IA032521 ▪ B7-IA02-IA032521 ▪ B6-IA06-IA032521 ▪ FD01-IA032521 ▪ B6-IA08-IA032521 ▪ B6-OA01-0A1032521 o Shipped 12 of the 13 soil gas samples collected Thursday, 2 soil gas samples collected on Wednesday, and 6 indoor/outdoor air samples to Eurofins Air Toxics for TO-15 analysis. ▪ SB42-SG032521-7 ▪ SB42-SG032521-13 ▪ SB42-SG032521-17 ▪ SB42-SG032521-26 ▪ SB43-SG032521-8 ▪ SB43-SG032521-15 Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah ▪ MW29-SG032521-42 ▪ MW29-SG032521-66 ▪ MW29-SG032521-98 ▪ MW24-SG032521-104 ▪ MW24-SG032521-130 ▪ FD04-SG032521 ▪ B7-IA05-IA032521 ▪ B7-IA02-IA032521 ▪ B6-IA06-IA032521 ▪ FD01-IA032521 ▪ B6-IA08-IA032521 ▪ B6-OA01-0A1032521 ▪ FD03-032421 ▪ MW25-SG032421-100 Issues/Problems Encountered/Deficiencies/Deviations from QAPP (and resolutions): • Salt Lake County has a mandatory mask mandate in effect since Saturday, June 27. Masks are required in public. • One vapor pin, VP-16, is currently under water in the basement of Building 6. It is expected that this is due to the construction work going on directly above that area and likely will be under water through the end of the week. It was checked on Thursday and it is still underwater. • Labels on SB-42 and SB-43 were unclearly labelled with strips of duct tape. New, clear, permanent labels were added to all the probes in each of these locations. New, permanent labels were also added to the 3 probes in MW-29. Projected Work – Near Term: • Continue soil gas/indoor air sampling 3/26/21. • Demobilize from site on 3/26/21. Other Activities/Remarks: • None. Photos: Date: 3/25/2021 Location: SB-42 Description: soil gas sample and duplicate collection Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 3/25/2021 Location: SG-43 Description: New, clear, permanent labels added to SB-43 after sampling Date: 3/25/2021 Location: MW-24 Description: Soil gas sample collection at soil gas probe in MW-24. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah DATE: 3/26/2021 Prepared by: Whitney Treadway Personnel on site, including Contractors: CDM Smith – Whitney Treadway Wasatch – Kiel Keller Visitors/Others: Weather Temperature Wind Humidity Sunny Partly Cloudy Overcast Rain Snow 85+ º F 70 to 85º F 50 to 70 º F 32 to 50 º F 0 To 32 º F Still Moderate High Dry Moderate Humid Equipment in Use (field instruments, subcontractor equip, etc.) • Soil gas/vapor sampling equipment Description of Field Activities – including samples/data collected, etc: • A H&S tailgate was conducted at the IDW yard area. • Soil Gas Sampling o Collected the following samples: ▪ MW24-SG032621-32 ▪ FD05-SG032621 ▪ MW34-SG032621 ▪ MW32-SG032621 ▪ MW37-SG032621 ▪ MW38-SG032621 o Shipped all 7 samples to Eurofins Air Toxics for TO-15 analysis (6 from Friday and 1 from Thursday). ▪ MW24-SG032621-32 ▪ FD05-SG032621 ▪ MW34-SG032621 ▪ MW32-SG032621 ▪ MW37-SG032621 ▪ MW38-SG032621 ▪ MW24-SG032521-60 • Shipped 5 boxes of empty canisters back to lab. • Shipped PID back to Field Environmental. • Demobilized from site. Issues/Problems Encountered/Deficiencies/Deviations from QAPP (and resolutions): • Salt Lake County has a mandatory mask mandate in effect since Saturday, June 27. Masks are required in public. Projected Work – Near Term: • Piezometer replacement drilling beginning next week. Other Activities/Remarks: • None. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Photos: Date: 3/26/2021 Location: MW-24 Description: parent and duplicate sample collection at 32 ft probe Date: 3/26/2021 Location: MW-37 Description: Starting 30-minute sample collection – initial vacuum Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 3/26/2021 Location: MW-32 Description: Soil gas sample collection at soil gas probe at 18 ft depth Appendix B Quality Control Summary Report                 Quality Control Summary Report Q1 2021 Air Sampling Event  Operable Unit 1 Remedial Investigation   700 South 1600 East PCE Plume,   Salt Lake City, Utah  June 2021        i  Table of Contents   Section 1 Data Usability and Assessment Review .............................................................. 1‐1  1.1 Usability Summary ................................................................................................................................................... 1-1  Section 2 Quality Assurance Objectives ............................................................................. 2‐1  Section 3 Field and Laboratory Quality Assurance Activities .............................................. 3‐1  3.1 Deviations from Field Procedures/Laboratory Methods ........................................................................ 3-1  3.2 Field Quality Assurance/Quality Control ....................................................................................................... 3-1  3.3 Laboratory Quality Assurance/Quality Control .......................................................................................... 3-2  3.3.1 Laboratory Methods .................................................................................................................................. 3-2  Section 4 Data Validation Procedures ................................................................................ 4‐1  Section 5 Data Quality Indicators ....................................................................................... 5‐1  5.1 Precision ....................................................................................................................................................................... 5-1  5.2 Accuracy ....................................................................................................................................................................... 5-2  5.2.1 Percent Recovery ........................................................................................................................................ 5-2  5.2.2 Blank Contamination ................................................................................................................................. 5-3  5.3 Representativeness .................................................................................................................................................. 5-4  5.4 Comparability ............................................................................................................................................................. 5-5  5.5 Completeness ............................................................................................................................................................. 5-5  5.6 Sensitivity ..................................................................................................................................................................... 5-6  Section 6 Data Usability Assessment ................................................................................. 6‐1  Section 7 References ......................................................................................................... 7‐1  List of Tables  Table 3-1 Sample List and Analyses Table 4-1 Qualification Summary Table 5-1 DQIs and Corresponding QC Parameters  Table 5-2 Summary of Field Duplicate Sampling Results  Attachments  Attachment 1 Data Validation Reports  Attachment 2 Data Package Completeness Review Checklists  Attachment 3 Analytical Data Packages    i  Acronyms  % percent %D percent difference %R percent recovery CDM Smith CDM Federal Programs Corporation COC chain-of-custody DQI data quality indicator DQO data quality objective EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ft feet LCS laboratory control sample LCSD laboratory control sample duplicate Eurofins Eurofins Air Toxics Laboratory MDL method detection limit MRL method reporting limit PARCCS precision, accuracy, representativeness, comparability, completeness, and sensitivity PCE tetrachloroethene QA quality assurance QAPP quality assurance project plan QC quality control QCSR quality control summary report RIWP Remedial Investigation Work Plan RPD relative percent difference RSD relative standard deviation SDG sample delivery group SIM selective ion monitoring Site 700 South 1600 East Tetrachloroethene Plume Superfund Site SM standard method USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers VOC volatile organic compound 1-1 Section 1 Data Usability and Assessment Review Under the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Kansas City District, Contract No. W912DQ-18- D-3008, Task Order No. W912DQ19F3048, CDM Federal Programs Corporation (CDM Smith) was directed to perform a remedial investigation for Operable Unit 1 of the 700 South 1600 East Tetrachloroethene (PCE) Plume Superfund Site (Site) in Salt Lake City, Utah. To assist in the ongoing remedial investigation at the Site, indoor air and soil gas samples were collected March 22, 2021 to March 26, 2021. Samples were shipped to Eurofins Air Toxics (Eurofins) in Folsom, California, for analysis. The purpose of this quality control summary report (QCSR) is to summarize the data validation and to determine whether the sample results meet the data quality objective (DQO) of the data usability outlined in the Phase 2 Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP), Operable Unit 1, 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah, Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Kansas City District (CDM Smith 2020a). 1.1 Usability Summary Data collected and validated during this field investigation are usable as reported. Applicable data validation qualifiers were added if required. No sample results were rejected. Specific details are provided in the data validation reports summarized in Section 5 and presented in Attachment 1 of this report. 2-1 Section 2 Quality Assurance Objectives Quality assurance (QA) objectives for measurement data are expressed in terms of precision, accuracy, representativeness, comparability, completeness, and sensitivity (PARCCS). The PARCCS parameters characterize the quality of the data and as such are called data quality indicators (DQIs). The DQIs provide a mechanism for ongoing quality control (QC) and evaluating and measuring data quality throughout the project. A review of the collected data is necessary to determine if data measurement objectives established in the QAPP (CDM Smith 2020a) were met. In general, the following data measurement objectives were considered: ▪ Achievement of analytical method and reporting limit requirements ▪ Adherence to and achievement of appropriate laboratory analytical and field QC requirements ▪ Achievement of required measurement performance criteria for DQIs (the PARCCS parameters) ▪ Adherence to sampling and sample handling procedures ▪ Adherence to the sampling design and deviations documented on field change notifications, if required The data validation review of the DQIs and other QA objectives determines if the data are of sufficient quality to support their intended use. 3-1 Section 3 Field and Laboratory Quality Assurance Activities CDM Smith completed field sampling activities between March 22 and March 26, 2021. All samples were received intact with proper chain-of-custody (COC) documentation at Eurofins. Sample identification was accurately documented by the laboratory. Table 3-1 presents a list of the samples collected and the analyses performed. Attachment 2 presents the completeness review checklists of the data packages. Attachment 3 includes the analytical data packages. Sample preparation and analyses were conducted within the method-specified holding times. The QAPP (CDM Smith 2020a) defined the procedures to be followed and the data quality requirements for the field sampling events and associated analytical work. 3.1 Deviations from Field Procedures/Laboratory Procedures As discussed in the Data Summary Report, the following deviations were encountered during the sampling events: ▪ During the March 2021 event, sample collection was unsuccessful at four of the proposed sampling locations/depths: MW-27 at depths 48 feet (ft), 75 ft, and 155 ft, and VP-16. At the MW-27 depths, purging of the probes was attempted, but probes and/ or the tubing were plugged or the formation at the screened interval was too tight and air flow could not be initiated with a vacuum pump. ▪ VP-16, located in the basement of Building 6, was covered with water during the event, likely due to construction directly above, and could not be accessed for sampling. The remaining locations available for soil sampling are adequate for evaluation of the extent of subsurface volatile organic compound (VOC) impacts at the site to meet data quality objectives described in the Phase 2 OU1 RI Work Plan (CDM Smith 2020b). ▪ Samples MW27-SG032221-28, MW27-SG032221-113, and FD03-SG032421 were not able to be analyzed by the selective ion monitoring (SIM) low level analysis because of high levels of target compounds. Samples were analyzed by Modified Method TO-15. These deviations do not impact the DQOs. 3.2 Field Quality Assurance/Quality Control Six field duplicate pairs were analyzed for the 51 environmental air samples collected. The QC sample collection frequency requirements in the QAPP (CDM Smith 2020a) of 10 percent for field duplicates was met and exceeded. Section 3 • Field and Laboratory Quality Assurance Activities 3-2 Field QA/QC objectives were accomplished through the use of appropriate sampling techniques and collection of the required QC samples at the required frequencies. 3.3 Laboratory Quality Assurance/Quality Control Analytical QA/QC was assessed by laboratory QC checks, method blanks, sample custody tracking, sample preservation, adherence to holding times, laboratory control samples (LCSs), calibration verifications, surrogates, internal standards, duplicate results, and other applicable QC parameters. As presented in the data validation reports in Attachment 1 of this report, the laboratory QC samples met project criteria requirements with the appropriate qualifiers applied. All data are considered usable. 3.3.1 Laboratory Methods Samples were analyzed using the following U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or Standard Methods (SM): ▪ EPA Modified Method TO-15 –VOCs ▪ EPA Method TO-15 SIM - VOCs by SIM The methods used met project objectives. Table 3‐1 Sample List and Analysis 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Site Salt Lake City, Utah Field Sample ID Matrix Date Sampled Laboratory SDG Method B6‐OA01‐OA032521 AA 3/25/2021 2103816 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM B7‐IA05‐IA032521 AI 3/25/2021 2103813 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM B7‐IA02‐IA032521 AI 3/25/2021 2103813 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM B6‐IA06‐IA032521 AI 3/25/2021 2103813 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM FD01‐IA032521 AI 3/25/2021 2103813 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM B6‐IA08‐IA032521 AI 3/25/2021 2103816 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM MW27‐SG032221‐113 GS 3/22/2021 2103701 TO15 MW27‐SG032221‐28 GS 3/22/2021 2103701 TO15 SG03‐SG032221 GS 3/22/2021 2103701 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM SG60‐SG032221 GS 3/22/2021 2103701 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM FD01‐SG032321 GS 3/23/2021 2103703 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM MW23‐SG032321‐135 GS 3/23/2021 2103700 TO15 MW28‐SG032321‐118 GS 3/23/2021 2103702 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM MW28‐SG032321‐24 GS 3/23/2021 2103702 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM MW28‐SG032321‐48 GS 3/23/2021 2103702 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM SG04‐SG032321 GS 3/23/2021 2103725 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM SG05‐SG032321 GS 3/23/2021 2103725 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM SG06‐SG032321 GS 3/23/2021 2103725 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM SG08‐SG032321 GS 3/23/2021 2103703 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM SG10‐SG032321 GS 3/23/2021 2103703 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM SG11‐SG032321 GS 3/23/2021 2103702 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM SG13‐SG032321 GS 3/23/2021 2103703 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM SG50‐SG032321 GS 3/23/2021 2103725 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM SG55‐SG032321 GS 3/23/2021 2103700 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM FD02‐SG032421 GS 3/24/2021 2103752 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM MW25‐SG032421‐28 GS 3/24/2021 2103753 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM SG49‐SG032421 GS 3/24/2021 2103753 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM VP02‐SG032421 GS 3/24/2021 2103753 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM VP04‐SG032421 GS 3/24/2021 2103751 TO15 VP06‐SG032421 GS 3/24/2021 2103753 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM VP08‐SG032421 GS 3/24/2021 2103752 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM VP09‐SG032421 GS 3/24/2021 2103754R1 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM VP10‐SG032421 GS 3/24/2021 2103754R1 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM VP11‐SG032421 GS 3/24/2021 2103754R1 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM VP12‐SG032421 GS 3/24/2021 2103754R1 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM VP13‐SG032421 GS 3/24/2021 2103752 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM VP14‐SG032421 GS 3/24/2021 2103751 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM VP15‐SG032421 GS 3/24/2021 2103751 TO15 VP17‐SG032421 GS 3/24/2021 2103751 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM VP19‐SG032421 GS 3/24/2021 2103752 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM FD03‐SG032421 GS 3/24/2021 2103816 TO15 MW25‐SG032421‐100 GS 3/24/2021 2103816 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM FD04‐SG032521 GS 3/25/2021 2103815 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM MW24‐SG032521‐104 GS 3/25/2021 2103817 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM MW24‐SG032521‐130 GS 3/25/2021 2103817 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM MW24‐SG032521‐60 GS 3/25/2021 2103818 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM MW29‐SG032521‐42 GS 3/25/2021 2103814 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM MW29‐SG032521‐66 GS 3/25/2021 2103815 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM MW29‐SG032521‐98 GS 3/25/2021 2103817 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM SB42‐SG032521‐13 GS 3/25/2021 2103815 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM SB42‐SG032521‐17 GS 3/25/2021 2103815 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM SB42‐SG032521‐26 GS 3/25/2021 2103814 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM SB42‐SG032521‐7 GS 3/25/2021 2103817 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM SB43‐SG032521‐15 GS 3/25/2021 2103814 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM Page 1 of 2 Table 3‐1 Sample List and Analysis 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Site Salt Lake City, Utah Field Sample ID Matrix Date Sampled Laboratory SDG Method SB43‐SG032521‐8 GS 3/25/2021 2103814 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM FD05‐SG032621 GS 3/26/2021 2103818 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM MW24‐SG032621‐32 GS 3/26/2021 2103818 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM Acronyms: AA ‐ ambient air AI ‐ indoor air EPA ‐ United States Environmental Protection Agency GS ‐ soil gas ID ‐ identification SDG ‐ sample delivery group TO‐15 ‐ Modified EPA Method TO‐15 for volatile organic compounds TO‐15 SIM ‐ Modified EPA Method TO‐15 for volatile organic compounds by selective ion monitoring (SIM) Page 2 of 2 4-1 Section 4 Data Validation Procedures For this QCSR, there were 15 laboratory sample delivery groups (SDGs) evaluated. Qualified CDM Smith data validators not associated with project sampling activities validated the data reported in the 15 SDGs. Data validation was performed in accordance with specified analytical methods and performance criteria outlined in the QAPP (CDM Smith 2020a), EPA’s National Functional Guidelines for Organic Superfund Methods Data Review (EPA 2017), and EPA’s Analysis of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) in Air Contained in Canisters by Method TO-15 (EPA 2014). Validation reports were prepared and are presented in Attachment 1. The following SDG data packages were validated: ▪ SDG 2103700 ▪ SDG 2103701 ▪ SDG 2103702 ▪ SDG 2103703 ▪ SDG 2103725 ▪ SDG 2103751 ▪ SDG 2103752 ▪ SDG 2103753 ▪ SDG 2103754 ▪ SDG 2103813 ▪ SDG 2103814 ▪ SDG 2103815 ▪ SDG 2103816 ▪ SDG 2103817 ▪ SDG 2103818 (MW24-SG032521-60, MW24-SG032621-32, FD05-SG032621 only) Table 4-1 presents the results that were qualified and the reasons for the qualifications. Qualifiers applied are defined as follows: ▪ J → Result is an estimated quantity. The associated numerical value is the approximate concentration of the analyte in the sample. Section 4 • Data Validation Procedures 4-2 ▪ U → Analyte was analyzed for but was not detected above the level of the sample method reporting limit (MRL). ▪ UJ → Analyte was analyzed for but was not detected above the level of the sample MRL. The MRL is approximate. Table 4‐1 Qualification Summary 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Site Salt Lake City, Utah Field Sample ID Lab SDG Method Analyte CAS # Final  Result Unit Validation  Qualifier Interpreted  Qualifier Qualifier  Reason B6‐IA06‐IA032521 2103813 TO15 Allyl Chloride 107‐05‐12.3 µg/m3 UJ UJ ICV B6‐IA06‐IA032521 2103813 TO15 4‐Methyl‐2‐Pentanone (MIBK) 108‐10‐10.61 µg/m3 U‐RL U LB B6‐IA06‐IA032521 2103813 TO15 Methylene Chloride 75‐09‐21µg/m3 U‐RL U LB B6‐IA06‐IA032521 2103813 TO15 Isopropylbenzene 98‐82‐80.73µg/m3 U‐RL U LB B6‐IA08‐IA032521 2103816 TO15SIM 1,2‐Dichloroethane 107‐06‐20.13 µg/m3 U‐RL U LB B6‐IA08‐IA032521 2103816 TO15 Trichlorofluoromethane 75‐69‐41.3µg/m3 JJICV B6‐IA08‐IA032521 2103816 TO15SIM Trichloroethene 79‐01‐60.18µg/m3 U‐RL U LB B6‐OA01‐OA032521 2103816 TO15SIM 1,2‐Dichloroethane 107‐06‐20.12 µg/m3 U‐RL U LB B6‐OA01‐OA032521 2103816 TO15 Trichlorofluoromethane 75‐69‐41.4µg/m3 JJICV B6‐OA01‐OA032521 2103816 TO15SIM Trichloroethene 79‐01‐60.16µg/m3 U‐RL U LB B7‐IA02‐IA032521 2103813 TO15 Allyl Chloride 107‐05‐12.4 µg/m3 UJ UJ ICV B7‐IA02‐IA032521 2103813 TO15 4‐Methyl‐2‐Pentanone (MIBK) 108‐10‐10.62 µg/m3 U‐RL U LB B7‐IA05‐IA032521 2103813 TO15 Allyl Chloride 107‐05‐12.3 µg/m3 UJ UJ ICV B7‐IA05‐IA032521 2103813 TO15 Methylene Chloride 75‐09‐21µg/m3 U‐RL U LB FD01‐IA032521 2103813 TO15 Allyl Chloride 107‐05‐12.4 µg/m3 UJ UJ ICV FD01‐SG032321 2103703 TO15 Allyl Chloride 107‐05‐12.2 µg/m3 UJ UJ ICV FD02‐SG032421 2103752 TO15 Trichlorofluoromethane 75‐69‐42µg/m3 JJICV FD03‐SG032421 2103816 TO15 Trichlorofluoromethane 75‐69‐432µg/m3 JJICV FD04‐SG032521 2103815 TO15 Trichlorofluoromethane 75‐69‐42µg/m3 JJICV FD05‐SG032621 2103818 TO15 Trichlorofluoromethane 75‐69‐418µg/m3 JJICV FD05‐SG032621 2103818 TO15SIM Trichloroethene 79‐01‐61.6µg/m3 U‐RL U LB MW23‐SG032321‐135 2103700 TO15 Allyl Chloride 107‐05‐194 µg/m3 UJ UJ ICV MW23‐SG032321‐135 2103700 TO15 Acetone 67‐64‐1 180 µg/m3 U‐RL U LB MW24‐SG032521‐104 2103817 TO15 Trichlorofluoromethane 75‐69‐441µg/m3 JJICV MW24‐SG032521‐130 2103817 TO15 Trichlorofluoromethane 75‐69‐424µg/m3 JJICV MW24‐SG032521‐130 2103817 TO15SIM Trichloroethene 79‐01‐60.75µg/m3 U‐RL U LB MW24‐SG032521‐60 2103818 TO15 Trichlorofluoromethane 75‐69‐420µg/m3 JJICV MW24‐SG032621‐32 2103818 TO15 Trichlorofluoromethane 75‐69‐418µg/m3 JJICV MW24‐SG032621‐32 2103818 TO15SIM Trichloroethene 79‐01‐61.5µg/m3 U‐RL U LB MW25‐SG032421‐100 2103816 TO15 Trichlorofluoromethane 75‐69‐4 170 µg/m3 JJICV MW25‐SG032421‐28 2103753 TO15 Allyl Chloride 107‐05‐14.7 µg/m3 UJ UJ LCS, ICV MW27‐SG032221‐113 2103701 TO15 Allyl Chloride 107‐05‐192 µg/m3 UJ UJ ICV Page 1 of 4 Table 4‐1 Qualification Summary 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Site Salt Lake City, Utah Field Sample ID Lab SDG Method Analyte CAS # Final  Result Unit Validation  Qualifier Interpreted  Qualifier Qualifier  Reason MW27‐SG032221‐113 2103701 TO15 Acetone 67‐64‐1 170 µg/m3 U‐RL U LB MW27‐SG032221‐28 2103701 TO15 Allyl Chloride 107‐05‐195 µg/m3 UJ UJ ICV MW27‐SG032221‐28 2103701 TO15 1,2,4‐Trichlorobenzene 120‐82‐1 220 µg/m3 UJ UJ CCV MW28‐SG032321‐118 2103702 TO15 Allyl Chloride 107‐05‐126 µg/m3 UJ UJ ICV MW28‐SG032321‐24 2103702 TO15 Allyl Chloride 107‐05‐122 µg/m3 UJ UJ ICV MW28‐SG032321‐24 2103702 TO15 Acetone 67‐64‐133µg/m3 U‐RL U LB MW28‐SG032321‐24 2103702 TO15SIM 1,1,1‐Trichloroethane 71‐55‐61.5µg/m3 U‐RL U LB MW28‐SG032321‐48 2103702 TO15 Allyl Chloride 107‐05‐122 µg/m3 UJ UJ ICV MW29‐SG032521‐42 2103814 TO15 Trichlorofluoromethane 75‐69‐44.7µg/m3 JJICV MW29‐SG032521‐66 2103815 TO15SIM 1,2‐Dichloroethane 107‐06‐20.26 µg/m3 U‐RL U LB MW29‐SG032521‐66 2103815 TO15 Trichlorofluoromethane 75‐69‐43.8µg/m3 JJICV MW29‐SG032521‐98 2103817 TO15 Trichlorofluoromethane 75‐69‐413µg/m3 JJICV SB42‐SG032521‐13 2103815 TO15 Trichlorofluoromethane 75‐69‐41.9µg/m3 JJICV SB42‐SG032521‐17 2103815 TO15 Trichlorofluoromethane 75‐69‐42µg/m3 JJICV SB42‐SG032521‐26 2103814 TO15 Trichlorofluoromethane 75‐69‐42.5µg/m3 JJICV SB42‐SG032521‐7 2103817 TO15 Trichlorofluoromethane 75‐69‐41.5µg/m3 JJICV SB43‐SG032521‐15 2103814 TO15 Trichlorofluoromethane 75‐69‐42.1µg/m3 JJICV SB43‐SG032521‐8 2103814 TO15 Trichlorofluoromethane 75‐69‐41.6µg/m3 JJICV SB43‐SG032521‐8 2103814 TO15SIM Trichloroethene 79‐01‐60.17µg/m3 U‐RL U LB SG03‐SG032221 2103701 TO15 Allyl Chloride 107‐05‐125 µg/m3 UJ UJ ICV SG03‐SG032221 2103701 TO15SIM 1,1,1‐Trichloroethane 71‐55‐61.7µg/m3 U‐RL U LB SG04‐SG032321 2103725 TO15 Allyl Chloride 107‐05‐15.6 µg/m3 UJ UJ ICV SG04‐SG032321 2103725 TO15 Acetone 67‐64‐18.5µg/m3 U‐RL U LB SG04‐SG032321 2103725 TO15SIM 1,1,1‐Trichloroethane 71‐55‐60.39µg/m3 U‐RL U LB SG05‐SG032321 2103725 TO15 Allyl Chloride 107‐05‐124 µg/m3 UJ UJ ICV SG05‐SG032321 2103725 TO15 Acetone 67‐64‐136µg/m3 U‐RL U LB SG05‐SG032321 2103725 TO15SIM 1,1,1‐Trichloroethane 71‐55‐61.7µg/m3 U‐RL U LB SG06‐SG032321 2103725 TO15 Allyl Chloride 107‐05‐123 µg/m3 UJ UJ ICV SG06‐SG032321 2103725 TO15 Acetone 67‐64‐135µg/m3 U‐RL U LB SG06‐SG032321 2103725 TO15SIM 1,1,1‐Trichloroethane 71‐55‐61.6µg/m3 U‐RL U LB SG08‐SG032321 2103703 TO15 Allyl Chloride 107‐05‐17.8 µg/m3 UJ UJ ICV SG08‐SG032321 2103703 TO15 Acetone 67‐64‐112µg/m3 U‐RL U LB Page 2 of 4 Table 4‐1 Qualification Summary 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Site Salt Lake City, Utah Field Sample ID Lab SDG Method Analyte CAS # Final  Result Unit Validation  Qualifier Interpreted  Qualifier Qualifier  Reason SG08‐SG032321 2103703 TO15SIM 1,1,1‐Trichloroethane 71‐55‐60.54µg/m3 U‐RL U LB SG10‐SG032321 2103703 TO15 Allyl Chloride 107‐05‐12.3 µg/m3 UJ UJ ICV SG10‐SG032321 2103703 TO15 Acetone 67‐64‐13.6µg/m3 U‐RL U LB SG11‐SG032321 2103702 TO15 Allyl Chloride 107‐05‐15.6 µg/m3 UJ UJ ICV SG11‐SG032321 2103702 TO15 Acetone 67‐64‐18.6µg/m3 U‐RL U LB SG11‐SG032321 2103702 TO15SIM 1,1,1‐Trichloroethane 71‐55‐60.39µg/m3 U‐RL U LB SG13‐SG032321 2103703 TO15 Allyl Chloride 107‐05‐12.4 µg/m3 UJ UJ ICV SG13‐SG032321 2103703 TO15SIM 1,1,1‐Trichloroethane 71‐55‐60.16µg/m3 U‐RL U LB SG49‐SG032421 2103753 TO15 Allyl Chloride 107‐05‐12.4 µg/m3 UJ UJ LCS, ICV SG49‐SG032421 2103753 TO15SIM 1,1,1‐Trichloroethane 71‐55‐60.16µg/m3 U‐RL U LB SG50‐SG032321 2103725 TO15 Allyl Chloride 107‐05‐13.8 µg/m3 UJ UJ ICV SG50‐SG032321 2103725 TO15 Acetone 67‐64‐15.7µg/m3 U‐RL U LB SG50‐SG032321 2103725 TO15SIM 1,1,1‐Trichloroethane 71‐55‐60.26µg/m3 U‐RL U LB SG55‐SG032321 2103700 TO15 Allyl Chloride 107‐05‐12.2 µg/m3 UJ UJ ICV SG55‐SG032321 2103700 TO15 4‐Methyl‐2‐Pentanone (MIBK) 108‐10‐10.58 µg/m3 U‐RL U LB SG60‐SG032221 2103701 TO15 Allyl Chloride 107‐05‐12.3 µg/m3 UJ UJ ICV SG60‐SG032221 2103701 TO15SIM 1,1,1‐Trichloroethane 71‐55‐60.16µg/m3 U‐RL U LB VP02‐SG032421 2103753 TO15 Allyl Chloride 107‐05‐15.9 µg/m3 UJ UJ LCS, ICV VP02‐SG032421 2103753 TO15 Methylene Chloride 75‐09‐22.6µg/m3 U‐RL U LB VP04‐SG032421 2103751 TO15 Allyl Chloride 107‐05‐1 190 µg/m3 UJ UJ ICV VP06‐SG032421 2103753 TO15 Allyl Chloride 107‐05‐12.2 µg/m3 UJ UJ LCS, ICV VP06‐SG032421 2103753 TO15 4‐Methyl‐2‐Pentanone (MIBK) 108‐10‐10.58 µg/m3 U‐RL U LB VP08‐SG032421 2103752 TO15 Trichlorofluoromethane 75‐69‐44.8µg/m3 JJICV VP09‐SG032421 2103754R1 TO15 Allyl Chloride 107‐05‐18.2 µg/m3 UJ UJ ICV VP09‐SG032421 2103754R1 TO15 Trichlorofluoromethane 75‐69‐42.2µg/m3 JJICV VP10‐SG032421 2103754R1 TO15 Allyl Chloride 107‐05‐12.4 µg/m3 UJ UJ ICV VP10‐SG032421 2103754R1 TO15SIM 1,2‐Dichloroethane 107‐06‐20.12 µg/m3 U‐RL U LB VP10‐SG032421 2103754R1 TO15 Trichlorofluoromethane 75‐69‐40.84µg/m3 JJICV VP10‐SG032421 2103754R1 TO15SIM Trichloroethene 79‐01‐60.16µg/m3 U‐RL U LB VP11‐SG032421 2103754R1 TO15 Allyl Chloride 107‐05‐112 µg/m3 UJ UJ ICV VP11‐SG032421 2103754R1 TO15 Trichlorofluoromethane 75‐69‐41.9µg/m3 JJICV VP12‐SG032421 2103754R1 TO15 Allyl Chloride 107‐05‐12.4 µg/m3 UJ UJ ICV Page 3 of 4 Table 4‐1 Qualification Summary 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Site Salt Lake City, Utah Field Sample ID Lab SDG Method Analyte CAS # Final  Result Unit Validation  Qualifier Interpreted  Qualifier Qualifier  Reason VP12‐SG032421 2103754R1 TO15 Trichlorofluoromethane 75‐69‐41.2µg/m3 JJICV VP13‐SG032421 2103752 TO15 Trichlorofluoromethane 75‐69‐41.9µg/m3 JJICV VP13‐SG032421 2103752 TO15SIM Trichloroethene 79‐01‐60.33µg/m3 U‐RL U LB VP14‐SG032421 2103751 TO15 Allyl Chloride 107‐05‐12.5 µg/m3 UJ UJ ICV VP14‐SG032421 2103751 TO15 4‐Methyl‐2‐Pentanone (MIBK) 108‐10‐10.65 µg/m3 U‐RL U LB VP14‐SG032421 2103751 TO15 Methylene Chloride 75‐09‐21.1µg/m3 U‐RL U LB VP15‐SG032421 2103751 TO15 Allyl Chloride 107‐05‐1 180 µg/m3 UJ UJ ICV VP17‐SG032421 2103751 TO15 Allyl Chloride 107‐05‐112 µg/m3 UJ UJ ICV VP17‐SG032421 2103751 TO15 Acetone 67‐64‐118µg/m3 U‐RL U LB VP17‐SG032421 2103751 TO15 Methylene Chloride 75‐09‐25.4µg/m3 U‐RL U LB VP19‐SG032421 2103752 TO15SIM 1,2‐Dibromoethane 106‐93‐40.56 µg/m3 U‐RL U LB VP19‐SG032421 2103752 TO15SIM 1,2‐Dichloroethane 107‐06‐20.12 µg/m3 U‐RL U LB VP19‐SG032421 2103752 TO15 Trichlorofluoromethane 75‐69‐40.8µg/m3 JJICV VP19‐SG032421 2103752 TO15SIM Trichloroethene 79‐01‐60.16µg/m3 U‐RL U LB Acronyms: µg/m3 ‐ microgram per cubic meter LCS ‐ laboratory control sample criteria SDG ‐ sample delivery group J ‐ estimated CAS ‐ chemical abstract service U ‐ nondetect CCV ‐ continuing calibration verification UJ ‐ estimated nondetect result EPA ‐ United States Environmental Protection Agency U‐RL ‐ result is qualified as nondetect at the reporting limit value ICV ‐ initial calibration verification TO‐15 ‐ Modified EPA Method TO‐15 for volatile organic compounds ID ‐ identification TO‐15 SIM ‐ Modified EPA Method TO‐15 for volatile organic compounds by selective ion monitoring (SIM) LB ‐ laboratory blank criteria Page 4 of 4 5-1 Section 5 Data Quality Indicators This section summarizes the validation performed and the overall quality of the data. The validation reports are provided in Attachment 1. Achievement of the DQO regarding data usability was determined by the use of DQIs. These DQIs are expressed in terms of PARCCS. The DQIs provide a mechanism to evaluate and measure data quality throughout the project. These criteria are defined in Table 5-1 and in the following subsections. 5.1 Precision Precision is a quantitative term that estimates the reproducibility of a set of replicate measurements under a given set of conditions. It is defined as a measurement of mutual agreement between measurements of the same property and is expressed in terms of relative percent difference (RPD) between duplicate determinations. RPD is calculated as follows: RPD = absolute value [(C1 − C2)/{(C1 + C2)/2)}] × 100% Where: C1 = concentration of primary sample C2 = concentration of duplicate sample Field and analytical precision were determined from review of the field duplicate results, LCS/laboratory control sample duplicate (LCSDs), and laboratory duplicates. The duplicate sample results were compared after calculating their RPDs. Field duplicate samples were collected in the same manner as the original samples but collected in separate individual containers, given separate sample identifiers, and treated as unique samples by the laboratory. Table 5-2 presents the field duplicate sample results for the air data. A control limit of 40 percent (%) RPD was used for both the soil gas and indoor air field duplicate samples when both sample concentrations were greater than five times the MRL. If the sample concentrations were below five times the MRL, the absolute difference between the samples is calculated; if that value is below the MRL, no qualification is required. Laboratory RPDs are specific to the QC parameter. RPD results are summarized below: ▪ Field duplicate RPDs or absolute criteria results were within control limits. ▪ LCS/LCSD RPDs were within control limits. ▪ Laboratory duplicate RPDs or absolute criteria were within control limits. Section 5 • Data Quality Indicators 5-2 No field or laboratory issues were identified from the RPD results outside criteria; the exceedances are reasonable for this type of sampling activity. 5.2 Accuracy Accuracy is the degree of agreement of a measurement with an accepted reference or true value and is a measure of the bias in a system. Two different metrics are evaluated to assess result accuracy: calculation of percent recovery (%R) for spiked analytes with known concentrations and review of blank results for cross-contamination. 5.2.1 Percent Recovery Accuracy of the data was assessed by comparing recoveries of LCSs, calibration standards, surrogates, and internal standards. Accuracy is expressed as %R, which is calculated as: Percent Recovery = (Total Analyte Found − Analyte Originally Present) × 100 Analyte Added Analytical accuracy for the entire data collection activity is difficult to measure because several sources of error exist. Errors can be introduced by any of the following: ▪ Sampling procedure and duration of sampling ▪ Field contamination ▪ Sample preservation and handling ▪ Sample matrix ▪ Sample preparation ▪ Analytical techniques Accuracy is maintained by adhering to the laboratory method and approved field and analytical standard operating procedures. The following is a summary of the accuracy parameters reviewed and the resulting qualifications for the data collected: LCS/LCSD %Rs The following SDGs had one or more LCS/LCSD %Rs that were outside of criteria. The associated analytes were either qualified as estimated or did not require qualification: ▪ SDGs 2103700, 2103701, 2103702, 2103703, 2103725, 2103751, 2103753, 2103813: allyl chloride (3-chloropropene) - Recoveries were greater than the acceptable criteria. Qualification is required for detected results only. Associated allyl chloride results were nondetect and did not require qualification. Section 5 • Data Quality Indicators 5-3 Calibration %Rs, Percent Differences, and Relative Standard Dev iations The following SDGs had one or more calibration %Rs, percent differences (%Ds), and or relative standard deviation (RSDs) that were outside of criteria. The associated analytes were qualified as estimated: ▪ SDGs 2103700, 2130701, 2103702, 2103703, 2103725, 2103751, 2103753, 2103813: allyl chloride (3-chloropropene) (145.44 %R) – associated results qualified as estimated “J/UJ” ▪ SDGs 2103752, 2103814, 2103815, 2103816, 2103817, 2103818: trichlorofluoromethane (Freon 11) (130.34 %R) – associated results qualified as estimated “J/UJ” ▪ SDG 2103701: allyl chloride (3-chloropropene) (145.44), 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene (31.58) – associated results qualified as estimated “J/UJ” ▪ SDG 2103754R1: allyl chloride (3-chloropropene) (145.44 %R), trichlorofluoromethane (Freon 11) (130.34 %R) – associated results qualified as estimated “J/UJ” Surrogates, Tunes, Internal Standards ▪ Surrogate results were within criteria. ▪ Tune results were within criteria. ▪ Internal standard results were within criteria. Sample preservation, sample handling, holding times, canister pressure, and canister certification are additional measures of accuracy of the data. All sample handling information, holding times, canister pressure readings, and canister certification results were acceptable for both the indoor and soil gas air samples. 5.2.2 Blank Contamination Blanks are used to determine the level of laboratory and field contamination introduced into the samples, independent of the level of target analytes found in the sample source. Sources of sample contamination can include the containers and equipment used to collect the sample, preservatives added to the sample, laboratory sample storage refrigerators, standards and solutions used to calibrate instruments, glassware and reagents used to process samples, airborne contamination in the laboratory preparation area, and the analytical instrument sample introduction equipment. Each analyte group has its own particular suite of common laboratory contaminants. Active measures must be performed to continually measure the ambient contamination level, and steps must be taken to discover the source of the contamination to eliminate or minimize the levels. Random spot contamination can also occur from analytes that are not common laboratory problems but arise as a problem for a specific project or over a short period. Field blanks, equipment blanks, trip blanks, and laboratory method blanks are analyzed to identify possible sources of contamination. No field blanks or trip blanks were collected during the March 2021 sampling event as indicated in the QAPP (CDM Smith 2020a). Section 5 • Data Quality Indicators 5-4 The following text discusses validation actions required as a result of laboratory blank contamination. Associated sample results were qualified as nondetect “U” at the MRL. ▪ SDG 2103700 – acetone, 4-methyl-2-pentanone ▪ SDGs 2103701, 2103702, 2103703, 2103725 – acetone, 1,1,1-trichloroethane ▪ SDG 2103751 – 4-methyl-2-pentanone, acetone, methylene chloride ▪ SDG 2103752 – 1,2-dichloroethane, 1,2-dibromoethane, trichloroethene ▪ SDG 2103753 – 4-methyl-2-pentanone, methylene chloride, 1,1,1-trichloroethane ▪ SDGs 2103754, 2103816 – 1,2-dichloroethane, trichloroethene ▪ SDG 2103813 – 4-methyl-2-pentanone, methylene chloride, isopropylbenzene (cumene) ▪ SDGs 2103814, 2103817, 2103818 – trichloroethene ▪ SDG 2103815 – 1,2-dichloroethane Ideally, no contaminants should be found in the blank samples. Blank samples are used to determine the validity of the analytical results by determining the existence and magnitude of contamination resulting from laboratory (or field) activities or baseline drift during analysis. As discussed above, analytes were detected in some of the laboratory blank samples. Concentrations were below the MRLs for all detected blank results. Analytes detected in laboratory blanks are common with laboratory analyses and are almost unavoidable. Associated sample results for the laboratory blanks were qualified following the appropriate guidelines. Detected blank concentrations were below the MRLs and the resulting sample qualifications as nondetect or "U” does not falsely diminish identification of site-related contaminants. 5.3 Representativeness Representativeness is a qualitative term that expresses the degree to which the sample data accurately and precisely represent the environmental conditions corresponding to the location and/or depth interval of sample collection. Requirements and procedures for sample collection were designed to maximize sample representativeness. Representativeness can be monitored by reviewing field documentation and/or performing field audits. For this report, a detailed review was performed on the COC and field data collection forms. Appropriate laboratory QA/QC requirements were described in the QAPP (CDM Smith 2020a) and laboratory statement of work to confirm that the laboratory analytical results were representative of true field conditions. Field sampling representativeness was attained through strict adherence to the sampling design (CDM Smith 2020b, 2021b) and the approved QAPP (CDM Smith 2020a) procedures and by using EPA-approved analytical methods for sample analyses. As a result, the data represents as near as possible the actual field conditions at the time of sampling. Section 5 • Data Quality Indicators 5-5 Representativeness, as defined above, was met for the fieldwork and laboratory analyses. The data collected are suitable for project use. 5.4 Comparability Comparability is a qualitative term that expresses the confidence with which a data set can be compared with another. Strict adherence to standard sample collection procedures, analytical detection limits, and analytical methods is necessary so that data from similar samples and sample conditions are comparable. This comparability is independent of laboratory personnel, data reviewers, or sampling personnel. Comparability criteria are met for the project if, based on data review, the sample collection and analytical procedures used are similar and are determined to have been followed. To achieve comparability of data generated for the Site, CDM Smith followed standard sample collection procedures and EPA-approved analytical methods during sampling activities. The sample analyses were performed by Eurofins using approved standard operating procedures and reporting units. Using such procedures and methods enables the current data to be comparable to future data sets generated with similar methods and units. 5.5 Completeness Completeness of the field program is defined as the percentage of samples planned for collection, as listed in the Remedial Investigation Work Plan (RIWP) (CDM Smith 2020b) and Planning Memorandum (CDM Smith 2021b), versus the actual number of samples collected during the field program (see equation A). Completeness for acceptable data is defined as the percentage of acceptable data obtained judged to be valid versus the total quantity of data generated (see equation B). Acceptable data include both data that pass all the QC criteria (unqualified data) and data that may not pass all the QC criteria but had appropriate corrective actions taken (qualified but usable data). A. Where: C = actual number of samples collected n = total number of samples planned B. Where: V = number of measurements judged valid n' = total number of measurements made The overall completeness goal for this sampling event was 90% for all project data. n 100Cxess%Completen = n' 100Vxess%Completen = Section 5 • Data Quality Indicators 5-6 All samples outlined in the RIWP (CDM Smith 2020b) and planning memorandum (CDM Smith 2021) were collected as planned to meet specific sampling activity objectives except as discussed in Section 3. The locations that were sampled are adequate for evaluation of the extent of subsurface VOC impacts at the site to meet DQOs. The completeness for the number of samples planned to be collected versus the number of samples collected was 93% which meets the DQO of 90%. Analyses for the sampling event exceeded the 90% completeness goal of acceptable data for the number of measurements judged to be valid versus the total number of measurements made. One hundred percent of the data validated and reported are suitable for their intended use for site characterization. No results were rejected, and all data collected met the overall project objective for data usability. The completeness goals were met for both the number of samples collected for all sampling events and the number of measurements judged to be valid. The data usability DQO was achieved; the data reported are suitable for their intended use as stated in the QAPP (CDM Smith 2020a) and RIWP (CDM Smith 2020b). The achievement of the completeness goals for the data provides sufficient data for project decisions. 5.6 Sensitivity Sensitivity is related to the ability to compare analytical results with project-specific levels of interest such as delineation levels or action levels. Analytical quantitation limits for the various sample analytes should be below the level of interest to allow an effective comparison. The method detection limit (MDL) study attempts to answer the question, “What is the minimum concentration of a substance that can be measured and reported with 99% confidence that the analyte concentration is greater than zero?” The study is based upon repetitive analysis of an interference-free sample spiked with a known amount of the target analyte. The MDL is a measure of the ability of the test procedure to generate a positive response for the target analyte in the absence of any other interferences from the sample. The MRL is generally defined as the lowest concentration at which an analyte can be confidently reported in a sample and its concentration reported with a reasonable degree of accuracy and precision. For samples that do not pose a particular matrix problem, the MRL is typically about three to five times higher than the MDL. Laboratory results are reported according to rules that provide established certainty of detection. The result for an analyte is flagged with a "U" if that analyte was not detected and reported at the MRL value or qualified with a "J" flag if associated QC results fall outside the appropriate QC criteria. Additionally, if an analyte is present at a concentration between the MDL and the MRL, the analytical result is flagged with a "J," indicating an estimated quantity. Qualifying the result as an estimated concentration reflects uncertainty in the reported value. When required, dilutions were performed and accounted for in the reported MRLs. Due to these required dilutions some nondetect MRL values exceeded the soil gas risk based screening levels for a few of the soil gas samples. These included analytes, 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane, 1,1,2- Section 5 • Data Quality Indicators 5-7 trichloroethane, 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene, 1,2-dibromoethane, 1,2-dichloroethane, 1,4- dichlorobenzene, 1,4-dioxane, bromodichloromethane, and carbon tetrachloride. For some of the indoor air samples, nondetect results were greater than the indoor air risk based screening levels which included 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane, 1,2-dibromoethane, and bromodichloromethane. However, these analytes are not a known constituent of potential concern for the site. All MRLs were below the Indoor Air Tier 1 and Tier 2 Removal Action Levels. In the situation where the MRL was above a screening value, the MDL was below the screening value for almost all analytes, (based on dilutions) and as detected results are qualified as estimated between the MDL and MRL, no exceedances of the screening level occurred for the majority of these results. For the remaining analytes, laboratory MRLs were low enough to compare with the project criteria stated in the laboratory statement of work and the QAPP (CDM Smith 2020a). Section 5 • Data Quality Indicators 5-8 Table 5-1 DQIs and Corresponding QC Parameters Data Quality Indicators QC Parameters Evaluation in Data Review/Validation Precision RPD values of: 1) Laboratory duplicates 2) Field duplicates 3) LCS/LCSD RSD values of: 1) Initial calibration verifications Accuracy/Bias %R or %D values of: 1) LCS/LCSD %R 2) Initial calibration verification/continuing calibration verification %R 3) Tune check 4) Surrogates 5) Internal standards Results of: 1) Instrument and calibration blanks 2) Method (preparation) blanks 3) Field blanks Representativeness Results of all blanks Adherence to field standard operating procedures Sample integrity (COC and sample receipt forms) Holding times Comparability Similar reporting limits and units Similar sample collection methods Similar laboratory analytical methods Completeness Data qualifiers Laboratory deliverables Requested/Reported valid results Field sample collection (primary and QC samples) Contract compliance (i.e., method and instrument QC within limits) Sensitivity Sample method reporting limits meet QAPP criteria Adequacy of sample dilution Table 5‐2 Summary of Field Duplicate Sampling Results 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Site Salt Lake City, Utah Method Analyte Unit Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q TO15 1,1,1‐Trichloroethane µg/m3 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC TO15 1,1,2,2‐Tetrachloroethane µg/m3 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC TO15 1,1,2‐Trichloroethane µg/m3 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC TO15 1,1,2‐Trichlorotrifluoroethane (Freon 113)µg/m3 0.48 J 0.47 J ABS Criteria 1.9 J 2 J ABS Criteria TO15 1,1‐Dichloroethane µg/m3 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC TO15 1,1‐Dichloroethene µg/m3 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC TO15 1,2,4‐Trichlorobenzene µg/m3 5.5 U 5.8 U NC 53 U 54 U NC TO15 1,2,4‐Trimethylbenzene µg/m3 0.22 J 0.23 J ABS Criteria 7U7.2UNC TO15 1,2‐Dibromoethane µg/m3 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC TO15 1,2‐Dichlorobenzene µg/m3 0.9 U 0.94 U NC 8.6 U 8.8 U NC TO15 1,2‐Dichloroethane µg/m3 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC TO15 1,2‐Dichloropropane µg/m3 0.69 U 0.72 U NC 6.6 U 6.7 U NC TO15 1,2‐Dichlorotetrafluoroethane;Fluorocarbon 114 µg/m3 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC TO15 1,3,5‐Trimethylbenzene µg/m3 0.09 J 0.085 J ABS Criteria 7U7.2UNC TO15 1,3‐Butadiene µg/m3 0.33 U 0.35 U NC 3.2 U 3.2 U NC TO15 1,3‐Dichlorobenzene µg/m3 0.9 U 0.94 U NC 8.6 U 8.8 U NC TO15 1,4‐Dichlorobenzene µg/m3 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC TO15 1,4‐Dioxane µg/m3 0.54 U 0.16 J ABS Criteria 5.2 U 5.3 U NC TO15 2,2,4‐Trimethylpentane µg/m3 3.5 U 3.7 U NC 33 U 34 U NC TO15 2‐Butanone (MEK)µg/m3 0.74 J 0.5 J ABS Criteria 21 U 22 U NC TO15 2‐Hexanone µg/m3 3 U 3.2 U NC 29 U 30 U NC TO15 4‐Ethyltoluene µg/m3 0.26 J 0.24 J ABS Criteria 7U7.2UNC TO15 4‐Methyl‐2‐Pentanone (MIBK)µg/m3 0.61 U 0.64 U NC 5.8 U 6 U NC TO15 Acetone µg/m3 73 61 17.91 34 U 35 U NC TO15 Allyl Chloride µg/m3 2.3 UJ 2.4 UJ NC 22 U 23 U NC TO15 Benzene µg/m3 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC TO15 Benzyl Chloride µg/m3 0.77 U 0.81 U NC 7.4 U 7.6 U NC TO15 Bromodichloromethane µg/m3 1U1UNC 81 80 1.24 TO15 Bromoform µg/m3 1.5 U 1.6 U NC 15 U 15 U NC TO15 Bromomethane µg/m3 2.9 U 3 U NC 28 U 28 U NC TO15 Carbon Disulfide µg/m3 2.3 U 2.4 U NC 22 U 23 U NC TO15 Carbon Tetrachloride µg/m3 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC TO15 Chlorobenzene µg/m3 0.68 U 0.023 J ABS Criteria 6.6 U 6.7 U NC TO15 Chloroethane µg/m3 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC TO15 Chloroform µg/m3 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC RPD RPD MW‐24 FD05‐SG032621 3/26/2021 FD MW‐24 MW24‐SG032621‐32 3/26/2021 N B6‐IA06 B6‐IA06‐IA032521 3/25/2021 N B6‐IA06 FD01‐IA032521 3/25/2021 FD Location Sample Name Sample Date Sample Type Page 1 of 9 Table 5‐2 Summary of Field Duplicate Sampling Results 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Site Salt Lake City, Utah RPD RPD MW‐24 FD05‐SG032621 3/26/2021 FD MW‐24 MW24‐SG032621‐32 3/26/2021 N B6‐IA06 B6‐IA06‐IA032521 3/25/2021 N B6‐IA06 FD01‐IA032521 3/25/2021 FD Location Sample Name Sample Date Sample Type TO15 Chloromethane µg/m3 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC TO15 cis‐1,2‐Dichloroethene µg/m3 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC TO15 cis‐1,3‐Dichloropropene µg/m3 0.68 U 0.71 U NC 6.5 U 6.6 U NC TO15 Cyclohexane µg/m3 2.6 U 2.7 U NC 25 U 25 U NC TO15 Dibromochloromethane µg/m3 1.3 U 1.3 U NC 1.8 J 1.3 J ABS Criteria TO15 Dichlorodifluoromethane µg/m3 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC TO15 Ethanol µg/m3 180 J 180 J 0.00 27 U 28 U NC TO15 Ethylbenzene µg/m3 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC TO15 Hexachloro‐1,3‐Butadiene µg/m3 7.9 U 8.4 U NC 76 U 78 U NC TO15 Hexane µg/m3 0.23 J 0.25 J ABS Criteria 25 U 26 U NC TO15 Isopropyl Alcohol (Manufacturing‐Strong Acid)µg/m3 39 38 2.60 18 U 18 U NC TO15 Isopropylbenzene µg/m3 0.73 U 0.042 J ABS Criteria 7U7.2UNC TO15 M,P‐Xylene µg/m3 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC TO15 Methyl Tert‐Butyl Ether µg/m3 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC TO15 Methylene Chloride µg/m3 1 U 1.1 U NC 9.9 U 10 U NC TO15 N‐Heptane µg/m3 0.18 J 0.17 J ABS Criteria 29 U 30 U NC TO15 N‐Propylbenzene µg/m3 0.068 J 0.066 J ABS Criteria 7U7.2UNC TO15 o‐Xylene µg/m3 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC TO15 Styrene µg/m3 0.63 U 0.67 U NC 6.1 U 6.2 U NC TO15 Tetrachloroethene µg/m3 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC TO15 Tetrahydrofuran µg/m3 0.29 J 0.29 J ABS Criteria 21 U 22 U NC TO15 Toluene µg/m3 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC TO15 Trans‐1,2‐Dichloroethene µg/m3 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC TO15 Trans‐1,3‐Dichloropropene µg/m3 0.68 U 0.71 U NC 6.5 U 6.6 U NC TO15 Trichloroethene µg/m3 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC TO15 Trichlorofluoromethane (Freon 11)µg/m3 1.2 1.2 ABS Criteria 18 J 18 J ABS Criteria TO15 Vinyl Chloride µg/m3 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC TO15SIM 1,1,1‐Trichloroethane µg/m3 0.16 U 0.17 U NC 2.1 2 ABS Criteria TO15SIM 1,1,2,2‐Tetrachloroethane µg/m3 0.2 U 0.22 U NC 2 U 2 U NC TO15SIM 1,1,2‐Trichloroethane µg/m3 0.16 U 0.17 U NC 1.6 U 1.6 U NC TO15SIM 1,1‐Dichloroethane µg/m3 0.12 U 0.13 U NC 1.2 U 1.2 U NC TO15SIM 1,1‐Dichloroethene µg/m3 0.059 U 0.062 U NC 0.57 U 0.58 U NC TO15SIM 1,2‐Dibromoethane µg/m3 0.028 J 0.6 U NC 5.5 U 5.6 U NC TO15SIM 1,2‐Dichloroethane µg/m3 0.083 J 0.086 J ABS Criteria 1.2 U 1.2 U NC TO15SIM 1,2‐Dichlorotetrafluoroethane (Freon 114)µg/m3 0.1 J 0.1 J ABS Criteria 0.37 J 0.39 J ABS Criteria TO15SIM 1,4‐Dichlorobenzene µg/m3 0.45 U 0.47 U NC 4.3 U 4.4 U NC Page 2 of 9 Table 5‐2 Summary of Field Duplicate Sampling Results 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Site Salt Lake City, Utah RPD RPD MW‐24 FD05‐SG032621 3/26/2021 FD MW‐24 MW24‐SG032621‐32 3/26/2021 N B6‐IA06 B6‐IA06‐IA032521 3/25/2021 N B6‐IA06 FD01‐IA032521 3/25/2021 FD Location Sample Name Sample Date Sample Type TO15SIM Benzene µg/m3 0.34 0.34 ABS Criteria 0.28 J 0.34 J ABS Criteria TO15SIM Carbon Tetrachloride µg/m3 0.46 0.46 ABS Criteria 2.8 2.8 ABS Criteria TO15SIM Chloroethane µg/m3 0.029 J 0.021 J ABS Criteria 1.9 U 1.9 U NC TO15SIM Chloroform µg/m3 0.15 0.16 ABS Criteria 1200 1200 0.00 TO15SIM Chloromethane µg/m3 0.68 J 0.67 J ABS Criteria 15 U 15 U NC TO15SIM cis‐1,2‐Dichloroethene µg/m3 0.12 U 0.12 U NC 1.1 U 1.2 U NC TO15SIM Dichlorodifluoromethane (Freon 12)µg/m3 2.3 2.3 0.00 3J3JABS Criteria TO15SIM Ethylbenzene µg/m3 1.5 1.4 6.90 1.2 U 1.3 U NC TO15SIM m/p‐Xylene µg/m3 8.7 7.7 12.20 2.5 U 2.5 U NC TO15SIM Methyl Tert‐Butyl Ether µg/m3 0.54 U 0.57 U NC 5.2 U 5.3 U NC TO15SIM o‐Xylene µg/m3 2.6 2.3 12.24 1.2 U 1.3 U NC TO15SIM Tetrachloroethene µg/m3 0.098 J 0.1 J ABS Criteria 240 230 4.26 TO15SIM Toluene µg/m3 0.64 0.69 ABS Criteria 2.7 U 2.8 U NC TO15SIM trans‐1,2‐Dichloroethene µg/m3 0.025 J 0.024 J ABS Criteria 5.7 U 5.8 U NC TO15SIM Trichloroethene µg/m3 0.042 J 0.17 U NC 1.5 U 1.6 U NC TO15SIM Vinyl Chloride µg/m3 0.076 U 0.08 U NC 0.15 J 0.75 U ABS Criteria Acronyms µg/m3 ‐ microgram per cubic meter EPA ‐ United States Environmental Protection Agency FD ‐ field duplicate J ‐ estimated N ‐ normal sample NC ‐ not calculated Q ‐ qualifier RPD ‐ relative percent difference U ‐ nondetect UJ ‐ estimated nondetect result   TO‐15 ‐ Modified EPA Method TO‐15 for volatile organic compounds   ABS Criteria = Sample concentrations less than 5x the reporting limit;  absolute difference (ABS) between the two results less than the reporting  limit TO‐15 SIM ‐ Modified EPA Method TO‐15 for volatile organic compounds  by selective ion monitoring (SIM) Page 3 of 9 Table 5‐2 Summary of Field Duplicate Sampling Results 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Site Salt Lake City, Utah Method Analyte Unit TO15 1,1,1‐Trichloroethane µg/m3 TO15 1,1,2,2‐Tetrachloroethane µg/m3 TO15 1,1,2‐Trichloroethane µg/m3 TO15 1,1,2‐Trichlorotrifluoroethane (Freon 113)µg/m3 TO15 1,1‐Dichloroethane µg/m3 TO15 1,1‐Dichloroethene µg/m3 TO15 1,2,4‐Trichlorobenzene µg/m3 TO15 1,2,4‐Trimethylbenzene µg/m3 TO15 1,2‐Dibromoethane µg/m3 TO15 1,2‐Dichlorobenzene µg/m3 TO15 1,2‐Dichloroethane µg/m3 TO15 1,2‐Dichloropropane µg/m3 TO15 1,2‐Dichlorotetrafluoroethane;Fluorocarbon 114 µg/m3 TO15 1,3,5‐Trimethylbenzene µg/m3 TO15 1,3‐Butadiene µg/m3 TO15 1,3‐Dichlorobenzene µg/m3 TO15 1,4‐Dichlorobenzene µg/m3 TO15 1,4‐Dioxane µg/m3 TO15 2,2,4‐Trimethylpentane µg/m3 TO15 2‐Butanone (MEK)µg/m3 TO15 2‐Hexanone µg/m3 TO15 4‐Ethyltoluene µg/m3 TO15 4‐Methyl‐2‐Pentanone (MIBK)µg/m3 TO15 Acetone µg/m3 TO15 Allyl Chloride µg/m3 TO15 Benzene µg/m3 TO15 Benzyl Chloride µg/m3 TO15 Bromodichloromethane µg/m3 TO15 Bromoform µg/m3 TO15 Bromomethane µg/m3 TO15 Carbon Disulfide µg/m3 TO15 Carbon Tetrachloride µg/m3 TO15 Chlorobenzene µg/m3 TO15 Chloroethane µg/m3 TO15 Chloroform µg/m3 Location Sample Name Sample Date Sample Type Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC 5.7 U 5.2 U NC 0.52 J 0.54 J ABS Criteria ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC 28 U 25 U NC 5.6 U 5.2 U NC 0.63 J 0.52 J ABS Criteria 0.54 J 0.52 J ABS Criteria ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC 4.5 U 4.1 U NC 0.9 U 0.85 U NC ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC 3.4 U 3.1 U NC 0.69 U 0.65 U NC ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC 3.7 U 3.3 U NC 0.22 J 0.21 J ABS Criteria 1.6 U 1.5 U NC 0.33 U 0.31 U NC 4.5 U 4.1 U NC 0.9 U 0.85 U NC ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC 2.7 U 2.4 U NC 0.32 J 0.51 U ABS Criteria 17 U 16 U NC 3.5 U 3.3 U NC 11 U 10 U NC 0.37 J 0.5 J ABS Criteria 15 U 14 U NC 3.1 U 2.9 U NC 3.7 U 3.3 U NC 0.74 U 0.69 U NC 3 U 2.8 U NC 0.61 U 0.58 U NC 18 U 16 U NC 3.6 U 4.4 ABS Criteria 12 U 11 U NC 2.3 UJ 2.2 UJ NC ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC 3.8 U 3.5 U NC 0.78 U 0.73 U NC 5 U 4.6 U NC 0.12 J 0.074 J ABS Criteria 7.7 U 7 U NC 1.6 U 1.4 U NC 14 U 13 U NC 2.9 U 2.7 U NC 12 U 10 U NC 0.44 J 0.54 J ABS Criteria ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC 3.4 U 3.1 U NC 0.69 U 0.65 U NC ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC RPD RPD SB‐42 SB42‐SG032521‐17 3/25/2021 N SG‐10 SG10‐SG032321 SB‐42 FD04‐SG032521 3/25/2021 FD SG‐10 FD01‐SG032321 3/23/2021 FD 3/23/2021 N Page 4 of 9 Table 5‐2 Summary of Field Duplicate Sampling Results 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Site Salt Lake City, Utah Location Sample Name Sample Date Sample Type TO15 Chloromethane µg/m3 TO15 cis‐1,2‐Dichloroethene µg/m3 TO15 cis‐1,3‐Dichloropropene µg/m3 TO15 Cyclohexane µg/m3 TO15 Dibromochloromethane µg/m3 TO15 Dichlorodifluoromethane µg/m3 TO15 Ethanol µg/m3 TO15 Ethylbenzene µg/m3 TO15 Hexachloro‐1,3‐Butadiene µg/m3 TO15 Hexane µg/m3 TO15 Isopropyl Alcohol (Manufacturing‐Strong Acid)µg/m3 TO15 Isopropylbenzene µg/m3 TO15 M,P‐Xylene µg/m3 TO15 Methyl Tert‐Butyl Ether µg/m3 TO15 Methylene Chloride µg/m3 TO15 N‐Heptane µg/m3 TO15 N‐Propylbenzene µg/m3 TO15 o‐Xylene µg/m3 TO15 Styrene µg/m3 TO15 Tetrachloroethene µg/m3 TO15 Tetrahydrofuran µg/m3 TO15 Toluene µg/m3 TO15 Trans‐1,2‐Dichloroethene µg/m3 TO15 Trans‐1,3‐Dichloropropene µg/m3 TO15 Trichloroethene µg/m3 TO15 Trichlorofluoromethane (Freon 11)µg/m3 TO15 Vinyl Chloride µg/m3 TO15SIM 1,1,1‐Trichloroethane µg/m3 TO15SIM 1,1,2,2‐Tetrachloroethane µg/m3 TO15SIM 1,1,2‐Trichloroethane µg/m3 TO15SIM 1,1‐Dichloroethane µg/m3 TO15SIM 1,1‐Dichloroethene µg/m3 TO15SIM 1,2‐Dibromoethane µg/m3 TO15SIM 1,2‐Dichloroethane µg/m3 TO15SIM 1,2‐Dichlorotetrafluoroethane (Freon 114)µg/m3 TO15SIM 1,4‐Dichlorobenzene µg/m3 RPD RPD SB‐42 SB42‐SG032521‐17 3/25/2021 N SG‐10 SG10‐SG032321 SB‐42 FD04‐SG032521 3/25/2021 FD SG‐10 FD01‐SG032321 3/23/2021 FD 3/23/2021 N ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC 3.4 U 3.1 U NC 0.68 U 0.64 U NC 13 U 12 U NC 2.6 U 2.4 U NC 6.3 U 5.8 U NC 1.3 U 1.2 U NC ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC 14 U 13 U NC 0.56 J 0.74 J ABS Criteria ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC 40 U 36 U NC 8 U 7.5 U NC 13 U 12 U NC 2.6 U 2.5 U NC 9.2 U 8.4 U NC 0.92 J 1.9 ABS Criteria 3.7 U 3.3 U NC 0.74 U 0.69 U NC ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC 5.2 U 4.7 U NC 1 U 0.98 U NC 15 U 14 U NC 3.1 U 2.9 U NC 3.7 U 3.3 U NC 0.74 U 0.69 U NC ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC 3.2 U 2.9 U NC 0.64 U 0.6 U NC ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC 11 U 10 U NC 2.2 U 2.1 U NC ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC 3.4 U 3.1 U NC 0.68 U 0.64 U NC ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC 2J2JABS Criteria 1.4 1.4 ABS Criteria ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC 0.31 J 0.3 J ABS Criteria 1.2 1.2 0.00 1 U 0.93 U NC 0.2 U 0.19 U NC 0.81 U 0.74 U NC 0.16 U 0.15 U NC 0.6 U 0.55 U NC 0.12 U 0.11 U NC 0.3 U 0.27 U NC 0.059 U 0.056 U NC 2.9 U 2.6 U NC 0.58 U 0.54 U NC 0.6 U 0.55 U NC 0.12 U 0.11 U NC 1 U 0.95 U NC 0.1 J 0.11 J ABS Criteria 2.2 U 2 U NC 0.45 U 0.42 U NC Page 5 of 9 Table 5‐2 Summary of Field Duplicate Sampling Results 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Site Salt Lake City, Utah Location Sample Name Sample Date Sample Type TO15SIM Benzene µg/m3 TO15SIM Carbon Tetrachloride µg/m3 TO15SIM Chloroethane µg/m3 TO15SIM Chloroform µg/m3 TO15SIM Chloromethane µg/m3 TO15SIM cis‐1,2‐Dichloroethene µg/m3 TO15SIM Dichlorodifluoromethane (Freon 12)µg/m3 TO15SIM Ethylbenzene µg/m3 TO15SIM m/p‐Xylene µg/m3 TO15SIM Methyl Tert‐Butyl Ether µg/m3 TO15SIM o‐Xylene µg/m3 TO15SIM Tetrachloroethene µg/m3 TO15SIM Toluene µg/m3 TO15SIM trans‐1,2‐Dichloroethene µg/m3 TO15SIM Trichloroethene µg/m3 TO15SIM Vinyl Chloride µg/m3 Acronyms µg/m3 ‐ microgram per cubic meter EPA ‐ United States Environmental Protection Agency FD ‐ field duplicate J ‐ estimated N ‐ normal sample NC ‐ not calculated Q ‐ qualifier RPD ‐ relative percent difference U ‐ nondetect UJ ‐ estimated nondetect result   TO‐15 ‐ Modified EPA Method TO‐15 for volatile organic compounds   ABS Criteria = Sample concentrations less than 5x the reporting limit;  absolute difference (ABS) between the two results less than the reporting  limit TO‐15 SIM ‐ Modified EPA Method TO‐15 for volatile organic compounds  by selective ion monitoring (SIM) RPD RPD SB‐42 SB42‐SG032521‐17 3/25/2021 N SG‐10 SG10‐SG032321 SB‐42 FD04‐SG032521 3/25/2021 FD SG‐10 FD01‐SG032321 3/23/2021 FD 3/23/2021 N 0.12 J 0.1 J ABS Criteria 0.24 U 0.034 J ABS Criteria 0.94 U 0.23 J ABS Criteria 0.19 U 0.18 U NC 0.98 U 0.9 U NC 0.2 U 0.19 U NC 24 24 0.00 39 39 0.00 7.7 U 7 U NC 0.032 J 1.4 U NC 0.55 J 0.54 ABS Criteria 0.12 U 0.11 U NC 3.4 3.3 ABS Criteria 2.4 2.4 0.00 0.22 J 0.22 J ABS Criteria 0.12 J 0.13 ABS Criteria 0.53 J 0.53 J ABS Criteria 0.44 0.44 ABS Criteria 2.7 U 2.4 U NC 0.54 U 0.51 U NC 0.24 J 0.24 J ABS Criteria 0.18 0.17 ABS Criteria 520 500 3.92 3.2 3.2 0.00 0.2 J 0.15 J ABS Criteria 0.13 J 0.14 J ABS Criteria 3 U 2.7 U NC 0.59 U 0.56 U NC 65.83.39 0.16 U 0.022 J ABS Criteria 0.38 U 0.35 U NC 0.077 U 0.072 U NC Page 6 of 9 Table 5‐2 Summary of Field Duplicate Sampling Results 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Site Salt Lake City, Utah Method Analyte Unit TO15 1,1,1‐Trichloroethane µg/m3 TO15 1,1,2,2‐Tetrachloroethane µg/m3 TO15 1,1,2‐Trichloroethane µg/m3 TO15 1,1,2‐Trichlorotrifluoroethane (Freon 113)µg/m3 TO15 1,1‐Dichloroethane µg/m3 TO15 1,1‐Dichloroethene µg/m3 TO15 1,2,4‐Trichlorobenzene µg/m3 TO15 1,2,4‐Trimethylbenzene µg/m3 TO15 1,2‐Dibromoethane µg/m3 TO15 1,2‐Dichlorobenzene µg/m3 TO15 1,2‐Dichloroethane µg/m3 TO15 1,2‐Dichloropropane µg/m3 TO15 1,2‐Dichlorotetrafluoroethane;Fluorocarbon 114 µg/m3 TO15 1,3,5‐Trimethylbenzene µg/m3 TO15 1,3‐Butadiene µg/m3 TO15 1,3‐Dichlorobenzene µg/m3 TO15 1,4‐Dichlorobenzene µg/m3 TO15 1,4‐Dioxane µg/m3 TO15 2,2,4‐Trimethylpentane µg/m3 TO15 2‐Butanone (MEK)µg/m3 TO15 2‐Hexanone µg/m3 TO15 4‐Ethyltoluene µg/m3 TO15 4‐Methyl‐2‐Pentanone (MIBK)µg/m3 TO15 Acetone µg/m3 TO15 Allyl Chloride µg/m3 TO15 Benzene µg/m3 TO15 Benzyl Chloride µg/m3 TO15 Bromodichloromethane µg/m3 TO15 Bromoform µg/m3 TO15 Bromomethane µg/m3 TO15 Carbon Disulfide µg/m3 TO15 Carbon Tetrachloride µg/m3 TO15 Chlorobenzene µg/m3 TO15 Chloroethane µg/m3 TO15 Chloroform µg/m3 Location Sample Name Sample Date Sample Type Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q 83 U 82 U NC ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC 100 U 100 U NC ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC 83 U 82 U NC ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC 120 U 120 U NC 0.95 J 1 J ABS Criteria 62 U 61 U NC ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC 60 U 60 U NC ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC 450 U 450 U NC 11 U 11 U NC 300 U 300 U NC 0.11 J 0.1 J ABS Criteria 120 U 120 U NC ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC 92 U 91 U NC 1.8 U 1.7 U NC 62 U 61 U NC ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC 70 U 70 U NC 1.4 U 1.3 U NC 110 U 100 U NC ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC 300 U 300 U NC 1.5 U 1.4 U NC 34 U 33 U NC 0.67 U 0.63 U NC 92 U 91 U NC 3.4 3.7 ABS Criteria 92 U 91 U NC ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC 220 U 220 U NC 1.1 U 1 U NC 71 U 70 U NC 7.1 U 6.7 U NC 180 U 180 U NC 1.3 J 1.6 J ABS Criteria 250 U 250 U NC 6.2 U 5.8 U NC 75 U 74 U NC 1.5 U 1.4 U NC 62 U 62 U NC 1.2 U 1.2 U NC 360 U 360 U NC 5.7 J 7.5 ABS Criteria 190 UJ 190 U NC 4.8 U 4.5 U NC 49 U 48 U NC ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC 79 U 78 U NC 1.6 U 1.5 U NC 100 U 100 U NC 13 14 7.41 160 U 160 U NC 3.1 U 3 U NC 590 U 590 U NC 5.9 U 5.6 U NC 190 U 190 U NC 4.7 U 4.4 U NC 96 U 95 U NC ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC 70 U 70 U NC 1.4 U 1.3 U NC 160 U 160 U NC ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC 43 J 42 J ABS Criteria ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC RPD RPD VP13 VP13‐SG032421 3/24/2021 N VP04 FD03‐SG032421 VP04 VP04‐SG032421 3/24/2021 N 3/24/2021 FD VP13 FD02‐SG032421 3/24/2021 FD Page 7 of 9 Table 5‐2 Summary of Field Duplicate Sampling Results 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Site Salt Lake City, Utah Location Sample Name Sample Date Sample Type TO15 Chloromethane µg/m3 TO15 cis‐1,2‐Dichloroethene µg/m3 TO15 cis‐1,3‐Dichloropropene µg/m3 TO15 Cyclohexane µg/m3 TO15 Dibromochloromethane µg/m3 TO15 Dichlorodifluoromethane µg/m3 TO15 Ethanol µg/m3 TO15 Ethylbenzene µg/m3 TO15 Hexachloro‐1,3‐Butadiene µg/m3 TO15 Hexane µg/m3 TO15 Isopropyl Alcohol (Manufacturing‐Strong Acid)µg/m3 TO15 Isopropylbenzene µg/m3 TO15 M,P‐Xylene µg/m3 TO15 Methyl Tert‐Butyl Ether µg/m3 TO15 Methylene Chloride µg/m3 TO15 N‐Heptane µg/m3 TO15 N‐Propylbenzene µg/m3 TO15 o‐Xylene µg/m3 TO15 Styrene µg/m3 TO15 Tetrachloroethene µg/m3 TO15 Tetrahydrofuran µg/m3 TO15 Toluene µg/m3 TO15 Trans‐1,2‐Dichloroethene µg/m3 TO15 Trans‐1,3‐Dichloropropene µg/m3 TO15 Trichloroethene µg/m3 TO15 Trichlorofluoromethane (Freon 11)µg/m3 TO15 Vinyl Chloride µg/m3 TO15SIM 1,1,1‐Trichloroethane µg/m3 TO15SIM 1,1,2,2‐Tetrachloroethane µg/m3 TO15SIM 1,1,2‐Trichloroethane µg/m3 TO15SIM 1,1‐Dichloroethane µg/m3 TO15SIM 1,1‐Dichloroethene µg/m3 TO15SIM 1,2‐Dibromoethane µg/m3 TO15SIM 1,2‐Dichloroethane µg/m3 TO15SIM 1,2‐Dichlorotetrafluoroethane (Freon 114)µg/m3 TO15SIM 1,4‐Dichlorobenzene µg/m3 RPD RPD VP13 VP13‐SG032421 3/24/2021 N VP04 FD03‐SG032421 VP04 VP04‐SG032421 3/24/2021 N 3/24/2021 FD VP13 FD02‐SG032421 3/24/2021 FD 310 U 310 U NC ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC 60 U 60 U NC ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC 69 U 68 U NC 1.4 U 1.3 U NC 52 U 52 U NC 5.2 U 4.9 U NC 130 U 130 U NC 0.33 J 0.38 J ABS Criteria 75 U 75 U NC ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC 290 U 280 U NC 5.7 U 5.4 U NC 66 U 66 U NC ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC 650 U 640 U NC 16 U 15 U NC 54 U 53 U NC 1.2 J 5 U NC 150 U 150 U NC 2.9 J 1.6 J ABS Criteria 75 U 74 U NC 1.5 U 1.4 U NC 66 U 66 U NC ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC 220 U 220 U NC ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC 530 U 520 U NC 1.6 J 1.7 J ABS Criteria 250 U 250 U NC 6.2 U 5.9 U NC 75 U 74 U NC 1.5 U 1.4 U NC 66 U 66 U NC ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC 65 U 64 U NC 1.3 U 1.2 U NC 30000 31000 3.28 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC 45 U 44 U NC 1.2 J 1.3 J ABS Criteria 57 U 57 U NC ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC 60 U 60 U NC ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC 69 U 68 U NC 1.4 U 1.3 U NC 51 J 47 J ABS Criteria ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC 34 J 32 J ABS Criteria 1.9 J 2 J ABS Criteria 39 U 38 U NC ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC 0.035 J 0.033 J ABS Criteria ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC 0.42 U 0.39 U NC ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC 0.33 U 0.31 U NC ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC 0.25 U 0.23 U NC ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC 0.12 U 0.11 U NC ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC 1.2 U 1.1 U NC ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC 0.25 U 0.23 U NC ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC 0.11 J 0.12 J ABS Criteria ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC 0.91 U 0.86 U NC Page 8 of 9 Table 5‐2 Summary of Field Duplicate Sampling Results 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Site Salt Lake City, Utah Location Sample Name Sample Date Sample Type TO15SIM Benzene µg/m3 TO15SIM Carbon Tetrachloride µg/m3 TO15SIM Chloroethane µg/m3 TO15SIM Chloroform µg/m3 TO15SIM Chloromethane µg/m3 TO15SIM cis‐1,2‐Dichloroethene µg/m3 TO15SIM Dichlorodifluoromethane (Freon 12)µg/m3 TO15SIM Ethylbenzene µg/m3 TO15SIM m/p‐Xylene µg/m3 TO15SIM Methyl Tert‐Butyl Ether µg/m3 TO15SIM o‐Xylene µg/m3 TO15SIM Tetrachloroethene µg/m3 TO15SIM Toluene µg/m3 TO15SIM trans‐1,2‐Dichloroethene µg/m3 TO15SIM Trichloroethene µg/m3 TO15SIM Vinyl Chloride µg/m3 Acronyms µg/m3 ‐ microgram per cubic meter EPA ‐ United States Environmental Protection Agency FD ‐ field duplicate J ‐ estimated N ‐ normal sample NC ‐ not calculated Q ‐ qualifier RPD ‐ relative percent difference U ‐ nondetect UJ ‐ estimated nondetect result   TO‐15 ‐ Modified EPA Method TO‐15 for volatile organic compounds   ABS Criteria = Sample concentrations less than 5x the reporting limit;  absolute difference (ABS) between the two results less than the reporting  limit TO‐15 SIM ‐ Modified EPA Method TO‐15 for volatile organic compounds  by selective ion monitoring (SIM) RPD RPD VP13 VP13‐SG032421 3/24/2021 N VP04 FD03‐SG032421 VP04 VP04‐SG032421 3/24/2021 N 3/24/2021 FD VP13 FD02‐SG032421 3/24/2021 FD ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC 0.42 J 0.31 J ABS Criteria ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC 0.68 0.71 ABS Criteria ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC 0.087 J 0.099 J ABS Criteria ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC 240 240 0.00 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC 3.1 U 3 U NC ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC 0.24 U 0.23 U NC ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC 2.4 2.4 ABS Criteria ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC 0.067 J 0.065 J ABS Criteria ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC 0.26 J 0.2 J ABS Criteria ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC 1.1 U 1 U NC ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC 0.12 J 0.072 J ABS Criteria ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC 110 110 0.00 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC 0.27 J 0.23 J ABS Criteria ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC 1.2 U 1.1 U NC ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC 0.33 U 0.34 ABS Criteria ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐NC 0.16 U 0.15 U NC Page 9 of 9 6-1 Section 6 Data Usability Assessment One hundred percent of the data reported and validated in this QCSR are suitable for their intended use as stated in the QAPP (CDM Smith 2020a). No sample results were rejected. The achievement of the completeness goals for the number of samples collected and the number of sample results acceptable for use provides sufficient quality data to support project decisions. Sample results that were qualified as estimated are usable for project decisions. 7-1 Section 7 References CDM Smith. 2020a. Phase 2 Quality Assurance Project Plan, Operable Unit 1, 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Kansas City District. December 2020. CDM Smith. 2020b. Phase 2 Remedial Investigation Work Plan, Operable Unit 1, 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. CDM Smith. 2021a. Memorandum. Plan for Soil Vapor Probe Sampling and Indoor Air Sampling at Buildings 6 and 7, 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. EPA. 2017. National Functional Guidelines for Organic Superfund Methods Data Review, EPA-540-R-2017-002. January 2017. EPA. 2014. EPA’s Analysis of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) in Air Contained in Canisters by Method TO-15. June 2014.      Attachment 1  Data Validation Reports  Eurofins Air Toxics Matrix:Air Collection date:03/23/21 Volatile Organic Compounds - EPA Method TO-15 Volatile Organic Compounds - EPA Method TO-15 SIM Samples in SDG: Sample Number Laboratory Number MW23-SG032321-135 2103700-01A SG55-SG032321 2103700-02A / B Precision:Yes No N/A N/A Yes N/A Were the Laboratory Duplicate RPDs within limits?Yes Field TO-15 / SIM Sample (ug/m3)Duplicate (ug/m3)%RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples Duplicates N/A LCS/LCSD TO-15 / SIM %RPD Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples 2103700-05A /2103700-05AA Acceptable 2103700-05B /2103700-05BB (SIM)Acceptable 2103700-05C /2103700-05CC Acceptable MS/MSD TO-15 / SIM %RPD Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Laboratory Sample (ug/m3)Duplicate (ug/m3)RL %RPD Qualifiers Duplicate 2103700-01A / 01AA Acceptable Accuracy:Yes No N/A Was the Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate criteria met? (frequency ≥ 5% and laboratory determined control limits) N/A Laboratory Control Sample criteria met?No Were the Laboratory Method Blank results all < RL?No Were the Field Blanks results all < RL?N/A Was the ICAL criteria met? (30%)Yes Was the CCV criteria met? (30%)Yes Was the Tuning criteria met?Yes Were the Surrogate % recoveries within laboratory determined control limits?Yes Were the Internal Standard areas within ± 60 - 140%? Yes Was canister certification criteria met?Yes Were sample results able to be recalculated from the laboratory raw data and were they accurate?Yes Was target compound identification correctly performed by the laboratory?Yes Were chromatograms representative of the sample results?Yes Data validation was performed in accordance with the specific analytical methods and the U.S. EPA Analysis of Volatile Organic Compounds in Air Contained in Canisters by Method TO-15 (June 2014) and the project specific QAPP, 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah, Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Salt Lake City Health Care System, November, 2019. Are the field duplicate relative percent differences (RPDs) ≤40%? Were the Matrix Spike Duplicate RPDs ≤ 20%? (Or lab defined limits) Volatile Organic Compounds TO-15 / TO-15 SIM Laboratory Control Spike Duplicate RPDs within limits? Comments (note deviations): 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Site Air Samples Laboratory: Analysis/Methods: 2103700Sample Delivery Group (SDG) Number: Salt Lake City, Utah Data Validation Report Comments (note deviations): Associated Samples 1 of 3 Blanks TO-15 / SIM Concentration (ug/m3)MDL / RL (ug/m3)Qualifiers Associated Samples Lab Blank 2103700-03A 4-Methyl-2-pentanone 0.049 J 0.038 / 0.41 U-RL Acetone 0.37 J 0.3 / 2.4 None Methylene Chloride 0.51 J 0.35 / 0.69 None 2103700-03B (SIM) 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 0.016 J 0.0065/ 0.11 None 2103700-03C Acetone 0.77 J 0.3 / 2.4 U-RL Carbon Disulfide 1.0 J 0.58 / 6.2 None Field Blank TO-15 / SIM Concentration MDL / RL Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Surrogates TO-15 / SIM %R Limit Qualifiers Acceptable MS/MSD TO-15 SIM %R Limits (%)Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A LCS/LCSD TO-15 / SIM %R Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples 2103700-05A /2103700-05AA 3-Chloropropene 137 / 139 70-130 J**2103700-02A 2103700-05B /2103700-05BB (SIM)Acceptable 2103700-05C /2103700-05CC Acceptable **Qualification required for detected results only - associated sample results nondetect - no qualification required ICV/CCV TO-15 / SIM %R Qualifiers Associated Samples 3/26/2021 16:10 3-Chloropropene 145.44 J / UJ 3/18/2021 8:59 Acceptable ICAL TO-15 / SIM RRF %RSD Qualifiers Associated Samples 3/25/2021 20:36 Acceptable Acceptable 3/25/2021 18:24 (SIM)Acceptable Acceptable 3/17/2021 15:23 Acceptable Acceptable CCV TO-15 / SIM RRF %D Qualifiers Associated Samples 4/1/2021 8:06 Acceptable Acceptable 4/1/2021 8:06 (SIM) Acceptable Acceptable 4/2/2021 12:13 Acceptable Acceptable 4/2/2021 12:13 (SIM)Acceptable Acceptable 4/5/2021 9:40 am Acceptable Acceptable 4/5/2021 9:00 pm Acceptable Acceptable Tune TO-15 / SIM Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable Internal Standards TO-15 / SIM Area %Area % Criteria Qualifiers Associated Samples All Internal Standards Acceptable Canister Certification TO-15 / SIM Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable Sample result > RL 2103700-01A All samples 2103700-02A Associated Samples Sample result > RL Sample results nondetect Sample results nondetect 2 of 3 Raw Data Review TO-15 / SIM Results Recalculated Sample Result Acceptable Sample #Laboratory Reported Result Recalculated Sample Result (ug/m3)(ug/m3) TO-15 RRF / Concentration 2103700-01A Tetrachloroethene: 16000 0.3759 / 16467 2103700-01A Trichloroethene: 32 0.25901 / 31.993 TO-15-SIM 2103700-02B Benzene: 0.03 1.4887 / 0.034 2103700-02B Chloroform: 14 4.9368 /14.059 (OR) (OR) Target Compound Identification Acceptable Chromatogram review Acceptable Representativeness:Yes No N/A Were sampling procedures and design criteria met? Yes Were holding times met? Yes Was preservation criteria met? (0° - 6° C)N/A Were Chain-of-Custody records complete and provided in data package?Yes Holding Time / Canister Pressure Criteria Days to Analysis Criteria Associated Samples Holding Time Acceptable Canister Pressure Criteria Comparability:Yes No N/A Were analytical procedures and methods followed as defined in the QAPP or field change documentation?Yes Comments (note deviations): Completeness (90%):Yes No N/A Are all data in this SDG usable?Yes Sensitivity:Yes No N/A Are MDLs present and reported? Yes Do the reporting limits meet project requirements? Yes Comments (note deviations): Data Validator:Date: Data Reviewer:Date:Cherie Zakowski Kristine Molloy 4/18/2021 Overall Comments: Data is usable with appropriate qualifiers applied. Initial and Final Canister Pressure Results Acceptable Comments (note 4/20/2021 Comments (note 3 of 3 Eurofins Air Toxics Matrix:Air Collection date:03/22/21 Volatile Organic Compounds - EPA Method TO-15 Volatile Organic Compounds - EPA Method TO-15 SIM Samples in SDG: Sample Number Laboratory Number MW27-SG032221-28 2103701-01A SG60-SG032221 2103701-02A / B MW27-SG032221-113 2103701-03A SG03-SG032221 2103701-04A / B Precision:Yes No N/A N/A Yes N/A Were the Laboratory Duplicate RPDs within limits?N/A Field TO-15 / SIM Sample (ug/m3)Duplicate (ug/m3)%RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples Duplicates N/A LCS/LCSD TO-15 / SIM %RPD Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples 2103701-07A /2103701-07AA Acceptable 2103701-07B /2103701-07BB (SIM)Acceptable 2103701-07C /2103701-07CC Acceptable 2103701-07D /2103701-07DD Acceptable MS/MSD TO-15 / SIM %RPD Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Laboratory Sample (ug/m3)Duplicate (ug/m3)RL %RPD Qualifiers Duplicate 2103701-01A / -01AA Acceptable 2103701-04A / -04AA Acceptable 2103701-04B / -04BB (SIM)Acceptable 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Site Air Samples Laboratory: Analysis/Methods: 2103701Sample Delivery Group (SDG) Number: Salt Lake City, Utah Data Validation Report Comments (note deviations): Associated Samples Data validation was performed in accordance with the specific analytical methods and the U.S. EPA Analysis of Volatile Organic Compounds in Air Contained in Canisters by Method TO-15 (June 2014) and the project specific QAPP, 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah, Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Salt Lake City Health Care System, November, 2019. Are the field duplicate relative percent differences (RPDs) ≤40%? Were the Matrix Spike Duplicate RPDs ≤ 20%? (Or lab defined limits) Volatile Organic Compounds TO-15 / TO-15 SIM Laboratory Control Spike Duplicate RPDs within limits? 1 of 4 Accuracy:Yes No N/A Was the Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate criteria met? (frequency ≥ 5% and laboratory determined control limits) N/A Laboratory Control Sample criteria met?No Were the Laboratory Method Blank results all < RL?No Were the Field Blanks results all < RL?N/A Was the ICAL criteria met? (30%)Yes Was the CCV criteria met? (30%)No Was the Tuning criteria met?Yes Were the Surrogate % recoveries within laboratory determined control limits?Yes Were the Internal Standard areas within ± 60 - 140%? Yes Was canister certification criteria met?Yes Were sample results able to be recalculated from the laboratory raw data and were they accurate?Yes Was target compound identification correctly performed by the laboratory?Yes Were chromatograms representative of the sample results?Yes Blanks TO-15 / SIM Concentration (ug/m3)MDL / RL (ug/m3)Qualifiers Associated Samples Lab Blank 4-Methyl-2-pentanone 0.045 J 0.038 / 0.41 None 2103701-05A Acetone 0.42 J 0.3 / 2.4 None Methylene Chloride 0.47 J 0.35 / 0.69 None Lab Blank 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 0.016 J 0.0065/ 0.11 U-RL 2103701-05B (SIM) Lab Blank 2103701-05C Acetone 0.77 J 0.44 / 12 U-RL 2103701-03A Carbon Disulfide 1.0 J 0.58 / 6.2 None Lab Blank 2103701-05D 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 5.3 J 5.3 / 30 None Field Blank TO-15 / SIM Concentration MDL / RL Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Surrogates TO-15 / SIM %R Limit Qualifiers Acceptable MS/MSD TO-15 SIM %R Limits (%)Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A LCS/LCSD TO-15 / SIM %R Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples 2103701-07A /2103701-07AA 3-Chloropropene 131 / 135 71-131 J** 2103701-07B /2103701-07BB (SIM)Acceptable 2103701-07C /2103701-07CC Acceptable 2103701-07D /2103701-07DD Acceptable **Qualification required for detected results only - associated sample results nondetect - no qualification required ICV/CCV TO-15 / SIM %R Qualifiers Associated Samples 3-Chloropropene 145.44 J / UJ ICAL TO-15 / SIM RRF %RSD Qualifiers Associated Samples 3/25/2021 20:36 Acceptable Acceptable 3/25/2021 18:24 (SIM)Acceptable Acceptable All samples Sample results nondetect Comments (note deviations): Associated Samples 2103701-02B & 2103701-04B Sample results > RL Sample results nondetect Sample results nondetect 2103701-02A & 2103701-04A Sample results nondetect 2 of 4 CCV TO-15 / SIM RRF %D Qualifiers Associated Samples 4/2/2021 9:37 Acceptable Acceptable 4/2/2021 9:37 (SIM) Acceptable Acceptable 4/5/2021 9:40 Acceptable Acceptable 4/6/2021 7:59 Acceptable Acceptable 4/2/2021 11:20 Acceptable Acceptable 4/2/2021 11:20 (SIM) Acceptable Acceptable 4/5/2021 9:00 Acceptable Acceptable 4/6/2021 9:02 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene Acceptable 31.584 J /UJ Tune TO-15 / SIM Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable Internal Standards TO-15 / SIM Area %Area % Criteria Qualifiers Associated Samples All Internal Standards Acceptable Canister Certification TO-15 / SIM Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable Raw Data Review TO-15 / SIM Results Recalculated Sample Result Acceptable Sample #Laboratory Reported Result Recalculated Sample Result (ug/m3)(ug/m3) TO-15 RRF / Concentration 2103701-02A 2-Propanol: 2.0 3.396 / 1.974 2103701-02A Ethanol: 0.80 0.2445 / 0.801 TO-15-SIM 2103701-02B Carbon Tetrachloride: 0.12 3.5621 / 0.118 2103701-02B Tetrachloroethene: 56 0.7745 / 56.561 (OR) (OR) Target Compound Identification Acceptable Chromatogram review Acceptable Representativeness:Yes No N/A Were sampling procedures and design criteria met? Yes Were holding times met? Yes Was preservation criteria met? (0° - 6° C)N/A Were Chain-of-Custody records complete and provided in data package?Yes Holding Time / Canister Pressure Criteria Days to Analysis Criteria Associated Samples Holding Time Acceptable Canister Pressure Criteria Comments (note deviations): 2103701-01A Initial and Final Canister Pressure Results Acceptable 3 of 4 Comparability:Yes No N/A Were analytical procedures and methods followed as defined in the QAPP or field change documentation?Yes Comments (note deviations): Completeness (90%):Yes No N/A Are all data in this SDG usable?Yes Sensitivity:Yes No N/A Are MDLs present and reported? Yes Do the reporting limits meet project requirements? Yes Comments (note deviations): Data Validator:Date: Data Reviewer:Date:Cherie Zakowski Kristine Molloy 4/20/2021 Overall Comments: Data are usable with appropriate qualifiers applied. Samples MW27-SG032221-28 and MW27-SG032221-113 were analyzed by full scan TO-15 instead of the SIM/Low Level method due to high levels of target compounds. Comments (note deviations): 4/22/2021 4 of 4 Eurofins Air Toxics Matrix:Air Collection date:03/23/21 Volatile Organic Compounds - EPA Method TO-15 Volatile Organic Compounds - EPA Method TO-15 SIM Samples in SDG: Sample Number Laboratory Number MW28-SG032321-48 2103702-01A / B MW28-SG032321-24 2103702-02A / B MW28-SG032321-118 2103702-03A / B SG11-SG032321 2103702-04A / B Precision:Yes No N/A N/A Yes N/A Were the Laboratory Duplicate RPDs within limits?No Field TO-15 / SIM Sample (ug/m3)Duplicate (ug/m3)%RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples Duplicates N/A LCS/LCSD TO-15 / SIM %RPD Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples 2103702-07A /2103702-07AA Acceptable 2103702-07B /2103702-07BB (SIM)Acceptable MS/MSD TO-15 / SIM %RPD Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Laboratory Sample (ug/m3)Duplicate (ug/m3)RL %RPD Qualifiers Duplicate 2103702-01AA 4-Methyl-2-pentanone 1.0 J 0.63 J 5.8 46 None Carbon Disulfide 4.2 J 22 U 22 NC None Tetrahydrofuran 2.5 J 21 U 21 NC None 2103702-01BB (SIM) Benzene 0.36 J 0.29 J 2.3 23 None Associated Samples 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Site Air Samples Laboratory: Analysis/Methods: 2103702Sample Delivery Group (SDG) Number: Salt Lake City, Utah Data Validation Report Data validation was performed in accordance with the specific analytical methods and the U.S. EPA Analysis of Volatile Organic Compounds in Air Contained in Canisters by Method TO-15 (June 2014) and the project specific QAPP, 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah, Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Salt Lake City Health Care System, November, 2019. Are the field duplicate relative percent differences (RPDs) ≤40%? Were the Matrix Spike Duplicate RPDs ≤ 20%? (Or lab defined limits) Volatile Organic Compounds TO-15 / TO-15 SIM Laboratory Control Spike Duplicate RPDs within limits? Comments (note deviations): Sample results < 5xs RL; Abs Diff. < RL Sample results < 5xs RL; Abs Diff. <RL 1 of 3 Accuracy:Yes No N/A Was the Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate criteria met? (frequency ≥ 5% and laboratory determined control limits) N/A Laboratory Control Sample criteria met?No Were the Laboratory Method Blank results all < RL?No Were the Field Blanks results all < RL?N/A Was the ICAL criteria met? (30%)Yes Was the CCV criteria met? (30%)Yes Was the Tuning criteria met?Yes Were the Surrogate % recoveries within laboratory determined control limits?Yes Were the Internal Standard areas within ± 60 - 140%? Yes Was canister certification criteria met?Yes Were sample results able to be recalculated from the laboratory raw data and were they accurate?Yes Was target compound identification correctly performed by the laboratory?Yes Were chromatograms representative of the sample results?Yes Blanks TO-15 / SIM Concentration (ug/m3)MDL / RL (ug/m3)Qualifiers Associated Samples Lab Blank 2103702-05A Acetone 0.40 J 0.3 / 2.4 U-RL Methylene Chloride 0.55 J 0.35 / 0.69 None 2103702-05B (SIM) 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 0.017 J 0.0065/ 0.11 U-RL Field Blank TO-15 / SIM Concentration MDL / RL Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Surrogates TO-15 / SIM %R Limit Qualifiers Acceptable MS/MSD TO-15 SIM %R Limits (%)Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A LCS/LCSD TO-15 / SIM %R Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples 2103702-07A /2103702-07AA 3-Chloropropene 149 / 143 70-130 J**All samples 2103702-07B /2103702-07BB (SIM)Acceptable **Qualification required for detected results only - associated sample results nondetect - no qualification required ICV/CCV TO-15 / SIM %R Qualifiers Associated Samples 3/26/2021 16:10 3-Chloropropene 145.44 J / UJ ICAL TO-15 / SIM RRF %RSD Qualifiers Associated Samples 3/25/2021 20:36 Acceptable Acceptable 3/25/2021 18:24 (SIM)Acceptable Acceptable CCV TO-15 / SIM RRF %D Qualifiers Associated Samples 3/31/2021 7:23 Acceptable Acceptable 4/1/2021 12:06 Acceptable Acceptable 3/31/2021 7:23 (SIM)Acceptable Acceptable 4/1/2021 12:06 (SIM)Acceptable Acceptable Tune TO-15 / SIM Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable Internal Standards TO-15 / SIM Area %Area % Criteria Qualifiers Associated Samples All Internal Standards Acceptable Comments (note deviations): Associated Samples 2103702-02B & 2103702-04B Sample results nondetect All samples 2103702-02A & 2103702-04A 2 of 3 Canister Certification TO-15 / SIM Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable Raw Data Review TO-15 / SIM Results Recalculated Sample Result Acceptable Sample #Laboratory Reported Result Recalculated Sample Result (ug/m3)(ug/m3) TO-15 RRF / Concentration 2103702-03A 2-Propanol: 6.2 3.396 / 6.236 2103702-03A Freon 11: 66 4.5923 / 66.224 TO-15-SIM 2103702-03B Chloroethane: 0.15 0.7124 / 0.142 2103702-03B Freon 12: 5.3 5.2326 / 5.337 (OR) (OR) Target Compound Identification Acceptable Chromatogram review Acceptable Representativeness:Yes No N/A Were sampling procedures and design criteria met? Yes Were holding times met? Yes Was preservation criteria met? (0° - 6° C)N/A Were Chain-of-Custody records complete and provided in data package?Yes Holding Time / Canister Pressure Criteria Days to Analysis Criteria Associated Samples Holding Time Acceptable Canister Pressure Criteria Comparability:Yes No N/A Were analytical procedures and methods followed as defined in the QAPP or field change documentation?Yes Comments (note deviations): Completeness (90%):Yes No N/A Are all data in this SDG usable?Yes Sensitivity:Yes No N/A Are MDLs present and reported? Yes Do the reporting limits meet project requirements? Yes Comments (note deviations): Data Validator:Date: Data Reviewer:Date: Comments (note deviations): Cherie Zakowski Kristine Molloy 4/19/2021 Overall Comments: Data are usable with appropriate qualifiers applied. Initial and Final Canister Pressure Results Acceptable Comments (note deviations): 4/23/2021 3 of 3 Eurofins Air Toxics Matrix:Air Collection date:03/23/21 Volatile Organic Compounds - EPA Method TO-15 Volatile Organic Compounds - EPA Method TO-15 SIM Samples in SDG: Sample Number Laboratory Number SG10-SG032321 2103703-01A / B SG08-SG032321 2103703-02A / B SG13-SG032321 2103703-03A / B FD01-SG032321 2103703-04A / B Precision:Yes No N/A Yes Yes N/A Were the Laboratory Duplicate RPDs within limits?N/A Field TO-15 / SIM Sample (ug/m3)Duplicate (ug/m3)%RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples Duplicates SG10-SG032321 FD01-SG032321 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 0.54 J 0.52 J NC None 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 0.22 J 0.21 J NC None 1,4-Dioxane 0.32 J 0.51 U NC None 2-Butanone (Methyl Ethyl Ketone) 0.37 J 0.5 J NC None 2-Propanol 0.92 J 1.9 NC None Acetone 3.0 J 4.4 NC None Bromodichloromethane 0.12 J 0.074 J NC None Carbon Disulfide 0.44 J 0.54 J NC None Ethanol 0.56 J 0.74 J NC None Freon 11 1.4 1.4 NC None Freon 113 0.52 J 0.54 J NC None Benzene (SIM) 0.24 U 0.034 J NC None Chloromethane (SIM) 0.032 J 1.4 U NC None Ethyl Benzene (SIM) 0.12 J 0.13 J NC None Freon 114 (SIM) 0.10 J 0.11 J NC None m,p-Xylene (SIM) 0.44 0.44 NC None o-Xylene (SIM) 0.18 0.17 NC None Trichloroethene (SIM) 0.16 U 0.022 J NC None Toluene (SIM) 0.13 J 0.14 J NC None LCS/LCSD TO-15 / SIM %RPD Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples 2103703-07A / 07AA Acceptable 2103703-07B / 07BB (SIM)Acceptable 2103703-07C / 07CC Acceptable 2103703-07D / 07DD Acceptable MS/MSD TO-15 / SIM %RPD Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Site Air Samples Laboratory: Analysis/Methods: 2103703Sample Delivery Group (SDG) Number: Salt Lake City, Utah Data Validation Report Data validation was performed in accordance with the specific analytical methods and the U.S. EPA Analysis of Volatile Organic Compounds in Air Contained in Canisters by Method TO-15 (June 2014) and the project specific QAPP, 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah, Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Salt Lake City Health Care System, November, 2019. Are the field duplicate relative percent differences (RPDs) ≤40%? Were the Matrix Spike Duplicate RPDs ≤ 20%? (Or lab defined limits) Volatile Organic Compounds TO-15 / TO-15 SIM Laboratory Control Spike Duplicate RPDs within limits? Comments (note deviations): Sample results < 5xs RL; ABS Diff. < RL Sample results < 5xs RL; ABS Diff. < RL 1 of 4 Laboratory Sample (ug/m3) Duplicate (ug/m3)RL %RPD Qualifiers Duplicate 2103703-04A / 04AA Acceptable 2103703-04B / 04BB Acceptable Accuracy:Yes No N/A Was the Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate criteria met? (frequency ≥ 5% and laboratory determined control limits) N/A Laboratory Control Sample criteria met?No Were the Laboratory Method Blank results all < RL?No Were the Field Blanks results all < RL?N/A Was the ICAL criteria met? (30%)Yes Was the CCV criteria met? (30%)Yes Was the Tuning criteria met?Yes Were the Surrogate % recoveries within laboratory determined control limits?Yes Were the Internal Standard areas within ± 60 - 140%? Yes Was canister certification criteria met?Yes Were sample results able to be recalculated from the laboratory raw data and were they accurate?Yes Was target compound identification correctly performed by the laboratory?Yes Were chromatograms representative of the sample results?Yes Blanks TO-15 / SIM Concentration (ug/m3)MDL / RL (ug/m3)Qualifiers Associated Samples Lab Blank 2103703-05A Acetone 0.40 J 0.3 / 2.4 U-RL 2103703-01A Methylene Chloride 0.55 J 0.35 / 0.69 None 2103703-05B (SIM) 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 0.017 J 0.0065 / 0.11 U-RL 2103703-05C 4-Methyl-2-pentanone 0.049 J 0.038 / 0.41 None Acetone 0.37 J 0.3 / 2.4 U-RL 2103703-02A Methylene Chloride 0.51 J 0.35 / 0.69 None 2103703-05D (SIM) 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 0.016 J 0.0065 / 0.11 U-RL Field Blank TO-15 / SIM Concentration MDL / RL Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Surrogates TO-15 / SIM %R Limit Qualifiers Acceptable MS/MSD TO-15 SIM %R Limits (%)Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A LCS/LCSD TO-15 / SIM %R Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples 2103703-07A / 07AA 3-Chloropropene 149 / 143 70-130 J**2103703-01A, 2103703-03A 2103703-07B / 07BB (SIM)Acceptable 2103703-07C / 07CC 3-Chloropropene 137 / 139 70-130 J** 2103703-07D / 07DD (SIM)Acceptable **Qualification required for detected results only - associated sample results nondetect - no qualification required ICV/CCV TO-15 / SIM %R Qualifiers Associated Samples 3/26/2021 16:10 3-Chloropropene 145.44 J / UJ 2103703-02A, 2103703-04A Comments (note deviations): Associated Samples Sample results nondetect All samples Associated Samples 2103703-03B Sample results nondetect 2103703-02B Sample results nondetect 2 of 4 ICAL TO-15 / SIM RRF %RSD Qualifiers Associated Samples 3/25/2021 20:36 Acceptable Acceptable 3/25/2021 18:24 (SIM)Acceptable Acceptable CCV TO-15 / SIM RRF %D Qualifiers Associated Samples 3/31/2021 7:23 Acceptable Acceptable 4/1/2021 12:06 Acceptable Acceptable 4/1/2021 8:06 Acceptable Acceptable 4/2/2021 12:13 Acceptable Acceptable 3/31/2021 7:23 (SIM)Acceptable Acceptable 4/1/2021 12:06 (SIM)Acceptable Acceptable 4/1/2021 8:06 (SIM)Acceptable Acceptable 4/2/2021 12:13 (SIM)Acceptable Acceptable Tune TO-15 / SIM Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable Internal Standards TO-15 / SIM Area %Area % Criteria Qualifiers Associated Samples All Internal Standards Acceptable Canister Certification TO-15 / SIM Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable Raw Data Review TO-15 / SIM Results Recalculated Sample Result Acceptable Sample #Laboratory Reported Result Recalculated Sample Result (ug/m3)(ug/m3) TO-15 RRF / Concentration 2103703-01A 1,4-Dioxane: 0.32 0.3524 / 0.322 2103703-01A Carbon Disulfide: 0.44 5.455 / 0.442 TO-15 - SIM 2103703-01B Chloroform: 39 4.9368 / 39.028 2103703-01B Toluene: 0.13 1.7697 / 0.133 (OR) (OR) Target Compound Identification Acceptable Chromatogram review Acceptable Representativeness:Yes No N/A Were sampling procedures and design criteria met? Yes Were holding times met? Yes Was preservation criteria met? (0° - 6° C)N/A Were Chain-of-Custody records complete and provided in data package?Yes Holding Time / Canister Pressure Criteria Days to Analysis Criteria Qualifiers Associated Samples Holding Time Acceptable Comments (note 3 of 4 Canister Pressure Criteria Comparability:Yes No N/A Were analytical procedures and methods followed as defined in the QAPP or field change documentation?Yes Comments (note deviations): Completeness (90%):Yes No N/A Are all data in this SDG usable?Yes Sensitivity:Yes No N/A Are MDLs present and reported? Yes Do the reporting limits meet project requirements? Yes Comments (note deviations): Data Validator:Date: Data Reviewer:Date:Cherie Zakowski Kristine Molloy 4/22/2021 Overall Comments: Data are usable with appropriate qualifiers applied. Initial and Final Canister Pressure Results Acceptable Comments (note 4/26/2021 4 of 4 Eurofins Air Toxics Matrix:Air Collection date:03/23/21 Volatile Organic Compounds - EPA Method TO-15 Volatile Organic Compounds - EPA Method TO-15 SIM Samples in SDG: Sample Number Laboratory Number SG04-SG032321 2103725-01A / B SG50-SG032321 2103725-02A / B SG06-SG032321 2103725-03A / B SG05-SG032321 2103725-04A / B Precision:Yes No N/A N/A Yes N/A Were the Laboratory Duplicate RPDs within limits?N/A Field TO-15 / SIM Sample (ug/m3)Duplicate (ug/m3)%RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples Duplicates N/A LCS/LCSD TO-15 / SIM %RPD Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples 2103725-07A / 07AA Acceptable 2103725-07B/ 07BB (SIM)Acceptable MS/MSD TO-15 / SIM %RPD Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Laboratory Sample (ug/m3)Duplicate (ug/m3)RL %RPD Qualifiers Duplicate N/A Accuracy:Yes No N/A Was the Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate criteria met? (frequency ≥ 5% and laboratory determined control limits) N/A Laboratory Control Sample criteria met?No Were the Laboratory Method Blank results all < RL?No Were the Field Blanks results all < RL?N/A Was the ICAL criteria met? (30%)Yes Was the CCV criteria met? (30%)Yes Was the Tuning criteria met?Yes Were the Surrogate % recoveries within laboratory determined control limits?Yes Were the Internal Standard areas within ± 60 - 140%? Yes Was canister certification criteria met?Yes Were sample results able to be recalculated from the laboratory raw data and were they accurate?Yes Was target compound identification correctly performed by the laboratory?Yes Were chromatograms representative of the sample results?Yes Data validation was performed in accordance with the specific analytical methods and the U.S. EPA Analysis of Volatile Organic Compounds in Air Contained in Canisters by Method TO-15 (June 2014) and the project specific QAPP, 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah, Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Salt Lake City Health Care System, November, 2019. Are the field duplicate relative percent differences (RPDs) ≤40%? Were the Matrix Spike Duplicate RPDs ≤ 20%? (Or lab defined limits) Volatile Organic Compounds TO-15 / TO-15 SIM Laboratory Control Spike Duplicate RPDs within limits? Comments (note deviations): 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Site Air Samples Laboratory: Analysis/Methods: 2103725Sample Delivery Group (SDG) Number: Salt Lake City, Utah Data Validation Report Comments (note deviations): Associated Samples 1 of 3 Blanks TO-15 / SIM Concentration (ug/m3)MDL / RL (ug/m3)Qualifiers Associated Samples Lab Blank 2103725-05A 4-Methyl-2-pentanone 0.049 J 0.038 / 0.41 None Acetone 0.37 J 0.3 / 2.4 U-RL All samples Methylene Chloride 0.51 J 0.35 / 0.69 None 2103725-05B (SIM) 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 0.016 J 0.0065/ 0.11 U-RL Field Blank TO-15 / SIM Concentration MDL / RL Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Surrogates TO-15 / SIM %R Limit Qualifiers Acceptable MS/MSD TO-15 SIM %R Limits (%)Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A LCS/LCSD TO-15 / SIM %R Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples 2103725-07A / 07AA 3-Chloropropene 137 / 139 70-130 J**All samples 2103725-07B/ 07BB (SIM)Acceptable **Qualification required for detected results only - associated sample results nondetect - no qualification required ICV/CCV TO-15 / SIM %R Qualifiers Associated Samples 3/26/2021 16:10 3-Chloropropene 145.44 J / UJ ICAL TO-15 / SIM RRF %RSD Qualifiers Associated Samples 3/25/2021 20:36 Acceptable Acceptable 3/25/2021 18:24 (SIM)Acceptable Acceptable CCV TO-15 / SIM RRF %D Qualifiers Associated Samples 4/1/2021 8:00 Acceptable Acceptable 4/2/2021 12:13 Acceptable Acceptable 4/1/2021 8:06 (SIM) Acceptable Acceptable 4/2/2021 12:13 (SIM) Acceptable Acceptable Tune TO-15 / SIM Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable Internal Standards TO-15 / SIM Area %Area % Criteria Qualifiers Associated Samples All Internal Standards Acceptable Canister Certification TO-15 / SIM Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable All samples Associated Samples All samples Sample results nondetect Sample results nondetect 2 of 3 Raw Data Review TO-15 / SIM Results Recalculated Sample Result Acceptable Sample #Laboratory Reported Result Recalculated Sample Result (ug/m3)(ug/m3) TO-15 RRF / Concentration 2103725-01A Acetone: 7.9 1.041 / 8.154 2103725-01A Bromodichloromethane: 38 1.060 / 36.618 TO-15 - SIM 2103725-01B Freon 114: 0.11 3.3554 / 0.113 2103725-01B Freon 12: 2.4 5.2329 / 2.424 (OR) (OR) Target Compound Identification Acceptable Chromatogram review Acceptable Representativeness:Yes No N/A Were sampling procedures and design criteria met? Yes Were holding times met? Yes Was preservation criteria met? (0° - 6° C)N/A Were Chain-of-Custody records complete and provided in data package?Yes Holding Time / Canister Pressure Criteria Days to Analysis Criteria Associated Samples Holding Time Acceptable Canister Pressure Criteria Comparability:Yes No N/A Were analytical procedures and methods followed as defined in the QAPP or field change documentation?Yes Comments (note deviations): Completeness (90%):Yes No N/A Are all data in this SDG usable?Yes Sensitivity:Yes No N/A Are MDLs present and reported? Yes Do the reporting limits meet project requirements? Yes Comments (note deviations): Data Validator:Date: Data Reviewer:Date:Cherie Zakowski Kristine Molloy 4/18/2021 Overall Comments: Data are usable with appropriate qualifiers applied. Initial and Final Canister Pressure Results Acceptable Comments (note deviations): 4/21/2021 Comments (note deviations): 3 of 3 Eurofins Air Toxics Matrix:Air Collection date:03/24/21 Volatile Organic Compounds - EPA Method TO-15 Volatile Organic Compounds - EPA Method TO-15 SIM Samples in SDG: Sample Number Laboratory Number VP14-SG032421 2103751-01A / B VP04-SG032421 2103751-02A VP15-SG032421 2103751-03A VP17-SG032421 2103751-04A / B Precision:Yes No N/A N/A Yes N/A Were the Laboratory Duplicate RPDs within limits?N/A Field TO-15 / SIM Sample (ug/m3)Duplicate (ug/m3)%RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples Duplicates N/A LCS/LCSD TO-15 / SIM %RPD Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples 2103751-07A / 07AA Acceptable 2103751-07B / 07BB (SIM)Acceptable 2103751-07C / 07CC Acceptable MS/MSD TO-15 / SIM %RPD Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Laboratory Sample (ug/m3)Duplicate (ug/m3)RL %RPD Qualifiers Duplicate 2103751-03A / 03AA 2-Propanol 25 J 140 U 140 NC None Acetone 350 U 18 J 350 NC None Freon 11 23 J 17 J 82 30 None Accuracy:Yes No N/A Was the Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate criteria met? (frequency ≥ 5% and laboratory determined control limits) N/A Laboratory Control Sample criteria met?No Were the Laboratory Method Blank results all < RL?No Were the Field Blanks results all < RL?N/A Was the ICAL criteria met? (30%)Yes Was the CCV criteria met? (30%)Yes Was the Tuning criteria met?Yes Were the Surrogate % recoveries within laboratory determined control limits?Yes Were the Internal Standard areas within ± 60 - 140%? Yes Was canister certification criteria met?Yes Were sample results able to be recalculated from the laboratory raw data and were they accurate?Yes Was target compound identification correctly performed by the laboratory?Yes Were chromatograms representative of the sample results?Yes Data validation was performed in accordance with the specific analytical methods and the U.S. EPA Analysis of Volatile Organic Compounds in Air Contained in Canisters by Method TO-15 (June 2014) and the project specific QAPP, 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah, Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Salt Lake City Health Care System, November, 2019. Are the field duplicate relative percent differences (RPDs) ≤40%? Were the Matrix Spike Duplicate RPDs ≤ 20%? (Or lab defined limits) Volatile Organic Compounds TO-15 / TO-15 SIM Laboratory Control Spike Duplicate RPDs within limits? Comments (note deviations): Associated Samples Sample result < 5xs RL; ABS Diff. < RL 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Site Air Samples Laboratory: Analysis/Methods: 2103751Sample Delivery Group (SDG) Number: Salt Lake City, Utah Data Validation Report Comments (note deviations): 1 of 3 Blanks TO-15 / SIM Concentration (ug/m3)MDL / RL (ug/m3)Qualifiers Associated Samples Lab Blank 2103751-05A 4-Methyl-2-Pentanone 0.045 J 0.038 / 0.41 U-RL 2103751-01A Acetone 0.42 J 0.3 / 2.4 U-RL 2103751-04A Methylene Chloride 0.47 J 0.35 / 0.69 U-RL 2103751-01A; 2103751-04A 2103751-05B (SIM) 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 0.016 J 0.0065 / 0.11 None 2103751-05C Acetone 0.78 J None Sample results nondetect Field Blank TO-15 / SIM Concentration MDL / RL Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Surrogates TO-15 / SIM %R Limit Qualifiers Acceptable MS/MSD TO-15 SIM %R Limits (%)Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A LCS/LCSD TO-15 / SIM %R Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples 2103751-07A / 07AA 3-Chloropropene 131 / 135 70-130 J** 2103751-01A; 2103751-04A 2103751-07B / 07BB (SIM)Acceptable 2103751-07C / 07CC Acceptable **Qualification required for detected results only - associated sample results nondetect - no qualification required ICV/CCV TO-15 / SIM %R Qualifiers Associated Samples 3/26/2021 16:10 3-Chloropropene 145.44 J / UJ ICAL TO-15 / SIM RRF %RSD Qualifiers Associated Samples 3/25/2021 20:36 Acceptable Acceptable 3/25/2021 18:24 (SIM)Acceptable Acceptable CCV TO-15 / SIM RRF %D Qualifiers Associated Samples 4/2/2021 9:37 Acceptable Acceptable 4/6/2021 11:20 Acceptable Acceptable 4/2/2021 11:20 Acceptable Acceptable 4/6/2021 8:01 Acceptable Acceptable 4/2/2021 9:37 (SIM) Acceptable Acceptable 4/2/2021 11:20 (SIM) Acceptable Acceptable Tune TO-15 / SIM Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable Internal Standards TO-15 / SIM Area %Area % Criteria Qualifiers Associated Samples All Internal Standards Acceptable Canister Certification TO-15 / SIM Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable Sample results > RL All samples Associated Samples 2 of 3 Raw Data Review TO-15 / SIM Results Recalculated Sample Result Acceptable Sample #Laboratory Reported Result Recalculated Sample Result (ug/m3)(ug/m3) TO-15 RRF / Concentration 2103751-01A 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene: 0.066 1.876 / 0.066 2103751-01A 2-Butanone: 4.6 1.26763 / 4.593 TO-15 - SIM 2103751-01B Carbon Tetrachloride: 0.17 3.5628 / 0.174 2103751-01B Toluene: 0.4 1.76944 / 0.396 (OR) (OR) Target Compound Identification Acceptable Chromatogram review Acceptable Representativeness:Yes No N/A Were sampling procedures and design criteria met? Yes Were holding times met? Yes Was preservation criteria met? (0° - 6° C)N/A Were Chain-of-Custody records complete and provided in data package?Yes Holding Time / Canister Pressure Criteria Days to Analysis Criteria Qualifiers Associated Samples Holding Time Acceptable Canister Pressure Criteria Comparability:Yes No N/A Were analytical procedures and methods followed as defined in the QAPP or field change documentation?Yes Comments (note deviations): Completeness (90%):Yes No N/A Are all data in this SDG usable?Yes Sensitivity:Yes No N/A Are MDLs present and reported? Yes Do the reporting limits meet project requirements? Yes Comments (note deviations): Data Validator:Date: Data Reviewer:Date:Cherie Zakowski Kristine Molloy 4/22/2021 Overall Comments: Data are usable with appropriate qualifiers applied. Initial and Final Canister Pressure Results Acceptable Comments (note 4/26/2021 Comments (note 3 of 3 Eurofins Air Toxics Matrix:Air Collection date:03/24/21 Volatile Organic Compounds - EPA Method TO-15 Volatile Organic Compounds - EPA Method TO-15 SIM Samples in SDG: Sample Number Laboratory Number VP19-SG032421 2103752-01A / B FD02-SG032421 2103752-02A /B VP08-SG032421 2103752-03A / B VP13-SG032421 2103752-04A / B Precision:Yes No N/A Yes Yes N/A Were the Laboratory Duplicate RPDs within limits?No Field TO-15 / SIM Sample (ug/m3)Duplicate (ug/m3)%RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples Duplicates VP13-SG032421 FD02-SG032421 1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane (Freon 113)0.95 J 1.0 J NC None 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 0.11 J 0.11 J NC None 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 3.4 3.7 NC None 2-Butanone (MEK)1.3 J 1.6 J NC None Acetone 5.7 J 7.5 NC None Dibromochloromethane 0.33 J 0.38 J NC None Hexane 1.3 J 5.0 U NC None Isopropyl Alcohol (Manufacturing-Strong Acid)2.9 J 1.6 J NC None Methylene Chloride 1.6 J 1.7 J NC None Tetrahydrofuran 1.2 J 1.3 J NC None Trichlorofluoromethane (Freon 11)1.9 J 2.0 J NC None 1,1,1-Trichloroethane (SIM)0.035 J 0.033 J NC None 1,2-Dichlorotetrafluoroethane (Freon 114) (SIM)0.11 J 0.12 J NC None Benzene (SIM)0.42 J 0.31 J NC None Carbon Tetrachloride (SIM)0.68 0.71 NC None Chloroethane (SIM)0.087 J 0.099 J NC None Dichlorodifluoromethane (Freon 12) (SIM)2.4 2.4 NC None Ethylbenzene (SIM)0.067 J 0.065 J NC None m/p-Xylene (SIM)0.26 J 0.2 J NC None o-Xylene (SIM)0.12 J 0.072 J NC None Toluene (SIM)0.27 J 0.23 J NC None Trichloroethene (SIM)0.33 U 0.34 NC None LCS/LCSD TO-15 / SIM %RPD Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples 2103752-07A / 07AA Acceptable 2103752-07B / 07BB (SIM)Acceptable MS/MSD TO-15 / SIM %RPD Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Data validation was performed in accordance with the specific analytical methods and the U.S. EPA Analysis of Volatile Organic Compounds in Air Contained in Canisters by Method TO-15 (June 2014) and the project specific QAPP, 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah, Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Salt Lake City Health Care System, November, 2019. Are the field duplicate relative percent differences (RPDs) ≤40%? Were the Matrix Spike Duplicate RPDs ≤ 20%? (Or lab defined limits) Volatile Organic Compounds TO-15 / TO-15 SIM Laboratory Control Spike Duplicate RPDs within limits? Comments (note deviations): Sample results < 5xs RL; ABS Diff. < RL Sample results < 5xs RL; ABS Diff. < RL 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Site Air Samples Laboratory: Analysis/Methods: 2103752Sample Delivery Group (SDG) Number: Salt Lake City, Utah Data Validation Report 1 of 4 Laboratory Sample (ug/m3)Duplicate (ug/m3)RL %RPD Qualifiers Duplicate 2103752-01A / 01AA 1,4-Dioxane 0.12 J 0.53 U 0.53 None Methylene Chloride 1 U 0.49 J 1 None 2103752-01B / 01BB 1,2-Dibromothane 0.068 J 0.56 U 0.56 None Sample result < 5xs RL; ABS Diff. < RL Accuracy:Yes No N/A Was the Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate criteria met? (frequency ≥ 5% and laboratory determined control limits) N/A Laboratory Control Sample criteria met?Yes Were the Laboratory Method Blank results all < RL?No Were the Field Blanks results all < RL?N/A Was the ICAL criteria met? (30%)Yes Was the CCV criteria met? (30%)Yes Was the Tuning criteria met?Yes Were the Surrogate % recoveries within laboratory determined control limits?Yes Were the Internal Standard areas within ± 60 - 140%? Yes Was canister certification criteria met?Yes Were sample results able to be recalculated from the laboratory raw data and were they accurate?Yes Was target compound identification correctly performed by the laboratory?Yes Were chromatograms representative of the sample results?Yes Blanks TO-15 / SIM Concentration (ug/m3)MDL / RL (ug/m3)Qualifiers Associated Samples Lab Blank 2103752-05A Nondetect 2103752-05B (SIM) 1,2-Dibromoethane 0.055 J 0.044 / 0.38 U-RL 1,2-Dichloroethane 0.018 J 0.014 / 0.081 U-RL Trichloroethene 0.033 J 0.018 / 0.11 U-RL Field Blank TO-15 / SIM Concentration MDL / RL Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Surrogates TO-15 / SIM %R Limit Qualifiers Acceptable MS/MSD TO-15 SIM %R Limits (%)Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A LCS/LCSD TO-15 / SIM %R Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples 2103752-07A / 07AA Acceptable 2103752-07B / 07BB (SIM)Acceptable ICV/CCV TO-15 / SIM %R Qualifiers Associated Samples 4/2/2021 13:32 Freon 11 130.34 J / UJ ICAL TO-15 / SIM RRF %RSD Qualifiers Associated Samples 4/01/2021 22:03 Acceptable Acceptable 4/01/2021 20:04 (SIM)Acceptable Acceptable CCV TO-15 / SIM RRF %D Qualifiers Associated Samples 4/2/2021 2:53 Acceptable Acceptable 4/2/2021 2:53 (SIM) Acceptable Acceptable 4/3/2021 1:40 Acceptable Acceptable 4/3/2021 1:40 (SIM) Acceptable Acceptable Associated Samples 2103752-01B Sample result < 5xs RL; ABS Diff. < RL Comments (note deviations): Associated Samples All samples 2103752-01B 2103752-01B; 2103752-04B 2 of 4 Tune TO-15 / SIM Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable Internal Standards TO-15 / SIM Area %Area % Criteria Qualifiers Associated Samples All Internal Standards Acceptable Canister Certification TO-15 / SIM Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable Raw Data Review TO-15 / SIM Results Recalculated Sample Result Acceptable Sample #Laboratory Reported Result Recalculated Sample Result (ug/m3)(ug/m3) TO-15 RRF / Concentration 2103752-03A 1,3-Dichlorobenzene: 7.0 1.3741 / 6.971 2103752-03A Bromodichloromethane: 1.6 0.96706 / 1.62 TO-15 - SIM 2103752-03B Benzene: 0.049 1.1297 / 0.049 2103752-03B Freon 12: 2.8 2.4433 / 2.799 (OR) (OR) Target Compound Identification Acceptable Chromatogram review Acceptable Representativeness:Yes No N/A Were sampling procedures and design criteria met? Yes Were holding times met? Yes Was preservation criteria met? (0° - 6° C)N/A Were Chain-of-Custody records complete and provided in data package?Yes Holding Time / Canister Pressure Criteria Days to Analysis Criteria Qualifiers Associated Samples Holding Time Acceptable Canister Pressure Criteria Initial and Final Canister Pressure Results Acceptable Comments (note 3 of 4 Comparability:Yes No N/A Were analytical procedures and methods followed as defined in the QAPP or field change documentation?Yes Comments (note deviations): Completeness (90%):Yes No N/A Are all data in this SDG usable?Yes Sensitivity:Yes No N/A Are MDLs present and reported? Yes Do the reporting limits meet project requirements? Yes Comments (note deviations): Data Validator:Date: Data Reviewer:Date:Cherie Zakowski Kristine Molloy 4/22/2021 Overall Comments: Data are usable with appropriate qualifiers applied. Comments (note 4/27/2021 4 of 4 2103753 Eurofins Air Toxics Matrix:Air Collection date:03/24/21 Volatile Organic Compounds - EPA Method TO-15 Volatile Organic Compounds - EPA Method TO-15 SIM Samples in SDG: Sample Number Laboratory Number SG49-SG032421 2103753-01A / B VP02-SG032421 2103753-02A / B MW25-SG032421-28 2103753-03A / B VP06-SG032421 2103753-04A / B Precision:Yes No N/A N/A Yes N/A Were the Laboratory Duplicate RPDs within limits?N/A Field TO-15 / SIM Sample (ug/m3)Duplicate (ug/m3)%RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples Duplicates N/A LCS/LCSD TO-15 / SIM %RPD Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples 2103753-07A / 07AA Acceptable 2103753-07B / 07BB (SIM)Acceptable MS/MSD TO-15 / SIM %RPD Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Laboratory Sample (ug/m3)Duplicate (ug/m3)RL %RPD Qualifiers Duplicate N/A Accuracy:Yes No N/A Was the Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate criteria met? (frequency ≥ 5% and laboratory determined control limits) N/A Laboratory Control Sample criteria met?Yes Were the Laboratory Method Blank results all < RL?No Were the Field Blanks results all < RL?N/A Was the ICAL criteria met? (30%)Yes Was the CCV criteria met? (30%)Yes Was the Tuning criteria met?Yes Were the Surrogate % recoveries within laboratory determined control limits?Yes Were the Internal Standard areas within ± 60 - 140%? Yes Was canister certification criteria met?Yes Were sample results able to be recalculated from the laboratory raw data and were they accurate?Yes Was target compound identification correctly performed by the laboratory?Yes Were chromatograms representative of the sample results?Yes Data validation was performed in accordance with the specific analytical methods and the U.S. EPA Analysis of Volatile Organic Compounds in Air Contained in Canisters by Method TO-15 (June 2014) and the project specific QAPP, 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah, Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Salt Lake City Health Care System, November, 2019. Are the field duplicate relative percent differences (RPDs) ≤40%? Were the Matrix Spike Duplicate RPDs ≤ 20%? (Or lab defined limits) Volatile Organic Compounds TO-15 / TO-15 SIM Laboratory Control Spike Duplicate RPDs within limits? Comments (note deviations): Associated Samples 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Site Air Samples Laboratory: Analysis/Methods: Sample Delivery Group (SDG) Number: Salt Lake City, Utah Data Validation Report Comments (note deviations): 1 of 3 Blanks TO-15 / SIM Concentration (ug/m3)MDL / RL (ug/m3)Qualifiers Associated Samples Lab Blank 2103753-05A 4-Methyl-2-pentanone 0.049 J 0.038 / 0.41 U-RL 2103753-04A Acetone 0.37 J 0.3 / 2.4 None Sample results > RL Methylene Chloride 0.51 J 0.35 / 0.69 U-RL 2103753-02A 2103753-05B (SIM) 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 0.016 J 0.0065 / 0.11 U-RL Field Blank TO-15 / SIM Concentration MDL / RL Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Surrogates TO-15 / SIM %R Limit Qualifiers Acceptable MS/MSD TO-15 SIM %R Limits (%)Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A LCS/LCSD TO-15 / SIM %R Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples 2103753-07A / 07AA 3-Chloropropene 137 /139 70-130 J** 2103753-07B / 07BB (SIM)Acceptable **Qualification required for detected results only - associated sample results nondetect - no qualification required ICV/CCV TO-15 / SIM %R Qualifiers Associated Samples 3/26/2021 16:10 3-Chloropropene 145.44 J / UJ ICAL TO-15 / SIM RRF %RSD Qualifiers Associated Samples 3/25/2021 20:36 Acceptable Acceptable 3/25/2021 18:24 (SIM)Acceptable Acceptable CCV TO-15 / SIM RRF %D Qualifiers Associated Samples 4/1/2021 8:06 Acceptable Acceptable 4/2/2021 12:13 Acceptable Acceptable 4/1/2021 8:06 (SIM) Acceptable Acceptable 4/2/2021 12:13 (SIM) Acceptable Acceptable Tune TO-15 / SIM Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable Internal Standards TO-15 / SIM Area %Area % Criteria Qualifiers Associated Samples All Internal Standards Acceptable Canister Certification TO-15 / SIM Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable All samples 2103753-01B Associated Samples All samples 2 of 3 Raw Data Review TO-15 / SIM Results Recalculated Sample Result Acceptable Sample #Laboratory Reported Result Recalculated Sample Result (ug/m3)(ug/m3) TO-15 RRF / Concentration 2103753-04A Ethanol: 1.9 0.2446 / 1.864 2103753-04A Methylene Chloride: 1.2 1.72395 / 1.163 TO-15 - SIM 2103753-04B 1,1,1-Trichloroethane: 0.89 4.5731 / 0.923 2103753-04B o-xylene: 0.089 0.6751 / 0.084 (OR) (OR) Target Compound Identification Acceptable Chromatogram review Acceptable Representativeness:Yes No N/A Were sampling procedures and design criteria met? Yes Were holding times met? Yes Was preservation criteria met? (0° - 6° C)N/A Were Chain-of-Custody records complete and provided in data package?Yes Holding Time / Canister Pressure Criteria Days to Analysis Criteria Qualifiers Associated Samples Holding Time Acceptable Canister Pressure Criteria Comparability:Yes No N/A Were analytical procedures and methods followed as defined in the QAPP or field change documentation?Yes Comments (note deviations): Completeness (90%):Yes No N/A Are all data in this SDG usable?Yes Sensitivity:Yes No N/A Are MDLs present and reported? Yes Do the reporting limits meet project requirements? Yes Comments (note deviations): Data Validator:Date: Data Reviewer:Date:Cherie Zakowski Kristine Molloy 4/23/2021 Overall Comments: Data are usable with appropriate qualifiers applied. Initial and Final Canister Pressure Results Acceptable Comments (note 4/28/2021 Comments (note 3 of 3 2103754 Eurofins Air Toxics Matrix:Air Collection date:03/24/21 Volatile Organic Compounds - EPA Method TO-15 Volatile Organic Compounds - EPA Method TO-15 SIM Samples in SDG: Sample Number Laboratory Number VP09-SG032421 2103754R1-01A / B VP11-SG032421 2103754R1-02A / B VP12-SG032421 2103754R1-03A / B VP10-SG032421 2103754R1-04A / B Precision:Yes No N/A N/A Yes N/A Were the Laboratory Duplicate RPDs within limits?N/A Field TO-15 / SIM Sample (ug/m3)Duplicate (ug/m3)%RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples Duplicates N/A LCS/LCSD TO-15 / SIM %RPD Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples 2103754-07A / 07AA Acceptable 2103754-07B / 07BB (SIM)Acceptable MS/MSD TO-15 / SIM %RPD Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Laboratory Sample (ug/m3)Duplicate (ug/m3)RL %RPD Qualifiers Duplicate N/A Accuracy:Yes No N/A Was the Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate criteria met? (frequency ≥ 5% and laboratory determined control limits) N/A Laboratory Control Sample criteria met?Yes Were the Laboratory Method Blank results all < RL?No Were the Field Blanks results all < RL?N/A Was the ICAL criteria met? (30%)Yes Was the CCV criteria met? (30%)Yes Was the Tuning criteria met?Yes Were the Surrogate % recoveries within laboratory determined control limits?Yes Were the Internal Standard areas within ± 60 - 140%? Yes Was canister certification criteria met?Yes Were sample results able to be recalculated from the laboratory raw data and were they accurate?Yes Was target compound identification correctly performed by the laboratory?Yes Were chromatograms representative of the sample results?Yes Data validation was performed in accordance with the specific analytical methods and the U.S. EPA Analysis of Volatile Organic Compounds in Air Contained in Canisters by Method TO-15 (June 2014) and the project specific QAPP, 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah, Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Salt Lake City Health Care System, November, 2019. Are the field duplicate relative percent differences (RPDs) ≤40%? Were the Matrix Spike Duplicate RPDs ≤ 20%? (Or lab defined limits) Volatile Organic Compounds TO-15 / TO-15 SIM Laboratory Control Spike Duplicate RPDs within limits? Comments (note deviations): Associated Samples 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Site Air Samples Laboratory: Analysis/Methods: Sample Delivery Group (SDG) Number: Salt Lake City, Utah Data Validation Report Comments (note deviations): 1 of 3 Blanks TO-15 / SIM Concentration (ug/m3)MDL / RL (ug/m3)Qualifiers Associated Samples Lab Blank 2103754-05A Nondetect 2103754-05B (SIM) 1,2-Dibromoethane 0.055 J 0.044 / 0.38 None 1,2-Dichloroethane 0.018 J 0.014 / 0.081 U-RL 2103754R1-04B Trichloroethene 0.033 J 0.018 / 0.11 U-RL 2103754R1-04B Field Blank TO-15 / SIM Concentration MDL / RL Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Surrogates TO-15 / SIM %R Limit Qualifiers Acceptable MS/MSD TO-15 SIM %R Limits (%)Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A LCS/LCSD TO-15 / SIM %R Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples 2103754-07A / 07AA Acceptable 2103754-07B / 07BB (SIM)Acceptable ICV/CCV TO-15 / SIM %R Qualifiers Associated Samples 4/2/2021 13:32 3-Chloropropene 145.44 J / UJ Freon 11 130.34 J / UJ ICAL TO-15 / SIM RRF %RSD Qualifiers Associated Samples 4/01/2021 22:03 Acceptable Acceptable 4/01/2021 20:04 (SIM)Acceptable Acceptable CCV TO-15 / SIM RRF %D Qualifiers Associated Samples 4/2/2021 2:53 Acceptable Acceptable 4/3/2021 1:40 Acceptable Acceptable 4/2/2021 2:53 (SIM) Acceptable Acceptable 4/3/2021 1:40 (SIM) Acceptable Acceptable Tune TO-15 / SIM Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable Internal Standards TO-15 / SIM Area %Area % Criteria Qualifiers Associated Samples All Internal Standards Acceptable Canister Certification TO-15 / SIM Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable Sample results nondetect Associated Samples All samples All samples 2 of 3 Raw Data Review TO-15 / SIM Results Recalculated Sample Result Acceptable Sample #Laboratory Reported Result Recalculated Sample Result (ug/m3)(ug/m3) TO-15 RRF / Concentration 2103754-03A 1,3-Dichlorobenzene: 2.7 1.3742 / 2.742 2103754-03A Acetone: 7.6 0.45053 / 7.659 TO-15 - SIM 2103754-03B Ethylbenzene: 0.13 0.7029 / 0.128 2103754-03B Tetrachloroethene: 3.0 1.1319 / 2.978 (OR) (OR) Target Compound Identification Acceptable Chromatogram review Acceptable Representativeness:Yes No N/A Were sampling procedures and design criteria met? Yes Were holding times met? Yes Was preservation criteria met? (0° - 6° C)N/A Were Chain-of-Custody records complete and provided in data package?Yes Holding Time / Canister Pressure Criteria Days to Analysis Criteria Qualifiers Associated Samples Holding Time Acceptable Canister Pressure Criteria Comparability:Yes No N/A Were analytical procedures and methods followed as defined in the QAPP or field change documentation?Yes Comments (note deviations): Completeness (90%):Yes No N/A Are all data in this SDG usable?Yes Sensitivity:Yes No N/A Are MDLs present and reported? Yes Do the reporting limits meet project requirements? Yes Comments (note deviations): Data Validator:Date: Data Reviewer:Date:Cherie Zakowski Kristine Molloy 4/25/2021 Overall Comments: Data are usable with appropriate qualifiers applied. Initial and Final Canister Pressure Results Acceptable Comments (note 4/29/2021 Comments (note 3 of 3 2103813 Eurofins Air Toxics Matrix:Air Collection date:03/25/21 Volatile Organic Compounds - EPA Method TO-15 Volatile Organic Compounds - EPA Method TO-15 SIM Samples in SDG: Sample Number Laboratory Number B7-IA05-IA032521 2103813-01A / B FD01-IA032521 2103813-02A / B B7-IA02-IA032521 2103813-03A / B B6-IA06-IA032521 2103813-04A / B Precision:Yes No N/A Yes Yes N/A Were the Laboratory Duplicate RPDs within limits?Yes Field TO-15 / SIM Sample (ug/m3)Duplicate (ug/m3)%RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples Duplicates B6-IA06-IA032521 FD01-IA032521 1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane (Freon 113) 0.48 J 0.47 J NC None 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 0.22 J 0.23 J NC None 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 0.09 J 0.085 J NC None 1,4-Dioxane 0.54 U 0.16 J NC None 2-Butanone (MEK) 0.74 J 0.5 J NC None 4-Ethyltoluene 0.26 J 0.24 J NC None Chlorobenzene 0.68 J 0.023 J NC None Hexane 0.23 J 0.25 J NC None Isopropylbenzene 0.73 U 0.042 J NC None N-Heptane 0.18 J 0.17 J NC None N-Propylbenzene 0.068 J 0.066 J NC None Tetrahydrofuran 0.29 J 0.29 J NC None Trichlorofluoromethane (Freon 11) 1.2 1.2 NC None 1,2-Dibromoethane 0.028 J 0.6 J NC None 1,2-Dichloroethane 0.083 J 0.086 J NC None 1,2-Dichlorotetrafluoroethane (Freon 114) 0.1 J 0.1 J NC None Benzene 0.34 0.34 NC None Carbon Tetrachloride 0.46 0.46 NC None Chloroethane 0.029 J 0.021 J NC None Chloroform 0.15 0.16 NC None Chloromethane 0.68 J 0.67 J NC None Tetrachloroethene 0.098 J 0.1 J NC None Toluene 0.64 0.69 NC None trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 0.025 J 0.024 J NC None Trichloroethene 0.042 J 0.17 J NC None LCS/LCSD TO-15 / SIM %RPD Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples 2103813-07A / 07AA Acceptable 2103813-07B / 07BB (SIM)Acceptable MS/MSD TO-15 / SIM %RPD Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Site Air Samples Laboratory: Analysis/Methods: Sample Delivery Group (SDG) Number: Salt Lake City, Utah Data Validation Report Volatile Organic Compounds TO-15 / TO-15 SIM Laboratory Control Spike Duplicate RPDs within limits? Comments (note deviations): Sample results < 5xs RL; ABS Diff. < RL Data validation was performed in accordance with the specific analytical methods and the U.S. EPA Analysis of Volatile Organic Compounds in Air Contained in Canisters by Method TO-15 (June 2014) and the project specific QAPP, 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah, Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Salt Lake City Health Care System, November, 2019. Are the field duplicate relative percent differences (RPDs) ≤40%? Were the Matrix Spike Duplicate RPDs ≤ 20%? (Or lab defined limits) Sample results < 5xs RL; ABS Diff. < RL 1 of 4 Laboratory Sample (ug/m3)Duplicate (ug/m3)RL %RPD Qualifiers Duplicate 2103813-03A / 03AA 1,4-Dioxane 0.55 U 0.014 0.55 NC None Hexane 0.22 J 2.7 U 2.7 NC None Styrene 0.068 J 0.65 U 0.65 NC None 2103813-03B / 03BB Acceptable Accuracy:Yes No N/A Was the Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate criteria met? (frequency ≥ 5% and laboratory determined control limits) N/A Laboratory Control Sample criteria met?No Were the Laboratory Method Blank results all < RL?No Were the Field Blanks results all < RL?N/A Was the ICAL criteria met? (30%)Yes Was the CCV criteria met? (30%)Yes Was the Tuning criteria met?Yes Were the Surrogate % recoveries within laboratory determined control limits?Yes Were the Internal Standard areas within ± 60 - 140%? Yes Was canister certification criteria met?Yes Were sample results able to be recalculated from the laboratory raw data and were they accurate?Yes Was target compound identification correctly performed by the laboratory?Yes Were chromatograms representative of the sample results?Yes Blanks TO-15 / SIM Concentration (ug/m3)MDL / RL (ug/m3)Qualifiers Associated Samples Lab Blank 2103813-05A 4-Methyl-2-pentanone 0.045 J 0.038 / 0.41 None Acetone 0.42 J 0.30 / 2.4 None Methylene Chloride 0.47 J 0.35 / 0.69 U-RL 2103813-05B (SIM) 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 0.016 J 0.0065 / 0.11 None 2103813-05C 4-Methyl-2-pentanone 0.077 J 0.038 / 0.41 U-RL Acetone 0.47 J 0.30 / 2.4 None Cumene 0.026 J 0.017 / 0.49 U-RL 2103813-04A Methylene Chloride 0.40 J 0.35 / 0.69 U-RL 2103813-04A 2103813-05D (SIM) 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 0.016 J 0.0065 / 0.11 None Field Blank TO-15 / SIM Concentration MDL / RL Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Surrogates TO-15 / SIM %R Limit Qualifiers Acceptable MS/MSD TO-15 SIM %R Limits (%)Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A LCS/LCSD TO-15 / SIM %R Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples 2103813-07A / 7AA 3-Chloropropene 131 / 135 70-130 J** 2103813-07B / 07BB (SIM)Acceptable 2103813-07C / 7CC 3-Chloropropene 155 / 125 70-130 J** 2103813-07D / 7DD (SIM)Acceptable **Qualification required for detected results only - associated sample results nondetect - no qualification required ICV/CCV TO-15 / SIM %R Qualifiers Associated Samples 3/26/2021 16:10 3-Chloropropene 145.44 J / UJ Comments (note deviations): Associated Samples All samples 2103813-03A, 2103813-04A Sample results > RL Sample results > RL Sample results nondetect 2103813-01A, 2103813-02A Sample results nondetect 2103813-03A, 2103813-04A 2103813-01A Associated Samples Sample results nondetect Sample results < 5xs RL; ABS Diff. < RL 2 of 4 ICAL TO-15 / SIM RRF %RSD Qualifiers Associated Samples 3/25/2021 20:36 Acceptable Acceptable 3/25/2021 18:24 (SIM)Acceptable Acceptable CCV TO-15 / SIM RRF %D Qualifiers Associated Samples 4/2/2021 9:37 Acceptable Acceptable 4/3/2021 7:20 Acceptable Acceptable 4/2/2021 11:20 Acceptable Acceptable 4/2/2021 11:45 Acceptable Acceptable 4/2/2021 9:37 (SIM) Acceptable Acceptable 4/3/2021 7:20 (SIM) Acceptable Acceptable 4/2/2021 11:20 (SIM) Acceptable Acceptable 4/2/2021 11:45 (SIM) Acceptable Acceptable Tune TO-15 / SIM Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable Internal Standards TO-15 / SIM Area %Area % Criteria Qualifiers Associated Samples All Internal Standards Acceptable Canister Certification TO-15 / SIM Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable Raw Data Review TO-15 / SIM Results Recalculated Sample Result Acceptable Sample #Laboratory Reported Result Recalculated Sample Result (ug/m3)(ug/m3) TO-15 RRF / Concentration 2103813-03A 2-Butanone:0.64 1.2677 / 0.644 2103813-03A Acetone: 36 1.01511 / 36.039 TO-15 - SIM 2103813-03B Benzene: 0.33 1.489/ 0.0332 2103813-03B Toluene: 4.7 1.7695 / 4.687 (OR) (OR) Target Compound Identification Acceptable Chromatogram review Acceptable Representativeness:Yes No N/A Were sampling procedures and design criteria met? Yes Were holding times met? Yes Was preservation criteria met? (0° - 6° C)N/A Were Chain-of-Custody records complete and provided in data package?Yes Holding Time / Canister Pressure Criteria Days to Analysis Criteria Qualifiers Associated Samples Holding Time Acceptable Comments (note 3 of 4 Canister Pressure Criteria Comparability:Yes No N/A Were analytical procedures and methods followed as defined in the QAPP or field change documentation?Yes Comments (note deviations): Completeness (90%):Yes No N/A Are all data in this SDG usable?Yes Sensitivity:Yes No N/A Are MDLs present and reported? Yes Do the reporting limits meet project requirements? Yes Comments (note deviations): Data Validator:Date: Data Reviewer:Date:Cherie Zakowski Kristine Molloy 4/26/2021 Overall Comments: Data are usable with appropriate qualifiers applied. Initial and Final Canister Pressure Results Acceptable Comments (note 5/1/2021 4 of 4 2103814 Eurofins Air Toxics Matrix:Air Collection date:03/25/21 Volatile Organic Compounds - EPA Method TO-15 Volatile Organic Compounds - EPA Method TO-15 SIM Samples in SDG: Sample Number Laboratory Number SB43-SG032521-15 2103814-01A / B SB43-SG032521-8 2103814-02A / B SB42-SG032521-26 2103814-03A / B MW29-SG032521-42 2103814-04A / B Precision:Yes No N/A N/A Yes N/A Were the Laboratory Duplicate RPDs within limits?N/A Field TO-15 / SIM Sample (ug/m3)Duplicate (ug/m3)%RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples Duplicates N/A LCS/LCSD TO-15 / SIM %RPD Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples 2103814-07A / 07AA Acceptable 2103814-07B / 07BB (SIM)Acceptable MS/MSD TO-15 / SIM %RPD Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Laboratory Sample (ug/m3)Duplicate (ug/m3)RL %RPD Qualifiers Duplicate N/A Accuracy:Yes No N/A Was the Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate criteria met? (frequency ≥ 5% and laboratory determined control limits) N/A Laboratory Control Sample criteria met?Yes Were the Laboratory Method Blank results all < RL?No Were the Field Blanks results all < RL?N/A Was the ICAL criteria met? (30%)No Was the CCV criteria met? (30%)Yes Was the Tuning criteria met?Yes Were the Surrogate % recoveries within laboratory determined control limits?Yes Were the Internal Standard areas within ± 60 - 140%? Yes Was canister certification criteria met?Yes Were sample results able to be recalculated from the laboratory raw data and were they accurate?Yes Was target compound identification correctly performed by the laboratory?Yes Were chromatograms representative of the sample results?Yes Comments (note deviations): 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Site Air Samples Laboratory: Analysis/Methods: Sample Delivery Group (SDG) Number: Salt Lake City, Utah Data Validation Report Associated Samples Data validation was performed in accordance with the specific analytical methods and the U.S. EPA Analysis of Volatile Organic Compounds in Air Contained in Canisters by Method TO-15 (June 2014) and the project specific QAPP, 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah, Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Salt Lake City Health Care System, November, 2019. Are the field duplicate relative percent differences (RPDs) ≤40%? Were the Matrix Spike Duplicate RPDs ≤ 20%? (Or lab defined limits) Volatile Organic Compounds TO-15 / TO-15 SIM Laboratory Control Spike Duplicate RPDs within limits? Comments (note deviations): 1 of 3 Blanks TO-15 / SIM Concentration (ug/m3)MDL / RL (ug/m3)Qualifiers Associated Samples Lab Blank 2103814-05A Nondetect 2103814-05B (SIM) 1,2-Dichloroethane 0.015 J 0.014 / 0.081 None Trichloroethene 0.045 J 0.018 / 0.11 U-RL 2103814-02B Field Blank TO-15 / SIM Concentration MDL / RL Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Surrogates TO-15 / SIM %R Limit Qualifiers Acceptable MS/MSD TO-15 SIM %R Limits (%)Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A LCS/LCSD TO-15 / SIM %R Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples 2103814-07A / 7AA Acceptable 2103814-07B / 07BB (SIM)Acceptable ICV/CCV TO-15 / SIM %R Qualifiers Associated Samples 4/2/2021 13:32 Freon 11 130.34 J / UJ ICAL TO-15 / SIM RRF %RSD Qualifiers Associated Samples 4/01/2021 22:03 Acceptable Acceptable 4/01/2021 20:04 (SIM)Acceptable Acceptable CCV TO-15 / SIM RRF %D Qualifiers Associated Samples 4/6/2021 8:03 Acceptable Acceptable 4/7/2021 12:14 Acceptable Acceptable 4/6/2021 8:03 (SIM) Acceptable Acceptable 4/7/2021 12:14 (SIM) Acceptable Acceptable Tune TO-15 / SIM Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable Internal Standards TO-15 / SIM Area %Area % Criteria Qualifiers Associated Samples All Internal Standards Acceptable Canister Certification TO-15 / SIM Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable Associated Samples Sample results nondetect All samples 2 of 3 Raw Data Review TO-15 / SIM Results Recalculated Sample Result Acceptable Sample #Laboratory Reported Result Recalculated Sample Result (ug/m3)(ug/m3) TO-15 RRF / Concentration 2103814-02A 2-Butanone:1.2 0.5719 / 1.242 2103814-02A Carbon Disulfide: 0.89 2.96571 / 0.890 TO-15 - SIM 2103814-02B Tetrachloroethene: 37 1.1320/ 37.187 2103814-02B Trichloroethene: 0.12 0.7317 / 0.122 (OR) (OR) Target Compound Identification Acceptable Chromatogram review Acceptable Representativeness:Yes No N/A Were sampling procedures and design criteria met? Yes Were holding times met? Yes Was preservation criteria met? (0° - 6° C)N/A Were Chain-of-Custody records complete and provided in data package?Yes Holding Time / Canister Pressure Criteria Days to Analysis Criteria Qualifiers Associated Samples Holding Time Acceptable Canister Pressure Criteria Comparability:Yes No N/A Were analytical procedures and methods followed as defined in the QAPP or field change documentation?Yes Comments (note deviations): Completeness (90%):Yes No N/A Are all data in this SDG usable?Yes Sensitivity:Yes No N/A Are MDLs present and reported? Yes Do the reporting limits meet project requirements? Yes Comments (note deviations): Data Validator:Date: Data Reviewer:Date: Comments (note Cherie Zakowski Kristine Molloy 4/27/2021 Overall Comments: Data are usable with appropriate qualifiers applied. Initial and Final Canister Pressure Results Acceptable Comments (note 5/2/2021 3 of 3 2103815 Eurofins Air Toxics Matrix:Air Collection date:03/25/21 Volatile Organic Compounds - EPA Method TO-15 Volatile Organic Compounds - EPA Method TO-15 SIM Samples in SDG: Sample Number Laboratory Number SB42-SG032521-13 2103815-01A / B MW29-SG032521-66 2103815-02A / B SB42-SG032521-17 2103815-03A / B FD04-SG032521 2103815-04A / B Precision:Yes No N/A No Yes N/A Were the Laboratory Duplicate RPDs within limits?N/A Field TO-15 / SIM Sample (ug/m3)Duplicate (ug/m3)%RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples Duplicates SB42-SG032521- 17 FD04-SG032521 Freon 11 2.0 J 2.0 J NC None 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 0.63 J 0.52 J NC None 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 0.31 J 0.30 J NC None Benzene 0.12 J 0.10 J NC None Carbon Tetrachloride 0.94 U 0.23 J NC None cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 0.55 J 0.54 NC None Ethyl Benzene 0.22 J 0.22 J NC None Freon 12 3.4 3.3 NC None m,p-Xylene 0.53 J 0.53 J NC None o-Xylene 0.24 J 0.24 J NC None Toluene 0.20 J 0.15 J NC None LCS/LCSD TO-15 / SIM %RPD Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples 2103815-07A / 07AA Acceptable 2103815-07B / 07BB (SIM)Acceptable MS/MSD TO-15 / SIM %RPD Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Laboratory Sample (ug/m3)Duplicate (ug/m3)RL %RPD Qualifiers Duplicate N/A Associated Samples Data validation was performed in accordance with the specific analytical methods and the U.S. EPA Analysis of Volatile Organic Compounds in Air Contained in Canisters by Method TO-15 (June 2014) and the project specific QAPP, 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah, Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Salt Lake City Health Care System, November, 2019. Are the field duplicate relative percent differences (RPDs) ≤40%? Were the Matrix Spike Duplicate RPDs ≤ 20%? (Or lab defined limits) Volatile Organic Compounds TO-15 / TO-15 SIM Laboratory Control Spike Duplicate RPDs within limits? Comments (note deviations): Sample results < 5xs RL; ABS Diff. < RL 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Site Air Samples Laboratory: Analysis/Methods: Sample Delivery Group (SDG) Number: Salt Lake City, Utah Data Validation Report 1 of 3 Accuracy:Yes No N/A Was the Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate criteria met? (frequency ≥ 5% and laboratory determined control limits) N/A Laboratory Control Sample criteria met?Yes Were the Laboratory Method Blank results all < RL?No Were the Field Blanks results all < RL?N/A Was the ICAL criteria met? (30%)Yes Was the CCV criteria met? (30%)Yes Was the Tuning criteria met?Yes Were the Surrogate % recoveries within laboratory determined control limits?Yes Were the Internal Standard areas within ± 60 - 140%? Yes Was canister certification criteria met?Yes Were sample results able to be recalculated from the laboratory raw data and were they accurate?Yes Was target compound identification correctly performed by the laboratory?Yes Were chromatograms representative of the sample results?Yes Blanks TO-15 / SIM Concentration (ug/m3)MDL / RL (ug/m3)Qualifiers Associated Samples Lab Blank 2103815-05A Nondetect 2103815-05B (SIM) 1,2-Dibromoethane 0.055 J 0.044 / 0.38 None 1,2-Dichloroethane 0.018 J 0.014 / 0.081 U-RL Trichloroethene 0.033 J 0.018 / 0.11 None Field Blank TO-15 / SIM Concentration MDL / RL Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Surrogates TO-15 / SIM %R Limit Qualifiers Acceptable MS/MSD TO-15 SIM %R Limits (%)Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A LCS/LCSD TO-15 / SIM %R Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples 2103815-07A / 7AA Acceptable 2103815-07B / 07BB (SIM)Acceptable ICV/CCV TO-15 / SIM %R Qualifiers Associated Samples 4/2/2021 13:32 Freon 11 130.34 J / UJ ICAL TO-15 / SIM RRF %RSD Qualifiers Associated Samples 4/01/2021 22:03 Acceptable Acceptable 4/01/2021 20:04 (SIM)Acceptable Acceptable CCV TO-15 / SIM RRF %D Qualifiers Associated Samples 4/2/2021 2:53 Acceptable Acceptable 4/3/2021 1:40 Acceptable Acceptable 4/2/2021 2:53 (SIM) Acceptable Acceptable 4/3/2021 1:40 (SIM)Acceptable Acceptable Tune TO-15 / SIM Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable Internal Standards TO-15 / SIM Area %Area % Criteria Qualifiers Associated Samples All Internal Standards Acceptable Comments (note deviations): Associated Samples All samples 2103815-02B Sample results nondetect Sample results > RL 2 of 3 Canister Certification TO-15 / SIM Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable Raw Data Review TO-15 / SIM Results Recalculated Sample Result Acceptable Sample #Laboratory Reported Result Recalculated Sample Result (ug/m3)(ug/m3) TO-15 RRF / Concentration 2103815-01A 2-Propanol : 1.8 1.4448 / 1.834 2103815-01A 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene: 0.61 1.87566 / 0.613 TO-15 - SIM 2103815-01B m,p-Xylene: 0.69 0.8479/ 0.691 2103815-01B Trichloroethene: 3.6 0.7319 / 3.656 (OR) (OR) Target Compound Identification Acceptable Chromatogram review Acceptable Representativeness:Yes No N/A Were sampling procedures and design criteria met? Yes Were holding times met? Yes Was preservation criteria met? (0° - 6° C)N/A Were Chain-of-Custody records complete and provided in data package?Yes Holding Time / Canister Pressure Criteria Days to Analysis Criteria Qualifiers Associated Samples Holding Time Acceptable Canister Pressure Criteria Comparability:Yes No N/A Were analytical procedures and methods followed as defined in the QAPP or field change documentation?Yes Comments (note deviations): Completeness (90%):Yes No N/A Are all data in this SDG usable?Yes Sensitivity:Yes No N/A Are MDLs present and reported? Yes Do the reporting limits meet project requirements? Yes Comments (note deviations): Data Validator:Date: Data Reviewer:Date:Cherie Zakowski Kristine Molloy 4/29/2021 Overall Comments: Data are usable with appropriate qualifiers applied. Initial and Final Canister Pressure Results Acceptable Comments (note 5/3/2021 Comments (note 3 of 3 2103816 Eurofins Air Toxics Matrix:Air Collection date:3/24/2021 & 3/25/2021 Volatile Organic Compounds - EPA Method TO-15 Volatile Organic Compounds - EPA Method TO-15 SIM Samples in SDG: Sample Number Laboratory Number FD03-SG032421 2103816-01A / B B6-OA01-OA032521 2103816-02A / B B6-IA08-IA032521 2103816-03A / B MW25-SG032421-100 2103816-04A / B Precision:Yes No N/A Yes Yes N/A Were the Laboratory Duplicate RPDs within limits?N/A Field TO-15 / SIM Sample (ug/m3)Duplicate (ug/m3)%RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples Duplicates VP04-SG032421** FD03-SG032421 Chloroform 43 J 42 J NC None Freon 11 34 J 32 J NC None Trichloroethene 51 J 47 J NC None **Results reported in SDG 2103751 LCS/LCSD TO-15 / SIM %RPD Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples 2103816-07A / 07AA Acceptable 2103816-07B / 07BB (SIM)Acceptable 2103816-07C / 07CC Acceptable MS/MSD TO-15 / SIM %RPD Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Laboratory Sample (ug/m3)Duplicate (ug/m3)RL %RPD Qualifiers Duplicate N/A Accuracy:Yes No N/A Was the Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate criteria met? (frequency ≥ 5% and laboratory determined control limits) N/A Laboratory Control Sample criteria met?Yes Were the Laboratory Method Blank results all < RL?No Were the Field Blanks results all < RL?N/A Was the ICAL criteria met? (30%)Yes Was the CCV criteria met? (30%)Yes Was the Tuning criteria met?Yes Were the Surrogate % recoveries within laboratory determined control limits?Yes Were the Internal Standard areas within ± 60 - 140%? Yes Was canister certification criteria met?Yes Were sample results able to be recalculated from the laboratory raw data and were they accurate?Yes Was target compound identification correctly performed by the laboratory?Yes Were chromatograms representative of the sample results?Yes Associated Samples Data validation was performed in accordance with the specific analytical methods and the U.S. EPA Analysis of Volatile Organic Compounds in Air Contained in Canisters by Method TO-15 (June 2014) and the project specific QAPP, 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah, Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Salt Lake City Health Care System, November, 2019. Are the field duplicate relative percent differences (RPDs) ≤40%? Were the Matrix Spike Duplicate RPDs ≤ 20%? (Or lab defined limits) Volatile Organic Compounds TO-15 / TO-15 SIM Laboratory Control Spike Duplicate RPDs within limits? Comments (note deviations): Sample results < 5xs RL; ABS Diff. < RL 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Site Air Samples Laboratory: Analysis/Methods: Sample Delivery Group (SDG) Number: Salt Lake City, Utah Data Validation Report Comments (note deviations): 1 of 3 Blanks TO-15 / SIM Concentration (ug/m3)MDL / RL (ug/m3)Qualifiers Associated Samples Lab Blank 2103816-05A Nondetect 2103816-05B (SIM) 1,2-Dibromoethane 0.055 J 0.044 / 0.38 None 1,2-Dichloroethane 0.018 J 0.014 / 0.077 U-RL Trichloroethene 0.033 J 0.018 / 0.10 U-RL 2103816-02B, 2103816-03B 2103816-05C Acetone 0.77 J 0.44 / 12 None Carbon Disulfide 1.0 J 0.58 / 6.2 None Field Blank TO-15 / SIM Concentration MDL / RL Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Surrogates TO-15 / SIM %R Limit Qualifiers Acceptable MS/MSD TO-15 SIM %R Limits (%)Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A LCS/LCSD TO-15 / SIM %R Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples 2103816-07A / 07AA Acceptable 2103816-07B / 07BB (SIM)Acceptable 2103816-07C / 07CC Acceptable ICV/CCV TO-15 / SIM %R Qualifiers Associated Samples 4/2/2021 13:32 Freon 11 130.34 J / UJ ICAL TO-15 / SIM RRF %RSD Qualifiers Associated Samples 4/01/2021 22:03 Acceptable Acceptable 4/01/2021 20:04 (SIM)Acceptable Acceptable 3/17/2021 15:23 Acceptable Acceptable CCV TO-15 / SIM RRF %D Qualifiers Associated Samples 4/2/2021 2:53 Acceptable Acceptable 4/2/2021 2:53 (SIM)Acceptable Acceptable 4/5/2021 9:40 Acceptable Acceptable 4/3/2021 1:40 Acceptable Acceptable Tune TO-15 / SIM Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable Internal Standards TO-15 / SIM Area %Area % Criteria Qualifiers Associated Samples All Internal Standards Acceptable Canister Certification TO-15 / SIM Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable Associated Samples All samples 2103816-02B, 2103816-03B Sample results nondetect or > RL Sample results nondetect Sample results nondetect or > RL 2 of 3 Raw Data Review TO-15 / SIM Results Recalculated Sample Result Acceptable Sample #Laboratory Reported Result Recalculated Sample Result (ug/m3)(ug/m3) TO-15 RRF / Concentration 2103816-02A 2-Propanol : 5.8 1.4448 / 5.833 2103816-02A 2-Butanone: 0.72 0.57188 / 0.716 TO-15 - SIM 2103816-02B Benzene: 0.32 1.1298 / 0.317 2103816-02B Carbon Tetrachloride: 0.49 1.9248 / 0.492 (OR) (OR) Target Compound Identification Acceptable Chromatogram review Acceptable Representativeness:Yes No N/A Were sampling procedures and design criteria met? Yes Were holding times met? Yes Was preservation criteria met? (0° - 6° C)N/A Were Chain-of-Custody records complete and provided in data package?Yes Holding Time / Canister Pressure Criteria Days to Analysis Criteria Qualifiers Associated Samples Holding Time Acceptable Canister Pressure Criteria Comparability:Yes No N/A Were analytical procedures and methods followed as defined in the QAPP or field change documentation?Yes Comments (note deviations): Completeness (90%):Yes No N/A Are all data in this SDG usable?Yes Sensitivity:Yes No N/A Are MDLs present and reported? Yes Do the reporting limits meet project requirements? Yes Comments (note deviations): Sample FD03-SG032421 was analyzed by full scan TO-15 instead of SIM/Low Level analysis due to high levels of target compounds. Data Validator:Date: Data Reviewer:Date:Cherie Zakowski Kristine Molloy 5/6/2021 Overall Comments: Data are usable with appropriate qualifiers applied. Initial and Final Canister Pressure Results Acceptable Comments (note deviations): 5/8/2021 Comments (note deviations): 3 of 3 2103817 Eurofins Air Toxics Matrix:Air Collection date:03/25/21 Volatile Organic Compounds - EPA Method TO-15 Volatile Organic Compounds - EPA Method TO-15 SIM Samples in SDG: Sample Number Laboratory Number MW24-SG032521-130 2103817-01A / B MW24-SG032521-104 2103817-02A / B SB42-SG032521-7 2103817-03A / B MW29-SG032521-98 2103817-04A / B Precision:Yes No N/A N/A Yes N/A Were the Laboratory Duplicate RPDs within limits?N/A Field TO-15 / SIM Sample (ug/m3)Duplicate (ug/m3)%RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples Duplicates N/A LCS/LCSD TO-15 / SIM %RPD Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples 2103817-07A / 07AA Acceptable 2103817-07B / 07BB (SIM)Acceptable MS/MSD TO-15 / SIM %RPD Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Laboratory Sample (ug/m3)Duplicate (ug/m3)RL %RPD Qualifiers Duplicate N/A Accuracy:Yes No N/A Was the Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate criteria met? (frequency ≥ 5% and laboratory determined control limits) N/A Laboratory Control Sample criteria met?Yes Were the Laboratory Method Blank results all < RL?No Were the Field Blanks results all < RL?N/A Was the ICAL criteria met? (30%)Yes Was the CCV criteria met? (30%)Yes Was the Tuning criteria met?Yes Were the Surrogate % recoveries within laboratory determined control limits?Yes Were the Internal Standard areas within ± 60 - 140%? Yes Was canister certification criteria met?Yes Were sample results able to be recalculated from the laboratory raw data and were they accurate?Yes Was target compound identification correctly performed by the laboratory?Yes Were chromatograms representative of the sample results?Yes Associated Samples Data validation was performed in accordance with the specific analytical methods and the U.S. EPA Analysis of Volatile Organic Compounds in Air Contained in Canisters by Method TO-15 (June 2014) and the project specific QAPP, 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah, Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Salt Lake City Health Care System, November, 2019. Are the field duplicate relative percent differences (RPDs) ≤40%? Were the Matrix Spike Duplicate RPDs ≤ 20%? (Or lab defined limits) Volatile Organic Compounds TO-15 / TO-15 SIM Laboratory Control Spike Duplicate RPDs within limits? Comments (note deviations): 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Site Air Samples Laboratory: Analysis/Methods: Sample Delivery Group (SDG) Number: Salt Lake City, Utah Data Validation Report Comments (note deviations): 1 of 3 Blanks TO-15 / SIM Concentration (ug/m3)MDL / RL (ug/m3)Qualifiers Associated Samples Lab Blank 2103817-05A Nondetect 2103817-05B (SIM) 1,2-Dichloroethane 0.015 J 0.014 / 0.077 None Trichloroethene 0.045 J 0.018 / 0.10 U-RL 2103817-01B Field Blank TO-15 / SIM Concentration MDL / RL Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Surrogates TO-15 / SIM %R Limit Qualifiers Acceptable MS/MSD TO-15 SIM %R Limits (%)Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A LCS/LCSD TO-15 / SIM %R Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples 2103817-07A / 07AA Acceptable 2103817-07B / 07BB (SIM)Acceptable ICV/CCV TO-15 / SIM %R Qualifiers Associated Samples 4/2/2021 13:32 Freon 11 130.34 J / UJ ICAL TO-15 / SIM RRF %RSD Qualifiers Associated Samples 4/01/2021 22:03 Acceptable Acceptable 4/01/2021 20:04 (SIM)Acceptable Acceptable CCV TO-15 / SIM RRF %D Qualifiers Associated Samples 4/6/2021 8:03 Acceptable Acceptable 4/7/2021 12:14 Acceptable Acceptable 4/6/2021 8:03 (SIM) Acceptable Acceptable 4/7/2021 12:14 (SIM)Acceptable Acceptable Tune TO-15 / SIM Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable Internal Standards TO-15 / SIM Area %Area % Criteria Qualifiers Associated Samples All Internal Standards Acceptable Canister Certification TO-15 / SIM Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable Associated Samples All samples Sample results nondetect 2 of 3 Raw Data Review TO-15 / SIM Results Recalculated Sample Result Acceptable Sample #Laboratory Reported Result Recalculated Sample Result (ug/m3)(ug/m3) TO-15 RRF / Concentration 2103817-04A Bromodichloromethane : 2.1 0.6896 / 1.989 2103817-04A Carbon Disulfide: 7.1 2.96577 / 7.131 TO-15 - SIM 2103817-04B Benzene: 0.47 1.1297/ 0.473 2103817-04B Tetrachloroethene: 170 1.1320 / 168.738 (OR) (OR) Target Compound Identification Acceptable Chromatogram review Acceptable Representativeness:Yes No N/A Were sampling procedures and design criteria met? Yes Were holding times met? Yes Was preservation criteria met? (0° - 6° C)N/A Were Chain-of-Custody records complete and provided in data package?Yes Holding Time / Canister Pressure Criteria Days to Analysis Criteria Qualifiers Associated Samples Holding Time Acceptable Canister Pressure Criteria Comparability:Yes No N/A Were analytical procedures and methods followed as defined in the QAPP or field change documentation?Yes Comments (note deviations): Completeness (90%):Yes No N/A Are all data in this SDG usable?Yes Sensitivity:Yes No N/A Are MDLs present and reported? Yes Do the reporting limits meet project requirements? Yes Comments (note deviations): Data Validator:Date: Data Reviewer:Date:Cherie Zakowski Kristine Molloy 4/30/2021 Overall Comments: Data are usable with appropriate qualifiers applied. Initial and Final Canister Pressure Results Acceptable Comments (note 5/4/2021 Comments (note 3 of 3 2103818 Eurofins Air Toxics Matrix:Air Collection date:03/26/21 Volatile Organic Compounds - EPA Method TO-15 Volatile Organic Compounds - EPA Method TO-15 SIM Samples in SDG: Sample Number Laboratory Number FD05-SG032621 2103818-01A / B MW34-SG032621** 2103818-02A / B MW24-SG032521-60 2103818-03A / B MW24-SG032621-32 2103818-04A / B **This sample is applicable to the East Side Springs Data Summary Report only. Precision:Yes No N/A Yes Yes N/A Were the Laboratory Duplicate RPDs within limits?Yes Field TO-15 / SIM Sample (ug/m3)Duplicate (ug/m3)%RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples Duplicates MW24-SG032621-32 FD05-SG032621 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 2.1 2.0 NC None Benzene 0.28 J 0.34 J NC None Carbon Tetrachloride 2.8 2.8 NC None Dibromochloromethane 1.8 J 1.3 J NC None Freon 11 18 J 18 J NC None Freon 113 1.9 J 2 J NC None Freon 114 0.37 J 0.39 J NC None Freon 12 3.0 J 3.0 J NC None Vinyl Chloride 0.15 J 0.75 U NC None LCS/LCSD TO-15 / SIM %RPD Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples 2103818-07A / 07AA Acceptable 2103818-07B / 07BB (SIM)Acceptable 2103818-07C / 7CC Acceptable 2103818-07D / 7DD (SIM)Acceptable MS/MSD TO-15 / SIM %RPD Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Laboratory Sample (ug/m3)Duplicate (ug/m3)RL %RPD Qualifiers Duplicate 2103818-03A / 03AA Freon 113 2.3 3.0 13.0 27 None 2103818-03B / 03BB Acceptable Data validation was performed in accordance with the specific analytical methods and the U.S. EPA Analysis of Volatile Organic Compounds in Air Contained in Canisters by Method TO-15 (June 2014) and the project specific QAPP, 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah, Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Salt Lake City Health Care System, November, 2019. Are the field duplicate relative percent differences (RPDs) ≤40%? Were the Matrix Spike Duplicate RPDs ≤ 20%? (Or lab defined limits) Associated Samples Sample results < 5xs RL; ABS Diff. < RL Sample results < 5xs RL; ABS Diff. < RL Volatile Organic Compounds TO-15 / TO-15 SIM Laboratory Control Spike Duplicate RPDs within limits? Comments (note deviations): 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Site Air Samples Laboratory: Analysis/Methods: Sample Delivery Group (SDG) Number: Salt Lake City, Utah Data Validation Report 1 of 4 Accuracy:Yes No N/A Was the Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate criteria met? (frequency ≥ 5% and laboratory determined control limits) N/A Laboratory Control Sample criteria met?Yes Were the Laboratory Method Blank results all < RL?No Were the Field Blanks results all < RL?N/A Was the ICAL criteria met? (30%)Yes Was the CCV criteria met? (30%)Yes Was the Tuning criteria met?Yes Were the Surrogate % recoveries within laboratory determined control limits?Yes Were the Internal Standard areas within ± 60 - 140%? Yes Was canister certification criteria met?Yes Were sample results able to be recalculated from the laboratory raw data and were they accurate?Yes Was target compound identification correctly performed by the laboratory?Yes Were chromatograms representative of the sample results?Yes Blanks TO-15 / SIM Concentration (ug/m3)MDL / RL (ug/m3)Qualifiers Associated Samples Lab Blank 2103818-05A Nondetect 2103818-05B (SIM) 1,2-Dichloroethane 0.015 J 0.014 / 0.077 None Trichloroethene 0.045 J 0.018 / 0.10 U-RL 2103818-05C 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 0.74 J 0.52 / 3.7 None 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 0.099 J 0.059 / 0.60 None 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 0.085 J 0.065 / 0.6 None 1,4-Dioxane 0.088 J 0.074 / 0.36 None alpha-Chlorotoluene 0.20 J 0.10 / 0.52 None 2103818-05D (SIM) 1,2-Dibromoethane 0.047 J 0.044 / 0.38 None 1,2-Dichloroethane 0.021 J 0.014 / 0.081 None 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 0.085 J 0.078 / 0.3 None Tetrachloroethene 0.033 J 0.03 / 0.14 None Trichloroethene 0.051 J 0.018 / 0.11 U-RL 2103818-04B Field Blank TO-15 / SIM Concentration MDL / RL Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Surrogates TO-15 / SIM %R Limit Qualifiers Acceptable MS/MSD TO-15 SIM %R Limits (%)Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A LCS/LCSD TO-15 / SIM %R Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples 2103818-07A / 7AA Acceptable 2103818-07B / 07BB (SIM)Acceptable 2103818-07C / 7CC Acceptable 2103818-07D / 7DD (SIM)Acceptable ICV/CCV TO-15 / SIM %R Qualifiers Associated Samples 4/2/2021 13:32 Freon 11 130.34 J / UJ ICV ICAL TO-15 / SIM RRF %RSD Qualifiers Associated Samples 4/01/2021 22:03 Acceptable Acceptable 4/01/2021 20:04 (SIM)Acceptable Acceptable Sample results nondetect All samples Sample results nondetect Sample results nondetect Comments (note deviations): Associated Samples Sample results nondetect Sample results nondetect Sample results nondetect Sample results nondetect Sample results nondetect 2103818-01B, 2103818-2B Sample results nondetect Sample results> RL 2 of 4 CCV TO-15 / SIM RRF %D Qualifiers Associated Samples 4/6/2021 8:03 Acceptable Acceptable 4/7/2021 7:50 Acceptable Acceptable 4/7/2021 12:14 Acceptable Acceptable 4/7/2021 11:59 Acceptable Acceptable 4/6/2021 8:03 (SIM) Acceptable Acceptable 4/7/2021 7:50 (SIM)Acceptable Acceptable 4/7/2021 12:14 (SIM) Acceptable Acceptable 4/7/2021 11:59 (SIM) Acceptable Acceptable Tune TO-15 / SIM Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable Internal Standards TO-15 / SIM Area %Area % Criteria Qualifiers Associated Samples All Internal Standards Acceptable Canister Certification TO-15 / SIM Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable Raw Data Review TO-15 / SIM Results Recalculated Sample Result Acceptable Sample #Laboratory Reported Result Recalculated Sample Result (ug/m3)(ug/m3) TO-15 RRF / Concentration 2103818-03A Bromodichloromethane: 40 0.6833 / 37.429 2103818-03A Freon 11: 20 1.99360 / 20.246 TO-15 - SIM 2103818-03B Carbon Tetrachloride: 3.0 1.9248 / 2.961 2103818-03B Freon 12: 2.9 2.4436 / 2.912 (OR) (OR) Target Compound Identification Acceptable Chromatogram review Acceptable Representativeness:Yes No N/A Were sampling procedures and design criteria met? Yes Were holding times met? Yes Was preservation criteria met? (0° - 6° C)N/A Were Chain-of-Custody records complete and provided in data package?Yes Holding Time / Canister Pressure Criteria Days to Analysis Criteria Qualifiers Associated Samples Holding Time Acceptable Canister Pressure Criteria Initial and Final Canister Pressure Results Acceptable Comments (note 3 of 4 Comparability:Yes No N/A Were analytical procedures and methods followed as defined in the QAPP or field change documentation?Yes Comments (note deviations): Completeness (90%):Yes No N/A Are all data in this SDG usable?Yes Sensitivity:Yes No N/A Are MDLs present and reported? Yes Do the reporting limits meet project requirements? Yes Comments (note deviations): Data Validator:Date: Data Reviewer:Date:Cherie Zakowski Kristine Molloy 5/7/2021 Overall Comments: Data are usable with appropriate qualifiers applied. Comments (note 5/9/2021 4 of 4      Attachment 2  Data Package Completeness Review Checklists   VA SLC OU‐1  Data Package Completeness Review Checklist  SDG: 2103700 Required Documentation Yes No Comments  1. Cover letter complete with the following information: X     Title of report and laboratory unique report identification  (sample delivery group number) X     Project name, site location X     Name and location of laboratory and second‐site or  subcontracted laboratory X     Client name and address X     Statement of authenticity and official signature and title of  person authorizing report release X    2. Summary of samples received that correlates field sample IDs  with the laboratory IDs X    3. Laboratory qualifier flags and definitions  X    4. Preparation and/or analytical methods  X    5. Sample results for each analyte (dry weight basis for soils)   Date received X     Date analyzed (and time of analysis if the holding time is less  than or equal to 48 hours) X     Percent solids results for soil samples   Not Applicable   Dilution factor (provide both diluted and undiluted results  when available) X     Sample‐specific reporting limit adjusted for sample size,  dilution/concentration X     Sample‐specific MDL adjusted for sample size,  dilution/concentration X     Units X    6. Case Narrative that addresses the following information at a  minimum: X     Sample receipt discrepancies X  None   Descriptions of all nonconformances in the sample receipt,  handling, preparation, analytical and reporting processes and  the corrective action taken in each occurrence  X     Identification and justification for sample dilution X     Sample cooler temperature at time of receipt   Not Applicable   Final residual vacuum of each sample canister immediately  prior to analysis, or upon receipt (Air analyses only)  X    7. Surrogate percent recoveries (surrogate result, target  concentration, percent recovery)  X    Required Documentation Yes No Comments  8. MS/MSD and LCS spike concentrations, native sample results,  spiked sample results, percent recoveries, and RPDs between  the MS and MSD results (associated QC limits must also be  provided)  X    9. Method blank results X    10. Analytical batch reference number that cross references  samples to QC sample analyses  X    11. Executed COC and sample receipt checklist X    12.  Analytical sequence or laboratory run log that contains  sufficient information to correlate samples reported in the  summary results to the associated method QC information,  such as initial and continuing calibration analyses  X    13. Calibration blank results for inorganic analyses (required in  hardcopy format only)    Not Applicable  14. Inductively coupled plasma (ICP) interference check sample for  inorganic analyses, true and measured concentrations and  percent recoveries (required in hardcopy format only)    Not Applicable  15. Reporting Limit Check Standard for metals analyses, true and  measured concentrations and percent recoveries (if applicable,  required in hardcopy format only)    Not Applicable  16. Post‐digestion spike recoveries for metals analyses, (if  applicable; required in hardcopy format only)    Not Applicable  17. Internal Standard recovery and retention time information, as  applicable  X    18. Initial calibration summary, including standard concentrations,  response factors, average response factors, RSDs or correlation  coefficients, and calibration plots or equations, if applicable  (required in hardcopy format only)  X    19. Continuing calibration verification summary, including expected  and recovered concentrations and percent differences (required  in hardcopy format only)  X    20. Instrument tuning and mass calibration information for ICP  /mass spectrometry analyses  X    21. All associated instrument printouts for all samples, standards,  and QC samples (e.g., raw data) necessary to re‐calculate  results as well as all manual integrations (if performed)  X    22. Sample preparation logs that include the following information X     Preparation start and end times (as applicable) X     Beginning and ending temperatures of water baths and  digestion blocks    Not Applicable  Data package complete and ready for Validation Cherie Zakowski Date: 4/17/2021  Signature VA SLC OU‐1  Data Package Completeness Review Checklist  SDG: 2103701 Required Documentation Yes No Comments  1. Cover letter complete with the following information: X     Title of report and laboratory unique report identification  (sample delivery group number) X     Project name, site location X     Name and location of laboratory and second‐site or  subcontracted laboratory X     Client name and address X     Statement of authenticity and official signature and title of  person authorizing report release X    2. Summary of samples received that correlates field sample IDs  with the laboratory IDs X    3. Laboratory qualifier flags and definitions  X    4. Preparation and/or analytical methods  X    5. Sample results for each analyte (dry weight basis for soils)   Date received X     Date analyzed (and time of analysis if the holding time is less  than or equal to 48 hours) X     Percent solids results for soil samples   Not Applicable   Dilution factor (provide both diluted and undiluted results  when available) X     Sample‐specific reporting limit adjusted for sample size,  dilution/concentration X     Sample‐specific MDL adjusted for sample size,  dilution/concentration X     Units X    6. Case Narrative that addresses the following information at a  minimum: X     Sample receipt discrepancies X  None   Descriptions of all nonconformances in the sample receipt,  handling, preparation, analytical and reporting processes and  the corrective action taken in each occurrence  X     Identification and justification for sample dilution X     Sample cooler temperature at time of receipt   Not Applicable   Final residual vacuum of each sample canister immediately  prior to analysis, or upon receipt (Air analyses only)  X    7. Surrogate percent recoveries (surrogate result, target  concentration, percent recovery)  X    Required Documentation Yes No Comments  8. MS/MSD and LCS spike concentrations, native sample results,  spiked sample results, percent recoveries, and RPDs between  the MS and MSD results (associated QC limits must also be  provided)  X    9. Method blank results X    10. Analytical batch reference number that cross references  samples to QC sample analyses  X    11. Executed COC and sample receipt checklist X    12.  Analytical sequence or laboratory run log that contains  sufficient information to correlate samples reported in the  summary results to the associated method QC information,  such as initial and continuing calibration analyses  X    13. Calibration blank results for inorganic analyses (required in  hardcopy format only)    Not Applicable  14. Inductively coupled plasma (ICP) interference check sample for  inorganic analyses, true and measured concentrations and  percent recoveries (required in hardcopy format only)    Not Applicable  15. Reporting Limit Check Standard for metals analyses, true and  measured concentrations and percent recoveries (if applicable,  required in hardcopy format only)    Not Applicable  16. Post‐digestion spike recoveries for metals analyses, (if  applicable; required in hardcopy format only)    Not Applicable  17. Internal Standard recovery and retention time information, as  applicable  X    18. Initial calibration summary, including standard concentrations,  response factors, average response factors, RSDs or correlation  coefficients, and calibration plots or equations, if applicable  (required in hardcopy format only)  X    19. Continuing calibration verification summary, including expected  and recovered concentrations and percent differences (required  in hardcopy format only)  X    20. Instrument tuning and mass calibration information for ICP  /mass spectrometry analyses  X    21. All associated instrument printouts for all samples, standards,  and QC samples (e.g., raw data) necessary to re‐calculate  results as well as all manual integrations (if performed)  X    22. Sample preparation logs that include the following information X     Preparation start and end times (as applicable) X     Beginning and ending temperatures of water baths and  digestion blocks    Not Applicable  Data package complete and ready for Validation Cherie Zakowski Date: 4/17/2021  Signature VA SLC OU‐1  Data Package Completeness Review Checklist  SDG: 2103702 Required Documentation Yes No Comments  1. Cover letter complete with the following information: X     Title of report and laboratory unique report identification  (sample delivery group number) X     Project name, site location X     Name and location of laboratory and second‐site or  subcontracted laboratory X     Client name and address X     Statement of authenticity and official signature and title of  person authorizing report release X    2. Summary of samples received that correlates field sample IDs  with the laboratory IDs X    3. Laboratory qualifier flags and definitions  X    4. Preparation and/or analytical methods  X    5. Sample results for each analyte (dry weight basis for soils)   Date received X     Date analyzed (and time of analysis if the holding time is less  than or equal to 48 hours) X     Percent solids results for soil samples   Not Applicable   Dilution factor (provide both diluted and undiluted results  when available) X     Sample‐specific reporting limit adjusted for sample size,  dilution/concentration X     Sample‐specific MDL adjusted for sample size,  dilution/concentration X     Units X    6. Case Narrative that addresses the following information at a  minimum: X     Sample receipt discrepancies X  None   Descriptions of all nonconformances in the sample receipt,  handling, preparation, analytical and reporting processes and  the corrective action taken in each occurrence  X     Identification and justification for sample dilution X     Sample cooler temperature at time of receipt   Not Applicable   Final residual vacuum of each sample canister immediately  prior to analysis, or upon receipt (Air analyses only)  X    7. Surrogate percent recoveries (surrogate result, target  concentration, percent recovery)  X    Required Documentation Yes No Comments  8. MS/MSD and LCS spike concentrations, native sample results,  spiked sample results, percent recoveries, and RPDs between  the MS and MSD results (associated QC limits must also be  provided)  X    9. Method blank results X    10. Analytical batch reference number that cross references  samples to QC sample analyses  X    11. Executed COC and sample receipt checklist X    12.  Analytical sequence or laboratory run log that contains  sufficient information to correlate samples reported in the  summary results to the associated method QC information,  such as initial and continuing calibration analyses  X    13. Calibration blank results for inorganic analyses (required in  hardcopy format only)    Not Applicable  14. Inductively coupled plasma (ICP) interference check sample for  inorganic analyses, true and measured concentrations and  percent recoveries (required in hardcopy format only)    Not Applicable  15. Reporting Limit Check Standard for metals analyses, true and  measured concentrations and percent recoveries (if applicable,  required in hardcopy format only)    Not Applicable  16. Post‐digestion spike recoveries for metals analyses, (if  applicable; required in hardcopy format only)    Not Applicable  17. Internal Standard recovery and retention time information, as  applicable  X    18. Initial calibration summary, including standard concentrations,  response factors, average response factors, RSDs or correlation  coefficients, and calibration plots or equations, if applicable  (required in hardcopy format only)  X    19. Continuing calibration verification summary, including expected  and recovered concentrations and percent differences (required  in hardcopy format only)  X    20. Instrument tuning and mass calibration information for ICP  /mass spectrometry analyses  X    21. All associated instrument printouts for all samples, standards,  and QC samples (e.g., raw data) necessary to re‐calculate  results as well as all manual integrations (if performed)  X    22. Sample preparation logs that include the following information X     Preparation start and end times (as applicable) X     Beginning and ending temperatures of water baths and  digestion blocks    Not Applicable  Data package complete and ready for Validation Cherie Zakowski Date: 4/17/2021  Signature VA SLC OU‐1  Data Package Completeness Review Checklist  SDG: 2103703 Required Documentation Yes No Comments  1. Cover letter complete with the following information: X     Title of report and laboratory unique report identification  (sample delivery group number) X     Project name, site location X     Name and location of laboratory and second‐site or  subcontracted laboratory X     Client name and address X     Statement of authenticity and official signature and title of  person authorizing report release X    2. Summary of samples received that correlates field sample IDs  with the laboratory IDs X    3. Laboratory qualifier flags and definitions  X    4. Preparation and/or analytical methods  X    5. Sample results for each analyte (dry weight basis for soils)   Date received X     Date analyzed (and time of analysis if the holding time is less  than or equal to 48 hours) X     Percent solids results for soil samples   Not Applicable   Dilution factor (provide both diluted and undiluted results  when available) X     Sample‐specific reporting limit adjusted for sample size,  dilution/concentration X     Sample‐specific MDL adjusted for sample size,  dilution/concentration X     Units X    6. Case Narrative that addresses the following information at a  minimum: X     Sample receipt discrepancies X  None   Descriptions of all nonconformances in the sample receipt,  handling, preparation, analytical and reporting processes and  the corrective action taken in each occurrence  X     Identification and justification for sample dilution X     Sample cooler temperature at time of receipt   Not Applicable   Final residual vacuum of each sample canister immediately  prior to analysis, or upon receipt (Air analyses only)  X    7. Surrogate percent recoveries (surrogate result, target  concentration, percent recovery)  X    Required Documentation Yes No Comments  8. MS/MSD and LCS spike concentrations, native sample results,  spiked sample results, percent recoveries, and RPDs between  the MS and MSD results (associated QC limits must also be  provided)  X    9. Method blank results X    10. Analytical batch reference number that cross references  samples to QC sample analyses  X    11. Executed COC and sample receipt checklist X    12.  Analytical sequence or laboratory run log that contains  sufficient information to correlate samples reported in the  summary results to the associated method QC information,  such as initial and continuing calibration analyses  X    13. Calibration blank results for inorganic analyses (required in  hardcopy format only)    Not Applicable  14. Inductively coupled plasma (ICP) interference check sample for  inorganic analyses, true and measured concentrations and  percent recoveries (required in hardcopy format only)    Not Applicable  15. Reporting Limit Check Standard for metals analyses, true and  measured concentrations and percent recoveries (if applicable,  required in hardcopy format only)    Not Applicable  16. Post‐digestion spike recoveries for metals analyses, (if  applicable; required in hardcopy format only)    Not Applicable  17. Internal Standard recovery and retention time information, as  applicable  X    18. Initial calibration summary, including standard concentrations,  response factors, average response factors, RSDs or correlation  coefficients, and calibration plots or equations, if applicable  (required in hardcopy format only)  X    19. Continuing calibration verification summary, including expected  and recovered concentrations and percent differences (required  in hardcopy format only)  X    20. Instrument tuning and mass calibration information for ICP  /mass spectrometry analyses  X    21. All associated instrument printouts for all samples, standards,  and QC samples (e.g., raw data) necessary to re‐calculate  results as well as all manual integrations (if performed)  X    22. Sample preparation logs that include the following information X     Preparation start and end times (as applicable) X     Beginning and ending temperatures of water baths and  digestion blocks    Not Applicable  Data package complete and ready for Validation Cherie Zakowski Date: 4/17/2021  Signature VA SLC OU‐1  Data Package Completeness Review Checklist  SDG: 2103725 Required Documentation Yes No Comments  1. Cover letter complete with the following information: X     Title of report and laboratory unique report identification  (sample delivery group number) X     Project name, site location X     Name and location of laboratory and second‐site or  subcontracted laboratory X     Client name and address X     Statement of authenticity and official signature and title of  person authorizing report release X    2. Summary of samples received that correlates field sample IDs  with the laboratory IDs X    3. Laboratory qualifier flags and definitions  X    4. Preparation and/or analytical methods  X    5. Sample results for each analyte (dry weight basis for soils)   Date received X     Date analyzed (and time of analysis if the holding time is less  than or equal to 48 hours) X     Percent solids results for soil samples   Not Applicable   Dilution factor (provide both diluted and undiluted results  when available) X     Sample‐specific reporting limit adjusted for sample size,  dilution/concentration X     Sample‐specific MDL adjusted for sample size,  dilution/concentration X     Units X    6. Case Narrative that addresses the following information at a  minimum: X     Sample receipt discrepancies X  None   Descriptions of all nonconformances in the sample receipt,  handling, preparation, analytical and reporting processes and  the corrective action taken in each occurrence  X     Identification and justification for sample dilution X     Sample cooler temperature at time of receipt   Not Applicable   Final residual vacuum of each sample canister immediately  prior to analysis, or upon receipt (Air analyses only)  X    7. Surrogate percent recoveries (surrogate result, target  concentration, percent recovery)  X    Required Documentation Yes No Comments  8. MS/MSD and LCS spike concentrations, native sample results,  spiked sample results, percent recoveries, and RPDs between  the MS and MSD results (associated QC limits must also be  provided)  X    9. Method blank results X    10. Analytical batch reference number that cross references  samples to QC sample analyses  X    11. Executed COC and sample receipt checklist X    12.  Analytical sequence or laboratory run log that contains  sufficient information to correlate samples reported in the  summary results to the associated method QC information,  such as initial and continuing calibration analyses  X    13. Calibration blank results for inorganic analyses (required in  hardcopy format only)    Not Applicable  14. Inductively coupled plasma (ICP) interference check sample for  inorganic analyses, true and measured concentrations and  percent recoveries (required in hardcopy format only)    Not Applicable  15. Reporting Limit Check Standard for metals analyses, true and  measured concentrations and percent recoveries (if applicable,  required in hardcopy format only)    Not Applicable  16. Post‐digestion spike recoveries for metals analyses, (if  applicable; required in hardcopy format only)    Not Applicable  17. Internal Standard recovery and retention time information, as  applicable  X    18. Initial calibration summary, including standard concentrations,  response factors, average response factors, RSDs or correlation  coefficients, and calibration plots or equations, if applicable  (required in hardcopy format only)  X    19. Continuing calibration verification summary, including expected  and recovered concentrations and percent differences (required  in hardcopy format only)  X    20. Instrument tuning and mass calibration information for ICP  /mass spectrometry analyses  X    21. All associated instrument printouts for all samples, standards,  and QC samples (e.g., raw data) necessary to re‐calculate  results as well as all manual integrations (if performed)  X    22. Sample preparation logs that include the following information X     Preparation start and end times (as applicable) X     Beginning and ending temperatures of water baths and  digestion blocks    Not Applicable  Data package complete and ready for Validation Cherie Zakowski Date: 4/18/2021  Signature VA SLC OU‐1  Data Package Completeness Review Checklist  SDG: 2103751 Required Documentation Yes No Comments  1. Cover letter complete with the following information: X     Title of report and laboratory unique report identification  (sample delivery group number) X     Project name, site location X     Name and location of laboratory and second‐site or  subcontracted laboratory X     Client name and address X     Statement of authenticity and official signature and title of  person authorizing report release X    2. Summary of samples received that correlates field sample IDs  with the laboratory IDs X    3. Laboratory qualifier flags and definitions  X    4. Preparation and/or analytical methods  X    5. Sample results for each analyte (dry weight basis for soils)   Date received X     Date analyzed (and time of analysis if the holding time is less  than or equal to 48 hours) X     Percent solids results for soil samples   Not Applicable   Dilution factor (provide both diluted and undiluted results  when available) X     Sample‐specific reporting limit adjusted for sample size,  dilution/concentration X     Sample‐specific MDL adjusted for sample size,  dilution/concentration X     Units X    6. Case Narrative that addresses the following information at a  minimum: X     Sample receipt discrepancies X  None   Descriptions of all nonconformances in the sample receipt,  handling, preparation, analytical and reporting processes and  the corrective action taken in each occurrence  X     Identification and justification for sample dilution X     Sample cooler temperature at time of receipt   Not Applicable   Final residual vacuum of each sample canister immediately  prior to analysis, or upon receipt (Air analyses only)  X    7. Surrogate percent recoveries (surrogate result, target  concentration, percent recovery)  X    Required Documentation Yes No Comments  8. MS/MSD and LCS spike concentrations, native sample results,  spiked sample results, percent recoveries, and RPDs between  the MS and MSD results (associated QC limits must also be  provided)  X    9. Method blank results X    10. Analytical batch reference number that cross references  samples to QC sample analyses  X    11. Executed COC and sample receipt checklist X    12.  Analytical sequence or laboratory run log that contains  sufficient information to correlate samples reported in the  summary results to the associated method QC information,  such as initial and continuing calibration analyses  X    13. Calibration blank results for inorganic analyses (required in  hardcopy format only)    Not Applicable  14. Inductively coupled plasma (ICP) interference check sample for  inorganic analyses, true and measured concentrations and  percent recoveries (required in hardcopy format only)    Not Applicable  15. Reporting Limit Check Standard for metals analyses, true and  measured concentrations and percent recoveries (if applicable,  required in hardcopy format only)    Not Applicable  16. Post‐digestion spike recoveries for metals analyses, (if  applicable; required in hardcopy format only)    Not Applicable  17. Internal Standard recovery and retention time information, as  applicable  X    18. Initial calibration summary, including standard concentrations,  response factors, average response factors, RSDs or correlation  coefficients, and calibration plots or equations, if applicable  (required in hardcopy format only)  X    19. Continuing calibration verification summary, including expected  and recovered concentrations and percent differences (required  in hardcopy format only)  X    20. Instrument tuning and mass calibration information for ICP  /mass spectrometry analyses  X    21. All associated instrument printouts for all samples, standards,  and QC samples (e.g., raw data) necessary to re‐calculate  results as well as all manual integrations (if performed)  X    22. Sample preparation logs that include the following information X     Preparation start and end times (as applicable) X     Beginning and ending temperatures of water baths and  digestion blocks    Not Applicable  Data package complete and ready for Validation Cherie Zakowski Date: 4/18/2021  Signature VA SLC OU‐1  Data Package Completeness Review Checklist  SDG: 2103752 Required Documentation Yes No Comments  1. Cover letter complete with the following information: X     Title of report and laboratory unique report identification  (sample delivery group number) X     Project name, site location X     Name and location of laboratory and second‐site or  subcontracted laboratory X     Client name and address X     Statement of authenticity and official signature and title of  person authorizing report release X    2. Summary of samples received that correlates field sample IDs  with the laboratory IDs X    3. Laboratory qualifier flags and definitions  X    4. Preparation and/or analytical methods  X    5. Sample results for each analyte (dry weight basis for soils)   Date received X     Date analyzed (and time of analysis if the holding time is less  than or equal to 48 hours) X     Percent solids results for soil samples   Not Applicable   Dilution factor (provide both diluted and undiluted results  when available) X     Sample‐specific reporting limit adjusted for sample size,  dilution/concentration X     Sample‐specific MDL adjusted for sample size,  dilution/concentration X     Units X    6. Case Narrative that addresses the following information at a  minimum: X     Sample receipt discrepancies X  None   Descriptions of all nonconformances in the sample receipt,  handling, preparation, analytical and reporting processes and  the corrective action taken in each occurrence  X     Identification and justification for sample dilution X     Sample cooler temperature at time of receipt   Not Applicable   Final residual vacuum of each sample canister immediately  prior to analysis, or upon receipt (Air analyses only)  X    7. Surrogate percent recoveries (surrogate result, target  concentration, percent recovery)  X    Required Documentation Yes No Comments  8. MS/MSD and LCS spike concentrations, native sample results,  spiked sample results, percent recoveries, and RPDs between  the MS and MSD results (associated QC limits must also be  provided)  X    9. Method blank results X    10. Analytical batch reference number that cross references  samples to QC sample analyses  X    11. Executed COC and sample receipt checklist X    12.  Analytical sequence or laboratory run log that contains  sufficient information to correlate samples reported in the  summary results to the associated method QC information,  such as initial and continuing calibration analyses  X    13. Calibration blank results for inorganic analyses (required in  hardcopy format only)    Not Applicable  14. Inductively coupled plasma (ICP) interference check sample for  inorganic analyses, true and measured concentrations and  percent recoveries (required in hardcopy format only)    Not Applicable  15. Reporting Limit Check Standard for metals analyses, true and  measured concentrations and percent recoveries (if applicable,  required in hardcopy format only)    Not Applicable  16. Post‐digestion spike recoveries for metals analyses, (if  applicable; required in hardcopy format only)    Not Applicable  17. Internal Standard recovery and retention time information, as  applicable  X    18. Initial calibration summary, including standard concentrations,  response factors, average response factors, RSDs or correlation  coefficients, and calibration plots or equations, if applicable  (required in hardcopy format only)  X    19. Continuing calibration verification summary, including expected  and recovered concentrations and percent differences (required  in hardcopy format only)  X    20. Instrument tuning and mass calibration information for ICP  /mass spectrometry analyses  X    21. All associated instrument printouts for all samples, standards,  and QC samples (e.g., raw data) necessary to re‐calculate  results as well as all manual integrations (if performed)  X    22. Sample preparation logs that include the following information X     Preparation start and end times (as applicable) X     Beginning and ending temperatures of water baths and  digestion blocks    Not Applicable  Data package complete and ready for Validation Cherie Zakowski Date: 4/19/2021  Signature VA SLC OU‐1  Data Package Completeness Review Checklist  SDG: 2103753 Required Documentation Yes No Comments  1. Cover letter complete with the following information: X     Title of report and laboratory unique report identification  (sample delivery group number) X     Project name, site location X     Name and location of laboratory and second‐site or  subcontracted laboratory X     Client name and address X     Statement of authenticity and official signature and title of  person authorizing report release X    2. Summary of samples received that correlates field sample IDs  with the laboratory IDs X    3. Laboratory qualifier flags and definitions  X    4. Preparation and/or analytical methods  X    5. Sample results for each analyte (dry weight basis for soils)   Date received X     Date analyzed (and time of analysis if the holding time is less  than or equal to 48 hours) X     Percent solids results for soil samples   Not Applicable   Dilution factor (provide both diluted and undiluted results  when available) X     Sample‐specific reporting limit adjusted for sample size,  dilution/concentration X     Sample‐specific MDL adjusted for sample size,  dilution/concentration X     Units X    6. Case Narrative that addresses the following information at a  minimum: X     Sample receipt discrepancies X  None   Descriptions of all nonconformances in the sample receipt,  handling, preparation, analytical and reporting processes and  the corrective action taken in each occurrence  X     Identification and justification for sample dilution X     Sample cooler temperature at time of receipt   Not Applicable   Final residual vacuum of each sample canister immediately  prior to analysis, or upon receipt (Air analyses only)  X    7. Surrogate percent recoveries (surrogate result, target  concentration, percent recovery)  X    Required Documentation Yes No Comments  8. MS/MSD and LCS spike concentrations, native sample results,  spiked sample results, percent recoveries, and RPDs between  the MS and MSD results (associated QC limits must also be  provided)  X    9. Method blank results X    10. Analytical batch reference number that cross references  samples to QC sample analyses  X    11. Executed COC and sample receipt checklist X    12.  Analytical sequence or laboratory run log that contains  sufficient information to correlate samples reported in the  summary results to the associated method QC information,  such as initial and continuing calibration analyses  X    13. Calibration blank results for inorganic analyses (required in  hardcopy format only)    Not Applicable  14. Inductively coupled plasma (ICP) interference check sample for  inorganic analyses, true and measured concentrations and  percent recoveries (required in hardcopy format only)    Not Applicable  15. Reporting Limit Check Standard for metals analyses, true and  measured concentrations and percent recoveries (if applicable,  required in hardcopy format only)    Not Applicable  16. Post‐digestion spike recoveries for metals analyses, (if  applicable; required in hardcopy format only)    Not Applicable  17. Internal Standard recovery and retention time information, as  applicable  X    18. Initial calibration summary, including standard concentrations,  response factors, average response factors, RSDs or correlation  coefficients, and calibration plots or equations, if applicable  (required in hardcopy format only)  X    19. Continuing calibration verification summary, including expected  and recovered concentrations and percent differences (required  in hardcopy format only)  X    20. Instrument tuning and mass calibration information for ICP  /mass spectrometry analyses  X    21. All associated instrument printouts for all samples, standards,  and QC samples (e.g., raw data) necessary to re‐calculate  results as well as all manual integrations (if performed)  X    22. Sample preparation logs that include the following information X     Preparation start and end times (as applicable) X     Beginning and ending temperatures of water baths and  digestion blocks    Not Applicable  Data package complete and ready for Validation Cherie Zakowski Date: 4/19/2021  Signature VA SLC OU‐1  Data Package Completeness Review Checklist  SDG: 2103754 Required Documentation Yes No Comments  1. Cover letter complete with the following information: X     Title of report and laboratory unique report identification  (sample delivery group number) X     Project name, site location X     Name and location of laboratory and second‐site or  subcontracted laboratory X     Client name and address X     Statement of authenticity and official signature and title of  person authorizing report release X    2. Summary of samples received that correlates field sample IDs  with the laboratory IDs X    3. Laboratory qualifier flags and definitions  X    4. Preparation and/or analytical methods  X    5. Sample results for each analyte (dry weight basis for soils)   Date received X     Date analyzed (and time of analysis if the holding time is less  than or equal to 48 hours) X     Percent solids results for soil samples   Not Applicable   Dilution factor (provide both diluted and undiluted results  when available) X     Sample‐specific reporting limit adjusted for sample size,  dilution/concentration X     Sample‐specific MDL adjusted for sample size,  dilution/concentration X     Units X    6. Case Narrative that addresses the following information at a  minimum: X     Sample receipt discrepancies X  None   Descriptions of all nonconformances in the sample receipt,  handling, preparation, analytical and reporting processes and  the corrective action taken in each occurrence  X     Identification and justification for sample dilution X     Sample cooler temperature at time of receipt   Not Applicable   Final residual vacuum of each sample canister immediately  prior to analysis, or upon receipt (Air analyses only)  X    7. Surrogate percent recoveries (surrogate result, target  concentration, percent recovery)  X    Required Documentation Yes No Comments  8. MS/MSD and LCS spike concentrations, native sample results,  spiked sample results, percent recoveries, and RPDs between  the MS and MSD results (associated QC limits must also be  provided)  X    9. Method blank results X    10. Analytical batch reference number that cross references  samples to QC sample analyses  X    11. Executed COC and sample receipt checklist X    12.  Analytical sequence or laboratory run log that contains  sufficient information to correlate samples reported in the  summary results to the associated method QC information,  such as initial and continuing calibration analyses  X    13. Calibration blank results for inorganic analyses (required in  hardcopy format only)    Not Applicable  14. Inductively coupled plasma (ICP) interference check sample for  inorganic analyses, true and measured concentrations and  percent recoveries (required in hardcopy format only)    Not Applicable  15. Reporting Limit Check Standard for metals analyses, true and  measured concentrations and percent recoveries (if applicable,  required in hardcopy format only)    Not Applicable  16. Post‐digestion spike recoveries for metals analyses, (if  applicable; required in hardcopy format only)    Not Applicable  17. Internal Standard recovery and retention time information, as  applicable  X    18. Initial calibration summary, including standard concentrations,  response factors, average response factors, RSDs or correlation  coefficients, and calibration plots or equations, if applicable  (required in hardcopy format only)  X    19. Continuing calibration verification summary, including expected  and recovered concentrations and percent differences (required  in hardcopy format only)  X    20. Instrument tuning and mass calibration information for ICP  /mass spectrometry analyses  X    21. All associated instrument printouts for all samples, standards,  and QC samples (e.g., raw data) necessary to re‐calculate  results as well as all manual integrations (if performed)  X    22. Sample preparation logs that include the following information X     Preparation start and end times (as applicable) X     Beginning and ending temperatures of water baths and  digestion blocks    Not Applicable  Data package complete and ready for Validation Cherie Zakowski Date: 4/19/2021  Signature VA SLC OU‐1  Data Package Completeness Review Checklist  SDG: 2103813 Required Documentation Yes No Comments  1. Cover letter complete with the following information: X     Title of report and laboratory unique report identification  (sample delivery group number) X     Project name, site location X     Name and location of laboratory and second‐site or  subcontracted laboratory X     Client name and address X     Statement of authenticity and official signature and title of  person authorizing report release X    2. Summary of samples received that correlates field sample IDs  with the laboratory IDs X    3. Laboratory qualifier flags and definitions  X    4. Preparation and/or analytical methods  X    5. Sample results for each analyte (dry weight basis for soils)   Date received X     Date analyzed (and time of analysis if the holding time is less  than or equal to 48 hours) X     Percent solids results for soil samples   Not Applicable   Dilution factor (provide both diluted and undiluted results  when available) X     Sample‐specific reporting limit adjusted for sample size,  dilution/concentration X     Sample‐specific MDL adjusted for sample size,  dilution/concentration X     Units X    6. Case Narrative that addresses the following information at a  minimum: X     Sample receipt discrepancies X  None   Descriptions of all nonconformances in the sample receipt,  handling, preparation, analytical and reporting processes and  the corrective action taken in each occurrence  X     Identification and justification for sample dilution X     Sample cooler temperature at time of receipt   Not Applicable   Final residual vacuum of each sample canister immediately  prior to analysis, or upon receipt (Air analyses only)  X    7. Surrogate percent recoveries (surrogate result, target  concentration, percent recovery)  X    Required Documentation Yes No Comments  8. MS/MSD and LCS spike concentrations, native sample results,  spiked sample results, percent recoveries, and RPDs between  the MS and MSD results (associated QC limits must also be  provided)  X    9. Method blank results X    10. Analytical batch reference number that cross references  samples to QC sample analyses  X    11. Executed COC and sample receipt checklist X    12.  Analytical sequence or laboratory run log that contains  sufficient information to correlate samples reported in the  summary results to the associated method QC information,  such as initial and continuing calibration analyses  X    13. Calibration blank results for inorganic analyses (required in  hardcopy format only)    Not Applicable  14. Inductively coupled plasma (ICP) interference check sample for  inorganic analyses, true and measured concentrations and  percent recoveries (required in hardcopy format only)    Not Applicable  15. Reporting Limit Check Standard for metals analyses, true and  measured concentrations and percent recoveries (if applicable,  required in hardcopy format only)    Not Applicable  16. Post‐digestion spike recoveries for metals analyses, (if  applicable; required in hardcopy format only)    Not Applicable  17. Internal Standard recovery and retention time information, as  applicable  X    18. Initial calibration summary, including standard concentrations,  response factors, average response factors, RSDs or correlation  coefficients, and calibration plots or equations, if applicable  (required in hardcopy format only)  X    19. Continuing calibration verification summary, including expected  and recovered concentrations and percent differences (required  in hardcopy format only)  X    20. Instrument tuning and mass calibration information for ICP  /mass spectrometry analyses  X    21. All associated instrument printouts for all samples, standards,  and QC samples (e.g., raw data) necessary to re‐calculate  results as well as all manual integrations (if performed)  X    22. Sample preparation logs that include the following information X     Preparation start and end times (as applicable) X     Beginning and ending temperatures of water baths and  digestion blocks    Not Applicable  Data package complete and ready for Validation Cherie Zakowski Date: 4/18/2021  Signature VA SLC OU‐1  Data Package Completeness Review Checklist  SDG: 2103814 Required Documentation Yes No Comments  1. Cover letter complete with the following information: X     Title of report and laboratory unique report identification  (sample delivery group number) X     Project name, site location X     Name and location of laboratory and second‐site or  subcontracted laboratory X     Client name and address X     Statement of authenticity and official signature and title of  person authorizing report release X    2. Summary of samples received that correlates field sample IDs  with the laboratory IDs X    3. Laboratory qualifier flags and definitions  X    4. Preparation and/or analytical methods  X    5. Sample results for each analyte (dry weight basis for soils)   Date received X     Date analyzed (and time of analysis if the holding time is less  than or equal to 48 hours) X     Percent solids results for soil samples   Not Applicable   Dilution factor (provide both diluted and undiluted results  when available) X     Sample‐specific reporting limit adjusted for sample size,  dilution/concentration X     Sample‐specific MDL adjusted for sample size,  dilution/concentration X     Units X    6. Case Narrative that addresses the following information at a  minimum: X     Sample receipt discrepancies X  None   Descriptions of all nonconformances in the sample receipt,  handling, preparation, analytical and reporting processes and  the corrective action taken in each occurrence  X     Identification and justification for sample dilution X     Sample cooler temperature at time of receipt   Not Applicable   Final residual vacuum of each sample canister immediately  prior to analysis, or upon receipt (Air analyses only)  X    7. Surrogate percent recoveries (surrogate result, target  concentration, percent recovery)  X    Required Documentation Yes No Comments  8. MS/MSD and LCS spike concentrations, native sample results,  spiked sample results, percent recoveries, and RPDs between  the MS and MSD results (associated QC limits must also be  provided)  X    9. Method blank results X    10. Analytical batch reference number that cross references  samples to QC sample analyses  X    11. Executed COC and sample receipt checklist X    12.  Analytical sequence or laboratory run log that contains  sufficient information to correlate samples reported in the  summary results to the associated method QC information,  such as initial and continuing calibration analyses  X    13. Calibration blank results for inorganic analyses (required in  hardcopy format only)    Not Applicable  14. Inductively coupled plasma (ICP) interference check sample for  inorganic analyses, true and measured concentrations and  percent recoveries (required in hardcopy format only)    Not Applicable  15. Reporting Limit Check Standard for metals analyses, true and  measured concentrations and percent recoveries (if applicable,  required in hardcopy format only)    Not Applicable  16. Post‐digestion spike recoveries for metals analyses, (if  applicable; required in hardcopy format only)    Not Applicable  17. Internal Standard recovery and retention time information, as  applicable  X    18. Initial calibration summary, including standard concentrations,  response factors, average response factors, RSDs or correlation  coefficients, and calibration plots or equations, if applicable  (required in hardcopy format only)  X    19. Continuing calibration verification summary, including expected  and recovered concentrations and percent differences (required  in hardcopy format only)  X    20. Instrument tuning and mass calibration information for ICP  /mass spectrometry analyses  X    21. All associated instrument printouts for all samples, standards,  and QC samples (e.g., raw data) necessary to re‐calculate  results as well as all manual integrations (if performed)  X    22. Sample preparation logs that include the following information X     Preparation start and end times (as applicable) X     Beginning and ending temperatures of water baths and  digestion blocks    Not Applicable  Data package complete and ready for Validation Cherie Zakowski Date: 4/20/2021  Signature VA SLC OU‐1  Data Package Completeness Review Checklist  SDG: 2103815 Required Documentation Yes No Comments  1. Cover letter complete with the following information: X     Title of report and laboratory unique report identification  (sample delivery group number) X     Project name, site location X     Name and location of laboratory and second‐site or  subcontracted laboratory X     Client name and address X     Statement of authenticity and official signature and title of  person authorizing report release X    2. Summary of samples received that correlates field sample IDs  with the laboratory IDs X    3. Laboratory qualifier flags and definitions  X    4. Preparation and/or analytical methods  X    5. Sample results for each analyte (dry weight basis for soils)   Date received X     Date analyzed (and time of analysis if the holding time is less  than or equal to 48 hours) X     Percent solids results for soil samples   Not Applicable   Dilution factor (provide both diluted and undiluted results  when available) X     Sample‐specific reporting limit adjusted for sample size,  dilution/concentration X     Sample‐specific MDL adjusted for sample size,  dilution/concentration X     Units X    6. Case Narrative that addresses the following information at a  minimum: X     Sample receipt discrepancies X  None   Descriptions of all nonconformances in the sample receipt,  handling, preparation, analytical and reporting processes and  the corrective action taken in each occurrence  X     Identification and justification for sample dilution X     Sample cooler temperature at time of receipt   Not Applicable   Final residual vacuum of each sample canister immediately  prior to analysis, or upon receipt (Air analyses only)  X    7. Surrogate percent recoveries (surrogate result, target  concentration, percent recovery)  X    Required Documentation Yes No Comments  8. MS/MSD and LCS spike concentrations, native sample results,  spiked sample results, percent recoveries, and RPDs between  the MS and MSD results (associated QC limits must also be  provided)  X    9. Method blank results X    10. Analytical batch reference number that cross references  samples to QC sample analyses  X    11. Executed COC and sample receipt checklist X    12.  Analytical sequence or laboratory run log that contains  sufficient information to correlate samples reported in the  summary results to the associated method QC information,  such as initial and continuing calibration analyses  X    13. Calibration blank results for inorganic analyses (required in  hardcopy format only)    Not Applicable  14. Inductively coupled plasma (ICP) interference check sample for  inorganic analyses, true and measured concentrations and  percent recoveries (required in hardcopy format only)    Not Applicable  15. Reporting Limit Check Standard for metals analyses, true and  measured concentrations and percent recoveries (if applicable,  required in hardcopy format only)    Not Applicable  16. Post‐digestion spike recoveries for metals analyses, (if  applicable; required in hardcopy format only)    Not Applicable  17. Internal Standard recovery and retention time information, as  applicable  X    18. Initial calibration summary, including standard concentrations,  response factors, average response factors, RSDs or correlation  coefficients, and calibration plots or equations, if applicable  (required in hardcopy format only)  X    19. Continuing calibration verification summary, including expected  and recovered concentrations and percent differences (required  in hardcopy format only)  X    20. Instrument tuning and mass calibration information for ICP  /mass spectrometry analyses  X    21. All associated instrument printouts for all samples, standards,  and QC samples (e.g., raw data) necessary to re‐calculate  results as well as all manual integrations (if performed)  X    22. Sample preparation logs that include the following information X     Preparation start and end times (as applicable) X     Beginning and ending temperatures of water baths and  digestion blocks    Not Applicable  Data package complete and ready for Validation Cherie Zakowski Date: 4/20/2021  Signature VA SLC OU‐1  Data Package Completeness Review Checklist  SDG: 2103816 Required Documentation Yes No Comments  1. Cover letter complete with the following information: X     Title of report and laboratory unique report identification  (sample delivery group number) X     Project name, site location X     Name and location of laboratory and second‐site or  subcontracted laboratory X     Client name and address X     Statement of authenticity and official signature and title of  person authorizing report release X    2. Summary of samples received that correlates field sample IDs  with the laboratory IDs X    3. Laboratory qualifier flags and definitions  X    4. Preparation and/or analytical methods  X    5. Sample results for each analyte (dry weight basis for soils)   Date received X     Date analyzed (and time of analysis if the holding time is less  than or equal to 48 hours) X     Percent solids results for soil samples   Not Applicable   Dilution factor (provide both diluted and undiluted results  when available) X     Sample‐specific reporting limit adjusted for sample size,  dilution/concentration X     Sample‐specific MDL adjusted for sample size,  dilution/concentration X     Units X    6. Case Narrative that addresses the following information at a  minimum: X     Sample receipt discrepancies X  None   Descriptions of all nonconformances in the sample receipt,  handling, preparation, analytical and reporting processes and  the corrective action taken in each occurrence  X     Identification and justification for sample dilution X     Sample cooler temperature at time of receipt   Not Applicable   Final residual vacuum of each sample canister immediately  prior to analysis, or upon receipt (Air analyses only)  X    7. Surrogate percent recoveries (surrogate result, target  concentration, percent recovery)  X    Required Documentation Yes No Comments  8. MS/MSD and LCS spike concentrations, native sample results,  spiked sample results, percent recoveries, and RPDs between  the MS and MSD results (associated QC limits must also be  provided)  X    9. Method blank results X    10. Analytical batch reference number that cross references  samples to QC sample analyses  X    11. Executed COC and sample receipt checklist X    12.  Analytical sequence or laboratory run log that contains  sufficient information to correlate samples reported in the  summary results to the associated method QC information,  such as initial and continuing calibration analyses  X    13. Calibration blank results for inorganic analyses (required in  hardcopy format only)    Not Applicable  14. Inductively coupled plasma (ICP) interference check sample for  inorganic analyses, true and measured concentrations and  percent recoveries (required in hardcopy format only)    Not Applicable  15. Reporting Limit Check Standard for metals analyses, true and  measured concentrations and percent recoveries (if applicable,  required in hardcopy format only)    Not Applicable  16. Post‐digestion spike recoveries for metals analyses, (if  applicable; required in hardcopy format only)    Not Applicable  17. Internal Standard recovery and retention time information, as  applicable  X    18. Initial calibration summary, including standard concentrations,  response factors, average response factors, RSDs or correlation  coefficients, and calibration plots or equations, if applicable  (required in hardcopy format only)  X    19. Continuing calibration verification summary, including expected  and recovered concentrations and percent differences (required  in hardcopy format only)  X    20. Instrument tuning and mass calibration information for ICP  /mass spectrometry analyses  X    21. All associated instrument printouts for all samples, standards,  and QC samples (e.g., raw data) necessary to re‐calculate  results as well as all manual integrations (if performed)  X    22. Sample preparation logs that include the following information X     Preparation start and end times (as applicable) X     Beginning and ending temperatures of water baths and  digestion blocks    Not Applicable  Data package complete and ready for Validation Cherie Zakowski Date: 4/20/2021  Signature VA SLC OU‐1  Data Package Completeness Review Checklist  SDG: 2103817 Required Documentation Yes No Comments  1. Cover letter complete with the following information: X     Title of report and laboratory unique report identification  (sample delivery group number) X     Project name, site location X     Name and location of laboratory and second‐site or  subcontracted laboratory X     Client name and address X     Statement of authenticity and official signature and title of  person authorizing report release X    2. Summary of samples received that correlates field sample IDs  with the laboratory IDs X    3. Laboratory qualifier flags and definitions  X    4. Preparation and/or analytical methods  X    5. Sample results for each analyte (dry weight basis for soils)   Date received X     Date analyzed (and time of analysis if the holding time is less  than or equal to 48 hours) X     Percent solids results for soil samples   Not Applicable   Dilution factor (provide both diluted and undiluted results  when available) X     Sample‐specific reporting limit adjusted for sample size,  dilution/concentration X     Sample‐specific MDL adjusted for sample size,  dilution/concentration X     Units X    6. Case Narrative that addresses the following information at a  minimum: X     Sample receipt discrepancies X  None   Descriptions of all nonconformances in the sample receipt,  handling, preparation, analytical and reporting processes and  the corrective action taken in each occurrence  X     Identification and justification for sample dilution X     Sample cooler temperature at time of receipt   Not Applicable   Final residual vacuum of each sample canister immediately  prior to analysis, or upon receipt (Air analyses only)  X    7. Surrogate percent recoveries (surrogate result, target  concentration, percent recovery)  X    Required Documentation Yes No Comments  8. MS/MSD and LCS spike concentrations, native sample results,  spiked sample results, percent recoveries, and RPDs between  the MS and MSD results (associated QC limits must also be  provided)  X    9. Method blank results X    10. Analytical batch reference number that cross references  samples to QC sample analyses  X    11. Executed COC and sample receipt checklist X    12.  Analytical sequence or laboratory run log that contains  sufficient information to correlate samples reported in the  summary results to the associated method QC information,  such as initial and continuing calibration analyses  X    13. Calibration blank results for inorganic analyses (required in  hardcopy format only)    Not Applicable  14. Inductively coupled plasma (ICP) interference check sample for  inorganic analyses, true and measured concentrations and  percent recoveries (required in hardcopy format only)    Not Applicable  15. Reporting Limit Check Standard for metals analyses, true and  measured concentrations and percent recoveries (if applicable,  required in hardcopy format only)    Not Applicable  16. Post‐digestion spike recoveries for metals analyses, (if  applicable; required in hardcopy format only)    Not Applicable  17. Internal Standard recovery and retention time information, as  applicable  X    18. Initial calibration summary, including standard concentrations,  response factors, average response factors, RSDs or correlation  coefficients, and calibration plots or equations, if applicable  (required in hardcopy format only)  X    19. Continuing calibration verification summary, including expected  and recovered concentrations and percent differences (required  in hardcopy format only)  X    20. Instrument tuning and mass calibration information for ICP  /mass spectrometry analyses  X    21. All associated instrument printouts for all samples, standards,  and QC samples (e.g., raw data) necessary to re‐calculate  results as well as all manual integrations (if performed)  X    22. Sample preparation logs that include the following information X     Preparation start and end times (as applicable) X     Beginning and ending temperatures of water baths and  digestion blocks    Not Applicable  Data package complete and ready for Validation Cherie Zakowski Date: 4/20/2021  Signature VA SLC OU‐1  Data Package Completeness Review Checklist  SDG: 2103818 Required Documentation Yes No Comments  1. Cover letter complete with the following information: X     Title of report and laboratory unique report identification  (sample delivery group number) X     Project name, site location X     Name and location of laboratory and second‐site or  subcontracted laboratory X     Client name and address X     Statement of authenticity and official signature and title of  person authorizing report release X    2. Summary of samples received that correlates field sample IDs  with the laboratory IDs X    3. Laboratory qualifier flags and definitions  X    4. Preparation and/or analytical methods  X    5. Sample results for each analyte (dry weight basis for soils)   Date received X     Date analyzed (and time of analysis if the holding time is less  than or equal to 48 hours) X     Percent solids results for soil samples   Not Applicable   Dilution factor (provide both diluted and undiluted results  when available) X     Sample‐specific reporting limit adjusted for sample size,  dilution/concentration X     Sample‐specific MDL adjusted for sample size,  dilution/concentration X     Units X    6. Case Narrative that addresses the following information at a  minimum: X     Sample receipt discrepancies X  None   Descriptions of all nonconformances in the sample receipt,  handling, preparation, analytical and reporting processes and  the corrective action taken in each occurrence  X     Identification and justification for sample dilution X     Sample cooler temperature at time of receipt   Not Applicable   Final residual vacuum of each sample canister immediately  prior to analysis, or upon receipt (Air analyses only)  X    7. Surrogate percent recoveries (surrogate result, target  concentration, percent recovery)  X    Required Documentation Yes No Comments  8. MS/MSD and LCS spike concentrations, native sample results,  spiked sample results, percent recoveries, and RPDs between  the MS and MSD results (associated QC limits must also be  provided)  X    9. Method blank results X    10. Analytical batch reference number that cross references  samples to QC sample analyses  X    11. Executed COC and sample receipt checklist X    12.  Analytical sequence or laboratory run log that contains  sufficient information to correlate samples reported in the  summary results to the associated method QC information,  such as initial and continuing calibration analyses  X    13. Calibration blank results for inorganic analyses (required in  hardcopy format only)    Not Applicable  14. Inductively coupled plasma (ICP) interference check sample for  inorganic analyses, true and measured concentrations and  percent recoveries (required in hardcopy format only)    Not Applicable  15. Reporting Limit Check Standard for metals analyses, true and  measured concentrations and percent recoveries (if applicable,  required in hardcopy format only)    Not Applicable  16. Post‐digestion spike recoveries for metals analyses, (if  applicable; required in hardcopy format only)    Not Applicable  17. Internal Standard recovery and retention time information, as  applicable  X    18. Initial calibration summary, including standard concentrations,  response factors, average response factors, RSDs or correlation  coefficients, and calibration plots or equations, if applicable  (required in hardcopy format only)  X    19. Continuing calibration verification summary, including expected  and recovered concentrations and percent differences (required  in hardcopy format only)  X    20. Instrument tuning and mass calibration information for ICP  /mass spectrometry analyses  X    21. All associated instrument printouts for all samples, standards,  and QC samples (e.g., raw data) necessary to re‐calculate  results as well as all manual integrations (if performed)  X    22. Sample preparation logs that include the following information X     Preparation start and end times (as applicable) X     Beginning and ending temperatures of water baths and  digestion blocks    Not Applicable  Data package complete and ready for Validation Cherie Zakowski Date: 4/18/2021  Signature      Attachment 3  Analytical Data Packages  Note: Laboratory Data Reports removed from report and provided separately. Final Data Summary Report East Side Springs Vapor Intrusion Lines of Evidence 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Site Salt Lake City, Utah CONTRACT NO.: W912DQ -18-D-3008 DELIVERY ORDER NO.: W912DQ19F3048 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Kansas City District Department of Veterans Affairs Veterans Health Administration Salt Lake City Health Care System September 22, 2021 Cover This page intentionally left blank. i Table of Contents Section 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Background ................................................................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Purpose and Scope ................................................................................................................................................... 1-2 Section 2 Residential Groundwater Monitoring Well Installation ...................................... 2-1 2.1 Utility Clearance and Permitting ........................................................................................................................ 2-1 2.1.1 Hand Auger Preclearing ........................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1.2 Permitting ...................................................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Drilling ........................................................................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2.1 Piezometer Abandonment and Well Installation .......................................................................... 2-2 2.2.2 RG-01 Drilling ............................................................................................................................................... 2-2 2.2.3 RG-02 Drilling ............................................................................................................................................... 2-2 2.2.4 RG-03 Drilling ............................................................................................................................................... 2-2 2.2.5 RG-04 Drilling ............................................................................................................................................... 2-2 2.2.6 RG-05 Drilling ............................................................................................................................................... 2-3 2.2.7 RG-06 Drilling ............................................................................................................................................... 2-3 2.2.8 RG-07 Drilling ............................................................................................................................................... 2-3 2.2.9 RG-08 Drilling ............................................................................................................................................... 2-3 2.2.10 RG-09 Drilling ............................................................................................................................................ 2-3 2.2.11 RG-10 Drilling ............................................................................................................................................ 2-3 2.2.12 RG-11 Drilling ............................................................................................................................................ 2-3 2.3 Well Construction ..................................................................................................................................................... 2-4 2.3.1 RG-01 ................................................................................................................................................................ 2-4 2.3.2 RG-02 ................................................................................................................................................................ 2-4 2.3.3 RG-03 ................................................................................................................................................................ 2-4 2.3.4 RG-04 ................................................................................................................................................................ 2-5 2.3.5 RG-05 ................................................................................................................................................................ 2-5 2.3.6 RG-06 ................................................................................................................................................................ 2-5 2.3.7 RG-07 ................................................................................................................................................................ 2-5 2.3.8 RG-08 ................................................................................................................................................................ 2-5 2.3.9 RG-09 ................................................................................................................................................................ 2-5 2.3.10 RG-10 ............................................................................................................................................................. 2-6 2.3.11 RG-11 ............................................................................................................................................................. 2-6 2.4 Well Development .................................................................................................................................................... 2-6 2.5 Decontamination and Investigation-Derived Waste ................................................................................. 2-6 Section 3 Residential Groundwater Monitoring Well Sampling ......................................... 3-1 3.1 Residential Groundwater Monitoring Well Sampling ............................................................................... 3-1 Section 4 Surface Water Sampling .................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Surface Water Flow Rates ..................................................................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 Surface Water VOC Results ................................................................................................................................... 4-1 4.3 Surface Water General Chemistry ..................................................................................................................... 4-2 Section 5 Soil Vapor Sampling .......................................................................................... 5-1 Table of Contents ii 5.1 Soil Vapor Probe Sampling Procedures ........................................................................................................... 5-1 5.2 Soil Vapor VOC Results ........................................................................................................................................... 5-1 Section 6 Deviations from the Quality Assurance Project Plan .......................................... 6-1 Section 7 Summary .......................................................................................................... 7-1 Section 8 References ....................................................................................................... 8-1 List of Figures Figure 1 Site Location Figure 2 East Side Springs Site Features Figure 3 Residential Groundwater Monitoring Well PCE and TCE Results Figure 4 ESS Surface Water PCE and TCE Results Figure 5 ESS Soil Vapor Monitoring Point PCE and TCE Results List of Tables Table 1 Piezometer Replacement Information Table 2 Residential Groundwater Monitoring Well Development Summary Table 3 Residential Groundwater Monitoring Well Water Levels Table 4 Residential Groundwater Monitoring Well VOC and Field Parameter Results Table 5 Surface Water Sampling Locations Table 6 Surface Water VOC Results Table 7 Surface Water Metals Results Table 8 Surface Water General Chemistry Results Table 9 East Side Springs Soil Vapor Results Appendices Appendix A Daily Quality Control Reports Appendix B Field Logbook Notes Appendix C Utility Locate Reports Appendix D Traffic Control Plan Appendix E Salt Lake City Traffic Control, Engineering, and Right-of-Way Permits Appendix F Borehole Logs with Well Construction Diagrams Appendix G Soil Core Photo Log Appendix H Survey Data Appendix I Investigation-Derived Waste Manifests Appendix J Quality Control Summary Report 1-1 Section 1 Introduction Under the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Kansas City District, Contract No. W912DQ-18- D-3008, Task Order No. W912DQ19F3048, CDM Federal Programs Corporation (CDM Smith) was directed to perform a remedial investigation (RI) for Operable Unit (OU) 1 of the 700 South 1600 East Tetrachloroethene (PCE) Plume Superfund Site in Salt Lake City, Utah. CDM Smith prepared this data summary report (DSR) to present the results of the East Side Springs (ESS) well installation, groundwater, surface water and soil gas sampling as part of the RI field characterization activities. The work presented in this DSR was conducted to address the following data quality objectives (CDM Smith 2020a): ▪ D3 (Groundwater Risk): Would human exposures to site-related VOCs in groundwater within the plume area result in unacceptable risks? ▪ D4 (Surface Water Risk): Would human and ecological exposures to site-related VOCs in surface water (i.e., springs, creeks, ponds, irrigation water) within the groundwater plume area result in unacceptable risks? 1.1 Background The Salt Lake City Healthcare System George E. Wahlen Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC) is in Salt Lake City, Utah (Figure 1). PCE contamination was first identified in groundwater in 1990 at the nearby Mt. Olivet Cemetery irrigation well during routine monitoring by the Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities. This led to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Utah Department of Environmental Quality involvement at the site and the preliminary determination that the source of PCE in groundwater was the historical dry-cleaning facility at the VAMC. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) operated a part-time dry-cleaning operation that used PCE over a 6-year period in the late 1970s and early 1980s. During this period, dry-cleaning residuals were disposed in the sanitary sewer. The PCE plume is present beneath the VAMC property and in areas hydraulically downgradient, extending to the ESS neighborhood (Jacobs 2019). In 2016, as part of the AOU1 RI, fifty soil borings were completed in the ESS area. Of the fifty borings, thirty-four temporary groundwater monitoring points were installed to collect groundwater samples. Ten of the locations were left installed with ¾-inch Schedule 40 polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and flush mount vault covers. Soil vapor, surface water sampling, and groundwater sampling of locations in the ESS neighborhood identified areas with elevated PCE with potential for vapor intrusion (EA 2019). In 2018, as part of the RI for the former OU2, 18 shallow monitoring wells (including 7 monitoring well pairs and 4 individual wells) were constructed at the site. Additionally, two deep monitoring wells were installed: MW-03R on the VAMC campus, installed as a multilevel completion with four screened intervals, and MW-08, installed on 700 South near 1300 East as a Section 1 • Introduction 1-2 multilevel completion with three screened intervals (Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. [Jacobs] 2019). Soil vapor investigations and surface water and groundwater sampling were also conducted as part of the RI effort. The soil vapor investigation identified elevated PCE concentrations around Buildings 6 and 7 on the VAMC campus and along the sanitary sewer line that runs from Building 7 through Sunnyside Park to the main sewer line on 900 South, specifically near a manhole in Sunnyside Park (Jacobs 2019). As part of the Phase 1 RI field investigation, 27 groundwater monitoring wells were installed at 11 boring locations. Seven boring locations (MW-23 through MW-29) were selected to evaluate conditions in and immediately downgradient of suspected source areas. Four boring locations (MW-30, MW-31, MW-32, and MW-34) were advanced to delineate the plume laterally and vertically (CDM Smith 2021a). During the Phase 2 OU1 RI field investigation, six groundwater monitoring wells were installed at four locations in the ESS neighborhood. MW-36 was installed to delineate the plume to the south of MW-17S/D and MW14S/D. MW-37S/D were installed to delineate the plume to west of MW- 16S/D and northwest of MW-12S/D. MW-38S/D were installed to delineate the plume north of MW-16S/D and west of MW-08. MW-13L was installed in a deeper water bearing zone near MW- 13S/D (CDM Smith 2021b). Soil vapor points were installed at MW-37 and MW-38. Monitoring wells in the ESS area are presented in Figure 2. 1.2 Purpose and Scope The purpose of this DSR is to present the field work conducted and data collected during the 2021 ESS investigation including the piezometer replacement with residential groundwater monitoring wells, groundwater sampling, surface water sampling, and soil gas sampling. The rationale and approach for completing the piezometer replacement and sampling, surface water sampling, and soil vapor sampling were presented in the Final Phase 2 OU1 RI Work Plan (CDM Smith 2020a) and minor field modification (MFM) #4 to the Phase 2 Field Sampling Plan (CDM Smith 2021c). The surface water sampling was completed to aid in the delineation of the PCE plume extent, evaluate volatile organic compound (VOC) concentration trends over time at select surface water sampling locations, and evaluate the rate of groundwater discharge to surface water in the ESS area. The soil gas sampling was completed to collect additional lines of evidence to identify areas of potential vapor intrusion (VI) risk. The groundwater sampling from the residential groundwater monitoring wells was completed to further delineate shallow groundwater VOC concentrations and to collect additional lines of evidence to identify areas of concern for VI. This report summarizes the field work conducted and presents the data collected during the event. The ESS site features are presented in Figure 2. Appendix A includes the daily quality control reports submitted to USACE and VHA during the event. Appendix B includes copies of field logbook notes for the field work. 2-1 Section 2 Residential Groundwater Monitoring Well Installation The following sections outline the field activities completed during the residential groundwater (RG) monitoring well installation and piezometer abandonment. The field activities were conducted per the EPA approved Phase 2 OU1 RI Work Plan and Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) (CDM Smith 2020b) and MFM #4 to the Phase 2 Field Sampling Plan (CDM Smith 2021c), with deviations outlined in Section 6. 2.1 Utility Clearance and Permitting Prior to drilling, all locations were surveyed for utilities using geophysical survey methods. Location clearance requests were submitted to Blue Stakes of Utah, and the utility location notifications were updated as required during the drilling event. TWS Environmental, LLC conducted the geophysical surveys for the boring locations in the ESS area in November 2020 during the Phase 2 drilling investigation. Due to limited availability, GPRS, LLC conducted the geophysical survey for locations that were not accessed during Phase 2 or that were relocated prior to drilling in April 2020. Utility locate reports are included in Appendix C. 2.1.1 Hand Auger Preclearing Prior to drilling, the new or relocated boring locations were precleared using a hand auger in a three-hole pattern to 5 feet below ground surface (bgs). Piezometer replacements that did not have any identified utilities were probed around the boring location using a t-probe, a hand held slim metal rod used to probe for obstructions or utilities. If utilities were identified in the area, the RG well replacing the piezometer was offset from the original piezometer location. 2.1.2 Permitting The Salt Lake City Corporation Engineering Division issued right-of-way (ROW) permits for the monitoring well installations. A performance bond and certificate of liability insurance accompanied the ROW permit application. Utah Barricade created traffic control plans, included in Appendix D, which were submitted to the Salt Lake City Division of Transportation for traffic control permits at the boring locations. Copies of the ROW permit, traffic control permit, and associated documents can be found in Appendix E. 2.2 Drilling Drilling occurred between April 1 and 8, 2021. Vista Geosciences used a Geoprobe 7822DT track- mounted direct push technology (DPT) drill rig with hollow-stem auger (HSA) capabilities to advance the borings. Auger cuttings or soil cores were collected and field screened using a photoionization detector. The lithology was logged, and photographs were taken of the cuttings Section 2 • Residential Groundwater Monitoring Well Installation 2-2 or core intervals. Borehole logs are included in Appendix F and photographs of the soil cores and cuttings are included in Appendix G. Well construction details are discussed in Section 2.4 and presented in Table 1. Soil cuttings were placed in drums and managed as investigation derived waste (IDW). The RG monitoring well locations are shown in Figure 2. 2.2.1 Piezometer Abandonment and Well Installation Eight of the original ten piezometer locations were still intact. The GW-10 and GW-53 locations were destroyed during construction activities along 900 South. At the eight locations with existing piezometers, the flush mount surface completion was removed. The ¾-inch PVC piezometer was pulled by hand. At locations GW-20, GW-49, and GW-61, a 3-inch DPT sampler was advanced to the total depth of the piezometer. The 3-inch boring was backfilled with bentonite, hydrated, and covered with topsoil. Installation of the RG wells was completed using HSA drilling methods. At the five locations where existing piezometers were being replaced (GW-11, GW-16, GW-50, GW-52, GW-59), the PVC piezometer was removed by hand, and the boring was overdrilled with HSA to construct the new well. At the remaining locations, a DPT soil core was collected for lithologic logging and the borehole was overdrilled using HSA to construct the well. Well construction details are provided in Section 2.3 and Appendix F. 2.2.2 RG-01 Drilling RG-01 was drilled to replace GW-10 near the intersection of 900 South, 1100 East, and Gilmer Drive. GW-10 was destroyed during construction of a traffic circle at the intersection. During the AOU-1 investigation, GW-10 was drilled to 20 feet bgs. The ¾-inch PVC piezometer screen was installed from 13 to 18 feet bgs. The RG-01 location was drilled to 20 feet bgs with DPT to verify lithology, then drilled with HSA to create an annulus. 2.2.3 RG-02 Drilling RG-02 was drilled to replace GW-11 in the alley between the 1100 block of Sunnyside Avenue and 900 South. GW-11 was drilled to 15 feet bgs and screened from 10 to 15 feet bgs. The GW-11 PVC was pulled by hand, and the boring was drilled with HSA to 15 feet bgs. 2.2.4 RG-03 Drilling RG-03 was drilled to replace GW-16 near 1133 East Sunnyside Avenue. GW-16 was drilled to 10 feet bgs and screened from 3 to 8 feet bgs. The GW-16 piezometer was pulled by hand, and the boring was drilled with HSA to 8 feet bgs. 2.2.5 RG-04 Drilling RG-04 was drilled to replace GW-20 near 761 South 1100 East. GW-20 was drilled to 20 feet bgs and screened from 11.5 to 16.5 feet bgs. Because of unclear utility markings, the RG-04 location was offset from the GW-20 drilling location. The GW-20 piezometer was abandoned using DPT as described in Section 2.2.1. The offset location was drilled on 1100 East in the parking lane. The asphalt was cored, and the boring was hand-augered to 5 feet bgs in a three-hole pattern prior to HSA advancement of the RG-04 borehole. The RG-04 boring was advanced to 20 feet bgs. Section 2 • Residential Groundwater Monitoring Well Installation 2-3 2.2.6 RG-05 Drilling RG-05 was drilled north of the East High School property along 800 South. During the AOU-1 investigation, GW-27 was temporarily installed in a similar location but was abandoned after sampling. The RG-05 location was hand-augered to 5 feet bgs in a three-hole pattern before drilling. RG-05 was advanced to 30 feet bgs with DPT core prior to HSA advancement for well construction. 2.2.7 RG-06 Drilling RG-06 was drilled to replace GW-50 near 1190 East Gilmer Drive. GW-50 was drilled to 10 feet bgs and screened from 4 to 9 feet bgs. The GW-50 PVC was pulled by hand, and the boring was drilled with HSA to 10 feet bgs. 2.2.8 RG-07 Drilling RG-07 was drilled to replace GW-52 near 1244 East 900 South. GW-52 was drilled to 30 feet bgs with screen installed from 25 to 30 feet bgs. The GW-52 piezometer was pulled, and the boring was drilled with HSA. The HSA boring encountered refusal at approximately 17 feet bgs. The RG- 07 boring was relocated approximately 4 feet south. The boring was advanced to 30 feet bgs. 2.2.9 RG-08 Drilling RG-08 was drilled to replace GW-53 near the southwest corner of the intersection of 900 South and 1200 East. GW-53 was likely destroyed during road/utility construction in the area. GW-53 was drilled to 15 feet bgs and screened from 10 to 15 feet bgs. RG-08 was drilled along the south side of 900 South in the parking lane. RG-08 was drilled with DPT prior to augering with the HSA. The boring was advanced to 20 feet bgs. 2.2.10 RG-09 Drilling RG-09 was drilled to replace GW-59 at the intersection of Sunnyside Avenue and 1100 East. The GW-59 piezometer was pulled, and the HSA boring was drilled to 15 feet bgs. RG-09-was screened from 10 to 15 feet bgs. 2.2.11 RG-10 Drilling RG-10 was drilled to replace GW-61 along Michigan Avenue between 1100 East and 1200 East. GW-61 was located near 1146 E Michigan Avenue. GW-61 was drilled to 20 feet bgs and screened 15 to 20 feet bgs. The GW-61 piezometer was pulled, drilled to a depth of 20 feet using DPT, and abandoned with bentonite. The RG-10 boring was relocated to the east along Michigan Avenue closer to 1200 East. The RG-10 boring was drilled with DPT to 30 feet bgs prior to HSA drilling for the well installation. 2.2.12 RG-11 Drilling RG-11 was drilled along the parking lane near 741 Douglas Street. The initial DPT boring encountered refusal at 12.5 feet bgs. The boring was offset approximately three feet to the south. The RG-11 boring was advanced to 40 feet bgs prior to HSA drilling for the well installation. Well construction details are provided in Section 2.3 and Appendix F. Section 2 • Residential Groundwater Monitoring Well Installation 2-4 2.3 Well Construction A summary of the well construction information for the wells installed during this event is presented in Table 1. Two-inch diameter polyvinyl chloride (PVC) well casings were installed with the HSA flights in place. Wells were installed according to the procedures described in the section 4.2.1 of the Phase 2 OU1 RI Work Plan (CDM Smith 2020a) and SOP 4-4, Design and Installation of Monitoring Wells in Aquifers included in the Appendix A of the QAPP (CDM Smith 2020b). Screens consisted of a 0.010-inch slot screen in 5- or 10-foot intervals. The well screen intervals were similar to the previous piezometer screen intervals, except for RG-10 and RG-11. The filter pack was constructed using 10/20 silica sand and extended 2 to 3 feet above the top of the screened intervals. Hydrated bentonite chips were installed above sand filter pack interval to approximately 2 feet bgs. Soil vapor probes (SVPs) were installed at RG-01, RG-04, RG-05, RG-07, RG-08, RG-10, and RG-11 at approximately 5 feet bgs to assess the extent of volatile organic compounds in soil vapor in the ESS. SVPs are manufactured by AMS and consist of a 6-inch long, double-woven stainless-steel wire screens (0.0057-inch pore) with Swagelok fittings connected to 0.25-inch outer diameter Teflon-lined tubing. SVPs were installed within a 2- to 3-foot sand pack using 10/20 silica sand. Each monitoring well location was completed at the surface with a flush-mounted manhole vault. RG-02, RG-04, RG-08, and RG-11 required a Salt Lake City-approved concrete batch mix for the surface completion because the location was in the ROW. Well completion diagrams, including screen, sand, and bentonite intervals, and SVP depths, are included on the boring logs in Appendix F. Survey data for the well locations are presented in Appendix H. The finalized survey information is included in the remedial investigation report. 2.3.1 RG-01 The RG-01 well design consists of one 2-inch monitoring well with an SVP. ▪ A 2-inch PVC monitoring well was installed with a 0.010 slot screen from 9 to 19 feet bgs. Groundwater was encountered at approximately 9 feet bgs during drilling. ▪ The SVP was installed at 4.5 feet bgs with a sand pack from 4.5 to 7 feet bgs. 2.3.2 RG-02 The RG-02 well design consists of one 2-inch monitoring well. ▪ A 2-inch PVC monitoring well was installed with a 0.010 slot screen from 5 to 15 feet bgs. Groundwater was encountered at approximately 3 feet bgs during drilling. ▪ Because of the depth to groundwater no soil vapor probe was installed. 2.3.3 RG-03 The RG-03 well design consists of one 2-inch monitoring well. ▪ A 2-inch PVC monitoring well was installed with a 0.010 slot screen from 3 to 8 feet bgs. Groundwater was encountered at approximately 3 feet bgs during drilling. Section 2 • Residential Groundwater Monitoring Well Installation 2-5 ▪ Because of the depth to groundwater, no soil vapor probe was installed. 2.3.4 RG-04 The RG-04 well design consists of one 2-inch monitoring well with an SVP. ▪ A 2-inch PVC monitoring well was installed with a 0.010 slot screen from 10 to 20 feet bgs. Groundwater was encountered at approximately 14 feet bgs during drilling. ▪ The SVP was installed at 5 feet bgs with a sand pack from 4 to 7 feet bgs. 2.3.5 RG-05 The RG-05 well design consists of one 2-inch monitoring well with an SVP. ▪ A 2-inch PVC monitoring well was installed with a 0.010 slot screen from 20 to 30 feet bgs. Groundwater was encountered at approximately 24 feet bgs during drilling. ▪ The SVP was installed at 5 feet bgs with a sand pack from 4 to 7 feet bgs. 2.3.6 RG-06 The RG-06 well design consists of one 2-inch monitoring well with an SVP. ▪ A 2-inch PVC monitoring well was installed with a 0.010 slot screen from 4 to 9 feet bgs. Groundwater was encountered at approximately 2.3 feet bgs during drilling. ▪ No SVP was installed because of shallow groundwater. 2.3.7 RG-07 The RG-07 well design consists of one 2-inch monitoring well with an SVP. ▪ A 2-inch PVC monitoring well was installed with a 0.010 slot screen from 20 to 30 feet bgs. Groundwater was encountered at approximately 21 feet bgs during drilling. ▪ The SVP was installed at 5 feet bgs with a sand pack from 4 to 7 feet bgs. 2.3.8 RG-08 The RG-08 well design consists of one 2-inch monitoring well with an SVP. ▪ A 2-inch PVC monitoring well was installed with a 0.010 slot screen from 8 to 18 feet bgs. Groundwater was encountered at approximately 6 feet bgs during drilling. ▪ The SVP was installed at 4.5 feet bgs with a sand pack from 4 to 6 feet bgs. 2.3.9 RG-09 The RG-09 well design consists of one 2-inch monitoring well with an SVP. ▪ A 2-inch PVC monitoring well was installed with a 0.010 slot screen from 5 to 15 feet bgs. Groundwater was encountered at approximately 5.5 feet bgs during drilling. ▪ No SVP was installed because of shallow groundwater. Section 2 • Residential Groundwater Monitoring Well Installation 2-6 2.3.10 RG-10 The RG-10 well design consists of one 2-inch monitoring well with an SVP. ▪ A 2-inch PVC monitoring well was installed with a 0.010 slot screen from 20 to 30 feet bgs. Groundwater was encountered at approximately 26 feet bgs during drilling. ▪ The SVP was installed at 5 feet bgs with a sand pack from 4 to 7 feet bgs. 2.3.11 RG-11 The RG-11 well design consists of one 2-inch monitoring well with an SVP. ▪ A 2-inch PVC monitoring well was installed with a 0.010 slot screen from 30 to 40 feet bgs. Groundwater was encountered at approximately 29 feet bgs during drilling. ▪ The SVP was installed at 5 feet bgs with a sand pack from 4 to 7 feet bgs. 2.4 Well Development The 2-inch monitoring wells installed during the ESS investigation were developed by purging with a bailer (to remove sediment from the screened interval) and a submersible pump, according to methods described in standard operating procedure (SOP) 4-3 Well Development and Purging which is included in Appendix A of the Phase 2 QAPP (CDM Smith 2020b). A minimum purge volume was calculated prior to development (three times the volume of water column in the well casing). The wells were purged until the minimum volume had been removed or parameter stabilization and turbidity requirements (less than 10 nephelometric turbidity units [NTU] or within 10 percent) were met. Table 2 lists the development technique used and volume purged from each well. Well development field notes are included in Appendix B. The development water was handled as IDW. 2.5 Decontamination and Investigation-Derived Waste All decontamination waste produced during the drilling effort was collected and managed in accordance with SOP 4-5, Field Equipment Decontamination at Nonradioactive Sites (CDM Smith 2020b). Waste was produced from decontaminating all downhole drilling equipment prior to drilling activities, between boreholes, and after the drilling investigation. Additional equipment decontaminated after each use include the drilling tag line, water level meters, development pump, and nondedicated bailer. All IDW was handled per SOP 2-2, Guide to Handling Investigation-Derived Waste (CDM Smith 2020b). All decontamination and purge/development water was transferred to the holding tanks at the VAMC campus IDW yard. The soils from drilling and pre-clearing were placed in 55-gallon steel drums. Prior to disposal, groundwater and soil were characterized and determined to be nonhazardous. Approximately 2,300 gallons of decontamination, development, and purge water IDW was generated. Twenty 55-gallon drums of soil were disposed off-site at Wasatch Regional Landfill. Waste profiles and nonhazardous manifests are included in Appendix I. 3-1 Section 3 Residential Groundwater Monitoring Well Sampling The following section outlines the RG monitoring well field sampling activities, which occurred from April 13 to 16, 2021. The RG wells were installed to replace temporary piezometer groundwater sampling locations that were installed during the AOU-1 RI. As described in MFM #4 to Phase 2 Field Sampling Plan (CDM Smith, 2021c), the RG wells were sampled for VOC using HydraSleeve samplers. Depth to water and depth to bottom of the well measurements were collected prior to deploying the HydraSleeve samplers. At least 24 hours passed between the end of well development activities and deployment of a HydraSleeve. the HydraSleeve samplers were deployed, and the groundwater was allowed to equilibrate for a minimum of 48 hours before retrieving the sampler. Groundwater quality parameters were collected if there was sufficient water in the sampler following filling of bottles for laboratory analysis. All samples were submitted to EMAX Laboratories Inc. in Torrance, California. The analytical results are discussed in Section 3.1. Laboratory data are included in Appendix J. Field quality control samples were collected, including field duplicates, matrix spike/matrix duplicates, and trip blanks and are discussed in the Quality Control Summary Report in Appendix J. 3.1 Residential Groundwater Monitoring Well Sampling Groundwater samples were collected and analyzed for VOCs. Groundwater elevations and depths to water are presented in Table 3. Table 4 presents the concentrations of detected VOCs compared with the EPA maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) or regional screening levels (RSLs) for tap water (for compounds without an established MCL). The RG well locations and results for PCE and trichloroethene (TCE) are shown in Figure 3. A total of 11 locations were sampled for VOC analysis. PCE was detected in all the samples ranging from 1.5 microgram per liter (µg/L) to 60 µg/L. Of those, PCE exceeded the groundwater MCL (5 µg/L) in nine samples. The highest PCE concentrations were in RG-02 (57 µg/L), RG-03 (60 µg/L), and RG-08 (56 µg/L). The locations that did not exceed the PCE MCL were RG-06 (1.5 µg/L) and RG-10 (3 µg/L). TCE was detected in 9 of the 11 sample locations. TCE concentrations ranged from 0.17 J µg/L to 7.4 µg/L. RG-06 (7.4 µg/L) was the only location that exceeded the TCE MCL of 5 µg/L. TCE was not detected in RG-05 or RG-11. Cis-1,2-Dichloroethene (cis-1,2-DCE) was detected at six of the locations. All detections were less than the cis-1,2-DCE MCL (70 µg/L). The cis-1,2-DCE concentrations ranged from 0.11 J µg/L to 2.2 µg/L. Vinyl chloride was not detected in any of the samples. Section 3 • Residential Groundwater Monitoring Well Sampling 3-2 Groundwater remaining in the HydraSleeve following sample collection was handled as IDW. Any nondedicated sampling equipment was decontaminated following procedures described in Section 2.6 and SOP 4-5, Field Equipment Decontamination at Nonradioactive Sites (CDM Smith 2020b). 4-1 Section 4 Surface Water Sampling Surface water samples were collected and analyzed for VOCs, metals, and general chemistry. Field parameters and flow rates were also collected at or near the sampling locations. The surface water sampling locations are seeps or springs and are presented in Table 5. Sample locations and procedures were discussed in the Plan for Surface Water Sampling and Flow Measurement memorandum (CDM Smith 2021d). Ten surface water locations were sampled either by grab (gravity flow) or peristaltic pump. A field duplicate was collected at SW-54. Only flow rate was measured at the downgradient Benson Spring location (SW-15). Six of the sampled locations were previously sampled during the AOU1 or OU2 investigations. Four of the locations were sampled for the first time during the April 2021 surface water sampling event. The surface water locations are presented in Figure 4. All surface water samples were submitted to EMAX Laboratories Inc. in Torrance, California. The analytical results are discussed in Section 4.2. Laboratory data are included in Appendix J. Field quality control samples were collected, including field duplicates, matrix spike/matrix duplicates, and trip blanks, and are discussed in the Quality Control Summary Report in Appendix J. At SW- 16I, the flow was sampled via a small floor grate which was too small for flow rate equipment. 4.1 Surface Water Flow Rates Flow rates were collected at 10 of the 11 surface water locations. At location SW-54 (the primary source flow for Benson Springs), a flow rate was not recorded due to the flow being widely dispersed and flowing over a concrete barrier. At SW-16I (interior sump in Our Lady of Lourdes) and SW-35, the flow rates were estimated. At SW-16I, the flow was sampled via a small floor grate which was too small for flow rate equipment. Limited flow was observed at SW-35, therefore it also had to be estimated. Flow rates were measured using an area-velocity technique with a velocity meter (OTT MF Pro) or by measuring time to fill a known volume (a quart or 5-gallon bucket with graduated measurements printed on the side). The recorded flow rates ranged from estimated 1 liter per minute (L/min) (SW-35) to 807 L/min (SW-15). The measured and estimated flow rates are included in Table 5. 4.2 Surface Water VOC Results Table 6 presents the concentrations of detected VOCs compared with the EPA MCLs or RSLs for tap water (for compounds without an established MCL) for screening purposes. Detections are presented as bolded values and exceedances of the MCL or RSL are presented as highlighted values. The surface water locations and results for PCE and TCE are shown in Figure 4. PCE was detected at 7 of the 10 sampled locations. PCE concentrations ranged from 5.7 µg/L to 59 µg/L. Seven locations had PCE detections at concentrations greater than the MCL (5 µg/L). TCE was detected in five of the surface water samples. The TCE concentrations ranged from 0.35 J µg/L to 4.6 µg/L. None of the samples had TCE concentrations greater than the MCL (5 µg/L). Cis- 1,2-DCE was also detected in five samples. The concentrations of cis-1,2-DCE ranged from 0.12 J Section 4 • Surface Water Sampling 4-2 µg/L to 1.3 µg/L and were all below the MCL (70 µg/L). Vinyl chloride was not detected in any of the samples. 4.3 Surface Water General Chemistry Total (unfiltered) metal concentrations provide information on the general chemistry of groundwater (i.e., salinity), and redox conditions (i.e., redox-sensitive metals such as arsenic). Analytical results for total (unfiltered) metals are presented in Table 7. The highest observed concentrations of redox-sensitive metals were as follows: ▪ Concentrations of arsenic greater than 1 µg/L were observed at SW-12, SW-34, SW-35, SW- 39, SW-53, and SW-166. ▪ Iron concentrations greater than 500 µg/L were not detected in any of the samples. ▪ Manganese concentrations greater than 500 µg/L were not detected in any of the samples. Dissolved oxygen (DO), oxidation-reduction potential, sulfate, nitrate, ferrous iron, and methane are geochemical parameters that can be used to evaluate redox conditions. These parameters, along with other water quality and geochemical parameters, are presented in Table 8. Reductive dechlorination of PCE to TCE and cis-1,2-DCE generally occurs under iron-reducing to sulfate- reducing conditions, while complete dechlorination to ethene and ethane generally occurs under sulfate-reducing to methanogenic conditions (EPA 2006). Conditions are considered aerobic when DO is greater than 0.5 milligrams per liter (mg/L), iron-reducing when ferrous iron is greater than 0.5 mg/L, and methanogenic when methane is greater than 1 mg/L (EPA 2006). The surface water samples have all been exposed to atmosphere therefore all the samples have elevated DO (greater than 6 mg/L), positive oxidation-reduction potential, and low ferrous iron (less than 0.3 mg/L). Methane was detected in eight locations. The detected methane concentrations ranged from 0.18 J µg/L (SW-39) to 1.1 J µg/L (SW-166). Methane was not detected at SW-16I or SW-54. Where detected, sulfate concentrations ranged from 101 mg/L (SW-12) to 175 mg/L (SW-16I). Low ferrous iron (less than 0.3 mg/L), low methane (less than 1.1 J µg/L), and high sulfate (101 to 175 mg/L) in the surface water samples further support the observation that conditions are generally aerobic (Table 8). Chloride concentrations ranged from 121 mg/L (SW-08) to 404 mg/L (SW-39). Alkalinity ranged from 219 mg/L (SW-16E) to 306 mg/L (SW-53). Total organic carbon was less than 2 mg/L for all samples, with the highest detection of 1.41 mg/L at SW-34. 5-1 Section 5 Soil Vapor Sampling The following section outlines the soil vapor sampling at soil vapor monitoring locations installed on groundwater monitoring wells and RG wells, which occurred from March 26 to April 14, 2021. Single soil vapor probes were installed on monitoring wells MW-32, MW-34, MW-37, and MW-38 during the Phase 1 and Phase 2 drilling investigations in 2020. Single soil vapor probes were also installed on 7 of the 11 residential groundwater monitoring wells in April 2021. Soil vapor probes were not installed on the RG wells with shallow depth to groundwater (RG-02, RG-03, RG-06, and RG-09). The soil vapor sampling locations are presented in Figure 5. 5.1 Soil Vapor Probe Sampling Procedures All soil vapor probes were sampled in accordance with Technical SOP 1-8, Vapor Sampling Using SUMMA Canister presented in Appendix A of the QAPP (CDM Smith 2020b). Soil vapor probes were purged before sample collection. Purge volume was calculated based on tubing diameter (¼-inch inner diameter) and probe depth. Three times the volume of the probe tubing was purged at each location. Shallow probes were purged using a hand vacuum pump. Deeper probes were purged using an electric vacuum pump with an attached flow meter. The flow rate was adjusted to 1 L/min for most locations. Once the probe was purged to remove the minimum volume, a 6-liter SUMMA canister was connected using dedicated tubing. In some cases, new Swagelok connections were added to the tubing to connect the canister. Soil vapor samples were collected using a 30-minute flow controller connected to the canister. Sample collection began when the valve on the canister was opened and the initial vacuum reading was recorded. When the vacuum gauge was between 2 and 5 inches of mercury (approximately 30 minutes after start), the final vacuum reading was recorded, and the valve was closed. The field duplicate sample was collected by connecting dedicated probe tubing to a “T-bar.” The T-bar was then connected to two canisters and the valves were opened simultaneously. Sample canisters were labeled and shipped in boxes (with the flow controllers) to Eurofins Air Toxics, LLC for analysis. The analytical results are discussed in Section 5.2. Laboratory data are included in Appendix J. Field quality control samples were collected and are discussed in the Quality Control Summary Report in Appendix J. 5.2 Soil Vapor VOC Results Table 9 presents the concentrations of detected VOCs compared with the residential soil vapor risk-based screening levels (RBSLs). Detections are presented as bolded values and exceedances of the RSBL are presented as highlighted values. The soil vapor sampling locations and results for PCE and TCE are shown in Figure 5. Section 5 • Soil Vapor Sampling 5-2 Eleven locations were sampled for VOC analysis. One field duplicate was collected at RG-10. PCE was detected in all the samples at concentrations ranging from 0.41 microgram per cubic meter (µg/m3) to 570 µg/m3. Of those, PCE exceeded the residential soil gas RBSL (360 µg/m3) in one sample (RG-08). TCE was detected in 7 of the 11 sample locations. TCE concentrations ranged from 0.11 J µg/m3 to 4 µg/m3. None of the locations exceeded the TCE RBSL of 16 µg/m3. TCE was not detected in MW- 32, MW-34, MW-37, or MW-38. Cis-1,2-DCE was detected at three of the locations. An RBSL for cis-1,2-DCE has not been established. The cis-1,2-DCE concentrations ranged from 0.03 J µg/m3 to 0.52 µg/m3. Vinyl chloride was detected at seven of the locations. The detected vinyl chloride concentrations ranged from 0.07 µg/m3 to 0.13 µg/m3. All vinyl chloride concentrations were less than the RBSL of 5.6 µg/m3. Two locations had estimated 1,4-dioxane detections. Both locations with 1,4-dioxane detections, MW-34 (0.12 J µg/m3) and MW-38 (0.19 J µg/m3), were less than the RBSL of 19 µg/m3. Benzene was detected at 11 sample locations. Benzene concentrations ranged from 0.07 J µg/m3 to 20 µg/m3. The benzene concentration at RG-08 (20 µg/m3) exceeded the RBSL of 12 µg/m3. Benzene was not detected in groundwater samples in this area of the site. Chloroform was detected at all 11 locations. Chloroform concentrations ranged from 0.7 µg/m3 to 110 µg/m3. Seven of the locations had chloroform detections equal to or greater than the RBSL of 4 µg/m3. MW-34, MW- 38, RG-04, and RG-10 had chloroform concentrations less than the RBSL. Benzene and chloroform are not considered to be site related compounds. 6-1 Section 6 Deviations from the Quality Assurance Project Plan During RG well development, the minimum purge volume was calculated according to methods described in SOP 4-3 Well Development and Purging, which is included in Appendix A of the Phase 2 QAPP (CDM Smith 2020b). Information regarding development was documented in a field book rather than on field forms. Several locations had slow recharge; therefore, many of the locations were purged dry and then allowed to recharge. Since many of the locations were purged dry, parameter stabilization was not measured. After the minimum calculated purge volume was removed and the groundwater recharged, a bailer was pulled with the recharge water to visually examine the clarity. The water in the RG monitoring wells was visibly clear, and turbidity should not affect future sampling efforts or quality of the data. Field forms were not completed with field parameters during surface water and RG well sampling. This will not affect the quality of the data, as the field parameters measured at the RG wells and surface water sample locations were included in the field notes included in Appendix A and are presented in Tables 4 and 8 for the RG wells and surface water samples, respectively. Field parameters were only collected at RG wells with sufficient water present in the HydraSleeve following filling containers for laboratory analysis. The hollow stem auger cuttings from RG-06 (GW-50) over-drilling and installation were not photographed for a photolog of the soil cuttings. RG-06 has a relatively shallow depth to water (2.24 feet bgs); therefore, the HSA cuttings were mixed and saturated. 7-1 Section 7 Summary This report presents a summary of field activities, monitoring well construction details, and sample results from the East Side Springs area investigation completed in March and April 2021. The sample results include RG well groundwater sampling, surface water sampling, and soil vapor sampling of locations in the ESS. Further analysis and evaluation of these results will be presented in the RI report. Eleven residential groundwater monitoring wells were installed as part of the ESS investigation. Nine temporary piezometers, installed in the ESS area during the AOU1 RI, were replaced with 2- inch monitoring wells. One location (GW-49) was abandoned. Another location (GW-61 to RG-10) was abandoned and relocated approximately 200 feet east. RG-05 was installed on the north side of East High School near where a groundwater sample (GW-27) was collected, but a piezometer was not installed during the AOU1 RI. RG-11 was installed in the 700 block of Douglas Street to identify depth to groundwater and PCE concentrations in an area without a nearby sampling point. PCE was detected in all RG monitoring well groundwater samples. PCE exceeded the groundwater MCL (5 µg/L) in nine samples. TCE was detected in 9 of the 11 sample locations. RG-06 (7.4 µg/L) was the only location that exceeded the TCE MCL of 5 µg/L. PCE was detected above the MCL (5 µg/L) at 7 of the 10 sampled surface water locations. Concentrations ranged from 5.7 µg/L to 59 µg/L.. Soil vapor monitoring points were installed on seven of the RG wells in April 2021. Soil vapor monitoring points were also installed at four monitoring wells during the Phase 1 OU2 and Phase 2 OU1 investigation in 2020. These 11 SVPs were sampled for soil vapor. PCE was detected in all samples, ranging from 0.41 µg/m3 to 570 µg/m3. Of those, PCE exceeded the residential soil gas RBSL (360 µg/m3) in one sample (RG-08). TCE was detected in 7 of the 11 soil vapor sample locations. None of the locations exceeded the TCE RBSL of 16 µg/m3. Benzene was detected at 11 sample locations. Benzene concentrations ranged from 0.07 J µg/m3 to 20 µg/m3. The benzene concentration at RG-08 (20 µg/m3) exceeded the RBSL of 12 µg/m3. Benzene is not considered to be a site related compound and the source is undetermined. Chloroform was detected at all 11 locations. Chloroform concentrations ranged from 0.7 µg/m3 to 110 µg/m3. Seven of the locations had chloroform detections equal to or greater than the RBSL of 4 µg/m3. Chloroform is not considered to be a site related compound but is commonly associated with treated drinking water. 1,4-Dioxane was detected at two soil vapor sampling locations, but concentrations did not exceed the RBSL of 16 µg/m3. Data collected during this investigation will be evaluated further to refine the conceptual site model and will be summarized in the RI report. 8-1 Section 8 References Jacobs. 2019. OU-2 Data Summary Report, Operable Unit 2 Remedial Investigation 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. (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. CDM Smith. 2021a. Data Summary Report Spring and Summer 2020 Drilling Investigation, 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. CDM Smith. 2021b. Data Summary Report Phase 2 2020 Drilling Investigation, 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. CDM Smith. 2021c. Minor Field Modification #4 to the Phase 2 Field Sampling Plan, 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. CDM Smith. 2021d. Memorandum Plan for Surface Water Sampling and Flow Measurement 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. CDM Smith. 2020a. Phase 2 Remedial Investigation Work Plan, Operable Unit 1, 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. CDM Smith. 2020b. Phase 2 Quality Assurance Project Plan, Operable Unit 1, 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Kansas City District. EPA. 2006. Evaluation of the Role of Dehalococcoides Organisms in the Natural Attenuation of Chlorinated Ethylenes in Groundwater. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development. Figures !.!( !( !( ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Sunnyside Park University of Utah Well #2 University of Utah Well #1 Mt. Olivet Well East Side Springs VA MedicalCenter SLC-18EastBenchSegmentoftheWasatchFault1 EastBenchFaultSpur2 East Bench Fault Spur2 East HighSchool Mt. OlivetCemetery VHA Medical CenterBuilding 7 (formerdry cleaner location) Carmen BPingree Center Rowland HallSt Mark's School The McGillisSchool Judge MemorialCatholic High School Our Lady of LourdesCatholic School Salt Lake CitySports Complex 500 S GUARDSMAN WAY F O O T H IL L D R 700 S 800 S 500 S 1300 E 1100 E SUNNYSIDE AVE 900 S R ed B utte Creek Figure 1Site LocationLegend !.Drinking Water Supply Well !(Irrigation Well !LandmarkRed Butte CreekSewer LineFault Line File Path: J:\238824_VA_Medical_Salt_Lake\MXD\Sampling_2021\ESS_2021\Fig1_SiteLocation.mxd WAGNERA 9/21/2021 Map Area UTAH Notes:1. Location of University of Utah Well #1 is approximate. OU = operable unitPCE = tetrachloroetheneVHA = Veterans Health Administration 1 Davis, F.D. 1983. Geologic Map of the Central Wasatch Front, Utah. Utah Geological and Mineral Survey. Map 54-A – Wasatch Front Series. May. 2 Personius, S.F. and Scott, W.E. 2009. Surficial Geologic Map of the Salt Lake City Segment and Parts of Adjacent Segments of the Wasatch Fault Zone, Davis, Salt Lake, and Utah Counties, Utah East Side Springs Data Summary Report700 South 1600 East PCE PlumeSalt Lake City, Utah 0 500 1,000Feet ¯ &<&<&< &< &<&< &< &< &< &< &< &< &< &< &< &<&< &<&< &< &<&<&< &<&<&<&< XW XW XWXW XW XW XWXW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XWXW XW XW XW 1400 East Transect SW-15 MW-01S/D MW-34 MW-32 MW-08 MW-16S/D MW-12S/D MW-13S/D MW-14S/D MW-15S/D MW-17S/D MW-18 MW-19 MW-20S/D MW-21 MW-22 700 S 800 S GUARDSMAN WAY 1500E F A I R V I E W A V E UNIVERSITY ST MICHIGA N A VE ELIZABETH ST 900 S 600 S 800 S SUNNYSIDE AVE 900 S 1000 E G R E E N W O O D T E R700 E AMANDA AVE 1400 E COLONIAL PL BELMONT FENWAY AVE 900 E 1400 E LOWELL AVE DOUGLASST T HORNTON AVE DOUGLAS ST YALE AVE HERBERT AVE 1200 E MICHIGANAVE 1000 E MCCLELLAND ST MCCLELLAND ST LINCOLN ST YALE AVE 700 S GILMER DR 1300 E 1100 E BRIXEN CT WILLIAMS AVE MW-13L MW-38S/D MW-37S/D MW-36 SW-12 SW-08 SW-54 SW-16ISW-16E SW-34 SW-35 SW-39 SW-166 SW-53 RG-01 RG-02 RG-03 RG-04 RG-05 RG-06 RG-07RG-08 RG-09 RG-10 RG-11 E a s t B e n c h S e g m e n t o f th e W asatch F a ult1 East Bench Fault Spur2 Red Butte Creek Legend &<Monitoring Well XW Residential Groundwater Monitoring Well XW Surface Water Sample Location Red Butte CreekFault LineTransect Line File Path: J:\238824_VA_Medical_Salt_Lake\MXD\Sampling_2021\ESS_2021\Fig2_ESS_Site_Features.mxd WAGNERA 8/23/2021 Notes:RG = residential groundwater sampling locationSW = surface water sampling locationOU = operable unitPCE = tetrachloroethene 1 Davis, F.D. 1983. Geologic Map of the Central Wasatch Front, Utah. Utah Geological and Mineral Survey. Map 54-A – Wasatch Front Series. May. 2 Personius, S.F. and Scott, W.E. 2009. Surficial Geologic Map of the Salt Lake City Segment and Parts of Adjacent Segments of the Wasatch Fault Zone, Davis, Salt Lake, and Utah Counties, Utah Figure 2East Side Springs Site Features East Side Springs Data Summary Report700 South 1600 East PCE PlumeSalt Lake City, Utah . 0 250 500Feet East HighSchool XW XW XW XW XW XW XWXW XW XW XW GW-053 GW-016 GW-010 GW-011 GW-020 RG-05 GW-052 GW-059 East HighSchool Mt. OlivetCemetery SUNNYSIDE AVE GUARDSMAN WAY 900 E 800 E 1300 E 1100 E 700 S 800 S 900 S DOUGLAS ST RG-06 RG-10 RG-11 E a st B e n c h S e g m e n t o f t h e W a s a t c h F a u l t 1 East Bench Fault Spur2 R e d B u t t e C r e e k Figure 3Residential Groundwater MonitoringWell PCE and TCE Results Legend XW Residential GroundwaterMonitoring WellRed Butte CreekFault Line File Path: J:\238824_VA_Medical_Salt_Lake\MXD\Sampling_2021\ESS_2021\Fig3_RG_Well_Results.mxd WAGNERA 9/22/2021 PCE and TCE Concentrations (µg/L) = < 5 µg/L = 5 - 50 µg/L = > 50 µg/L East Side Springs Data Summary Report700 South 1600 East PCE PlumeSalt Lake City, Utah μg/L = micrograms per literJ = Result is estimatedU = Analyte was not detected at the associated value 0 250 500Feet . Notes:OU = operable unitPCE = tetrachloroetheneTCE = trichloroethene 1 Davis, F.D. 1983. Geologic Map of the Central Wasatch Front, Utah. Utah Geological and Mineral Survey. Map 54-A – Wasatch Front Series. May. 2 Personius, S.F. and Scott, W.E. 2009. Surficial Geologic Map of the Salt Lake City Segment and Parts of Adjacent Segments of the Wasatch Fault Zone, Davis, Salt Lake, and Utah Counties, Utah 4/16/2021PCE (μg/L)7.3TCE (μg/L)0.17 J RG-01 (9 - 19 ft bgs) 4/16/2021PCE (μg/L)57TCE (μg/L)1.3 RG-02 (5 - 15 ft bgs) 4/15/2021PCE (μg/L)60TCE (μg/L)0.67 J RG-03 (3 - 8 ft bgs) 4/15/2021PCE (μg/L)6TCE (μg/L)0.99 J RG-04 (10 - 20 ft bgs) 4/15/2021PCE (μg/L)56TCE (μg/L)0.42 J RG-08 (8 - 18 ft bgs) 4/16/2021PCE (μg/L)13TCE (μg/L)1.2 RG-09 (5 - 15 ft bgs) 4/16/2021PCE (μg/L)3TCE (μg/L)0.59 J RG-10 (20 - 30 ft bgs) 4/16/2021PCE (μg/L)6.5TCE (μg/L)1 U RG-11 (30 - 40 ft bgs) 4/16/2021PCE (μg/L)1.5TCE (μg/L)7.4 RG-06 (4 - 9 ft bgs) 4/16/2021PCE (μg/L)43TCE (μg/L)0.32 J RG-07 (20 - 30 ft bgs) 4/16/2021PCE (μg/L)7.8TCE (μg/L)1 U RG-05 (20 - 30 ft bgs) XW XW XW XW XW XW XWXW XW XW XW East HighSchool Mt. OlivetCemetery SUNNYSIDE AVE GUARDSMAN WAY 900 E 800 E 1300 E 1100 E 700 S 800 S 900 S SW-08SW-15 SW-16I SW-16E SW-34 SW-35 SW-39 SW-53 SW-54 SW-166 SW-12 R e d B u t t e C r e e k Figure 4ESS Surface WaterPCE and TCE ResultsXWSurface Water SamplingLocationRed Butte CreekFault Line File Path: J:\238824_VA_Medical_Salt_Lake\MXD\Sampling_2021\ESS_2021\Fig4_SW_Results.mxd WAGNERA 9/22/2021 Notes: PCE and TCE Concentrations (µg/L) = < 5 µg/L = 5 - 50 µg/L = > 50 µg/L East Side Springs Data Summary Report700 South 1600 East PCE PlumeSalt Lake City, Utah μg/L = micrograms per literJ = Result is estimatedU = Analyte was not detected at the associated value 0 250 500Feet .OU = operable unitPCE = tetrachloroetheneTCE = trichloroethene 4/15/2021PCE (μg/L)1 UTCE (μg/L)1 U SW-16E 4/15/2021PCE (μg/L)1 UTCE (μg/L)1 U SW-16I 4/13/2021PCE (μg/L)50TCE (μg/L)0.99 J SW-35 4/13/2021PCE (μg/L)23TCE (μg/L)1.6 SW-39 Legend Flow Rate OnlySW-15 4/13/2021PCE (μg/L)59TCE (μg/L)0.75 J SW-166 4/15/2021PCE (μg/L)5.7TCE (μg/L)1 U SW-54 4/15/2021PCE (μg/L)27TCE (μg/L)0.35 J SW-12 4/15/2021PCE (μg/L)1 UTCE (μg/L)1 U SW-08 4/13/2021PCE (μg/L)36TCE (μg/L)4.6 SW-53 4/14/2021PCE (μg/L)6.1TCE (μg/L)1 U SW-34 &<&<&< &<&<&<&< &<&< &<&< ") XW XW ") ") XW ")") XW ") ") MW-32 MW-34 RG-08 RG-03 RG-01 RG-02 RG-04 RG-05 RG-07 RG-09 East HighSchool Mt. OlivetCemetery SUNNYSIDE AVE GUARDSMAN WAY 900 E 800 E 1300 E 1100 E 700 S 800 S 900 S DOUGLAS ST RG-06 RG-10 RG-11 MW-37S/D MW-38S/D R e d B u tt e C reek Figure 5ESS Soil Vapor MonitoringPoint PCE and TCE Results&<Monitoring Well ")Soil Vapor Monitoring Point XW Residential Groundwater Monitoring Wellwithout Soil Vapor Monitoring PointRed Butte CreekFault Line File Path: J:\238824_VA_Medical_Salt_Lake\MXD\Sampling_2021\ESS_2021\Fig5_Soil_Vapor_Results.mxd WAGNERA 9/22/2021 Notes:1. Screening Levels: PCE = 360 µg/mg3 TCE = 16 µg/mg3 East Side Springs Data Summary Report700 South 1600 East PCE PlumeSalt Lake City, Utah μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meterJ = Result is estimatedU = Analyte was not detected at the associated value 0 250 500Feet .OU = operable unitPCE = tetrachloroetheneTCE = trichloroethene 3/26/2021PCE (μg/m3)0.84TCE (μg/m3)0.17 U MW-38 (8 - 8.5 ft bgs) PCE and TCE Concentrations (µg/m3) = < Screening Level = Screening Level to 10X Screening Level = > 10X Screening Level Legend 3/26/2021PCE (μg/m3)68TCE (μg/m3)0.15 U MW-37 (8 - 8.5 ft bgs) 4/14/2021PCE (μg/m3)49TCE (μg/m3)0.76 RG-01 (4.5 - 5 ft bgs) 4/13/2021PCE (μg/m3)46TCE (μg/m3)1.8 RG-04 (5 - 5.5 ft bgs) 4/13/2021PCE (μg/m3)570TCE (μg/m3)4 RG-08 (4.5 - 5 ft bgs) 4/14/2021PCE (μg/m3)2.8TCE (μg/m3)0.11 J RG-10 (5 - 5.5 ft bgs) 4/14/2021PCE (μg/m3)33TCE (μg/m3)0.5 RG-07 (5 - 5.5 ft bgs) 4/14/2021PCE (μg/m3)15TCE (μg/m3)0.19 RG-05 (5 - 5.5 ft bgs) 3/26/2021PCE (μg/m3)0.41TCE (μg/m3)0.16 U MW-32 (20 - 20.5 ft bgs) 3/26/2021PCE (μg/m3)6.7TCE (μg/m3)0.14 U MW-34 (20 - 20.5 ft bgs) 4/13/2021PCE (μg/m3)1.8TCE (μg/m3)0.33 RG-11 (5 - 5.5 ft bgs) Tables Table 1 Piezometer Replacement Information Residential  Groundwater  Location Installation  Date Piezometer  Location Abandonment  Date Y Coordinate  (Utah State  Plane, ft)1 X Coordinate  (Utah State  Plane, ft)1 Surface  Elevation  (ft amsl)2 Top of casing  elevation  (ft amsl)2 Total Well  Depth  (ft bgs) Screen  Start (ft bgs) Screen  End (ft bgs) Soil Vapor  Probe (ft bgs) RG‐01 4/5/2021 GW‐10 4/5/2021 7442006.70 1540924.03 4383.92 4383.49 19 9 19 4.5 RG‐02 4/2/2021 GW‐11 4/2/2021 7442286.89 1541270.19 4437.32 4436.95 15.28 5 15 NA RG‐03 4/2/2021 GW‐16 4/2/2021 7442479.61 1541107.48 4422.98 4422.53 8.19 3 8 NA RG‐04 4/5/2021 GW‐20 4/5/2021 7443062.83 1540830.39 4415.83 4415.47 20.29 10 20 5 RG‐05 4/3/2021 GW‐27 4/3/2021 7442805.72 1541851.88 4497.38 4496.96 30.3 20 30 5 RG‐06 4/5/2021 GW‐50 4/5/2021 7441534.16 1541771.71 4443.66 4443.23 9.2 4 9 NA RG‐07 4/2/2021 GW‐52 4/2/2021 7442021.00 1541979.13 4490.30 4490.05 30.28 20 30 5 RG‐08 4/6/2021 GW‐53 4/6/2021 7442038.61 1541519.86 4455.17 4454.74 17.93 8 18 4.5 RG‐09 4/1/2021 GW‐59 4/1/2021 7442423.54 1540835.33 4385.39 4384.93 15.01 5 15 NA RG‐10 4/7/2021 GW‐61 4/7/2021 7441296.08 1541395.71 4410.37 4409.82 30.3 20 30 5 RG‐11 4/7/2021 NA NA 7443236.76 1541982.64 4504.70 4504.39 40.28 30 40 5 NA NA GW‐49 4/5/2021 NA NA NA NA 12.5 NA NA NA Notes: 1 X/Y Coordinates measured using NAD 83 State Plane Coordinate System 2 Elevations measured using NAVD 88 vertical datum Acronyms: amsl = above mean sea level bgs = below ground surface ft = feet NA= Not Applicable  Data Summary Report East Side Springs Investigation OU1 Remedial Investigation 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume 1 of 1 Table 2 Residential Groundwater Well Development Summary Location Development Method Date Developed Volume of  Water Added  During Drilling  (gallons) Initial Measured  Depth to  Bottom (ft  BTOC) Final Measured  Depth to  Bottom (ft  BTOC) Calculated  Minimum Purge  Volume  (gallons) Volume of Water  Removed During  Development  (gallons) RG‐01 Bailer 4/13/2021 0 18.56 18.83 5.0 20 RG‐02 Bailer 4/13/2021 0 14.02 15.28 6.4 25 RG‐03 Bailer 4/9/2021 0 8.18 8.19 2.5 6.5 RG‐04 Bailer/Submersible Pump 4/9/2021 0 20.29 20.29 5.0 50 RG‐05 Bailer 4/13/2021 0 29.47 30.3 3.3 11.5 RG‐06 Bailer 4/12/2021 0 9.19 9.2 3.4 6.5 RG‐07 Bailer/Submersible Pump 4/12/2021 0 29.2 30.28 4.5 107 RG‐08 Bailer/Submersible Pump 4/12/2021 0 17.82 17.93 6.0 78 RG‐09 Bailer 4/10/2021 0 14.14 15.01 4.6 24 RG‐10 Bailer 4/13/2021 0 30.29 30.3 2.0 2.75 RG‐11 Bailer 4/10/2021 0 38.98 40.28 5.5 11.5 Acronyms: bgs = below ground surface BTOC = below top of casing ft = feet  Data Summary Report East Side Springs Investigation OU1 Remedial Investigation 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Page 1 of 1 Table 3 Residential Groundwater Well Water Elevations Location Screen Start (ft bgs) Screen End (ft bgs) Top of Casing  Elevation  (ft amsl)1 Water Level  Measurement Date and  Time Water Level  Depth  (ft btoc) Water Level  Elevation  (ft amsl)1 RG‐01 9 19 4383.49 4/16/2021 14:55 8.42 4375.07 RG‐02 5 15 4436.95 4/16/2021 15:45 2.59 4434.36 RG‐03 3 8 4422.53 4/15/2021 15:50 3.04 4419.49 RG‐04 10 20 4415.47 4/15/2021 16:15 9.96 4405.51 RG‐05 20 30 4496.96 4/16/2021 13:40 23.63 4473.33 RG‐06 4 9 4443.23 4/16/2021 10:00 2.24 4440.99 RG‐07 20 30 4490.05 4/16/2021 10:27 21.08 4468.97 RG‐08 8 18 4454.74 4/15/2021 16:34 5.63 4449.11 RG‐09 5 15 4384.93 4/16/2021 14:00 5.24 4379.69 RG‐10 20 30 4409.82 4/16/2021 13:00 26.16 4383.66 RG‐11 30 40 4504.39 4/16/2021 9:05 29.11 4475.28 Notes: 1 Elevations measured using NAVD 88 vertical datum Acronyms: amsl = above mean sea level bgs = below ground surface BTOC = below top of casing ft = feet  Data Summary Report East Side Springs Investigation OU1 Remedial Investigation 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume 1 of 1 Table 4 Residential Groundwater Monitoring Well VOC Results and Field Parameters Analyte Screening Level Unit Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 200a µg/L 1 U 0.5 J 0.62 J 1 U 0.17 J 1 U 0.37 J 0.48 J 0.49 J 0.11 J 1 U 0.14 J 1,1-Dichloroethene 2.8b µg/L 1 U 0.17 J 0.22 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.11 J 0.14 J 0.15 J 1 U 1 U 1 U Benzene 5a µg/L 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U Chloroform 80a µg/L 0.24 J 2.7 2.5 0.8 J 2.8 1 U 2.3 2.9 2.9 1.5 0.4 J 2.8 Chloromethane 190b µg/L 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U Cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 70a µg/L 1 U 1.1 0.41 J 1 U 1 U 2.2 0.11 J 0.15 J 0.15 J 0.49 J 1 U 1 U Styrene 100a µg/L 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.26 J 0.29 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.27 J 1 U Tetrachloroethene 5a µg/L 7.3 57 60 6 7.8 1.5 43 58 56 13 3 6.5 Toluene 1000a µg/L 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.12 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.15 J 1 U Trichloroethene 5a µg/L 0.17 J 1.3 0.67 J 0.99 J 1 U 7.4 0.32 J 0.43 J 0.42 J 1.2 0.59 J 1 U Vinyl Chloride 2a µg/L 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U Dissolved Oxygen -mg/L 4.95 7.17 NR NR 6.07 NR 8.9 NR NR 7.97 NR 5.1 Ferrous Iron -mg/L 0.06 0.1 NR NR NR NR 0.02 NR NR 0.11 NR 0.07 Oxidation-Reduction Potential -mV 150.1 150.6 NR NR 127.1 NR 169.2 NR NR 172.9 NR 147.3 Ph -su 6.92 6.83 NR NR 7.2 NR 6.88 NR NR 6.96 NR 7.7 Specific Conductance -mS/cm 2.084 1.4 NR NR 2.977 NR 2.223 NR NR 1.596 NR 0.2982 Temperature -deg C 12.7 12.2 NR NR 13 NR 11.5 NR NR 11.5 NR 10.4 Turbidity -NTU 3.41 6.23 NR NR 44.7 NR 10.28 NR NR 2.39 NR 45.18 a Screening level is EPA MCL J = Result is estimated b Screening level is EPA Tap Water RSL (target cancer risk 1 x 10-6, hazard quotient = 1)U = Analyte was not detected at the associated value, which is the reporting limit Bold indicates detected values deg C = degrees Celsius Italics indicates nondetected values ORP = oxidation reduction potential NTU = nephelometric turbidity unit Highlight indicates values greater than screening level mg/L = milligram per liter NR = not recorded due to insufficient water collected Acronyms:µg/L = microgram per liter su = standard units µg/L = microgram per liter mS/cm = millisiemens per centimeter Q = qualifier mV = millivolts N RG-11 RG11-GW041621 2021-04-16 N RG-10 RG10-GW041621 2021-04-16 N RG-09 RG09-GW041621 2021-04-16 FD RG-08 RG08-GW041521 2021-04-15 N RG-08 FD01-GW041521 2021-04-15 N RG-07 RG07-GW041621 2021-04-16 N RG-06 RG06-GW041621 2021-04-16 N RG-05 RG05-GW041621 2021-04-16 N RG-04 RG04-GW041521 2021-04-15 N RG-03 RG03-GW041521 2021-04-15 N RG-02 RG02-GW041621 2021-04-16 Sample Type RG-01 RG01-GW041621 2021-04-16 N Location Sample Name Sample Date Data Summary Report East Side Springs Investigation OU1 Remedial Investigation 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume 1 of 1 Table 5 Surface Water Sampling Locations Location ID Location Type Y Coordinate (Utah State Plane, ft)a X Coordinate (Utah State Plane, ft)a Sampling Method Flow Rate (L/min) SW-08 Spring (Benson Springs)7443296.66 1541315.16 Grab 48 SW-12 Spring 7442589.42 1541235.30 Peristaltic Pump 84 SW-15 Spring (Benson Springs) 7443150.02 1540904.50 No Sampleb 807 SW-16I (Interior) Sump (Our Lady of Lourdes)7443803.55 1540388.19 Peristaltic Pump 13 E SW-16E (Exterior) Spring (Our Lady of Lourdes)7443710.13 1540333.23 Grab 8 SW-34 Spring 7441495.55 1541442.90 Grab 462 SW-35 Seep 7442656.89 1541038.29 Peristaltic Pump 1 E SW-39 Mitigated spring waterc (Smith Spring) 7441883.72 1541316.99 Grab 11 SW-53 Pond Inlet 7441888.22 1541377.41 Grab 6 SW-54 Spring (Benson Springs) 7443342.42 1541352.19 Grab - SW-166 Seep 7442343.60 1541117.39 Peristaltic Pump 2 Notes: a. X/Y Coordinates measured using NAD 83 State Plane Coordinate System b. Only a flow rate measurement was collected. c. Mitigated spring water is spring water that has been diverted off of private property through a drainage system into storm drains. ID = Identification L/min = Liter per minute E = Estimated - = not measured Data Summary Report East Side Springs Investigation OU1 Remedial Investigation 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume 1 of 1 Table 6 Surface Water VOC Results Analyte Screening Level Unit Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 200a µg/L 1 U 0.29 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.38 J 0.15 J 0.21 J 0.12 J 0.13 J 0.46 J 1,1-Dichloroethene 2.8b µg/L 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.12 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.17 J Bromodichloromethane 80a µg/L 0.10 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.17 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U Chloroform 80a µg/L 2.0 3.2 2.9 3 1.5 2.1 0.53 J 0.35 J 4.6 5 2.4 Cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 70a µg/L 1 U 0.12 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.56 J 0.63 J 1.3 1 U 1 U 0.49 J Tetrachloroethene 5a µg/L 1 U 27 1 U 1 U 6.1 50 23 36 5.2 5.7 59 Trichloroethene 5a µg/L 1 U 0.35 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.99 J 1.6 4.6 1 U 1 U 0.75 J Notes: a Screening level is EPA MCL b Screening level is EPA Tap Water RSL (target cancer risk 1 x 10-6, hazard quotient = 1) Highlight indicates values greater than screening level Bold indicates detected values Italics indicates nondetected values EPA MCLs and RSLs are shown for screening purposes Acronyms:NS = not sampled VOC = volatile organic compound RSL = regional screening level µg/L = microgram per liter Q = qualifier EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency J = Result is estimated MCL = maximum contaminant level U = Analyte was not detected at the associated value FD SW-54 SW54-SW041521 2021-04-15 N SW-54 FD01-SW041521 2021-04-15 N SW-53 SW53-SW041321 2021-04-13 N SW-39 SW39-SW041321 2021-04-13 N SW-35 SW35-SW041321 2021-04-13 N SW-34 SW34-SW041421 2021-04-14 N SW-166 SW166-SW041321 2021-04-13 N SW-12 SW12-SW041521 2021-04-15 N SW-16I SW16I-SW041521 2021-04-15 N SW-16E SW16E-SW041521 2021-04-15 Sample Type SW-08 SW08-SW041521 2021-04-15 N Location Sample Name Sample Date Data Summary Report East Side Springs Investigation OU1 Remedial Investigation 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Page 1 of 1 Table 7 Surface Water Metals Results Analyte Unit Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Aluminum µg/L 100 U 58.6 J 100 U 100 U 100 U 38.3 J 100 U 100 U 100 U 100 U 94 J Antimony µg/L 1U 1U 1U 1U 1U 1U 1U 0.293 J 1U 1U 1U Arsenic µg/L 0.408 J 1.61 0.582 J 0.746 J 1.02 2.21 1.97 8.85 0.646 J 0.641 J 3.54 Barium µg/L 27.3 68.6 56.6 51.2 52.3 65 72.8 85 58.7 58.7 72.5 Beryllium µg/L 1U 1U 1U 1U 1U 1U 1U 1U 1U 1U 1U Cadmium µg/L 1U 1U 1U 1U 1U 1U 1U 1U 1U 1U 1U Calcium µg/L 124000 157000 131000 145000 141000 167000 172000 180000 140000 141000 183000 Chromium µg/L 1.03 0.349 J 1.12 1.05 0.753 J 0.591 J 0.222 J 1U 0.614 J 0.66 J 0.859 J Cobalt µg/L 1U 0.126 J 1U 1U 0.111 J 0.114 J 1U 0.127 J 1U 1U 0.359 J Copper µg/L 2U 0.857 J 0.658 J 2U 0.883 J 0.752 J 2U 2U 2U 2U 1.41 J Iron µg/L 100 U 63.5 J 100 U 100 U 29.5 J 53.2 J 100 U 100 U 100 U 100 U 322 Lead µg/L 1U 1.21 0.224 J 1U 0.31 J 2.67 1U 0.0914 J 1U 1U 3.52 Magnesium µg/L 43100 61100 45900 52200 50200 59600 61600 60100 48900 48600 65200 Manganese µg/L 1U 4.34 0.307 J 1U 3.12 9.86 0.291 J 6.78 0.29 J 0.432 J 76 Mercury µg/L 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U Nickel µg/L 1U 0.433 J 1U 1U 0.254 J 1U 0.32 J 0.354 J 1U 1U 0.402 J Potassium µg/L 2090 2740 2160 2470 2920 2300 3050 3840 2540 2580 2880 Selenium µg/L 0.983 J 1.34 1.19 1.67 0.999 J 1.09 1.91 2.12 0.726 J 0.784 J 0.991 J Silver µg/L 1U 1U 1U 1U 1U 1U 1U 1U 1U 1U 1U Sodium µg/L 34200 85700 64700 67500 89100 66500 106000 97400 61800 62300 75200 Thallium µg/L 1U 1U 1U 1U 1U 1U 1U 1U 1U 1U 1U Vanadium µg/L 1.21 3.49 1.68 2.03 2.79 1.73 1.89 1.88 1.46 1.45 2.27 Zinc µg/L 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U Notes: Acronyms: Bold indicates detected values µg/L = microgram per liter Italics indicates nondetected values Q = qualifier U = Analyte was not detected at the associated value, which is the reporting limit         FD SW‐54 SW54‐SW041521 2021‐04‐15 N SW‐54 FD01‐SW041521 2021‐04‐15 N SW‐53 SW53‐SW041321 2021‐04‐13 N SW‐39 SW39‐SW041321 2021‐04‐13 N SW‐35 SW35‐SW041321 2021‐04‐13 N SW‐34 SW34‐SW041421 2021‐04‐14 N SW‐166 SW166‐SW041321 2021‐04‐13 N SW‐12 SW12‐SW041521 2021‐04‐15 N SW‐16I SW16I‐SW041521 2021‐04‐15 N SW‐16E SW16E‐SW041521 2021‐04‐15 Sample Type SW‐08 SW08‐SW041521 2021‐04‐15 N Location Sample Name Sample Date Data Summary Report East Side Springs Investigation OU1 Remedial Investigation 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume 1 of 1 Table 8 Surface Water General Chemistry Results SW‐15 NS 4/15/2021 Analyte Unit Result Q Result Q Result Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Nitrate/Nitrite1 mg/L 1.73 2.85 ‐3.23 3.91 4.07 3.3 2.58 1.73 3.09 3.05 4 Chloride mg/L 121 323 ‐194 231 293 325 404 358 224 227 365 Sulfate mg/L 153 101 ‐147 175 121 102 118 119 102 102 103 Ethane µg/L 2U 2U ‐2U 2U 2U 2U 2U 2U 2U 2U 2U Ethene µg/L 2U 2U ‐2U 2U 2U 2U 2U 2U 2U 2U 2U Methane µg/L 0.28 J 0.25 J ‐0.23 J 2U 0.29 J 0.24 J 0.18 J 0.32 J 2U 2U 1.1 J Alkalinity2 mg/L 224 284 ‐219 241 278 262 278 306 262 256 254 Total Organic Carbon mg/L 0.64 J 1.16 ‐0.976 J 0.873 J 1.41 0.614 J 0.865 J 1.16 0.493 J 0.768 J 1.05 Dissolved Oxygen mg/L 9.41 6.35 ‐10.88 10.24 10.81 7.92 10.35 8.43 8.93 ‐9.2 Ferrous Iron mg/L 0 0.02 ‐0.03 0 0.01 0 0 0.02 0.25 ‐0.11 Flow L/min 48 84 807 8 16 E 462 < 1 E 11 6 NR ‐2 ORP mV 97.3 129.3 ‐85.7 141.1 120.1 101 68.4 101.3 122.1 ‐162 pH su 7.28 6.89 ‐7.79 7.47 7.41 7.83 7.67 7.15 7.01 ‐7.25 Specific Conductance mS/cm NR 1.281 ‐0.987 1.081 1.242 1.479 1.689 1.64 1.052 ‐1.618 Temperature deg C 11.7 11.6 ‐13.1 15 12.1 10.5 11.3 11.7 11.9 ‐10.7 Turbidity NTU 0.1 7.88 ‐‐0.09 0.24 0.27 21.88 55 3.44 0.42 ‐7.02 Notes:µg/L = microgram per liter U = Analyte was not detected at the Bold indicates detected values mS/cm = millisiemens per centimeter        associate value, which is the  Italics indicates nondetected values mV = millivolts        reporting limit 1 Nitrate and Nitrite as total Nitrogen NTU = nephelometric turbidity unit E= estimated flow rate 2 Total Alkalinity as calcium carbonate NR = not recorded L/min = Liter per minit NS = not sampled N = normal samples Acronyms:su = standard units FD = Field Duplicate deg C = degrees Celsius Q = qualifier ORP = oxidation reduction potential J = Result is estimated mg/L = milligram per liter J+ = Result is estimated, biased high Location ID Sample ID Sample Date Sample Type SW‐08 SW08‐SW041521 4/15/2021 N SW‐12 SW12‐SW041521 4/15/2021 N SW‐166 SW166‐SW041321 4/13/2021 N SW‐16E SW16E‐SW041521 4/15/2021 N SW‐16I SW16I‐SW041521 4/15/2021 N SW‐34 SW34‐SW041421 4/14/2021 N SW‐35 SW35‐SW041321 4/13/2021 N SW‐39 SW39‐SW041321 4/13/2021 N SW‐53 SW53‐SW041321 4/13/2021 N SW‐54 SW54‐SW041521 4/15/2021 N SW‐54 FD01‐SW041521 4/15/2021 FD Data Summary Report East Side Springs Investigation OU1 Remedial Investigation 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume 1 of 1 Table 9 East Side Springs Soil Vapor Results Analyte  Screening  Level1 Unit Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q 1,1,1‐Trichloroethane 170000 µg/m3 0.11 J 37 0.05 J 0.26 2.7 2.7 4.4 0.48 27 0.09 J 0.084 J 0.68 1,1,2‐Trichlorotrifluoroethane 170000 µg/m3 0.76 J 1.10 0.57 J 2.8 1.2 3.3 1.1 J 0.92 J 4.5 2.3 2.3 2.7 1,1‐Dichloroethane 60 µg/m3 0.12 U 0.11 U 0.11 U 0.12 U 0.15 0.26 0.12 U 0.12 U 0.44 U 0.12 U 0.12 U 0.14 U 1,1‐Dichloroethene 7000 µg/m3 0.06 U 0.05 U 0.06 U 0.06 U 0.06 U 0.062 U 0.061 U 0.058 U 3.7 0.057 U 0.06 U 0.067 U 1,2,4‐Trimethylbenzene 2100 µg/m3 0.71 U 0.16 J 0.18 J 0.16 J 0.36 J 1 2.3 0.35 J 2.7 U 4.8 4.5 0.64 J 1,2‐Dichloroethane 3.7 µg/m3 0.12 U 0.11 U 0.18 0.12 U 0.21 0.25 0.17 0.055 J 0.39 J 0.5 0.51 0.13 J 1,2‐Dichlorotetrafluoroethane;Fluorocarbon 114 NA µg/m3 0.15 J 0.12 J 0.12 J 0.12 J 0.12 J 0.17 J 0.12 J 0.11 J 0.76 U 0.15 J 0.16 J 0.15 J 1,3,5‐Trimethylbenzene 2100 µg/m3 0.71 U 0.65 U 0.10 J 0.76 U 0.72 U 0.77 U 0.67 J 0.88 2.7 U 1.3 1 0.83 U 1,3‐Butadiene NA µg/m3 0.32 U 0.29 U 0.31 U 0.34 U 0.48 1.2 1.2 0.32 U 1.6 1.6 1.4 3.3 1,3‐Dichlorobenzene NA µg/m3 0.87 U 0.80 U 0.84 U 0.93 U 2 0.83 J 2 0.88 U 3.3 U 0.62 J 0.81 J 1U 1,4‐Dioxane 19 µg/m3 0.52 U 0.12 J 0.50 U 0.19 J 0.53 U 0.56 U 0.55 U 0.53 U 2 U 0.52 U 0.54 U 0.61 U 2,2,4‐Trimethylpentane NA µg/m3 3.4 U 0.51 J 3.2 U 3.6 U 43 J 39 J 28 J 36 J 59 J 52 J 51 J 17 J 2‐Butanone (Mek)170000 µg/m3 0.52 J 0.45 J 0.95 J 0.54 J 3.6 1.9 J 2.1 J 0.56 J 9.2 4.5 J 1.8 J 1.4 J 2‐Hexanone 1000 µg/m3 3.0 U 2.7 U 2.8 U 3.2 U 3.0 U 3.2 U 3.2 U 3 U 11 U 0.96 J 3.1 U 3.5 U 4‐Ethyltoluene NA µg/m3 0.71 U 0.10 J 0.68 U 0.10 J 0.72 U 0.64 J 1.6 0.3 J 1 J 3.3 3.3 0.67 J 4‐Methyl‐2‐Pentanone (Mibk)100000 µg/m3 0.59 U 0.54 U 0.57 U 0.63 U 0.85 0.64 U 0.63 U 0.6 U 2.2 U 0.59 U 0.62 U 0.62 J Acetone 1100000 µg/m3 4.4 4.2 11 6 20 8.2 8.2 5.1 85 11 J 6.8 J 8 Benzene 12 µg/m3 0.07 J 0.38 1.0 0.62 2.9 2.4 1.9 3.4 20 2.6 2.6 2.9 Bromodichloromethane 2.5 µg/m3 2.4 0.89 U 0.93 U 1.00 U 0.98 U 1 U 1 U 1.2 3.6 U 0.96 U 1 U 1.1 U Carbon Disulfide 24000 µg/m3 2.2 U 0.26 J 15 31 4.6 24 13 1.4 J 19 12 12 8.3 Carbon Tetrachloride 16 µg/m3 0.51 0.29 0.07 J 0.20 U 2.3 3.9 1 0.16 J 2.4 1.8 1.8 1.9 Chloroethane 330000 µg/m3 0.19 U 0.15 J 0.18 U 0.25 0.18 J 0.27 0.21 0.19 U 0.2 J 0.17 J 0.13 J 0.3 Chloroform 4 µg/m3 110 0.7 9.80 2.8 4.0 3.6 6.4 32 30 2.9 2.8 9.2 Chloromethane 3100 µg/m3 0.13 J 0.33 J 0.20 J 1.0 J 1.50 U 1.6 U1.6 U 1.5 U 5.6 U 1.5 U 1.6 U 1.7 U Cis‐1,2‐Dichloroethene NA µg/m3 0.11 U 0.03 J 0.11 U 0.12 U 0.12 U 0.14 0.12 U 0.12 U 0.52 0.11 U 0.12 U 0.13 U Cyclohexane NA µg/m3 2.5 U 0.55 J 5.5 5.4 25 54 21 0.63 J 37 44 45 36 Dichlorodifluoromethane 3300 µg/m3 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.3 5.0 2.4 2.2 2.3 3.2 2.4 2.3 2.4 Ethanol NA µg/m3 2.7 U 2.5 U 2.6 U 2.9 U 7.2 5.4 4.7 2.8 U 20 3.1 2 J 3.2 U Ethylbenzene 37 µg/m3 0.03 J 0.13 0.50 0.36 0.31 0.44 1.7 0.27 2.2 2.7 2.7 0.68 Hexachloro‐1,3‐Butadiene NA µg/m3 7.7 U 7.1 U 7.4 U 8.3 U 7.8 U 8.4 U 8.2 U 7.8 U 29 U 7.7 U 8 U 9 U Hexane NA µg/m3 2.6 U 1.40 J 1.80 J 1.90 J 85 85 66 6.7 140 78 81 60 Isopropyl Alcohol (Manufacturing‐Strong Acid)NA µg/m3 0.79 J 1.80 2.00 0.93 J 2.4 1.9 3.3 1.2 J 2.6 J 3.7 3.4 2.4 Isopropylbenzene 14000 µg/m3 0.71 U 0.65 U 0.68 U 0.76 U 0.72 U 0.77 U 0.36 J 0.72 U 2.7 U 0.71 U 0.4 J 0.83 U M,P‐Xylene 3300 µg/m3 0.05 J 0.23 0.26 0.37 0.8 1.3 4.4 0.5 4.3 7 7.1 1.5 N‐Heptane NA µg/m3 3.0 U 2.7 U 2.8 U 3.2 U 9.6 19 12 8.3 37 42 44 9.7 N‐Propylbenzene NA µg/m3 0.71 U 0.65 U 0.68 U 0.76 U 0.72 U 0.77 U 0.46 J 0.72 U 2.7 U 0.68 J 0.85 0.83 U O‐Xylene 3300 µg/m3 0.03 J 0.19 0.31 0.34 0.34 0.51 1.8 1.6 2 2.8 2.9 0.66 Styrene 33000 µg/m3 0.62 U 0.57 U 0.59 U 0.66 U 0.63 U 0.67 U 0.22 J 0.63 U 2.3 U 0.43 J 0.58 J 0.72 U Tetrachloroethene 360 µg/m3 0.41 6.70 68 0.84 49 46 15 33 570 2.8 2.8 1.8 Tetrahydrofuran NA µg/m3 2.1 U 2.0 U 2.0 U 2.3 U 4.2 4.5 2.5 2.2 U 7.8 J 1.2 J 0.87 J 1.3 J Toluene 170000 µg/m3 0.25 J 0.49 1.6 5.4 3.2 7.9 9.6 1 20 18 18 7.5 Trichloroethene 16 µg/m3 0.16 U 0.14 U 0.15 U 0.17 U 0.76 1.8 0.19 0.5 4 0.12 J 0.11 J 0.33 Trichlorofluoromethane NA µg/m3 2.2 J 3.5 J 2.1 J 3.3 J 2.1 3.7 4.1 2.3 18 2.3 2.4 3.9 Vinyl Chloride 5.6 µg/m3 0.07 U 0.13 0.07 0.1 0.1 0.12 0.079 U 0.075 U 0.28 U 0.13 0.13 0.076 J Notes: Bold indicates detected values Italics indicates nondetected values Highlight indicates values greater than screening level RG‐11 RG11‐SG041321 5 5.5 2021‐04‐13 RG‐10 RG10‐SG041421 5 5.5 2021‐04‐14 RG‐10 FD01‐SG041421 5 5.5 2021‐04‐14 RG‐08 RG08‐SG041321 4.5 5 2021‐04‐13 RG‐07 RG07‐SG041421 5 5.5 2021‐04‐14 RG‐05 RG05‐SG041421 5 5.5 2021‐04‐14 RG‐04 RG04‐SG041321 5 5.5 2021‐04‐13 RG‐01 RG01‐SG041421 4.5 5 2021‐04‐14 MW‐38 MW38‐SG032621 8 8.5 2021‐03‐26 MW‐37 MW37‐SG032621 8 8.5 2021‐03‐26 MW‐34 MW34‐SG032621 20 20.5 2021‐03‐26 MW‐32 MW32‐SG032621 20 20.5 2021‐03‐26 Location Sample Name Start Depth End Depth Sample Date Data Summary Report East Side Springs Investigation OU1 Remedial Investigation 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume 1 of 2 Table 9 East Side Springs Soil Vapor Results 1 Screening level is Residential Soil Gas Risk based screening level Soil gas RBSLs are the EPA indoor air RSLs corresponding to an excess lifetime cancer risk of 1x10‐6 and a hazard quotient of 1 divided by an attenuation factor of 0.3 (November 2020 RSL table version).   Acronyms: µg/L = microgram per liter Q = qualifier J = Result is estimated U = Analyte was not detected at the associated value, which is the reporting limit NA = Not Applicable Data Summary Report East Side Springs Investigation OU1 Remedial Investigation 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume 2 of 2 Appendix A Daily Quality Control Reports Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah DATE: 3/26/2021 Prepared by: Whitney Treadway Personnel on site, including Contractors: CDM Smith – Whitney Treadway Wasatch – Kiel Keller Visitors/Others: Weather Temperature Wind Humidity Sunny Partly Cloudy Overcast Rain Snow 85+ º F 70 to 85º F 50 to 70 º F 32 to 50 º F 0 To 32 º F Still Moderate High Dry Moderate Humid Equipment in Use (field instruments, subcontractor equip, etc.) • Soil gas/vapor sampling equipment Description of Field Activities – including samples/data collected, etc: • A H&S tailgate was conducted at the IDW yard area. • Soil Gas Sampling o Collected the following samples: ▪ MW24-SG032621-32 ▪ FD05-SG032621 ▪ MW34-SG032621 ▪ MW32-SG032621 ▪ MW37-SG032621 ▪ MW38-SG032621 o Shipped all 7 samples to Eurofins Air Toxics for TO-15 analysis (6 from Friday and 1 from Thursday). ▪ MW24-SG032621-32 ▪ FD05-SG032621 ▪ MW34-SG032621 ▪ MW32-SG032621 ▪ MW37-SG032621 ▪ MW38-SG032621 ▪ MW24-SG032521-60 • Shipped 5 boxes of empty canisters back to lab. • Shipped PID back to Field Environmental. • Demobilized from site. Issues/Problems Encountered/Deficiencies/Deviations from QAPP (and resolutions): • Salt Lake County has a mandatory mask mandate in effect since Saturday, June 27. Masks are required in public. Projected Work – Near Term: • Piezometer replacement drilling beginning next week. Other Activities/Remarks: • None. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Photos: Date: 3/26/2021 Location: MW-24 Description: parent and duplicate sample collection at 32 ft probe Date: 3/26/2021 Location: MW-37 Description: Starting 30-minute sample collection – initial vacuum Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 3/26/2021 Location: MW-32 Description: Soil gas sample collection at soil gas probe at 18 ft depth Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah DATE: 4/1/2021 Prepared by: Joe Miller Personnel Onsite, including Contractors: CDM Smith -Joe Miller Wasatch Environmental – Anna Fiorini Vista Geoscience – Peter Wethington Vista Geoscience – Ben Alcox Vista Geoscience – David Fontana VA – Wynn John Visitors/Others: B&B Drilling Supplies delivery United site services stage road plates near ROW boring locations Weather Temperature Wind Humidity Sunny Partly Cloudy Overcast Rain Snow 85+ º F 70 to 85º F 50 to 70 º F 32 to 50 º F To 32 º F Still Moderate High Dry Moderate Humid Equipment in Use (field instruments, subcontractor equip, etc.) • Geoprobe 7822 DT drill rig • 2 support trucks • Forklift • PID Description of Field Activities – including borings completed/started (include footages), samples/data collected, etc.: Site Orientation: H&S Tailgate and site orientation with Vista Geoscience. Set up decon pad and decontaminate all down hole drill steel. Visit boring locations. Relocate RG-11 to 741 Douglas Street. Relocate RG-08 around the corner to the south side of 900 S from 1200 E. RG-09 Installation: Overdrill RG-09 (GW-59) location. Reinstall well with 2” schedule 40 PVC. 0.010 slot screen and 10/20 sand pack from 3.5 ft bgs to 15 feet bgs. Depth to water prior to overdrilling was 5.87 feet BTOC. Issues/Problems Encountered/Deficiencies/Deviations from QAPP (and resolutions): Badging office stated that they don’t have temporary badges. They have openings for appointments on Tuesday 4/6. But stated if temporary building access is needed then we can go to the lock smith shop. No building access is needed. Projected Work – Near Term: Reinstallation of RG-03 (GW-16) on Sunnyside Avenue. Reinstallation of RG-02 (GW-11) in the alley south of Sunnyside Avenue. Other Activities/Remarks: 4/2/2021: A safety Tailgate will be conducted at the laydown area at the VA. Photos: Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 4/1/2021 Location: RG-11 Description: Location repositioned (~150 feet south) to 741 Douglas street. Date: 4/1/2021 Location: RG-08 Description: Location repositioned to parking lane along 900 South. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 4/1/2021 Location: RG-09 Description: Hand augered to 5 feet bgs between original location and marked storm sewer line. Date: 4/1/2021 Location: RG-09 Description: Vista Geoscience geoprobe setup at RG-09. Boring to 15 feet bgs and begin building well. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah DATE: 4/2/2021 Prepared by: Joe Miller Personnel Onsite, including Contractors: CDM Smith -Joe Miller Vista Geoscience – Peter Wethington Vista Geoscience – Ben Alcox Vista Geoscience – David Fontana VA – Wynn John Visitors/Others: None Weather Temperature Wind Humidity Sunny Partly Cloudy Overcast Rain Snow 85+ º F 70 to 85º F 50 to 70 º F 32 to 50 º F To 32 º F Still Moderate High Dry Moderate Humid Equipment in Use (field instruments, subcontractor equip, etc.) • Geoprobe 7822 DT drill rig • 2 support trucks • PID Description of Field Activities – including borings completed/started (include footages), samples/data collected, etc.: The Health and Safety tailgate meeting was conducted at the VA laydown area. RG-02 Installation: The casing at the GW-11 location was pulled and the surface completion was removed. RG-02 was drilled to 15 feet bgs. Ten feet of 0.010 slot 2-inch schedule 40 PVC screen was installed from 5-15 feet bgs. The 10/20 sand filter pack was installed from 3.5 feet bgs to 15 feet bgs. Prior to drilling DTW was 1.07 feet btoc. RG-03 Installation: The casing at the GW-16 location was pulled and the surface completion was removed. The boring was drilled to 8 feet bgs. Five feet of 0.010 slot 2-inch schedule 40 PVC screen was installed from 3-8 feet bgs. The 10/20 sand filter pack was installed from 2 feet bgs to 8 feet bgs. RG-07 Installation: The casing at the GW-52 location was pulled and the surface completion was removed. The boring in the original location encountered refusal (likely large cobble) at 16 feet bgs. The boring was offset approximately 3 feet. The offset boring was advanced to 30 feet bgs. Ten feet of 0.010 slot 2-inch schedule 40 PVC screen was installed from 20-30 feet bgs. The 10/20 sand filter pack was installed from 18 feet bgs to 30 feet bgs. Prior to drilling DTW was 21.14 feet btoc. A soil vapor probe was installed from 5 to 5.5 feet with a sand pack from 4-7 feet bgs. Issues/Problems Encountered/Deficiencies/Deviations from QAPP (and resolutions): RG-07 boring encountered refusal at 16 feet bgs. The boring was backfilled with bentonite and offset approximately 3 feet to the west. Projected Work – Near Term: Reinstallation of RG-01 (GW-10) on 900 South. Reinstallation of RG-05 (GW-27) north of East High School. Other Activities/Remarks: 4/3/2021: A safety Tailgate will be conducted at the laydown area at the VA at 0800. Photos: Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 4/2/2021 Location: RG-03 Description: Geoprobe set up at RG-03. Date: 4/2/2021 Location: RG-02 Description: Vista pulling 1- inch PVC from GW-11 location. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 4/2/2021 Location: RG-02 Description: Geoprobe setup in alley south of Sunnyside Avenue. Date: 4/2/2021 Location: RG-07 Description: Geoprobe setup at RG-07 original location prior to offset. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 4/2/2021 Location: RG-07 Description: Soil vapor probe and tubing installed at 5 feet bgs on RG-07. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah DATE: 4/3/2021 Prepared by: Joe Miller Personnel Onsite, including Contractors: CDM Smith -Joe Miller Vista Geoscience – Peter Wethington Vista Geoscience – Ben Alcox Vista Geoscience – David Fontana Visitors/Others: None Weather Temperature Wind Humidity Sunny Partly Cloudy Overcast Rain Snow 85+ º F 70 to 85º F 50 to 70 º F 32 to 50 º F To 32 º F Still Moderate High Dry Moderate Humid Equipment in Use (field instruments, subcontractor equip, etc.) • Geoprobe 7822 DT drill rig • 2 support trucks • PID Description of Field Activities – including borings completed/started (include footages), samples/data collected, etc.: The Health and Safety tailgate meeting was conducted at the VA laydown area. RG-05 Installation: The RG-05 (GW-27) location was hand augered to 5 feet in a 3-hole pattern. Soil cores were collected using a 3-inch DPT with 2-inch acetate sleeve cores. The cores were scanned with a PID and logged to 30 feet bgs. Then the boring was reamed with hollow-stem augers to 6.5-inches. Ten feet of 0.010 slot 2-inch schedule 40 PVC screen was installed from 20-30 feet bgs. The 10/20 sand filter pack was installed from 18 feet bgs to 30 feet bgs. A soil vapor probe was installed from 5 to 5.5 feet with a sand pack from 4-7 feet bgs. After drilling DTW was 22.45 feet btoc. Issues/Problems Encountered/Deficiencies/Deviations from QAPP (and resolutions): None Projected Work – Near Term: Private locate at RG-11 and RG-08 locations. Reinstallation of RG-01 (GW-10) on 900 South. Reinstallation of RG-06 (GW-50) near 1200 E and Gilmer. Other Activities/Remarks: 4/5/2021: A safety tailgate will be conducted at the laydown area at the VA at 0730. Photos: Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 4/3/2021 Location: RG-05 Description: Hand augered 3- hole pattern to 5 feet bgs. Date: 4/3/2021 Location: RG-05 Description: Work zone setup at RG-05 while reaming boring with 6.5-inch augers. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 4/3/2021 Location: RG-05 Description: Soil core from 25- 30 feet bgs. Saturated silty sand above gravel unit. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah DATE: 4/5/2021 Prepared by: Joe Miller Personnel Onsite, including Contractors: CDM Smith -Joe Miller Vista Geoscience – Peter Wethington Vista Geoscience – Ben Alcox Vista Geoscience – David Fontana GPRS Visitors/Others: None Weather Temperature Wind Humidity Sunny Partly Cloudy Overcast Rain Snow 85+ º F 70 to 85º F 50 to 70 º F 32 to 50 º F To 32 º F Still Moderate High Dry Moderate Humid Equipment in Use (field instruments, subcontractor equip, etc.) • Geoprobe 7822 DT drill rig • 2 support trucks • PID • GPR sled Description of Field Activities – including borings completed/started (include footages), samples/data collected, etc.: The Health and Safety tailgate meeting was conducted at the VA laydown area. GPRS Private utility locate: GPRS performed a geophysical survey at the relocated RG-04, RG-08 and RG-11 locations. No utilities were identified at the relocated RG-08 location. At RG-11 the boring was offset from an identified utility 3.5 feet. The Blue Stakes of Utah remarked utility locations at RG-04. They provided clarity for the gas line, but the communication marking near the boring was difficult to decipher. Therefore we offset the boring into the parking lane. GPRS did not identify any utilities at the offset location. RG-01 Installation: The RG-01 location (former GW-10 area) was drilled to 20 feet bgs with DPT. The soil cores were screened and logged. The RG-01 well was set with screen from 9 to 19 feet bgs with 0.010 slot screen of 2-inch Schedule 40 PVC. The sand pack was installed from 8 to 19 feet bgs. A soil vapor probe was installed from 4.5 to 5 feet bgs with a sand pack from 3 to 6 feet bgs. After installation DTW was 11.00 feet BTOC. RG-06 Installation: Prior to drilling the GW-50 location depth to water was 2.38 feet BTOC. The piezometer was pulled and over-drilled to 10 feet bgs. The 2” schedule 40 PVC 0.010 slot screen was set from 4 to 9 feet bgs. The sand pack was set from 3 to 9 feet bgs. GW-49 abandonment: Prior to abandonment DTW was 7.17 feet bgs. The 1” PVC was pulled and the 3-inch DPT advanced to 12.5 feet bgs. The boring was backfilled with bentonite. RG-04 Installation: DTW was measured in GW-20 to 10.94 feet BTOC. Due to unclear utility markings, the GW-20 location was pulled, drilled with DPT and abandoned with bentonite. The offset boring was advanced to 20 feet bgs. The well screen was installed from 10 to 20 feet bgs. The sand pack was installed from 9 to 20 feet bgs. A soil vapor point was installed from 5 to 5.5 feet bgs with a sand pack from 4 to 7 feet bgs. Issues/Problems Encountered/Deficiencies/Deviations from QAPP (and resolutions): None Projected Work – Near Term: Install RG-08 and RG-10 locations. Other Activities/Remarks: Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah 4/6/2021: A safety tailgate will be conducted at the laydown area at the VA at 0800. Photos: Date: 4/5/2021 Location: RG-01 Description: Saturated DPT soil core from 15 to 20 feet. Note that bottom foot is clayey gravel, less wet than sand above. Date: 4/5/2021 Location: RG-04 Description: Unclear utility markings near GW-20. RG-04 location offset. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 4/5/2021 Location: RG-04 Description: Offset location clear of utilities. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 4/5/2021 Location: GW-49 Description: Vista pulling piezometer at GW-49. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 4/5/2021 Location: RG-06 Description: Work zone setup at RG-06. Vista pulling augers after drilling to depth. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah DATE: 4/6/2021 Prepared by: Joe Miller Personnel Onsite, including Contractors: CDM Smith -Joe Miller Vista Geoscience – Peter Wethington Vista Geoscience – Ben Alcox Vista Geoscience – David Fontana VA – Wynn John Visitors/Others: None Weather Temperature Wind Humidity Sunny Partly Cloudy Overcast Rain Snow 85+ º F 70 to 85º F 50 to 70 º F 32 to 50 º F To 32 º F Still Moderate High Dry Moderate Humid Equipment in Use (field instruments, subcontractor equip, etc.) • Geoprobe 7822 DT drill rig • 2 support trucks • PID Description of Field Activities – including borings completed/started (include footages), samples/data collected, etc.: The Health and Safety tailgate meeting was conducted at the VA laydown area. RG-08 Installation: The RG-08 location (GW-53) was drilled to 20 feet bgs with DPT. The soil cores were screened and logged. The RG-08 well was set with screen from 8 to 18 feet bgs with 0.010 slot screen of 2-inch Schedule 40 PVC. The sand pack was installed from 7 to 18 feet bgs. A soil vapor probe was installed from 4.5 to 5 feet bgs with a sand pack from 4 to 6 feet bgs. Prior to installation DTW was 9.03 feet bgs. GW-61 abandonment: Prior to abandonment DTW was 11.25 feet bgs. The 1” PVC was pulled and the 3-inch DPT advanced to 20 feet bgs. The boring was backfilled with bentonite. Issues/Problems Encountered/Deficiencies/Deviations from QAPP (and resolutions): None Projected Work – Near Term: Install RG-10 and RG-11 locations. Other Activities/Remarks: 4/7/2021: A safety tailgate will be conducted at the laydown area at the VA at 0800. Photos: Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 4/6/2021 Location: RG-08 Description: Vista setting up to core concrete at RG-08 Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 4/6/2021 Location: RG-08 Description: Soil core from 10- 15 feet bgs. Saturated silty sand and gravel units. Date: 4/6/2021 Location: GW-61 Description: Vista pulling PVC from piezometer location Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah DATE: 4/7/2021 Prepared by: Joe Miller Personnel Onsite, including Contractors: CDM Smith -Joe Miller Vista Geoscience – Peter Wethington Vista Geoscience – Ben Alcox Vista Geoscience – David Fontana Visitors/Others: None Weather Temperature Wind Humidity Sunny Partly Cloudy Overcast Rain Snow 85+ º F 70 to 85º F 50 to 70 º F 32 to 50 º F To 32 º F Still Moderate High Dry Moderate Humid Equipment in Use (field instruments, subcontractor equip, etc.) • Geoprobe 7822 DT drill rig • 2 support trucks • PID Description of Field Activities – including borings completed/started (include footages), samples/data collected, etc.: The Health and Safety tailgate meeting was conducted at the VA laydown area. RG-10 Installation: The RG-10 (relocated GW-61 location) boring hit refusal at 20’ bgs. The boring was offset 3 feet to west and continued. The RG-10 boring was drilled to 30 feet bgs with DPT. The soil cores were screened and logged. The RG-10 well was set with screen from 20 to 30 feet bgs with 0.010 slot screen of 2-inch Schedule 40 PVC. The sand pack was installed from 18 to 30 feet bgs. A soil vapor probe was installed from 5 to 5.5 feet bgs with a sand pack from 4 to 7 feet bgs. RG-11 Installation: The RG-11 boring hit refusal at 12.5’ bgs. The boring was offset 3 feet to south and continued. The RG-11 was drilled to 40 feet bgs with DPT. The soil cores were screened and logged. The RG-11 well was set with screen from 30 to 40 feet bgs with 0.010 slot screen of 2-inch Schedule 40 PVC. The sand pack was installed from 28 to 40 feet bgs. A soil vapor probe was installed from 5 to 5.5 feet bgs with a sand pack from 4 to 7 feet bgs. Issues/Problems Encountered/Deficiencies/Deviations from QAPP (and resolutions): None Projected Work – Near Term: Install flush mount surface completion monuments. Other Activities/Remarks: 4/8/2021: A safety tailgate will be conducted at the laydown area at the VA at 0800. Photos: Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 4/7/2021 Location: RG-10 Description: Vista setting at RG-10 after hand augering. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 4/7/2021 Location: RG-10 Description: Saturated gravel at 28 bgs in RG-10. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 4/7/2021 Location: RG-11 Description: Saturated soil core at 39 feet bgs. Date: 4/7/2021 Location: RG-11 Description: Augering RG-11 location after DPT drilling. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah DATE: 4/8/2021 Prepared by: Joe Miller Personnel Onsite, including Contractors: CDM Smith -Joe Miller Vista Geoscience – Peter Wethington Vista Geoscience – Ben Alcox Vista Geoscience – David Fontana VA – Wynn John Visitors/Others: None Weather Temperature Wind Humidity Sunny Partly Cloudy Overcast Rain Snow 85+ º F 70 to 85º F 50 to 70 º F 32 to 50 º F To 32 º F Still Moderate High Dry Moderate Humid Equipment in Use (field instruments, subcontractor equip, etc.) • Geoprobe 7822 DT drill rig • 2 support trucks • PID Description of Field Activities – including borings completed/started (include footages), samples/data collected, etc.: The Health and Safety tailgate meeting was conducted at the VA laydown area. Surface completions: Vista installed the surface completions at the 11 residential groundwater well locations. The GW-49 and GW-20 locations were topped off with potting soil. Issues/Problems Encountered/Deficiencies/Deviations from QAPP (and resolutions): Vista identified a damaged sprinkler irrigation line at RG-10. The damaged section was repaired and the homeowner tested the sprinkler system to verify it was working with no leaks. Projected Work – Near Term: Survey RG locations and begin well development. Other Activities/Remarks: 4/9/2021: A safety tailgate will be conducted at the laydown area at the VA at 0800. Photos: Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 4/8/2021 Location: RG-01 Description: Setting flush mount monument at RG-01 Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 4/8/2021 Location: RG-10 Description: Repaired irrigation line at RG-10. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 4/8/2021 Location: GW-49 Description: Backfilled boring topped of with potting soil. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah DATE: 4/9/2021 Prepared by: Joe Miller Personnel Onsite, including Contractors: CDM Smith -Joe Miller Redcon Surveying Visitors/Others: None Weather Temperature Wind Humidity Sunny Partly Cloudy Overcast Rain Snow 85+ º F 70 to 85º F 50 to 70 º F 32 to 50 º F To 32 º F Still Moderate High Dry Moderate Humid Equipment in Use (field instruments, subcontractor equip, etc.) • PID • YSI • Survey equipment Description of Field Activities – including borings completed/started (include footages), samples/data collected, etc.: The Health and Safety tailgate meeting was conducted at the VA laydown area. VISTA Demobilization: Vista demobilized their equipment from site for travel back to Golden, CO. Surveying: Redcon Surveying was onsite to survey the location and elevation of the 11 new RG locations. Well Development RG-11: DTW was measured at 29.08 feet BTOC. Depth to bottom was 38.98’ BTOC. Approximately 4 gallons of water was purged from the well. After purging the depth to bottom was 40.28 feet BTOC indicating over 1 foot of sediment was removed. The well was allowed to recover and was revisited after 3 hours. DTW had recovered to 30.20 feet BTOC. An additional 2.5 gallons was bailed from RG-11. RG-11 will be revisited tomorrow to continue development. RG-04: Prior to development DTW was 10.08 feet BTOC. Depth to bottom was 20.29 feet BTOC. Approximately 50 gallons was purged using a pump from RG-04 and turbidity was below 50 NTU. RG-03: Prior to development DTW was 3.14 feet BTOC. Depth to bottom was 8.18 feet BTOC. Approximately 3.5 gallons was purged using a pump and bailer. RG-04 will be revisited to continue development. Issues/Problems Encountered/Deficiencies/Deviations from QAPP (and resolutions): None Projected Work – Near Term: Well development Other Activities/Remarks: 4/10/2021: A safety tailgate will be conducted at the IDW area at the VA at 0730. Photos: Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 4/9/2021 Location: RG-04 Description: Redcon surveying north edge of monument. Date: 4/9/2021 Location: RG-05 Description: Redcon documenting survey at RG-05. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 4/9/2021 Location: RG-11 Description: Bailed sediment at RG-11 during initial purge. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 4/9/2021 Location: RG-04 Description: Initial sediment water from RG-04. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah DATE: 4/10/2021 Prepared by: Joe Miller Personnel Onsite, including Contractors: CDM Smith -Joe Miller Visitors/Others: None Weather Temperature Wind Humidity Sunny Partly Cloudy Overcast Rain Snow 85+ º F 70 to 85º F 50 to 70 º F 32 to 50 º F To 32 º F Still Moderate High Dry Moderate Humid Equipment in Use (field instruments, subcontractor equip, etc.) • PID • YSI • Survey equipment Description of Field Activities – including borings completed/started (include footages), samples/data collected, etc.: The Health and Safety tailgate meeting was conducted at the VA laydown area. Well Development RG-11: RG-11 was bailed dry twice purging an extra 5 gallons. During the final purge the turbidity was less than 50 NTU RG-03: RG-03 was bailed dry, purging approximately 3 gallons. The turbidity during the purge was less than 50 NTU. RG-09: Prior to development at RG-09 DTW was 5.63 feet BTOC. Depth to bottom was 14.14 feet BTOC. Approximately 15 gallons was purged by bailing. After bailing Depth to bottom was 15.01 feet BTOC. RG-09 was allowed to recover and will be revisited for additional development. RG-05: Prior to development DTW was 23.63 feet BTOC. Depth to bottom was 29.47 feet BTOC. Approximately 2 gallons was bailed. After bailing dry depth to bottom was 30.30 feet BTOC. RG-05 will be revisited for additional development. RG-08: Prior to development DTW was 5.73 feet BTOC. Depth to bottom 17.82 feet BTOC. Approximately 75 gallons was pumped from RG-08. After development depth to bottom was 17.93 feet BTOC and turbidity was 175 NTU. RG-08 will be revisited and additional water will be purged to reach a lower NTU. Issues/Problems Encountered/Deficiencies/Deviations from QAPP (and resolutions): None Projected Work – Near Term: Continued Well development Prepare for surface water sampling Other Activities/Remarks: 4/12/2021: A safety tailgate will be conducted at the IDW area at the VA at 0730. Photos: Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 4/10/2021 Location: RG-03 Description: Clear purge water from bailer. Date: 4/10/2021 Location: RG-08 Description: Initial purge light brown and cloudy. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 4/10/2021 Location: RG-08 Description: After purging 75 gallons. Turbidity still greater than 50 NTU. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah DATE: 4/12/2021 Prepared by: Joe Miller Personnel Onsite, including Contractors: CDM Smith -Joe Miller CDM Smith -Connor Kelley Wasatch Environmental – Anna Fiorini Wasatch Environmental - Kiel Keller Visitors/Others: None Weather Temperature Wind Humidity Sunny Partly Cloudy Overcast Rain Snow 85+ º F 70 to 85º F 50 to 70 º F 32 to 50 º F To 32 º F Still Moderate High Dry Moderate Humid Equipment in Use (field instruments, subcontractor equip, etc.) · PID · YSI · Turbidity meter · Flow rate meter · Submersible pump Description of Field Activities – including borings completed/started (include footages), samples/data collected, etc.: The Health and Safety tailgate meeting was conducted at the VA IDW area. Well Development RG-01: Prior to development depth to bottom was 8.82 feet BTOC. The well was bailed dry 3 times with a total purge volume of 15 gallons. After development, depth to bottom was 18.83 feet BTOC. RG-01 will be bailed again tomorrow after allowing recharge and settling. RG-07: Approximately 1 foot of sediment was removed by bailing and approximately 100 gallons were pumped from RG-07. The well would pump dry, but recovered quickly. There was significant reduction in turbidity during development. RG-05: RG-05 was bailed dry three times today, and during the final purge there was significant reduction in turbidity. A total of 6.5 gallons has been purged from RG-05. RG-05 will be bailed again tomorrow after allowing recharge and settling. RG-06: Depth to water was 2.29 feet BTOC and depth to bottom was 9.19 feet BTOC. RG-06 was bailed dry two times today, and during the final purge there was significant reduction in turbidity. A total of 6.5 gallons has been purged from RG-06. RG-10: Depth to water was 26.21 feet BTOC and depth to bottom was 30.29 feet BTOC. RG-10 was bailed dry once. RG-10 will be bailed again tomorrow after allowing recharge and settling. RG-08: An additional 3 gallons was bailed from RG-08 to assess turbidity after purging 75 gallons on Saturday. The initial turbidity was clear. RG-02: Prior to development RG-02 depth to water was 2.23 feet BTOC and depth to bottom was 14.02 feet BTOC. After bailing 15 gallons, depth to bottom was 15.28 feet BTOC. There was a reduction in turbidity, but RG-02 will be bailed again tomorrow after allowing recharge and settling. Surface Water Sampling The surface water sampling team was shown the seep and RG well locations. Preparation of equipment of supplies was completed. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah IDW Characterization Two composite IDW samples were collected from the soil drums generated during the piezometer replacement and shipped to the lab. Issues/Problems Encountered/Deficiencies/Deviations from QAPP (and resolutions): 1 out of 4 coolers from EMAX did not arrive during the shipment. A replacement cooler and bottle will be sent. There were sufficient bottles to begin the surface water sampling. Projected Work – Near Term: Continue well development Begin surface water sampling Other Activities/Remarks: 4/13/2021: A safety tailgate will be conducted at the IDW area at the VA at 0730. Photos: Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 4/12/2021 Location: RG-05 Description: Clear purge water from bailer. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 4/12/2021 Location: RG-02 Description: Initial purge light brown and cloudy. Date: 4/12/2021 Location: RG-02 Description: Less turbid and brown water after 10 gallon purge at RG-02 Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 4/12/2021 Location: RG-08 Description: Clear purge water from bailer after purging and settling since Saturday. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah DATE: 4/13/2021 Prepared by: Connor Kelley Personnel on site, including Contractors: CDM Smith –Connor Kelley Wasatch – Anna Fiorini, Kiel Keller VA – Wynn John Visitors/Others: None Weather Temperature Wind Humidity Sunny Partly Cloudy Overcast Rain Snow 85+ º F 70 to 85º F 50 to 70 º F 32 to 50 º F 0 To 32 º F Still Moderate High Dry Moderate Humid Equipment in Use (field instruments, subcontractor equip, etc.) · Development equipment · Water level and low-flow groundwater sampling equipment · Surface water sampling equipment · Soil vapor sampling equipment Description of Field Activities – including samples/data collected, etc: · A H&S tailgate was conducted at the IDW yard area. · Equipment was calibrated. · Groundwater and soil vapor sampling in ESS o Hydrasleeves were deployed at wells RG-3, RG-4, RG-8, and RG-11. The bottom of the Hydrasleeves were set between 1 and 2 feet above the bottom of the well. o Soil vapor samples were taken at the following wells using Summa canisters:  RG-04 (RG04-SG041321)  RG-08 (RG08-SG041321)  RG-11 (RG11-SG041321) · Surface water sampling. All surface water locations were sampled for the following analytes:  VOCs  MEE  Metals/Mercury  TOC  Anions/Alkalinity  Nitrate/Nitrite o SW-166 (SW166-SW041321)  Multiple seeps present in yard (1148 East Sunnyside Ave). Two seeps with most prominent flow merged before continuing offsite. Sampled at this convergence.  Dug out small ponded area in runoff stream while daming downgradient side to create deeper pool. Removed dam and ponded area to resemble conditions prior to sampling. Samples were collected using a peristaltic pump.  Flow rate was measured by installing 18-inch gutter downspout in dam to allow all flow to travel through gutter downspout. Flow rate was then determined by putting a bucket under gutter for a set amount of time. Flow rate: 2 L/minute.  Field parameters were taken after samples were collected. o SW-35 (SW35-SW041321)  Small seep reaching ground surface at the corner of garage before flowing offsite. (1126 East 800 Street).  Small ponded area already present but slightly deepened area. Removed ponded area to resemble conditions prior to sampling. Samples were collected using a peristaltic pump. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah  Flow rate was estimated using professional judgement due to limited flow observed. Estimated flow rate: < 1 L/minute.  Field parameters were taken after samples were collected. o SW-39 (SW39-SW041321)  Sample taken from effluent pipe in storm drain located in Alpine Court. Grate was removed for sampling activities.  Flow rate was taken from effluent pipe using timer and bucket. Flow rate: 11 L/minute.  Field parameters were taken after samples were collected.  Grate was replaced following sampling activities. o SW-53 (SW53-SW041321)  Sample taken from effluent pipe typically discharging into another pipe leading away from the property. Moved effluent pipe to take samples which temporarily discharged into coy pond.  Flow rate was taken from effluent pipe using timer and bucket. Flow rate: 6 L/minute.  Field parameters were taken after samples were collected.  Effluent pipe was reconnected to pipe which leaves the property. o No samples were shipped to EMAX Labs. · Development o Kiel Keller (Wasatch) finished developing wells RG-1, 2, 5, 9, and 10.  RG-01: An additional 5 gallons was removed with a bailer. After recharge and settling the turbidity was less than 50NTU.  RG-02: An additional 9 gallons was removed with a bailer. After recharge and settling the turbidity was less than 50NTU.  RG-05: An additional 5 gallons was removed with a bailer. After recharge and settling the turbidity was less than 50NTU.  RG-09: An additional 8.75 gallons was removed with a bailer. After recharge and settling the turbidity was less than 50NTU.  RG-10: An additional 0.75 gallons was removed with a bailer. After recharge and settling the turbidity was less than 50NTU. Issues/Problems Encountered/Deficiencies/Deviations from QAPP (and resolutions): · None Projected Work – Near Term: · Continue surface water sampling. Per discussion with W. John (VA) he does not need to be present for sampling of SW-34. He would like to be notified and present for SW-12. Completed reconnaissance of the property today and identified several surface water features including seeps and sump pumps, all which lead to low point on property where it discharges to street storm drain. · Continue deploying Hydrasleeves. · Continue taking soil vapor samples. Other Activities/Remarks: · None. Photos: Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 4/13/2021 Location: SW-166 Description: Sampling location and flow rate collection setup through gutter downspout. Date: 4/13/2021 Location: SW-35 Description: Seep location. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 4/13/2021 Location: SW-39 Description: Discharge pipe into storm drain. Grate removed in photo. Date: 4/13/2021 Location: SW-53 Description: Sampling from discharge pipe. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 4/13/2021 Location: RG-02 Description: Purged water from first bailer after recharging is clear. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah DATE: 4/14/2021 Prepared by: Connor Kelley Personnel on site, including Contractors: CDM Smith –Connor Kelley Wasatch – Anna Fiorini Visitors/Others: None Weather Temperature Wind Humidity Sunny Partly Cloudy Overcast Rain Snow 85+ º F 70 to 85º F 50 to 70 º F 32 to 50 º F 0 To 32 º F Still Moderate High Dry Moderate Humid Equipment in Use (field instruments, subcontractor equip, etc.) · Water level and low-flow groundwater sampling equipment · Surface water sampling equipment · Soil vapor sampling equipment Description of Field Activities – including samples/data collected, etc: · A H&S tailgate was conducted at the IDW yard area. · Equipment was calibrated. · Groundwater and soil vapor sampling o Hydrasleeves were deployed at wells RG-1, RG-2, RG-5, RG-6, RG-7, RG-9, and RG-10. The bottom of the Hydrasleeves were set between 1 and 2 feet above the bottom of the well.  At RG-10, only 3.35 ft of water in well. (DTW: 26.95’, DTB: 30.30’). Hydrasleeve was set at bottom of the well. o Soil vapor samples were taken at the following wells using Summa canisters:  RG-01 (RG01-SG041421)  RG-05 (RG05-SG041421)  RG-07 (RG07-SG041421)  RG-10 (RG10-SG041421) plus Duplicate (FD01-SG041421) o All samples were shipped to the laboratory at the end of the day. · Surface water sampling. All surface water locations were sampled for the following analytes:  VOCs  MEE  Metals/Mercury  TOC  Anions/Alkalinity  Nitrate/Nitrite o SW-34 (SW166-SW041421)  Sample was taken in the decorative stream area in the yard, downstream of the convergence of two forks. Per the homeowner, these forks were artificially made from ‘Y’ installed in underground upgradient pipe.  Flow rate was measured using velocity meter at multiple locations across sample location.  A second flow rate was measured approximately 8 feet downstream where stream narrows significantly.  Field parameters were taken after samples were collected. Issues/Problems Encountered/Deficiencies/Deviations from QAPP (and resolutions): · At RG-10, only 3.35 ft of water in the well. The Hydrasleeve was set at the bottom of the well to hopefully collect sufficient water for VOC samples. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Projected Work – Near Term: · Continue surface water sampling. Per discussion with W. John (VA) he does not need to be present for sampling of SW-12. Will continue with surface water sampling with W. John. · Collect Hydrasleeve samples. · Ship all samples taken to date. Other Activities/Remarks: · None. Photos: Date: 4/14/2021 Location: SW-34 Description: Obtaining flow rate at sample location. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 4/14/2021 Location: SW-34 Description: Looking downstream of sampling location where stream narrows and second flow rate was measured. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah DATE: 4/15/2021 Prepared by: Connor Kelley Personnel on site, including Contractors: CDM Smith –Connor Kelley Wasatch – Anna Fiorini VA - Wynn John Visitors/Others: None Weather Temperature Wind Humidity Sunny Partly Cloudy Overcast Rain Snow 85+ º F 70 to 85º F 50 to 70 º F 32 to 50 º F 0 To 32 º F Still Moderate High Dry Moderate Humid Equipment in Use (field instruments, subcontractor equip, etc.) • Water level and low-flow groundwater sampling equipment • Surface water sampling equipment Description of Field Activities – including samples/data collected, etc: • A H&S tailgate was conducted at the IDW yard area. • Equipment was calibrated. • Groundwater sampling o The following groundwater samples were taken using hydrasleeves which had been deployed a minimum of 48 hours prior. All samples were analyzed for VOCs. ▪ RG-03 (RG03-GW041521) no field parameters were taken due to a lack of water – only about half the hydrosleeve was filled). ▪ RG-04 (RG04-GW041521) + MS/MSD. No field parameters were taken due to lack of water after MS/MSD samples. ▪ RG-08 (RG08-GW041521 and FD01-GW041521). No field parameters were taken due to lack of water after FD sample. • Surface water sampling. All surface water locations were sampled for the following analytes: ▪ VOCs ▪ MEE ▪ Metals/Mercury ▪ TOC ▪ Anions/Alkalinity ▪ Nitrate/Nitrite o SW-16I (Interior) (SW16I-SW041521) ▪ Sample was taken inside Lady of the Lourdes School, in basement in small closet. A drain was present which opened to surface water piping, per Brad, who works for the school and showed us around. Per Brad, it is surface water that is piped underneath the school and is discharged into the sanitary sewer system. ▪ Flow rate had to be estimated due to inaccessibility of any flow rate equipment. Estimated at 3-4 gallons/minute. ▪ Field parameters were taken after samples were collected. o SW-16E (Exterior) (SW16E-SW041521) ▪ Sample was taken outside in stormwater access point. Surface water flowed in from pipe which ran downgradient along school landscaping/sidewalk. ▪ Flow rate had was measured using bucket and stopwatch. 8 L/minute. ▪ Field parameters were taken after samples were collected. o SW-8 (SW08-SW041521) Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah ▪ Sample was taken from effluent pipe which collected surface water upstream and fed coy pond on property before being collected in another pipe to be discharged on other side of the road. ▪ Flow rate had was measured using bucket and stopwatch. 48 L/minute. ▪ Field parameters were taken after samples were collected. o SW-54 (SW54-SW041521) ▪ This is a new sample point which Wynn John (VA) showed the sampling team. Surface water is discharging from underneath apartment building foundation. ▪ Flow rate could not be estimated due to wide discharge and inability to dam up or redirect flow to make it more measurable. ▪ Field parameters were taken after samples were collected. o SW-12 (SW12-SW041521) ▪ Sample was taken from most upgradient point in yard where water discharged out of soil and into trenches cut in by homeowner. ▪ Flow rate was measured by daming up flow path and using a bucket and stopwatch. Flow rate: about 5 L/minute. ▪ Flow rate was also obtained downgradient in stormdrain which collected all surface water from property, not just portion that was sampled. Flow rate: 84 L/minute. o Benson Spring ▪ A sample was not taken at the Benson Spring location, which is located in the gulch between S. Elizabeth Street and South 1100 East Street. Only a flow rate was measured using a velocity meter. • All surface water samples were shipped at the end of the day. Issues/Problems Encountered/Deficiencies/Deviations from QAPP (and resolutions): • None Projected Work – Near Term: • Sample remainder of groundwater wells containing Hydrasleeves. • Ship back all rental equipment. • Organize connex area. • Demobilize from site. Other Activities/Remarks: • None. Photos: Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 4/15/2021 Location: Benson Spring Description: Obtaining flow rate Date: 4/15/2021 Location: SW-08 Description: Sample location (pipe). Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 4/15/2021 Location: SW-12 Description: Sample location (behind shovel used to dam water). Date: 4/15/2021 Location: SW-16I Description: Interior sample location. Water entered from left side and drained down. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 4/15/2021 Location: SW-54 Description: New sample location. Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah DATE: 4/16/2021 Prepared by: Connor Kelley Personnel on site, including Contractors: CDM Smith –Connor Kelley Visitors/Others: None Weather Temperature Wind Humidity Sunny Partly Cloudy Overcast Rain Snow 85+ º F 70 to 85º F 50 to 70 º F 32 to 50 º F 0 To 32 º F Still Moderate High Dry Moderate Humid Equipment in Use (field instruments, subcontractor equip, etc.) • Water level and low-flow groundwater sampling equipment Description of Field Activities – including samples/data collected, etc: • A H&S tailgate was conducted at the IDW yard area. • Equipment was calibrated. • Groundwater sampling o The following groundwater samples were taken using hydrasleeves which had been deployed a minimum of 48 hours prior. All samples were analyzed for VOCs. ▪ RG-11 (RG11-GW041621) Field parameters were taken. ▪ RG-06 (RG06-GW041621). No field parameters were taken due to lack of water (the Hydrasleeve was approximately half full). ▪ RG-07 (RG07-GW041621). Field parameters were taken. ▪ RG-10 (RG10-GW041621). No field parameters were taken due to lack of water (the Hydrasleeve was approximately half full). ▪ RG-05 (RG05-GW041621). Field parameters were taken. ▪ RG-01 (RG01-GW041621). Field parameters were taken. ▪ RG-02 (RG02-GW041621). Field parameters were taken. ▪ RG-09 (RG09-GW041621). Field parameters were taken. • All field equipment was shipped back at the end of the day. • Demobilized from site, taking groundwater samples to be shipped on Monday and leaving keys with Anna Fiorini (Wasatch). Issues/Problems Encountered/Deficiencies/Deviations from QAPP (and resolutions): • None Projected Work – Near Term: • Groundwater samples will be shipped Monday (4/19). Other Activities/Remarks: • None. Photos: Daily Quality Control Report 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah Date: 4/16/2021 Location: RG-05 Description: Hydrasleeve pulled from RG-05, some sediment at bottom. Took sample above sediment. Appendix B Field Logbook Notes Appendix C Utility Locate Reports Utility Locate Report SITE VA Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah 11/3/2020 PREPARED FOR CDM Smith PREPARED BY TWS ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC Denver, CO TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1 PROJECT IDENTIFICATION ........................................................................... 2-4 Section 2 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 5 2.1 Site Location ............................................................................................................................... 6 2.2 Equipment On Site .................................................................................................................... 6 2.3 Equipment Capabilities .............................................................................................................. 7 Section 3 Description of Utility Clearance Work Preformed…………. ..………………8 3.1 Physical setting. ........................................................................................................................... 8 3.2 Results .......................................................................................................................................... 8 3.3 Photos ................................................................................................................................... 9-12 Section 1 – Project Identification CLIENT NAME: CDM Smith CLIENT ADDRESS: 555 17th Street Suite 500 Denver, CO 80202 PROJECT NAME & LOCATION ADDRESS: VA Plume – Salt Lake City, Utah TWS PROJECT MANAGER: Jeff Baker TWS TEAM REPRESENTATIVE: Jeff Baker Fig 1. MW-37 S/D Fig 2. MW-36 S/D Fig 3. MW-38 S/D Fig 4. AOU-1 Section 2 – Introduction 2.1 Site Location The sites are located across East Side Springs and are part of OU-2 Remedial Investigation 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah. 2.2 Equipment on Site:  SeekTech SR-20 Line Tracer and Underground Utility Locator  SeekTech ST-305 Line Transmitter  Schonstedt GA-52-Cx Magnetometer  Ground-penetrating radar: GSSI UtilityScan/ rough terrain cart 2.3 Equipment Capabilities: Electromagnetic Induction Electromagnetic Inductions consists of two steps. First, a transmitter is used to transfer an alternating electrical current to the pipe or wire to be located. Next, a receiver is used to analyze the transmitted signal, and localize the position and depth of the facility. The transmitter can transfer the signal to the facility either by a direct connections, or by inducing a signal. The direct connect method introduces a signal into pipes or cables (or the fluids within pipes) that is radiated from the facility to aid its detection and location. The surface-induced method generates a signal a t the ground surface that will induce a response in the cable, pipe or tracer wire underground. Typical applications:  Conductive utilities: Steel or copper pipes (water service, gas service) Copper telecom cables.  Tracer lines on non-conductive utilities Limitations:  EM/RF locating requires a conductive object (pipe, cable, conduit, or tracer) into which a radio signal can be introduced. The signal cannot travel through non-conductive (insulating) materials. The signal may be interrupted or lost on a conductive utility that is not continuous (damaged, broken, corroded, repaired with non-conductive materials, or constructed of segments with non-conductive gaskets, i.e. rubber)  RF locating requires some level of access or prior knowledge to effectively introduce the radio signal. An exposed portion (or end) of a utility is needed for direct connections or to utilize an inductive clamp. A point of well-known location and direction is needed for an inductive drop.  RF locating signals are susceptible to “bleeding” onto nearby conductive utilities. Due care will be taken to recognize and minimize bleed-off, and to confirm utility locations with alternate methods. All utility marks should be afforded and industry-standard tolerance zone of 24” to either side.  A known (or visible) point of connection is generally needed to identify the function of a utility.  A hand-dug or vacuum-excavated test hole should be used to precisely confirm horizontal or vertical locations of any utility. Magnetometer The GA-52Cx magnetic locator detects the magnetic field of ferromagnetic objects. It responds to the difference in the magnetic field between two sensors that are spaced approximately 20 inches apart. This difference is referred to as the “signal strength” and is represented in the instrument by an audio tone. Typical applications:  Locating ferrous pipes/utilities: Steel or other ferrous metal objects or pipes can be located with this tool. Limitations:  The instrument will not detect non-ferrous metals, such as gold, silver, copper, brass and aluminum. Ground-Penetrating Radar (GPR) 350 MHz “HyperStacking” GPR Antenna – GPR works by sending a tiny pulse of energy into a material and recording the strength and the time required for the return of any reflected signal. Our GPR system uses state of the art HyperStacking Technology which provides excellent near-surface resolution and increased depth penetration in all soil types. We will be able to quickly search the location and depth of service utilities such as gas, communications, and sewer lines – as well as other metallic and nonmetallic targets including underground storage tanks and PVC pipes. For rough terrain conditions, we are able to place the unit into a rugged utility cart to complete the search. Principle of operation:  Ground- penetrating radar (GPR) uses a pair of radio antennas (transmitting and receiving), moved together across the ground surface. The transmitted radar wave penetrates into the ground until it reaches an “interface”, or boundary, between materials of differing electrical properties. The wave is then reflected and detected by the receiving antenna. Typical applications:  Non- conductive utilities: Plastic pipes, gas and water main/services, etc. Bituminous fiber pipe (“Orangeburg”, “Bermico”), asbestos-cement pipes (“Transite”). Cast iron pipe with rubber gaskets, or other insulating materials.  Subsurface structures: Buried tanks, cisterns, septic tanks, cesspools, dry wells and oil- water separators. Buried vaults, manholes, and utility tunnels. Historical building foundations and other structures. Limitations:  For an object to produce a signal that is able to be interpreted by operations, the transmitted radar wave must penetrate to the depth of the object of interest, reflect, and return the receiving antenna.  Depth of penetration is reduced by soils that are electrically conductive, due to water saturation or otherwise. Depth of penetrating is reduced by especially rocky, mixed, or inconsistent soil. A metallic ground surface (i.e. steel plate), or standing water, interferes with penetration of the transmitted signal into the soil.  A reflection of the radar signal depends on the “interface”, or boundary, of materials of differing electrical properties – such as the encountered at boundaries between soil layers of differing compaction, or at the surface of a hard object embedded in the soil. The reflection is weakened when the boundary has a lower contrast in electrical properties. An object of a give diameter will producte a reflection of decreasing strength with increasing depth to cover. Generally, one inch of diameter is required, per foot of cover, to produce a strong reflection.  A known (or visible) point of connecting is generally needed to identify the function of a utility.  Any utility, subsurface structure, or anomaly located with GPR and marked on site should be afforded an industry – standard tolerance zoned of 24’.  A hand-dug or vacuum-excavated test hole should be used to precisely confirm horizontal or vertical location of any utility. Section 3 – Description of Utility Clearance Work Preformed 3.1 Physical Setting The sites are located in Salt Lake City, Utah. These sites are a combination of neighbor hoods that are near the VA hospital campus including residential neighborhoods to the West of the campus. There are a total of three (3) proposed well locations MW 37, MW 36 and MW 38 (MW-38 had two areas scanned as options) and 10 ground water locations that were scanned on this round of work. There were no locations on the VA campus on this round of work. The well locations were all in or near parking lanes on the street. The majority of the ground water locations were located in landscaped/grass areas near residential homes and included GW-20, GW-16, GW-59, GW-11, GW-10, GW-53, GW52, GW-49, GW-50 and GW-61. Once all health and safety discussions and a tailgate meeting with the CDM field staff was completed, the crew proceeded to clear the area around each proposed location. This occurred over the course of one day on Tuesday, November 3rd, 2020. The temperature was in the low to mid 60’s during this engagement. Skies were mostly clear. 3.2 Results TWS personnel worked on site to locate and mark utilities, and to survey the areas of the proposed boring/well locations residential locations on November 3rd, 2020. Methods used include both radio- frequency (EM/RF) locating and ground-penetrating radar (GPR) as well as utilizing a magnetometer/pipe locator. As disclosed at the bidding stage, GPR penetration rates in the Salt Lake area were expected to be between 0-3 feet bgs. Depths beyond that may be impacted by soil conditions and data quality may be affected. Utilities located and marked in the vicinity of the work areas included anomalies/unknowns electrical, gas, water, and communication. There were also storm water drains and sewer networks across the properties. A combination of paint on the ground and paint and pin flags in the grassy areas were utilized to mark out utilities and anomalies in the general areas where there are proposed boring/well locations are planned. It is recommended that the areas for MW-38 (both the location off Elizabeth and 1200 E) as well as all of the ground water (GW) locations be called in to Blue Stake of Utah 811 prior to any drilling activities. 3.3 Project Photos MW-36, anomaly (pink) located running through the proposed boring location, gas and sewer marked as well.. MW-37, gas and sewer (located in the grass parallel to the roadway) located and marked. MW 38 (Elizabeth Street option) note proximity of water line markings. Sewer in center of street, recommend engaging Blue Stake before proceeding. MW 38 (1200 E option) Water located along sidewalk and crossing the street to the North of the proposed location. Recommend engaging Blue Stake before proceeding. GW-10, multiple communication and sewer lines nearby proposed location. GW-11, storm water drainage runs down the alley approximately in the middle of the road. Storm water lines and unknown line located in street adjacent form existing GW-16 location Water line located running up the street adjacent to planter where GW-20 was located in the planter area. Vault filled with salt (?) near proposed work area for MW-23. Water, electric and anomaly (pink) near proposed work area for MW-27. GW-49, possible storm water line running along the road parallel to the site. GW-52, Communication running along the road, gas and power between the sidewalk and GW-52. Water, sewer and power near intersection near proposed work area for GW-53. Water near proposed work area for GW-53. (Relocated by CDM Staff) Water and drain lines near proposed work area for GW-59. Electrical lines in planter near proposed work area for GW-61 Metal landscaping rings potentially interfering with magnetometer readings near. MW-61. WASATCH ENVIRONMENTALCustomer Phone Number (801) 209-5211 2410 W CALIFORNIA AVE Job Details City SALT LAKE CITY State UT Zip 84104 City SLC State UT Jobsite Location CDM VA MEDICAL CENTER 255430 Job Num PO Num WA Number Lead Technician SWARTZ, RYAN Phone 612-704-0456 Email ryan.swartz@gprsinc.com Thank you for using GPRS on your project. We appreciate the opportunity to work with you. If you have questions regarding the results of this scanning, please contact the lead GPRS technician on this project. Billing Address EQUIPMENT USED The following equipment was used on this project: · Underground Scanning GPR antenna. Typically capable of detecting objects up to 8' deep or more in ideal conditions but maximum effective depth can vary widely and depends on site and soil conditions. Depth penetration is most commonly limited by moisture and clay/conductive soils. Depths provided should always be treated as estimates as their accuracy can be affected by multiple factors. · Electromagnetic Pipe and Cable Locator. Detects electromagnetic fields. Used to actively trace conductive pipes and tracer wires, or passively detect power and radio signals traveling along conductive pipes and utilities. Depths provided should always be treated as estimates as their accuracy can be affected by multiple factors. · The CCTV crawler inspection camera has the ability of inspecting sewer lines from 6” and up by modifying the wheels configurations. The camera’s head has the ability to completely pan and tilt 360 degrees to inspect taps or any features on the side walls of the pipe/culvert. The crawler camera has a capability up to 1,000 linear feet as that is the length of the cable for the system; however, the operator may choose to not reach the maximum length as a precaution. The operator will have the ability of deeming a pipe unsafe, inaccessible, or determine if any obstacle is unsafe for the equipment to pass. Access to confined spaces such as manholes would need to be provided and facilitated by the client. Video and photos of the interior of the pipe can be provided with NASSCO certified annotations of all pipe features, but GPRS cannot make judgments regarding the integrity of the pipes. Work Performed Ground Penetrating Radar Systems performed the following work on this project: Underground Utility The scope of work included scanning the specified area to locate underground utilities. A tracer signal was sent along any accessible metallic utility or tracer wire, and the area was scanned with GPR to locate any additional targets. The locations of any detected utilities and anomalies were marked directly at the site with paint, flags, stakes, or other appropriate means, and results were reviewed with onsite personnel unless otherwise noted. Page 1 of 3 Job Date :3/26/2021 Job Summary · Scan for 8 soil borings. · The effective depth of GPR will vary throughout a site depending on surface and soil conditions. In this area, the maximum effective GPR depth was approximately 3 feet. · Scanned 6 locations for soil borings. All detected targets are marked with paint on the surface. Water, sewer and drains could not be seen due to depth, size and possible plastic pipes. Gas lines would have to be cleared by the residents so could not locate those lines due to a residential area. Reviewed all scan areas, markings and limitations with the client onsite. Pictures Utility Limitations TERMS & CONDITIONS http://www.gprsinc.com/termsandconditions.html SIGNATURE Contact Name Michael Cronin (801) 209-5211 mc@wasatch-environmental.com Page 2 of 3 Job Date :3/26/2021 Job Summary Page 3 of 3 Job Date :3/26/2021 Job Summary WASATCH ENVIRONMENTALCustomer Phone Number (801) 209-5211 2410 W CALIFORNIA AVE Job Details City SALT LAKE CITY State UT Zip 84104 City SLC State UT Jobsite Location VETERANS ADMINISTRATION 257676 Job Num PO Num WA Number Lead Technician SWARTZ, RYAN Phone 612-704-0456 Email ryan.swartz@gprsinc.com Thank you for using GPRS on your project. We appreciate the opportunity to work with you. If you have questions regarding the results of this scanning, please contact the lead GPRS technician on this project. Billing Address EQUIPMENT USED The following equipment was used on this project: · Underground Scanning GPR antenna. Typically capable of detecting objects up to 8' deep or more in ideal conditions but maximum effective depth can vary widely and depends on site and soil conditions. Depth penetration is most commonly limited by moisture and clay/conductive soils. Depths provided should always be treated as estimates as their accuracy can be affected by multiple factors. · Electromagnetic Pipe and Cable Locator. Detects electromagnetic fields. Used to actively trace conductive pipes and tracer wires, or passively detect power and radio signals traveling along conductive pipes and utilities. Depths provided should always be treated as estimates as their accuracy can be affected by multiple factors. Work Performed Ground Penetrating Radar Systems performed the following work on this project: Underground Utility The scope of work included scanning the specified area to locate underground utilities. A tracer signal was sent along any accessible metallic utility or tracer wire, and the area was scanned with GPR to locate any additional targets. The locations of any detected utilities and anomalies were marked directly at the site with paint, flags, stakes, or other appropriate means, and results were reviewed with onsite personnel unless otherwise noted. · Locate underground utilities in 3 locations. · The effective depth of GPR will vary throughout a site depending on surface and soil conditions. In this area, the maximum effective GPR depth was approximately 3 feet. · Scanned 3 locations to clear soil boring areas in a 20ft radius. Water, sewer, drains and gas could not be seen due to residential houses. Size of pipes, depth and possible plastic lines. All detected utilities are marked with paint on the surface. Reviewed all scan areas, limitations and markings with the customer onsite. Page 1 of 3 Job Date :4/5/2021 Job Summary Pictures Utility Limitations TERMS & CONDITIONS http://www.gprsinc.com/termsandconditions.html SIGNATURE Contact Name Michael Cronin (801) 209-5211 mc@wasatch-environmental.com Page 2 of 3 Job Date :4/5/2021 Job Summary Page 3 of 3 Job Date :4/5/2021 Job Summary Appendix D Traffic Control Plan RO A D WO R K AH E A D SH O U L D E R WO R K AH E A D 100'100' ROAD WORK AHEAD SHOULDER WORK AHEAD ROAD WORK AHEAD SHOULDER WORK AHEAD 100' 100' 100' 100' WORK AREA Date:3/23/21 Author:GARRET R Project:RG-01 Comments: CDM SMITH 1115 E GILMER DR SLC UT SHOULDER CLOSURE UTAH BARRICADE-TRAFFIC CONTROL www.invarion.com R O A D W O R K A H E A D S H O U L D E R W O R K A H E A D Date:3/23/21 Author:GARRET R Project:RG-05 Comments: CDM SMITH 1224 E GILMER DR SLC UT SHOULDER CLOSURE UTAH BARRICADE-TRAFFIC CONTROL GILMER DR 100' 100' WORK AREA www.invarion.com RO A D CL O S E D RO A D CL O S E D RO A D C L O S E D TO TH R U T R A F F I C RO A D C L O S E D TO TH R U T R A F F I C DE T OU R DETOUR DE T OU R DE T OU R DETOUR DE T OU R WORK AREA Date:3/23/21 Author:GARRET R Project:RG-02 Comments: CDM SMITH 1150 E SUNNYSIDE AVE SLC UT ROAD CLOSURE UTAH BARRICADE-TRAFFIC CONTROL SUNNYSIDE AVE 110 0 E 12 0 0 E 900 S www.invarion.com RO A D WO R K AH E A D SH O U L D E R WO R K AH E A D 100'100' WORK AREA Date:3/23/21 Author:GARRET R Project:RG-02 Comments: CDM SMITH 1133 E SUNNYSIDE AVE SLC UT ROAD CLOSURE UTAH BARRICADE-TRAFFIC CONTROL SUNNYSIDE AVE 110 0 E 12 0 0 E www.invarion.com RO A D WO R K AH E A D WORK AREA 110 0 E Date:3/23/21 Author:GARRET R Project:RG-04 Comments: CDM SMITH 761 S 1100 E SLC UT SHOULDER CLOSURE UTAH BARRICADE-TRAFFIC CONTROL www.invarion.com RO A D WO R K AH E A D SH O U L D E R WO R K AH E A D 350'350'WORK AREA Date:3/23/21 Author:GARRET R Project:RG-05 Comments: CDM SMITH 840 S 1300 E SLC UT SHOULDER CLOSURE UTAH BARRICADE-TRAFFIC CONTROL STREET NAME ST R E E T N A M E www.invarion.com E 800 S S 1 2 0 0 E WORK AREA R O A D W O R K A H E A D S H O U L D E R W O R K A H E A D 100' 100' Date:3/23/21 Author:GARRET R Project:RG-07 Comments: CDM SMITH 1190 E GILMER DR SLC UT SHOULDER CLOSURE UTAH BARRICADE-TRAFFIC CONTROL www.invarion.com RO A D WO R K AH E A D SH O U L D E R WO R K AH E A D WORK AREA 350'350' Date:3/23/21 Author:GARRET R Project:RG-07 Comments: CDM SMITH 1244 E 900 S SLC UT SHOULDER CLOSURE UTAH BARRICADE-TRAFFIC CONTROL www.invarion.com ROAD WORK AHEAD SHOULDER WORK AHEAD WORK AREA 100' 100' Date:3/23/21 Author:GARRET R Project:RG-08 Comments: CDM SMITH 906 S 1200 E SLC UT SHOULDER CLOSURE UTAH BARRICADE-TRAFFIC CONTROL www.invarion.com ROAD WORK AHEAD SHOULDER WORK AHEAD WORK AREA SUNNYSIDE AVE 110 0 E Date:3/23/21 Author:GARRET R Project:RG-08 Comments: CDM SMITH 849 S 1100 E SLC UT SHOULDER CLOSURE UTAH BARRICADE-TRAFFIC CONTROL www.invarion.com RO A D WO R K AH E A D SH O U L D E R WO R K AH E A D ROAD WORK AHEAD 100'100' WORK AREA WORK AREA MACHIGAN AVE 110 0 E 12 0 0 E Date:3/23/21 Author:GARRET R Project:RG-10 Comments: CDM SMITH 1146 E MICHIGAN AVE SLC UT SHOULDER CLOSURE UTAH BARRICADE-TRAFFIC CONTROL www.invarion.com Michigan Ave ROAD WORK AHEAD SHOULDER WORK AHEAD 100' 100' WORK AREA 700 S DO U G L A S S T Date:3/23/21 Author:GARRET R Project:RG-11 Comments: CDM SMITH 705 S DOUGLAS ST SLC UT SHOULDER CLOSURE UTAH BARRICADE-TRAFFIC CONTROL www.invarion.com Appendix E Salt Lake City Traffic Control, Engineering, and Right-of-Way Permits PERMIT TO WORK IN THE PUBLIC WAY GENERAL CONDITIONS ENG2021-00617SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION ENGINEERING DIVISION 349 SOUTH 200 EAST, SUITE 100 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 PHONE (801) 535-6396 FAX (801) 535-6093 engpermit@slcgov.com Assigned Inspector: Stephen Hetman Office Phone: 801-535-7910 Cell Phone: Job Address:Contractor Phone Numbers:974 E 900 S Phone1: Phone2: FAX: Applicant Name: Business Name: CDM FEDERAL PROGRAMS CORPORATION Mailing Address: SALT LAKE CITY, UT Traffic Control Plan Starting and Ending Dates Fee Barricade Manual Figure No.: NA Begin Date:04/01/2021 Total Fee:$296.00 Traffic Permit Number:Multiple Locations Expiration Date: 05/01/2021 Certificate of Insurance as Per City Ordinance ±Chapter 14.32.065 Number:TB7611B8T8Z6040T Bonds As Per City Ordinance ±Chapter 14.32.070 Number:9340850 State Contractors License As Per City Ordinance ±Chapter 14.32.025 Number: Work Type:Test Bore Drawing Included:Yes APWA Standard: Field Contact: Joe Miller Phone: 513.602.1619 Comments or Additional Requirements: Testing wells to be installed at: 1115 E Gilmer 1224 E Gilmer 1190 E Gilmer Dr 849 S 1100 E 1146 E Michigan Ave-Abandon 980S 1200 E- Install Joe Miller 513.602.1619 Notice: CALL 24 HOURS BEFORE COMMENCING WORK (535-6727) for Public Utility inspections or assigned inspector for all other inspections or 48 hours if work is scheduled on holidays and weekends. Digging within ten feet ¶ of any parkstrip street tree requires written authorization from Salt Lake City Urban Forestry. Contact Urban Forestry at (801) 535-7818, before any excavation with in ten feet of a street tree, for inspection and authorization. BEFORE EXCAVATION CONTACT BLUE STAKES ±or 1-800-662-4111 PERMIT APPLICATION:Application is hereby made for a permit to work in the public way as specified above. Applicant agrees to the terms on the reverse side and to any increase in fees should they be required by Engineering. Print name of Applicant: Signature of Applicant:Date: 4/1/2021 Joe Miller Permit Issued By: Jack Crockett ** WORK GUARANTEED - 3 YEARS FROM ACCEPTANCE DATE ** Please contact inspector 24 hours before beginning work ACCEPTANCE OF CONDITIONS. It is understood and agreed by the Permittee that performing any work under this permit constitutes acceptance of Title 14 Chapter 32 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City and the City's Regulations for controlling construction, excavation and obstructions in the Public Right ¬of ¬Way, latest revision. PROXIMATE WORK. Applicant agrees that no other work shall be done under this permit except that specifically set forth herein. It is the applicants responsibility to verify the exact location of city and private facilities prior to commencing excavation operations. PERMIT AND DRAWINGS AT JOB SITE. The permittee shall have at the work site a copy of the permit, the traffic control plan, and the City approved drawings. NOTIFICATION. Notify the assigned inspector 24 hours before commencing work. Provide the following information: permit number, name and telephone number of permittee, date/time work is to commence, location of work and any other information which may be relevant to the work. CONFORMANCE TO EXISTING LAWS AND CITY SPECIFICATIONS. Permittee agrees to be fully informed of all federal, state and local laws, ordinances, rules, regulations, and City Construction Specifications which, in any manner, affect the work, and at all times shall observe and comply with such laws, ordinances, rules, regulations and specifications. The City Engineer reserves the right to shut down and/or issue a citation for violation of these provisions. ENVIRONMENTAL LIABILITY. Permittee agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless Salt Lake City, its officers, agents and employees against any claims, losses, damages, or expenses, including, without limitation, any fees or penalties imposed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the Utah State Department of Environmental Protection Agency, the Utah State Department of Environmental Quality or any other government or regulatory agency and any attorney's fees or costs sustained on account of, or related to, the presence, release, discovery or creation of hazardous wastes or similar materials as those materials are defined under applicable federal or state statutes or regulations, including, without limitation, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976. STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS AND STANDARD DRAWINGS. Comply with all Salt Lake City Standard Specifications and Standard Drawings for cutting surface, traffic control, backfill, compaction, selection of subgrade materials, asphalt and concrete surfacing requirements. Printed copies of the Regulations and Specifications can be obtained through the City Engineer's Office. WARRANTY. Permittee shall guarantee the worksite restoration for a period of three years from completion and acceptance of the work, reasonable wear and tear excepted. SPECIAL CONDITIONS EXCAVATION OPERATIONS BLUE STAKES. Before commencing excavation operations, Permittee shall call "Blue Stakes" at 811 TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES. Traffic control devices must be in place before excavation begins. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL DUST AND DEBRIS. Keep dust and debris controlled at the work site at all times. If necessary, wet down dusty areas with water and provide containers for debris. WHEEL CLEANING ORDINANCE. Conform to Section 18.20.210 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, 1987. The ordinance describes the City's requirements for keeping the public way clean. NOISE. Permittee shall control noise in accordance with the Salt Lake County Health Department Noise Ordinance. CLEANUP. Remove all equipment, material, barricades and similar items from the right of way. Areas used for storage of excavated material will be smoothed and returned to their original contour. Vacuum sweeping or hand sweeping is required when Engineer determines cleaning equipment is ineffective. CONFORMANCE TO ENGINEERING REGULATIONS. All provisions of Salt Lake City Engineering Regulation 5¬R¬4, "Regulations for Controlling Construction in the City's Public Way", and other pertinent Engineering Regulations, will be adhered to. Engineering Regulations can be obtained in the office of the City Engineer, 349 South 200 East, Suite 100, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111. TRAFFIC INTERRUPTION. Construction operations will be conducted in a manner to minimize the amount of interference or interruption of roadway traffic. Except during emergency conditions or unless authorized by the Engineer, construction operations such as excavation, backfill and pavement restoration on major/collector and CBD streets are prohibited during peak traffic hours of 7:00 to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. TRAFFIC CONTROL MANUAL. All provisions of the current "Traffic Control Manual" shall be adhered to. This manual provides regulations concerning traffic control construction barricades, road closures, public and private access, traffic control signing, traffic control in Central Business Area and traffic control devices. EMERGENCY INFORMATION. Permittee shall clearly post on barricades in letters not less than two inches (2 in.) high emergency information consisting of the name and emergency telephone number of the permittee, and the permittee shall cause at least one such barricade per block to be erected at every job site until the work is complete and formally accepted by the City. STREET EXCAVATION IN WINTER. Excavation of City Streets during the winter months (herein defined as November 15 to April 1) will be allowed only if the work is a new service connection, required maintenance or emergency, or otherwise approved by the Engineer. Permanent patching of City streets excavated in the winter may be delayed until April 1, provided the permittee provides and maintains a temporary asphalt surface until such time as the permanent surfacing is accomplished. PRECONSTRUCTION PICTURES OF EXISTING PUBLIC WAY IMPROVEMENTS. Prior to commencing the permit work, the permittee is encouraged to secure pictures of the conditions of the existing public way improvements such as curbing, sidewalk, landscaping, asphalt surfaces, etc. TIME LIMIT. Unless authorized otherwise by the Engineer on the permit, all paving and replacement of street facilities shall be done within seven (7) calendar days from the time the excavation commences, or within three (3) calendar days on major or collector streets from the time excavation commences, except as provided for during excavation in winter or during weather conditions that do not allow paving according to applicable standards and specifications. If work is expected to exceed the above duration, the permittee shall submit a detailed construction schedule for approval. The schedule will address means and methods to minimize traffic disruption and complete the construction as soon as possible. EXCAVATION WITHIN 10 FEET OF STREET TREES. Before commencing excavation activities, Permittee shall contact Salt Lake City Urban Forestry (801) 535-7818 for an inspection. PERMIT TO WORK IN THE PUBLIC WAY GENERAL CONDITIONS ENG2021-00618SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION ENGINEERING DIVISION 349 SOUTH 200 EAST, SUITE 100 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 PHONE (801) 535-6396 FAX (801) 535-6093 engpermit@slcgov.com Assigned Inspector: Kevin Liptrot Office Phone: 8015356164 Cell Phone: 8014195668 Job Address:Contractor Phone Numbers:1100 E 900 S Phone1: Phone2: FAX: Applicant Name: Business Name: CDM FEDERAL PROGRAMS CORPORATION Mailing Address: SALT LAKE CITY, UT Traffic Control Plan Starting and Ending Dates Fee Barricade Manual Figure No.: NA Begin Date:04/01/2021 Total Fee:$311.00 Traffic Permit Number:Multiple Locations Expiration Date: 05/01/2021 Certificate of Insurance as Per City Ordinance ±Chapter 14.32.065 Number:TB7611B8T8Z6040T Bonds As Per City Ordinance ±Chapter 14.32.070 Number:9340850 State Contractors License As Per City Ordinance ±Chapter 14.32.025 Number: Work Type:Test Bore Drawing Included:Yes APWA Standard: Field Contact: Joe Miller Phone: 513.602.1619 Comments or Additional Requirements: Installation of testing wells: 1150 E Sunnyside Ave 1133 E Sunnyside Ave 761 S 1100 E north side East High 1244 E 900 S 705 S Douglas St Joe Miller 513.602.1619 Notice: CALL 24 HOURS BEFORE COMMENCING WORK (535-6727) for Public Utility inspections or assigned inspector for all other inspections or 48 hours if work is scheduled on holidays and weekends. Digging within ten feet ¶ of any parkstrip street tree requires written authorization from Salt Lake City Urban Forestry. Contact Urban Forestry at (801) 535-7818, before any excavation with in ten feet of a street tree, for inspection and authorization. BEFORE EXCAVATION CONTACT BLUE STAKES ±or 1-800-662-4111 PERMIT APPLICATION:Application is hereby made for a permit to work in the public way as specified above. Applicant agrees to the terms on the reverse side and to any increase in fees should they be required by Engineering. Print name of Applicant: Signature of Applicant:Date: 4/1/2021 Joe Miller Permit Issued By: Jack Crockett ** WORK GUARANTEED - 3 YEARS FROM ACCEPTANCE DATE ** Please contact inspector 24 hours before beginning work ACCEPTANCE OF CONDITIONS. It is understood and agreed by the Permittee that performing any work under this permit constitutes acceptance of Title 14 Chapter 32 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City and the City's Regulations for controlling construction, excavation and obstructions in the Public Right ¬of ¬Way, latest revision. PROXIMATE WORK. Applicant agrees that no other work shall be done under this permit except that specifically set forth herein. It is the applicants responsibility to verify the exact location of city and private facilities prior to commencing excavation operations. PERMIT AND DRAWINGS AT JOB SITE. The permittee shall have at the work site a copy of the permit, the traffic control plan, and the City approved drawings. NOTIFICATION. Notify the assigned inspector 24 hours before commencing work. Provide the following information: permit number, name and telephone number of permittee, date/time work is to commence, location of work and any other information which may be relevant to the work. CONFORMANCE TO EXISTING LAWS AND CITY SPECIFICATIONS. Permittee agrees to be fully informed of all federal, state and local laws, ordinances, rules, regulations, and City Construction Specifications which, in any manner, affect the work, and at all times shall observe and comply with such laws, ordinances, rules, regulations and specifications. The City Engineer reserves the right to shut down and/or issue a citation for violation of these provisions. ENVIRONMENTAL LIABILITY. Permittee agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless Salt Lake City, its officers, agents and employees against any claims, losses, damages, or expenses, including, without limitation, any fees or penalties imposed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the Utah State Department of Environmental Protection Agency, the Utah State Department of Environmental Quality or any other government or regulatory agency and any attorney's fees or costs sustained on account of, or related to, the presence, release, discovery or creation of hazardous wastes or similar materials as those materials are defined under applicable federal or state statutes or regulations, including, without limitation, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976. STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS AND STANDARD DRAWINGS. Comply with all Salt Lake City Standard Specifications and Standard Drawings for cutting surface, traffic control, backfill, compaction, selection of subgrade materials, asphalt and concrete surfacing requirements. Printed copies of the Regulations and Specifications can be obtained through the City Engineer's Office. WARRANTY. Permittee shall guarantee the worksite restoration for a period of three years from completion and acceptance of the work, reasonable wear and tear excepted. SPECIAL CONDITIONS EXCAVATION OPERATIONS BLUE STAKES. Before commencing excavation operations, Permittee shall call "Blue Stakes" at 811 TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES. Traffic control devices must be in place before excavation begins. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL DUST AND DEBRIS. Keep dust and debris controlled at the work site at all times. If necessary, wet down dusty areas with water and provide containers for debris. WHEEL CLEANING ORDINANCE. Conform to Section 18.20.210 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, 1987. The ordinance describes the City's requirements for keeping the public way clean. NOISE. Permittee shall control noise in accordance with the Salt Lake County Health Department Noise Ordinance. CLEANUP. Remove all equipment, material, barricades and similar items from the right of way. Areas used for storage of excavated material will be smoothed and returned to their original contour. Vacuum sweeping or hand sweeping is required when Engineer determines cleaning equipment is ineffective. CONFORMANCE TO ENGINEERING REGULATIONS. All provisions of Salt Lake City Engineering Regulation 5¬R¬4, "Regulations for Controlling Construction in the City's Public Way", and other pertinent Engineering Regulations, will be adhered to. Engineering Regulations can be obtained in the office of the City Engineer, 349 South 200 East, Suite 100, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111. TRAFFIC INTERRUPTION. Construction operations will be conducted in a manner to minimize the amount of interference or interruption of roadway traffic. Except during emergency conditions or unless authorized by the Engineer, construction operations such as excavation, backfill and pavement restoration on major/collector and CBD streets are prohibited during peak traffic hours of 7:00 to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. TRAFFIC CONTROL MANUAL. All provisions of the current "Traffic Control Manual" shall be adhered to. This manual provides regulations concerning traffic control construction barricades, road closures, public and private access, traffic control signing, traffic control in Central Business Area and traffic control devices. EMERGENCY INFORMATION. Permittee shall clearly post on barricades in letters not less than two inches (2 in.) high emergency information consisting of the name and emergency telephone number of the permittee, and the permittee shall cause at least one such barricade per block to be erected at every job site until the work is complete and formally accepted by the City. STREET EXCAVATION IN WINTER. Excavation of City Streets during the winter months (herein defined as November 15 to April 1) will be allowed only if the work is a new service connection, required maintenance or emergency, or otherwise approved by the Engineer. Permanent patching of City streets excavated in the winter may be delayed until April 1, provided the permittee provides and maintains a temporary asphalt surface until such time as the permanent surfacing is accomplished. PRECONSTRUCTION PICTURES OF EXISTING PUBLIC WAY IMPROVEMENTS. Prior to commencing the permit work, the permittee is encouraged to secure pictures of the conditions of the existing public way improvements such as curbing, sidewalk, landscaping, asphalt surfaces, etc. TIME LIMIT. Unless authorized otherwise by the Engineer on the permit, all paving and replacement of street facilities shall be done within seven (7) calendar days from the time the excavation commences, or within three (3) calendar days on major or collector streets from the time excavation commences, except as provided for during excavation in winter or during weather conditions that do not allow paving according to applicable standards and specifications. If work is expected to exceed the above duration, the permittee shall submit a detailed construction schedule for approval. The schedule will address means and methods to minimize traffic disruption and complete the construction as soon as possible. EXCAVATION WITHIN 10 FEET OF STREET TREES. Before commencing excavation activities, Permittee shall contact Salt Lake City Urban Forestry (801) 535-7818 for an inspection. WORK SHALL COMPLY WITH PART 6 OF THE 2009 MUTCD. PERMITS MUST BE EXTENDED 24 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF EXPIRATION. IF THE TRAFFIC CONTROL PERMIT IS ALLOWED TO EXPIRE, A NEW PERMIT, AND AN ADDITIONAL FEE WILL BE REQUIRED. CLOSURES ON A DIFFERENT STREET THAN LISTED WILL REQUIRE AN ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC CONTROL, AND ENGINEERING PERMIT. THE ORGANIZATION ISSUED THE TRAFFIC CONTROL PERMIT SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL BARRICADE PLACEMENT AND MAINTENENCE. AN ADDITIONAL PERMIT FROM SLC ENGINEERING MAY ALSO BE REQUIRED. SHALL MAINTAIN ACCESS TO ALL PROPERTIES. SHALL INFORM BUSINESSES & RESIDENTS OF PROJECT & DURATION. SHALL COORDINATE WITH BUSINESSES & RESIDENTS AFFECTED. SHALL OBTAIN A PERMIT FOR ALL PARKING METERS OR OTHER RESTRICTED PARKING MADE UNAVAILBABLE TO THE PUBLIC. TRAFFIC CONTROL PERMITS ARE NOT VALID UNTIL PAID IN FULL. CHANGES TO PERMIT MAY BE REQUIRED AND MADE UPON REVIEW and/or COMPLAINT. Traffic Control Permit Salt Lake City Community and Neighborhoods Division of Transportation 349 South 200 East #150 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Telephone (801) 535-6630 E-Mail TechPermit@slcgov.com Permit # TRN2021-00702 Organization Name: CDM Federal Programs Corp Address: 10560 Arrowhead Drive Suite 500 Fairfax, 22030 Contact Person: Joseph Miller Phone: 5136021619 Cell: 5136021619 Barricade Company: Utah Barricade Barricade Phone: Project Name / Description: Parking lane closure for monitoring well reinstallation. Block Party Permit # General Work Type: Construction Specific Work Type: Barricade City Project # Public Way Permit # Special Event Permit # Start Date End Date Full Road Closure? Barricade Manual Fig # Description 04/01/2021 04/12/2021 No TA-6 Parking lane closure for monitoring well reinstallation Closure Type On Street Name From Number To Number Side of Street Street Gilmer Dr 1190 1192 S Page 1 of 1 Approved By: Joseph Jacobsen Issue Date: 3/24/2021 WORK SHALL COMPLY WITH PART 6 OF THE 2009 MUTCD. PERMITS MUST BE EXTENDED 24 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF EXPIRATION. IF THE TRAFFIC CONTROL PERMIT IS ALLOWED TO EXPIRE, A NEW PERMIT, AND AN ADDITIONAL FEE WILL BE REQUIRED. CLOSURES ON A DIFFERENT STREET THAN LISTED WILL REQUIRE AN ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC CONTROL, AND ENGINEERING PERMIT. THE ORGANIZATION ISSUED THE TRAFFIC CONTROL PERMIT SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL BARRICADE PLACEMENT AND MAINTENENCE. AN ADDITIONAL PERMIT FROM SLC ENGINEERING MAY ALSO BE REQUIRED. SHALL MAINTAIN ACCESS TO ALL PROPERTIES. SHALL INFORM BUSINESSES & RESIDENTS OF PROJECT & DURATION. SHALL COORDINATE WITH BUSINESSES & RESIDENTS AFFECTED. SHALL OBTAIN A PERMIT FOR ALL PARKING METERS OR OTHER RESTRICTED PARKING MADE UNAVAILBABLE TO THE PUBLIC. TRAFFIC CONTROL PERMITS ARE NOT VALID UNTIL PAID IN FULL. CHANGES TO PERMIT MAY BE REQUIRED AND MADE UPON REVIEW and/or COMPLAINT. Traffic Control Permit Salt Lake City Community and Neighborhoods Division of Transportation 349 South 200 East #150 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Telephone (801) 535-6630 E-Mail TechPermit@slcgov.com Permit # TRN2021-00693 Organization Name: CDM Smith Address: 619 Logan St, 301 Denver, 80203 Contact Person: Joseph Miller Phone: 5136021619 Cell: 5136021619 Barricade Company: Utah Barricade Barricade Phone: Project Name / Description: Closure for work in sidewalk area Block Party Permit # General Work Type: Construction Specific Work Type: Barricade City Project # Public Way Permit # Special Event Permit # Start Date End Date Full Road Closure? Barricade Manual Fig # Description 04/01/2021 04/12/2021 No TA-6 Closure for monitoring well installation in sidewalk area Closure Type On Street Name From Number To Number Side of Street Street E 900 S 1100 1100 S Page 1 of 1 Approved By: Joseph Jacobsen Issue Date: 3/23/2021 WORK SHALL COMPLY WITH PART 6 OF THE 2009 MUTCD. PERMITS MUST BE EXTENDED 24 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF EXPIRATION. IF THE TRAFFIC CONTROL PERMIT IS ALLOWED TO EXPIRE, A NEW PERMIT, AND AN ADDITIONAL FEE WILL BE REQUIRED. CLOSURES ON A DIFFERENT STREET THAN LISTED WILL REQUIRE AN ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC CONTROL, AND ENGINEERING PERMIT. THE ORGANIZATION ISSUED THE TRAFFIC CONTROL PERMIT SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL BARRICADE PLACEMENT AND MAINTENENCE. AN ADDITIONAL PERMIT FROM SLC ENGINEERING MAY ALSO BE REQUIRED. SHALL MAINTAIN ACCESS TO ALL PROPERTIES. SHALL INFORM BUSINESSES & RESIDENTS OF PROJECT & DURATION. SHALL COORDINATE WITH BUSINESSES & RESIDENTS AFFECTED. SHALL OBTAIN A PERMIT FOR ALL PARKING METERS OR OTHER RESTRICTED PARKING MADE UNAVAILBABLE TO THE PUBLIC. TRAFFIC CONTROL PERMITS ARE NOT VALID UNTIL PAID IN FULL. CHANGES TO PERMIT MAY BE REQUIRED AND MADE UPON REVIEW and/or COMPLAINT. Traffic Control Permit Salt Lake City Community and Neighborhoods Division of Transportation 349 South 200 East #150 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Telephone (801) 535-6630 E-Mail TechPermit@slcgov.com Permit # TRN2021-00694 Organization Name: CDM Federal Programs Corp Address: 10560 Arrowhead Drive Suite 500 Fairfax, 22030 Contact Person: Joseph Miller Phone: 5136021619 Cell: 5136021619 Barricade Company: Utah Barricade Barricade Phone: Project Name / Description: Alley closure for monitoring well reinstallation Block Party Permit # General Work Type: Construction Specific Work Type: Barricade City Project # Public Way Permit # Special Event Permit # Start Date End Date Full Road Closure? Barricade Manual Fig # Description 04/01/2021 04/09/2021 Yes SSTC Alleyway closure between Sunnyside Ave and 900 South Closure Type On Street Name From Number To Number Side of Street Street Sunnyside Ave ALLEY 1150 1160 N Page 1 of 1 Approved By: Joseph Jacobsen Issue Date: 3/23/2021 WORK SHALL COMPLY WITH PART 6 OF THE 2009 MUTCD. PERMITS MUST BE EXTENDED 24 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF EXPIRATION. IF THE TRAFFIC CONTROL PERMIT IS ALLOWED TO EXPIRE, A NEW PERMIT, AND AN ADDITIONAL FEE WILL BE REQUIRED. CLOSURES ON A DIFFERENT STREET THAN LISTED WILL REQUIRE AN ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC CONTROL, AND ENGINEERING PERMIT. THE ORGANIZATION ISSUED THE TRAFFIC CONTROL PERMIT SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL BARRICADE PLACEMENT AND MAINTENENCE. AN ADDITIONAL PERMIT FROM SLC ENGINEERING MAY ALSO BE REQUIRED. SHALL MAINTAIN ACCESS TO ALL PROPERTIES. SHALL INFORM BUSINESSES & RESIDENTS OF PROJECT & DURATION. SHALL COORDINATE WITH BUSINESSES & RESIDENTS AFFECTED. SHALL OBTAIN A PERMIT FOR ALL PARKING METERS OR OTHER RESTRICTED PARKING MADE UNAVAILBABLE TO THE PUBLIC. TRAFFIC CONTROL PERMITS ARE NOT VALID UNTIL PAID IN FULL. CHANGES TO PERMIT MAY BE REQUIRED AND MADE UPON REVIEW and/or COMPLAINT. Traffic Control Permit Salt Lake City Community and Neighborhoods Division of Transportation 349 South 200 East #150 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Telephone (801) 535-6630 E-Mail TechPermit@slcgov.com Permit # TRN2021-00695 Organization Name: CDM Federal Programs Corp Address: 10560 Arrowhead Drive Suite 500 Fairfax, 22030 Contact Person: Joseph Miller Phone: 5136021619 Cell: 5136021619 Barricade Company: Utah Barricade Barricade Phone: Project Name / Description: Monitoring well reinstall along north side of the road Block Party Permit # General Work Type: Construction Specific Work Type: Barricade City Project # Public Way Permit # Special Event Permit # Start Date End Date Full Road Closure? Barricade Manual Fig # Description 04/01/2021 04/12/2021 No TA-6 North side shoulder closure for monitoring well reinstall Closure Type On Street Name From Number To Number Side of Street Street Sunnyside Ave 1133 1137 N Start Date End Date Full Road Closure? Barricade Manual Fig # Description 04/01/2021 04/12/2021 No TA-6 Shoulder closure for work in parking lane Closure Type On Street Name From Number To Number Side of Street Street Sunnyside 1133 1137 N Page 1 of 1 Approved By: Joseph Jacobsen Issue Date: 3/23/2021 WORK SHALL COMPLY WITH PART 6 OF THE 2009 MUTCD. PERMITS MUST BE EXTENDED 24 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF EXPIRATION. IF THE TRAFFIC CONTROL PERMIT IS ALLOWED TO EXPIRE, A NEW PERMIT, AND AN ADDITIONAL FEE WILL BE REQUIRED. CLOSURES ON A DIFFERENT STREET THAN LISTED WILL REQUIRE AN ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC CONTROL, AND ENGINEERING PERMIT. THE ORGANIZATION ISSUED THE TRAFFIC CONTROL PERMIT SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL BARRICADE PLACEMENT AND MAINTENENCE. AN ADDITIONAL PERMIT FROM SLC ENGINEERING MAY ALSO BE REQUIRED. SHALL MAINTAIN ACCESS TO ALL PROPERTIES. SHALL INFORM BUSINESSES & RESIDENTS OF PROJECT & DURATION. SHALL COORDINATE WITH BUSINESSES & RESIDENTS AFFECTED. SHALL OBTAIN A PERMIT FOR ALL PARKING METERS OR OTHER RESTRICTED PARKING MADE UNAVAILBABLE TO THE PUBLIC. TRAFFIC CONTROL PERMITS ARE NOT VALID UNTIL PAID IN FULL. CHANGES TO PERMIT MAY BE REQUIRED AND MADE UPON REVIEW and/or COMPLAINT. Traffic Control Permit Salt Lake City Community and Neighborhoods Division of Transportation 349 South 200 East #150 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Telephone (801) 535-6630 E-Mail TechPermit@slcgov.com Permit # TRN2021-00696 Organization Name: CDM Smith Address: 619 Logan St, 301 Denver, 80203 Contact Person: Joseph Miller Phone: 5136021619 Cell: 5136021619 Barricade Company: Utah Barricade Barricade Phone: Project Name / Description: Closure of east shoulder for monitoring well reinstallation. Block Party Permit # General Work Type: Construction Specific Work Type: Barricade City Project # Public Way Permit # Special Event Permit # Start Date End Date Full Road Closure? Barricade Manual Fig # Description 04/01/2021 04/12/2021 No TA-6 Closure of east side of road for monitoring well reinstallation Closure Type On Street Name From Number To Number Side of Street Street S 1100 E 761 761 E Page 1 of 1 Approved By: Joseph Jacobsen Issue Date: 3/23/2021 WORK SHALL COMPLY WITH PART 6 OF THE 2009 MUTCD. PERMITS MUST BE EXTENDED 24 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF EXPIRATION. IF THE TRAFFIC CONTROL PERMIT IS ALLOWED TO EXPIRE, A NEW PERMIT, AND AN ADDITIONAL FEE WILL BE REQUIRED. CLOSURES ON A DIFFERENT STREET THAN LISTED WILL REQUIRE AN ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC CONTROL, AND ENGINEERING PERMIT. THE ORGANIZATION ISSUED THE TRAFFIC CONTROL PERMIT SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL BARRICADE PLACEMENT AND MAINTENENCE. AN ADDITIONAL PERMIT FROM SLC ENGINEERING MAY ALSO BE REQUIRED. SHALL MAINTAIN ACCESS TO ALL PROPERTIES. SHALL INFORM BUSINESSES & RESIDENTS OF PROJECT & DURATION. SHALL COORDINATE WITH BUSINESSES & RESIDENTS AFFECTED. SHALL OBTAIN A PERMIT FOR ALL PARKING METERS OR OTHER RESTRICTED PARKING MADE UNAVAILBABLE TO THE PUBLIC. TRAFFIC CONTROL PERMITS ARE NOT VALID UNTIL PAID IN FULL. CHANGES TO PERMIT MAY BE REQUIRED AND MADE UPON REVIEW and/or COMPLAINT. Traffic Control Permit Salt Lake City Community and Neighborhoods Division of Transportation 349 South 200 East #150 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Telephone (801) 535-6630 E-Mail TechPermit@slcgov.com Permit # TRN2021-00701 Organization Name: CDM Federal Programs Corp Address: 10560 Arrowhead Drive Suite 500 Fairfax, 22030 Contact Person: Joseph Miller Phone: 5136021619 Cell: 5136021619 Barricade Company: Utah Barricade Barricade Phone: Project Name / Description: Parking lane closure on south side of 800 South next to East High School for monitoring well installation Block Party Permit # General Work Type: Construction Specific Work Type: Barricade City Project # Public Way Permit # Special Event Permit # Start Date End Date Full Road Closure? Barricade Manual Fig # Description 04/01/2021 04/12/2021 No TA-6 Parking lane closure for monitoring well installation. Closure Type On Street Name From Number To Number Side of Street Street 800 S 1218 1240 S Page 1 of 1 Approved By: Joseph Jacobsen Issue Date: 3/24/2021 WORK SHALL COMPLY WITH PART 6 OF THE 2009 MUTCD. PERMITS MUST BE EXTENDED 24 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF EXPIRATION. IF THE TRAFFIC CONTROL PERMIT IS ALLOWED TO EXPIRE, A NEW PERMIT, AND AN ADDITIONAL FEE WILL BE REQUIRED. CLOSURES ON A DIFFERENT STREET THAN LISTED WILL REQUIRE AN ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC CONTROL, AND ENGINEERING PERMIT. THE ORGANIZATION ISSUED THE TRAFFIC CONTROL PERMIT SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL BARRICADE PLACEMENT AND MAINTENENCE. AN ADDITIONAL PERMIT FROM SLC ENGINEERING MAY ALSO BE REQUIRED. SHALL MAINTAIN ACCESS TO ALL PROPERTIES. SHALL INFORM BUSINESSES & RESIDENTS OF PROJECT & DURATION. SHALL COORDINATE WITH BUSINESSES & RESIDENTS AFFECTED. SHALL OBTAIN A PERMIT FOR ALL PARKING METERS OR OTHER RESTRICTED PARKING MADE UNAVAILBABLE TO THE PUBLIC. TRAFFIC CONTROL PERMITS ARE NOT VALID UNTIL PAID IN FULL. CHANGES TO PERMIT MAY BE REQUIRED AND MADE UPON REVIEW and/or COMPLAINT. Traffic Control Permit Salt Lake City Community and Neighborhoods Division of Transportation 349 South 200 East #150 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Telephone (801) 535-6630 E-Mail TechPermit@slcgov.com Permit # TRN2021-00703 Organization Name: CDM Federal Programs Corp Address: 10560 Arrowhead Drive Suite 500 Fairfax, UT 22030 Contact Person: Joseph Miller Phone: 5136021619 Cell: 5136021619 Barricade Company: Utah Barricade Barricade Phone: Project Name / Description: Parking lane closure for monitoring well reinstallation in planting strip. Block Party Permit # General Work Type: Construction Specific Work Type: Barricade City Project # Public Way Permit # Special Event Permit # Start Date End Date Full Road Closure? Barricade Manual Fig # Description Special Requirements 04/01/2021 04/12/2021 No TA-6, T-28 Parking lane closure for Monitoring well reinstallation Shoulder work only. Shall maintain access to all properties and notify businesses and residents affected of project and duration. May close sidewalk for safety, barricading as may be required for pedestrians and persons with disabilities. Closure Type On Street Name From Number To Number Side of Street Street 900 South 1244 E 1244 E S Page 1 of 1 Approved By: Dave Pratt Issue Date: 3/24/2021 WORK SHALL COMPLY WITH PART 6 OF THE 2009 MUTCD. PERMITS MUST BE EXTENDED 24 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF EXPIRATION. IF THE TRAFFIC CONTROL PERMIT IS ALLOWED TO EXPIRE, A NEW PERMIT, AND AN ADDITIONAL FEE WILL BE REQUIRED. CLOSURES ON A DIFFERENT STREET THAN LISTED WILL REQUIRE AN ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC CONTROL, AND ENGINEERING PERMIT. THE ORGANIZATION ISSUED THE TRAFFIC CONTROL PERMIT SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL BARRICADE PLACEMENT AND MAINTENENCE. AN ADDITIONAL PERMIT FROM SLC ENGINEERING MAY ALSO BE REQUIRED. SHALL MAINTAIN ACCESS TO ALL PROPERTIES. SHALL INFORM BUSINESSES & RESIDENTS OF PROJECT & DURATION. SHALL COORDINATE WITH BUSINESSES & RESIDENTS AFFECTED. SHALL OBTAIN A PERMIT FOR ALL PARKING METERS OR OTHER RESTRICTED PARKING MADE UNAVAILBABLE TO THE PUBLIC. TRAFFIC CONTROL PERMITS ARE NOT VALID UNTIL PAID IN FULL. CHANGES TO PERMIT MAY BE REQUIRED AND MADE UPON REVIEW and/or COMPLAINT. Traffic Control Permit Salt Lake City Community and Neighborhoods Division of Transportation 349 South 200 East #150 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Telephone (801) 535-6630 E-Mail TechPermit@slcgov.com Permit # TRN2021-00704 Organization Name: CDM Federal Programs Corp Address: 10560 Arrowhead Drive Suite 500 Fairfax, UT 22030 Contact Person: Joseph Miller Phone: 5136021619 Cell: 5136021619 Barricade Company: Utah Barricade Barricade Phone: Project Name / Description: Parking lane closure on east side of 900 S for monitoring well reinstallation. (I think you meant the e/side of 1200 E because 900 S is n/side or s/side). Block Party Permit # General Work Type: Construction Specific Work Type: Barricade City Project # Public Way Permit # Special Event Permit # Start Date End Date Full Road Closure? Barricade Manual Fig # Description Special Requirements 04/01/2021 04/12/2021 No TA-6 Parking lane closure on east side of 900 S Shoulder work only. Shall maintain access to all properties and notify businesses and residents affected of project and duration. Closure Type On Street Name From Number To Number Side of Street Street 1200 E 906 S 906 S E Page 1 of 1 Approved By: Dave Pratt Issue Date: 3/24/2021 WORK SHALL COMPLY WITH PART 6 OF THE 2009 MUTCD. PERMITS MUST BE EXTENDED 24 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF EXPIRATION. IF THE TRAFFIC CONTROL PERMIT IS ALLOWED TO EXPIRE, A NEW PERMIT, AND AN ADDITIONAL FEE WILL BE REQUIRED. CLOSURES ON A DIFFERENT STREET THAN LISTED WILL REQUIRE AN ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC CONTROL, AND ENGINEERING PERMIT. THE ORGANIZATION ISSUED THE TRAFFIC CONTROL PERMIT SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL BARRICADE PLACEMENT AND MAINTENENCE. AN ADDITIONAL PERMIT FROM SLC ENGINEERING MAY ALSO BE REQUIRED. SHALL MAINTAIN ACCESS TO ALL PROPERTIES. SHALL INFORM BUSINESSES & RESIDENTS OF PROJECT & DURATION. SHALL COORDINATE WITH BUSINESSES & RESIDENTS AFFECTED. SHALL OBTAIN A PERMIT FOR ALL PARKING METERS OR OTHER RESTRICTED PARKING MADE UNAVAILBABLE TO THE PUBLIC. TRAFFIC CONTROL PERMITS ARE NOT VALID UNTIL PAID IN FULL. CHANGES TO PERMIT MAY BE REQUIRED AND MADE UPON REVIEW and/or COMPLAINT. Traffic Control Permit Salt Lake City Community and Neighborhoods Division of Transportation 349 South 200 East #150 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Telephone (801) 535-6630 E-Mail TechPermit@slcgov.com Permit # TRN2021-00705 Organization Name: CDM Federal Programs Corp Address: 10560 Arrowhead Drive Suite 500 Fairfax, 22030 Contact Person: Joseph Miller Phone: 5136021619 Cell: 5136021619 Barricade Company: Utah Barricade Barricade Phone: Project Name / Description: Parking lane closure for monitoring well reinstallation near the corner of S 1100 E and sunnyside avenue Block Party Permit # General Work Type: Construction Specific Work Type: Barricade City Project # Public Way Permit # Special Event Permit # Start Date End Date Full Road Closure? Barricade Manual Fig # Description Special Requirements 04/01/2021 04/12/2021 No TA-6 Parking lane closure along 1100E Shall maintain access to all properties and notify residents affected of project and duration. Closure Type On Street Name From Number To Number Side of Street Street 1100 E 849 S 849 S E Page 1 of 1 Approved By: Dave Pratt Issue Date: 3/24/2021 WORK SHALL COMPLY WITH PART 6 OF THE 2009 MUTCD. PERMITS MUST BE EXTENDED 24 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF EXPIRATION. IF THE TRAFFIC CONTROL PERMIT IS ALLOWED TO EXPIRE, A NEW PERMIT, AND AN ADDITIONAL FEE WILL BE REQUIRED. CLOSURES ON A DIFFERENT STREET THAN LISTED WILL REQUIRE AN ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC CONTROL, AND ENGINEERING PERMIT. THE ORGANIZATION ISSUED THE TRAFFIC CONTROL PERMIT SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL BARRICADE PLACEMENT AND MAINTENENCE. AN ADDITIONAL PERMIT FROM SLC ENGINEERING MAY ALSO BE REQUIRED. SHALL MAINTAIN ACCESS TO ALL PROPERTIES. SHALL INFORM BUSINESSES & RESIDENTS OF PROJECT & DURATION. SHALL COORDINATE WITH BUSINESSES & RESIDENTS AFFECTED. SHALL OBTAIN A PERMIT FOR ALL PARKING METERS OR OTHER RESTRICTED PARKING MADE UNAVAILBABLE TO THE PUBLIC. TRAFFIC CONTROL PERMITS ARE NOT VALID UNTIL PAID IN FULL. CHANGES TO PERMIT MAY BE REQUIRED AND MADE UPON REVIEW and/or COMPLAINT. Traffic Control Permit Salt Lake City Community and Neighborhoods Division of Transportation 349 South 200 East #150 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Telephone (801) 535-6630 E-Mail TechPermit@slcgov.com Permit # TRN2021-00706 Organization Name: CDM Federal Programs Corp Address: 10560 Arrowhead Drive Suite 500 Fairfax, 22030 Contact Person: Joseph Miller Phone: 5136021619 Cell: 5136021619 Barricade Company: Utah Barricade Barricade Phone: Project Name / Description: Parking lane closure for well abandonment on the south side of michigan avenue Block Party Permit # General Work Type: Construction Specific Work Type: Barricade City Project # Public Way Permit # Special Event Permit # Start Date End Date Full Road Closure? Barricade Manual Fig # Description Special Requirements 04/01/2021 04/12/2021 No TA-6 Parking lane closure on South side of michigan avenue Shoulder work only. Shall maintain access to all properties and notify residents affected of project and duration if parking needs to be restricted for safety. Closure Type On Street Name From Number To Number Side of Street Street Michigan Ave 1146 E 1146 E S Page 1 of 1 Approved By: Dave Pratt Issue Date: 3/24/2021 WORK SHALL COMPLY WITH PART 6 OF THE 2009 MUTCD. PERMITS MUST BE EXTENDED 24 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF EXPIRATION. IF THE TRAFFIC CONTROL PERMIT IS ALLOWED TO EXPIRE, A NEW PERMIT, AND AN ADDITIONAL FEE WILL BE REQUIRED. CLOSURES ON A DIFFERENT STREET THAN LISTED WILL REQUIRE AN ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC CONTROL, AND ENGINEERING PERMIT. THE ORGANIZATION ISSUED THE TRAFFIC CONTROL PERMIT SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL BARRICADE PLACEMENT AND MAINTENENCE. AN ADDITIONAL PERMIT FROM SLC ENGINEERING MAY ALSO BE REQUIRED. SHALL MAINTAIN ACCESS TO ALL PROPERTIES. SHALL INFORM BUSINESSES & RESIDENTS OF PROJECT & DURATION. SHALL COORDINATE WITH BUSINESSES & RESIDENTS AFFECTED. SHALL OBTAIN A PERMIT FOR ALL PARKING METERS OR OTHER RESTRICTED PARKING MADE UNAVAILBABLE TO THE PUBLIC. TRAFFIC CONTROL PERMITS ARE NOT VALID UNTIL PAID IN FULL. CHANGES TO PERMIT MAY BE REQUIRED AND MADE UPON REVIEW and/or COMPLAINT. Traffic Control Permit Salt Lake City Community and Neighborhoods Division of Transportation 349 South 200 East #150 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Telephone (801) 535-6630 E-Mail TechPermit@slcgov.com Permit # TRN2021-00707 Organization Name: CDM Federal Programs Corp Address: 10560 Arrowhead Drive Suite 500 Fairfax, UT 22030 Contact Person: Joseph Miller Phone: 5136021619 Cell: 5136021619 Barricade Company: Utah Barricade Barricade Phone: Project Name / Description: Parking lane closure on north side of Michigan ave near the intersection with 1200 E. Block Party Permit # General Work Type: Construction Specific Work Type: Barricade City Project # Public Way Permit # Special Event Permit # Start Date End Date Full Road Closure? Barricade Manual Fig # Description Special Requirements 04/01/2021 04/12/2021 No TA-6 Parking lane closure on north side of michigan ave Shoulder work only. Shall maintain access to all properties and coordinate with residents and businesses affected. Shall notify residents and businesses affected if parking must be restricted for safety and access to properties. Closure Type On Street Name From Number To Number Side of Street Street Michigan 1161 S 1163 S N Start Date End Date Full Road Closure? Barricade Manual Fig # Description Special Requirements 04/01/2021 04/12/2021 No TA-28, TA-29 May close sidewalk as needed for safety. Shall barricade as may be required for pedestrians and persons with disabilities. Closure Type On Street Name From Number To Number Side of Street Sidewalk Michigan 1161 S 1163 S N Page 1 of 1 Approved By: Dave Pratt Issue Date: 3/24/2021 WORK SHALL COMPLY WITH PART 6 OF THE 2009 MUTCD. PERMITS MUST BE EXTENDED 24 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF EXPIRATION. IF THE TRAFFIC CONTROL PERMIT IS ALLOWED TO EXPIRE, A NEW PERMIT, AND AN ADDITIONAL FEE WILL BE REQUIRED. CLOSURES ON A DIFFERENT STREET THAN LISTED WILL REQUIRE AN ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC CONTROL, AND ENGINEERING PERMIT. THE ORGANIZATION ISSUED THE TRAFFIC CONTROL PERMIT SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL BARRICADE PLACEMENT AND MAINTENENCE. AN ADDITIONAL PERMIT FROM SLC ENGINEERING MAY ALSO BE REQUIRED. SHALL MAINTAIN ACCESS TO ALL PROPERTIES. SHALL INFORM BUSINESSES & RESIDENTS OF PROJECT & DURATION. SHALL COORDINATE WITH BUSINESSES & RESIDENTS AFFECTED. SHALL OBTAIN A PERMIT FOR ALL PARKING METERS OR OTHER RESTRICTED PARKING MADE UNAVAILBABLE TO THE PUBLIC. TRAFFIC CONTROL PERMITS ARE NOT VALID UNTIL PAID IN FULL. CHANGES TO PERMIT MAY BE REQUIRED AND MADE UPON REVIEW and/or COMPLAINT. Traffic Control Permit Salt Lake City Community and Neighborhoods Division of Transportation 349 South 200 East #150 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Telephone (801) 535-6630 E-Mail TechPermit@slcgov.com Permit # TRN2021-00709 Organization Name: CDM Federal Programs Corp Address: 10560 Arrowhead Drive Suite 500 Fairfax, UT 22030 Contact Person: Joseph Miller Phone: 5136021619 Cell: 5136021619 Barricade Company: Utah Barricade Barricade Phone: Project Name / Description: Parking lane closure on east side of douglas street for monitoring well installation Block Party Permit # General Work Type: Construction Specific Work Type: Barricade City Project # Public Way Permit # Special Event Permit # Start Date End Date Full Road Closure? Barricade Manual Fig # Description Special Requirements 04/01/2021 04/12/2021 No TA-6 Parking lane closure on east side of douglas st. Shoulder work only. Shall maintain access to all properties and coordinate with residents affected. Shall notify residents of project and duration if parking is to be restricted for safety. Closure Type On Street Name From Number To Number Side of Street Street Douglas 705 S 707 S E Page 1 of 1 Approved By: Dave Pratt Issue Date: 3/24/2021 Appendix F Borehole Logs with Well Construction Diagrams 1.0 5.0 7.0 10.0 13.0 15.0 16.5 18.5 19.0 20.0 Top soil; dark brown Sandy SILT; non-cohesive; non-plastic; (7.5YR 3/3) dark brown with gray mottling; moist Lean CLAY; stiff; low to medium plasticity; cohesive; trace gravel; (5Y 5/2) olive gray; moist Silty SAND; medium dense; fine sand; cohesive; reddish brown/grayish brown mottled; wet - Increase clay; trace fine gravel Sandy CLAY; lean; medium plasticity; mottled reddish brown/grayish brown; moist to wet Poorly graded SAND with silt; fine sand, (5YR 6/6) yellowish red; wet; saturated Silty SAND; fine sand; slightly cohesive; (7.5YR 4/3) brown; moist to wet Poorly Graded SAND; fine to coarse; (7.5YR 4/3) brown; wet CLAY; lean; trace gravel; medium plasticity; moist Silty GRAVEL with Sand; fine to coarse gravel; fine sand; dense; moist Boring TD at 20' bgs Flush-mounted vault (6-inch). Hydrated bentonite chips (2 to 4.5 ft bgs). Soil Vapor Probe 2-inch SCH 40 PVC blank. #10/20 sand filter pack (8 to 20 ft bgs). 2-inch SCH 40 PVC 0.010-slot screen well (9 to 19 ft bgs). 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ML CL SM CL SP SM SP CL GM WELL DIAGRAMLITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION PI D ( p p m ) CO N T A C T DE P T H DE P T H (f t . B G L ) EX T E N T U. S . C . S . SA M P L E I D . GR A P H I C LO G Ma g n e t i c Su s c e p t i b i l i t y GROUT TYPE/QUANTITY DPT Core GROUND ELEVATION (FT MSL) TOP OF CASING (FT MSL) 4375.25 CASING TYPE/DIAMETER Joe Miller Salt Lake City, UT GRAVEL PACK TYPE HSA/DPT SCREEN TYPE/SLOT LOGGED BY DRILLING METHOD SAMPLING METHOD 8.67 LOCATION 2-inch Schedule 40 0.010-slot #10/20 sand REMARKS 4383.92 4383.49 GROUND WATER ELEVATION (FT MSL) DEPTH TO WATER (FT BGS) Hydrated Bentonite Chips 2-inch Schedule 40 PVC 4/5/2021 5 10 15 20 700 S 1600 E PCE Plume BORING/WELL NUMBER238824.6495-F3048-005.DRILL BORING/WELL CONSTRUCTION LOG 555 17th Street, Suite 500 Denver, CO 80202 (303) 383-2300 PROJECT NAME RG-01 PAGE 1 OF 1 DATE DRILLED PROJECT NUMBER WH I T N E Y ' S B O R I N G L O G S L C V A P L U M E D R A F T _ 0 5 1 9 2 1 . G P J L A E W N N 0 1 . G D T 6 / 1 4 / 2 1 Replacing GW-10 5.0 10.0 15.0 Sandy SILT; cohesive; (5YR 3/1) very dark gray; moist Sandy SILT; slightly cohesive; fine sand; (7.5Y 3/1) very dark gray; wet Silty SAND; fine to medium sand; loose; (2.5Y 5/2) grayish brown; wet (saturated) Boring TD at 15' bgs Flush-mounted vault (6-inch). Hydrated bentonite chips (2 to 4 ft bgs). #10/20 sand filter pack (4 to 15 ft bgs). 2-inch SCH 40 PVC 0.010-slot screen well (5 to 15 ft bgs). 3.8 6.2 1.4 ML ML SM WELL DIAGRAMLITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION PI D ( p p m ) CO N T A C T DE P T H DE P T H (f t . B G L ) EX T E N T U. S . C . S . SA M P L E I D . GR A P H I C LO G Ma g n e t i c Su s c e p t i b i l i t y GROUT TYPE/QUANTITY HSA Cuttings GROUND ELEVATION (FT MSL) TOP OF CASING (FT MSL) 4434.60 CASING TYPE/DIAMETER Joe Miller Salt Lake City, UT GRAVEL PACK TYPE HSA SCREEN TYPE/SLOT LOGGED BY DRILLING METHOD SAMPLING METHOD 2.72 LOCATION 2-inch Schedule 40 0.010-slot #10/20 sand REMARKS 4437.32 4436.95 GROUND WATER ELEVATION (FT MSL) DEPTH TO WATER (FT BGS) Hydrated Bentonite Chips 2-inch Schedule 40 PVC 4/2/2021 5 10 15 700 S 1600 E PCE Plume BORING/WELL NUMBER238824.6495-F3048-005.DRILL BORING/WELL CONSTRUCTION LOG 555 17th Street, Suite 500 Denver, CO 80202 (303) 383-2300 PROJECT NAME RG-02 PAGE 1 OF 1 DATE DRILLED PROJECT NUMBER WH I T N E Y ' S B O R I N G L O G S L C V A P L U M E D R A F T _ 0 5 1 9 2 1 . G P J L A E W N N 0 1 . G D T 6 / 1 4 / 2 1 Replacing GW-11 0.4 2.0 6.0 8.0 Topsoil Sandy SILT; non-plastic; soft; fine to coarse sand; trace fine gravel; (7.5YR 5/3) brown; moist Clayey GRAVEL with Sand; fine angular to subrounded gravel; fine to coarse sand; loose; (10YR 5/4) yellowish brown; moist Clayey SAND; fine to medium sand; medium dense; cohesive; (5YR 5/2) grayish brown; wet TD boring at 8' bgs Flush-mounted vault (6-inch). Hydrated bentonite chips (1 to 2 ft bgs). #10/20 sand filter pack (2 to 8 ft bgs). 2-inch SCH 40 PVC 0.010-slot screen well (3 to 8 ft bgs). 4.0 2.9 ML GC SC WELL DIAGRAMLITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION PI D ( p p m ) CO N T A C T DE P T H DE P T H (f t . B G L ) EX T E N T U. S . C . S . SA M P L E I D . GR A P H I C LO G Ma g n e t i c Su s c e p t i b i l i t y GROUT TYPE/QUANTITY HSA Cuttings GROUND ELEVATION (FT MSL) TOP OF CASING (FT MSL) 4419.83 CASING TYPE/DIAMETER Joe Miller Salt Lake City, UT GRAVEL PACK TYPE HSA SCREEN TYPE/SLOT LOGGED BY DRILLING METHOD SAMPLING METHOD 3.15 LOCATION 2-inch Schedule 40 0.010-slot #10/20 sand REMARKS 4422.98 4422.53 GROUND WATER ELEVATION (FT MSL) DEPTH TO WATER (FT BGS) Hydrated Bentonite Chips 2-inch Schedule 40 PVC 4/2/2021 5 700 S 1600 E PCE Plume BORING/WELL NUMBER238824.6495-F3048-005.DRILL BORING/WELL CONSTRUCTION LOG 555 17th Street, Suite 500 Denver, CO 80202 (303) 383-2300 PROJECT NAME RG-03 PAGE 1 OF 1 DATE DRILLED PROJECT NUMBER WH I T N E Y ' S B O R I N G L O G S L C V A P L U M E D R A F T _ 0 5 1 9 2 1 . G P J L A E W N N 0 1 . G D T 6 / 1 4 / 2 1 Replacing GW-16 0.3 6.0 6.5 12.0 13.0 15.0 18.0 20.0 Sandy SILT with Gravel; fine to medium sand; fine subrounded to rounded gravel; stiff; cohesive; (7.5YR 3/3) dark brown; moist CLAY, lean; stiff; plastic; trace fine sand; (5Y 7/2) light gray; dry Sandy CLAY; lean; cohesive; fine to medium sand; trace fine gravel; stiff; (7.5YR 4/6) strong brown; dry to moist Gravelly CLAY; lean; cohesive; subangular to subrounded fine gravel; low plasticity; moist Sandy SILT; lean; cohesive; fine sand; stiff; (5Y 7/2) light gray; wet Poorly graded SAND with Silt and Gravel; fine to coarse sand; fine gravel; loose; (5Y 7/2) light gray; wet Sandy CLAY; lean; cohesive; low to medium plasticity; stiff; gray and light brown mottled; moist TD boring at 20' bgs Flush-mounted vault (6-inch). Hydrated bentonite chips (2 to 4 ft bgs). Soil Vapor Probe 2-inch SCH 40 PVC blank. #10/20 sand filter pack (9 to 20 ft bgs). 2-inch SCH 40 PVC 0.010-slot screen well (10 to 20 ft bgs). 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ML CL CL CL ML SP CL WELL DIAGRAMLITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION PI D ( p p m ) CO N T A C T DE P T H DE P T H (f t . B G L ) EX T E N T U. S . C . S . SA M P L E I D . GR A P H I C LO G Ma g n e t i c Su s c e p t i b i l i t y GROUT TYPE/QUANTITY HSA Cuttings GROUND ELEVATION (FT MSL) TOP OF CASING (FT MSL) 4405.81 CASING TYPE/DIAMETER Joe Miller Salt Lake City, UT GRAVEL PACK TYPE HSA SCREEN TYPE/SLOT LOGGED BY DRILLING METHOD SAMPLING METHOD 10.02 LOCATION 2-inch Schedule 40 0.010-slot #10/20 sand REMARKS 4415.83 4415.47 GROUND WATER ELEVATION (FT MSL) DEPTH TO WATER (FT BGS) Hydrated Bentonite Chips 2-inch Schedule 40 PVC 4/5/2021 5 10 15 20 700 S 1600 E PCE Plume BORING/WELL NUMBER238824.6495-F3048-005.DRILL BORING/WELL CONSTRUCTION LOG 555 17th Street, Suite 500 Denver, CO 80202 (303) 383-2300 PROJECT NAME RG-04 PAGE 1 OF 1 DATE DRILLED PROJECT NUMBER WH I T N E Y ' S B O R I N G L O G S L C V A P L U M E D R A F T _ 0 5 1 9 2 1 . G P J L A E W N N 0 1 . G D T 6 / 1 4 / 2 1 Replacing GW-20 1.0 6.0 11.0 16.0 17.0 18.0 20.0 21.0 23.5 27.0 30.0 Topsoil CLAY; lean; cohesive; stiff; (10YR 4/2) dark grayish brown; moist Sandy SILT; fine sand; laminated; stiff; (10YR 4/4) dark yellowish brown; moist Silty SAND; poorly graded fine; medium dense; (10YR 5/8) yellowish brown; moist Sandy SILT; fine sand; cohesive; (7.5YR 4/4) brown; moist to wet Poorly Graded SAND; fine to coarse sand; medium dense; (7.5YR 4/4) brown; moist Silty GRAVEL; fine to coarse gravel; subangular to angular; cemented in places; (5YR 4/4) reddish brown; moist Poorly Graded GRAVEL; fine to coarse gravel; fine to coarse sand; dense; weakly cemented; brown and gray mottled; moist Sandy CLAY; lean; low plasticity; firm; trace gravel; (5YR 5/6) yellowish red; moist Silty SAND; poorly graded fine sand; medium dense; (5YR 5/4) reddish brown; wet Poorly Graded GRAVEL with Sand and Silt; fine to coarse gravel; fine to coarse sand; medium dense; (5YR 5/3) reddish brown; wet TD boring at 30' bgs Flush-mounted vault (6-inch). Hydrated bentonite chips (2 to 4 ft bgs). Soil Vapor Probe 2-inch SCH 40 PVC blank. Hydrated bentonite chips (7 to 18 ft bgs). #10/20 sand filter pack (18 to 30 ft bgs). 2-inch SCH 40 PVC 0.010-slot screen well (20 to 30 ft bgs). 4.8 0.7 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 CL ML SM ML SP GM GP CL SM GP WELL DIAGRAMLITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION PI D ( p p m ) CO N T A C T DE P T H DE P T H (f t . B G L ) EX T E N T U. S . C . S . SA M P L E I D . GR A P H I C LO G Ma g n e t i c Su s c e p t i b i l i t y GROUT TYPE/QUANTITY DPT Core GROUND ELEVATION (FT MSL) TOP OF CASING (FT MSL) 4473.74 CASING TYPE/DIAMETER Joe Miller Salt Lake City, UT GRAVEL PACK TYPE HSA/DPT SCREEN TYPE/SLOT LOGGED BY DRILLING METHOD SAMPLING METHOD 23.64 LOCATION 2-inch Schedule 40 0.010-slot #10/20 sand REMARKS 4497.38 4496.96 GROUND WATER ELEVATION (FT MSL) DEPTH TO WATER (FT BGS) Hydrated Bentonite Chips 2-inch Schedule 40 PVC 4/3/2021 5 10 15 20 25 30 700 S 1600 E PCE Plume BORING/WELL NUMBER238824.6495-F3048-005.DRILL BORING/WELL CONSTRUCTION LOG 555 17th Street, Suite 500 Denver, CO 80202 (303) 383-2300 PROJECT NAME RG-05 PAGE 1 OF 1 DATE DRILLED PROJECT NUMBER WH I T N E Y ' S B O R I N G L O G S L C V A P L U M E D R A F T _ 0 5 1 9 2 1 . G P J L A E W N N 0 1 . G D T 6 / 1 4 / 2 1 Drilled near former well GW-27 0.8 6.5 10.0 Topsoil Sandy SILT; cohesive; fine sand; dark gray; moist - becomes wet Silty SAND; fine sand; cohesive; gray; wet TD boring at 10' bgs Flush-mounted vault (6-inch). Hydrated bentonite chips (1.5 to 3 ft bgs). #10/20 sand filter pack (3 to 10 ft bgs). 2-inch SCH 40 PVC 0.010-slot screen well (4 to 9 ft bgs). 0.0 0.0 ML SM WELL DIAGRAMLITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION PI D ( p p m ) CO N T A C T DE P T H DE P T H (f t . B G L ) EX T E N T U. S . C . S . SA M P L E I D . GR A P H I C LO G Ma g n e t i c Su s c e p t i b i l i t y GROUT TYPE/QUANTITY HSA Cuttings GROUND ELEVATION (FT MSL) TOP OF CASING (FT MSL) 4441.35 CASING TYPE/DIAMETER Joe Miller Salt Lake City, UT GRAVEL PACK TYPE HSA SCREEN TYPE/SLOT LOGGED BY DRILLING METHOD SAMPLING METHOD 2.31 LOCATION 2-inch Schedule 40 0.010-slot #10/20 sand REMARKS 4443.66 4443.23 GROUND WATER ELEVATION (FT MSL) DEPTH TO WATER (FT BGS) Hydrated Bentonite Chips 2-inch Schedule 40 PVC 4/5/2021 5 10 700 S 1600 E PCE Plume BORING/WELL NUMBER238824.6495-F3048-005.DRILL BORING/WELL CONSTRUCTION LOG 555 17th Street, Suite 500 Denver, CO 80202 (303) 383-2300 PROJECT NAME RG-06 PAGE 1 OF 1 DATE DRILLED PROJECT NUMBER WH I T N E Y ' S B O R I N G L O G S L C V A P L U M E D R A F T _ 0 6 1 4 2 1 . G P J L A E W N N 0 1 . G D T 6 / 1 4 / 2 1 Replacing GW-50 1.5 5.0 6.0 15.0 20.0 26.0 30.0 Topsoil Silty SAND; Fine; loose; 5YR 4/4 reddish brown; moist CLAY with Sand; low plasticity; fine sand; stiff; (2.5Y 7/2) light gray; dry Silty SAND; poorly graded fine sand; laminated in places; dense; (5YR 4/3) reddish brown; moist Well Graded SAND with Gravel; fine to coarse sand; fine to coarse rounded to subangular gravel; loose; (5YR 4/3) reddish brown; moist Silty SAND; fine to coarse; cohesive; compact; trace gravel; (5YR 3/4) dark reddish brown; moist to wet -Increase moisture Clayey SAND; fine sand; medium dense; (5YR 4/6) yellowish red; wet TD boring at 30' bgs Flush-mounted vault (6-inch). Hydrated bentonite chips (2 to 4 ft bgs). Soil Vapor Probe #10/20 sand filter pack (4 to 7 ft bgs). 2-inch SCH 40 PVC blank. Hydrated bentonite chips (7 to 18 ft bgs). #10/20 sand filter pack (18 to 30 ft bgs). 2-inch SCH 40 PVC 0.010-slot screen well (20 to 30 ft bgs). 0.0 9.1 2.5 3.4 0 0 SM CL SM SW SM SC WELL DIAGRAMLITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION PI D ( p p m ) CO N T A C T DE P T H DE P T H (f t . B G L ) EX T E N T U. S . C . S . SA M P L E I D . GR A P H I C LO G Ma g n e t i c Su s c e p t i b i l i t y GROUT TYPE/QUANTITY HSA Cuttings GROUND ELEVATION (FT MSL) TOP OF CASING (FT MSL) 4469.21 CASING TYPE/DIAMETER Joe Miller Salt Lake City, UT GRAVEL PACK TYPE HSA SCREEN TYPE/SLOT LOGGED BY DRILLING METHOD SAMPLING METHOD 21.09 LOCATION 2-inch Schedule 40 0.010-slot #10/20 sand REMARKS 4490.30 4490.05 GROUND WATER ELEVATION (FT MSL) DEPTH TO WATER (FT BGS) Hydrated Bentonite Chips 2-inch Schedule 40 PVC 4/2/2021 5 10 15 20 25 30 700 S 1600 E PCE Plume BORING/WELL NUMBER238824.6495-F3048-005.DRILL BORING/WELL CONSTRUCTION LOG 555 17th Street, Suite 500 Denver, CO 80202 (303) 383-2300 PROJECT NAME RG-07 PAGE 1 OF 1 DATE DRILLED PROJECT NUMBER WH I T N E Y ' S B O R I N G L O G S L C V A P L U M E D R A F T _ 0 5 1 9 2 1 . G P J L A E W N N 0 1 . G D T 6 / 1 4 / 2 1 Replacing GW-52 1.0 2.0 3.0 5.0 7.0 12.0 13.0 15.0 18.5 19.0 20.0 Concrete Gravelly CLAY; cohesive; low plasticity; fine gravel; (2.5YR 6/2) light brownish gray; moist Silty SAND; poorly graded fine to coarse sand; medium dense; (2.5YR 6/2) light brownish gray; moist Sandy GRAVEL with SILT; poorly graded, fine to coarse rounded to subrounded gravel; dense; (10YR 6/2) light brownish gray with orange/yellow mottling; moist Clayey SILT; slightly cohesive; trace fine gravel; stiff; (10YR 6/4) light yellowish brown; moist to wet Silty SAND; poorly graded fine sand; cohesive; dense; (7.5YR 5/4) brown; wet -saturated Poorly graded GRAVEL; fine to coarse gravel; fine sand; loose; (7.5YR 5/4) brown; wet SILT; shoesive; stiff; (7.5YR 5/4) brown; moist Silty GRAVEL with Sand; fine to coarse angular to rounded gravel; fine sand; cohesive; medium dense; (5YR 6/4) light reddish brown; wet Clayey SILT; cohesive; firm; (5YR 4/4) reddish brown; moist Gravelly SILT; cohesive; fine gravel; firm; (5YR 4/4) reddish brown; moist TD boring at 20' bgs Flush-mounted vault (6-inch). Hydrated bentonite chips (2 to 4 ft bgs). Soil Vapor Probe 2-inch SCH 40 PVC blank. #10/20 sand filter pack (7 to 20 ft bgs). 2-inch SCH 40 PVC 0.010-slot screen well (8 to 18 ft bgs). 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 CL SM GP ML SM GP ML GM ML ML WELL DIAGRAMLITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION PI D ( p p m ) CO N T A C T DE P T H DE P T H (f t . B G L ) EX T E N T U. S . C . S . SA M P L E I D . GR A P H I C LO G Ma g n e t i c Su s c e p t i b i l i t y GROUT TYPE/QUANTITY DPT Core GROUND ELEVATION (FT MSL) TOP OF CASING (FT MSL) 4449.45 CASING TYPE/DIAMETER Joe Miller Salt Lake City, UT GRAVEL PACK TYPE HSA/DPT SCREEN TYPE/SLOT LOGGED BY DRILLING METHOD SAMPLING METHOD 5.72 LOCATION 2-inch Schedule 40 0.010-slot #10/20 sand REMARKS 4455.17 4454.74 GROUND WATER ELEVATION (FT MSL) DEPTH TO WATER (FT BGS) Hydrated Bentonite Chips 2-inch Schedule 40 PVC 4/6/2021 5 10 15 20 700 S 1600 E PCE Plume BORING/WELL NUMBER238824.6495-F3048-005.DRILL BORING/WELL CONSTRUCTION LOG 555 17th Street, Suite 500 Denver, CO 80202 (303) 383-2300 PROJECT NAME RG-08 PAGE 1 OF 1 DATE DRILLED PROJECT NUMBER WH I T N E Y ' S B O R I N G L O G S L C V A P L U M E D R A F T _ 0 5 1 9 2 1 . G P J L A E W N N 0 1 . G D T 6 / 1 4 / 2 1 Replacing GW-53 0.5 7.0 15.0 Topsoil Silty CLAY; trace gravel; low plasticity; (2.5Y 5/3) light olive brown; moist Sandy SILT; fine sand; stiff; (10YR 4/3) brown; wet -increase sand TD boring at 15' bgs Flush-mounted vault (6-inch). Hydrated bentonite chips (1.5 to 3.5 ft bgs). #10/20 sand filter pack (3.5 to 15 ft bgs). 2-inch SCH 40 PVC 0.010-slot screen well (5 to 15 ft bgs). 7.1 6.5 5.3 ML ML WELL DIAGRAMLITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION PI D ( p p m ) CO N T A C T DE P T H DE P T H (f t . B G L ) EX T E N T U. S . C . S . SA M P L E I D . GR A P H I C LO G Ma g n e t i c Su s c e p t i b i l i t y GROUT TYPE/QUANTITY HSA Cuttings GROUND ELEVATION (FT MSL) TOP OF CASING (FT MSL) 4380.18 CASING TYPE/DIAMETER Joe Miller Salt Lake City, UT GRAVEL PACK TYPE HSA SCREEN TYPE/SLOT LOGGED BY DRILLING METHOD SAMPLING METHOD 5.21 LOCATION 2-inch Schedule 40 0.010-slot #10/20 sand REMARKS 4385.39 4384.93 GROUND WATER ELEVATION (FT MSL) DEPTH TO WATER (FT BGS) Hydrated Bentonite Chips 2-inch Schedule 40 PVC 4/1/2021 5 10 15 700 S 1600 E PCE Plume BORING/WELL NUMBER238824.6495-F3048-005.DRILL BORING/WELL CONSTRUCTION LOG 555 17th Street, Suite 500 Denver, CO 80202 (303) 383-2300 PROJECT NAME RG-09 PAGE 1 OF 1 DATE DRILLED PROJECT NUMBER WH I T N E Y ' S B O R I N G L O G S L C V A P L U M E D R A F T _ 0 5 1 9 2 1 . G P J L A E W N N 0 1 . G D T 6 / 1 4 / 2 1 Replacing GW-59 1.0 2.5 7.5 10.0 12.0 14.0 18.0 22.5 24.0 25.0 28.0 29.0 30.0 Topsoil Silty GRAVEL; fine to coarse gravel; dense; (2.5Y 5/4) light olive brown; moist SILT; cohesive; firm; (2.5Y 3/3) dark olive brown; moist Sandy SILT; cohesive; firm; fine sand; (2.5Y 13/1) very dark gray; moist Silty SAND; poorly graded fine to coarse sand; dense; (7.5YR 4/4) brown; moist Silty GRAVEL with Sand; fine to coarse rounded to subangular gravel; fine to coarse sand; dense; (7.5YR 3/3) dark brown; moist Poorly graded SAND; fine to coarse sand; fine gravel; compact; (7.5YR 4/3) brown; moist - moist to wet (not saturated) Poorly graded GRAVEL with Silt and Sand; fine to coarse gravel; fine sand; dense; (7.5YR 4/3) brown; moist Sandy CLAY; fine sand; cohesive; (7.5YR 4/3) brown; moist -trace fine rounded gravel Poorly graded SAND; fine to medium sand; dense; (10YR 4/6) dark yellowish brown; wet Poorly graded GRAVEL; fine to coarse angular to subrounded gravel; dense; moist -becomes wet; increase sand Poorly graded GRAVEL with Sand; fine to coarse rounded to subrounded gravel; coarse sand; dense; (10YR 4/6) dark yellowish brown; wet SILT; cohesive; firm; dark gray to light gray mottled; moist TD boring at 30' bgs Flush-mounted vault (6-inch). Hydrated bentonite chips (2 to 4 ft bgs). Soil Vapor Probe 2-inch SCH 40 PVC blank. Hydrated bentonite chips (7 to 18 ft bgs). #10/20 sand filter pack (18 to 30 ft bgs). 2-inch SCH 40 PVC 0.010-slot screen well (20 to 30 ft bgs). 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 GM ML ML SM GM SP GP CL SP GP GP ML WELL DIAGRAMLITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION PI D ( p p m ) CO N T A C T DE P T H DE P T H (f t . B G L ) EX T E N T U. S . C . S . SA M P L E I D . GR A P H I C LO G Ma g n e t i c Su s c e p t i b i l i t y GROUT TYPE/QUANTITY DPT Core GROUND ELEVATION (FT MSL) TOP OF CASING (FT MSL) 4383.42 CASING TYPE/DIAMETER Joe Miller Salt Lake City, UT GRAVEL PACK TYPE HSA/DPT SCREEN TYPE/SLOT LOGGED BY DRILLING METHOD SAMPLING METHOD 26.95 LOCATION 2-inch Schedule 40 0.010-slot #10/20 sand REMARKS 4410.37 4409.82 GROUND WATER ELEVATION (FT MSL) DEPTH TO WATER (FT BGS) Hydrated Bentonite Chips 2-inch Schedule 40 PVC 4/7/2021 5 10 15 20 25 30 700 S 1600 E PCE Plume BORING/WELL NUMBER238824.6495-F3048-005.DRILL BORING/WELL CONSTRUCTION LOG 555 17th Street, Suite 500 Denver, CO 80202 (303) 383-2300 PROJECT NAME RG-10 PAGE 1 OF 1 DATE DRILLED PROJECT NUMBER WH I T N E Y ' S B O R I N G L O G S L C V A P L U M E D R A F T _ 0 5 1 9 2 1 . G P J L A E W N N 0 1 . G D T 6 / 1 4 / 2 1 Replacing GW-61 0.5 3.0 10.0 11.5 17.0 18.0 20.5 26.0 29.0 33.5 35.0 Asphalt Sandy SILT; trace fine gravel; firm; (7.5YR 5/3) brown; moist Silty SAND; fine to medium sand; compact; (10YR 4/4) dark yellowish brown; moist -increase moisture -quartzite cobble from 8-9' Clayey SAND; fine to coarse sand; slightly cohesive; (5YR 4/4) reddish brown; moist Poorly graded SAND with Gravel; fine to coarse sand; fine to coarse subangular to subangular gravel; (2.5YR 5/3) reddish brown; moist -Cobble Lean CLAY; trace fine sand; cohesive; soft; moist to wet Clayey SAND; fine to coarse sand; trace fine gravel; compact; cohesive; moist to wet Poorly graded GRAVEL; fine to coarse gravel; fine to coarse sand; cemented in places; very dense; dry to moist Lean CLAY; low to medium plasticity; trace fine gravel; cohesive; hard; (10YR 5/4) yellowish brown; moist SILT with Sand; cohesive; firm; (10YR 5/4) yellowish brown; moist to wet Silty SAND; fine to coarse sand; trace fine gravel; medium dense; (7.5YR 5/6) strong brown; moist to wet Flush-mounted vault (6-inch). Hydrated bentonite chips (2 to 4 ft bgs). Soil Vapor Probe 2-inch SCH 40 PVC blank. Hydrated bentonite chips (7 to 28 ft bgs). #10/20 sand filter pack (18 to 0.4 0.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ML SM SC SP CL SC GP CL ML SM WELL DIAGRAMLITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION PI D ( p p m ) CO N T A C T DE P T H DE P T H (f t . B G L ) EX T E N T U. S . C . S . SA M P L E I D . GR A P H I C LO G Ma g n e t i c Su s c e p t i b i l i t y GROUT TYPE/QUANTITY DPT Core GROUND ELEVATION (FT MSL) TOP OF CASING (FT MSL) 4475.61 CASING TYPE/DIAMETER Joe Miller Salt Lake City, UT GRAVEL PACK TYPE HSA/DPT SCREEN TYPE/SLOT LOGGED BY DRILLING METHOD SAMPLING METHOD 29.09 LOCATION 2-inch Schedule 40 0.010-slot #10/20 sand REMARKS 4504.70 4504.39 GROUND WATER ELEVATION (FT MSL) DEPTH TO WATER (FT BGS) Hydrated Bentonite Chips 2-inch Schedule 40 PVC 4/7/2021 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 700 S 1600 E PCE Plume BORING/WELL NUMBER Continued Next Page 238824.6495-F3048-005.DRILL BORING/WELL CONSTRUCTION LOG 555 17th Street, Suite 500 Denver, CO 80202 (303) 383-2300 PROJECT NAME RG-11 PAGE 1 OF 2 DATE DRILLED PROJECT NUMBER WH I T N E Y ' S B O R I N G L O G S L C V A P L U M E D R A F T _ 0 5 1 9 2 1 . G P J L A E W N N 0 1 . G D T 6 / 1 4 / 2 1 40.0 Silty GRAVEL; fine to coarse subrounded to subangular gravel; cemented in places; dense; moist to wet -becomes saturated TD boring at 40' bgs 30 ft bgs). 2-inch SCH 40 PVC 0.010-slot screen well (30 to 40 ft bgs). 0 GM WELL DIAGRAMLITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION PI D ( p p m ) CO N T A C T DE P T H DE P T H (f t . B G L ) EX T E N T U. S . C . S . SA M P L E I D . GR A P H I C LO G Ma g n e t i c Su s c e p t i b i l i t y Continued from Previous Page 4/7/2021 40 700 S 1600 E PCE Plume BORING/WELL NUMBER238824.6495-F3048-005.DRILL BORING/WELL CONSTRUCTION LOG 555 17th Street, Suite 500 Denver, CO 80202 (303) 383-2300 PROJECT NAME RG-11 PAGE 2 OF 2 DATE DRILLED PROJECT NUMBER WH I T N E Y ' S B O R I N G L O G S L C V A P L U M E D R A F T _ 0 5 1 9 2 1 . G P J L A E W N N 0 1 . G D T 6 / 1 4 / 2 1 Appendix G Soil Core/Cuttings Photolog PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 1 Date: 4/5/21 Location: RG-01 Description: 0-5’ Photo No. 2 Date: 4/5/21 Location: RG-01 Description: 5-10’ Photo No. 3 Date: 4/5/21 Location: RG-01 Description: 10-15’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 4 Date: 4/5/21 Location: RG-01 Description: 15-20’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 1 Date: 4/2/21 Location: RG-02 Description: 0-5’ Photo No. 2 Date: 4/2/21 Location: RG-02 Description: 5-10’ Photo No. 3 Date: 4/2/21 Location: RG-02 Description: 10-15’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 1 Date: 4/2/21 Location: RG-03 Description: 0-5’ Photo No. 2 Date: 4/2/21 Location: RG-03 Description: 5-8’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 1 Date: 4/5/21 Location: RG-04 Description: Hollow-stem auger cuttings 0-5’ Photo No. 2 Date: 4/5/21 Location: RG-04 Description: Hollow-stem auger cuttings 5-10’ Photo No. 3 Date: 4/5/21 Location: RG-04 Description: Hollow-stem auger cuttings 10-15’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 4 Date: 4/5/21 Location: RG-04 Description: Hollow-stem auger cuttings 15-20’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 1 Date: 4/3/21 Location: RG-05 Description: 0-5’ Photo No. 2 Date: 4/3/21 Location: RG-05 Description: 3’ Photo No. 3 Date: 4/3/21 Location: RG-05 Description: 5-10’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 4 Date: 4/3/21 Location: RG-05 Description: 10-15’ Photo No. 5 Date: 4/3/21 Location: RG-05 Description: 15-20’ Photo No. 6 Date: 4/3/21 Location: RG-05 Description: 20-25’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 7 Date: 4/3/21 Location: RG-05 Description: 25-30’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 1 Date: 4/5/21 Location: RG-06 Description: 0-5’ NO PHOTO Photo No. 2 Date: 4/5/21 Location: RG-06 Description: 5-10’ NO PHOTO PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 1 Date: 4/2/21 Location: RG-07 Description: 0-5’ NO PHOTO Photo No. 2 Date: 4/2/21 Location: RG-07 Description: 5-10’ Photo No. 3 Date: 4/2/21 Location: RG-07 Description: 10-20’ NO PHOTO PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 4 Date: 4/5/21 Location: RG-01 Description: 20-25’ Photo No. 5 Date: 4/5/21 Location: RG-01 Description: 25-30’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 1 Date: 4/6/21 Location: RG-08 Description: 0-5’ Photo No. 2 Date: 4/6/21 Location: RG-08 Description: 5-10’ Photo No. 3 Date: 4/6/21 Location: RG-08 Description: 10-15’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 4 Date: 4/6/21 Location: RG-08 Description: 15-20’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 1 Date: 4/1/21 Location: RG-09 Description: 0-5’ Photo No. 2 Date: 4/1/21 Location: RG-09 Description: 5-10’ Photo No. 3 Date: 4/1/21 Location: RG-09 Description: 10-15’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 1 Date: 4/7/21 Location: RG-10 Description: 0-5’ Photo No. 2 Date: 4/7/21 Location: RG-10 Description: 5-10’ Photo No. 3 Date: 4/7/21 Location: RG-10 Description: 10-15’ NO PHOTO – Core visible in Photo 4 PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 4 Date: 4/7/21 Location: RG-10 Description: 15-20’ Photo No. 5 Date: 4/7/21 Location: RG-10 Description: 20-25’ Photo No. 6 Date: 4/7/21 Location: RG-10 Description: 25-30’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 1 Date: 4/7/21 Location: RG-11 Description: 0-5’ Photo No. 2 Date: 4/7/21 Location: RG-11 Description: 5-10’ Photo No. 3 Date: 4/7/21 Location: RG-11 Description: 10-15’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 4 Date: 4/7/21 Location: RG-11 Description: 15-20’ Photo No. 5 Date: 4/7/21 Location: RG-11 Description: 20-25’ Photo No. 6 Date: 4/7/21 Location: RG-11 Description: 25-30’ PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Site: 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Project No. 238824 Photo No. 7 Date: 4/7/21 Location: RG-11 Description: 30-33’ Photo No. 8 Date: 4/7/21 Location: RG-11 Description: 33-37.5’ Photo No. 9 Date: 4/7/21 Location: RG-11 Description: 37-40’ Appendix H Survey Data 409600 7443236.76 1541982.64 4504.70 CL MW RG‐11 409601 7443237.11 1541982.63 4504.71 NO MW RG‐11 409602 7443236.69 1541982.6 4504.39 MW RG‐11 409603 7443062.83 1540830.39 4415.83 CL MW RG‐04 409604 7443063.16 1540830.36 4415.84 NO MW RG‐04 409605 7443062.99 1540830.47 4415.47 MW RG‐04 409606 7442286.89 1541270.19 4437.32 CL MW RG‐02 409607 7442287.26 1541270.26 4437.32 NO MW RG‐02 409608 7442287.01 1541270.21 4436.95 MW RG‐02 409609 7442423.54 1540835.33 4385.39 CL MW RG‐09 409610 7442423.86 1540835.33 4385.41 NO MW RG‐09 409611 7442423.59 1540835.35 4384.93 MW RG‐09 409612 7442479.61 1541107.48 4422.98 CL MW RG‐03 409613 7442479.95 1541107.51 4423.00 NO MW RG‐03 409614 7442479.64 1541107.49 4422.53 MW RG‐03 409615 7442805.72 1541851.88 4497.38 CL MW RG‐05 409616 7442806.05 1541851.88 4497.36 NO MW RG‐05 409617 7442805.83 1541851.86 4496.96 MW RG‐05 409618 7441534.16 1541771.71 4443.66 CL MW RG‐06 409619 7441534.39 1541771.95 4443.67 NO MW RG‐06 409620 7441534.2 1541771.85 4443.23 MW RG‐06 409621 7441296.08 1541395.71 4410.37 CL MW RG‐10 409622 7441296.43 1541395.65 4410.36 NO MW RG‐10 409623 7441296.35 1541395.71 4409.82 MW RG‐10 409624 7442006.7 1540924.03 4383.92 CL MW RG‐01 409625 7442007.03 1540923.96 4383.90 NO MW RG‐01 409626 7442006.8 1540924.02 4383.49 MW RG‐01 409627 7442038.61 1541519.86 4455.17 CL MW RG‐08 409628 7442038.97 1541519.85 4455.16 NO MW RG‐08 409629 7442038.77 1541519.82 4454.74 MW RG‐08 409630 7442021 1541979.13 4490.30 CL MW RG‐07 409631 7442021.31 1541979.12 4490.30 NO MW RG‐07 409632 7442021.04 1541979.12 4490.05 MW RG‐07 Appendix I Investigation-Derived Waste Manifest Appendix J Quality Control Summary Report                                                         Quality Control Summary Report East Side Springs Investigation  Operable Unit 1 Remedial Investigation   700 South 1600 East PCE Plume,   Salt Lake City, Utah  June 2021        i  Table of Contents   Section 1 Data Usability and Assessment Review .............................................................. 1‐1  1.1 Usability Summary ................................................................................................................................................... 1-1  Section 2 Quality Assurance Objectives ............................................................................. 2‐1  Section 3 Field and Laboratory Quality Assurance Activities .............................................. 3‐1  3.1 Deviations from Field Procedures ..................................................................................................................... 3-1  3.2 Field Quality Assurance/Quality Control ....................................................................................................... 3-2  3.3 Laboratory Quality Assurance/Quality Control .......................................................................................... 3-2  3.3.1 Laboratory Methods .................................................................................................................................. 3-2  Section 4 Data Validation Procedures ................................................................................ 4‐1  Section 5 Data Quality Indicators ....................................................................................... 5‐1  5.1 Precision ....................................................................................................................................................................... 5-1  5.2 Accuracy ....................................................................................................................................................................... 5-2  5.2.1 Percent Recovery ........................................................................................................................................ 5-2  5.2.2 Blank Contamination ................................................................................................................................. 5-4  5.3 Representativeness .................................................................................................................................................. 5-6  5.4 Comparability ............................................................................................................................................................. 5-6  5.5 Completeness ............................................................................................................................................................. 5-7  5.6 Sensitivity ..................................................................................................................................................................... 5-8  Section 6 Data Usability Assessment ................................................................................. 6‐1  Section 7 References ......................................................................................................... 7‐1  List of Tables  Table 3-1 Sample List and Analyses - Groundwater / Surface Water Table 3-2 Sample List and Analyses - Soil Gas Table 3-3 Blank Sample Results Table 4-1 Qualification Summary - Groundwater / Surface Water Table 4-2 Qualification Summary - Soil Gas Table 5-1 DQIs and Corresponding QC Parameters  Table 5-2 Summary of Field Duplicate Sampling Results Groundwater Table 5-3 Summary of field Duplicate Sampling Results Surface Water Table 5-4 summary of field duplicate Sampling Results Soil Gas   Attachments  Attachment 1 Data Validation Reports  Attachment 2 Data Package Completeness Review Checklists  Attachment 3 Analytical Data Packages    i  Acronyms  % percent %D percent difference %R percent recovery CDM Smith CDM Federal Programs Corporation COC chain-of-custody DQI data quality indicator DQO data quality objective DSR data summary report EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ICP inductively coupled plasma ICP-MS inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry LCS laboratory control sample LCSD laboratory control sample duplicate EMAX EMAX Laboratories, Inc. Eurofins Eurofins Air Toxics Laboratory MDL method detection limit MRL method reporting limit MS/MSD matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate PARCCS precision, accuracy, representativeness, comparability, completeness, and sensitivity PCE tetrachloroethene QA quality assurance QAPP quality assurance project plan QC quality control QCSR quality control summary report RG residential groundwater RPD relative percent difference RSD relative standard deviation SDG sample delivery group SIM selective ion monitoring Site 700 South 1600 East Tetrachloroethene Plume Superfund Site SM standard method SOP standard operating procedure TOC total organic carbon USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers VOC volatile organic compound 1-1 Section 1 Data Usability and Assessment Review Under the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Kansas City District, Contract No. W912DQ-18- D-3008, Task Order No. W912DQ19F3048, CDM Federal Programs Corporation (CDM Smith) was directed to perform a remedial investigation for Operable Unit 1 of the 700 South 1600 East Tetrachloroethene (PCE) Plume Superfund Site (Site) in Salt Lake City, Utah. To assist in the ongoing remedial investigation at the Site, soil gas samples were collected on March 26, April 13, and April 14, 2021 and groundwater and surface water samples were collected April 13 to April 16, 2021. Aqueous samples were shipped to EMAX Laboratories, Inc. (EMAX) in Torrance, California, for analysis. Soil gas samples were shipped to Eurofins Air Toxics (Eurofins) in Folsom, California, for analysis. The purpose of this quality control summary report (QCSR) is to summarize the data validation and determine whether the sample results meet the data quality objective (DQO) of the data usability outlined in the Phase 2 Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP), Operable Unit 1, 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah, Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Kansas City District (CDM Smith 2020). 1.1 Usability Summary Data collected and validated during this field investigation are usable as reported. Applicable data validation qualifiers were added if required. No sample results were rejected. Specific details are provided in the data validation reports summarized in Section 5 and presented in Attachment 1 of this report. 2-1 Section 2 Quality Assurance Objectives Quality assurance (QA) objectives for measurement data are expressed in terms of precision, accuracy, representativeness, comparability, completeness, and sensitivity (PARCCS). The PARCCS parameters characterize the quality of the data and as such are called data quality indicators (DQIs). The DQIs provide a mechanism for ongoing quality control (QC) and evaluating and measuring data quality throughout the project. A review of the collected data is necessary to determine if data measurement objectives established in the QAPP (CDM Smith 2020) were met. In general, the following data measurement objectives were considered: ▪ Achievement of analytical method and reporting limit requirements ▪ Adherence to and achievement of appropriate laboratory analytical and field QC requirements ▪ Achievement of required measurement performance criteria for DQIs (the PARCCS parameters) ▪ Adherence to sampling and sample handling procedures ▪ Adherence to the sampling design and deviations documented on field change notifications, if required The data validation review of the DQIs and other QA objectives determines if the data are of sufficient quality to support their intended use. 3-1 Section 3 Field and Laboratory Quality Assurance Activities CDM Smith completed field sampling activities between March 26 and April 16, 2021. The following table provides a summary of the number of samples collected and the dates each sampling event occurred: EMAX SDG* 21D206 – Surface Water – April 13 through 15, 2021 10 samples 1 field duplicate sample 3 trip blank samples EMAX SDG 21D236 – Groundwater – April 15 through 16, 2021 11 samples 1 field duplicate sample 1 trip blank sample Eurofins SDG 2103818 – Soil Gas – March 26, 2021 1 sample Eurofins SDG 2103819 – Soil Gas – March 26, 2021 3 samples Eurofins SDG 2104424 – Soil Gas – April 13 and 14, 2021 7 samples 1 field duplicate sample *SDG – sample delivery group For SDG 210383, only one sample in this SDG is applicable to this QCSR. The other samples are discussed in their applicable data summary report (DSR). All samples were received intact with proper chain-of-custody (COC) documentation at EMAX and Eurofins. Sample identification was accurately documented by the laboratories. Tables 3-1 and 3-2 present a list of the samples collected and the analyses performed. Attachment 2 presents the completeness review checklists of the data packages. Attachment 3 includes the analytical data packages. Sample preparation and analyses were conducted within the method-specified holding times. The QAPP (CDM Smith 2020) defined the procedures to be followed and the data quality requirements for the field sampling events and associated analytical work. 3.1 Deviations from Field Procedures As discussed in the DSR, the following deviations were encountered during the sampling events: Section 3 • Field and Laboratory Quality Assurance Activities 3-2 ▪ During residential groundwater (RG) well development, the minimum purge volume was calculated according to methods described in technical standard operating procedure (SOP) 4-3 Well Development and Purging which is included in Appendix A of the Phase 2 QAPP (CDM Smith 2020). Information regarding development was documented in a field logbook rather than on field forms. Several locations had low recharge, therefore many of the locations were purged dry then allowed to recharge. Since many of the locations were purged dry, parameter stabilization was not measured. After the minimum calculated purge volume was removed and the groundwater recharged, a bailer was pulled with the recharge water to visually examine the clarity. The water in the RG monitoring wells was visibly clear, and turbidity should not affect future sampling efforts or quality of the data. ▪ Field forms were not completed with field parameters during surface water and RG well sampling. This will not affect the quality of the data as the field parameters measured at the RG wells and surface water sample locations were included in the field notes in Appendix A and are presented in Tables 4 and 8 of the DSR for the RG wells and surface water samples, respectively. Field parameters were only collected at RG wells with sufficient water present in the HydraSleeve following filling containers for laboratory analysis. ▪ The hollow stem auger cuttings from RG-06 (GW-50) over-drilling and installation were not photographed for a photolog of the soil cuttings. RG-06 has a relatively shallow depth to water (2.24 feet below ground surface), therefore the hollow stem auger cuttings were mixed and saturated. These deviations do not impact the DQOs. 3.2 Field Quality Assurance/Quality Control Groundwater / Surface Water One field duplicate pair was collected for 11 environmental groundwater samples and one field duplicate pair was collected for 10 environmental surface water samples. One matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate (MS/MSD) sample was analyzed for the groundwater samples and one for the surface water samples. The QC sample collection frequency requirements in the QAPP (CDM Smith 2020) of 10 percent (%) for field duplicates and 5% for MS/MSD samples were met except for the groundwater samples. The frequency was slightly above the 10% criteria by one sample. This does not affect DQOs. Trip blanks were submitted with each cooler sent to the laboratory, for a total of four trip blank samples. Table 3-3 presents the results for the trip blank sample results. Soil Gas One field duplicate pair was analyzed for the 11 environmental soil gas samples. The QC sample collection frequency requirement in the QAPP (CDM Smith 2020) is 10% for field duplicates. The frequency was slightly above the 10% criteria by one sample. This does not affect DQOs. Field QA/QC objectives were accomplished through the use of appropriate sampling techniques and collection of the required QC samples at the required frequencies. Section 3 • Field and Laboratory Quality Assurance Activities 3-3 3.3 Laboratory Quality Assurance/Quality Control Analytical QA/QC was assessed by laboratory QC checks, method blanks, sample custody tracking, sample preservation, adherence to holding times, laboratory control samples (LCSs), MS samples, calibration verifications, surrogates, inductively coupled plasma (ICP) interference checks, and other applicable QC parameters. As presented in the data validation reports in Attachment 1 of this report, the laboratory QC samples met project criteria requirements with the appropriate qualifiers applied. All data are considered usable. 3.3.1 Laboratory Methods Samples were analyzed using the following U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or Standard Methods (SM) (EPA 2004): Groundwater / Surface Water ▪ EPA Method SW8260C – Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) ▪ EPA Method SW6020A – Metals ▪ EPA Method SW7470A – Mercury ▪ Method RSK-175 – Dissolved Gases (Ethane, Ethene, Methane) ▪ EPA Method E300.0 – Chloride, Sulfate ▪ Method SM2320B – Total Alkalinity ▪ Method SM4500-NO3E – Nitrogen, Nitrate-Nitrite ▪ EPA Method SW9060 – Total Organic Carbon (TOC) Soil Gas ▪ EPA Method TO-15 – VOCs ▪ EPA Method TO-15 selective ion monitoring (SIM) - VOCs by SIM The methods used met project objectives. Table 3‐1  Sample List and Analyses Groundwater / Surface Water Field Sample ID Matrix Sample Date Lab SDG Method FD01‐GW041521 WG 4/15/2021 21D236 SW8260C RG01‐GW041621 WG 4/16/2021 21D236 SW8260C RG02‐GW041621 WG 4/16/2021 21D236 SW8260C RG03‐GW041521 WG 4/15/2021 21D236 SW8260C RG04‐GW041521 WG 4/15/2021 21D236 SW8260C RG05‐GW041621 WG 4/16/2021 21D236 SW8260C RG06‐GW041621 WG 4/16/2021 21D236 SW8260C RG07‐GW041621 WG 4/16/2021 21D236 SW8260C RG08‐GW041521 WG 4/15/2021 21D236 SW8260C RG09‐GW041621 WG 4/16/2021 21D236 SW8260C RG10‐GW041621 WG 4/16/2021 21D236 SW8260C RG11‐GW041621 WG 4/16/2021 21D236 SW8260C FD01‐SW041521 WS 4/15/2021 21D206 A4500NE E300.0 RSK‐175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 SW08‐SW041521 WS 4/15/2021 21D206 A4500NE E300.0 RSK‐175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 SW12‐SW041521 WS 4/15/2021 21D206 A4500NE E300.0 RSK‐175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 SW166‐SW041321 WS 4/13/2021 21D206 A4500NE E300.0 RSK‐175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 Page 1 of 3 Table 3‐1  Sample List and Analyses Groundwater / Surface Water Field Sample ID Matrix Sample Date Lab SDG Method SW16E‐SW041521 WS 4/15/2021 21D206 A4500NE E300.0 RSK‐175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 SW16I‐SW041521 WS 4/15/2021 21D206 A4500NE E300.0 RSK‐175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 SW34‐SW041421 WS 4/14/2021 21D206 A4500NE E300.0 RSK‐175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 SW35‐SW041321 WS 4/13/2021 21D206 A4500NE E300.0 RSK‐175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 SW39‐SW041321 WS 4/13/2021 21D206 A4500NE E300.0 RSK‐175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 SW53‐SW041321 WS 4/13/2021 21D206 A4500NE E300.0 RSK‐175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 Page 2 of 3 Table 3‐1  Sample List and Analyses Groundwater / Surface Water Field Sample ID Matrix Sample Date Lab SDG Method SW54‐SW041521 WS 4/15/2021 21D206 A4500NE E300.0 RSK‐175 SM2320B SW6020A SW7470A SW8260C SW9060 Acronyms: A4500NE ‐ nitrogen, nitrate‐nitrite E300.0 ‐ chloride, sulfate ID ‐ identification RSK‐175 ‐ dissolved gases  SDG ‐ sample delivery group SM2320B ‐ total alkalinity SW6020A ‐ metals SW7470A ‐ mercury SW8260C ‐ volatile organic compounds SW9060 ‐ total organic carbon WG ‐ groundwater WS ‐ surface water Page 3 of 3 Table 3‐2 Sample List and Analyses Soil Gas Field Sample ID Matrix Sample Date Lab SDG Method FD01‐SG041421 GS 4/14/2021 2104424 TO15 /  TO15 SIM MW32‐SG032621 GS 3/26/2021 2103819 TO15 /  TO15 SIM MW34‐SG032621 GS 3/26/2021 2103818 TO15 /  TO15 SIM MW37‐SG032621 GS 3/26/2021 2103819 TO15 /  TO15 SIM MW38‐SG032621 GS 3/26/2021 2103819 TO15 /  TO15 SIM RG01‐SG041421 GS 4/14/2021 2104424 TO15 /  TO15 SIM RG04‐SG041321 GS 4/13/2021 2104424 TO15 /  TO15 SIM RG05‐SG041421 GS 4/14/2021 2104424 TO15 /  TO15 SIM RG07‐SG041421 GS 4/14/2021 2104424 TO15 /  TO15 SIM RG08‐SG041321 GS 4/13/2021 2104424 TO15 /  TO15 SIM RG10‐SG041421 GS 4/14/2021 2104424 TO15 /  TO15 SIM RG11‐SG041321 GS 4/13/2021 2104424 TO15 /  TO15 SIM Acronyms: EPA ‐ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency GS ‐ soil gas ID ‐ identification SDG ‐ sample delivery group TO‐15 ‐ Modified EPA Method TO‐15 for volatile organic compounds TO‐15 SIM ‐ Modified EPA Method TO‐15 for volatile organic compounds by selective ion monitoring (SIM) Page 1 of 1 Table 3‐3 Blank Sample Results Groundwater / Surface Water Method Analyte Unit Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q SW8260C 1,1,1‐Trichloroethane µg/L1U1U1U1U SW8260C 1,1,2,2‐Tetrachloroethane µg/L1U1U1U1U SW8260C 1,1,2‐Trichloroethane µg/L1U1U1U1U SW8260C 1,1,2‐Trichlorotrifluoroethane µg/L 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U SW8260C 1,1‐Dichloroethane µg/L1U1U1U1U SW8260C 1,1‐Dichloroethene µg/L1U1U1U1U SW8260C 1,2,3‐Trichlorobenzene µg/L1U1U1U1U SW8260C 1,2,4‐Trichlorobenzene µg/L1U1U1U1U SW8260C 1,2,4‐Trimethylbenzene µg/L1U1U1U1U SW8260C 1,2‐Dibromo‐3‐Chloropropane µg/L2U2U2U2U SW8260C 1,2‐Dibromoethane µg/L1U1U1U1U SW8260C 1,2‐Dichlorobenzene µg/L1U1U1U1U SW8260C 1,2‐Dichloroethane µg/L1U1U1U1U SW8260C 1,2‐Dichloropropane µg/L1U1U1U1U SW8260C 1,3,5‐Trimethylbenzene µg/L1U1U1U1U SW8260C 1,3‐Dichlorobenzene µg/L1U1U1U1U SW8260C 1,4‐Dichlorobenzene µg/L1U1U1U1U SW8260C 2‐Butanone (MEK) µg/L20U20U20U20U SW8260C 2‐Hexanone µg/L 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U SW8260C 4‐Methyl‐2‐Pentanone (MIBK) µg/L 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U SW8260C Acetone µg/L 4.2 J 20 U 4.5 J 20 U SW8260C Benzene µg/L 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U SW8260C Bromochloromethane µg/L 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U SW8260C Bromodichloromethane µg/L 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U SW8260C Bromoform µg/L 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U SW8260C Bromomethane µg/L 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U SW8260C Carbon Disulfide µg/L1U1U1U1U SW8260C Carbon Tetrachloride µg/L1U1U1U1U SW8260C Chlorobenzene µg/L 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U SW8260C Chloroethane µg/L 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U SW8260C Chloroform µg/L 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U SW8260C Chloromethane µg/L 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U SW8260C cis‐1,2‐Dichloroethene µg/L1U1U1U1U SW8260C cis‐1,3‐Dichloropropene µg/L1U1U1U1U SW8260C Dibromochloromethane µg/L 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U SW8260C Dichlorodifluoromethane µg/L 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U SW8260C Ethylbenzene µg/L 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U SW8260C Isopropylbenzene µg/L 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 4/15/2021 TB Sample Name Sample Date Sample Type TB01‐SW041521 4/15/2021 TB TB03‐SW041521 4/15/2021 TB TB02‐GW041621 4/16/2021 TB TB02‐SW041521 Page 1 of 2 Table 3‐3 Blank Sample Results Groundwater / Surface Water 4/15/2021 TB Sample Name Sample Date Sample Type TB01‐SW041521 4/15/2021 TB TB03‐SW041521 4/15/2021 TB TB02‐GW041621 4/16/2021 TB TB02‐SW041521 SW8260C m/p‐Xylenes µg/L2U2U2U2U SW8260C Methyl Acetate µg/L2U2U2U2U SW8260C Methyl Tert‐Butyl Ether µg/L1U1U1U1U SW8260C Methylene Chloride µg/L2U2U2U2U SW8260C o‐Xylene µg/L1U1U1U1U SW8260C Styrene µg/L 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U SW8260C Tetrachloroethene µg/L 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U SW8260C Toluene µg/L 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U SW8260C trans‐1,2‐Dichloroethene µg/L1U1U1U1U SW8260C trans‐1,3‐Dichloropropene µg/L1U1U1U1U SW8260C Trichloroethene µg/L 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U SW8260C Trichlorofluoromethane µg/L 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U SW8260C Vinyl Acetate µg/L2U2U2U2U SW8260C Vinyl Chloride µg/L1U1U1U1U Acronyms: SW8260C ‐ volatile organic compounds µg/L ‐ micrograms per liter J ‐ estimated Q ‐ qualifier TB ‐ trip blank U ‐ nondetect Highlighted and bolded results are detect. Page 2 of 2 4-1 Section 4 Data Validation Procedures For this QCSR, there were two aqueous and three soil gas SDGs, for a total of five laboratory SDGs. Qualified CDM Smith data validators not associated with project sampling activities validated the data reported in the five SDGs. Data validation was performed in accordance with specified analytical methods and performance criteria outlined in the QAPP (CDM Smith 2020) and in the EPA’s National Functional Guidelines for Inorganic Superfund Methods Data Review (EPA 2017a), the EPA’s National Functional Guidelines for Organic Superfund Methods Data Review (EPA 2017b), and EPA’s Analysis of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) in Air Contained in Canisters by Method TO-15 (EPA 2014). Validation reports were prepared and are presented in Attachment 1. The following SDG data packages were validated: Groundwater / Surface Water ▪ EMAX – SDG 21D206 ▪ EMAX – SDG 21D236 Soil Gas ▪ Eurofins – SDG 2103818 (MW34-SG032621 only) ▪ Eurofins – SDG 2103819 ▪ Eurofins – SDG 2104424 Tables 4-1 and 4-2 present the results that were qualified and the reasons for the qualifications. Qualifiers applied are defined as follows: ▪ J → Result is an estimated quantity. The associated numerical value is the approximate concentration of the analyte in the sample. ▪ U → Analyte was analyzed for but was not detected above the level of the sample method reporting limit (MRL). ▪ UJ → Analyte was analyzed for but was not detected above the level of the sample MRL. The MRL is approximate. Table 4‐1 Qualification Summary Groundwater / Surface Water  Field Sample ID Lab SDG Method Analyte CAS #Final Result Unit Validation  Qualifier Interpreted  Qualifier Qualifier Reason RG05‐GW041621 21D236 SW8260C Acetone 67‐64‐120µg/LU‐RL U TB RG10‐GW041621 21D236 SW8260C Acetone 67‐64‐120µg/LU‐RL U TB RG11‐GW041621 21D236 SW8260C Acetone 67‐64‐120µg/LU‐RL U TB Acronyms: ID ‐ identification SDG ‐ sample delivery group CAS ‐ Chemical Abstract Service SW8260C ‐ volatile organic compounds µg/L ‐ microgram per liter U ‐ nondetect U‐RL ‐ result is qualified as nondetect at the method reporting limit value RL ‐ reporting limit TB ‐ trip blank criteria  Page 1 of 1 Table 4‐2 Qualification Summary Soil Gas Field Sample ID Lab SDG Method Analyte CAS #Final Result Unit Validation  Qualifier Interpreted  Qualifier Qualifier  Reason MW34‐SG032621 2103818 TO15 Trichlorofluoromethane 75‐69‐43.5µg/m3 JJICV MW34‐SG032621 2103818 TO15 SIM Trichloroethene 79‐01‐60.14µg/m3 U‐RL U LB MW32‐SG032621 2103819 TO15 Trichlorofluoromethane 75‐69‐42.2µg/m3 JJICV MW32‐SG032621 2103819 TO15 SIM Trichloroethene 79‐01‐60.16µg/m3 U‐RL U LB MW37‐SG032621 2103819 TO15 Trichlorofluoromethane 75‐69‐42.1µg/m3 JJICV MW37‐SG032621 2103819 TO15 SIM Trichloroethene 79‐01‐60.15µg/m3 U‐RL U LB MW38‐SG032621 2103819 TO15 Trichlorofluoromethane 75‐69‐43.3µg/m3 JJICV MW38‐SG032621 2103819 TO15 SIM 1,2‐Dichloroethane 107‐06‐20.12µg/m3 U‐RL U LB FD01‐SG041421 2104424 TO15 2,2,4‐Trimethylpentane 540‐84‐152µg/m3 JJLCS FD01‐SG041421 2104424 TO15 2‐Butanone (MEK) 78‐93‐34.5µg/m3 JJFD FD01‐SG041421 2104424 TO15 Acetone 67‐64‐111µg/m3 JJFD FD01‐SG041421 2104424 TO15 Bromomethane 74‐83‐92.8µg/m3 UJ UJ CCV RG01‐SG041421 2104424 TO15 2,2,4‐Trimethylpentane 540‐84‐143µg/m3 JJLCS RG01‐SG041421 2104424 TO15 Bromomethane 74‐83‐92.8µg/m3 UJ UJ CCV RG04‐SG041321 2104424 TO15 2,2,4‐Trimethylpentane 540‐84‐139µg/m3 JJLCS RG04‐SG041321 2104424 TO15 Bromomethane 74‐83‐93µg/m3 UJ UJ CCV RG05‐SG041421 2104424 TO15 2,2,4‐Trimethylpentane 540‐84‐128µg/m3 JJLCS RG05‐SG041421 2104424 TO15 Bromomethane 74‐83‐93µg/m3 UJ UJ CCV RG07‐SG041421 2104424 TO15 2,2,4‐Trimethylpentane 540‐84‐136µg/m3 JJLCS RG07‐SG041421 2104424 TO15 Bromomethane 74‐83‐92.8µg/m3 UJ UJ CCV RG07‐SG041421 2104424 TO15 Methylene Chloride 75‐09‐21µg/m3 U‐RL U LB RG08‐SG041321 2104424 TO15 2,2,4‐Trimethylpentane 540‐84‐159µg/m3 JJLCS RG08‐SG041321 2104424 TO15 Bromomethane 74‐83‐910µg/m3 UJ UJ CCV RG10‐SG041421 2104424 TO15 2,2,4‐Trimethylpentane 540‐84‐151µg/m3 JJLCS RG10‐SG041421 2104424 TO15 2‐Butanone (MEK) 78‐93‐31.8µg/m3 JJFD RG10‐SG041421 2104424 TO15 Acetone 67‐64‐16.8µg/m3 JJFD RG10‐SG041421 2104424 TO15 Bromomethane 74‐83‐92.9µg/m3 UJ UJ CCV RG11‐SG041321 2104424 TO15 2,2,4‐Trimethylpentane 540‐84‐117µg/m3 JJLCS RG11‐SG041321 2104424 TO15 Bromomethane 74‐83‐93.3µg/m3 UJ UJ CCV Acronyms: µg/m3 ‐ micrograms per cubic meter LB ‐ laboratory blank criteria CAS ‐ chemical abstract service LCS ‐ laboratory control sample criteria CCV ‐ continuing calibration verification RL ‐ reporting limit EPA ‐ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency SDG ‐ sample delivery group FD ‐ field duplicate criteria U ‐ nondetect ICV ‐ initial calibration verification UJ ‐ estimated nondetect result ID ‐ identification U‐RL ‐ result is qualified as nondetect at the method reporting limit value J ‐ estimated TO‐15 ‐ Modified EPA Method TO‐15 for volatile organic compounds TO‐15 SIM ‐ Modified EPA Method TO‐15 for volatile organic compounds by selective ion monitoring (SIM) Page 1 of 1 5-1 Section 5 Data Quality Indicators This section summarizes the validation performed and the overall quality of the data. The validation reports are provided in Attachment 1. Achievement of the DQO regarding data usability was determined by the use of DQIs. These DQIs are expressed in terms of PARCCS. The DQIs provide a mechanism to evaluate and measure data quality throughout the project. These criteria are defined in Table 5-1 and in the following subsections. 5.1 Precision Precision is a quantitative term that estimates the reproducibility of a set of replicate measurements under a given set of conditions. It is defined as a measurement of mutual agreement between measurements of the same property and is expressed in terms of relative percent difference (RPD) between duplicate determinations. RPD is calculated as follows: RPD = absolute value [(C1 − C2)/{(C1 + C2)/2)}] × 100% Where: C1 = concentration of primary sample C2 = concentration of duplicate sample Field and analytical precision were determined from review of the field duplicate results, MS/MSDs, LCS/laboratory control sample duplicate (LCSDs), laboratory duplicates, and ICP serial dilution tests. The duplicate sample results were compared after calculating their RPDs. Field duplicate samples were collected in the same manner as the original samples but collected in separate individual containers, given separate sample identifiers, and treated as unique samples by the laboratory. Groundwater / Surface Water Tables 5-2 and 5-3 present the field duplicate sample results for groundwater and surface water, respectively. A control limit of 30% RPD was used for the groundwater and surface water field duplicate samples when both sample concentrations were greater than five times the MRL. If the sample concentrations were below five times the MRL, the absolute difference between the samples is calculated; if that value is below the MRL, no qualification is required. Laboratory RPDs are specific to the QC parameter. RPD results are summarized below: ▪ Field duplicate RPDs or absolute criteria results were within control limits. ▪ LCS/LCSD RPDs were within control limits. Section 5 • Data Quality Indicators 5-2 ▪ MS/MSD RPD results were within control limits except for carbon disulfide in SDG 21D236, which had an RPD of 37%. Qualification for MS/MSD RPDs outside of criteria is only required for detected results. Associated carbon disulfide results were nondetect and did not require qualification. ▪ ICP serial dilution results were within criteria. Soil Gas Table 5-4 presents the soil gas field duplicate sample results. A control limit of 40% RPD was used for the soil gas field duplicate samples when both sample concentrations were greater than five times the MRL. If the sample concentrations were below five times the MRL, the absolute difference between the samples is calculated; if that value is below the MRL, no qualification is required. Laboratory RPDs are specific to the QC parameter. RPD results are summarized below: ▪ Field duplicate RPDs or the absolute criteria results were within control limits except for the acetone and 2-butanone results in field duplicate pair RG10-SG041421/FD01- SG041421 (absolute criteria not met) in SDG 2104424. The difference between the sample results was greater than the MRL; therefore, the acetone and 2-butanone results for these samples were qualified as estimated “J.” ▪ LCS/LCSD RPDs were within control limits. ▪ Laboratory duplicate RPDs were within control limits. No field or laboratory issues were identified from the RPD results outside criteria; the exceedances are reasonable for this type of sampling activity. 5.2 Accuracy Accuracy is the degree of agreement of a measurement with an accepted reference or true value and is a measure of the bias in a system. Two different metrics are evaluated to assess result accuracy: calculation of percent recovery (%R) for spiked analytes with known concentrations and review of blank results for cross-contamination. 5.2.1 Percent Recovery Accuracy of the data was assessed by comparing recoveries of LCSs, MSs, calibration standards, surrogates, internal standards, and from ICP interference checks during metals analyses. Accuracy is expressed as %R, which is calculated as: Percent Recovery = (Total Analyte Found − Analyte Originally Present) × 100 Analyte Added Analytical accuracy for the entire data collection activity is difficult to measure because several sources of error exist. Errors can be introduced by any of the following: Section 5 • Data Quality Indicators 5-3 ▪ Sampling procedure and duration of sampling ▪ Field contamination ▪ Sample preservation and handling ▪ Sample matrix ▪ Sample preparation ▪ Analytical techniques Accuracy is maintained by adhering to the laboratory method and approved field and analytical standard operating procedures. The following is a summary of the accuracy parameters reviewed and the resulting qualifications for the data collected: SDG 21D206 (Surface Water) ▪ LCS/LCSD %Rs were within criteria. ▪ MS/MSD %Rs were within criteria except for calcium (67/67%) and magnesium (127%). Initial sample concentrations were greater than 4× the spike level; therefore, no qualifications were required. ▪ Initial and continuing calibration verifications were within criteria. ▪ Surrogate results were within criteria. ▪ ICP interference checks were within criteria. ▪ Inorganic and organic tune results were within criteria. ▪ Internal standard results were within criteria. SDG 21D236 (Groundwater) ▪ LCS/LCSD %Rs were within criteria. ▪ MS/MSD %Rs were within criteria. ▪ Initial and continuing calibration verifications were within acceptable criteria. ▪ Surrogate results were within criteria. ▪ Tune results were within criteria. ▪ Internal standard results were within criteria. SDG 2103818 (Soil Gas) (Evaluation applies to MW34-SG032621) ▪ LCS/LCSD %Rs were within criteria. Section 5 • Data Quality Indicators 5-4 ▪ Initial and continuing calibration verifications were within criteria, except for Freon 11 (trichlorofluoromethane) with an initial calibration verification %R of 130.34%. The Freon 11 sample result for sample MW34-SG032621 was qualified as estimated “J.” ▪ Surrogate results were within criteria. ▪ Tune results were within criteria. ▪ Internal standard results were within criteria. SDG 2103819 (Soil Gas) ▪ LCS/LCSD %Rs were within criteria. ▪ Initial and continuing calibration verifications were within criteria, except for Freon 11 (trichlorofluoromethane) with an initial calibration verification %R of 130.34%. Associated results were qualified as estimated “J.” ▪ Surrogate results were within criteria. ▪ Tune results were within criteria. ▪ Internal standard results were within criteria. SDG 2104424 (Soil Gas) ▪ LCS/LCSD %Rs were within criteria except for bromomethane (134.78/127.22%) and 2,2,4-trimethylpentane (126.88%). Associated 2,2,4-trimethylpentane results were qualified as estimated “J.” Associated bromomethane results were nondetect and did not require qualification. ▪ Initial and continuing calibrations were within criteria, except for bromomethane with a percent relative standard deviation of 32.93% and a percent difference (%D) of 135%. Associated bromomethane results were qualified as estimated “J/UJ.” ▪ Surrogate results were within criteria. ▪ Tune results were within criteria. ▪ Internal standard results were within criteria. Sample preservation, sample handling, holding times, and canister pressure are additional measures of accuracy of the data. All cooler temperatures, sample handling information, and holding times were acceptable for aqueous samples. Holding times, canister pressure readings, and canister certification results were acceptable for soil gas samples. 5.2.2 Blank Contamination Blanks are used to determine the level of laboratory and field contamination introduced into the samples, independent of the level of target analytes found in the sample source. Sources of sample contamination can include the containers and equipment used to collect the sample, preservatives added to the sample, other samples in transport coolers, laboratory sample storage Section 5 • Data Quality Indicators 5-5 refrigerators, standards and solutions used to calibrate instruments, glassware and reagents used to process samples, airborne contamination in the laboratory preparation area, and the analytical instrument sample introduction equipment. Each analyte group has its own particular suite of common laboratory contaminants. Active measures must be performed to continually measure the ambient contamination level, and steps must be taken to discover the source of the contamination to eliminate or minimize the levels. Random spot contamination can also occur from analytes that are not common laboratory problems but arise as a problem for a specific project or over a short period. Field blanks, equipment blanks, trip blanks, and laboratory method blanks are analyzed to identify possible sources of contamination. For this project, four trip blank samples were sent with the coolers of aqueous samples to assess potential cooler transportation cross contamination. VOC results for the trip blank samples are presented in Table 3-3. The following text discusses validation actions required as a result of laboratory and/or trip blank contamination. SDG 21D206 (Surface Water) ▪ Acetone was detected in two of the trip blank samples. Associated sample results were nondetect and did not require qualification. ▪ Sodium and mercury were detected in some of the continuing calibration blanks. Applicable sample results were either greater than the MRL, or the negative blank result was greater than the negative MRL value and did not require qualification. SDG 21D236 (Groundwater) ▪ Acetone was detected in the associated trip blank sample. Applicable sample results for acetone were qualified as nondetect “U” at the MRL. SDG 2103818 (Soil Gas) ▪ Trichloroethene and 1,2-dichloroethane were detected in the laboratory blank samples associated with sample MW34-SG032621. The trichloroethene result for sample MW34- SG032621 was qualified as nondetect “U” at the MRL. The 1,2-dichloroethane result for sample MW34-SG032621 was nondetect and did not require qualification. SDG 2103819 (Soil Gas) ▪ Trichloroethene and 1,2-dichloroethane were detected in some of the laboratory blank samples. Applicable trichloroethene and 1,2-dichloroethane sample results were qualified as nondetect “U” at the MRL. SDG 2104424 (Soil Gas) ▪ Methylene chloride was detected in one of the laboratory blank samples. Applicable methylene chloride sample results were qualified as nondetect “U” at the MRL. Ideally, no contaminants should be found in the blank samples. Blank samples are used to determine the validity of the analytical results by determining the existence and magnitude of contamination resulting from laboratory (or field) activities or baseline drift during analysis. As discussed above, analytes were detected in some of the laboratory blank samples and/or field and Section 5 • Data Quality Indicators 5-6 trip blank samples. Concentrations were below the MRLs for all detected blank results. Analytes detected in laboratory blanks are common with laboratory analyses and are almost unavoidable. Associated sample results for the laboratory blanks and/or trip blank samples were qualified following the appropriate guidelines. Detected blank concentrations were below the MRLs and the resulting sample qualifications as nondetect or "U” does not falsely diminish identification of site-related contaminants. 5.3 Representativeness Representativeness is a qualitative term that expresses the degree to which the sample data accurately and precisely represent the environmental conditions corresponding to the location and/or depth interval of sample collection. Requirements and procedures for sample collection were designed to maximize sample representativeness. Representativeness can be monitored by reviewing field documentation and/or performing field audits. For this report, a detailed review was performed on the COC and field data collection forms. Appropriate laboratory QA/QC requirements were described in the QAPP (CDM Smith 2020) and laboratory statement of work to confirm that the laboratory analytical results were representative of true field conditions. Field sampling representativeness was attained through strict adherence to the sampling design and the approved QAPP (CDM Smith 2020) procedures and by using EPA-approved analytical methods for sample analyses. As a result, the data represent as near as possible the actual field conditions at the time of sampling. Representativeness, as defined above, was met for the fieldwork and laboratory analyses. The data collected are suitable for project use. 5.4 Comparability Comparability is a qualitative term that expresses the confidence with which a data set can be compared with another. Strict adherence to standard sample collection procedures, analytical detection limits, and analytical methods is necessary so that data from similar samples and sample conditions are comparable. This comparability is independent of laboratory personnel, data reviewers, or sampling personnel. Comparability criteria are met for the project if, based on data review, the sample collection and analytical procedures used are similar and are determined to have been followed. To achieve comparability of data generated for the Site, CDM Smith followed standard sample collection procedures and EPA-approved analytical methods during sampling activities. The sample analyses were performed by EMAX and Eurofins using approved standard operating procedures and reporting units. Using such procedures and methods enables the current data to be comparable to future data sets generated with similar methods and units. Section 5 • Data Quality Indicators 5-7 5.5 Completeness Completeness of the field program is defined as the percentage of samples planned for collection, as listed in the QAPP (CDM Smith 2020), versus the actual number of samples collected during the field program (see equation A). Completeness for acceptable data is defined as the percentage of acceptable data obtained judged to be valid versus the total quantity of data generated (see equation B). Acceptable data include both data that pass all the QC criteria (unqualified data) and data that may not pass all the QC criteria but had appropriate corrective actions taken (qualified but usable data). A. Where: C = actual number of samples collected n = total number of samples planned B. Where: V = number of measurements judged valid n' = total number of measurements made The overall completeness goal for this sampling event was 90% for all project data. All samples outlined in the QAPP (CDM Smith 2020) were collected as planned to meet specific sampling activity objectives. The completeness for the number of samples planned to be collected versus the number of samples collected was 100% for all analyses. Analyses for the sampling event exceeded the 90% completeness goal of acceptable data for the number of measurements judged to be valid versus the total number of measurements made. One hundred percent of the data validated and reported are suitable for their intended use for site characterization. No results were rejected, and all data collected met the overall project objective for data usability. The completeness goals were met for both the number of samples collected for all sampling events and the number of measurements judged to be valid. The data usability DQO was achieved; the data reported are suitable for their intended use as stated in the QAPP (CDM Smith 2020). The achievement of the completeness goals for the data provides sufficient data for project decisions. n 100Cxess%Completen = n' 100Vxess%Completen = Section 5 • Data Quality Indicators 5-8 5.6 Sensitivity Sensitivity is related to the ability to compare analytical results with project-specific levels of interest such as delineation levels or action levels. Analytical quantitation limits for the various sample analytes should be below the level of interest to allow an effective comparison. The method detection limit (MDL) study attempts to answer the question, “What is the minimum concentration of a substance that can be measured and reported with 99% confidence that the analyte concentration is greater than zero?” The study is based upon repetitive analysis of an interference-free sample spiked with a known amount of the target analyte. The MDL is a measure of the ability of the test procedure to generate a positive response for the target analyte in the absence of any other interferences from the sample. The MRL is generally defined as the lowest concentration at which an analyte can be confidently reported in a sample and its concentration reported with a reasonable degree of accuracy and precision. For samples that do not pose a particular matrix problem, the MRL is typically about three to five times higher than the MDL. Laboratory results are reported according to rules that provide established certainty of detection. The result for an analyte is flagged with a "U" if that analyte was not detected and reported at the MRL value or qualified with a "J" flag if associated QC results fall outside the appropriate QC criteria. Additionally, if an analyte is present at a concentration between the MDL and the MRL, the analytical result is flagged with a "J," indicating an estimated quantity. Qualifying the result as an estimated concentration reflects uncertainty in the reported value. When required, dilutions were performed and accounted for in the reported MRLs. All MRLs were met as specified in the QAPP (CDM Smith 2020), but due to the low groundwater screening level for 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane, 1,2-dibromoethane, 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane, cis-1,3- dichloropropene, and trans-1,3-dichloropropene, the MRL is greater than the screening level. However, these analytes are not a known constituent of potential concern for the site. For the soil gas results, all MRLs were met as specified in the QAPP, (CDM Smith 2020) except for a couple of results where the MRL was slightly above the soil gas screening level. In these situations though, the MDL was below the screening value and as detected results are qualified as estimated between the MDL and MRL, no exceedances of the screening level occurred. For the remaining analytes, laboratory MRLs were low enough to compare with the project criteria stated in the laboratory statement of work and the QAPP (CDM Smith 2020). Section 5 • Data Quality Indicators 5-9 Table 5-1 DQIs and Corresponding QC Parameters Data Quality Indicators QC Parameters Evaluation in Data Review/Validation Precision RPD values of: 1) Laboratory duplicates 2) Field duplicates 3) MS/MSD 4) LCS/LCSD 5) Serial dilution (ICP metals) Relative standard deviation (RSD) values of: 1) Initial calibration verifications Accuracy/Bias %R or %D values of: 1) LCS/LCSD %R 2) MS/MSD %R 3) Initial calibration verification/continuing calibration verification %R 4) ICP interference check standards 5) ICP-mass spectrometry (MS) tune percent RSD 6) ICP-MS internal standard %R intensity 7) Surrogates 8) Internal standards Results of: 1) Instrument and calibration blanks 2) Method (preparation) blanks 3) Field blanks 4) Trip blanks Representativeness Results of all blanks Adherence to field standard operating procedures Sample integrity (COC and sample receipt forms) Holding times Comparability Similar reporting limits and units Similar sample collection methods Similar laboratory analytical methods Completeness Data qualifiers Laboratory deliverables Requested/Reported valid results Field sample collection (primary and QC samples) Contract compliance (i.e., method and instrument QC within limits) Sensitivity Sample method reporting limits meet QAPP criteria Adequacy of sample dilution Table 5‐2  Summary of Field Duplicate Sampling Results Groundwater Method Analyte Unit Result Q Result Q SW8260C 1,1,1‐Trichloroethane µg/L 0.49 J 0.48 J Abs Criteria SW8260C 1,1,2,2‐Tetrachloroethane µg/L 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C 1,1,2‐Trichloroethane µg/L 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C 1,1,2‐Trichlorotrifluoroethane µg/L 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C 1,1‐Dichloroethane µg/L 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C 1,1‐Dichloroethene µg/L 0.15 J 0.14 J Abs Criteria SW8260C 1,2,3‐Trichlorobenzene µg/L 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C 1,2,4‐Trichlorobenzene µg/L 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C 1,2,4‐Trimethylbenzene µg/L 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C 1,2‐Dibromo‐3‐Chloropropane µg/L 2 U 2 U NC SW8260C 1,2‐Dibromoethane µg/L 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C 1,2‐Dichlorobenzene µg/L 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C 1,2‐Dichloroethane µg/L 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C 1,2‐Dichloropropane µg/L 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C 1,3,5‐Trimethylbenzene µg/L 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C 1,3‐Dichlorobenzene µg/L 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C 1,4‐Dichlorobenzene µg/L 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C 2‐Butanone (MEK) µg/L 20 U 20 U NC SW8260C 2‐Hexanone µg/L 20 U 20 U NC SW8260C 4‐Methyl‐2‐Pentanone (MIBK) µg/L 20 U 20 U NC SW8260C Acetone µg/L 20 U 20 U NC SW8260C Benzene µg/L 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C Bromochloromethane µg/L 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C Bromodichloromethane µg/L 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C Bromoform µg/L 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C Bromomethane µg/L 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C Carbon Disulfide µg/L 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C Carbon Tetrachloride µg/L 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C Chlorobenzene µg/L 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C Chloroethane µg/L 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C Chloroform µg/L 2.9 2.9 Abs Criteria SW8260C Chloromethane µg/L 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C cis‐1,2‐Dichloroethene µg/L 0.15 J 0.15 J Abs Criteria SW8260C cis‐1,3‐Dichloropropene µg/L 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C Dibromochloromethane µg/L 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C Dichlorodifluoromethane µg/L 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C Ethylbenzene µg/L 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C Isopropylbenzene µg/L 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C m / p ‐Xylenes µg/L 2 U 2 U NC SW8260C Methyl Acetate µg/L 2 U 2 U NC SW8260C Methyl Tert‐Butyl Ether µg/L 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C Methylene Chloride µg/L 2 U 2 U NC SW8260C o‐Xylene µg/L 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C Styrene µg/L 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C Tetrachloroethene µg/L 56 58 4% SW8260C Toluene µg/L 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C trans‐1,2‐Dichloroethene µg/L 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C trans‐1,3‐Dichloropropene µg/L 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C Trichloroethene µg/L 0.42 J 0.43 J Abs Criteria SW8260C Trichlorofluoromethane µg/L 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C Vinyl Acetate µg/L 2 U 2 U NC SW8260C Vinyl Chloride µg/L 1 U 1 U NC Location Sample Name Parent Sample Code Sample Date Sample Type RG‐08 RG08‐GW041521 4/15/2021 N RPD (%) RG‐08 FD01‐GW041521 RG08‐GW041521 4/15/2021 FD Page 1 of 2 Table 5‐2  Summary of Field Duplicate Sampling Results Groundwater Location Sample Name Parent Sample Code Sample Date Sample Type RG‐08 RG08‐GW041521 4/15/2021 N RPD (%) RG‐08 FD01‐GW041521 RG08‐GW041521 4/15/2021 FD Notes: N ‐ Normal sample FD‐ Field Duplicate µg/L ‐ microgram per liter Q ‐ qualifier ABS ‐ absolute difference RPD ‐ Relative Percent Difference U ‐ nondetect J ‐ estimated value NC ‐ not calculated ABS Criteria ‐ One or both of the sample results are less than 5 times the reporting limit.  The absolute  value between the two results is within acceptable criteria. Yellow highlighting ‐ RPD value is outside of 30% criteria and/or the ABS Criteria is outside of control  limits Page 2 of 2 Table 5‐3  Summary of Field Duplicate Sampling Results Surface Water Method Analyte Unit Result Q Result Q SW8260C 1,1,1‐Trichloroethane µg/L 0.13 J 0.12 J ABS Criteria SW8260C 1,1,2,2‐Tetrachloroethane µg/L 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C 1,1,2‐Trichloroethane µg/L 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C 1,1,2‐Trichlorotrifluoroethane µg/L 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C 1,1‐Dichloroethane µg/L 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C 1,1‐Dichloroethene µg/L 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C 1,2,3‐Trichlorobenzene µg/L 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C 1,2,4‐Trichlorobenzene µg/L 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C 1,2,4‐Trimethylbenzene µg/L 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C 1,2‐Dibromo‐3‐Chloropropane µg/L 2 U 2 U NC SW8260C 1,2‐Dibromoethane µg/L 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C 1,2‐Dichlorobenzene µg/L 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C 1,2‐Dichloroethane µg/L 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C 1,2‐Dichloropropane µg/L 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C 1,3,5‐Trimethylbenzene µg/L 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C 1,3‐Dichlorobenzene µg/L 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C 1,4‐Dichlorobenzene µg/L 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C 2‐Butanone (MEK) µg/L 20 U 20 U NC SW8260C 2‐Hexanone µg/L 20 U 20 U NC SW8260C 4‐Methyl‐2‐Pentanone (MIBK) µg/L 20 U 20 U NC SW8260C Acetone µg/L 20 U 20 U NC SW8260C Benzene µg/L 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C Bromochloromethane µg/L 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C Bromodichloromethane µg/L 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C Bromoform µg/L 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C Bromomethane µg/L 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C Carbon Disulfide µg/L 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C Carbon Tetrachloride µg/L 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C Chlorobenzene µg/L 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C Chloroethane µg/L 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C Chloroform µg/L 5 4.6 ABS Criteria SW8260C Chloromethane µg/L 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C Cis‐1,2‐Dichloroethene µg/L 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C cis‐1,3‐Dichloropropene µg/L 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C Dibromochloromethane µg/L 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C Dichlorodifluoromethane µg/L 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C Ethylbenzene µg/L 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C Isopropyl benzene µg/L 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C m / p ‐Xylenes µg/L 2 U 2 U NC SW8260C Methyl Acetate µg/L 2 U 2 U NC SW8260C Methyl Tert‐Butyl Ether µg/L 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C Methylene Chloride µg/L 2U2UNC SW8260C o‐Xylene µg/L 1U1UNC SW8260C Styrene µg/L 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C Tetrachloroethene µg/L 5.7 5.2 9.17 SW8260C Toluene µg/L 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C Trans‐1,2‐Dichloroethene µg/L 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C Trans‐1,3‐Dichloropropene µg/L 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C Trichloroethene µg/L 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C Trichlorofluoromethane µg/L 1 U 1 U NC SW8260C Vinyl Acetate µg/L 2 U 2 U NC SW8260C Vinyl Chloride µg/L 1U1UNC RPD (%) Location Sample Name Sample Date Sample Type Volatile Organic Compounds  SW‐54 FD01‐SW041521 4/15/2021 FD SW‐54 SW54‐SW041521 4/15/2021 N Page 1 of 2 Table 5‐3  Summary of Field Duplicate Sampling Results Surface Water RPD (%) Location Sample Name Sample Date Sample Type SW‐54 FD01‐SW041521 4/15/2021 FD SW‐54 SW54‐SW041521 4/15/2021 N SW6020A Aluminum µg/L 100 U 100 U NC SW6020A Antimony µg/L 1 U 1 U NC SW6020A Arsenic µg/L 0.641 J 0.646 J ABS Criteria SW6020A Barium µg/L 58.7 58.7 0.00 SW6020A Beryllium µg/L 1 U 1 U NC SW6020A Cadmium µg/L 1 U 1 U NC SW6020A Calcium µg/L 141000 140000 0.71 SW6020A Chromium µg/L 0.66 J 0.614 J ABS Criteria SW6020A Cobalt µg/L 1 U 1 U NC SW6020A Copper µg/L 2 U 2 U NC SW6020A Iron µg/L 100 U 100 U NC SW6020A Lead µg/L 1 U 1 U NC SW6020A Magnesium µg/L 48600 48900 0.62 SW6020A Manganese µg/L 0.432 J 0.29 J ABS Criteria SW6020A Nickel µg/L 1 U 1 U NC SW6020A Potassium µg/L 2580 2540 1.56 SW6020A Selenium µg/L 0.784 J 0.726 J ABS Criteria SW6020A Silver µg/L 1 U 1 U NC SW6020A Sodium µg/L 62300 61800 0.81 SW6020A Thallium µg/L 1 U 1 U NC SW6020A Vanadium µg/L 1.45 1.46 ABS Criteria SW6020A Zinc µg/L 20 U 20 U NC SW7470A Mercury µg/L 0.5 U 0.5 U NC RSK‐175 Ethane µg/L 2 U 2 U NC RSK‐175 Ethene µg/L 2 U 2 U NC RSK‐175 Methane µg/L 2 U 2 U NC A4500NE Nitrate/Nitrite mg/L 3.09 3.05 1.30 E300.0 Chloride mg/L 224 227 1.33 E300.0 Sulfate mg/L 102 102 0.00 SM2320B Alkalinity mg/L 262 256 2.32 SW9060 Total Organic Carbon mg/L 0.493 J 0.768 J ABS Criteria Notes: N ‐ Normal sample FD‐ Field Duplicate µg/L ‐ microgram per liter mg/L ‐ milligram per liter Q ‐ qualifier ABS ‐ absolute difference RPD ‐ Relative Percent Difference U ‐ nondetect J ‐ estimated value NC ‐ not calculated Yellow highlighting ‐ RPD value is outside of 30% criteria and/or the ABS Criteria is outside of control  limits ABS Criteria ‐ One or both of the sample results are less than 5 times the reporting limit.  The absolute value between the two  results is within acceptable criteria. Dissolved Gases General Chemistry Parameters Total Metals Page 2 of 2 Table 5‐4 Summary of Field Duplicate Sampling Results Soil Gas Method Analyte Unit Result Q Result Q TO15 1,1,2‐Trichlorotrifluoroethane (Freon 113)µg/m3 2.3 2.3 Abs Criteria TO15 1,2,4‐Trichlorobenzene µg/m3 5.6 U 5.3 U NC TO15 1,2,4‐Trimethylbenzene µg/m3 4.5 4.8 6% TO15 1,2‐Dichlorobenzene µg/m3 0.91 U 0.86 U NC TO15 1,2‐Dichloropropane µg/m3 0.7 U 0.66 U NC TO15 1,3,5‐Trimethylbenzene µg/m3 11.3Abs Criteria TO15 1,3‐Butadiene µg/m3 1.4 1.6 Abs Criteria TO15 1,3‐Dichlorobenzene µg/m3 0.81 J 0.62 J Abs Criteria TO15 1,4‐Dioxane µg/m3 0.54 U 0.52 U NC TO15 2,2,4‐Trimethylpentane µg/m3 51 J 52 J 2% TO15 2‐Butanone (MEK)µg/m3 1.8 J 4.5 J Abs Criteria TO15 2‐Hexanone µg/m3 3.1 U 0.96 J Abs Criteria TO15 4‐Ethyltoluene µg/m3 3.3 3.3 Abs Criteria TO15 4‐Methyl‐2‐Pentanone (MIBK)µg/m3 0.62 U 0.59 U NC TO15 Acetone µg/m3 6.8 J 11 J Abs Criteria TO15 Allyl Chloride µg/m3 2.4 U 2.2 U NC TO15 Benzyl Chloride µg/m3 0.78 U 0.74 U NC TO15 Bromodichloromethane µg/m3 1 U 0.96 U NC TO15 Bromoform µg/m3 1.6 U 1.5 U NC TO15 Bromomethane µg/m3 2.9 UJ 2.8 UJ NC TO15 Carbon Disulfide µg/m3 12 12 0% TO15 Chlorobenzene µg/m3 0.7 U 0.66 U NC TO15 cis‐1,3‐Dichloropropene µg/m3 0.68 U 0.65 U NC TO15 Cyclohexane µg/m3 45 44 2% TO15 Dibromochloromethane µg/m3 1.3 U 1.2 U NC TO15 Ethanol µg/m3 2J3.1 Abs Criteria TO15 Hexachloro‐1,3‐Butadiene µg/m3 8U7.7UNC TO15 Hexane µg/m3 81 78 4% TO15 Isopropyl Alcohol (Manufacturing‐Strong Acid)µg/m3 3.4 3.7 Abs Criteria TO15 Isopropylbenzene µg/m3 0.4 J 0.71 U Abs Criteria TO15 Methylene Chloride µg/m3 1U1UNC TO15 N‐Heptane µg/m3 44 42 5% TO15 N‐Propylbenzene µg/m3 0.85 0.68 J Abs Criteria TO15 Styrene µg/m3 0.58 J 0.43 J Abs Criteria TO15 Tetrahydrofuran µg/m3 0.87 J 1.2 J Abs Criteria TO15 trans‐1,3‐Dichloropropene µg/m3 0.68 U 0.65 U NC TO15 Trichlorofluoromethane (Freon 11)µg/m3 2.4 2.3 Abs Criteria TO15SIM 1,1,1‐Trichloroethane µg/m3 0.084 J 0.09 J Abs Criteria TO15SIM 1,1,2,2‐Tetrachloroethane µg/m3 0.21 U 0.2 U NC TO15SIM 1,1,2‐Trichloroethane µg/m3 0.16 U 0.16 U NC TO15SIM 1,1‐Dichloroethane µg/m3 0.12 U 0.12 U NC TO15SIM 1,1‐Dichloroethene µg/m3 0.06 U 0.057 U NC TO15SIM 1,2‐Dibromoethane µg/m3 0.58 U 0.55 U NC TO15SIM 1,2‐Dichloroethane µg/m3 0.51 0.5 Abs Criteria TO15SIM 1,2‐Dichlorotetrafluoroethane (Freon 114)µg/m3 0.16 J 0.15 J Abs Criteria TO15SIM 1,4‐Dichlorobenzene µg/m3 0.45 U 0.43 U NC FD RG‐10 RG10‐SG041421 4/14/2021 N Location Sample Name Sample Date Sample Type RPD (%) RG‐10 FD01‐SG041421 4/14/2021 Page 1 of 2 Table 5‐4 Summary of Field Duplicate Sampling Results Soil Gas FD RG‐10 RG10‐SG041421 4/14/2021 N Location Sample Name Sample Date Sample Type RPD (%) RG‐10 FD01‐SG041421 4/14/2021 TO15SIM Benzene µg/m3 2.6 2.6 0% TO15SIM Carbon Tetrachloride µg/m3 1.8 1.8 0% TO15SIM Chloroethane µg/m3 0.13 J 0.17 J Abs Criteria TO15SIM Chloroform µg/m3 2.8 2.9 4% TO15SIM Chloromethane µg/m3 1.6 U 1.5 U NC TO15SIM cis‐1,2‐Dichloroethene µg/m3 0.12 U 0.11 U NC TO15SIM Dichlorodifluoromethane (Freon 12)µg/m3 2.3 2.4 4% TO15SIM Ethylbenzene µg/m3 2.7 2.7 0% TO15SIM m / p ‐ Xylene µg/m3 7.1 7 1% TO15SIM Methyl tert‐butyl ether µg/m3 0.54 U 0.52 U NC TO15SIM o ‐Xylene µg/m3 2.9 2.8 4% TO15SIM Tetrachloroethene µg/m3 2.8 2.8 0% TO15SIM Toluene µg/m3 18 18 0% TO15SIM trans‐1,2‐Dichloroethene µg/m3 0.6 U 0.57 U NC TO15SIM Trichloroethene µg/m3 0.11 J 0.12 J Abs Criteria TO15SIM Vinyl Chloride µg/m3 0.13 0.13 Abs Criteria Notes: ABS ‐ absolute value  N ‐ normal sample FD ‐ field duplicate µg/m3 micrograms per meter cubed J ‐ estimated value NC ‐ not calculated Q ‐ qualifier RPD ‐ relative percent difference U ‐ nondetect UJ ‐ estimated nondetect ABS. Criteria ‐ One or both of the sample results are less than 5 times the reporting limit. The absolute value between the two  results is within acceptable criteria. Yellow highlighting ‐ RPD value is outside of 40% criteria and/or the ABS. Criteria is outside of control limits Page 2 of 2 6-1 Section 6 Data Usability Assessment One hundred percent of the data reported and validated in this QCSR are suitable for their intended use as stated in the QAPP (CDM Smith 2020). No sample results were rejected. The achievement of the completeness goals for the number of samples collected and the number of sample results acceptable for use provides sufficient quality data to support project decisions. Sample results that were qualified as estimated are usable for project decisions. 7-1 Section 7 References CDM Smith. 2020. Phase 2 Quality Assurance Project Plan, Operable Unit 1, 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Kansas City District. December 2020. EPA. 2017a. National Functional Guidelines for Inorganic Superfund Methods Data Review, EPA-540-R-2017-001. January 2017. EPA. 2017b. National Functional Guidelines for Organic Superfund Methods Data Review, EPA-540-R-2017-002. January 2017. EPA. 2014. EPA’s Analysis of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) in Air Contained in Canisters by Method TO-15. June 2014. EPA 2004. EPA’s Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Wastes: Physical/Chemical Methods (SW-846 2nd edition 1982, revised 1984; 3rd edition 1986; and Updates I, II, IIA, III, IIIA, and IIIB, 1996, 1998, and 2004).      Attachment 1  Data Validation Reports  21D206 EMAX Laboratories, Inc. Matrix:Surface water Collection date:04/13/2021 through 04/15/2021 Volatile Organic Compounds SW 846 8260C Dissolved Gases - RSK 175 Metals SW 846 6020A Mercury SW 846 7470A Wet Chemistry Parameters: Chloride EPA 300.0 Sulfate EPA 300.0 Total Alkalinity SM 2320B Nitrate / Nitrite - N SM 4500 NO3E Total Organic Carbon (TOC) SW 9060 Lab ID Sample Number Lab ID Sample Number D206-01 SW166-SW041321 D206-08 SW12-SW041521 D206-02 SW35-SW041321 D206-09 SW08-SW041521 D206-03 SW39-SW041321 D206-10 SW54-SW041521 D206-04 SW53-SW041321 D206-11 FD01-SW041521 D206-05 SW34-SW041421 D206-12 TB01-SW041521 D206-06 SW16I-SW041521 D206-13 TB02-SW041521 D206-07 SW16E-SW041521 D206-14 TB03-SW041521 Precision:Yes No N/A Yes Yes Yes Field 8260C Sample Duplicate %RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples Duplicates SW54-SW041521 FD01-SW041521 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 0.13 J 0.12 J NC None Chloroform 5.0 4.6 NC None MS/MSD 8260C %RPD Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples SW08-SW041521 MS/MSD Acceptable (D206-09) LCS/LCSD 8260C %RPD Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples LCS1W / LCSD1W Acceptable Accuracy:Yes No N/A Was the Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate criteria met? (frequency ≥ 5% and laboratory determined control limits) Yes Laboratory Control Sample criteria met?Yes Were the Laboratory Method Blank results all < RL?Yes Were the Field Blanks results all < RL?No Was the ICAL criteria met? Yes Was the CCV criteria met? Yes Was the Tuning criteria met?Yes Were the Surrogate % recoveries within laboratory determined control limits?Yes Were the Internal Standard areas within ± 50 - 150%? Yes Comments (note deviations): Comments (note deviations): VA Salt Lake City Salt Lake City, Utah Groundwater Validation Report Laboratory: Analysis/Methods: Sample Delivery Group (SDG) Number: Samples in SDG: Data validation was performed in accordance with the specific analytical methods, National Functional Guidelines for Organic Superfund Methods Data Review (EPA January 2017), and the National Functional Guidelines for Inorganic Superfund Methods Data Review (EPA January 2017). Volatile Organic Compounds 8260C Are the field duplicate relative percent differences (RPD) ≤50% (soils), <30% (water) or within CRQL criteria? Were the Matrix Spike Duplicate RPDs ≤ 20%? (Or lab defined limits) Laboratory Control Spike Duplicates RPD within limits? Sample results < 5xs RL; ABS Diff. < RL 1 of 8 Blanks 8260C Concentration MDL /RL Qualifiers Associated Samples MBLK1W Nondetect Field Blank 8260C Concentration MDL /RL Qualifiers Associated Samples TB01-SW041521 Acetone 4.2 J 2.5 / 20 None Sample results nondetect TB02-SW041521 Acetone 4.5 J 2.5 / 20 None Sample results nondetect TB03-SW041521 Nondetect Surrogates 8260C %R Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable MS/MSD 8260C %R Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples SW08-SW041521 MS/MSD Acceptable (D206-09) LCS/LCSD 8260C %R Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples LCS1W / LCSD1W Acceptable ICAL 8260C RRF %RSD Qualifiers Associated Samples 4/6/2021 15:38 Acceptable Acceptable CCV 8260C RRF %D Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples 04/21/21 12:45 Acceptable Acceptable Tune 8260C Acceptable Internal Standards 8260C Area Area Lower / Upper Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable 2 of 8 Precision:Yes No N/A Yes Were the Matrix Spike Duplicate RPDs ≤ 20%? (Or lab defined limits) Yes Laboratory Control Spike Duplicates RPD within limits? Yes Are the laboratory duplicate RPDs ≤ 20% for water ≤35% for soils or within CRQL criteria? N/A Field RSK-175 Sample Duplicate %RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples Duplicates SW54-SW041521 FD01-SW041521 ND ND MS/MSD RSK-175 %RPD Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples SW08-SW041521 MS/MSD Acceptable (D206-09) LCS/LCSD RSK-175 %RPD Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples LCS1W / LCD1W Acceptable Laboratory RSK-175 Sample (ug/L)Duplicate (ug/L)RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples Duplicates N/A Accuracy:Yes No N/A Was the Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate criteria met? (frequency ≥ 5% and laboratory determined control limits) Yes Laboratory Control Sample criteria met?Yes Were the Laboratory Method Blank results all < RL?Yes Were the Field Blanks results all < RL?N/A Was the ICAL criteria met? Yes Was the CCV criteria met? Yes Was the Tuning criteria met?N/A Were the Surrogate % recoveries within laboratory determined control limits?N/A Were the Internal Standard areas within ± 50 - 150%? N/A Blanks RSK-175 Concentration (ug/L)MDL / RL Qualifiers Associated Samples MBLK1W Nondetect Field Blank RSK-175 Concentration MDL / RL Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Surrogates RSK-175 %R Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A MS/MSD RSK-175 %R Limits (%)Qualifiers Associated Samples SW08-SW041521 MS/MSD Acceptable (D206-09) LCS/LCSD RSK-175 %R Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples LCS1W / LCD1W Acceptable ICAL RSK-175 RRF %RSD Qualifiers Associated Samples 4/29/2020 Acceptable Acceptable CCV RSK-175 RRF %D Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples 4/29/2020 '14:39 Acceptable Acceptable Dissolved Gases RSK-175 Are the field duplicate relative percent differences (RPD) ≤50% (soils), <30% (water) or within CRQL criteria? Comments (note deviations): Comments (note deviations): 3 of 8 Tune RSK-175 N/A Internal Standards RSK-175 Area Area Lower / Upper Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A 4 of 8 Precision:Yes No N/A Yes Are the laboratory duplicate RPDs ≤ 20% for (water / soil ) or within CRQL criteria? N/A Are the matrix spike duplicates RPD ≤ 20%? Yes Are the laboratory control sample duplicates RPDs ≤ 20%?Yes Field Sample (ug/L)Duplicate (ug/L)%RPD Qualifier Associated Samples Duplicates SW54-SW041521 FD01-SW041521 Arsenic 0.641 J 0.646 J NC None Chromium 0.66 J 0.614 J NC None Manganese 0.432 J 0.29 J NC None Selenium 0.784 J 0.726 J NC None Vanadium 1.45 1.46 NC None MS/MSD RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples SW08-SW041521 MS/MSD Acceptable (D206-09) LCS / LCSD RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples LCS1W / LCD1W Acceptable LCS1W / LCD1W (Hg)Acceptable Laboratory Sample Duplicate RPD Qualifier Associated Samples Duplicate N/A Accuracy:Yes No N/A Were serial dilutions analyzed and within control limits of ±10% for waters (± for 15% for soils) or initial sample result less than 50x MDL?Yes Was matrix spike criteria met (frequency 20% and % recovery 75-125%)?No Was post digestion spike criteria met (if applicable)? N/A Was laboratory control sample criteria met? Yes Was laboratory blank criteria met (within control limits)? Yes Were ICV/CCV % recoveries within 90-110%? Yes Were the Detection Limit PQL Standards within 70-130?N/A Was the %D on form 16-IN for the initial calibration instrument response and concentration data <30%?N/A Were ICSA/ICSAB % recoveries acceptable or within CRQL criteria? Yes Was the tune %RPD <5% (Peak width < 0.75)? Yes Was internal standard criteria met? Yes Serial Dilution Analyte Initial Sample Result %D 50 x MDL Qualifier Acceptable MS/MSD Analyte %R Limits Post Digestion Qualifiers SW08-SW041521 MS/MSD (D206-09)Calcium 67 / 67 75-125 100 None ISR > 4xs the spike added Magnesium 127 / 110 75-125 104 None ISR > 4xs the spike added ISR = Initial Sample Result LCS/LCSD Analyte %R Limits Qualifiers LCS1W / LCD1W Acceptable LCS1W / LCD1W (Hg)Acceptable ICV/CCV Analyte %R Limits Qualifier Associated Samples Acceptable Associated Samples Comments (note deviations): Associated Samples Associated Samples Sample results < 5xs RL; ABS Diff. < RL Metals SW 6020A / Mercury 7470A Are the field duplicate relative percent differences (RPD) ≤50% (soils), <30% (water) or within CRQL criteria? Comments (note deviations): 5 of 8 Blanks Prep Blank Result (ug/L)MDL/RL (ug/L)Qualifier MBLK1W Nondetect ICBs Analyte Result (ug/L)MDL/RL (ug/L)Qualifier Nondetect Mercury Nondetect CCBs Analyte Result (ug/L)MDL/RL (ug/L)Qualifier CCB8 through CCB10 Sodium 100 / 50 /30 25 / 100 None CCB1 Mercury -0.021 0.1 / 0.5 None CCB2 Mercury -0.020 0.1 / 0.5 None -Blank results > - RL CCB3 Mercury -0.020 0.1 / 0.5 None -Blank results > - RL Field Blank 6020A Concentration (ug/L)MDL/RL (ug/L)Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A ICSA/AB Analyte - Solution A %R Found Sol. A / True A RL Qualifier Associated Samples Acceptable PQL Standard Check %R Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Tune Acceptable Internal Standards Qualifier Associated Samples Acceptable -Blank results > - RL Associated Samples Associated Samples Associated Samples Sample results > RL 6 of 8 Precision:Yes No N/A Yes Are the laboratory duplicate RPDs ≤ 20% for water ≤35% for soils or within CRQL criteria? Yes Yes Yes Field Sample (mg/L)Duplicate (mg/L)RPD Qualifier Duplicates SW54-SW041521 FD01-SW041521 TOC 0.493 0.768 NC None MS/MSD %R Limits RPD %Qualifiers Associated Samples SW08-SW041521 MS/MSD Acceptable (D206-09) ** Numerous analytes evaluated for MS/MSDs %R and %RPD - all QC data within acceptable criteria. LCS/ LCSD Limits RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable ** Numerous LCS/LCSDs performed / evaluated all QC data within acceptable criteria Laboratory Duplicate Sample Duplicate RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable Accuracy:Yes No N/A Was matrix spike criteria met (frequency 20% and % recovery 75-125%)?Yes Was post digestion spike criteria met (if applicable)? N/A Yes Yes Were the Field Blanks results all < RL?N/A Yes Was the tune %RSD <5% ?N/A Was internal standard criteria met?N/A MS /MSD Analyte %R Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples SW08-SW041521 MS/MSD Acceptable (D206-09) ** Numerous analytes evaluated for MS/MSDs %R and %RPD - all QC data within acceptable criteria. LCS / LCSD Analyte %R Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable ** Numerous LCS/LCSD performed / evaluated all QC data within acceptable criteria ICV/CCV %R Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable ** Multiple ICV/CCVs were reported - all were within acceptable criteria Blanks Analyte Result MDL/RL Qualifiers Associated Samples Nondetect ** Numerous prep. blanks performed / evaluated all QC blanks were nondetect ICB / CCBs Analyte Result MDL/RL Qualifier Nondetect ** Numerous ICB/CCBs performed / evaluated all QC blanks were nondetect. Associated Samples Was laboratory blank criteria met (within control limits)? Were ICV/CCV % recoveries within 90-110%? Comments (note deviations): Was laboratory control sample criteria met? Sample results < 5xs RL; ABS Diff. < RL Wet Chemistry Parameters Are the field duplicate relative percent differences (RPD) ≤30% (soils / water) or within CRQL criteria? Are the matrix spike duplicates RPD ≤ 20%? Are the laboratory control spike duplicates RPD ≤ 20%? Comments (note deviations): Associated Samples 7 of 8 Field Blank Analyte Result (mg/L)MDL/RL Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Tune Analyte %RSD Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Representativeness:Yes No N/A Were sampling procedures and design criteria met? Yes Were holding times met? Yes Was preservation criteria met? (0° C - 6° C)Yes Were Chain-of-Custody records complete and provided in data package?Yes Preservation Cooler Temperature (Degrees C) Preservation Criteria Qualifier Associated Samples Acceptable Holding Times Analyte Days to Extraction HT Criteria Qualifier Associated Samples Acceptable Comparability:Yes No N/A Were analytical procedures and methods followed as defined in the QAPP or field change documentation?Yes Comments (note deviations): Completeness (90%):Yes No N/A Are all data in this SDG usable?Yes Sensitivity:Yes No N/A Are MDLs present and reported? Yes Do the reporting limits meet project requirements? Yes Comments (note deviations): Comment: Data is usable as reported. Data Validator:Date:5/21/2021 Data Reviewer:Date: 5/23/2021Cherie Zakowski Kristine Molloy The cooler temperatures were 1.2, 3.1 & 3.2°C Comments (note deviations): Comments (note 8 of 8 21D236 EMAX Laboratories, Inc. Matrix:Groundwater Collection date:04/15/2021 & 04/16/2021 Volatile Organic Compounds SW 846 8260C Lab ID Sample Number Lab ID Sample Number D236-01 RG03-GW041521 D236-08 RG10-GW041621 D236-02 RG08-GW041521 D236-09 RG05-GW041621 D236-03 RG04-GW041521 D236-10 RG01-GW041621 D236-04 FD01-GW041521 D236-11 RG02-GW041621 D236-05 RG11-GW041621 D236-12 RG09-GW041621 D236-06 RG06-GW041621 D236-13 TB02-GW041621 D236-07 RG07-GW041621 Precision:Yes No N/A Yes No Yes Field 8260C Sample Duplicate %RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples Duplicates RG08-GW041521 FD01-GW041521 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 0.49 J 0.48 J NC None 1,1-Dichloroethene 0.15 J 0.14 J NC None Chloroform 2.9 2.9 NC None cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 0.15 J 0.15 J NC None Trichloroethylene 0.42 J 0.43 J NC None MS/MSD 8260C %RPD Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples RG04-GW041521 MS/MSD (D236-03)Carbon Disulfide 37%20%J**D236-03 ** Qualification required for detected results only - associated sample results nondetect- no qualification required LCS/LCSD 8260C %RPD Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples LCS1W / LCSD1W Acceptable LCS2W / LCSD2W Acceptable Accuracy:Yes No N/A Was the Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate criteria met? (frequency ≥ 5% and laboratory determined control limits) Yes Laboratory Control Sample criteria met?Yes Were the Laboratory Method Blank results all < RL?Yes Were the Field Blanks results all < RL?No Was the ICAL criteria met? Yes Was the CCV criteria met? Yes Was the Tuning criteria met?Yes Were the Surrogate % recoveries within laboratory determined control limits?Yes Were the Internal Standard areas within ± 50 - 150%? Yes Blanks 8260C Concentration MDL /RL Qualifiers Associated Samples MBLK1W Nondetect MBLK2W Nondetect Sample results < 5xs RL; ABS Diff. < RL Were the Matrix Spike Duplicate RPDs ≤ 20%? (Or lab defined limits) Laboratory Control Spike Duplicates RPD within limits? Comments (note deviations): Comments (note deviations): Samples in SDG: Data validation was performed in accordance with the specific analytical methods and National Functional Guidelines for Organic Superfund Methods Data Review (EPA January 2017). Volatile Organic Compounds 8260C Are the field duplicate relative percent differences (RPD) ≤50% (soils), <30% (water) or within CRQL criteria? VA Salt Lake City Salt Lake City, Utah Groundwater Validation Report Laboratory: Analysis/Methods: Sample Delivery Group (SDG) Number: 1 of 2 Field Blank 8260C Concentration MDL /RL Qualifiers Associated Samples TB02-GW041621 Acetone 4.0 J 2.5 / 20 U-RL D236-05, D236-08, D236-09 Surrogates 8260C %R Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable MS/MSD 8260C %R Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples RG04-GW041521 MS/MSD Acceptable (D236-03) LCS/LCSD 8260C %R Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples LCS1W / LCSD1W Acceptable LCS2W / LCSD2W Acceptable ICAL 8260C RRF %RSD Qualifiers Associated Samples 04/06/2021 15:38 Acceptable Acceptable CCV 8260C RRF %D Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples 04/21/2021 12:45 Acceptable Acceptable 04/22/2021 14:23 Acceptable Acceptable Tune 8260C Acceptable Internal Standards 8260C Area Area Lower / Upper Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable Representativeness:Yes No N/A Were sampling procedures and design criteria met? Yes Were holding times met? Yes Was preservation criteria met? (0° C - 6° C)Yes Were Chain-of-Custody records complete and provided in data package?Yes Preservation Cooler Temperature (Degrees C) Preservation Criteria Qualifier Associated Samples Acceptable Holding Times Analyte Days to Extraction HT Criteria Qualifier Associated Samples Acceptable Comparability:Yes No N/A Were analytical procedures and methods followed as defined in the QAPP or field change documentation?Yes Comments (note deviations): Completeness (90%):Yes No N/A Are all data in this SDG usable?Yes Sensitivity:Yes No N/A Are MDLs present and reported? Yes Do the reporting limits meet project requirements? Yes Comments (note deviations): Comment: Data is usable with appropriate qualifiers applied. Data Validator:Date:5/11/2021 Data Reviewer:Date: 5/13/2021Cherie Zakowski Kristine Molloy The cooler temperature was 4.3°C Comments (note deviations): Comments (note 2 of 2 2103818 Eurofins Air Toxics Matrix:Air Collection date:03/26/21 Volatile Organic Compounds - EPA Method TO-15 Volatile Organic Compounds - EPA Method TO-15 SIM Samples in SDG: Sample Number Laboratory Number FD05-SG032621 2103818-01A / B MW34-SG032621** 2103818-02A / B MW24-SG032521-60 2103818-03A / B MW24-SG032621-32 2103818-04A / B **This sample is applicable to the East Side Springs Data Summary Report only. Precision:Yes No N/A Yes Yes N/A Were the Laboratory Duplicate RPDs within limits?Yes Field TO-15 / SIM Sample (ug/m3)Duplicate (ug/m3)%RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples Duplicates MW24-SG032621- 32 FD05-SG032621 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 2.1 2.0 NC None Benzene 0.28 J 0.34 J NC None Carbon Tetrachloride 2.8 2.8 NC None Dibromochloromethane 1.8 J 1.3 J NC None Freon 11 18 18 NC None Freon 113 1.9 J 2 J NC None Freon 114 0.37 J 0.39 J NC None Freon 12 3.0 J 3.0 J NC None Trichloroethene 1.5 U 0.31 J NC None Vinyl Chloride 0.15 J 0.75 U NC None LCS/LCSD TO-15 / SIM %RPD Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples 2103818-07A / 07AA Acceptable 2103818-07B / 07BB (SIM)Acceptable 2103818-07C / 7CC Acceptable 2103818-07D / 7DD (SIM)Acceptable MS/MSD TO-15 / SIM %RPD Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Laboratory Sample (ug/m3)Duplicate (ug/m3)RL %RPD Qualifiers Duplicate 2103818-03A / 03AA Freon 113 2.3 3.0 13.0 27 None 2103818-03B / 03BB Acceptable 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Site Air Samples Laboratory: Analysis/Methods: Sample Delivery Group (SDG) Number: Salt Lake City, Utah Data Validation Report Data validation was performed in accordance with the specific analytical methods and the U.S. EPA Analysis of Volatile Organic Compounds in Air Contained in Canisters by Method TO-15 (June 2014) and the project specific QAPP, 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah, Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Salt Lake City Health Care System, November, 2019. Are the field duplicate relative percent differences (RPDs) ≤40%? Were the Matrix Spike Duplicate RPDs ≤ 20%? (Or lab defined limits) Associated Samples Sample results < 5xs RL; ABS Diff. < RL Sample results < 5xs RL; ABS Diff. < RL Volatile Organic Compounds TO-15 / TO-15 SIM Laboratory Control Spike Duplicate RPDs within limits? Comments (note deviations): 1 of 4 Accuracy:Yes No N/A Was the Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate criteria met? (frequency ≥ 5% and laboratory determined control limits) N/A Laboratory Control Sample criteria met?Yes Were the Laboratory Method Blank results all < RL?No Were the Field Blanks results all < RL?N/A Was the ICAL criteria met? (30%)Yes Was the CCV criteria met? (30%)Yes Was the Tuning criteria met?Yes Were the Surrogate % recoveries within laboratory determined control limits?Yes Were the Internal Standard areas within ± 60 - 140%? Yes Was canister certification criteria met?Yes Were sample results able to be recalculated from the laboratory raw data and were they accurate?Yes Was target compound identification correctly performed by the laboratory?Yes Were chromatograms representative of the sample results?Yes Blanks TO-15 / SIM Concentration (ug/m3)MDL / RL (ug/m3)Qualifiers Associated Samples Lab Blank 2103818-05A Nondetect 2103818-05B (SIM) 1,2-Dichloroethane 0.015 J 0.014 / 0.077 None Trichloroethene 0.045 J 0.018 / 0.10 U-RL 2103818-05C 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 0.74 J 0.52 / 3.7 None 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 0.099 J 0.059 / 0.60 None 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 0.085 J 0.065 / 0.6 None 1,4-Dioxane 0.088 J 0.074 / 0.36 None alpha-Chlorotoluene 0.20 J 0.10 / 0.52 None 2103818-05D (SIM) 1,2-Dibromoethane 0.047 J 0.044 / 0.38 None 1,2-Dichloroethane 0.021 J 0.014 / 0.081 None 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 0.085 J 0.078 / 0.3 None Tetrachloroethene 0.033 J 0.03 / 0.14 None Trichloroethene 0.051 J 0.018 / 0.11 U-RL 2103818-04B Field Blank TO-15 / SIM Concentration MDL / RL Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Surrogates TO-15 / SIM %R Limit Qualifiers Acceptable MS/MSD TO-15 SIM %R Limits (%)Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A LCS/LCSD TO-15 / SIM %R Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples 2103818-07A / 7AA Acceptable 2103818-07B / 07BB (SIM)Acceptable 2103818-07C / 7CC Acceptable 2103818-07D / 7DD (SIM)Acceptable ICV/CCV TO-15 / SIM %R Qualifiers Associated Samples 4/2/2021 13:32 Freon 11 130.34 J / UJ ICV ICAL TO-15 / SIM RRF %RSD Qualifiers Associated Samples 4/01/2021 22:03 Acceptable Acceptable 4/01/2021 20:04 (SIM)Acceptable Acceptable Sample results nondetect Sample results nondetect Comments (note deviations): Associated Samples Sample results nondetect Sample results nondetect Sample results nondetect Sample results nondetect Sample results nondetect 2103818-01B, 2103818-2B Sample results nondetect Sample results> RL All samples Sample results nondetect 2 of 4 CCV TO-15 / SIM RRF %D Qualifiers Associated Samples 4/6/2021 8:03 Acceptable Acceptable 4/7/2021 7:50 Acceptable Acceptable 4/7/2021 12:14 Acceptable Acceptable 4/7/2021 11:59 Acceptable Acceptable 4/6/2021 8:03 (SIM) Acceptable Acceptable 4/7/2021 7:50 (SIM)Acceptable Acceptable 4/7/2021 12:14 (SIM) Acceptable Acceptable 4/7/2021 11:59 (SIM) Acceptable Acceptable Tune TO-15 / SIM Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable Internal Standards TO-15 / SIM Area %Area % Criteria Qualifiers Associated Samples All Internal Standards Acceptable Canister Certification TO-15 / SIM Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable Raw Data Review TO-15 / SIM Results Recalculated Sample Result Acceptable Sample #Laboratory Reported Result Recalculated Sample Result (ug/m3)(ug/m3) TO-15 RRF / Concentration 2103818-03A Bromodichloromethane: 40 0.6833 / 37.429 2103818-03A Freon 11: 20 1.99360 / 20.246 TO-15 - SIM 2103818-03B Carbon Tetrachloride: 3.0 1.9248 / 2.961 2103818-03B Freon 12: 2.9 2.4436 / 2.912 (OR) (OR) Target Compound Identification Acceptable Chromatogram review Acceptable Representativeness:Yes No N/A Were sampling procedures and design criteria met? Yes Were holding times met? Yes Was preservation criteria met? (0° - 6° C)N/A Were Chain-of-Custody records complete and provided in data package?Yes Holding Time / Canister Pressure Criteria Days to Analysis Criteria Qualifiers Associated Samples Holding Time Acceptable Canister Pressure Criteria Comments (note Initial and Final Canister Pressure Results Acceptable 3 of 4 Comparability:Yes No N/A Were analytical procedures and methods followed as defined in the QAPP or field change documentation?Yes Comments (note deviations): Completeness (90%):Yes No N/A Are all data in this SDG usable?Yes Sensitivity:Yes No N/A Are MDLs present and reported? Yes Do the reporting limits meet project requirements? Yes Comments (note deviations): Data Validator:Date: Data Reviewer:Date:Cherie Zakowski Kristine Molloy 5/7/2021 Overall Comments: Data are usable with appropriate qualifiers applied. Comments (note 5/9/2021 4 of 4 2103819 Eurofins Air Toxics Matrix:Air Collection date:03/26/21 Volatile Organic Compounds - EPA Method TO-15 Volatile Organic Compounds - EPA Method TO-15 SIM Samples in SDG: Sample Number Laboratory Number MW37-SG032621 2103819-01A / B MW38-SG032621 2103819-02A / B MW32-SG032621 2103819-03A / B Precision:Yes No N/A N/A Yes N/A Were the Laboratory Duplicate RPDs within limits?No Field TO-15 / SIM Sample (ug/m3)Duplicate (ug/m3)%RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples Duplicates N/A LCS/LCSD TO-15 / SIM %RPD Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples 2103819-06A / 06AA Acceptable 2103819-06B / 06BB (SIM)Acceptable MS/MSD TO-15 / SIM %RPD Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Laboratory Sample (ug/m3)Duplicate (ug/m3)RL %RPD Qualifiers Duplicate 2103819-01A / 01AA 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 0.10 J 0.68 U 0.68 NC None Ethanol 2.6 U 0.98 J 2.6 U NC None 2103819-01B / 01BB Acceptable Accuracy:Yes No N/A Was the Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate criteria met? (frequency ≥ 5% and laboratory determined control limits) N/A Laboratory Control Sample criteria met?Yes Were the Laboratory Method Blank results all < RL?No Were the Field Blanks results all < RL?N/A Was the ICAL criteria met? (30%)Yes Was the CCV criteria met? (30%)Yes Was the Tuning criteria met?Yes Were the Surrogate % recoveries within laboratory determined control limits?Yes Were the Internal Standard areas within ± 60 - 140%? Yes Was canister certification criteria met?Yes Were sample results able to be recalculated from the laboratory raw data and were they accurate?Yes Was target compound identification correctly performed by the laboratory?Yes Were chromatograms representative of the sample results?Yes Associated Samples Data validation was performed in accordance with the specific analytical methods and the U.S. EPA Analysis of Volatile Organic Compounds in Air Contained in Canisters by Method TO-15 (June 2014) and the project specific QAPP, 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah, Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Salt Lake City Health Care System, November, 2019. Are the field duplicate relative percent differences (RPDs) ≤40%? Were the Matrix Spike Duplicate RPDs ≤ 20%? (Or lab defined limits) Volatile Organic Compounds TO-15 / TO-15 SIM Laboratory Control Spike Duplicate RPDs within limits? Comments (note deviations): Sample results < 5xs RL; ABS Diff. < RL 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Site Air Samples Laboratory: Analysis/Methods: Sample Delivery Group (SDG) Number: Salt Lake City, Utah Data Validation Report Comments (note deviations): 1 of 3 Blanks TO-15 / SIM Concentration (ug/m3)MDL / RL (ug/m3)Qualifiers Associated Samples Lab Blank 2103819-04A Nondetect 2103819-04B (SIM) 1,2-Dichloroethane 0.015 J 0.014 / 0.081 U-RL Trichloroethene 0.045 J 0.018 / 0.11 U-RL Field Blank TO-15 / SIM Concentration MDL / RL Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Surrogates TO-15 / SIM %R Limit Qualifiers Acceptable MS/MSD TO-15 SIM %R Limits (%)Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A LCS/LCSD TO-15 / SIM %R Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples 2103819-06A / 06AA Acceptable 2103819-06B / 06BB (SIM)Acceptable ICV/CCV TO-15 / SIM %R Qualifiers Associated Samples 4/2/2021 13:32 Freon 11 130.34 J / UJ ICV ICAL TO-15 / SIM RRF %RSD Qualifiers Associated Samples 4/01/2021 22:03 Acceptable Acceptable 4/01/2021 20:04 (SIM)Acceptable Acceptable CCV TO-15 / SIM RRF %D Qualifiers Associated Samples 4/6/2021 8:03 Acceptable Acceptable 4/7/2021 12:14 Acceptable Acceptable 4/6/2021 8:03 (SIM) Acceptable Acceptable 4/7/2021 12:14 (SIM) Acceptable Acceptable Tune TO-15 / SIM Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable Internal Standards TO-15 / SIM Area %Area % Criteria Qualifiers Associated Samples All Internal Standards Acceptable Canister Certification TO-15 / SIM Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable Associated Samples All samples 2103819-02B 2103819-01B, 2103819-03B 2 of 3 Raw Data Review TO-15 / SIM Results Recalculated Sample Result Acceptable Sample #Laboratory Reported Result Recalculated Sample Result (ug/m3)(ug/m3) TO-15 RRF / Concentration 2103819-02A 2-Propanol : 0.93 1.4448 / 0.927 2103819-02A Acetone: 6.1 0.45053 / 6.096 TO-15 - SIM 2103819-02B Ethylbenzene: 0.36 0.703/ 0.359 2103819-02B Toluene: 5.4 1.4361 / 5.379 (OR) (OR) Target Compound Identification Acceptable Chromatogram review Acceptable Representativeness:Yes No N/A Were sampling procedures and design criteria met? Yes Were holding times met? Yes Was preservation criteria met? (0° - 6° C)N/A Were Chain-of-Custody records complete and provided in data package?Yes Holding Time / Canister Pressure Criteria Days to Analysis Criteria Qualifiers Associated Samples Holding Time Acceptable Canister Pressure Criteria Comparability:Yes No N/A Were analytical procedures and methods followed as defined in the QAPP or field change documentation?Yes Comments (note deviations): Completeness (90%):Yes No N/A Are all data in this SDG usable?Yes Sensitivity:Yes No N/A Are MDLs present and reported? Yes Do the reporting limits meet project requirements? Yes Comments (note deviations): Data Validator:Date: Data Reviewer:Date:Cherie Zakowski Kristine Molloy 4/30/2021 Overall Comments: Data are usable with appropriate qualifiers applied. Initial and Final Canister Pressure Results Acceptable Comments (note 5/2/2021 Comments (note 3 of 3 2104424 Eurofins Air Toxics Matrix:Air Collection date:4/13/2021 & 4/14/2021 Volatile Organic Compounds - EPA Method TO-15 Volatile Organic Compounds - EPA Method TO-15 SIM Samples in SDG: Sample Number Laboratory Number Sample Number Laboratory Number RG04-SG041321 2104424-01A / B RG10-SG041421 2104424-05A / B RG08-SG041321 2104424-02A / B FD01-SG041421 2104424-06A / B RG11-SG041321 2104424-03A / B RG05-SG041421 2104424-07A / B RG07-SG041421 2104424-04A / B RG01-SG041421 2104424-08A / B Precision:Yes No N/A No Yes N/A Were the Laboratory Duplicate RPDs within limits?N/A Field TO-15 / SIM Sample (ug/m3)Duplicate (ug/m3)%RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples Duplicates RG10-SG041421 FD01-SG041421 Acetone 6.8 11 NC J** 2-Butanone (MEK) 1.8 J 4.5 NC J** 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 1.0 1.3 NC None 1,3-Butadiene 1.4 J 1.6 NC None 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 0.81 0.62 J NC None 2-Hexanone 3.1 U 0.96 J NC None 2-Propanol 3.4 3.7 NC None 4-Ethyltoluene 3.3 3.3 NC None Cumene 0.4 J 0.71 U NC None Ethanol 2.0 J 3.1 NC None Freon 11 2.4 2.3 NC None Freon 113 2.3 2.3 NC None Propylbenzene 0.85 0.68 J NC None Styrene 0.58 J 0.43 J NC None Tetrahydrofuran 0.87 J 1.2 J NC None 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 0.084 J 0.09 NC None 1,2-Dichloroethane 0.51 0.057 U NC None Chloroethane 0.13 J 0.17 NC None Freon 114 0.16 J 0.15 NC None Trichloroethene 0.11 J 0.12 NC None Vinyl Chloride 0.13 0.13 NC None ** ABS Diff. > RL LCS/LCSD TO-15 / SIM %RPD Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples 2104424-11A / 11AA Acceptable 2104424-11B / 11BB (SIM)Acceptable MS/MSD TO-15 / SIM %RPD Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Comments (note deviations): Sample results < 5xs RL; ABS Diff. < RL Data validation was performed in accordance with the specific analytical methods and the U.S. EPA Analysis of Volatile Organic Compounds in Air Contained in Canisters by Method TO-15 (June 2014) and the project specific QAPP, 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah, Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Salt Lake City Health Care System, November, 2019. Are the field duplicate relative percent differences (RPDs) ≤40%? Were the Matrix Spike Duplicate RPDs ≤ 20%? (Or lab defined limits) Volatile Organic Compounds TO-15 / TO-15 SIM Laboratory Control Spike Duplicate RPDs within limits? Sample results < 5xs RL; ABS Diff. < RL RG10-SG041421, FD01-SG041421 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Site Air Samples Laboratory: Analysis/Methods: Sample Delivery Group (SDG) Number: Salt Lake City, Utah Data Validation Report 1 of 4 Laboratory Sample (ug/m3)Duplicate (ug/m3)RL %RPD Qualifiers Duplicate 2104424-1A / 1AA Tetrahydrofuran 4.5 3.5 2.3 25 None 2104424-1B / 1BB (SIM)Acceptable Accuracy:Yes No N/A Was the Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate criteria met? (frequency ≥ 5% and laboratory determined control limits) N/A Laboratory Control Sample criteria met?No Were the Laboratory Method Blank results all < RL?No Were the Field Blanks results all < RL?N/A Was the ICAL criteria met? (30%)No Was the CCV criteria met? (30%)Yes Was the Tuning criteria met?Yes Were the Surrogate % recoveries within laboratory determined control limits?Yes Were the Internal Standard areas within ± 60 - 140%? Yes Was canister certification criteria met?Yes Were sample results able to be recalculated from the laboratory raw data and were they accurate?Yes Was target compound identification correctly performed by the laboratory?Yes Were chromatograms representative of the sample results?Yes Blanks TO-15 / SIM Concentration (ug/m3)MDL / RL (ug/m3)Qualifiers Associated Samples Lab Blank 2104424-09A Methylene Chloride 0.56 J 0.17 / 0.69 U-RL 2104424-09B (SIM) Acceptable Field Blank TO-15 / SIM Concentration MDL / RL Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Surrogates TO-15 / SIM %R Limit Qualifiers Acceptable MS/MSD TO-15 SIM %R Limits (%)Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A LCS/LCSD TO-15 / SIM %R Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples 2104424-11A / 11AA 2,2,4-Trimethylpentane 126.88 / 126.88 68-121 J All samples Bromomethane 134.78 / 127.22 63-134 J**All samples 2104424-11B / 11BB (SIM)Acceptable ** Qualification required for detected results only - associated results nondetect, no qualification required ICV/CCV TO-15 / SIM %R Qualifiers Associated Samples 4/16/2021 19:16 Acceptable ICAL TO-15 / SIM RRF %RSD Qualifiers Associated Samples 4/16/2021 6:18 Bromomethane Acceptable 32.93 J** 4/15/2021 23:40 (SIM)Acceptable Acceptable ** Qualification required for detected results only - associated results nondetect, no qualification required All samples Comments (note deviations): Associated Samples Associated Samples 2104424-04A Sample results < 5xs RL; ABS Diff. < RL 2 of 4 CCV TO-15 / SIM RRF %D Qualifiers Associated Samples 4/26/2021 7:10 Bromomethane Acceptable 135 J / UJ All samples 4/26/2021 9:01 Acceptable Acceptable 4/26/2021 7:10 (SIM) Acceptable Acceptable 4/26/2021 9:01 (SIM) Acceptable Acceptable Tune TO-15 / SIM Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable Internal Standards TO-15 / SIM Area %Area % Criteria Qualifiers Associated Samples All Internal Standards Acceptable Canister Certification TO-15 / SIM Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable Raw Data Review TO-15 / SIM Results Recalculated Sample Result Acceptable Sample #Laboratory Reported Result Recalculated Sample Result (ug/m3)(ug/m3) TO-15 RRF / Concentration 2104424-03A 4-Methyl-2-Pentanone : 0.62 1.02126 / 0.617 2104424-03A 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene: 0.64 1.5753 / 0.639 TO-15 - SIM 2104424-03B Benzene: 2.9 1.2281/ 2.927 2104424-03B m,p-Xylene: 1.5 0.5993/ 1.490 (OR) (OR) Target Compound Identification Acceptable Chromatogram review Acceptable Representativeness:Yes No N/A Were sampling procedures and design criteria met? Yes Were holding times met? Yes Was preservation criteria met? (0° - 6° C)N/A Were Chain-of-Custody records complete and provided in data package?Yes Holding Time / Canister Pressure Criteria Days to Analysis Criteria Qualifiers Associated Samples Holding Time Acceptable Canister Pressure Criteria Comparability:Yes No N/A Were analytical procedures and methods followed as defined in the QAPP or field change documentation?Yes Comments (note deviations): Initial and Final Canister Pressure Results Acceptable Comments (note 3 of 4 Completeness (90%):Yes No N/A Are all data in this SDG usable?Yes Sensitivity:Yes No N/A Are MDLs present and reported? Yes Do the reporting limits meet project requirements? Yes Comments (note deviations): Data Validator:Date: Data Reviewer:Date:Cherie Zakowski Kristine Molloy 5/7/2021 Overall Comments: Data are usable with appropriate qualifiers applied. Comments (note 5/9/2021 4 of 4      Attachment 2  Data Package Completeness Review Checklists   VA SLC OU‐1  Data Package Completeness Review Checklist  SDG: 21D206 Required Documentation Yes No Comments  1. Cover letter complete with the following information: X     Title of report and laboratory unique report identification  (sample delivery group number) X     Project name, site location X     Name and location of laboratory and second‐site or  subcontracted laboratory X     Client name and address X     Statement of authenticity and official signature and title of  person authorizing report release X    2. Summary of samples received that correlates field sample IDs  with the laboratory IDs X    3. Laboratory qualifier flags and definitions  X    4. Preparation and/or analytical methods  X    5. Sample results for each analyte (dry weight basis for soils)   Date received X     Date analyzed (and time of analysis if the holding time is less  than or equal to 48 hours) X     Percent solids results for soil samples   Not Applicable   Dilution factor (provide both diluted and undiluted results  when available) X     Sample‐specific reporting limit adjusted for sample size,  dilution/concentration X     Sample‐specific MDL adjusted for sample size,  dilution/concentration X     Units X    6. Case Narrative that addresses the following information at a  minimum: X     Sample receipt discrepancies X  None   Descriptions of all nonconformances in the sample receipt,  handling, preparation, analytical and reporting processes and  the corrective action taken in each occurrence  X      Identification and justification for sample dilution X     Sample cooler temperature at time of receipt X  1.2°C, 3.1 °C & 3.2 °C    Final residual vacuum of each sample canister immediately  prior to analysis, or upon receipt (Air analyses only)    Not Applicable  7. Surrogate percent recoveries (surrogate result, target  concentration, percent recovery)  X    Required Documentation Yes No Comments  8. MS/MSD and LCS spike concentrations, native sample results,  spiked sample results, percent recoveries, and RPDs between  the MS and MSD results (associated QC limits must also be  provided)  X    9. Method blank results X    10. Analytical batch reference number that cross references  samples to QC sample analyses  X    11. Executed COC and sample receipt checklist X    12.  Analytical sequence or laboratory run log that contains  sufficient information to correlate samples reported in the  summary results to the associated method QC information,  such as initial and continuing calibration analyses  X    13. Calibration blank results for inorganic analyses (required in  hardcopy format only)  X    14. Inductively coupled plasma (ICP) interference check sample for  inorganic analyses, true and measured concentrations and  percent recoveries (required in hardcopy format only)  X    15. Reporting Limit Check Standard for metals analyses, true and  measured concentrations and percent recoveries (if applicable,  required in hardcopy format only)  X    16. Post‐digestion spike recoveries for metals analyses, (if  applicable; required in hardcopy format only)  X    17. Internal Standard recovery and retention time information, as  applicable  X    18. Initial calibration summary, including standard concentrations,  response factors, average response factors, RSDs or correlation  coefficients, and calibration plots or equations, if applicable  (required in hardcopy format only)  X    19. Continuing calibration verification summary, including expected  and recovered concentrations and percent differences (required  in hardcopy format only)  X    20. Instrument tuning and mass calibration information for ICP  /mass spectrometry analyses  X    21. All associated instrument printouts for all samples, standards,  and QC samples (e.g., raw data) necessary to re‐calculate  results as well as all manual integrations (if performed)  X    22. Sample preparation logs that include the following information X     Preparation start and end times (as applicable) X     Beginning and ending temperatures of water baths and  digestion blocks  X    Data package complete and ready for Validation Cherie Zakowski Date: 5/23/2021  Signature VA SLC OU‐1  Data Package Completeness Review Checklist  SDG: 21D236 Required Documentation Yes No Comments  1. Cover letter complete with the following information: X     Title of report and laboratory unique report identification  (sample delivery group number) X     Project name, site location X     Name and location of laboratory and second‐site or  subcontracted laboratory X     Client name and address X     Statement of authenticity and official signature and title of  person authorizing report release X    2. Summary of samples received that correlates field sample IDs  with the laboratory IDs X    3. Laboratory qualifier flags and definitions  X    4. Preparation and/or analytical methods  X    5. Sample results for each analyte (dry weight basis for soils)   Date received X     Date analyzed (and time of analysis if the holding time is less  than or equal to 48 hours) X     Percent solids results for soil samples   Not Applicable   Dilution factor (provide both diluted and undiluted results  when available) X     Sample‐specific reporting limit adjusted for sample size,  dilution/concentration X     Sample‐specific MDL adjusted for sample size,  dilution/concentration X     Units X    6. Case Narrative that addresses the following information at a  minimum: X     Sample receipt discrepancies X  None   Descriptions of all nonconformances in the sample receipt,  handling, preparation, analytical and reporting processes and  the corrective action taken in each occurrence  X      Identification and justification for sample dilution X     Sample cooler temperature at time of receipt X  4.3 °C    Final residual vacuum of each sample canister immediately  prior to analysis, or upon receipt (Air analyses only)    Not Applicable  7. Surrogate percent recoveries (surrogate result, target  concentration, percent recovery)  X    Required Documentation Yes No Comments  8. MS/MSD and LCS spike concentrations, native sample results,  spiked sample results, percent recoveries, and RPDs between  the MS and MSD results (associated QC limits must also be  provided)  X    9. Method blank results X    10. Analytical batch reference number that cross references  samples to QC sample analyses  X    11. Executed COC and sample receipt checklist X    12.  Analytical sequence or laboratory run log that contains  sufficient information to correlate samples reported in the  summary results to the associated method QC information,  such as initial and continuing calibration analyses  X    13. Calibration blank results for inorganic analyses (required in  hardcopy format only)    Not Applicable  14. Inductively coupled plasma (ICP) interference check sample for  inorganic analyses, true and measured concentrations and  percent recoveries (required in hardcopy format only)    Not Applicable  15. Reporting Limit Check Standard for metals analyses, true and  measured concentrations and percent recoveries (if applicable,  required in hardcopy format only)    Not Applicable  16. Post‐digestion spike recoveries for metals analyses, (if  applicable; required in hardcopy format only)    Not Applicable  17. Internal Standard recovery and retention time information, as  applicable  X    18. Initial calibration summary, including standard concentrations,  response factors, average response factors, RSDs or correlation  coefficients, and calibration plots or equations, if applicable  (required in hardcopy format only)  X    19. Continuing calibration verification summary, including expected  and recovered concentrations and percent differences (required  in hardcopy format only)  X    20. Instrument tuning and mass calibration information for ICP  /mass spectrometry analyses  X    21. All associated instrument printouts for all samples, standards,  and QC samples (e.g., raw data) necessary to re‐calculate  results as well as all manual integrations (if performed)  X    22. Sample preparation logs that include the following information X     Preparation start and end times (as applicable) X     Beginning and ending temperatures of water baths and  digestion blocks  X    Data package complete and ready for Validation Cherie Zakowski Date: 5/09/2021  Signature VA SLC OU‐1  Data Package Completeness Review Checklist  SDG: 2103818 Required Documentation Yes No Comments  1. Cover letter complete with the following information: X     Title of report and laboratory unique report identification  (sample delivery group number) X     Project name, site location X     Name and location of laboratory and second‐site or  subcontracted laboratory X     Client name and address X     Statement of authenticity and official signature and title of  person authorizing report release X    2. Summary of samples received that correlates field sample IDs  with the laboratory IDs X    3. Laboratory qualifier flags and definitions  X    4. Preparation and/or analytical methods  X    5. Sample results for each analyte (dry weight basis for soils)   Date received X     Date analyzed (and time of analysis if the holding time is less  than or equal to 48 hours) X     Percent solids results for soil samples   Not Applicable   Dilution factor (provide both diluted and undiluted results  when available) X     Sample‐specific reporting limit adjusted for sample size,  dilution/concentration X     Sample‐specific MDL adjusted for sample size,  dilution/concentration X     Units X    6. Case Narrative that addresses the following information at a  minimum: X     Sample receipt discrepancies X  None   Descriptions of all nonconformances in the sample receipt,  handling, preparation, analytical and reporting processes and  the corrective action taken in each occurrence  X      Identification and justification for sample dilution X     Sample cooler temperature at time of receipt   Not Applicable   Final residual vacuum of each sample canister immediately  prior to analysis, or upon receipt (Air analyses only)  X    7. Surrogate percent recoveries (surrogate result, target  concentration, percent recovery)  X    Required Documentation Yes No Comments  8. MS/MSD and LCS spike concentrations, native sample results,  spiked sample results, percent recoveries, and RPDs between  the MS and MSD results (associated QC limits must also be  provided)  X    9. Method blank results X    10. Analytical batch reference number that cross references  samples to QC sample analyses  X    11. Executed COC and sample receipt checklist X    12.  Analytical sequence or laboratory run log that contains  sufficient information to correlate samples reported in the  summary results to the associated method QC information,  such as initial and continuing calibration analyses  X    13. Calibration blank results for inorganic analyses (required in  hardcopy format only)    Not Applicable  14. Inductively coupled plasma (ICP) interference check sample for  inorganic analyses, true and measured concentrations and  percent recoveries (required in hardcopy format only)    Not Applicable  15. Reporting Limit Check Standard for metals analyses, true and  measured concentrations and percent recoveries (if applicable,  required in hardcopy format only)    Not Applicable  16. Post‐digestion spike recoveries for metals analyses, (if  applicable; required in hardcopy format only)    Not Applicable  17. Internal Standard recovery and retention time information, as  applicable  X    18. Initial calibration summary, including standard concentrations,  response factors, average response factors, RSDs or correlation  coefficients, and calibration plots or equations, if applicable  (required in hardcopy format only)  X    19. Continuing calibration verification summary, including expected  and recovered concentrations and percent differences (required  in hardcopy format only)  X    20. Instrument tuning and mass calibration information for ICP  /mass spectrometry analyses  X    21. All associated instrument printouts for all samples, standards,  and QC samples (e.g., raw data) necessary to re‐calculate  results as well as all manual integrations (if performed)  X    22. Sample preparation logs that include the following information X     Preparation start and end times (as applicable) X     Beginning and ending temperatures of water baths and  digestion blocks    Not Applicable  Data package complete and ready for Validation Cherie Zakowski Date: 4/17/2021  Signature VA SLC OU‐1  Data Package Completeness Review Checklist  SDG: 2103819 Required Documentation Yes No Comments  1. Cover letter complete with the following information: X     Title of report and laboratory unique report identification  (sample delivery group number) X     Project name, site location X     Name and location of laboratory and second‐site or  subcontracted laboratory X     Client name and address X     Statement of authenticity and official signature and title of  person authorizing report release X    2. Summary of samples received that correlates field sample IDs  with the laboratory IDs X    3. Laboratory qualifier flags and definitions  X    4. Preparation and/or analytical methods  X    5. Sample results for each analyte (dry weight basis for soils)   Date received X     Date analyzed (and time of analysis if the holding time is less  than or equal to 48 hours) X     Percent solids results for soil samples   Not Applicable   Dilution factor (provide both diluted and undiluted results  when available) X     Sample‐specific reporting limit adjusted for sample size,  dilution/concentration X     Sample‐specific MDL adjusted for sample size,  dilution/concentration X     Units X    6. Case Narrative that addresses the following information at a  minimum: X     Sample receipt discrepancies X  None   Descriptions of all nonconformances in the sample receipt,  handling, preparation, analytical and reporting processes and  the corrective action taken in each occurrence  X      Identification and justification for sample dilution X     Sample cooler temperature at time of receipt   Not Applicable   Final residual vacuum of each sample canister immediately  prior to analysis, or upon receipt (Air analyses only)  X    7. Surrogate percent recoveries (surrogate result, target  concentration, percent recovery)  X    Required Documentation Yes No Comments  8. MS/MSD and LCS spike concentrations, native sample results,  spiked sample results, percent recoveries, and RPDs between  the MS and MSD results (associated QC limits must also be  provided)  X    9. Method blank results X    10. Analytical batch reference number that cross references  samples to QC sample analyses  X    11. Executed COC and sample receipt checklist X    12.  Analytical sequence or laboratory run log that contains  sufficient information to correlate samples reported in the  summary results to the associated method QC information,  such as initial and continuing calibration analyses  X    13. Calibration blank results for inorganic analyses (required in  hardcopy format only)    Not Applicable  14. Inductively coupled plasma (ICP) interference check sample for  inorganic analyses, true and measured concentrations and  percent recoveries (required in hardcopy format only)    Not Applicable  15. Reporting Limit Check Standard for metals analyses, true and  measured concentrations and percent recoveries (if applicable,  required in hardcopy format only)    Not Applicable  16. Post‐digestion spike recoveries for metals analyses, (if  applicable; required in hardcopy format only)    Not Applicable  17. Internal Standard recovery and retention time information, as  applicable  X    18. Initial calibration summary, including standard concentrations,  response factors, average response factors, RSDs or correlation  coefficients, and calibration plots or equations, if applicable  (required in hardcopy format only)  X    19. Continuing calibration verification summary, including expected  and recovered concentrations and percent differences (required  in hardcopy format only)  X    20. Instrument tuning and mass calibration information for ICP  /mass spectrometry analyses  X    21. All associated instrument printouts for all samples, standards,  and QC samples (e.g., raw data) necessary to re‐calculate  results as well as all manual integrations (if performed)  X    22. Sample preparation logs that include the following information X     Preparation start and end times (as applicable) X     Beginning and ending temperatures of water baths and  digestion blocks    Not Applicable  Data package complete and ready for Validation Cherie Zakowski Date: 4/20/2021  Signature VA SLC OU‐1  Data Package Completeness Review Checklist  SDG: 2104424 Required Documentation Yes No Comments  1. Cover letter complete with the following information: X     Title of report and laboratory unique report identification  (sample delivery group number) X     Project name, site location X     Name and location of laboratory and second‐site or  subcontracted laboratory X     Client name and address X     Statement of authenticity and official signature and title of  person authorizing report release X    2. Summary of samples received that correlates field sample IDs  with the laboratory IDs X    3. Laboratory qualifier flags and definitions  X    4. Preparation and/or analytical methods  X    5. Sample results for each analyte (dry weight basis for soils)   Date received X     Date analyzed (and time of analysis if the holding time is less  than or equal to 48 hours) X     Percent solids results for soil samples   Not Applicable   Dilution factor (provide both diluted and undiluted results  when available) X     Sample‐specific reporting limit adjusted for sample size,  dilution/concentration X     Sample‐specific MDL adjusted for sample size,  dilution/concentration X     Units X    6. Case Narrative that addresses the following information at a  minimum: X     Sample receipt discrepancies X  None   Descriptions of all nonconformances in the sample receipt,  handling, preparation, analytical and reporting processes and  the corrective action taken in each occurrence  X      Identification and justification for sample dilution X     Sample cooler temperature at time of receipt   Not Applicable   Final residual vacuum of each sample canister immediately  prior to analysis, or upon receipt (Air analyses only)  X    7. Surrogate percent recoveries (surrogate result, target  concentration, percent recovery)  X    Required Documentation Yes No Comments  8. MS/MSD and LCS spike concentrations, native sample results,  spiked sample results, percent recoveries, and RPDs between  the MS and MSD results (associated QC limits must also be  provided)  X    9. Method blank results X    10. Analytical batch reference number that cross references  samples to QC sample analyses  X    11. Executed COC and sample receipt checklist X    12.  Analytical sequence or laboratory run log that contains  sufficient information to correlate samples reported in the  summary results to the associated method QC information,  such as initial and continuing calibration analyses  X    13. Calibration blank results for inorganic analyses (required in  hardcopy format only)    Not Applicable  14. Inductively coupled plasma (ICP) interference check sample for  inorganic analyses, true and measured concentrations and  percent recoveries (required in hardcopy format only)    Not Applicable  15. Reporting Limit Check Standard for metals analyses, true and  measured concentrations and percent recoveries (if applicable,  required in hardcopy format only)    Not Applicable  16. Post‐digestion spike recoveries for metals analyses, (if  applicable; required in hardcopy format only)    Not Applicable  17. Internal Standard recovery and retention time information, as  applicable  X    18. Initial calibration summary, including standard concentrations,  response factors, average response factors, RSDs or correlation  coefficients, and calibration plots or equations, if applicable  (required in hardcopy format only)  X    19. Continuing calibration verification summary, including expected  and recovered concentrations and percent differences (required  in hardcopy format only)  X    20. Instrument tuning and mass calibration information for ICP  /mass spectrometry analyses  X    21. All associated instrument printouts for all samples, standards,  and QC samples (e.g., raw data) necessary to re‐calculate  results as well as all manual integrations (if performed)  X    22. Sample preparation logs that include the following information X     Preparation start and end times (as applicable) X     Beginning and ending temperatures of water baths and  digestion blocks    Not Applicable  Data package complete and ready for Validation Cherie Zakowski Date: 5/07/2021  Signature      Attachment 3  Analytical Data Packages  Note: Laboratory Data Reports removed from report and provided separately. Memorandum To: Josephine Newton-Lund, PMP, Senior Project Manager, Environmental Branch, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Shannon Smith, PE, Program Manager, Veterans Health Administration From: Nathan Smith, PMP, Senior Project Manager, CDM Federal Programs Corporation Whitney Treadway, Project Geologist, CDM Federal Programs Corporation Date: October 19, 2021 Subject: Aquifer Testing Analysis at the 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Superfund Site, Salt Lake, City, Utah Overview CDM Federal Programs Corporation (CDM Smith) has been contracted to provide remedial investigation activities at the 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Site (Site) under Contract No. W912DQ-18-D-3008, Task Order No. W912DQ19f3048, in accordance with the Phase 2 Remedial Investigation Work Plan (CDM Smith 2020), Attachment A, Field Sampling Plan (FSP), and the Minor Field Modification (MFM) #3 to the Phase 2 FSP (CDM Smith 2021). In February 2021, aquifer (slug) tests were conducted at 27 wells at the Site to provide hydraulic conductivity (K) and transmissivity (T) estimates across the project area. The hydraulic conductivity and transmissivity estimates were used to support the data quality objectives (DQOs) described in the Work Plan including an evaluation of mass discharge of PCE in the groundwater at the source area and downgradient. The hydraulic conductivity and transmissivity estimates described in this memo are used in combination with groundwater VOC concentrations, hydraulic gradients, and lithology to evaluate mass discharge across the site. The following wells were tested: MW-01S, MW-02, MW-03RA, MW-03RB, MW-03RC, MW-04, MW- 08A, MW-08B, MW-08C, MW-13S, MW-13D, MW-13L, MW-15D, MW-18, MW-19, MW-20S, MW- 20D, MW-21, MW-22, MW-26B, MW-26C, MW-26D, MW-32A, MW-34A, MW-34B, MW-34C, and MW-34D on the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) campus, Sunnyside Park, and East Side Springs area (Figure 1). Well locations for slug testing were selected based on review of lithologic logs, well screened intervals, water level data, and location relative to the groundwater plume. The slug tests were analyzed to estimate hydraulic conductivity and transmissivity of the shallow, intermediate, and deep aquifer zones. Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model The hydrogeologic conceptual model for this site has been previously defined using lithologic logs, well construction diagrams, and drilling notes. Lithology and aquifer characteristics vary widely Josephine Newton-Lund, PMP Shannon Smith, PE October 19, 2021 Page 2 across the site. Tested wells were completed in deep semi-confined and shallow unconfined aquifers. An anisotropy ratio of 0.01 was assumed for all wells to be consistent with the groundwater flow model (see the Groundwater Modeling Report for more information on the anisotropy ratio). Using data from lithologic logs and the groundwater flow model, aquifer thickness was defined as the distance from the bottom of the semi-confining unit to the bottom of the aquifer for semi-confined wells, and from the water table to the bottom of the aquifer for unconfined wells (Table 1). Data Collection Data were collected following CDM Smith Technical Standard Operating Procedure 4-6, Hydraulic Conductivity Testing, and supplemented by Midwest Geosciences’ Field Guide for Slug Testing and Data Analysis (Midwest Geosciences 2015). Slug test analysis parameters, including depth to water and well depth, were recorded in the field prior to starting testing at each location. Other data required for slug test analysis, such as the well screened interval and total depth, were taken from lithologic and well construction logs (Table 1). The well depth was measured in the field and was compared to the well depth previously reported. In all wells, the measured well depth at the time of testing was used in the analysis and to calculate other well input parameters. The slug test data collection forms completed in the field are included in Attachment A. Wells tested included 1-inch, 2-inch, and 4-inch diameter wells constructed with polyvinyl chloride [PVC] casing and screen. Mechanical slug and pneumatic slug testing methods were employed. Mechanical slug tests were conducted in 2-inch wells using Midwest Geosciences mechanical slugs with expected displacements of 1 foot and 2 feet1. Mechanical slug tests were conducted in 4-inch wells using Midwest Geosciences mechanical slugs with expected displacements of 0.92 feet (11 inches) and 1.42 feet (17 inches)2. Falling head and rising head tests were conducted using both the mechanical slugs. At least six tests were completed at each mechanically tested well in the following order: 12-inch falling head displacement, 12-inch rising head displacement, 24-inch falling head displacement, 24-inch rising head displacement, 12-inch falling head displacement, and 12-inch rising head displacement. In some instances a test may have been disrupted during initiation and more than six tests were run. In the case of MW-13S, only four tests (12-inch falling head displacement, 12-inch rising head displacement, 24-inch falling head displacement, and 24-inch rising head displacement) were completed because of long water level recovery times. During all tests, water level data were monitored using an In-situ Level-Troll 700 transducer with a vented cable. The transducer was lowered into each well far enough below the water level so that it would not be affected by the movement of the slug. After the transducer was in place, the cable was allowed to stabilize, and the transducer was allowed to equilibrate to the water temperature prior 1 Midwest Geosciences slugs for use in 2-inch wells are tapered at both ends to reduce splashing. The 1-foot displacement slug is 24.48 inches (2.04 feet) long and 1.63 inches in diameter. The 2-foot displacement slug is 45.6 inches (3.8 feet) long and 1.63 inches in diameter. 2 Midwest Geosciences slugs for use in 4-inch wells are tapered at both ends to reduce splashing. The 0.92-foot displacement slug is 25.56 inches (2.13 feet) long and 2.8 inches in diameter. The 1.42-foot displacement slug is 39.48 inches (3.29 feet) long and 2.8 inches in diameter. Josephine Newton-Lund, PMP Shannon Smith, PE October 19, 2021 Page 3 to starting any tests. The mechanical slug was lowered into the well and positioned immediately above the water level. The field team started data collection using the pressure transducer prior to inserting or withdrawing the slug to ensure the data included the pretest static water level. The pressure transducer recorded water level data at a rate of up to one reading every 0.25 or 0.5 seconds (depending on recharge conditions) to capture rapid water level changes. The height of water column above the transducer was recorded. To start the falling head test, the slug was lowered into the water in one smooth, quick motion to create a near instantaneous change in the water level in the well. The change in water level was recorded until it recovered, in most cases, to at least 95 (percent) % of the pretest, static level. Following recovery, data collection on the transducer was then stopped and a new test was started. The rising head test was then started by raising the slug in one smooth, quick motion out of the water while continuing to collect water level data with the transducer. The test was completed once the water level recovered to 95% of the pretest, static water level (in most cases). Pneumatic slug testing was completed on all eleven 1-inch wells (MW-03RA, MW-03RB, MW-03RC, MW-08C, MW-26B, MW-26C, MW-26D, MW-34A, MW-34B, MW-34C, and MW-34D). Pneumatic slug testing was also completed at well MW-02 because a 4-inch to 2-inch reducer at the surface inhibited using the appropriate size mechanical slug. Pneumatic slug tests were completed by attaching a Midwest Geosciences pneumatic test kit to the top of the PVC casing and increasing air pressure inside the well casing to displace the water level downward to create an initial displacement of 1 foot or 2 feet. Once the displacement stabilized, the air pressure was then released all at once and the water level recovery was observed. All pneumatic tests were rising head tests, as it was not possible to pull a vacuum on the well casings with the pneumatic kit set up to conduct a falling head test. During pneumatic tests, water level data were monitored using an In- situ Level-Troll 700 transducer with a vented cable in the same manner as during mechanical slug tests. Data Analysis Introduction Slug test data were analyzed following the guidelines in Chapter 12 of Butler (2020). Data required for slug test analysis were either collected in the field, calculated, or obtained from existing sources (e.g., well construction). The parameters compiled and used for slug test analysis are included in Table 1. At least two falling head tests and two rising head tests, one of each with 1-foot displacement and one of each with 2-foot displacement, were conducted at each 2-inch, mechanically tested well. At least two falling head tests and two rising head tests, one of each with 11-inch displacement and one of each with 17-inch displacement, were conducted at each 4-inch (except for MW-02). This series of tests makes it possible to assess the validity of the assumptions underlying standard slug test analysis methods or to determine if skin effects are present (Butler 2020). Further discussion of skin effects is presented in the following section. At least three rising head tests, two with 1-foot displacement and one with 2-foot displacement, were conducted at the pneumatically slug tested wells. Josephine Newton-Lund, PMP Shannon Smith, PE October 19, 2021 Page 4 Post Processing of Slug Test Data The water level and test time data from each test were reviewed in table and graphical format to identify when the test started by observing the change in water level caused by insertion or withdrawal of the slug. Test time was set to zero at the last static water level reading prior to when displacement started. After the test start time was determined, the data were reviewed to identify the maximum displacement, H(0). In general, H(0) was selected after rapid increases and decreases in displacement (defined as noise) dissipated and displacement began to decrease steadily. All displacement data, starting at test time zero, were then normalized by dividing the observed displacement, H, by the expected displacement, H(0)*, of 1 foot (12 inches) or 2 feet (24 inches) for 2-inch wells, and 0.92 feet (11 inches), and 1.42 feet (17 inches) for the 4-inch wells. Normalized water level displacement data were graphed versus test time and the tests from each well were plotted together in a coincident plot. If the plots of the falling and rising head tests were coincident then this indicated the assumptions used in the analysis methods are valid, that a skin effect is not present or, if present, that the skin effect is static, and analysis proceeded following the flow chart in Figure 12.1a in Butler (2020). In this case, only one test was selected for analysis because the coincidence indicates all tests will produce the same results. If the data were not coincident this suggests either a dynamic or directional skin effect is present, and analysis of the test with the least noise proceeded following the flow chart in Figure 12.1b in Butler (2020). A skin effect, or well skin, is caused by the impact of drilling on the near borehole environment. Types of skin effects include static, dynamic, and directional. A static skin effect is difficult to detect because it has the same effect on all tests. A dynamic skin changes with each test so it causes random changes in test data. A directional skin effect is dependent on the direction of water flow, into or out of the well during the test, so falling head and rising head tests plot separately. The displacement data from each location were reviewed and the test with the least noise (i.e., fluctuation in displacement early in the test) was selected for analysis. The test time and displacement data from the selected tests were then imported into Aqtesolv for analysis to estimate transmissivity or hydraulic conductivity (Duffield 2007). In Aqtesolv, the displacement data are normalized using H(0). A total of 27 slug tests, one from each of the 27 locations, were analyzed. Converting Transmissivity (T) to Hydraulic Conductivity (K) When the result of the Cooper et al. method was accepted, the estimate of T was converted to K using the screen length because flow is constrained to the screened interval (Butler 2020, p. 232). When the Peres et al. method was used, the estimate of T was converted to K using the screen length and aquifer thickness to provide a range of K values. This was done because the Peres et al. method assumes the well is fully penetrating and the amount of vertical flow is uncertain. Using the screen length to convert T to K provides a conservatively high estimate of K. Josephine Newton-Lund, PMP Shannon Smith, PE October 19, 2021 Page 5 Slug Test Data Analysis Following is a review of the analysis of the data from each well. Table 2 presents the process used for slug test data analysis based on the approach described in Chapter 12 of Butler (2020). MW-01S  Lithology: the well is screened in silty clay with gravel, sand clay, silty sand, clayey silt, and sandy clay with gravel.  Number of tests and displacement: eight tests were run. Tests 1 and 2 were run with H(0)* = 1 foot, tests 3 and 4 were run with H(0)* = 2 feet, and tests 5, 6, 7, and 8 were run with H(0)* = 1 foot. Tests 5 and 6 were not used in the analysis because H(0) in both tests was only about 0.2 feet indicating poor test initiation.  Review of coincident plot: the eight normalized displacement data from the tests were not coincident. No reproducible dependence on H(0)* or flow direction was observed (see plot in Attachment B). This may indicate a dynamic well skin effect.  The well is unconfined. The well is partially penetrating because it is screened from 184 feet below ground surface (bgs) to 224 feet bgs and the aquifer extends from 157.58 feet bgs (depth to water) to 226.6 feet bgs (bottom of the aquifer). The well screen is submerged, and a double straight-line effect, indicative of filter pack drainage, was not observed in the data plot.  Test selected for analysis: evaluated test 8, 12-inch rising head test because it had low noise, H(0) was near expected H(0)*, and recovery was greater than 99%.  Data analysis and results: data are not coincident and therefore data analysis followed the flow chart in Figure 12.1b in Chapter 12 of Butler (2020). · H(0) was 0.855 feet, which is not approximately equal to the H(0)* of 1 foot, so equation 3.2 (in Butler 2020) or 3.1 (in Aqtesolv) was used for effective casing radius correction. · No reproducible dependence on H(0)* was observed so the data were analyzed using the Hvorslev quasi-steady state model for unconfined aquifers (Figure 2). The estimated K from the model is 12 feet per day (ft/day). Josephine Newton-Lund, PMP Shannon Smith, PE October 19, 2021 Page 6 Figure 2. MW-01S Hvorslev Analysis MW-02  Lithology: the well is screened in gravelly sand, sandy clay, sandy, gravelly clay, sandy clayey gravel, and sand.  Number of tests and displacement: six tests were run. Tests 1, 2, 5, and 6 were run with H(0)* = 1 foot, and tests 3 and 4 were run with H(0)* = 2 feet.  Review of coincident plot: the plot of normalized displacement data from the tests were coincident (see plot in Attachment B).  The well is unconfined. The well is partially penetrating because it is screened from 175.5 feet bgs to 205.5 feet bgs and the aquifer extends from 170.01 feet bgs (depth to water) to 220.6 feet bgs (bottom of the aquifer). MW-01S Test 8 Rising Head 12-inch Hvorslev 0. 60. 120. 180. 240. 300. 0.001 0.01 0.1 1. Time (sec) Di s p l a c e m e n t ( f t ) Obs. Wells MW-01S Aquifer Model Unconfined Solution Hvorslev Parameters K = 12.02 ft/day y0 = 2.139 ft Josephine Newton-Lund, PMP Shannon Smith, PE October 19, 2021 Page 7  Test selected for analysis: evaluated test 4, 24-inch rising head test because it had low noise, H(0) was near expected H(0)*, and recovery was greater than 99%.  Data analysis and results: the aquifer is unconfined, and the well is screened below the water table; therefore, data analysis followed the flow chart in Figure 12.3 in Chapter 12 of Butler (2020). · H(0) was 2.381 feet, which is not approximately equal to the H(0)* of 2 feet, so equation 3.2 (in Butler 2020) or 3.1 (in Aqtesolv) was used for effective casing radius correction. · The data were analyzed using Cooper et al. S was implausibly low. This indicates a low-K skin may be present or it may be because of slug-induced vertical flow. · Because the well is partially penetrating, check if depth to top of screen (d)/aquifer thickness (b>)2. Because d/b<2, data were analyzed using both the unconfined and confined Kansas Geological Society (KGS) models. In both cases, Ss was not plausible for the lithology. · Followed the flow chart in Figure 12.2b in Butler (2020). The data were relatively noise free and the test ran to completion, therefore the data were analyzed using the Peres et al. model (Figure 3). Ss was implausibly low for the lithology. Transmissivity (T) from the model is the best estimate: T = 500 square feet per day (ft2/day). A range of K was calculated by dividing T by aquifer thickness and by screen length: K = 10 ft/day to 19 ft/day Josephine Newton-Lund, PMP Shannon Smith, PE October 19, 2021 Page 8 Figure 3. MW-02 Peres et al. Analysis MW-03RA  Lithology: the well is screened in silty gravel with sand, and clayey gravel with sand.  Number of tests and displacement: three rising head tests were run. Tests 1 and 3 were run with H(0)* = 1 foot, and test 2 was run with H(0)* = 2 feet.  Review of coincident plot: the plot of normalized displacement data from the tests were coincident (see plot in Attachment B).  The well is unconfined. The well is partially penetrating because it is screened from 215 feet bgs to 220 feet bgs and the aquifer extends from 188.99 feet bgs (depth to water) to 240.8 feet bgs (bottom of the aquifer).  Test selected for analysis: evaluated test 2, 24-inch rising head test because it had low noise, H(0) was near expected H(0)*, and recovery was greater than 99%.  Data analysis and results: the aquifer is unconfined, and the well is screened below the water table, therefore data analysis followed the flow chart in Figure 12.3 in Chapter 12 of Butler (2020). MW-02 Test 4 Rising Head 24-inch Peres et al. 0.1 1. 10. 100. 0. 1.2 2.4 3.6 4.8 6. Time (sec) Eq u i v a l e n t D r a w d o w n ( s e c ) Obs. Wells MW-02 Aquifer Model Confined Solution Peres-Onur-Reynolds Parameters T = 500.2 ft2/day S = 1.861E-7 Josephine Newton-Lund, PMP Shannon Smith, PE October 19, 2021 Page 9 · H(0) was 2.091 feet, which is not equal to the H(0)* of 2 feet, so equation 3.2 (in Butler 2020) or 3.1 (in Aqtesolv) was used for effective casing radius correction. · The data were analyzed using Cooper et al. S was implausibly low. This indicates a low-K skin may be present or it may be because of slug-induced vertical flow. · Because the well is partially penetrating, check if d/b>2. Because d/b<2, data were analyzed using both the unconfined and confined KGS models. In both cases, Ss was not plausible for the lithology. · Followed the flow chart in Figure 12.2b. The data were relatively noise free and the test ran to completion, therefore the data were analyzed using the Peres et al. model (Figure 4). Ss was implausibly low for the lithology. T from the model is the best estimate: T = 241 ft2/day. A range of K was calculated by dividing T by aquifer thickness and by screen length: K = 5 ft/day to 48 ft/day. Figure 4. MW-03AR Peres et al. Analysis MW-03RB  Lithology: the well is screened in sandy silty clay, and silty clayey gravel with sand. MW-03AR Test 2 Rising Head 24-inch Peres et al. 1. 10. 100. 1000. 0. 1.8 3.6 5.4 7.2 9. Time (sec) Eq u i v a l e n t D r a w d o w n ( s e c ) Obs. Wells MW-03RA Aquifer Model Confined Solution Peres-Onur-Reynolds Parameters T = 240.5 ft2/day S = 6.086E-16 Josephine Newton-Lund, PMP Shannon Smith, PE October 19, 2021 Page 10  Number of tests and displacement: three rising head tests were run. Tests 1 and 3 were run with H(0)* = 1 foot, and test 2 was run with H(0)* = 2 feet.  Review of coincident plot: the plot of normalized displacement data from the tests were coincident (see plot in Attachment B).  The well is semi-confined. The well is partially penetrating because it is screened from 267 feet bgs to 272 feet bgs and the aquifer extends from 253 feet bgs (top of the aquifer) to 394 feet bgs (bottom of the aquifer).  Test selected for analysis: evaluated Test 2, 24-inch rising head test because it had low noise, H(0) was near expected H(0)*, and recovery was greater than 99%.  Data analysis and results: the aquifer is semi-confined, the well is screened below the water table, therefore data analysis followed the flow chart in Figure 12.2a in Chapter 12 of Butler (2020). · H(0) was 2.025 feet, which is not equal to the H(0)* of 2 feet, so equation 3.2 (in Butler 2020) or 3.1 (in Aqtesolv) was used for effective casing radius correction. · The data were analyzed using Cooper et al. S was implausibly low. This indicates a low-K skin may be present or it may be because of slug-induced vertical flow. · The data were analyzed using the confined KGS model. Ss was not plausible for the lithology. · Data analysis followed the flow chart in Figure 12.2b. The data were relatively noise free and the test ran to completion, therefore the data were analyzed using the Peres et al. model (Figure 5). Ss was implausibly low for the lithology. T from model is the best estimate: T = 106 ft2/day. A range of K was calculated by dividing T by aquifer thickness and by screen length: K = 0.75 ft/day to 21 ft/day. Josephine Newton-Lund, PMP Shannon Smith, PE October 19, 2021 Page 11 Figure 5. MW-03RB Peres et al. Analysis MW-03RC  Lithology: the well is screened in silty gravel with sand, and gravel with silt and sand.  Number of tests and displacement: three rising head tests were run. Tests 1 and 3 were run with H(0)* = 1 foot, and test 2 was run with H(0)* = 2 feet.  Review of coincident plot: the plot of normalized displacement data from the tests were coincident (see plot in Attachment B). A slight dependence on H(0)* was observed.  The well is semi-confined. The well is partially penetrating because it is screened from 307 feet bgs to 312 feet bgs and the aquifer extends from 253 feet bgs (top of the aquifer) to 394 feet bgs (bottom of the aquifer).  Test selected for analysis: evaluated test 1, 12-inch rising head test because it had low noise, H(0) was near expected H(0)*, and recovery was greater than 99%.  Data analysis and results: the data showed an oscillatory or critically damped response; therefore, data analysis followed the flow chart in Figure 12.5 in Chapter 12 of Butler (2020). MW-03RB Test 2 Rising Head 24-inch Peres et al. 1. 10. 100. 1000. 0. 1.8 3.6 5.4 7.2 9. Time (sec) Eq u i v a l e n t D r a w d o w n ( s e c ) Obs. Wells MW-03RB Aquifer Model Confined Solution Peres-Onur-Reynolds Parameters T = 106. ft2/day S = 2.104E-7 Josephine Newton-Lund, PMP Shannon Smith, PE October 19, 2021 Page 12 · H(0) was 0.998 feet, which is not equal to the H(0)* of 1 foot, so equation 3.2 (in Butler 2020) or 3.1 (in Aqtesolv) was used for effective casing radius correction. · The data were analyzed using Butler-Zhan (Figure 6). Ss was plausible for lithology. The estimated K from the model is 25 ft/day. Figure 6. MW-03RC Butler-Zhan Analysis MW-04  Lithology: the well is screened in gravel with clay.  Number of tests and displacement: six tests were run. Tests 1, 2, 5, and 6 were run with H(0)* = 0.92 foot (11 inches), and tests 3 and 4 were run with H(0)* = 1.42 feet (17 inches).  Review of coincident plot: the plot of normalized displacement data from the tests were coincident (see plot in Attachment B).  The well is unconfined. The well is partially penetrating because it is screened from 143 feet bgs to 173 feet bgs and the aquifer extends from 136.45 feet bgs (depth to water) to 204.1 feet bgs (bottom of the aquifer). MW-03RC Test 1 Rising Head 12-inch Butler-Zhan 0. 24. 48. 72. 96. 120. -0.4 -0.12 0.16 0.44 0.72 1. Time (sec) Di s p l a c e m e n t ( f t ) Obs. Wells MW-03RC Aquifer Model Confined Solution Butler-Zhan Parameters Kr = 24.76 ft/day Ss = 5.933E-5 ft -1 Kz/Kr = 0.01 Le = 162.4 ft L = 106.7 ft Josephine Newton-Lund, PMP Shannon Smith, PE October 19, 2021 Page 13  Test selected for analysis: evaluated Test 4, 17-inch rising head test because it had low noise, H(0) was near expected H(0)*, and recovery was greater than 99%.  Data analysis and results: the aquifer is unconfined, and the well is screened below the water table, therefore data analysis followed the flow chart in Figure 12.3 in Chapter 12 of Butler (2020). · H(0) was 1.168 feet, which is not equal to the H(0)* of 1.42 feet, so equation 3.2 (in Butler 2020) or 3.1 (in Aqtesolv) was used for effective casing radius correction. · The data were analyzed using Cooper et al. S was implausibly low. This indicates a low-K skin may be present or it may be because of slug-induced vertical flow. · Because the well is partially penetrating, check if d/b>2. Because d/b<2, data were analyzed data both the unconfined and confined KGS models. In both cases, Ss was not plausible for the lithology. · Data analysis followed the flow chart in Figure 12.2b. The data were relatively noise free and the test ran to completion, therefore the data were analyzed using the Peres et al. model (Figure 7). Ss was plausible for lithology. T from model is the best estimate: T = 415 ft2/day. A range of K was calculated by dividing T by aquifer thickness and by screen length: K = 6 ft/day to 14. Josephine Newton-Lund, PMP Shannon Smith, PE October 19, 2021 Page 14 Figure 7. MW-04 Peres et al. Analysis MW-08A  Lithology: the well is screened in clayey gravel with sand.  Number of tests and displacement: eight tests were run. Tests 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, and 8 were run with H(0)* = 1 foot, and tests 5 and 6 were run with H(0)* = 2 feet. Tests 1 and 2 were not used in the analysis because of interruptions in the tests.  Review of coincident plot: the plot of normalized displacement data from the tests were not coincident (see plot in Attachment B). Some dependence on H(0)* and flow direction was observed, which may indicate a directional skin effect.  The well is unconfined. The well is partially penetrating because it is screened from 91 feet bgs to 106 feet bgs and the aquifer extends from 60.67 feet bgs (depth to water) to 140 feet bgs (bottom of the aquifer).  Test selected for analysis: evaluated Test 3, 12-inch rising head test because it had low noise, H(0) was near expected H(0)*, and recovery was greater than 99%. MW-04 Test 4 Rising Head 17-inch Peres et al. 1. 10. 100. 1000. 0. 10. 20. 30. 40. 50. Time (sec) Eq u i v a l e n t D r a w d o w n ( s e c ) Obs. Wells MW-04 Aquifer Model Confined Solution Peres-Onur-Reynolds Parameters T = 414.5 ft2/day S = 0.01066 Josephine Newton-Lund, PMP Shannon Smith, PE October 19, 2021 Page 15  Data analysis and results: the data show an oscillatory or critically damped response; therefore, data analysis followed the flow chart in Figure 12.5 in Chapter 12 of Butler (2020). · H(0) was 0.935 feet, which is not equal to the H(0)* of 1 foot, so equation 3.2 (in Butler 2020) or 3.1 (in Aqtesolv) was used for effective casing radius correction. · The data were analyzed using Springer-Gelhar, an unconfined model for critically damped data (Figure 8). The estimated K from the model is 103 ft/day. Figure 8. MW-08A Springer-Gelhar Analysis MW-08B  Lithology: the well is screened in clayey gravel with sand.  Number of tests and displacement: eight tests were run. Tests 1, 2, 7, and 8 were run with H(0)* = 1 foot, and tests 3, 4, 5 and 6 were run with H(0)* = 2 feet. After tests 1 and 2, the data collection interval was decreased from 0.5 seconds to 0.25 seconds because tests were running very quickly.  Review of coincident plot: the plot of normalized displacement data from the tests were not coincident (see plot in Attachment B). Some dependence on H(0)* and flow direction was observed, which may indicate a directional skin effect. MW-08A Test 3 Falling Head 12-inch Springer-Gelhar 0. 18. 36. 54. 72. 90. -0.3 -0.04 0.22 0.48 0.74 1. Time (sec) Di s p l a c e m e n t ( f t ) Obs. Wells MW-08A Aquifer Model Unconfined Solution Springer-Gelhar Critically damped when C(D)=1 Parameters K = 102.8 ft/day Le = 40.78 ft C(D) = 0.4073 L = 30.79 ft Josephine Newton-Lund, PMP Shannon Smith, PE October 19, 2021 Page 16  The well is semi-confined. The well is partially penetrating because it is screened from 180 feet bgs to 200 feet bgs and the aquifer extends from 147.6 feet bgs (top of the aquifer) to 324.6 feet bgs (bottom of the aquifer).  Test selected for analysis: evaluated Test 7, 12-inch falling head test because it had low noise, H(0) was near expected H(0)*, and recovery was greater than 99%.  Data analysis and results: the data show an oscillatory or critically damped response; therefore, data analysis followed the flow chart in Figure 12.5 of Chapter 12 of Butler (2020). · H(0) was 0.995 feet, which is not equal to the H(0)* of 1 foot, so equation 3.2 (in Butler 2020) or 3.1 (in Aqtesolv) was used for effective casing radius correction. · The data were analyzed using Butler-Zhan (Figure 9). Ss is low for lithology, but K from the model is still the best estimate. The estimated K from the model is 51 ft/day. Figure 9. MW-08B Butler-Zhan Analysis MW-08B Test 7 Falling Head 12-inch Butler-Zhan 1.10. 100. -0.5 -0.2 0.1 0.4 0.7 1. Time (sec) Di s p l a c e m e n t ( f t ) Obs. Wells MW-08B Aquifer Model Confined Solution Butler-Zhan Parameters Kr = 51.27 ft/day Ss = 2.258E-6 ft -1 Kz/Kr = 0.01 Le = 164.9 ft L = 121. ft Josephine Newton-Lund, PMP Shannon Smith, PE October 19, 2021 Page 17 MW-08C  Lithology: the well is screened in silty gravel with sand.  Number of tests and displacement: three rising head tests were run. Tests 1 and 3 were run with H(0)* = 1 foot, and test 2 was run with H(0)* = 2 feet.  Review of coincident plot: the plot of normalized displacement data from the tests were coincident (see plot in Attachment B).  The well is semi-confined. The well is partially penetrating because it is screened from 304 feet bgs to 309 feet bgs and the aquifer extends from 147.6 feet bgs (top of the aquifer) to 324.6 feet bgs (bottom of the aquifer).  Test selected for analysis: evaluated test 2, 24-inch rising head test because it had low noise, H(0) was near expected H(0)*, and recovery was greater than 99%.  Data analysis and results: the aquifer is semi-confined, the well is screened below the water table; therefore, data analysis followed the flow chart in Figure 12.2a in Chapter 12 of Butler (2020). · H(0) was 1.884 feet, which is not equal to the H(0)* of 2 feet, so equation 3.2 (in Butler 2020) or 3.1 (in Aqtesolv) was used for effective casing radius correction. · The data were analyzed using Cooper et al. S was implausibly low. This indicates a low-K skin may be present or it may be because of slug-induced vertical flow. · The data were analyzed using the confined KGS model. Ss was not plausible for the lithology. · Data analysis followed the flow chart in Figure 12.2b. The data were relatively noise free and the test ran to completion, therefore the data were analyzed using the Peres et al. model (Figure 10). Ss was implausibly low for the lithology. T from model is the best estimate: T = 82 ft2/day. A range of K was calculated by dividing T by aquifer thickness and by screen length: K = 0.5 ft/day to 16 ft/day. Josephine Newton-Lund, PMP Shannon Smith, PE October 19, 2021 Page 18 Figure 10. MW-08C Peres et al. Analysis MW-13S  Lithology: the well is screened in silty sand with gravel, clayey gravel with sand, sandy silt, clayey sand, and lean clay.  Number of tests and displacement: four tests were run. Tests 1 and 3 were run with H(0)* = 1 foot, and tests 4 and 5 were run with H(0)* = 2 feet. Only four tests were run because of slow recovery. Test 2 was not used as it was interrupted during initiation.  Review of coincident plot: the plot of normalized displacement data from the tests were coincident (see plot in Attachment B).  The well is unconfined. The well is partially penetrating because it is screened from 15.5 feet bgs to 20.5 feet bgs and the aquifer extends from 15.14 feet bgs (depth to water) to 90.9 feet bgs (bottom of the aquifer).  Test selected for analysis: evaluated test 3, 12-inch rising head test because it had low noise, H(0) was near expected H(0)*, and recovery was greater than 99%. MW-08C Test 2 Rising Head 24-inch Peres et al. 0.1 1. 10. 100. 0. 18. 36. 54. 72. 90. Time (sec) Eq u i v a l e n t D r a w d o w n ( s e c ) Obs. Wells MW-08C Aquifer Model Confined Solution Peres-Onur-Reynolds Parameters T = 82.01 ft2/day S = 2.342E-11 Josephine Newton-Lund, PMP Shannon Smith, PE October 19, 2021 Page 19  Data analysis and results: the aquifer is unconfined, and the well is screened below the water table (however, only slightly), therefore data analysis followed the flow chart in Figure 12.3 of Chapter 12 of Butler (2020). · H(0) was 1.032 feet, which is not equal to the H(0)* of 1 foot, so equation 3.2 (in Butler 2020) or 3.1 (in Aqtesolv) was used for effective screen radius correction. · The data were analyzed using Cooper et al. S was plausible for the lithology (Figure 11). T from the model is the best estimate. K was calculated by dividing T by effective screen length. T = 0.44 ft2/day and K = 0.1 ft/day. Figure 11. MW-13S Cooper et al. Analysis MW-13D  Lithology: the well is screened in clayey sand with gravel, sand with silt, and clayey gravel with sand.  Number of tests and displacement: six tests were run. Tests 1, 2, 5 and 6 were run with H(0)* = 1 foot, and tests 3 and 4 were run with H(0)* = 2 feet.  Review of coincident plot: the plot of normalized displacement data from the tests were coincident (see plot in Attachment B). Note that there was a problem during test 1, so the data were rejected. MW-13S Test 3 Rising Head 12-inch Cooper et al. 1. 10. 100. 1000. 1.0E+4 1.0E+5 -0.03 0.376 0.782 1.19 1.59 2. Time (sec) Di s p l a c e m e n t ( f t ) Obs. Wells MW-13S Aquifer Model Confined Solution Cooper-Bredehoeft-Papadopulos Parameters T = 0.4423 ft2/day S = 0.01302 Josephine Newton-Lund, PMP Shannon Smith, PE October 19, 2021 Page 20  The well is unconfined. The well is partially penetrating because it is screened from 79 feet bgs to 84 feet bgs and the aquifer extends from 13.59 feet bgs (depth to water) to 90.7 feet bgs (bottom of the aquifer).  Test selected for analysis: evaluated the Test 6, 12-inch rising head test because it had low noise, H(0) was near expected H(0)*, and recovery was greater than 99%.  Data analysis and results: the aquifer is unconfined, and the well is screened below the water table, therefore data analysis followed the flow chart in Figure 12.3 in Chapter 12 of Butler (2020). · H(0) was 0.994 feet, which is not equal to the H(0)* of 1 foot, so equation 3.2 (in Butler 2020) or 3.1 (in Aqtesolv) was used for effective casing radius correction. · The data were analyzed using Cooper et al. S was implausibly low. This indicates a low-K skin may be present or it may be because of slug-induced vertical flow. · Because the well is partially penetrating, check if d/b>2. Because d/b<2, data were analyzed using both the unconfined and confined KGS models. In both cases, Ss was not plausible for the lithology. · Data analysis followed the flow chart in Figure 12.2b. The data were relatively noise free and the test ran to completion, therefore the data were analyzed using the Peres et al. model (Figure 12). Ss was still implausibly low for lithology. T from model is still the best estimate; T = 10 ft2/day. A range of K was calculated by dividing T by aquifer thickness and by screen length: K = 0.1 ft/day to 2 ft/day. Because the water level in MW-13D was observed to recover faster than in MW-13S during slug testing and groundwater sampling, the K value of 2 ft/day is considered the best estimate for well MW-13D. Josephine Newton-Lund, PMP Shannon Smith, PE October 19, 2021 Page 21 Figure 12. MW-13D Peres et al. Analysis MW-13L  Lithology: the well is screened in sandy silt, silt with sand, and gravel with sand and silt.  Number of tests and displacement: six tests were run. Tests 1, 2, 5, and 6 were run with H(0)* = 1 foot, and Tests 3 and 4 were run with H(0)* = 2 feet.  Review of coincident plot: the plot of normalized displacement data from the tests were not coincident (see plot in Attachment B). Reproducible dependence on H(0)* and flow direction were observed, which may indicate a directional skin effect, and which may also be because of inertial effects caused by the long water column.  The well is semi-confined. The well is partially penetrating because it is screened from 150 feet bgs to 160 feet bgs and the aquifer extends from 96 feet bgs (top of the aquifer) to 301.8 feet bgs (bottom of the aquifer). At the time of analysis, MW-13L had not been surveyed. Ground surface elevation was assumed to be the same as MW-13S. MW-13D Test 6 Rising Head 12-inch Peres et al. 1.10.100.1000. 0. 60. 120. 180. 240. 300. Time (sec) Eq u i v a l e n t D r a w d o w n ( s e c ) Obs. Wells MW-13D Aquifer Model Confined Solution Peres-Onur-Reynolds Parameters T = 10.1 ft2/day S = 0.001498 Josephine Newton-Lund, PMP Shannon Smith, PE October 19, 2021 Page 22  Test selected for analysis: evaluated Test 3, 24-inch falling head test because it had low noise, H(0) was near expected H(0)*, and recovery was 99%.  Data analysis and results: the data show an oscillatory or critically damped response; therefore, data analysis followed the flow chart in Figure 12.5 in Chapter 12 of Butler (2020). · H(0) was 1.972 feet, which is not equal to the H(0)* of 2 feet, so equation 3.2 (in Butler 2020) or 3.1 (in Aqtesolv) was used for effective casing radius correction. · The data were analyzed using Butler-Zhan (Figure 13). Ss is plausible for lithology. The estimated K from the model is 34 ft/day. Figure 13. MW-13L Butler-Zhan Analysis MW-13L Test 3 Falling Head 24-inch Butler-Zhan 1. 10. 100. 1000. -0.3 0.16 0.62 1.08 1.54 2. Time (sec) Di s p l a c e m e n t ( f t ) Obs. Wells MW-13L Aquifer Model Confined Solution Butler-Zhan Parameters Kr = 34.1 ft/day Ss = 0.0001126 ft -1 Kz/Kr = 0.01 Le = 221.6 ft L = 133. ft Josephine Newton-Lund, PMP Shannon Smith, PE October 19, 2021 Page 23 MW-15D  Lithology: the well is screened in silty gravel with clay.  Number of tests and displacement: eight tests were run. Tests 1, 2, 7, and 8 were run with H(0)* = 1 foot, and Tests 3, 4, 5, and 6 were run with H(0)* = 2 feet. In Test 4, the rope caught on the casing during test initiation and disrupted the data, therefore it was not used in the analysis.  Review of coincident plot: the normalized displacement data from the tests were not coincident. No reproducible dependence on H(0)* was observed, however, reproducible dependence on flow direction was observed (see plot in Attachment B). This may indicate a directional well skin effect.  The well is unconfined. The well is partially penetrating because it is screened from 69 feet bgs to 74 feet bgs and the aquifer thickness is assumed to be 100 feet. The actual aquifer bottom is unclear because the well is west of the fault where only a few well depths are available. An aquifer thickness of 100 feet was assumed because it was reasonable. A sensitivity analysis was performed by first setting aquifer thickness to 23.9 feet, the height of the water column in the well and therefore the minimum thickness possible, which did not change the K estimate. The aquifer thickness was also set to 200 feet, twice the value used, and this did not change the K estimate obtained with an aquifer thickness of 100 feet.  Test selected for analysis: evaluated Test 8, 12-inch rising head test because it had low noise, H(0) was near expected H(0)*, it was quickest to run, and recovery was greater than 99%.  Data analysis and results: data are not coincident; therefore, data analysis followed the flow chart in Figure 12.1b in Chapter 12 of Butler (2020). · H(0) was 1.018 feet, which is not approximately equal to the H(0)* of 1 foot, so equation 3.2 (in Butler 2020) or 3.1 (in Aqtesolv) was used for effective casing radius correction. · No reproducible dependence on H(0)* was observed so data were analyzed using the Hvorslev quasi-steady state model for unconfined aquifers (Figure 14). The estimated K from the model is 15 ft/day. Josephine Newton-Lund, PMP Shannon Smith, PE October 19, 2021 Page 24 Figure 14. MW-15D Hvorslev Analysis MW-18  Lithology: the well is screened in silty gravel with sand, clayey gravel with sand, and clayey sand.  Number of tests and displacement: six tests were run. Tests 1, 2, 5, and 6 were run with H(0)* = 1 foot, and tests 3 and 4 were run with H(0)* = 2 feet.  Review of coincident plot: the normalized displacement data from the tests were not coincident. Reproducible dependence on H(0)* flow direction were observed (see plot in Attachment B). This may indicate changes in effective well screen length.  The well is unconfined. The well is partially penetrating because it is screened from 80 feet bgs to 90 feet bgs and the aquifer extends from 81.91 feet bgs (depth to water) to 153.33 feet bgs (bottom of the aquifer). The aquifer bottom elevation was assumed to be the same as adjacent well MW-19. The well is screened across the water table.  Test selected for analysis: evaluated Test 6, 12-inch rising head test because it had low noise, H(0) was near expected H(0)*, and recovery was greater than 99%. MW-15D Test 8 Rising Head 12-inch Hvorslev 0. 60. 120. 180. 240. 300. 0.001 0.01 0.1 1. 10. Time (sec) Di s p l a c e m e n t ( f t ) Obs. Wells MW-15D Aquifer Model Unconfined Solution Hvorslev Parameters K = 15.2 ft/day y0 = 1.114 ft Josephine Newton-Lund, PMP Shannon Smith, PE October 19, 2021 Page 25  Data analysis and results: data are not coincident; therefore, data analysis followed the flow chart in Figure 12.1b in Chapter 12 of Butler (2020). · H(0) was 1.136 feet, which is not approximately equal to the H(0)* of 1 foot, so equation 3.2 (in Butler 2020) or 3.1 (in Aqtesolv) was used for effective casing radius correction. · The data were analyzed using nonlinear Dagan model (Figure 15). The estimated K from the model is 12 ft/day. Figure 15. MW-18 Dagan Analysis MW-18 Test 6 Rising Head 12-inch Dagan 0. 40. 80. 120. 160. 200. 0.001 0.01 0.1 1. Time (sec) Tr a n s f o r m e d D i s p l a c e m e n t ( f t / f t ) Obs. Wells MW-18 Aquifer Model Unconfined Solution Dagan Parameters K = 11.53 ft/day y0 = 1.104 ft Josephine Newton-Lund, PMP Shannon Smith, PE October 19, 2021 Page 26 MW-19  Lithology: the well is screened in silty gravel with sand, clayey gravel with sand, and clayey sand.  Number of tests and displacement: six tests were run. Tests 1, 2, 5, and 6 were run with H(0)* = 1 foot, and Tests 3 and 4 were run with H(0)* = 2 feet.  Review of coincident plot: the normalized displacement data from the tests were not coincident. A reproducible dependence on H(0)* was not observed. Possible dependence on flow direction was observed (see plot in Attachment B). This may indicate changes in effective well screen length.  The well is unconfined. The well is partially penetrating because it is screened from 84 feet bgs to 94 feet bgs and the aquifer extends from 81.31 feet bgs (depth to water) to 152.4 feet bgs (bottom of the aquifer). The well is screened across the water table.  Test selected for analysis: evaluated Test 2, 12-inch rising head test because it had low noise, H(0) was near expected H(0)*, it was quickest to run, and recovery was greater than 99%.  Data analysis and results: data are not coincident; therefore, data analysis followed the flow chart in Figure 12.1b in Chapter 12 of Butler (2020). · H(0) was 0.947 feet, which is not approximately equal to the H(0)* of 1 foot, so equation 3.2 (in Butler 2020) or 3.1 (in Aqtesolv) was used for effective casing radius correction. · No reproducible dependence on H(0)* was observed so the data were analyzed using the Hvorslev quasi-steady state model for unconfined aquifers (Figure 18). The estimated K from the model is 30 ft/day. Josephine Newton-Lund, PMP Shannon Smith, PE October 19, 2021 Page 27 Figure 2. MW-19 Hvorslev Analysis MW-20S  Lithology: the well is screened in clayey gravel with sand, silty sand with gravel, silty sand, and sandy lean clay with gravel.  Number of tests and displacement: six tests were run. Tests 1, 2, 5, and 6 were run with H(0)* = 1 foot, and tests 3 and 4 were run with H(0)* = 2 feet.  Review of coincident plot: the normalized displacement data from the tests were not coincident. No reproducible dependence on H(0)* was observed but a dependence on flow direction was observed (see plot in Attachment B). This may indicate changes in effective well screen length or a directional skin effect.  The well is unconfined. The well is partially penetrating because it is screened from 79.5 feet bgs to 89.5 feet bgs and the aquifer extends from 83.58 feet bgs (depth to water) to 150.8 feet bgs (bottom of the aquifer). The well is screened across the water table. MW-19 Test 2 Rising Head 12-inch Hvorslev 0. 40. 80. 120. 160. 200. 0.001 0.01 0.1 1. Time (sec) Di s p l a c e m e n t ( f t ) Obs. Wells MW-19 Aquifer Model Unconfined Solution Hvorslev Parameters K = 29.76 ft/day y0 = 1.55 ft Josephine Newton-Lund, PMP Shannon Smith, PE October 19, 2021 Page 28  Test selected for analysis: evaluated Test 6, 12-inch rising head test because it had low noise, H(0) was near expected H(0)*, and recovery was greater than 99%.  Data analysis and results: data are not coincident; therefore, data analysis followed the flow chart in Figure 12.1b in Chapter 12 of Butler (2020). · H(0) was 1.008 feet, which is not equal to the H(0)* of 1 foot, so equation 3.2 (in Butler 2020) or 3.1 (in Aqtesolv) was used for effective casing radius correction. · The data were analyzed using nonlinear Dagan model (Figure 19). The estimated K from the model is 10 ft/day. Figure 19. MW-20S Dagan Analysis MW-20S Test 6 Rising Head 12-inch Dagan 0. 40. 80. 120. 160. 200. 0.001 0.01 0.1 1. Time (sec) Tr a n s f o r m e d D i s p l a c e m e n t ( f t / f t ) Obs. Wells MW-20S Aquifer Model Unconfined Solution Dagan Parameters K = 10.24 ft/day y0 = 1.145 ft Josephine Newton-Lund, PMP Shannon Smith, PE October 19, 2021 Page 29 MW-20D  Lithology: the well is screened in clayey gravel with sand.  Number of tests and displacement: six tests were run. Tests 1, 2, 5, and 6 were run with H(0)* = 1 foot, and tests 3 and 4 were run with H (0) * = 2 feet.  Review of coincident plot: the plot of normalized displacement data from the tests were not coincident (see plot in Attachment B). No reproducible dependence on H(0)* or flow direction were observed, which may a indicate dynamic well skin effect.  The well is unconfined. The well is partially penetrating because it is screened from 119 feet bgs to 129 feet bgs and the aquifer extends from 83.27 feet bgs (depth to water) to 150.4 feet bgs (bottom of the aquifer).  Test selected for analysis: evaluated test 5, 12-inch falling head test because it had low noise, H(0) was near expected H(0)*, and recovery was greater than 99%.  Data analysis and results: the data show an oscillatory or critically damped response; therefore, data analysis followed the flow chart in Figure 12.5 in Chapter 12 of Butler (2020). · H(0) was 0.961 feet, which is not equal to the H(0)* of 1 foot, so equation 3.2 (in Butler 2020) or 3.1 (in Aqtesolv) was used for effective casing radius correction. · The data were analyzed using the Springer-Gelhar method, an unconfined model for critically damped data (Figure 20). The estimated K from the model is 165 ft/day. Josephine Newton-Lund, PMP Shannon Smith, PE October 19, 2021 Page 30 Figure 20. MW-20D Springer-Gelhar Analysis MW-21  Lithology: the well is screened in gravelly clay with sand, silty gravel with sand, and clayey gravel with sand.  Number of tests and displacement: seven tests were run. Tests 1, 2, 6, and 7 were run with H(0)* = 1 foot, and tests 3, 4, and 5 were run with H(0)* = 2 feet. In test 3, the slug hit the bottom of the well. The slug was pulled up, retied to the rope, and a falling head 24-inch test was initiated after water level stabilized. Test 3 was not used in this analysis.  Review of coincident plot: the normalized displacement data from the tests were not coincident. Reproducible dependence on flow direction was observed (see plot in Attachment B). This may indicate a directional well skin effect and/or changes in effective well screen.  The well is unconfined. The well is partially penetrating because it is screened from 62 feet bgs to 72 feet bgs and the aquifer extends from 65.41 feet bgs (depth to water) to 142.6 feet bgs (bottom of the aquifer). The well is screened across the water table. Filter pack drainage, as evidenced by a double straight line, was not observed in the data.  Test selected for analysis: evaluated the test 2, 12-inch rising head test because it had low noise, H(0) was near expected H(0)*, and recovery was greater than 99%. MW-20D Test 5 Falling Head 12-inch Springer-Gelhar 0. 20. 40. 60. 80. 100. -0.2 0.04 0.28 0.52 0.76 1. Time (sec) Di s p l a c e m e n t ( f t ) Obs. Wells MW-20D Aquifer Model Unconfined Solution Springer-Gelhar Critically damped when C(D)=1 Parameters K = 165. ft/day Le = 42.17 ft C(D) = 0.4014 L = 36.24 ft Josephine Newton-Lund, PMP Shannon Smith, PE October 19, 2021 Page 31  Data analysis and results: data are not coincident; therefore, data analysis followed the flow chart in Figure 12.1b in Chapter 12 of Butler (2020). · H(0) was 1.03 feet, which is not equal to the H(0)* of 1 foot, so equation 3.2 (in Butler 2020) or 3.1 (in Aqtesolv) was used for effective casing radius correction. · The data were analyzed using the Hvorslev quasi-steady state model for unconfined aquifers (Figure 21). The model was fit to the data in the recommended time window. The estimated K from the model is 54 ft/day. Figure 21. MW-21 Hvorslev Analysis MW-22  Lithology: the well is screened in gravelly clay with sand, clayey gravel with sand, and clayey sand with gravel. MW-21 Test 2 Rising Head 12-inch Hvorslev 0. 40. 80. 120. 160. 200. 0.001 0.01 0.1 1. 10. Time (sec) Di s p l a c e m e n t ( f t ) Obs. Wells MW-21 Aquifer Model Unconfined Solution Hvorslev Parameters K = 54.36 ft/day y0 = 1.249 ft Josephine Newton-Lund, PMP Shannon Smith, PE October 19, 2021 Page 32  Number of tests and displacement: eight tests were run. Tests 1, 2, 5, and 6 were run with H(0)* = 1 foot, and tests 3, 4, 7, and 8 were run with H(0)* = 2 feet. The tests ran very quickly, therefore, an extra set of 24-inch tests were run.  Review of coincident plot: the normalized displacement data from the tests were not coincident. No reproducible dependence on H(0)* or flow direction was observed (see plot in Attachment B). This may indicate a dynamic well skin effect.  The well is unconfined. The well is partially penetrating because it is screened from 64 feet bgs to 74 feet bgs and the aquifer extends from 63.69 feet bgs (depth to water) to 131 feet bgs (bottom of the aquifer). The well is screened just below the water table. Slug test initiation brought the water levels into the screen. However, a double straight-line effect, indicating filter pack drainage, was not observed in the data plot.  Test selected for analysis: evaluated the test 6, 12-inch rising head test because it had low noise, H(0) was near expected H(0)*, and recovery was 99%.  Data analysis and results: data are not coincident; therefore, data analysis followed the flow chart in Figure 12.1b in Chapter 12 of Butler (2020). · H(0) was 0.809 feet, which is not equal to the H(0)* of 1 foot, so equation 3.2 (in Butler 2020) or 3.1 (in Aqtesolv) was used for effective casing radius correction. · No reproducible dependence on H(0)* was observed so the data were analyzed using the Hvorslev quasi-steady state model for unconfined aquifers (Figure 22). The estimated K from the model is 67 ft/day. Josephine Newton-Lund, PMP Shannon Smith, PE October 19, 2021 Page 33 Figure 22. MW-22 Hvorslev Analysis MW-26B  Lithology: the well is screened in clayey gravel with sand.  Number of tests and displacement: three tests were run. Tests 1 and 3 were run with H(0)* = 1 foot, and test 2 was run with H(0)* = 2 feet.  Review of coincident plot: the plot of normalized displacement data from the tests were coincident, with a slight dependence on H(0)* (see plot in Attachment B).  The well is unconfined. The well is partially penetrating because it is screened from 235 feet bgs to 245 feet bgs and the aquifer extends from 196.04 feet bgs (depth to water) to 390.4 feet bgs (bottom of the aquifer).  Test selected for analysis: evaluated test 2, the 24-inch rising head test, because it had low noise, H(0) was near expected H(0)*, and recovery was greater than 99%. MW-22 Test 6 Rising Head 12-inch Hvorslev 0. 8. 16. 24. 32. 40. 0.001 0.01 0.1 1. Time (sec) Di s p l a c e m e n t ( f t ) Obs. Wells MW-22 Aquifer Model Unconfined Solution Hvorslev Parameters K = 66.54 ft/day y0 = 1.491 ft Josephine Newton-Lund, PMP Shannon Smith, PE October 19, 2021 Page 34  Data analysis and results: the data show an oscillatory or critically damped response; therefore, data analysis followed the flow chart in Figure 12.5 in Chapter 12 of Butler (2020). · H(0) was 1.951 feet, which is not equal to the H(0)* of 2 feet, so equation 3.2 (in Butler 2020) or 3.1 (in Aqtesolv) was used for effective casing radius correction. · The data were analyzed using Springer-Gelhar, an unconfined model for critically damped data (Figure 23). The estimated K from the model is 18 ft/day. Figure 23. MW-26B Springer-Gelhar Analysis MW-26C  Lithology: the well is screened in sandy gravel, silty gravel, and gravelly clay.  Number of tests and displacement: three tests were run. Tests 1 and 3 were run with H(0)* = 1 foot, and test 2 was run with H(0)* = 2 feet.  Review of coincident plot: the plot of normalized displacement data from the tests were coincident (see plot in Attachment B).  The well is semi-confined. The well is partially penetrating because it is screened from 315 feet bgs to 325 feet bgs and the aquifer extends from 248.6 feet bgs (top of the aquifer) to 390.4 feet bgs (bottom of the aquifer). MW-26B Test 2 Rising Head 24-inch Springer-Gelhar 0.1 1. 10. 100. -0.09 0.328 0.746 1.16 1.58 2. Time (sec) Di s p l a c e m e n t ( f t ) Obs. Wells MW-26B Aquifer Model Unconfined Solution Springer-Gelhar Critically damped when C(D)=1 Parameters K = 17.6 ft/day Le = 64.74 ft C(D) = 0.7049 L = 44.71 ft Josephine Newton-Lund, PMP Shannon Smith, PE October 19, 2021 Page 35  Test selected for analysis: evaluated the test 2, 24-inch rising head test because it had low noise, H(0) was near expected H(0)*, and recovery was greater than 99%.  Data analysis and results: the data show an oscillatory or critically damped response; therefore, data analysis followed the flow chart in Figure 12.5 in Chapter 12 of Butler (2020). · H(0) was 2.211 feet, which is not equal to the H(0)* of 2 feet, so equation 3.2 (in Butler 2020) or 3.1 (in Aqtesolv) was used for effective casing radius correction. · The data were analyzed using Butler-Zhan (Figure 24). The estimated K from the model is 10 ft/day. Ss is low for lithology, but K is still the best estimate. Figure 24. MW-26C Butler-Zhan Analysis MW-26D  Lithology: the well is screened in gravelly sand and gravelly clay.  Number of tests and displacement: three tests were run. Tests 1 and 3 were run with H(0)* = 1 foot, and test 2 was run with H(0)* = 2 feet. MW-26C Test 2 Rising Head 24-inch Butler-Zhan 0.1 1. 10. 100. -0.003 0.598 1.2 1.8 2.4 3. Time (sec) Di s p l a c e m e n t ( f t ) Obs. Wells MW-26C Aquifer Model Confined Solution Butler-Zhan Parameters Kr = 10.1 ft/day Ss = 2.232E-6 ft -1 Kz/Kr = 0.01 Le = 127.5 ft L = 101.2 ft Josephine Newton-Lund, PMP Shannon Smith, PE October 19, 2021 Page 36  Review of coincident plot: the plot of normalized displacement data from the tests were coincident, with a slight dependence on H(0)* (see plot in Attachment B).  The well is semi-confined. The well is partially penetrating because it is screened from 347.75 feet bgs to 357.75 feet bgs and the aquifer extends from 248.6 feet bgs (top of the aquifer) to 390.4 feet bgs (bottom of the aquifer).  Test selected for analysis: evaluated the test 2, 24-inch rising head test because it had low noise, H(0) was near expected H(0)*, and recovery was greater than 99%.  Data analysis and results: the data show an oscillatory or critically damped response; therefore, data analysis followed the flow chart in Figure 12.5 in Chapter 12 of Butler (2020). · H(0) was 2.206 feet, which is not equal to the H(0)* of 2 feet, so equation 3.2 (in Butler 2020) or 3.1 (in Aqtesolv) was used for effective casing radius correction. · The data were analyzed using Butler-Zhan. The model did not fit data well in with a plausible Ss. The data were analyzed with Butler 1998 (Figure 25). The estimated K from the model is 39 ft/day. Figure 25. MW-26D Butler 1998 Analysis MW-26D Test 2 Rising Head 24-inch Butler 1998 0.1 1. 10. 100. 1000. -1. -0.2 0.6 1.4 2.2 3. Time (sec) Di s p l a c e m e n t ( f t ) Obs. Wells MW-26D Aquifer Model Confined Solution Butler Critically damped when C(D)=1 Parameters K = 38.52 ft/day Le = 131. ft C(D) = 0.2642 L = 130.9 ft Josephine Newton-Lund, PMP Shannon Smith, PE October 19, 2021 Page 37 MW-32A  Lithology: the well is screened in sandy clay, clayey gravel, sand clay, and sandy gravel with clay.  Number of tests and displacement: six tests were run. Tests 1, 2, 5, and 6 were run with H(0)* = 1 foot, and tests 3 and 4 were run with H(0)* = 2 feet.  Review of coincident plot: the plot of normalized displacement data from the tests were not coincident. A reproducible dependence on H(0)* was not observed (see plot in Attachment B). This likely indicates a dynamic well skin effect.  The well is unconfined. The well is partially penetrating because it is screened from 114 feet bgs to 124 feet bgs and the aquifer extends from 83.29 feet bgs (depth to water) to 154.77 feet bgs (bottom of the aquifer). The aquifer bottom was estimated based on the aquifer bottom at MW- 34.  Test selected for analysis: evaluated the test 4, 24-inch rising head test because it had low noise and recovery was greater than 99%.  Data analysis and results: data are not coincident; therefore, data analysis followed the flow chart in Figure 12.1b in Chapter 12 of Butler (2020). · H(0) was 1.484 feet, which is not equal to the H(0)* of 2 feet, so equation 3.2 (in Butler 2020) or 3.1 (in Aqtesolv) was used for effective casing radius correction. · No reproducible dependence on H(0)* was observed so the data were analyzed using the Hvorslev quasi-steady state model for unconfined aquifers (Figure 26). The estimated K from the model is 200 ft/day. Josephine Newton-Lund, PMP Shannon Smith, PE October 19, 2021 Page 38 Figure 26. MW-32A Hvorslev Analysis MW-34A  Lithology: the well is screened in silty gravel and clayey silt.  Number of tests and displacement: three tests were run. Tests 1 and 3 were run with H(0)* = 1 foot, and test 2 was run with H(0)* = 2 feet.  Review of coincident plot: the plot of normalized displacement data from the tests were coincident, with a slight dependence on H(0)* (see plot in Attachment B).  The well is unconfined. The well is partially penetrating because it is screened from 140 feet bgs to 150 feet bgs and the aquifer extends from 131.15 feet bgs (depth to water) to 196.8 feet bgs (bottom of the aquifer).  Test selected for analysis: evaluated the test 1, 12-inch rising head test because it had low noise, H(0) was near expected H(0)*, and recovery was greater than 99%. MW-32A Test 4 Rising Head 24-inch Hvorslev 0. 4. 8. 12. 16. 20. 0.001 0.01 0.1 1. 10. Time (sec) Di s p l a c e m e n t ( f t ) Obs. Wells MW-32A Aquifer Model Unconfined Solution Hvorslev Parameters K = 199.5 ft/day y0 = 19.68 ft Josephine Newton-Lund, PMP Shannon Smith, PE October 19, 2021 Page 39  Data analysis and results: the data show an oscillatory or critically damped response; therefore, data analysis followed the flow chart in Figure 12.5 in Chapter 12 of Butler (2020). · H(0) was 0.891 feet, which is not equal to the H(0)* of 1 foot, so equation 3.2 (in Butler 2020) or 3.1 (in Aqtesolv) was used for effective casing radius correction. · The data were analyzed using Springer-Gelhar, an unconfined model for critically damped data (Figure 27). The estimated K from the model is 46 ft/day. Figure 27. MW-34A Springer-Gelhar Analysis MW-34B  Lithology: the well is screened in silt, gravelly silt, and clay.  Number of tests and displacement: three tests were run. Tests 1 and 3 were run with H(0)* = 1 foot, and test 2 was run with H(0)* = 2 feet.  Review of coincident plot: the plot of normalized displacement data from the tests were coincident, with a slight dependence on H(0)* (see plot in Attachment B). MW-34A Test 1 Rising Head 12-inch Springer-Gelhar 0.1 1. 10. 100. -0.2 0.02 0.24 0.46 0.68 0.9 Time (sec) Di s p l a c e m e n t ( f t ) Obs. Wells MW-34A Aquifer Model Unconfined Solution Springer-Gelhar Critically damped when C(D)=1 Parameters K = 45.8 ft/day Le = 15.16 ft C(D) = 0.503 L = 13.12 ft Josephine Newton-Lund, PMP Shannon Smith, PE October 19, 2021 Page 40  The well is unconfined. The well is partially penetrating because it is screened from 175 feet bgs to 185 feet bgs and the aquifer extends from 131.12 feet bgs (depth to water) to 196.8 feet bgs (bottom of the aquifer).  Test selected for analysis: evaluated the test 2, 24-inch rising head test because it had low noise, H(0) was near expected H(0)*, and recovery was greater than 99%.  Data analysis and results: the data show an oscillatory or critically damped response; therefore, data analysis followed the flow chart in Figure 12.5 in Chapter 12 of Butler (2020). · H(0) was 2.362 feet, which is not equal to the H(0)* of 2 feet, so equation 3.2 (in Butler 2020) or 3.1 (in Aqtesolv) was used for effective casing radius correction. · The data were analyzed using Springer-Gelhar, an unconfined model for critically damped data (Figure 28). The estimated K from the model is 29 ft/day. Figure 28. MW-34B Springer-Gelhar Analysis MW-34C  Lithology: the well is screened in silty clay, silty gravel, and silty clay.  Number of tests and displacement: six tests were run. Tests 1, 2, 5 and 6 were run with H(0)* = 1 foot, and tests 3 and 4 were run with H(0)* = 2 feet. MW-34B Test 2 Rising Head 24-inch Springer-Gelhar 0.1 1. 10. 100. -0.3 0.36 1.02 1.68 2.34 3. Time (sec) Di s p l a c e m e n t ( f t ) Obs. Wells MW-34B Aquifer Model Unconfined Solution Springer-Gelhar Critically damped when C(D)=1 Parameters K = 28.99 ft/day Le = 39.64 ft C(D) = 0.5527 L = 48.28 ft Josephine Newton-Lund, PMP Shannon Smith, PE October 19, 2021 Page 41  Review of coincident plot: the plot of normalized displacement data from the tests were coincident (see plot in Attachment B).  The well is semi-confined. The well is partially penetrating because it is screened from 250 feet bgs to 260 feet bgs and the aquifer extends from 207.2 feet bgs (top of the aquifer) to 367.7 feet bgs (bottom of the aquifer).  Test selected for analysis: evaluated the test 3, 24-inch rising head test because it had low noise, H(0) was near expected H(0)*, and recovery was greater than 99%.  Data analysis and results: the aquifer is semi-confined, the well is screened below the water table, therefore data analysis followed the flow chart in Figure 12.3 in Chapter 12 of Butler (2020). · H(0) was 2.29 feet, which is not equal to the H(0)* of 2 feet, so equation 3.2 (in Butler 2020) or 3.1 (in Aqtesolv) was used for effective casing radius correction. · The data were analyzed using Cooper et al. S was implausibly low. This indicates a low-K skin may be present or it may be because of slug-induced vertical flow. · Because the well is partially penetrating, check if d/b>2. Because d/b<2, the data were analyzed using both the unconfined and semi-confined KGS models. In both cases, Ss was not plausible for the lithology. · Followed the flow chart in Figure 12.2b. The data were relatively noise free and the test ran to completion, therefore the data were analyzed using the Peres et al. model (Figure 29). Ss was still implausibly low for lithology. T from model is still the best estimate: T = 22 ft2/day. A range of K was calculated by dividing T by aquifer thickness and by screen length: K = 0.14 ft/day to 2 ft/day. Josephine Newton-Lund, PMP Shannon Smith, PE October 19, 2021 Page 42 Figure 29. MW-34C Peres et al. Analysis MW-34D  Lithology: the well is screened in silty gravel and silty clay.  Number of tests and displacement: six tests were run. Tests 1, 2, 5 and 6 were run with H(0)* = 1 foot, and tests 3 and 4 were run with H(0)* = 2 feet.  Review of coincident plot: the plot of normalized displacement data from the tests were coincident, with a slight dependence on H(0)* (see plot in Attachment B).  The well is semi-confined. The well is partially penetrating because it is screened from 315 feet bgs to 325 feet bgs and the aquifer extends from 207.2 feet bgs (top of the aquifer) to 367.7 feet bgs (bottom of the aquifer).  Test selected for analysis: evaluated the test 4, 24-inch rising head test because it had low noise, H(0) was near expected H(0)*, and recovery was greater than 99%.  Data analysis and results: the data show an oscillatory or critically damped response; therefore, data analysis followed the flow chart in Figure 12.5, Chapter 12 of Butler (2020). MW-34C Test 3 Rising Head 24-inch Peres et al. 0.1 1. 10. 100. 1000. 0. 2. 4. 6. 8. 10. Time (sec) Eq u i v a l e n t D r a w d o w n ( s e c ) Obs. Wells MW-34C Aquifer Model Confined Solution Peres-Onur-Reynolds Parameters T = 21.84 ft2/day S = 0.002482 Josephine Newton-Lund, PMP Shannon Smith, PE October 19, 2021 Page 43 · H(0) was 2.228 feet, which is not equal to the H(0)* of 2 feet, so equation 3.2 (in Butler 2020) or 3.1 (in Aqtesolv) was used for effective casing radius correction. · The data were analyzed using Butler-Zhan (Figure 30). The estimated K from the model is 20 ft/day. Figure 30. MW-34D Butler-Zhan Analysis MW-34D Test 4 Rising Head 24-inch Butler-Zhan 1.10. 100. -1. -0.2 0.6 1.4 2.2 3. Time (sec) Di s p l a c e m e n t ( f t ) Obs. Wells MW-34D Aquifer Model Confined Solution Butler-Zhan Parameters Kr = 20.39 ft/day Ss = 4.216E-6 ft -1 Kz/Kr = 0.01 Le = 229.1 ft L = 188.9 ft Josephine Newton-Lund, PMP Shannon Smith, PE October 19, 2021 Page 44 Results The K and T values calculated from the slug test results are listed in Table 3. These results should be regarded as lower-bound estimates of K. The results of the slug tests are usable and consistent with the project DQOs as defined in the work plan. The K values at wells completed in the 17 shallow aquifer zone wells ranged from 0.1 ft/day to 200 ft/day. Ten of the K values in these wells ranged between 5 ft/day and 50 ft/day. The K values in the nine wells completed in the deep aquifer zone ranged between 0.14 ft/day and 51 ft/day. Eight of these K values ranged between approximately 10 ft/day and 51 ft/day. The one well tested in the intermediate aquifer zone, MW-26B, had a K value of 18 ft/day, which is in the middle of the K values observed in the shallow and deep zone wells. These K values are reasonable for the lithology of the screened zones (Freeze, et al. 1979). The T values are presented in Table 3 and were influenced by lithology and aquifer thickness and varied greatly throughout the study area. The T values were calculated either by the model or by multiplying the hydraulic conductivity, K, by the aquifer thickness or screen length. Transmissivity values in wells completed in the shallow aquifer zones ranged from 0.44 ft2/day to 14,296 ft2/day. Transmissivity values of the wells completed in the deep aquifer zones had a smaller range, between 22 ft2/day and 9,028 ft2/day. The one well tested in the intermediate aquifer zone, MW- 26B, had a T value of 3,498 ft2/day. As part of the data analysis process, the normalized data from each test at a well were plotted together on a coincident plot (Attachment B). When a plot of normalized displacement data is coincident, this indicates the response in the well is not a function of initial displacement and that the assumptions underlying the methods used to analyze the data are valid. Data were coincident in 15 out of 27 tests evaluated, as indicated in Table 3.  At seven of these wells (MW-02, MW-03RA, MW-03RB, MW-04, MW-08C, MW-13D, and MW- 34C) a possible low-K skin was detected using the Cooper et al. analysis which was used as part of the process of evaluating the data from coincident tests.  Data from seven other wells in this group (MW-03RC, MW-26B, MW-26C, MW-26D, MW-34A, MW-34B, and MW-34D) were coincident indicating either that skin effects are minimal or that a static skin is present. Due to the oscillatory nature of the response, data from these seven locations were not screened with the Cooper et al. method.  Data from MW-13S were coincident, were analyzed with the Cooper et al. method, the results were accepted, and a skin effect was not observed. At the 12 wells where the data plots were not coincident, this may be because of a dynamic skin effect (differences in responses appear random) or a directional skin effect (responses differ consistently between a rising and falling head test). Skin effects are assumed to bias the K estimates low. Josephine Newton-Lund, PMP Shannon Smith, PE October 19, 2021 Page 45  Possible dynamic skin effects were observed in the tests from four wells: MW-01S, MW-20D, MW-22, and MW-32A (Table 3).  Possible directional skin effects were observed in the tests from eight wells: MW-08A, MW-08B, MW-13L, MW-15D, MW-18, MW-19, MW-20S, and MW-21 (Table 3). Josephine Newton-Lund, PMP Shannon Smith, PE October 19, 2021 Page 46 References Batu, V. 1998. Aquifer Hydraulics: A Comprehensive Guide to Hydrogeologic Data Analysis. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, New York. Butler Jr., J.J. 2020. The Design, Performance, and Analysis of Slug Tests. Second edition. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida. CDM Smith. 2020. Final Phase 2 Remedial Investigation Work Plan, Operable Unit 1, 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. CDM Smith. 2021. Modification #3 to Phase 2 Field Sampling Plan, 700 South 1600 East Tetrachloroethene Plume Superfund Site, Salt Lake City, Utah. Duffield, G.M. 2007. AQTESOLV for Windows, Version 4.50.002 Professional. HydroSOLVE, Inc. Reston, Virginia. Freeze. R. A., and J. A. Cherry. 1979. Groundwater. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc. p. 29. Midwest Geosciences. 2015. Field Guide for Slug Testing and Data Analysis. Midwest Geosciences Group Press, Carmel, Indiana. Figure 1 Tables Table 1 Well Parameters Table 2 Slug Test Data Analysis Process Table 3 Results This page intentionally left blank. Table 1 Well Parameters Depth to  Water (ft bgs) MW‐01S ‐Shallow Partially Unconfined 4435.94 226.6 ‐‐Mechanical 224 221.16 ‐0.6 220.56 Silty clay with gravel, sandy clay, silty sand,  clayey silt, sandy clay with gravel 184 224 156.98 157.58 MW‐02 ‐Shallow Partially Unconfined 4457.77 220.6 ‐‐Pneumatic 205.5 205.8 ‐0.3 205.5 Gravelly sand, sandy clay, sandy gravelly clay,  sandy clayey gravel, sand 175.5 202.5 170.71 171.01 MW‐03RA A Shallow Partially Unconfined 4457.92 240.8 ‐‐Pneumatic 223 223.514 ‐0.8 222.69 Silty gravel with sand, clayey gravel with sand 215 220 188.17 188.99 MW‐03RB B Deep Partially Semiconfined 4304.7 394.0 4445.7 253.0 Pneumatic 275 276.222 ‐0.8 275.41 Sandy silty clay, silty clayey gravel with sand 267 272 203.73 204.54 MW‐03RC C Deep Partially Semiconfined 4304.7 394.0 4445.7 253.0 Pneumatic 315 316.317 ‐0.8 315.55 Silty gravel with sand, gravel with silt and  sand 307 312 203.88 204.65 MW‐04 ‐Shallow Partially Unconfined 4450.07 204.1 ‐‐Mechanical 173 173.4 ‐0.2 173.2 Gravel with clay 143 173 136.25 136.45 MW‐08A A Shallow Partially Unconfined 4400.59 140.0 ‐‐Mechanical 106 106.45 ‐0.6 105.87 Clayey gravel with sand 91 106 60.09 60.67 MW‐08B B Deep Partially Semiconfined 4215.97 324.6 4393.0 147.6 Mechanical 200 199.851 ‐0.6 199.3 Clayey gravel with sand 180 200 58.32 58.87 MW‐08C C Deep Partially Semiconfined 4215.97 324.6 4393.0 147.6 Pneumatic 312 308.552 ‐0.8 307.8 Silty gravel with sand 304 309 57.05 57.80  MW‐13S ‐Shallow Partially Unconfined 4392.42 90.9 ‐‐Mechanical 22 21.008 ‐0.4 20.65 Silty sand with gravel, clayey gravel with sand,  sandy silt, clayey sand, lean clay 15.5 20.5 14.78 15.14  MW‐13D ‐Shallow Partially Unconfined 4392.42 90.7 ‐‐Mechanical 90 84.878 ‐0.4 84.5 Clayey sand with gravel, sand with silt, clayey  gravel with sand 79 84 13.21 13.59 MW‐13L Deep Partially Semiconfined 4181.49 301.81 4387.3 96.0 Mechanical ‐160.8 ‐0.8 160 Sandy silt, silt with sand, gravel with sand and  silt 150 160 17.02 17.82 ‐Shallow Partially Unconfined Unclear2 Unclear2 ‐‐Mechanical 95 74.2 ‐0.2 74 69 74 50.10 50.30  MW‐18 ‐Shallow Partially Unconfined 4405.8 153.33 ‐‐Mechanical 110 89.98 ‐0.2 89.75 Silty gravel with sand, clayey gravel with sand,  clayey sand 80 90 81.68 81.91  MW‐19 ‐Shallow Partially Unconfined 4404.89 152.4 ‐‐Mechanical 110 95.6 ‐0.2 95.32 Gravelly clay with sand, clayey gravel with  sand 84 94 81.09 81.33  MW‐20S ‐Shallow Partially Unconfined 4407.95 150.8 ‐‐Mechanical 90.8 90.355 ‐0.3 90.1 Clayey gravel with sand, silty sand with gravel,  silty sand, sandy lean clay with gravel 79.5 89.5 83.33 83.58  MW‐20D ‐Shallow Partially Unconfined 4407.95 150.4 ‐‐Mechanical 150 129.455 ‐0.2 129.25 Clayey gravel with sand 119 129 83.07 83.27  MW‐21 ‐Shallow Partially Unconfined 4420.95 142.6 ‐‐Mechanical 80 71.928 ‐0.2 71.68 Gravelly clay with sand, silty gravel with sand,  clayey gravel with sand 62 72 65.16 65.41  MW‐22 ‐Shallow Partially Unconfined 4431.91 131.0 ‐‐Mechanical 120 73.246 ‐0.2 73 Gravelly clay with sand, clayey gravel with  sand, clayey sand with gravel 64 74 63.44 63.69 MW‐26B B Intermediate Partially Unconfined 4464.96 390.4 ‐‐Pneumatic 247 250.75 ‐0.7 250.05 Silty sand with gravel 235 245 195.34 196.04 MW‐26C C Deep Partially Semiconfined 4322.89 390.4 4464.6 248.6 Pneumatic 327 329.22 ‐0.7 328.48 Sandy gravel, silty gravel, gravelly clay 315 325 217.32 218.06 MW‐26D D Deep Partially Semiconfined 4322.89 390.4 4464.6 248.6 Pneumatic 360 359.2 ‐0.8 358.45 Gravelly sand, gravelly clay 347.75 357.75 217.51 218.26 A Shallow Partially Unconfined 4384.844 154.77 ‐‐Mechanical ‐124.85 ‐0.6 124.3 Sandy clay, clayey gravel, sandy clay, sandy  gravel with clay 114 124 82.74 83.29 MW‐34A A Shallow Partially Unconfined 4426.84 196.8 ‐‐Pneumatic 152 154.27 ‐0.5 153.75 Silty gravel, clayey silt 140 150 130.63 131.15 MW‐34B B Shallow Partially Unconfined 4426.84 196.8 ‐‐Pneumatic 187 189.4 ‐0.9 188.5 Silt, gravelly silt, clay 175 185 130.22 131.12 MW‐34C C Deep Partially Semiconfined 4255.93 367.7 4416.4 207.2 Pneumatic 262 264.2 ‐1.0 263.22 Silty clay, silty gravel, silty clay 250 260 129.56 130.54 MW‐34D D Deep Partially Semiconfined 4255.93 367.7 4416.4 207.2 Pneumatic 327 329.34 ‐1.0 328.31 Silty gravel, silty clay 315 325 129.46 130.49 NOTES 1 For MW‐13L, assumed same ground surface as MW‐13S 2 For MW‐15D, aquifer bottom is unclear. Assumed an aquifer thickness of 100 feet. 3 For MW‐18, assumed same aquifer bottom as MW‐19, accounted for 0.91 difference in elevation 4 For MW‐32A, estimated aquifer bottom based on MW‐34A; average of difference between suface elevations (58 ft) and screen bottoms (26 ft) = 42 ft 5 Stick‐up is the length of casing above or below (negative number) ground surface amsl – above mean sea level bgs – below ground surface btoc – below top of inside casing MW‐32A Aquifer  Bottom  (ft  amsl) Aquifer  Confined or  Unconfined Aquifer Zone MW‐15D Well ID Sample  Interval Fully or  Partially  Penetrating Aquifer  Bottom  (feet bgs) Aquifer Top    (if confined)    (ft amsl) Aquifer Top     (if confined)     (feet bgs) Total Well  Depth  Measured (ft  bgs) Lithology at Screened Interval Total Well  Depth  (ft bgs) Screen  Start (ft bgs) Screen  End (ft bgs) Total Well  Depth  Measured  (ft bTOC) Slug Test  Type Stick‐up5 (ft) Measured Depth  to Water (ft BTOC)  prior to testing Silty gravel with sand Table 1 Well Parameters MW‐01S MW‐02 MW‐03RA MW‐03RB MW‐03RC MW‐04 MW‐08A MW‐08B MW‐08C  MW‐13S  MW‐13D MW‐13L  MW‐18  MW‐19  MW‐20S  MW‐20D  MW‐21  MW‐22 MW‐26B MW‐26C MW‐26D MW‐34A MW‐34B MW‐34C MW‐34D NOTES MW‐32A MW‐15D Well ID d/b d/b > 2?Anisotropy  Ratio H(0) observed H(0)*  expected H b d L Le R(w)R(c) R(eq) Kz/Kr (feet) (feet) 8.6 63.58 69.02 26.42 0.38 N 40.00 40.00 0.42 2 0.083 0.01 0.01 0.855 1.00 7.5 34.79 49.63 4.49 0.09 N 27.00 27.00 8 0.33 2 0.083 0.01 0.01 2.381 2.00 7.6 34.52 51.77 26.01 0.50 N 5.00 5.00 0.33 1 0.042 0.01 0.01 2.091 2.00 9.0 71.68 189.44 62.46 0.44 N 5.00 5.00 0.33 1 0.042 0.01 0.01 2.025 2.00 9.0 111.67 189.34 102.35 0.73 N 5.00 5.00 0.33 1 0.042 0.01 0.01 0.998 1.00 14.5 36.95 67.63 6.55 0.10 N 30.00 30.00 8 0.33 4 0.167 0.01 0.01 1.168 1.42 11.0 45.78 79.29 30.33 0.38 N 15.00 15.00 0.42 2 0.083 0.01 0.01 0.935 1.00 12.7 140.98 265.71 121.13 0.68 N 20.00 20.00 0.42 2 0.083 0.01 0.01 0.995 1 or 2 11.4 250.75 266.78 246.20 1.39 N 5.00 5.00 0.42 1 0.042 0.01 0.01 1.884 2.00 6.0 5.87 75.76 0.36 0.00 N 5.00 5.00 6 0.25 2 0.083 0.01 0.01 1.032 1.00 9.4 71.29 77.07 65.41 0.85 N 5.00 5.00 6 0.25 2 0.083 0.01 0.01 0.994 1.00 9.3 142.98 283.99 132.18 0.64 N 10.00 10.00 6 0.25 2 0.083 0.01 0.01 1.972 2.00 9.4 23.90 100.00 18.70 0.19 N 5.00 5.00 6 0.25 2 0.083 0.01 0.01 1.018 1.00 7.7 8.07 71.42 0.00 0.00 N 10.00 8.07 6 0.25 2 0.083 0.01 0.01 1.136 1.00 10.0 14.23 71.10 2.67 0.04 N 10.00 10.00 6 0.25 2 0.083 0.01 0.01 0.947 1.00 6.1 6.77 67.20 0.00 0.00 N 10.00 6.77 6 0.25 2 0.083 0.01 0.01 1.008 1.00 10.2 46.18 67.09 35.73 0.53 N 10.00 10.00 6 0.25 2 0.083 0.01 0.01 0.961 1.00 5.7 6.52 77.17 0.00 0.00 N 10.00 6.52 6 0.25 2 0.083 0.01 0.01 1.030 1.00 8.1 9.56 67.29 0.31 0.00 N 10.00 10.00 6 0.25 2 0.083 0.01 0.01 0.809 1.00 10.4 54.71 194.32 38.96 0.20 N 10.00 10.00 0.33 1 0.042 0.01 0.01 1.951 2.00 9.5 111.16 172.30 96.94 0.68 N 10.00 10.00 0.33 1 0.042 0.01 0.01 2.211 2.00 10.7 140.94 172.10 129.49 0.91 N 10.00 10.00 0.33 1 0.042 0.01 0.01 2.206 2.00 11.2 41.56 71.48 30.71 0.43 N 10.00 10.00 0.29 2 0.083 0.01 0.01 1.484 2.00 6.2 23.12 65.62 8.85 0.13 N 10.00 10.00 0.33 1 0.042 0.01 0.01 0.891 1.00 7.6 58.28 65.65 43.88 0.67 N 10.00 10.00 0.33 1 0.042 0.01 0.01 2.362 2.00 7.1 133.66 237.14 119.46 0.74 N 10.00 10.00 0.33 1 0.042 0.01 0.01 2.290 2.00 6.8 198.85 237.19 184.51 1.15 N 10.00 10.00 0.33 1 0.042 0.01 0.01 2.228 2.00 Radius of  Equipment (ft) Effective Screen  Length (feet) Radius of  Well (feet) Transducer Depth  (height of WC  above transducer) Well  Diameter  (inches) Borehole  Diameter  (inches) 8 Inside Radius  of Casing (ft) 8 10 8 7 10 Static Water  Column Height  (feet) Aquifer Thickness  (feet) Depth to Top of  Screen (feet) Screen length  (feet) 1 For MW‐13L, assumed same ground surface as MW‐13S 2 For MW‐15D, aquifer bottom is unclear. Assumed an aquifer thickness of 100 feet. 3 For MW‐18, assumed same aquifer bottom as MW‐19, accounted for 0.91 difference in elevation 4 For MW‐32A, estimated aquifer bottom based on MW‐34A; average of difference between suface elevations (58 ft) and screen bottoms (26 ft) = 42 ft 5 Stick‐up is the length of casing above or below (negative number) ground surface amsl – above mean sea level bgs – below ground surface btoc – below top of inside casing Table 2 ‐ Slug Test Data Analysis Process ‐ Adapted from Chapter 12 of Butler (2020) Filter pack drainage observed Analyze with Hvorslev and Bouwer‐ Rice for a range of hydraulic  conductivity values Analyze with Cooper et al. method If the well is fully penetrating, the data are mostly free from noise, and  test was run to completion, analyze with Peres et al. method If partially penetrating, and depth to top of screen divided by aquifer  thickness is greater than 2, then analyze with KGS unconfined model If partially penetrating, and depth to top of screen divided by aquifer  thickness is not greater than 2, then analyze with KGS confined and  unconfined models for a range If specific storage or storativity value is still implausibly low, analyze  with Peres et al. Specific storage or storativity value  acceptable Use estimate from Cooper et al. method Analyze using Cooper et al. method If specific storage or storativity value  is implausibly low, analyze with KGS  confined model If specific storage or storativity value  is still implausibly low, analyze with  Peres et al. Analyze using Cooper et al. method If the well is fully penetrating, the data are mostly free from noise, and  test was run to completion, analyze with Peres et al method If partially penetrating, and depth to top of screen divided by aquifer  thickness is greater than 2, then analyze with KGS unconfined model. If partially penetrating, and depth to top of screen divided by aquifer  thickness is not greater than 2, then analyze with KGS confined and  unconfined models for a range If specific storage or storativity value is still implausibly low, analyze  with Peres et al. Specific storage or storativity value  acceptable Use estimate from Cooper et al. method If the aquifer is unconfined,  analyze with the Springer‐ Gelhar method If the aquifer is confined,  analyze with the Butler‐Zhan  method Dependence on flow direction ‐ analyze with  non‐linear Dagan model No dependence on flow direction ‐ analyze  with non‐linear high‐K model No reproducible dependence  on H(0)* Analyze with quasi‐steady state model  (Hvorslev) Notes: H(0)* ‐ expected initial test displacement K ‐ hydraulic conductivity KGS ‐ Kansas Geological Survey Specific storage or storativity value  implausibly low Specific storage or storativity value  implausibly low Data are not coincident Reproducible dependence on  H(0)* Unconfined Confined Not oscillatory or critically  damped Not screened across the water table Filter pack drainage not observed Screened across the water table Oscillatory or critically  damped Data are coincident Choose test with the  lowest noise to analyze Table 3. Slug Test Results Well ID Aquifer Zone Lithology of the Screened Interval Aquifer Thickness b, feet Hydraulic Conductivity (K), feet/day Transmissivity (T), feet2/day Storativity (S) Specific Storage (Ss) (feet 1) Coincident? Method Skin Effects? MW-01S Shallow Silty clay with gravel, sandy clay, silty sand, clayey silt, sandy clay with gravel 69.02 12 828 N Hvorslev Dynamic MW-02 Shallow Gravelly sand, sandy clay, sandy gravelly clay, sandy clayey gravel, sand 49.63 10 to 19 500 1.86E-07 Y Peres et al. (screened with Cooper et al.) Possible low-K skin MW-03RA Shallow Silty gravel with sand, clayey gravel with sand 51.77 5 to 48 241 6.09E-16 Y Peres et al. (screened with Cooper et al.) Possible low-K skin MW-03RB Deep Sandy silty clay, silty clayey gravel with sand 141.00 0.75 to 21 106 2.10E-07 Y Peres et al. (screened with Cooper et al.) Possible low-K skin MW-03RC Deep Silty gravel with sand, gravel with silt and sand 141.00 25 3,525 5.93E-05 Y Butler-Zhan Not detected by coincident plot MW-04 Shallow Gravel with clay 67.63 6 to 14 415 1.07E-02 Y Peres et al. (screened with Cooper et al.) Possible low-K skin MW-08A Shallow Clayey gravel with sand 79.29 103 8,167 N Springer-Gelhar Directional MW-08B Deep Clayey gravel with sand 177.02 51 9,028 2.26E-06 N Butler Zhan Directional, low Ss indicates possible low K skin MW-08C Deep Silty gravel with sand 177.02 0.5 to 16 82 2.34E-11 Y Peres et al. (screened with Cooper et al.) Possible low-K skin Table 3. Slug Test Results Well ID Aquifer Zone Lithology of the Screened Interval Aquifer Thickness b, feet Hydraulic Conductivity (K), feet/day Transmissivity (T), feet2/day Storativity (S) Specific Storage (Ss) (feet 1) Coincident? Method Skin Effects? MW-13S Shallow Silty sand with gravel, clayey gravel with sand, sandy silt, clayey sand, lean clay 75.76 0.1 0.44 1.30E-02 Y Cooper et al. Not detected MW-13D Shallow Clayey sand with gravel, sand with silt, clayey gravel with sand 77.07 2 10 1.50E-04 Y Peres et al. (screened with Cooper et al.) Possible low-K skin MW-13L Deep Sandy silt, silt with sand, gravel with sand and silt 205.79 34 6,997 1.13E-04 N Butler-Zhan Directional MW-15D Shallow Silty gravel with sand 100.00 15 1,500 N Hvorslev Directional MW-18 Shallow Silty gravel with sand, clayey gravel with sand, clayey sand 71.42 12 857 N Dagan Possible directional or change in effective screen length MW-19 Shallow Gravelly clay with sand, clayey gravel with sand 71.10 30 2,133 N Hvorslev Possible directional or change in effective screen length MW-20S Shallow Clayey gravel with sand, silty sand with gravel, silty sand, sandy lean clay with gravel 67.20 10 672 N Dagan Possible directional or change in effective screen length MW-20D Shallow Clayey gravel with sand 67.09 165 11,069 N Springer-Gelhar Dynamic MW-21 Shallow Gravelly clay with sand, silty gravel 77.17 54 4,167 N Hvorslev Directional Table 3. Slug Test Results Well ID Aquifer Zone Lithology of the Screened Interval Aquifer Thickness b, feet Hydraulic Conductivity (K), feet/day Transmissivity (T), feet2/day Storativity (S) Specific Storage (Ss) (feet 1) Coincident? Method Skin Effects? with sand, clayey gravel with sand MW-22 Shallow Gravelly clay with sand, clayey gravel with sand, clayey sand with gravel 67.29 67 4,509 N Hvorslev Dynamic MW-26B Interme diate Silty sand with gravel 194.32 18 3,498 Y Springer-Gelhar Not detected by coincident plot MW-26C Deep Sandy gravel, silty gravel, gravelly clay 141.74 10 1,417 2.23E-06 Y Butler-Zhan Not detected by coincident plot, low Ss indicates possible low K skin MW-26D Deep Gravelly sand, gravelly clay 141.74 39 5,528 Y Butler Not detected by coincident plot MW-32A Shallow Sandy clay, clayey gravel, sandy clay, sandy gravel with clay 71.48 200 14,296 N Hvorslev Dynamic MW-34A Shallow Silty gravel, clayey silt 65.62 46 3,019 Y Springer-Gelhar Not detected by coincident plot MW-34B Shallow Silt, gravelly silt, clay 65.65 29 1,904 Y Springer-Gelhar Not detected by coincident plot MW-34C Deep Silty clay, silty gravel, silty clay 160.44 0.14 to 2 22 2.48E-03 Y Peres et al. (screened with Cooper et al.) Possible low-K skin Table 3. Slug Test Results Well ID Aquifer Zone Lithology of the Screened Interval Aquifer Thickness b, feet Hydraulic Conductivity (K), feet/day Transmissivity (T), feet2/day Storativity (S) Specific Storage (Ss) (feet 1) Coincident? Method Skin Effects? MW-34D Deep Silty gravel, silty clay 160.44 20 3,209 4.22E-06 Y Butler-Zhan Not detected by coincident plot Attachment A Slug Test Data Collection Forms This page intentionally left blank. Attachment B Coincident Plots This page intentionally left blank. MW-01S Coincident Plot 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 0.1 1 10 100 1000 No r m a l i z e d D i s p l a c e m e n t ( f e e t ) Test Elapsed Time (seconds) MW-01S Coincident Plot MW-01S Test 1 Falling Head 12-inch MW-01S Test 2 Rising Head 12-inch MW-01S Test 3 Falling Head 24-inch MW-01S Test 4 Rising Head 24-inch MW-01S Test 5 Falling head- 12inch MW-01S Test 6 rising - 12inch MW-01S Test 7 Falling Head 12-inch MW-01S Test 8 Rising Head 12-inch MW-02 Coincident Plot 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00 No r m a l i z e d D i s p l a c e m e n t ( f e e t ) Test Elapsed Time (seconds) MW-02 Coincident MW-02 Test 1 Rising Head 12-inch MW-02 Test 2 Rising Head 12-inch MW-02 Test 3 Rising Head 24-inch MW-02 Test 4 Rising Head 24-inch MW-02 Test 5 Rising Head 12-inch MW-02 Test 6 Rising Head 12-inch MW-03RA Coincident Plot 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00 No r m a l i z e d D i s p l a c e m e n t ( f e e t ) Test Elapsed Time (seconds) MW-03AR Coincident Plot MW-03RA Test 1 Rising Head 12-inch MW-03RA Test 2 Rising Head 24-inch MW-03RA Test 3 Rising Head 12-inch MW-03RB Coincident Plot 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00 No r m a l i z e d D i s p l a c e m e n t ( f e e t ) Test Elapsed Time (seconds) MW-03RB Coincident Plot MW-03RB Test 1 Rising Head 12-inch MW-03RB Test 2 Rising Head 24-inch MW-03RB Test 3 Rising Head 12-inch MW-03RC Coincident Plot -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00 No r m a l i z e d D i s p l a c e m e n t ( f e e t ) Test Elapsed Time (seconds) MW-03RC Coincident Plot MW-03RC Test 1 Rising Head 12-inch MW-03RC Test 2 Rising Head 24-inch MW-03RC Test 3 Rising Head 12-inch MW-04 Coincident Plot 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 0.1 1 10 100 1000 No r m a l i z e d D i s p l a c e m e n t ( f e e t ) Test Elapsed Time (seconds) MW-04 Coincident Plot MW-04 Test 1 Falling Head 11-inch MW-04 Test 2 Rising Head 11-inch MW-04 Test 3 Falling Head 17-inch MW-04 Test 4 Rising Head 17-inch MW-04 Test 5 Falling Head 11-inch MW-04 Test 6 Rising Head 11-inch MW-08A Coincident Plot -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00 No r m a l i z e d D i s p l a c e m e n t ( f e e t ) Test Elapsed Time (seconds) MW-08A Coincident Plot MW-08A Test 3 Falling Head 12-inch MW-08A Test 4 Rising Head 12-inch MW-08A Test 5 Falling Head 24-inch MW-08A Test 6 Rising Head 24-inch MW-08A Test 7 Falling Head 12-inch MW-08A Test 8 Rising Head 12-inch MW-08B Coincident Plot -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00 No r m a l i z e d D i s p l a c e m e n t ( f e e t ) Test Elapsed Time (seconds) MW-08B Coincident Plot MW-08B Test 1 Falling Head 12-inch MW-08B Test 2 Rising Head 12-inch MW-08B Test 3 Falling Head 24-inch MW-08B Test 4 Rising Head 24-inch MW-08B Test 5 Falling Head 24-inch MW-08B Test 6 Rising Head 24-inch MW-08B Test 7 Falling Head 12-inch MW-08B Test 8 Rising Head 12-inch MW-08C Coincident Plot 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00 No r m a l i z e d D i s p l a c e m e n t ( f e e t ) Test Elapsed Time (seconds) MW-08C Coincident Plot MW-08C Test 1 Rising Head 12-inch MW-08C Test 2 Rising Head 24-inch MW-08C Test 3 Rising Head 12-inch MW-13S Coincident Plot 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 No r m a l i z e d D i s p l a c e m e n t ( f e e t ) Test Elapsed Time (seconds) MW-13S Coincident Plot MW-13S Test 1 Falling Head 12-inch MW-13S Test 3 Rising Head 12-inch MW-13S Test 4 Falling Head 24-inch MW-13S Test 5 Rising Head 24-inch MW-13D Coincident Plot -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 No r m a l i z e d D i s p l a c e m e n t ( f e e t ) Test Elapsed Time (seconds) MW-13D Coincident Plot MW-13D Test 2 Rising Head 12-inch MW-13D Test 3 Falling Head 24-inch MW-13D Test 4 Rising Head 24-inch MW-13D Test 5 Falling Head 12-inch MW-13D Test 6 Rising Head 12-inch MW-13L Coincident Plot -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 0.1 1 10 100 1000 No r m a l i z e d D i s p l a c e m e n t ( f e e t ) Test Elapsed Time (seconds) MW-13L Coincident Plot MW-13L Test 1 Falling Head 12-inch MW-13L Test 2 Rising Head 12-inch MW-13L Test 3 Falling Head 24-inch MW-13L Test 4 Rising Head 24-inch MW-13L Test 5 Falling Head 12-inch MW-13L Test 6 Rising Head 12-inch MW-15D Coincident Plot 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 0.1 1 10 100 1000 No r m a l i z e d D i s p l a c e m e n t ( f e e t ) Test Elapsed Time (seconds) MW-15D Coincident Plot MW-15D Test 1 Falling Head 12-inch MW-15D Test 2 Rising Head 12-inch MW-15D Test 3 Falling Head 24-inch MW-15D Test 5 Falling Head 24-inch MW-15D Test 6 Rising Head 24-inch MW-15D Test7 Falling Head 12-inch MW-15D Test 8 Rising Head 12-inch MW-18 Coincident Plot 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 0.10 1.00 10.00 No r m a l i z e d D i s p l a c e m e n t ( f e e t ) Test Elapsed Time (seconds) MW-18 Coincindent Plot MW-18 Test 1 Falling Head 12-inch MW-18 Test 2 Rising Head 12-inch MW-18 Test 3 Falling Head 24-inch MW-18 Test 4 Rising Head 24-inch MW-18 Test 5 Falling Head 12-inch MW-18 Test 6 Rising Head 12-inch MW-19 Coincident Plot 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00 No r m a l i z e d D i s p l a c e m e n t ( f e e t ) Test Elapsed Time (seconds) MW-19 Coincident Plot MW-19 Test 1 Falling Head 12-inch MW-19 Test 2 Rising Head 12-inch MW-19 Test 3 Falling Head 24-inch MW-19 Test 4 Rising Head 24-inch MW-19 Test 5 Falling Head 12-inch MW-19 Test 6 Rising Head 12-inch MW-20S Coincident Plot 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00 No r m a l i z e d D i s p l a c e m e n t ( f e e t ) Test Elapsed Time (seconds) MW-20S Coincident Plot MW-20S Test 1 Falling Head 12-inch MW-20S Test 2 Rising Head 12-inch MW-20S Test 3 Falling Head 24-inch MW-20S Test 4 Rising Head 24-inch MW-20S Test 5 Falling Head 12-inch MW-20S Test 6 Rising Head 12-inch MW-20D Coincident Plot -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00 No r m a l i z e d D i s p l a c m e n t ( f e e t ) Test Elapsed Time (seconds) MW-20D Coincindent Plot MW-20D Test 1 Falling Head 12-inch MW-20D Test 2 Rising Head 12-inch MW-20D Test 3 Falling Head 24-inch MW-20D Test 4 Rising Head 24-inch MW-20D Test 5 Falling Head 12-inch MW-20D Test 6 Rising Head 12-inch MW-21 Coincident Plot -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00 No r m a l i z e d D i s p l a c e m e n t ( f e e t ) Test Elapsed Time (seconds) MW-21 Coincindent Plot MW-21 Test 1 Falling Head 12-inch MW-21 Test 2 Rising Head 12-inch MW-21 Test 3 Falling Head 24-inch MW-21 Test 4 Falling Head 24-inch MW-21 Test 5 Rising Head 24-inch MW-21 Test 6 Falling Head 12-inch MW-21 Test 7 Rising Head 12-inch MW-22 Coincident Plot 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 0.1 1 10 100 1000 No r m a l i z e d D i s p l a c e m e n t ( f e e t ) Test Elapsed Time (seconds) MW-22 Coincident Plot MW-22 Test 1 Falling Head 12-inch MW-22 Test 2 Rising Head 12-inch MW-22 Test 3 Falling Head 24-inch MW-22 Test 4 Rising Head 24-inch MW-22 Test 5 Falling Head 12-inch MW-22 Test 6 Rising Head 12-inch MW-22 Test 7 Falling Head 24-inch MW-22 Test 8 Rising Head 24-inch MW-26B Coincident Plot -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00 No r m a l i z e d D i s p l a c e m e n t ( f e e t ) Test Elapsed Time (seconds) MW-26B Coincident Plot MW-26B Test 1 Rising Head 12-inch MW-26B Test 2 Rising Head 24-inch MW-26B Test 3 Rising Head 12-inch MW-26C Coincident Plot -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 0.1 1 10 100 No r m a l i z e d D i s p l a c e m e n t ( f e e t ) Test Elapsed Time (seconds) MW-26C Coincident Plot MW-26C Test 1 Rising Head 12-inch MW-26C Test 2 Rising Head 24-inch MW-26C Test 3 Rising Head 12-inch MW-26D Coincident Plot -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00 No r m a l i z e d D i s p l a c e m e n t ( f e e t ) Test Elapsed Time (seconds) MW-26D Coincident Plot MW-26D Test 1 Rising Head 12-inch MW-26D Test 2 Rising Head 24-inch MW-26D Test 3 Rising Head 12-inch MW-32A Coincident Plot -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00 No r m a l i z e d D i s p l a c e m e n t ( f e e t ) Test Elapsed Time (seconds) MW-32A Coincident Plot MW-32ATest 1 Falling Head 12-inch MW-32A Test 2 Rising Head 12-inch MW-32A Test 3 Falling Head 24-inch MW-32A Test 4 Rising Head 24-inch MW-32A Test 5 Falling Head 12-inch MW-32A Test 6 Rising Head 12-inch MW-34A Coincident Plot -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00 No r m a l i z e d D i s p l a c e m e n t ( f e e t ) Test Elapsed Time (seconds) MW-34A Coincident Plot MW-34A Test 1 Riising Head 12-inch MW-34A Test 2 Rising Head 24-inch MW-34A Test 3 Rising Head 12-inch MW-34B Coincident Plot -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00 No r m a l i z e d D i s p l a c m e n t ( f e e t ) Test Elapsed Time (seconds) MW-34B Coincident Plot MW-34B Test 1 Rising Head 12-inch MW-34B Test 2 Riising Head 24-inch MW-34B Test 3 Rising Head 12-inch MW-34C Coincident Plot 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00 No r m a l i z e d D i s p l a c m e n t ( f e e t ) Test Elapsed Time (seconds) MW-34C Coincident Plot MW-34C Test 1 Rising Head 12-inch MW-34C Test 2 Rising Head 12-inch MW-34C Test 3 Rising Head 24-inch MW-34C Test 4 Rising Head 24-inch MW-34C Test 5 Rising Head 12-inch MW-34C Test 6 Rising Head 12-inch MW-34D Coincident Plot -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00 No r m a l i z e d D i s p l a c m e n t ( f e e t ) Test Elapsed Time (seconds) MW-34D Coincident Plot MW-34D Test 1 Rising Head 12-inch MW-34D Test 2 Rising Head 12-inch MW-34D Test 3 Rising Head 24-inch MW-34D Test 4 Rising Head 24-inch MW-34D Test 5 Rising Head 12-inch MW-34D Test 6 Rising Head 12-inch                 Quality Control Summary Report Summer 2021 Air Sampling Event   Operable Unit 1 Remedial Investigation   700 South 1600 East PCE Plume,   Salt Lake City, Utah  November 2021        i  Table of Contents   Section 1 Data Usability and Assessment Review .............................................................. 1‐1  1.1 Usability Summary ................................................................................................................................................... 1-1  Section 2 Quality Assurance Objectives ............................................................................. 2‐1  Section 3 Field and Laboratory Quality Assurance Activities .............................................. 3‐1  3.1 Deviations from Field Procedures/Laboratory Methods ........................................................................ 3-1  3.2 Field Quality Assurance/Quality Control ....................................................................................................... 3-1  3.3 Laboratory Quality Assurance/Quality Control .......................................................................................... 3-1  3.3.1 Laboratory Methods .................................................................................................................................. 3-1  Section 4 Data Validation Procedures ................................................................................ 4‐1  Section 5 Data Quality Indicators ....................................................................................... 5‐1  5.1 Precision ....................................................................................................................................................................... 5-1  5.2 Accuracy ....................................................................................................................................................................... 5-2  5.2.1 Percent Recovery ........................................................................................................................................ 5-2  5.2.2 Blank Contamination ................................................................................................................................. 5-3  5.3 Representativeness .................................................................................................................................................. 5-4  5.4 Comparability ............................................................................................................................................................. 5-4  5.5 Completeness ............................................................................................................................................................. 5-4  5.6 Sensitivity ..................................................................................................................................................................... 5-5  Section 6 Data Usability Assessment ................................................................................. 6‐1  Section 7 References ......................................................................................................... 7‐1  List of Tables  Table 3-1 Sample List and Analyses Table 4-1 Qualification Summary Table 5-1 DQIs and Corresponding QC Parameters  Table 5-2 Summary of Field Duplicate Sampling Results  Attachments  Attachment 1 Data Validation Reports  Attachment 2 Data Package Completeness Review Checklists  Attachment 3 Analytical Data Packages    i  Abbreviations  % percent %D percent difference %R percent recovery CDM Smith CDM Federal Programs Corporation COC chain of custody DQI data quality indicator DQO data quality objective EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Eurofins Eurofins Air Toxics LCS laboratory control sample LCSD laboratory control sample duplicate MDL method detection limit MRL method reporting limit PARCCS precision, accuracy, representativeness, comparability, completeness, and sensitivity PCE tetrachloroethene QA quality assurance QAPP Phase 2 Quality Assurance Project Plan, Operable Unit 1, 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Site QC quality control QCSR quality control summary report RIWP Phase 2 Remedial Investigation Work Plan, Operable Unit 1, 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Site RPD relative percent difference RSD relative standard deviation SDG sample delivery group SIM selective ion monitoring Site 700 South 1600 East Tetrachloroethene Plume Superfund Site USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers VOC volatile organic compound   1‐1  Section 1  Data Usability and Assessment Review  Under the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Kansas City District, Contract No. W912DQ-18- D-3008, Task Order No. W912DQ19F3048, CDM Federal Programs Corporation (CDM Smith) was directed to perform a remedial investigation for Operable Unit 1 of the 700 South 1600 East Tetrachloroethene (PCE) Plume Superfund Site (Site) in Salt Lake City, Utah. To assist in the ongoing remedial investigation at the Site, indoor air, ambient air, and soil gas samples were collected August 24, 2021 to August 31, 2021. Samples were shipped to Eurofins Air Toxics (Eurofins) in Folsom, California, for analysis. This quality control summary report (QCSR) summarizes the data validation performed and determines whether sample results meet the data quality objectives (DQOs) outlined in the Phase 2 Quality Assurance Project Plan, Operable Unit 1, 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Site (QAPP; CDM Smith 2020a). 1.1 Usability Summary Data collected and validated during this field investigation are usable as reported. Applicable data validation qualifiers were added if required. No sample results were rejected. Specific details are provided in the data validation reports summarized in Section 5 and presented in Attachment 1 of this report.   2‐1  Section 2  Quality Assurance Objectives  Quality assurance (QA) objectives for measurement data are expressed in terms of precision, accuracy, representativeness, comparability, completeness, and sensitivity (PARCCS). The PARCCS parameters characterize the quality of the data and, as such, are called data quality indicators (DQIs). The DQIs provide a mechanism for ongoing quality control (QC), and measuring and evaluating data quality throughout the project. A review of the collected data is necessary to determine if data measurement objectives established in the QAPP (CDM Smith 2020a) were met. In general, the following data measurement objectives were considered:  Achievement of analytical method and reporting limit requirements  Adherence to and achievement of appropriate laboratory analytical and field QC requirements  Achievement of required measurement performance criteria for DQIs (the PARCCS parameters)  Adherence to sampling and sample handling procedures  Adherence to the sampling design and deviations documented on field change notifications, if required The data validation review of the DQIs and other QA objectives determines if the data are of sufficient quality and quantity to support their intended use.   3‐1  Section 3  Field and Laboratory Quality Assurance Activities  Wasatch Environmental, on behalf of CDM Smith completed field sampling activities between August 24 and August 31, 2021. The QAPP (CDM Smith 2020a) defined the procedures to be followed and the data quality requirements for the field sampling events and associated analytical work. All samples were received intact with proper chain-of-custody (COC) documentation at Eurofins. Sample identification was accurately documented by the laboratory. Sample preparation and analyses were conducted within the method-specified holding times. Table 3‐1 lists the samples collected and analyses performed. Attachment 2 presents the completeness review checklists for the data packages. Attachment 3 includes the analytical data packages. 3.1 Deviations from Field Procedures/Laboratory Procedures  All samples were collected as planned during the sampling event. There were no deviations from field procedures. One laboratory deviation occurred during this sampling round. Specific analytes for sample RG08-SG083021 were not able to be analyzed by selective ion monitoring (SIM) low level analysis because of high levels of target compounds. All analytes were instead analyzed by Modified U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Method TO-15. This deviation does not impact DQOs. 3.2 Field Quality Assurance/Quality Control   Three field duplicates (two for ambient air and one for soil gas) were analyzed for the 18 environmental air samples collected. The QC sample collection frequency requirements in the QAPP (CDM Smith 2020a) of 10 percent for field duplicates was met. Field QA/QC objectives were accomplished through the use of appropriate sampling techniques and collection of QC samples at the specified frequency. 3.3 Laboratory Quality Assurance/Quality Control   Analytical QA/QC was assessed by laboratory QC checks, method blanks, sample custody tracking, sample preservation, adherence to holding times, laboratory control samples (LCSs), calibration verifications, surrogates, internal standards, duplicate results, and other applicable QC parameters. As presented in the data validation reports in Attachment 1 of this report, laboratory QC samples met project criteria requirements with the appropriate qualifiers applied. All data are considered usable. 3.3.1 Laboratory Methods Samples were analyzed using the following methods: Section 3  Field and Laboratory Quality Assurance Activities  3‐2   Modified EPA Method TO-15 for volatile organic compounds (VOCs)  Modified EPA Method TO-15 SIM for VOCs by SIM The methods used met project objectives. Table 3‐1 Sample List and Analysis 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Site Salt Lake City, Utah Field Sample ID Matrix Sample Date Lab SDG Method 0003H‐IA01SC‐082421 AI 8/24/2021 2109043 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM 0011H‐AA02SC‐082521 AA 8/25/2021 2109043 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM 0011H‐IA01SC‐082521 AI 8/25/2021 2109043 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM 0018H‐IA01SC‐082421 AI 8/24/2021 2109043 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM 0026H‐IA01SC‐082521 AI 8/25/2021 2109043 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM 0037H‐IA02SC‐082721 AI 8/27/2021 2109043 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM 0051H‐AA02SC‐082421 AA 8/24/2021 2109043 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM 0051H‐IA01SC‐082421 AI 8/24/2021 2109043 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM 0059H‐IA02SC‐082521 AI 8/25/2021 2109043 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM 0091H‐AA01SC‐083121 AA 8/31/2021 2109046 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM 0091H‐IA04SC‐083121 AI 8/31/2021 2109046 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM 0102H‐AA01SC‐082421 AA 8/24/2021 2109043 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM 0102H‐IA01SC‐082421 AI 8/24/2021 2109043 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM 0166H‐IA02SC‐082421 AI 8/24/2021 2109043 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM FD01‐IA082721 AI 8/27/2021 2109046 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM FD01‐SG082721 GS 8/27/2021 2109046 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM FD02‐IA083121 AI 8/31/2021 2109046 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM RG01‐SG082721 GS 8/27/2021 2109046 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM RG04‐SG082721 GS 8/27/2021 2109046 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM RG07‐SG082721 GS 8/27/2021 2109046 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM RG08‐SG083021 GS 8/30/2021 2109046 TO15 Acronyms: AA ‐ ambient air AI ‐ indoor air EPA ‐ United States Environmental Protection Agency GS ‐ soil gas ID ‐ identification SDG ‐ sample delivery group TO‐15 ‐ Modified EPA Method TO‐15 for volatile organic compounds TO‐15 SIM ‐ Modified EPA Method TO‐15 for volatile organic compounds by selective ion monitoring (SIM) Page 1 of 1   4‐1  Section 4  Data Validation Procedures  For this QCSR, two laboratory sample delivery groups (SDGs) were evaluated. Qualified CDM Smith data validators not associated with project sampling activities validated the data reported in both SDGs. Data validation was performed in accordance with specified analytical methods and performance criteria outlined in the QAPP (CDM Smith 2020a), EPA’s National Functional Guidelines for Organic Superfund Methods Data Review (EPA 2017), and EPA’s Analysis of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) in Air Contained in Canisters by Method TO‐15 (EPA 2014). Validation reports were prepared and are presented in Attachment 1. The following data packages were validated:  SDG 2109043  SDG 2109046 Table 4‐1 presents the results that were qualified and the reasons for the qualifications. Qualifiers applied are defined as follows:  J – The result is an estimated quantity. The associated numerical value is the approximate concentration of the analyte in the sample.  U – The analyte was analyzed for but was not detected above the level of the sample method reporting limit (MRL).  UJ – The analyte was analyzed for but was not detected above the level of the sample MRL. The MRL is approximate. Table 4‐1 Qualification Summary 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Site Salt Lake City, Utah Field Sample ID Lab SDG Method Analyte CAS #Final Result Unit Validation  Qualifier Interpreted  Qualifier Qualifier  Reason 0003H‐IA01SC‐082421 2109043 TO15SIM 1,1,1‐Trichloroethane 71‐55‐60.18µg/m3 U‐RL U LB 0011H‐IA01SC‐082521 2109043 TO15 Tetrahydrofuran 109‐99‐92.5µg/m3 U‐RL U LB 0011H‐IA01SC‐082521 2109043 TO15SIM 1,1,1‐Trichloroethane 71‐55‐60.18µg/m3 U‐RL U LB 0011H‐IA01SC‐082521 2109043 TO15SIM Trichloroethene 79‐01‐60.18µg/m3 U‐RL U LB 0018H‐IA01SC‐082421 2109043 TO15SIM 1,1,1‐Trichloroethane 71‐55‐60.18µg/m3 U‐RL U LB 0026H‐IA01SC‐082521 2109043 TO15 Carbon Disulfide 75‐15‐02.5µg/m3 U‐RL U LB 0026H‐IA01SC‐082521 2109043 TO15SIM Trichloroethene 79‐01‐60.17µg/m3 U‐RL U LB 0037H‐IA02SC‐082721 2109043 TO15 1,4‐Dioxane 123‐91‐11.7µg/m3 JJFD 0037H‐IA02SC‐082721 2109043 TO15 Carbon Disulfide 75‐15‐02.4µg/m3 U‐RL U LB 0037H‐IA02SC‐082721 2109043 TO15SIM 1,1,1‐Trichloroethane 71‐55‐60.17µg/m3 U‐RL U LB 0037H‐IA02SC‐082721 2109043 TO15SIM Trichloroethene 79‐01‐60.17µg/m3 U‐RL U LB 0051H‐AA02SC‐082421 2109043 TO15SIM 1,1,1‐Trichloroethane 71‐55‐60.19µg/m3 U‐RL U LB 0051H‐AA02SC‐082421 2109043 TO15SIM Trichloroethene 79‐01‐60.18µg/m3 U‐RL U LB 0051H‐IA01SC‐082421 2109043 TO15 Carbon Disulfide 75‐15‐03µg/m3 U‐RL U LB 0051H‐IA01SC‐082421 2109043 TO15SIM 1,1,1‐Trichloroethane 71‐55‐60.21µg/m3 U‐RL U LB 0051H‐IA01SC‐082421 2109043 TO15SIM Trichloroethene 79‐01‐60.2µg/m3 U‐RL U LB 0059H‐IA02SC‐082521 2109043 TO15SIM 1,2‐Dichloroethane 107‐06‐20.14µg/m3 U‐RL U LB 0059H‐IA02SC‐082521 2109043 TO15SIM Tetrachloroethene 127‐18‐40.23µg/m3 U‐RL U LB 0059H‐IA02SC‐082521 2109043 TO15SIM Vinyl Chloride 75‐01‐4 0.086 µg/m3 U‐RL U LB 0102H‐AA01SC‐082421 2109043 TO15SIM 1,2‐Dichloroethane 107‐06‐20.14µg/m3 U‐RL U LB 0102H‐AA01SC‐082421 2109043 TO15SIM Ethylbenzene 100‐41‐40.14µg/m3 U‐RL U LB 0102H‐AA01SC‐082421 2109043 TO15SIM o‐Xylene 95‐47‐60.14µg/m3 U‐RL U LB 0102H‐AA01SC‐082421 2109043 TO15SIM Tetrachloroethene 127‐18‐40.23µg/m3 U‐RL U LB 0102H‐IA01SC‐082421 2109043 TO15SIM 1,4‐Dichlorobenzene 106‐46‐70.51µg/m3 U‐RL U LB 0166H‐IA02SC‐082421 2109043 TO15SIM 1,2‐Dichloroethane 107‐06‐20.14µg/m3 U‐RL U LB 0166H‐IA02SC‐082421 2109043 TO15SIM Ethylbenzene 100‐41‐40.15µg/m3 U‐RL U LB 0166H‐IA02SC‐082421 2109043 TO15SIM o‐Xylene 95‐47‐60.15µg/m3 U‐RL U LB 0166H‐IA02SC‐082421 2109043 TO15SIM Tetrachloroethene 127‐18‐40.24µg/m3 U‐RL U LB 0091H‐AA01SC‐083121 2109046 TO15 Carbon Disulfide 75‐15‐02.7µg/m3 U‐RL U LB 0091H‐AA01SC‐083121 2109046 TO15 Tetrahydrofuran 109‐99‐92.6µg/m3 U‐RL U LB 0091H‐AA01SC‐083121 2109046 TO15SIM 1,1,1‐Trichloroethane 71‐55‐60.19µg/m3 U‐RL U LB 0091H‐AA01SC‐083121 2109046 TO15SIM Trichloroethene 79‐01‐60.19µg/m3 U‐RL U LB Page 1 of 2 Table 4‐1 Qualification Summary 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Site Salt Lake City, Utah Field Sample ID Lab SDG Method Analyte CAS #Final Result Unit Validation  Qualifier Interpreted  Qualifier Qualifier  Reason 0091H‐IA04SC‐083121 2109046 TO15 Carbon Disulfide 75‐15‐02.5µg/m3 U‐RL U LB 0091H‐IA04SC‐083121 2109046 TO15SIM 1,1,1‐Trichloroethane 71‐55‐60.18µg/m3 U‐RL U LB FD01‐IA082721 2109046 TO15 1,4‐Dioxane 123‐91‐10.25µg/m3 JJFD FD01‐SG082721 2109046 TO15SIM Benzene 71‐43‐20.67µg/m3 U‐RL U LB FD01‐SG082721 2109046 TO15SIM m,p‐Xylene 179601‐23‐10.73 µg/m3 U‐RL U LB FD01‐SG082721 2109046 TO15SIM Toluene 108‐88‐30.8µg/m3 U‐RL U LB FD02‐IA083121 2109046 TO15 Carbon Disulfide 75‐15‐02.1µg/m3 U‐RL U LB RG01‐SG082721 2109046 TO15SIM Benzene 71‐43‐20.7µg/m3 U‐RL U LB RG01‐SG082721 2109046 TO15SIM m,p‐Xylene 179601‐23‐10.76 µg/m3 U‐RL U LB RG01‐SG082721 2109046 TO15SIM Toluene 108‐88‐30.83µg/m3 U‐RL U LB RG04‐SG082721 2109046 TO15SIM Benzene 71‐43‐20.25µg/m3 U‐RL U LB RG04‐SG082721 2109046 TO15SIM m,p‐Xylene 179601‐23‐10.27 µg/m3 U‐RL U LB RG04‐SG082721 2109046 TO15SIM O‐Xylene 95‐47‐60.14µg/m3 U‐RL U LB RG04‐SG082721 2109046 TO15SIM Toluene 108‐88‐30.3µg/m3 U‐RL U LB RG07‐SG082721 2109046 TO15 Tetrahydrofuran 109‐99‐92.6µg/m3 U‐RL U LB RG07‐SG082721 2109046 TO15SIM Benzene 71‐43‐20.28µg/m3 U‐RL U LB RG07‐SG082721 2109046 TO15SIM Toluene 108‐88‐30.32µg/m3 U‐RL U LB RG07‐SG082721 2109046 TO15SIM Trichloroethene 79‐01‐60.18µg/m3 U‐RL U LB RG08‐SG083021 2109046 TO15 1,3‐Butadiene 106‐99‐05.3µg/m3 UJ UJ ICV RG08‐SG083021 2109046 TO15 Acetone 67‐64‐157µg/m3 U‐RL U LB RG08‐SG083021 2109046 TO15 Toluene 108‐88‐39µg/m3 U‐RL U LB Acronyms: µg/m3 ‐ micrograms per cubic meter J ‐ estimated CAS ‐ Chemical Abstract Service SDG ‐ sample delivery group EPA ‐ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency TO‐15 ‐ Modified EPA Method TO‐15 for volatile organic compounds FD ‐ field duplicate criteria TO‐15 SIM ‐ Modified EPA Method TO‐15 for volatile organic compounds by selective ion monitoring (SIM) ICV ‐ initial calibration verification criteria U ‐ nondetect ID ‐ identification UJ ‐ estimated nondetect LB ‐ laboratory blank criteria U‐RL ‐ nondetect at the reporting limit value Page 2 of 2   5‐1  Section 5  Data Quality Indicators  This section summarizes the validation performed and the overall quality of the data. The validation reports are provided in Attachment 1. Achievement of the DQO regarding data usability was determined by the use of DQIs, expressed in terms of PARCCS. The DQIs provide a mechanism to measure and evaluate data quality throughout the project. These criteria are defined in Table 5‐1 and in the following subsections. 5.1 Precision   Precision is a quantitative term that estimates the reproducibility of a set of replicate measurements under a given set of conditions. It is defined as a measurement of mutual agreement between measurements of the same property and is expressed in terms of relative percent difference (RPD) between duplicate determinations. RPD is calculated as follows: RPD = absolute value [(C1 − C2)/{(C1 + C2)/2)}] × 100% Where: C1 = concentration of primary sample C2 = concentration of duplicate sample Field and analytical precision were determined from review of the field duplicate results, LCS/laboratory control sample duplicates (LCSDs), and laboratory duplicates. The duplicate sample results were compared after calculating their RPDs. Field duplicate samples were collected in the same manner as the normal field samples but collected in separate individual containers, given separate sample identifiers, and treated as unique samples by the laboratory. Table 5‐2 presents the field duplicate sample results for the air data. A control limit of 40 percent (%) RPD was used for both the soil gas and indoor air field duplicate samples when both sample concentrations were greater than five times the MRL. If the sample concentrations were below five times the MRL, the absolute difference between the sample results was calculated, and if that value was below the MRL, no qualification was required. Laboratory RPDs are specific to the QC parameter. RPD results are summarized below:  Field duplicate RPDs or absolute criteria results were within control limits except for 1,4- dioxane in field duplicate pair 0037H-IA02SC-082721/FD01-IA082721. The 1,4-dioxane results for these samples were qualified as estimated “J.”  LCS/LCSD RPDs were within control limits.  Laboratory duplicate RPDs or absolute criteria were within control limits. Section 5  Data Quality Indicators    5‐2  No field or laboratory issues were identified from the RPD results outside criteria; the exceedances are reasonable for this type of sampling activity. 5.2 Accuracy   Accuracy is the degree of agreement of a measurement with an accepted reference or true value and is a measure of the bias in a system. Two different metrics are evaluated to assess result accuracy: calculation of percent recovery (%R) for spiked analytes with known concentrations, and review of blank results for cross-contamination. 5.2.1 Percent Recovery Accuracy of the data was assessed by comparing recoveries of LCSs, calibration standards, surrogates, and internal standards. Accuracy is expressed as %R, which is calculated as: Percent Recovery = ([Total Analyte Found] – [Analyte Originally Present]) × 100 [Analyte Added] Analytical accuracy for the entire data collection activity is difficult to measure because several sources of error exist. Errors can be introduced by any of the following:  Sampling procedure and duration of sampling  Field contamination  Sample preservation and handling  Sample matrix  Sample preparation  Analytical techniques Accuracy is maintained by adhering to the laboratory methods and approved field and analytical standard operating procedures. The following is a summary of the accuracy parameters reviewed and the resulting qualifications for the data collected: LCS/LCSD %Rs  LCS/LCSD %Rs were within criteria. Calibration %Rs, Percent Differences, and Relative Standard Deviations The following SDG had one or more calibration %Rs, percent differences (%Ds), and or relative standard deviations (RSDs) outside of criteria. The associated analytes were qualified as estimated:  SDG 2109046: 1,3-butadiene (69.91 %R) – associated results qualified as estimated “J/UJ” Section 5  Data Quality Indicators    5‐3  Surrogates, Tunes, Internal Standards  Surrogate results were within criteria  Tune results were within criteria  Internal standard results were within criteria Sample preservation, sample handling, holding times, canister pressure, and canister certification are additional measures of accuracy of the data. All sample handling information, holding times, canister pressure readings, and canister certification results were acceptable for the indoor, ambient air, and soil gas air samples. 5.2.2 Blank Contamination Blanks are used to determine the level of laboratory and field contamination introduced into the samples, independent of the level of target analytes found in the sample source. Sources of sample contamination can include the containers and equipment used to collect the sample, preservatives added to the sample, laboratory sample storage refrigerators, standards and solutions used to calibrate instruments, glassware and reagents used to process samples, airborne contamination in the laboratory preparation area, and the analytical instrument sample introduction equipment. Each analyte group has its own particular suite of common laboratory contaminants. Active measures must be performed to continually measure the ambient contamination level, and steps must be taken to discover the source of the contamination to eliminate or minimize the levels. Random spot contamination can also occur from analytes that are not common laboratory problems but arise as a problem for a specific project or over a short period. Field blanks, equipment blanks, trip blanks, and laboratory method blanks are analyzed to identify possible sources of contamination. No field blanks or trip blanks were required to be collected during the August 2021 sampling event per the QAPP (CDM Smith 2020a); laboratory blanks were collected as specified. Validation actions were required as a result of laboratory blank contamination for the following (associated sample results were qualified as nondetect “U” at the MRL):  SDG 2109043 – 1,1,1-trichloroethane, tetrahydrofuran, trichloroethene, carbon disulfide, 1,2-dichloroethane, tetrachloroethene, vinyl chloride, ethylbenzene, o-xylene, and 1,4- dichlorobenzene  SDG 2109046 – carbon disulfide, tetrahydrofuran, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, trichloroethene, benzene, m,p-xylene, toluene, o-xylene, and acetone Blank samples are used to determine the validity of the analytical results by determining the existence and magnitude of contamination resulting from laboratory (or field) activities or baseline drift during analysis. Ideally, no contaminants should be found in blank samples; however, the analytes detected in laboratory blanks are common in laboratory analyses and are almost unavoidable. For this sampling event, analytes were detected in some of the laboratory blank samples at concentrations below the MRLs for all detected blank results. Section 5  Data Quality Indicators    5‐4  Associated sample results for the laboratory blanks were therefore qualified following the appropriate guidelines. The resulting sample qualifications as nondetect or "U” do not falsely diminish the identification of Site-related contaminants (i.e., do not affect DQOs). 5.3 Representativeness  Representativeness is a qualitative term that expresses the degree to which the sample data accurately and precisely represent the environmental conditions corresponding to the location and/or depth interval of sample collection. Requirements and procedures for sample collection were designed to maximize sample representativeness. Representativeness can be monitored by reviewing field documentation and/or performing field audits. For this report, a detailed review was performed on the COC and field data collection forms. Appropriate laboratory QA/QC requirements were described in the QAPP (CDM Smith 2020a) and laboratory statement of work to confirm laboratory analytical results are representative of true field conditions. Field sampling representativeness was attained through strict adherence to the sampling design (CDM Smith 2020b, 2021) and the approved QAPP (CDM Smith 2020a) procedures and by using EPA-approved analytical methods for sample analyses. As a result, the data represents as near as possible the actual field conditions at the time of sampling. Representativeness, as defined above, was met for the fieldwork and laboratory analyses. The data collected are suitable for project use. 5.4 Comparability  Comparability is a qualitative term that expresses the confidence with which a data set can be compared with another. Strict adherence to standard sample collection procedures and analytical methods with analytical detection limits specified is necessary so that data from similar samples and sample conditions are comparable. This comparability is independent of laboratory personnel, data reviewers, or sampling personnel. Comparability criteria are met for the project if, based on data review, the sample collection and analytical procedures used are similar and are determined to have been followed. To achieve comparability of data generated for the Site, Wasatch Environmental, on behalf of CDM Smith followed the standard sample collection procedures and Eurofins followed the EPA- approved analytical methods and required reporting units. Using such procedures and methods enables the current data to be comparable to future data sets generated with similar methods and units. 5.5 Completeness  Completeness of the field program is defined as the percentage of samples planned for collection, as listed in the Phase 2 Remedial Investigation Work Plan, Operable Unit 1, 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Site (RIWP; CDM Smith 2020b) and planning memorandum (CDM Smith 2021) versus the actual number of samples collected during the field program (see equation A). Section 5  Data Quality Indicators    5‐5  Completeness for acceptable data is defined as the percentage of acceptable data obtained judged to be valid versus the total quantity of data generated (see equation B). Acceptable data include both data that pass all the QC criteria (unqualified data) and data that may not pass all the QC criteria but had appropriate corrective actions taken (qualified but usable data). A. Where: C = actual number of samples collected n = total number of samples planned B. Where: V = number of measurements judged valid n' = total number of measurements made The overall completeness goal for this sampling event of 90 percent (%) was met:  All samples outlined in the RIWP (CDM Smith 2020b) and planning memorandum (CDM Smith 2021) were collected and analyzed as planned to meet specific sampling activity objectives.  The locations that were sampled are adequate for evaluating the extent of subsurface VOC impacts at the Site to meet DQOs.  The number of samples planned to be collected versus the number of samples collected was 100% which meets the DQO of 90%.  The number of measurements judged to be valid versus the total number of measurements made was over 98% which meets the DQO of 90%.  Of the data validated and reported, 100% are suitable for their intended use for site characterization with the appropriate qualifiers applied. No results were rejected and all data collected met the overall project objective for data usability. The data usability DQO was achieved; the data reported are suitable for their intended use as stated in the QAPP (CDM Smith 2020a) and RIWP (CDM Smith 2020b). The achievement of the completeness goals provides sufficient data for project decisions. 5.6 Sensitivity  Sensitivity is related to the ability to compare analytical results with project-specific levels of interest such as delineation levels or action levels. Analytical quantitation limits for the various sample analytes should be below the level of interest to allow an effective comparison. The MDL study attempts to answer the question, “What is the minimum concentration of a substance that can be measured and reported with 99% confidence that the analyte n 100Cxess%Completen  n' 100Vxess%Completen  Section 5  Data Quality Indicators    5‐6  concentration is greater than zero?” The study is based upon repetitive analysis of an interference-free sample spiked with a known amount of the target analyte. The MDL is a measure of the ability of the test procedure to generate a positive response for the target analyte in the absence of any other interferences from the sample. The MRL is generally defined as the lowest concentration at which an analyte can be confidently reported in a sample and its concentration reported with a reasonable degree of accuracy and precision. For samples that do not pose a particular matrix problem, the MRL is typically about three to five times higher than the MDL. Laboratory results are reported according to rules that provide established certainty of detection. The result for an analyte is flagged with a "U" if that analyte was not detected and reported at the MRL value or qualified with a "J" flag if associated QC results fall outside the appropriate QC criteria. Additionally, if an analyte is present at a concentration between the MDL and the MRL, the analytical result is flagged with a "J," indicating an estimated quantity. Qualifying the result as an estimated concentration reflects uncertainty in the reported value. When required, dilutions were performed and accounted for in the reported MRLs. Because of these required dilutions, some nondetect MRL values exceeded the soil gas risk-based screening levels for a few of the soil gas samples. These included 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane, 1,2- dibromoethane, and bromodichloromethane. For some of the indoor air samples, nondetect results were greater than the indoor air risk-based screening levels, which included 1,2-dibromoethane, and bromodichloromethane. However, these analytes are not known constituents of potential concern for the Site. All MRLs were below the Indoor Air Tier 1 and Tier 2 Removal Action Levels. In the situation where the MRL was above a screening level, the MDL was below the screening value for almost all analytes (based on dilutions), and as detected results are qualified as estimated between the MDL and MRL, no exceedances of the screening levels occurred for the majority of these results. For the remaining analytes, laboratory MRLs were low enough to compare with the project criteria stated in the laboratory statement of work and the QAPP (CDM Smith 2020a).   Section 5  Data Quality Indicators    5‐7  Table 5‐1 DQIs and Corresponding QC Parameters Data Quality Indicator QC Parameter Evaluation in Data Review/Validation Precision RPD values of:  1) Laboratory duplicates  2) Field duplicates  3) LCS/LCSDs  RSD values of:  1) Initial calibration verifications   Accuracy/Bias %R or %D values of:  1) LCS/LCSD %R  2) Initial calibration verification/continuing calibration verification %R  3) Tune check  4) Surrogates  5) Internal standards   Results of:  1) Instrument and calibration blanks  2) Method (preparation) blanks  3) Field blanks  Representativeness Results of all blanks  Adherence to field standard operating procedures  Sample integrity (COC and sample receipt forms)  Holding times  Comparability Similar reporting limits and units  Similar sample collection methods  Similar laboratory analytical methods  Completeness Data qualifiers  Laboratory deliverables  Requested/reported valid results  Field sample collection (primary and QC samples)  Contract compliance (i.e., method and instrument QC within limits)  Sensitivity Sample method reporting limits meet QAPP criteria  Adequacy of sample dilution    Table 5‐2 Summary of Field Duplicate Sampling Results 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Site Salt Lake City, Utah Method Analyte Unit Result Qualifier Result Qualifier RPD Result Qualifier Result Qualifier RPD TO‐15 1,1,2‐Trichlorotrifluoroethane µg/m3 0.46 J 0.41 J Abs Criteria 0.43 J 0.48 J Abs Criteria TO‐15 1,2,4‐Trichlorobenzene µg/m3 5.8 U 6 U NC 6 U 5 U NC TO‐15 1,2,4‐Trimethylbenzene µg/m3 5.4 5.2 3.77 0.51 J 0.49 J Abs Criteria TO‐15 1,2‐Dichlorobenzene µg/m3 0.94 U 0.98 U NC 0.98 U 0.82 U NC TO‐15 1,2‐Dichloropropane µg/m3 0.72 U 0.084 J Abs Criteria 0.11 J 0.12 J Abs Criteria TO‐15 1,3,5‐Trimethylbenzene µg/m3 1.2 1.3 Abs Criteria 0.8 U 0.67 U NC TO‐15 1,3‐Butadiene µg/m3 0.12 J 0.12 J Abs Criteria 0.36 U 0.3 U NC TO‐15 1,3‐Dichlorobenzene µg/m3 0.94 U 0.98 U NC 0.98 U 0.82 U NC TO‐15 1,4‐Dioxane µg/m3 1.7 J 0.25 J Abs Criteria 0.28 J 0.25 J Abs Criteria TO‐15 2,2,4‐Trimethylpentane µg/m3 40 40 0.00 0.58 J 0.63 J Abs Criteria TO‐15 2‐Butanone (MEK)µg/m3 3.9 4.3 Abs Criteria 14 14 0.00 TO‐15 2‐Hexanone µg/m3 3.2 U 0.42 J Abs Criteria 3.3 U 2.8 U NC TO‐15 4‐Ethyltoluene µg/m3 3.7 3.9 Abs Criteria 0.32 J 0.33 J Abs Criteria TO‐15 4‐Methyl‐2‐Pentanone (MIBK)µg/m3 1.6 1.6 Abs Criteria 0.93 0.96 Abs Criteria TO‐15 Acetone µg/m3 78 83 6.21 88 77 13.33 TO‐15 Allyl Chloride µg/m3 2.4 U 2.6 U NC 2.6 U 2.1 U NC TO‐15 Benzyl Chloride µg/m3 0.81 U 0.84 U NC 0.84 U 0.7 U NC TO‐15 Bromodichloromethane µg/m3 0.57 J 0.59 J Abs Criteria 0.68 J 0.7 J Abs Criteria TO‐15 Bromoform µg/m3 1.6 U 1.7 U NC 1.7 U 1.4 U NC TO‐15 Bromomethane µg/m3 3 U 3.2 U NC 3.2 U 2.6 U NC TO‐15 Carbon Disulfide µg/m3 2.4 U 0.78 J Abs Criteria 2.5 U 2.1 U NC TO‐15 Chlorobenzene µg/m3 0.72 U 0.75 U NC 0.75 U 0.63 U NC TO‐15 cis‐1,3‐Dichloropropene µg/m3 0.71 U 0.74 U NC 0.74 U 0.62 U NC TO‐15 Cyclohexane µg/m3 2.5 J 2.4 J Abs Criteria 0.32 J 0.32 J Abs Criteria TO‐15 Dibromochloromethane µg/m3 1.3 U 1.4 U NC 0.18 J 0.2 J Abs Criteria TO‐15 Ethanol µg/m3 350 J 350 J 0.00 630 J 600 J 4.88 TO‐15 Hexachloro‐1,3‐Butadiene µg/m3 8.4 U 8.7 U NC 8.7 U 7.2 U NC TO‐15 Hexane µg/m3 8.6 8.5 Abs Criteria 0.89 J 0.86 J Abs Criteria TO‐15 Isopropyl Alcohol (Manufacturing‐Strong Acid)µg/m3 75 71 5.48 23 20 13.95 TO‐15 Isopropylbenzene µg/m3 0.41 J 0.39 J Abs Criteria 0.8 U 0.67 U NC 0091H 0091H‐IA04SC‐083121 8/31/2021 N 0091H FD02‐IA083121 8/31/2021 FD 0037H 0037H‐IA02SC‐082721 8/27/2021 N 0037H FD01‐IA082721 8/27/2021 FD RPD/Abs RPD/Abs Location Sample Name Sample Date Sample Type Page 1 of 6 Table 5‐2 Summary of Field Duplicate Sampling Results 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Site Salt Lake City, Utah 0091H 0091H‐IA04SC‐083121 8/31/2021 N 0091H FD02‐IA083121 8/31/2021 FD 0037H 0037H‐IA02SC‐082721 8/27/2021 N 0037H FD01‐IA082721 8/27/2021 FD RPD/Abs RPD/Abs Location Sample Name Sample Date Sample Type TO‐15 Methylene Chloride µg/m3 2.7 U 2.8 U NC 1.1 J 0.8 J Abs Criteria TO‐15 N‐Heptane µg/m3 6.5 6.5 Abs Criteria 0.73 J 0.77 J Abs Criteria TO‐15 N‐Propylbenzene µg/m3 0.83 0.87 Abs Criteria 0.8 U 0.67 U NC TO‐15 Styrene µg/m3 1.5 1.5 Abs Criteria 1.1 1.3 Abs Criteria TO‐15 Tetrahydrofuran µg/m3 2.3 U 0.34 J Abs Criteria 15 14 6.90 TO‐15 Trans‐1,3‐Dichloropropene µg/m3 0.71 U 0.74 U NC 0.74 U 0.62 U NC TO‐15 Trichlorofluoromethane µg/m3 1.2 1.3 Abs Criteria 1.4 1.4 Abs Criteria TO‐15 SIM 1,1,1‐Trichloroethane µg/m3 0.17 U 0.082 J Abs Criteria 0.18 U 0.15 Abs Criteria TO‐15 SIM 1,1,2,2‐Tetrachloroethane µg/m3 0.22 U 0.22 U NC 0.22 U 0.19 U NC TO‐15 SIM 1,1,2‐Trichloroethane µg/m3 0.17 U 0.18 U NC 0.18 U 0.15 U NC TO‐15 SIM 1,1‐Dichloroethane µg/m3 0.14 0.14 Abs Criteria 0.13 U 0.11 U NC TO‐15 SIM 1,1‐Dichloroethene µg/m3 0.062 U 0.065 U NC 0.065 U 0.054 U NC TO‐15 SIM 1,2‐Dibromoethane µg/m3 0.6 U 0.63 U NC 0.63 U 0.52 U NC TO‐15 SIM 1,2‐Dichloroethane µg/m3 77.22.82 0.4 0.4 Abs Criteria TO‐15 SIM 1,2‐Dichlorotetrafluoroethane;Fluorocarbon 114 µg/m3 0.11 J 0.11 J Abs Criteria 0.1 J 0.11 J Abs Criteria TO‐15 SIM 1,4‐Dichlorobenzene µg/m3 0.47 U 0.49 U NC 0.13 J 0.12 J Abs Criteria TO‐15 SIM Benzene µg/m3 3.7 3.7 0.00 0.83 0.8 Abs Criteria TO‐15 SIM Carbon Tetrachloride µg/m3 0.55 0.59 Abs Criteria 0.77 0.76 Abs Criteria TO‐15 SIM Chloroethane µg/m3 0.074 J 0.061 J Abs Criteria 0.062 J 0.056 J Abs Criteria TO‐15 SIM Chloroform µg/m3 3.2 3.3 3.08 3.8 3.8 0.00 TO‐15 SIM Chloromethane µg/m3 1.3 J 1.3 J Abs Criteria 1.2 J 1.2 J Abs Criteria TO‐15 SIM Cis‐1,2‐Dichloroethene µg/m3 0.12 U 0.13 U NC 0.13 U 0.11 U NC TO‐15 SIM Dichlorodifluoromethane µg/m3 2.2 2.3 4.44 2.3 2.2 4.44 TO‐15 SIM Ethylbenzene µg/m3 3.8 3.9 2.60 0.66 0.76 Abs Criteria TO‐15 SIM m,p‐Xylene µg/m3 16 17 6.06 1.9 2.3 19.05 TO‐15 SIM Methyl Tert‐Butyl Ether µg/m3 0.026 J 0.59 U NC 0.59 U 0.49 U NC Page 2 of 6 Table 5‐2 Summary of Field Duplicate Sampling Results 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Site Salt Lake City, Utah 0091H 0091H‐IA04SC‐083121 8/31/2021 N 0091H FD02‐IA083121 8/31/2021 FD 0037H 0037H‐IA02SC‐082721 8/27/2021 N 0037H FD01‐IA082721 8/27/2021 FD RPD/Abs RPD/Abs Location Sample Name Sample Date Sample Type TO‐15 SIM o‐Xylene µg/m3 5.6 5.7 1.77 0.72 0.88 20.00 TO‐15 SIM Tetrachloroethene µg/m3 4.2 4.2 0.00 16 17 6.06 TO‐15 SIM Toluene µg/m3 33 33 0.00 3.7 3.8 2.67 TO‐15 SIM Trans‐1,2‐Dichloroethene µg/m3 0.024 J 0.054 J Abs Criteria 0.072 J 0.033 J Abs Criteria TO‐15 SIM Trichloroethene µg/m3 0.17 U 0.052 J Abs Criteria 0.38 0.39 Abs Criteria TO‐15 SIM Vinyl Chloride µg/m3 0.08 U 0.083 U NC 0.083 U 0.07 U NC Acronyms µg/m3 ‐ microgram per cubic meter EPA ‐ United States Environmental Protection Agency FD ‐ field duplicate J ‐ estimated N ‐ normal sample NC ‐ not calculated RPD ‐ relative percent difference U ‐ nondetect UJ ‐ estimated nondetect result TO‐15 ‐ Modified EPA Method TO‐15 for volatile organic compounds Abs Criteria ‐ Sample concentrations less than 5x the method reporting limit; absolute  difference (Abs) between the normal result and field duplicate result less than the  method reporting limit TO‐15 SIM ‐ Modified EPA Method TO‐15 for volatile organic compounds by selective  Yellow Highlighting ‐ Sample results greater than 5x the method reporting limit. Abs  difference between the normal sample and field duplicate sample is greater than the  method reporting limit Page 3 of 6 Table 5‐2 Summary of Field Duplicate Sampling Results 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Site Salt Lake City, Utah Method Analyte Unit TO‐15 1,1,2‐Trichlorotrifluoroethane µg/m3 TO‐15 1,2,4‐Trichlorobenzene µg/m3 TO‐15 1,2,4‐Trimethylbenzene µg/m3 TO‐15 1,2‐Dichlorobenzene µg/m3 TO‐15 1,2‐Dichloropropane µg/m3 TO‐15 1,3,5‐Trimethylbenzene µg/m3 TO‐15 1,3‐Butadiene µg/m3 TO‐15 1,3‐Dichlorobenzene µg/m3 TO‐15 1,4‐Dioxane µg/m3 TO‐15 2,2,4‐Trimethylpentane µg/m3 TO‐15 2‐Butanone (MEK)µg/m3 TO‐15 2‐Hexanone µg/m3 TO‐15 4‐Ethyltoluene µg/m3 TO‐15 4‐Methyl‐2‐Pentanone (MIBK)µg/m3 TO‐15 Acetone µg/m3 TO‐15 Allyl Chloride µg/m3 TO‐15 Benzyl Chloride µg/m3 TO‐15 Bromodichloromethane µg/m3 TO‐15 Bromoform µg/m3 TO‐15 Bromomethane µg/m3 TO‐15 Carbon Disulfide µg/m3 TO‐15 Chlorobenzene µg/m3 TO‐15 cis‐1,3‐Dichloropropene µg/m3 TO‐15 Cyclohexane µg/m3 TO‐15 Dibromochloromethane µg/m3 TO‐15 Ethanol µg/m3 TO‐15 Hexachloro‐1,3‐Butadiene µg/m3 TO‐15 Hexane µg/m3 TO‐15 Isopropyl Alcohol (Manufacturing‐Strong Acid)µg/m3 TO‐15 Isopropylbenzene µg/m3 Location Sample Name Sample Date Sample Type Result Qualifier Result Qualifier RPD 0.47 J 0.47 J Abs Criteria 16 U 16 U NC 2.2 U 2.1 U NC 2.6 U 2.5 U NC 2U 2 U NC 2.2 U 2.1 U NC 0.97 U 0.93 U NC 2.6 U 2.5 U NC 1.6 U 1.5 U NC 10 U 9.8 U NC 12 12 0.00 2.2 J 2.2 J Abs Criteria 2.2 U 2.1 U NC 0.93 J 1.3 J Abs Criteria 60 74 20.90 6.9 U 6.6 U NC 2.3 U 2.2 U NC 2.9 U 2.8 U NC 4.5 U 4.4 U NC 8.5 U 8.2 U NC 5.1 J 4.7 J Abs Criteria 2U1.9U NC 2U1.9U NC 7.6 U 7.3 U NC 3.7 U 3.6 U NC 6.5 J 3.6 J Abs Criteria 23 U 22 U NC 7.8 U 7.4 U NC 5.3 J 5.2 Abs Criteria 2.2 U 2.1 U NC RPD/Abs RG‐01 FD01‐SG082721 8/27/2021 FD RG‐01 RG01‐SG082721 8/27/2021 N Page 4 of 6 Table 5‐2 Summary of Field Duplicate Sampling Results 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Site Salt Lake City, Utah Location Sample Name Sample Date Sample Type TO‐15 Methylene Chloride µg/m3 TO‐15 N‐Heptane µg/m3 TO‐15 N‐Propylbenzene µg/m3 TO‐15 Styrene µg/m3 TO‐15 Tetrahydrofuran µg/m3 TO‐15 Trans‐1,3‐Dichloropropene µg/m3 TO‐15 Trichlorofluoromethane µg/m3 TO‐15 SIM 1,1,1‐Trichloroethane µg/m3 TO‐15 SIM 1,1,2,2‐Tetrachloroethane µg/m3 TO‐15 SIM 1,1,2‐Trichloroethane µg/m3 TO‐15 SIM 1,1‐Dichloroethane µg/m3 TO‐15 SIM 1,1‐Dichloroethene µg/m3 TO‐15 SIM 1,2‐Dibromoethane µg/m3 TO‐15 SIM 1,2‐Dichloroethane µg/m3 TO‐15 SIM 1,2‐Dichlorotetrafluoroethane;Fluorocarbon 114 µg/m3 TO‐15 SIM 1,4‐Dichlorobenzene µg/m3 TO‐15 SIM Benzene µg/m3 TO‐15 SIM Carbon Tetrachloride µg/m3 TO‐15 SIM Chloroethane µg/m3 TO‐15 SIM Chloroform µg/m3 TO‐15 SIM Chloromethane µg/m3 TO‐15 SIM Cis‐1,2‐Dichloroethene µg/m3 TO‐15 SIM Dichlorodifluoromethane µg/m3 TO‐15 SIM Ethylbenzene µg/m3 TO‐15 SIM m,p‐Xylene µg/m3 TO‐15 SIM Methyl Tert‐Butyl Ether µg/m3 RPD/Abs RG‐01 FD01‐SG082721 8/27/2021 FD RG‐01 RG01‐SG082721 8/27/2021 N 7.6 U 7.3 U NC 9U8.6U NC 2.2 U 2.1 U NC 1.9 U 1.8 U NC 6.5 U 6.2 U NC 2U1.9U NC 32.9Abs Criteria 3.3 3.2 3.08 0.6 U 0.58 U NC 0.48 U 0.46 U NC 0.36 U 0.34 U NC 0.17 U 0.17 U NC 1.7 U 1.6 U NC 0.36 U 0.34 U NC 0.16 J 0.15 J Abs Criteria 1.3 U 1.3 U NC 0.7 U 0.67 U NC 0.27 J 0.27 J Abs Criteria 0.21 J 0.21 J Abs Criteria 6.9 6.8 1.46 4.5 U 4.4 U NC 0.35 U 0.33 U NC 12 12 0.00 0.38 U 0.37 U NC 0.76 U 0.73 U NC 1.6 U 1.5 U NC Page 5 of 6 Table 5‐2 Summary of Field Duplicate Sampling Results 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Site Salt Lake City, Utah Location Sample Name Sample Date Sample Type TO‐15 SIM o‐Xylene µg/m3 TO‐15 SIM Tetrachloroethene µg/m3 TO‐15 SIM Toluene µg/m3 TO‐15 SIM Trans‐1,2‐Dichloroethene µg/m3 TO‐15 SIM Trichloroethene µg/m3 TO‐15 SIM Vinyl Chloride µg/m3 Acronyms µg/m3 ‐ microgram per cubic meter EPA ‐ United States Environmental Protection Agency FD ‐ field duplicate J ‐ estimated N ‐ normal sample NC ‐ not calculated RPD ‐ relative percent difference U ‐ nondetect UJ ‐ estimated nondetect result TO‐15 ‐ Modified EPA Method TO‐15 for volatile organic compounds Abs Criteria ‐ Sample concentrations less than 5x the method reporting limit; absolute  difference (Abs) between the normal result and field duplicate result less than the  method reporting limit TO‐15 SIM ‐ Modified EPA Method TO‐15 for volatile organic compounds by selective  Yellow Highlighting ‐ Sample results greater than 5x the method reporting limit. Abs  difference between the normal sample and field duplicate sample is greater than the  method reporting limit RPD/Abs RG‐01 FD01‐SG082721 8/27/2021 FD RG‐01 RG01‐SG082721 8/27/2021 N 0.38 U 0.37 U NC 320 310 3.17 0.83 U 0.8 U NC 1.7 U 1.7 U NC 0.84 0.83 Abs Criteria 0.22 U 0.22 U NC Page 6 of 6   6‐1  Section 6  Data Usability Assessment  One hundred percent of the data reported and validated in this QCSR are suitable for their intended use as stated in the QAPP (CDM Smith 2020a). Sample results that were qualified as estimated are usable for project decisions. No sample results were rejected. The achievement of the completeness goals for the number of samples collected and the number of sample results acceptable for use provides sufficient quality data to support project decisions.   7‐1  Section 7  References  CDM Smith. 2020a. Phase 2 Quality Assurance Project Plan, Operable Unit 1, 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Site, Salt Lake City, Utah. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Kansas City District. CDM Smith. 2020b. Phase 2 Remedial Investigation Work Plan, Operable Unit 1, 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Site, Salt Lake City, Utah. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Kansas City District. CDM Smith. 2021. Plan for Soil Vapor Probe Sampling and Indoor Air Sampling at Buildings 6 and 7, 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Site, Salt Lake City, Utah. Memorandum prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Kansas City District. EPA. 2017. National Functional Guidelines for Organic Superfund Methods Data Review. EPA-540-R-2017-002. EPA. 2014. EPA’s Analysis of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) in Air Contained in Canisters by Method TO‐15.      Attachment 1  Data Validation Reports  Eurofins Air Toxics Matrix:Air Collection date:8/24/2021 8/25/2021 8/27/2021 Volatile Organic Compounds - EPA Method TO-15 Volatile Organic Compounds - EPA Method TO-15 SIM Samples in SDG: Sample Number Laboratory Number Sample Number Laboratory Number 0051H-AA02SC-082421 2109043-01 A/B 0102H-AA01SC-082421 2109043-07B 0051H-IA01SC-082421 2109043-02B 0059H-IA02SC-082521 2109043-08B 0018H-IA01SC-082421 2109043-03B 0011H-IA01SC-082521 2109043-09B 0003H-IA01SC-082421 2109043-04B 0011H-AA02SC-082521 2109043-10B 0166H-IA02SC-082421 2109043-05B 0026H-IA01SC-082521 2109043-11B 0102H-IA01SC-082421 2109043-06B 0037H-IA02SC-082721 2109043-12B Precision:Yes No N/A No Yes N/A Were the Laboratory Duplicate RPDs within limits?Yes Field TO-15 / SIM Sample (ug/m3)Duplicate (ug/m3)%RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples Duplicates 0037H-IA02SC- 082721 FD01-IA082721** (2109043-12) (2109046-04) NC J 2109046-04 & 2109043-12 1,4-Dioxane 1.7 J 0.25 J **Results reported in SDG 2109046 LCS/LCSD TO-15 / SIM %RPD Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples 2109043-15A / 15AA Acceptable 2109043-15B / 15BB Acceptable 2109043-15C / 15CC Acceptable 2109043-15D / 15DD (SIM)Acceptable MS/MSD TO-15 / SIM %RPD Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Laboratory Sample (ug/m3)Duplicate (ug/m3)RL %RPD Qualifiers Duplicate 2109043-8AA Acceptable 2109043-8BB (SIM)Acceptable Data validation was performed in accordance with the specific analytical methods and the U.S. EPA Analysis of Volatile Organic Compounds in Air Contained in Canisters by Method TO-15 (June 2014) and the project specific QAPP, 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah, Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Salt Lake City Health Care System, November, 2019. Are the field duplicate relative percent differences (RPDs) ≤40%? Were the Matrix Spike Duplicate RPDs ≤ 20%? (Or lab defined limits) Volatile Organic Compounds TO-15 / TO-15 SIM Laboratory Control Spike Duplicate RPDs within limits? Comments (note deviations): Associated Samples 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Site Air Samples Laboratory: Analysis/Methods: 2109043Sample Delivery Group (SDG) Number: Salt Lake City, Utah Data Validation Report 1 of 4 Accuracy:Yes No N/A Was the Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate criteria met? (frequency ≥ 5% and laboratory determined control limits) N/A Laboratory Control Sample criteria met?Yes Were the Laboratory Method Blank results all < RL?No Were the Field Blanks results all < RL?N/A Was the ICAL criteria met? (30%)Yes Was the CCV criteria met? (30%)Yes Was the Tuning criteria met?Yes Were the Surrogate % recoveries within laboratory determined control limits?Yes Were the Internal Standard areas within ± 60 - 140%? Yes Was canister certification criteria met?Yes Were sample results able to be recalculated from the laboratory raw data and were they accurate?Yes Was target compound identification correctly performed by the laboratory?Yes Were chromatograms representative of the sample results?Yes Blanks TO-15 / SIM Concentration (ug/m3)MDL / RL (ug/m3)Qualifiers Associated Samples Lab Blank 2109043-13A 2-Propanol 0.59 J 0.11 / 1.2 None Acetone 0.98 J 0.39 / 2.4 None Carbon Disulfide 0.34 J 0.28 / 1.6 U-RL Tetrahydrofuran 0.18 J 0.14 / 1.5 U-RL 2109043-13B (SIM) 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 0.0065 J 0.0030 / 0.11 U-RL 1,2-Dibromomethane 0.010 J 0.01 / 0.38 None Benzene 0.013 J 0.0091 / 0.16 None Toluene 0.0098 J 0.0069 / 0.19 None Trichloroethene 0.014 J 0.01 / 0.11 U-RL 2109043-13C 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 0.11 J 0.08 / 0.6 None 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 0.085 J 0.061 / 0.6 None Acetone 0.77 J 0.39 / 2.4 None alpha-Chlorotoluene 0.10 J 0.084 / 0.52 None 2109043-13D (SIM) 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 0.065 J 0.017 / 0.14 None 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 0.016 J 0.01 / 0.11 None 1,2-Dibromoethane 0.032 J 0.01 / 0.38 None 1,2-Dichloroethane 0.011 J 0.0042 / 0.081 U-RL 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 0.10 J 0.04 / 0.30 U-RL 2109043-06B Benzene 0.015 J 0.009 / 0.16 None Chloroform 0.015 J 0.0077 / 0.098 None Ethylbenzene 0.013 J 0.0032 / 0.087 U-RL 2109043-05B, 2109043-07B Freon 12 0.023 J 0.0036 / 0.25 None m,p-xylene 0.029 J 0.0053 / 0.17 None o-xylene 0.020 J 0.005 / 0.087 U-RL 2109043-05B, 2109043-07B Tetrachloroethene 0.011 J 0.007 / 0.14 U-RL Toluene 0.023 J 0.0069 / 0.19 None Vinyl Chloride 0.014 J 0.0032 / 0.05 U-RL 2109043-08B Field Blank TO-15 / SIM Concentration MDL / RL Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Surrogates TO-15 / SIM %R Limit Qualifiers Acceptable MS/MSD TO-15 SIM %R Limits (%)Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Sample results > RL 2109043-05B, 2109043-07B, 2109043-08B 2109043-05B, 2109043-07B, 2109043-08B Sample results > RL Sample results > RL Sample results > RL Sample results > RL 2109043-01B, 2109043-02B, 2109043-03B, 2109043-04B, 2109043-09B, 2109043-12B 2109043-02A, 2109043-11A, 2109043-12A Sample results > RL 2109043-01B, 2109043-02B, 2109043-09B, 2109043-11B, 2109043-12B Sample results > RL Sample results > RL 2109043-09A Sample results nondetect Sample results > RL Comments (note deviations): Associated Samples Sample results nondetect Sample results nondetect Sample results > RL Sample results nondetect Sample results nondetect Sample results nondetect Sample results nondetect 2 of 4 LCS/LCSD TO-15 / SIM %R Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples 2109043-15A / 15AA Acceptable 2109043-15B / 15BB Acceptable 2109043-15C / 15CC Acceptable 2109043-15D / 15DD (SIM)Acceptable ICV/CCV TO-15 / SIM %R Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable ICAL TO-15 / SIM RRF %RSD Qualifiers Associated Samples 9/3/2021 17:38 Acceptable Acceptable 9/3/2021 15:49 (SIM)Acceptable Acceptable CCV TO-15 / SIM RRF %D Qualifiers Associated Samples 9/7/2021 11:23 Acceptable Acceptable 9/8/2021 07:25 Acceptable Acceptable 9/7/2021 11:23 (SIM)Acceptable Acceptable 9/8/2021 07:25 (SIM) Acceptable Acceptable 9/8/2021 08:53 Acceptable Acceptable 9/8/2021 22:08 Acceptable Acceptable 9/8/2021 08:53 (SIM) Acceptable Acceptable 9/8/2021 22:08 (SIM) Acceptable Acceptable Tune TO-15 / SIM Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable Internal Standards TO-15 / SIM Area %Area % Criteria Qualifiers Associated Samples All Internal Standards Acceptable Canister Certification TO-15 / SIM Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable Raw Data Review TO-15 / SIM Results Recalculated Sample Result Acceptable Sample #Laboratory Reported Result Recalculated Sample Result (ug/m3)(ug/m3) TO-15 RRF / Concentration 2109043-04A 2-Propanol: 26 2.9265 / 26.542 2109043-04A Freon 11: 2.4 4.28328 / 2.395 TO-15-SIM 2109043-04B Chloroethane: 0.037 0.7374 / 0.037 2109043-04B Freon 12: 2.2 5.0639 / 2.173 (OR) (OR) Target Compound Identification Acceptable Chromatogram review Acceptable 3 of 4 Representativeness:Yes No N/A Were sampling procedures and design criteria met? Yes Were holding times met? Yes Was preservation criteria met? (0° - 6° C)N/A Were Chain-of-Custody records complete and provided in data package?Yes Holding Time / Canister Pressure Criteria Days to Analysis Criteria Associated Samples Holding Time Acceptable Canister Pressure Criteria Comparability:Yes No N/A Were analytical procedures and methods followed as defined in the QAPP or field change documentation?Yes Comments (note deviations): Completeness (90%):Yes No N/A Are all data in this SDG usable?Yes Sensitivity:Yes No N/A Are MDLs present and reported? Yes Do the reporting limits meet project requirements? Yes Comments (note deviations): Data Validator:Date: Data Reviewer:Date:Cherie Zakowski Kristine Molloy 10/6/2021 Overall Comments: Data are usable with appropriate qualifiers applied. Initial and Final Canister Pressure Results Acceptable Comments (note deviations): 10/7/2021 Comments (note deviations): 4 of 4 Eurofins Air Toxics Matrix:Air Collection date:8/27/2021 8/30/2021 8/31/2021 Volatile Organic Compounds - EPA Method TO-15 Volatile Organic Compounds - EPA Method TO-15 SIM Samples in SDG: Sample Number Laboratory Number Sample Number Laboratory Number RG01-SG082721 2109046-01 A/B 0091H-IA04SC-083121 2109046-06 A/B RG04-SG082721 2109046-02 A/B 0091H-AA01SC-083121 2109046-07 A/B FD01-SG082721 2109046-03 A/B FD02-IA083121 2109046-08 A/B FD01-IA082721 2109046-04 A/B RG08-SG083021 2109046-09A RG07-SG082721 2109046-05 A/B Precision:Yes No N/A Yes Yes N/A Were the Laboratory Duplicate RPDs within limits?Yes Field TO-15 / SIM Sample (ug/m3)Duplicate (ug/m3)%RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples Duplicates RG01-SG082721 FD01-SG082721 (2109046-01) (2109046-03 ) Acceptable 0091H-IA04SC- 083121 FD02-IA083121 (2109046-06) (2109046-08 ) Acceptable 0037H-IA02SC- 082721**FD01-IA082721 (2109043-12) (2109046-04) NC J 2109046-04 & 2109043-12 1,4-Dioxane 1.7 J 0.25 J ** Results reported in SDG 2109043 LCS/LCSD TO-15 / SIM %RPD Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples 2109046-12A / 12AA Acceptable 2109046-12B / 12BB (SIM)Acceptable 2109046-12C / 12CC Acceptable 2109046-12D / 12DD (SIM)Acceptable 2109046-12E / 12EE Acceptable MS/MSD TO-15 / SIM %RPD Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Laboratory Sample (ug/m3)Duplicate (ug/m3)RL %RPD Qualifiers Duplicate 2109046-5AA Acceptable 2109046-5BB (SIM)Acceptable 2109046-9AA Acceptable Data validation was performed in accordance with the specific analytical methods and the U.S. EPA Analysis of Volatile Organic Compounds in Air Contained in Canisters by Method TO-15 (June 2014) and the project specific QAPP, 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah, Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Salt Lake City Health Care System, November, 2019. Are the field duplicate relative percent differences (RPDs) ≤40%? Were the Matrix Spike Duplicate RPDs ≤ 20%? (Or lab defined limits) Volatile Organic Compounds TO-15 / TO-15 SIM Laboratory Control Spike Duplicate RPDs within limits? Comments (note deviations): Associated Samples 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Site Air Samples Laboratory: Analysis/Methods: 2109046Sample Delivery Group (SDG) Number: Salt Lake City, Utah Data Validation Report 1 of 4 Accuracy:Yes No N/A Was the Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate criteria met? (frequency ≥ 5% and laboratory determined control limits) N/A Laboratory Control Sample criteria met?Yes Were the Laboratory Method Blank results all < RL?No Were the Field Blanks results all < RL?N/A Was the ICAL criteria met? (30%)Yes Was the CCV criteria met? (30%)Yes Was the Tuning criteria met?Yes Were the Surrogate % recoveries within laboratory determined control limits?Yes Were the Internal Standard areas within ± 60 - 140%? Yes Was canister certification criteria met?Yes Were sample results able to be recalculated from the laboratory raw data and were they accurate?Yes Was target compound identification correctly performed by the laboratory?Yes Were chromatograms representative of the sample results?Yes Blanks TO-15 / SIM Concentration (ug/m3)MDL / RL (ug/m3)Qualifiers Associated Samples Lab Blank 2109046-10A 2-Propanol 0.59 J 0.11 / 1.2 None Acetone 0.98 J 0.39 / 2.4 None Carbon Disulfide 0.34 J 0.28 / 1.6 U-RL Tetrahydrofuran 0.18 J 0.14 / 1.5 U-RL 2109046-10B (SIM) 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 0.0065 J 0.0030 / 0.11 U-RL 1,2-Dibromoethane 0.010 J 0.01 / 0.38 None Benzene 0.013 J 0.0091 / 0.16 U-RL Toluene 0.0098 J 0.0069 / 0.19 U-RL Trichloroethene 0.014 J 0.01 / 0.11 U-RL 2109046-10C 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 0.11 J 0.08 / 0.6 None 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 0.085 J 0.061 / 0.6 None Acetone 0.77 J 0.39 / 2.4 None alpha-Chlorotoluene 0.10 J 0.084 / 0.52 None 2109046-10D (SIM) 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 0.065 J 0.017 / 0.14 None 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 0.016 J 0.01 / 0.11 None 1,2-Dibromoethane 0.032 J 0.01 / 0.38 None 1,2-Dichloroethane 0.011 J 0.0042 / 0.081 None 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 0.10 J 0.04 / 0.30 None Benzene 0.015 J 0.009 / 0.16 U-RL Chloroform 0.015 J 0.0077 / 0.098 None Ethylbenzene 0.013 J 0.0032 / 0.087 None Freon 12 0.023 J 0.0036 / 0.25 None m,p-xylene 0.029 J 0.0053 / 0.17 U-RL o-xylene 0.020 J 0.005 / 0.087 U-RL Tetrachloroethene 0.011 J 0.007 / 0.14 None Toluene 0.023 J 0.0069 / 0.19 U-RL Vinyl Chloride 0.014 J 0.0032 / 0.05 None 2109046-10E 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 0.11 J 0.24 / 9.8 None Acetone 1.1 J 0.67 / 12 U-RL 2109046-09A Toluene 0.17 J 0.12 / 1.9 U-RL 2109046-09A Field Blank TO-15 / SIM Concentration MDL / RL Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Surrogates TO-15 / SIM %R Limit Qualifiers Acceptable 2109046-01B, 2109046-02B, 2109046-03B Sample results > RL Sample results nondetect or > RL 2109046-01B, 2109046-02B, 2109046-03B Sample results > RL Sample results > RL 2109046-01B, 2109046-02B, 2109046-03B Sample results nondetect Sample results nondetect or > RL 2109046-06B, 2109046-07B 2109046-06A, 2109046-07A, 2109046-08A 2109046-05B 2109046-05B, 2109046-07B Sample results nondetect Sample results nondetect Sample results > RL Sample results nondetect Sample results nondetect Sample results nondetect Sample results nondetect 2109046-02B Sample results nondetect Sample results nondetect Sample results > RL Sample results > RL 2109046-05A, 2109046-07A Sample results nondetect 2109046-05B Comments (note deviations): Associated Samples 2 of 4 MS/MSD TO-15 SIM %R Limits (%)Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A LCS/LCSD TO-15 / SIM %R Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples 2109046-12A / 12AA Acceptable 2109046-12B / 12BB (SIM)Acceptable 2109046-12C / 12CC Acceptable 2109046-12D / 12DD (SIM)Acceptable 2109046-12E / 12EE Acceptable ICV/CCV TO-15 / SIM %R Qualifiers Associated Samples 1,3-Butadiene 69.91 J / UJ ICAL TO-15 / SIM RRF %RSD Qualifiers Associated Samples 9/3/2021 17:38 Acceptable Acceptable 9/3/2021 15:49 (SIM)Acceptable Acceptable 6/28/2021 11:42 Acceptable Acceptable CCV TO-15 / SIM RRF %D Qualifiers Associated Samples 9/7/2021 11:23 Acceptable Acceptable 9/8/2021 07:25 Acceptable Acceptable 9/7/2021 11:23 (SIM) Acceptable Acceptable 9/8/2021 07:25 (SIM) Acceptable Acceptable 9/8/2021 08:53 Acceptable Acceptable 9/8/2021 22:08 Acceptable Acceptable 9/8/2021 08:53 (SIM) Acceptable Acceptable 9/8/2021 22:08 (SIM) Acceptable Acceptable 9/13/2021 09:32 Acceptable Acceptable 9/13/2021 08:16 Acceptable Acceptable Tune TO-15 / SIM Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable Internal Standards TO-15 / SIM Area %Area % Criteria Qualifiers Associated Samples All Internal Standards Acceptable Canister Certification TO-15 / SIM Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable 2109046-09A 3 of 4 Raw Data Review TO-15 / SIM Results Recalculated Sample Result Acceptable Sample #Laboratory Reported Result Recalculated Sample Result (ug/m3)(ug/m3) TO-15 RRF / Concentration 2109046-06A 2-Propanol: 23 2.9265 / 23.039 2109046-06A Freon 11: 1.4 4.28330 / 1.397 TO-15-SIM 2109046-06B Chloroethane: 0.06 0.7369 / 0.062 2109046-06B Freon 12: 2.30 5.0638 / 2.27 (OR) (OR) Target Compound Identification Acceptable Chromatogram review Acceptable Representativeness:Yes No N/A Were sampling procedures and design criteria met? Yes Were holding times met? Yes Was preservation criteria met? (0° - 6° C)N/A Were Chain-of-Custody records complete and provided in data package?Yes Holding Time / Canister Pressure Criteria Days to Analysis Criteria Associated Samples Holding Time Acceptable Canister Pressure Criteria Comparability:Yes No N/A Were analytical procedures and methods followed as defined in the QAPP or field change documentation?Yes Comments (note deviations): Completeness (90%):Yes No N/A Are all data in this SDG usable?Yes Sensitivity:Yes No N/A Are MDLs present and reported? Yes Do the reporting limits meet project requirements? Yes Comments (note deviations): Data Validator:Date: Data Reviewer:Date:Cherie Zakowski Kristine Molloy 10/7/2021 Overall Comments: Data are usable with appropriate qualifiers applied. Initial and Final Canister Pressure Results Acceptable Comments (note deviations): 10/10/2021 Comments (note deviations): 4 of 4      Attachment 2  Data Package Completeness Review Checklists   VA SLC OU‐1  Data Package Completeness Review Checklist  SDG: 2109043 Required Documentation Yes No Comments  1. Cover letter complete with the following information: X     Title of report and laboratory unique report identification  (sample delivery group number) X     Project name, site location X     Name and location of laboratory and second‐site or  subcontracted laboratory X     Client name and address X     Statement of authenticity and official signature and title of  person authorizing report release X    2. Summary of samples received that correlates field sample IDs  with the laboratory IDs X    3. Laboratory qualifier flags and definitions  X    4. Preparation and/or analytical methods  X    5. Sample results for each analyte (dry weight basis for soils)   Date received X     Date analyzed (and time of analysis if the holding time is less  than or equal to 48 hours) X     Percent solids results for soil samples   Not Applicable   Dilution factor (provide both diluted and undiluted results  when available) X     Sample‐specific reporting limit adjusted for sample size,  dilution/concentration X     Sample‐specific MDL adjusted for sample size,  dilution/concentration X     Units X    6. Case Narrative that addresses the following information at a  minimum: X     Sample receipt discrepancies X  None   Descriptions of all nonconformances in the sample receipt,  handling, preparation, analytical and reporting processes and  the corrective action taken in each occurrence  X      Identification and justification for sample dilution X     Sample cooler temperature at time of receipt   Not Applicable   Final residual vacuum of each sample canister immediately  prior to analysis, or upon receipt (Air analyses only)  X    7. Surrogate percent recoveries (surrogate result, target  concentration, percent recovery)  X    Required Documentation Yes No Comments  8. MS/MSD and LCS spike concentrations, native sample results,  spiked sample results, percent recoveries, and RPDs between  the MS and MSD results (associated QC limits must also be  provided)  X    9. Method blank results X    10. Analytical batch reference number that cross references  samples to QC sample analyses  X    11. Executed COC and sample receipt checklist X    12.  Analytical sequence or laboratory run log that contains  sufficient information to correlate samples reported in the  summary results to the associated method QC information,  such as initial and continuing calibration analyses  X    13. Calibration blank results for inorganic analyses (required in  hardcopy format only)    Not Applicable  14. Inductively coupled plasma (ICP) interference check sample for  inorganic analyses, true and measured concentrations and  percent recoveries (required in hardcopy format only)    Not Applicable  15. Reporting Limit Check Standard for metals analyses, true and  measured concentrations and percent recoveries (if applicable,  required in hardcopy format only)    Not Applicable  16. Post‐digestion spike recoveries for metals analyses, (if  applicable; required in hardcopy format only)    Not Applicable  17. Internal Standard recovery and retention time information, as  applicable  X    18. Initial calibration summary, including standard concentrations,  response factors, average response factors, RSDs or correlation  coefficients, and calibration plots or equations, if applicable  (required in hardcopy format only)  X    19. Continuing calibration verification summary, including expected  and recovered concentrations and percent differences (required  in hardcopy format only)  X    20. Instrument tuning and mass calibration information for ICP  /mass spectrometry analyses  X    21. All associated instrument printouts for all samples, standards,  and QC samples (e.g., raw data) necessary to re‐calculate  results as well as all manual integrations (if performed)  X    22. Sample preparation logs that include the following information X     Preparation start and end times (as applicable) X     Beginning and ending temperatures of water baths and  digestion blocks    Not Applicable  Data package complete and ready for Validation Cherie Zakowski Date: 9/20/2021  Signature VA SLC OU‐1  Data Package Completeness Review Checklist  SDG: 2109046 Required Documentation Yes No Comments  1. Cover letter complete with the following information: X     Title of report and laboratory unique report identification  (sample delivery group number) X     Project name, site location X     Name and location of laboratory and second‐site or  subcontracted laboratory X     Client name and address X     Statement of authenticity and official signature and title of  person authorizing report release X    2. Summary of samples received that correlates field sample IDs  with the laboratory IDs X    3. Laboratory qualifier flags and definitions  X    4. Preparation and/or analytical methods  X    5. Sample results for each analyte (dry weight basis for soils)   Date received X     Date analyzed (and time of analysis if the holding time is less  than or equal to 48 hours) X     Percent solids results for soil samples   Not Applicable   Dilution factor (provide both diluted and undiluted results  when available) X     Sample‐specific reporting limit adjusted for sample size,  dilution/concentration X     Sample‐specific MDL adjusted for sample size,  dilution/concentration X     Units X    6. Case Narrative that addresses the following information at a  minimum: X     Sample receipt discrepancies X  None   Descriptions of all nonconformances in the sample receipt,  handling, preparation, analytical and reporting processes and  the corrective action taken in each occurrence  X      Identification and justification for sample dilution X     Sample cooler temperature at time of receipt   Not Applicable   Final residual vacuum of each sample canister immediately  prior to analysis, or upon receipt (Air analyses only)  X    7. Surrogate percent recoveries (surrogate result, target  concentration, percent recovery)  X    Required Documentation Yes No Comments  8. MS/MSD and LCS spike concentrations, native sample results,  spiked sample results, percent recoveries, and RPDs between  the MS and MSD results (associated QC limits must also be  provided)  X    9. Method blank results X    10. Analytical batch reference number that cross references  samples to QC sample analyses  X    11. Executed COC and sample receipt checklist X    12.  Analytical sequence or laboratory run log that contains  sufficient information to correlate samples reported in the  summary results to the associated method QC information,  such as initial and continuing calibration analyses  X    13. Calibration blank results for inorganic analyses (required in  hardcopy format only)    Not Applicable  14. Inductively coupled plasma (ICP) interference check sample for  inorganic analyses, true and measured concentrations and  percent recoveries (required in hardcopy format only)    Not Applicable  15. Reporting Limit Check Standard for metals analyses, true and  measured concentrations and percent recoveries (if applicable,  required in hardcopy format only)    Not Applicable  16. Post‐digestion spike recoveries for metals analyses, (if  applicable; required in hardcopy format only)    Not Applicable  17. Internal Standard recovery and retention time information, as  applicable  X    18. Initial calibration summary, including standard concentrations,  response factors, average response factors, RSDs or correlation  coefficients, and calibration plots or equations, if applicable  (required in hardcopy format only)  X    19. Continuing calibration verification summary, including expected  and recovered concentrations and percent differences (required  in hardcopy format only)  X    20. Instrument tuning and mass calibration information for ICP  /mass spectrometry analyses  X    21. All associated instrument printouts for all samples, standards,  and QC samples (e.g., raw data) necessary to re‐calculate  results as well as all manual integrations (if performed)  X    22. Sample preparation logs that include the following information X     Preparation start and end times (as applicable) X     Beginning and ending temperatures of water baths and  digestion blocks    Not Applicable  Data package complete and ready for Validation Cherie Zakowski Date: 9/20/2021  Signature      Attachment 3  Analytical Data Packages  Note: Laboratory Data Reports removed from report and provided separately. Quality Control Summary Report Winter 2022 Air Sampling Event Operable Unit 1 Remedial Investigation 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Salt Lake City, Utah July 2022 i Table of Contents Section 1 Data Usability and Assessment Review .............................................................. 1-1 1.1 Usability Summary ................................................................................................................................................... 1-1 Section 2 Quality Assurance Objectives ............................................................................. 2-1 Section 3 Field and Laboratory Quality Assurance Activities .............................................. 3-1 3.1 Deviations from Field Procedures/Laboratory Methods ........................................................................ 3-1 3.2 Field Quality Assurance/Quality Control ....................................................................................................... 3-1 3.3 Laboratory Quality Assurance/Quality Control .......................................................................................... 3-2 3.3.1 Laboratory Methods .................................................................................................................................. 3-2 Section 4 Data Validation Procedures ................................................................................ 4-1 Section 5 Data Quality Indicators ....................................................................................... 5-1 5.1 Precision ....................................................................................................................................................................... 5-1 5.2 Accuracy ....................................................................................................................................................................... 5-2 5.2.1 Percent Recovery ........................................................................................................................................ 5-2 5.2.2 Blank Contamination ................................................................................................................................. 5-4 5.3 Representativeness .................................................................................................................................................. 5-4 5.4 Comparability ............................................................................................................................................................. 5-5 5.5 Completeness ............................................................................................................................................................. 5-5 5.6 Sensitivity ..................................................................................................................................................................... 5-6 Section 6 Data Usability Assessment ................................................................................. 6-1 Section 7 References ......................................................................................................... 7-1 Tables Table 3-1 Sample List and Analyses Table 4-1 Qualification Summary Table 5-1 DQIs and Corresponding QC Parameters Table 5-2 Summary of Field Duplicate Sampling Results Attachments Attachment 1 Data Validation Reports Attachment 2 Data Package Completeness Review Checklists Attachment 3 Analytical Data Packages i Abbreviations % percent %D percent difference %R percent recovery CDM Smith CDM Federal Programs Corporation COC chain of custody DQI data quality indicator DQO data quality objective EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Eurofins Eurofins Air Toxics Laboratory LCS laboratory control sample LCSD laboratory control sample duplicate MDL method detection limit MRL method reporting limit Pace Pace Analytical Laboratory PARCCS precision, accuracy, representativeness, comparability, completeness, and sensitivity PCE tetrachloroethene QA quality assurance QAPP quality assurance project plan QC quality control QCSR quality control summary report RIWP remedial investigation work plan RPD relative percent difference RSD relative standard deviation SDG sample delivery group SIM selective ion monitoring VOC volatile organic compound   1‐1  Section 1  Data Usability and Assessment Review  Under the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Kansas City District, Contract No. W912DQ-18-D-3008, Task Order No. W912DQ19F3048, CDM Federal Programs Corporation (CDM Smith) has been directed to perform a remedial investigation for Operable Unit 1 of the 700 South 1600 East Tetrachloroethene (PCE) Plume Superfund Site in Salt Lake City, Utah. As part of the ongoing remedial investigation, indoor and ambient air samples were collected from March 8 to 18, 2022, and on April 29, 2022. Samples were shipped to Eurofins Air Toxics Laboratory (Eurofins) in Folsom, California, and Pace Analytical Laboratory (Pace) in Mt. Juliet, Tennessee, for analysis. This quality control summary report (QCSR) summarizes the data validation performed and determines whether sample results meet the data quality objectives (DQOs) outlined in the Phase 2 Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP), Operable Unit 1, 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Site (CDM Smith 2020a). 1.1 Usability Summary Data collected and validated during this field investigation are usable as reported. Applicable data validation qualifiers were added if required. No sample results were rejected. Specific details are provided in the data validation reports summarized in Section 5 and presented in Attachment 1 of this report.   2‐1  Section 2  Quality Assurance Objectives  Quality assurance (QA) objectives for measurement data are expressed in terms of precision, accuracy, representativeness, comparability, completeness, and sensitivity (PARCCS). The PARCCS parameters characterize the quality of the data and, as such, are called data quality indicators (DQIs). The DQIs provide a mechanism for ongoing quality control (QC) and measuring and evaluating data quality throughout the project. A review of the collected data is necessary to determine whether data measurement objectives established in the QAPP (CDM Smith 2020a) were met. In general, the following data measurement objectives were considered:  Achievement of analytical method and reporting limit requirements  Adherence to and achievement of appropriate laboratory analytical and field QC requirements  Achievement of required measurement performance criteria for DQIs (the PARCCS parameters)  Adherence to sampling and sample handling procedures  Adherence to the sampling design and deviations documented on field change notifications, if required Data validation review of the DQIs and other QA objectives determines whether the data are of sufficient quality and quantity to support their intended use.   3‐1  Section 3  Field and Laboratory Quality Assurance Activities  CDM Smith and subcontractor Wasatch Environmental completed field sampling activities from March 8 to 18, 2022, and on April 29, 2022. The QAPP (CDM Smith 2020a) defined the procedures to be followed and the data quality requirements for the field sampling events and associated analytical work. Samples were received intact with proper chain-of-custody (COC) documentation at Eurofins and Pace with the exception of sample 0273H-IA015C-031222 reported in sample delivery group (SDG) 2203546 (see Section 5.2.1 for further information). Sample identification was accurately documented by the laboratory after clarification with the field team. Sample preparation and analyses were conducted within the method-specified holding times. Table 3‐1 lists the samples collected and analyses performed. Attachment 2 presents the completeness review checklists for the data packages. Attachment 3 includes the analytical data packages. 3.1 Deviations from Field Procedures/Laboratory Procedures  While the following deviations occurred during the winter 2022 indoor/ambient air sampling event, all samples were collected as planned during the sampling event and the deviations do not impact data quality or the DQOs:  The initial 24-hour SUMMA canister deployed at 0029-H did not collect adequate sample volume for analysis. The sample was recollected at a later date and analyzed.  Sample identification discrepancies occurred for some samples. The sample identification discrepancies were corrected.  One COC form was not completed using impermeable ink, however, an unalterable copy of the COC form was included in the analytical laboratory data package. The entries on the form were reviewed for accuracy, and the field team was notified about the requirement to use impermeable ink for project documentation. 3.2 Field Quality Assurance/Quality Control  Five field duplicates were analyzed for the 54 environmental air samples collected. The QC sample collection frequency requirements in the QAPP (CDM Smith 2020a) of 10% for field duplicates was met. Field QA/QC objectives were accomplished through the use of appropriate sampling techniques and collection of QC samples at the specified frequency. Section 3  Field and Laboratory Quality Assurance Activities  3‐2  3.3 Laboratory Quality Assurance/Quality Control  Analytical QA/QC was assessed by laboratory QC checks, method blanks, sample custody tracking, sample preservation, adherence to holding times, laboratory control samples (LCSs), calibration verifications, surrogates, internal standards, duplicate results, and other applicable QC parameters. As presented in the data validation reports in Attachment 1 of this report, laboratory QC sample results met project criteria requirements and sample results were qualified if required. All data are considered usable. 3.3.1 Laboratory Methods Samples were analyzed using the following methods:  Modified U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Method TO-15 for volatile organic compounds (VOCs)  Modified EPA Method TO-15 selective ion monitoring (SIM) for VOCs by SIM The methods used met project objectives. Table 3‐1 Sample List and Analysis 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Site Salt Lake City, Utah Field Sample ID Matrix Sample Date Lab SDG Method 0013H‐IA01SC‐030822 AI 3/8/2022 2203385 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM 0029H‐IA01SC‐031822 AI 3/18/2022 2203674 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM 0040H‐IA01SC‐031522 AI 3/15/2022 L1472579 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM 0040H‐IA02SC‐031522 AI 3/15/2022 L1472579 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM 0041H‐IA01SC‐031222 AI 3/12/2022 2203547 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM 0062H‐IA01SC‐031222 AI 3/12/2022 2203550 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM 0064H‐AA01SC‐030822 AA 3/8/2022 2203386 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM 0064H‐IA01SC‐030822 AI 3/8/2022 2203386 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM 0072H‐IA01SC‐030822 AI 3/8/2022 2203385 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM 0145H‐IA01SC‐031222 AI 3/12/2022 2203547 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM 0146H‐IA01SC‐031122 AI 3/11/2022 2203552 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM 0172H‐IA01SC‐030822 AI 3/8/2022 2203386 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM 0180H‐IA01SC‐030822 AI 3/8/2022 2203385 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM 0189H‐IA01SC‐031122 AI 3/11/2022 2203552 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM 0192H‐IA01SC‐031122 AI 3/11/2022 2203546 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM 0193H‐IA01SC‐031022 AI 3/10/2022 L1470817 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM 0194H‐IA01SC‐030922 AI 3/9/2022 L1470815 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM 0195H‐IA01SC‐031022 AI 3/10/2022 L1470817 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM 0197H‐IA01SC‐030822 AI 3/8/2022 2203385 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM 0197H‐IA01SC‐042922 AI 4/29/2022 2205002 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM 0197H‐IA02SC‐042922 AI 4/29/2022 2205002 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM 0197H‐IA03SC‐042922 AI 4/29/2022 2205002 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM 0197H‐IA04SC‐042922 AI 4/29/2022 2205002 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM 0225H‐IA01SC‐030922 AI 3/9/2022 L1470815 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM 0230H‐IA01SC‐031222 AI 3/12/2022 2203550 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM 0255H‐IA01SC‐031022 AI 3/10/2022 L1470817 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM 0256H‐IA01SC‐030922 AI 3/9/2022 L1470815 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM 0263H‐IA01SC‐031022 AI 3/10/2022 L1470823 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM 0273H‐IA01SC‐031222 AI 3/12/2022 2203546 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM 0274H‐IA01SC‐030822 AI 3/8/2022 2203384 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM 0277H‐IA01SC‐031222 AI 3/12/2022 2203547 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM 0302H‐AA01SC‐031222 AA 3/12/2022 2203550 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM 0302H‐IA01SC‐031222 AI 3/12/2022 2203550 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM 0315H‐IA01SC‐031222 AI 3/12/2022 2203596 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM 0329H‐IA01SC‐030822 AI 3/8/2022 2203384 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM 0334H‐AA01SC‐031022 AA 3/10/2022 L1470823 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM 0334H‐IA01SC‐031022 AI 3/10/2022 L1470823 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM 0336H‐IA01SC‐030822 AI 3/8/2022 2203386 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM 0347H‐IA01SC‐030922 AI 3/9/2022 2203384 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM 0366C‐IA01SC‐031022 AI 3/10/2022 L1470822 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM 0366C‐IA02SC‐031022 AI 3/10/2022 L1470822 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM 0366C‐IA03SC‐031022 AI 3/10/2022 L1470822 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM 0381H‐AA01SC‐031122 AA 3/11/2022 2203552 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM 0381H‐IA01SC‐031122 AI 3/11/2022 2203552 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM 0392H‐IA01SC‐031222 AI 3/12/2022 2203546 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM 0395H‐IA01SC‐031022 AI 3/10/2022 L1470817 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM 0365S‐AA01SC‐031822 AA 3/18/2022 2203675 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM 0365S‐IA01SC‐031822 AI 3/18/2022 2203675 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM 0365S‐IA02SC‐031822 AI 3/18/2022 2203675 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM 0365S‐IA03SC‐031822 AI 3/18/2022 2203675 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM B20‐IA01SC‐031522 AI 3/15/2022 2203674 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM Page 1 of 2 Table 3‐1 Sample List and Analysis 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Site Salt Lake City, Utah Field Sample ID Matrix Sample Date Lab SDG Method B20‐IA02SC‐031522 AI 3/15/2022 2203674 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM B32‐AA01SC‐031522 AA 3/15/2022 2203596 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM B32‐IA01SC‐031522 AI 3/15/2022 2203596 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM FD01‐IA030822 AI 3/8/2022 2203384 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM FD02‐IA031022 AI 3/10/2022 L1470822 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM FD03‐IA031222 AI 3/12/2022 2203546 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM FD04‐IA031222 AI 3/12/2022 2203547 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM FD05‐IA031522 AI 3/15/2022 2203674 TO‐15, TO‐15 SIM Acronyms: AA ‐ ambient air AI ‐ indoor air EPA ‐ United States Environmental Protection Agency  ID ‐ identification SDG ‐ sample delivery group TO‐15 ‐ Modified EPA Method TO‐15 for volatile organic compounds TO‐15 SIM ‐ Modified EPA Method TO‐15 for volatile organic compounds by selective ion monitoring (SIM) Page 2 of 2   4‐1  Section 4  Data Validation Procedures  For this QCSR, 16 laboratory SDGs were evaluated. Qualified CDM Smith data validators not associated with project sampling activities validated the data reported in each of the SDGs. Data validation was performed in accordance with specified analytical methods and performance criteria outlined in the QAPP (CDM Smith 2020a), EPA’s National Functional Guidelines for Organic Superfund Methods Data Review (EPA 2020), and EPA’s Analysis of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) in Air Contained in Canisters by Method TO‐15 (EPA 2014). Validation reports are provided in Attachment 1. The following data packages were validated:  SDG 2203384  SDG 2203385  SDG 2203386  SDG 2203546  SDG 2203547  SDG 2203550  SDG 2203552  SDG 2203596  SDG 2203674  SDG 2203675  SDG 2205002  SDG L1470815  SDG L1470817  SDG L1470822  SDG L1470823  SDG L1472579 Table 4‐1 presents the results that were qualified and the reasons for the qualifications. Qualifiers applied are defined as follows:  J – The result is an estimated quantity. The associated numerical value is the approximate concentration of the analyte in the sample. Section 4  Data Validation Procedures  4‐2   J+ – The result is an estimated quantity. The associated numerical value is the approximate concentration of the analyte in the sample; the result may be biased high.  U – The analyte was analyzed for but was not detected above the level of the sample method reporting limit (MRL).  UJ – The analyte was analyzed for but was not detected above the level of the sample MRL. The MRL is approximate. Table 4‐1 Qualification Summary 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Site Salt Lake City, Utah Field Sample ID Lab SDG Method Analyte CAS #Final Result Unit Validation  Qualifier Interpreted  Qualifier Qualifier  Reason 0029H‐IA01SC‐031822 2203674 TO15 Bromomethane 74‐83‐93.1µg/m3 UJ UJ ICV 0029H‐IA01SC‐031822 2203674 TO15 Ethanol 64‐17‐5 120 µg/m3 JJCAL 0040H‐IA01SC‐031522 L1472579 TO15 Benzyl Chloride 100‐44‐71.04µg/m3 UJ UJ CCV 0040H‐IA02SC‐031522 L1472579 TO15 Benzyl Chloride 100‐44‐71.04µg/m3 UJ UJ CCV 0041H‐IA01SC‐031222 2203547 TO15 Allyl Chloride 107‐05‐12.4µg/m3 UJ UJ CCV 0041H‐IA01SC‐031222 2203547 TO15 Bromomethane 74‐83‐93µg/m3 UJ UJ ICV 0041H‐IA01SC‐031222 2203547 TO15 Ethanol 64‐17‐5 550 µg/m3 JJCAL 0041H‐IA01SC‐031222 2203547 TO15 Methylene Chloride 75‐09‐22.7µg/m3 U‐RL U LB 0062H‐IA01SC‐031222 2203550 TO15 Bromomethane 74‐83‐93µg/m3 UJ UJ ICV 0062H‐IA01SC‐031222 2203550 TO15 Methylene Chloride 75‐09‐22.7µg/m3 U‐RL U LB 0072H‐IA01SC‐030822 2203385 TO15 Ethanol 64‐17‐5 240 µg/m3 JJCAL 0145H‐IA01SC‐031222 2203547 TO15 Allyl Chloride 107‐05‐12.4µg/m3 UJ UJ CCV 0145H‐IA01SC‐031222 2203547 TO15 Bromomethane 74‐83‐93µg/m3 UJ UJ ICV 0145H‐IA01SC‐031222 2203547 TO15SIM Carbon Tetrachloride 56‐23‐50.76µg/m3 J+ J+ IN 0146H‐IA01SC‐031122 2203552 TO15 Allyl Chloride 107‐05‐15µg/m3 UJ UJ CCV 0146H‐IA01SC‐031122 2203552 TO15 Bromomethane 74‐83‐96.2µg/m3 UJ UJ ICV 0146H‐IA01SC‐031122 2203552 TO15 Ethanol 64‐17‐5 2400 µg/m3 JJCAL 0172H‐IA01SC‐030822 2203386 TO15 Ethanol 64‐17‐5 210 µg/m3 JJCAL 0189H‐IA01SC‐031122 2203552 TO15 Allyl Chloride 107‐05‐12.4µg/m3 UJ UJ CCV 0189H‐IA01SC‐031122 2203552 TO15 Bromomethane 74‐83‐93µg/m3 UJ UJ ICV 0189H‐IA01SC‐031122 2203552 TO15 Ethanol 64‐17‐5 340 µg/m3 JJCAL 0189H‐IA01SC‐031122 2203552 TO15 Isopropyl Alcohol 67‐63‐0 240 µg/m3 JJCAL 0189H‐IA01SC‐031122 2203552 TO15 Methylene Chloride 75‐09‐22.7µg/m3 U‐RL U LB 0192H‐IA01SC‐031122 2203546 TO15 Allyl Chloride 107‐05‐12.6µg/m3 UJ UJ CCV 0192H‐IA01SC‐031122 2203546 TO15 Bromomethane 74‐83‐93.2µg/m3 UJ UJ ICV 0192H‐IA01SC‐031122 2203546 TO15 Ethanol 64‐17‐5 190 µg/m3 JJCAL Page 1 of 6 Table 4‐1 Qualification Summary 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Site Salt Lake City, Utah Field Sample ID Lab SDG Method Analyte CAS #Final Result Unit Validation  Qualifier Interpreted  Qualifier Qualifier  Reason 0192H‐IA01SC‐031122 2203546 TO15 Methylene Chloride 75‐09‐22.8µg/m3 U‐RL U LB 0193H‐IA01SC‐031022 L1470817 TO15 Benzyl Chloride 100‐44‐71.04µg/m3 UJ UJ CCV 0193H‐IA01SC‐031022 L1470817 TO15 Ethanol 64‐17‐5 458 µg/m3 J J CCV 0194H‐IA01SC‐030922 L1470815 TO15 Benzyl Chloride 100‐44‐71.04µg/m3 UJ UJ CCV 0194H‐IA01SC‐030922 L1470815 TO15 Ethanol 64‐17‐5 349 µg/m3 J J CCV 0195H‐IA01SC‐031022 L1470817 TO15 Benzyl Chloride 100‐44‐71.04µg/m3 UJ UJ CCV 0195H‐IA01SC‐031022 L1470817 TO15 Ethanol 64‐17‐5 146 µg/m3 J J CCV 0225H‐IA01SC‐030922 L1470815 TO15 Benzyl Chloride 100‐44‐71.04µg/m3 UJ UJ CCV 0225H‐IA01SC‐030922 L1470815 TO15 Ethanol 64‐17‐5 458 µg/m3 J J CCV 0230H‐IA01SC‐031222 2203550 TO15 Bromomethane 74‐83‐93µg/m3 UJ UJ ICV 0230H‐IA01SC‐031222 2203550 TO15 Ethanol 64‐17‐5 680 µg/m3 JJCAL 0230H‐IA01SC‐031222 2203550 TO15 Methylene Chloride 75‐09‐22.7µg/m3 U‐RL U LB 0255H‐IA01SC‐031022 L1470817 TO15 Benzyl Chloride 100‐44‐71.04µg/m3 UJ UJ CCV 0255H‐IA01SC‐031022 L1470817 TO15 Ethanol 64‐17‐5 19.8 µg/m3 J J CCV 0256H‐IA01SC‐030922 L1470815 TO15 Benzyl Chloride 100‐44‐71.04µg/m3 UJ UJ CCV 0256H‐IA01SC‐030922 L1470815 TO15 Ethanol 64‐17‐5 47.7 µg/m3 J J CCV 0263H‐IA01SC‐031022 L1470823 TO15 Benzyl Chloride 100‐44‐71.04µg/m3 UJ UJ CCV 0273H‐IA01SC‐031222 2203546 TO15 Allyl Chloride 107‐05‐12.6µg/m3 UJ UJ CCV 0273H‐IA01SC‐031222 2203546 TO15 Bromomethane 74‐83‐93.2µg/m3 UJ UJ ICV 0273H‐IA01SC‐031222 2203546 TO15 Ethanol 64‐17‐5 240 µg/m3 JJCAL 0273H‐IA01SC‐031222 2203546 TO15 Methylene Chloride 75‐09‐22.9µg/m3 U‐RL U LB 0274H‐IA01SC‐030822 2203384 TO15 Ethanol 64‐17‐5 180 µg/m3 JJCAL 0277H‐IA01SC‐031222 2203547 TO15 Allyl Chloride 107‐05‐12.6µg/m3 UJ UJ CCV 0277H‐IA01SC‐031222 2203547 TO15 Bromomethane 74‐83‐93.2µg/m3 UJ UJ ICV 0302H‐AA01SC‐031222 2203550 TO15 Bromomethane 74‐83‐92.9µg/m3 UJ UJ ICV 0302H‐AA01SC‐031222 2203550 TO15 Methylene Chloride 75‐09‐22.6µg/m3 U‐RL U LB Page 2 of 6 Table 4‐1 Qualification Summary 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Site Salt Lake City, Utah Field Sample ID Lab SDG Method Analyte CAS #Final Result Unit Validation  Qualifier Interpreted  Qualifier Qualifier  Reason 0302H‐IA01SC‐031222 2203550 TO15 Bromomethane 74‐83‐92.8µg/m3 UJ UJ ICV 0302H‐IA01SC‐031222 2203550 TO15 Methylene Chloride 75‐09‐22.5µg/m3 U‐RL U LB 0315H‐IA01SC‐031222 2203596 TO15 Bromomethane 74‐83‐93.1µg/m3 UJ UJ ICV 0315H‐IA01SC‐031222 2203596 TO15 Ethanol 64‐17‐5 480 µg/m3 JJCAL 0315H‐IA01SC‐031222 2203596 TO15 Isopropyl Alcohol 67‐63‐017µg/m3 JJFD 0315H‐IA01SC‐031222 2203596 TO15 Methylene Chloride 75‐09‐22.8µg/m3 U‐RL U LB 0334H‐AA01SC‐031022 L1470823 TO15 Benzyl Chloride 100‐44‐71.04µg/m3 UJ UJ CCV 0334H‐IA01SC‐031022 L1470823 TO15 Benzyl Chloride 100‐44‐71.04µg/m3 UJ UJ CCV 0336H‐IA01SC‐030822 2203386 TO15 Ethanol 64‐17‐5 200 µg/m3 JJCAL 0347H‐IA01SC‐030922 2203384 TO15 Ethanol 64‐17‐5 1700 µg/m3 JJCAL 0366C‐IA01SC‐031022 L1470822 TO15 Acetone 67‐64‐1 101 µg/m3 JJFD 0366C‐IA01SC‐031022 L1470822 TO15 Benzyl Chloride 100‐44‐71.04µg/m3 UJ UJ CCV 0366C‐IA01SC‐031022 L1470822 TO15 Chloroform 67‐66‐3 0.604 µg/m3 JJFD 0366C‐IA01SC‐031022 L1470822 TO15 Ethanol 64‐17‐5 535 µg/m3 J J FD,CCV 0366C‐IA01SC‐031022 L1470822 TO15 Ethylbenzene 100‐41‐44.9µg/m3 JJFD 0366C‐IA01SC‐031022 L1470822 TO15 m,p‐Xylene 179601‐23‐1 12.2 µg/m3 JJFD 0366C‐IA01SC‐031022 L1470822 TO15 o‐Xylene 95‐47‐62.42µg/m3 JJFD 0366C‐IA01SC‐031022 L1470822 TO15 Toluene 108‐88‐3 16.5 µg/m3 JJFD 0366C‐IA01SC‐031022 L1470822 TO15SIM 1,2‐Dichloroethane 107‐06‐2 0.184 µg/m3 JJFD 0366C‐IA01SC‐031022 L1470822 TO15SIM Tetrachloroethene 127‐18‐41.07µg/m3 JJFD 0366C‐IA02SC‐031022 L1470822 TO15 Benzyl Chloride 100‐44‐71.04µg/m3 UJ UJ CCV 0366C‐IA02SC‐031022 L1470822 TO15 Ethanol 64‐17‐5 51.9 µg/m3 J J CCV 0366C‐IA03SC‐031022 L1470822 TO15 Benzyl Chloride 100‐44‐71.04µg/m3 UJ UJ CCV 0366C‐IA03SC‐031022 L1470822 TO15 Ethanol 64‐17‐5 270 µg/m3 J J CCV 0381H‐AA01SC‐031122 2203552 TO15 Allyl Chloride 107‐05‐12.3µg/m3 UJ UJ CCV 0381H‐AA01SC‐031122 2203552 TO15 Bromomethane 74‐83‐92.9µg/m3 UJ UJ ICV Page 3 of 6 Table 4‐1 Qualification Summary 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Site Salt Lake City, Utah Field Sample ID Lab SDG Method Analyte CAS #Final Result Unit Validation  Qualifier Interpreted  Qualifier Qualifier  Reason 0381H‐AA01SC‐031122 2203552 TO15 Methylene Chloride 75‐09‐22.6µg/m3 U‐RL U LB 0381H‐IA01SC‐031122 2203552 TO15 Allyl Chloride 107‐05‐12.7µg/m3 UJ UJ CCV 0381H‐IA01SC‐031122 2203552 TO15 Bromomethane 74‐83‐93.3µg/m3 UJ UJ ICV 0381H‐IA01SC‐031122 2203552 TO15 Methylene Chloride 75‐09‐23µg/m3 U‐RL U LB 0392H‐IA01SC‐031222 2203546 TO15 2‐Butanone (MEK) 78‐93‐31.5µg/m3 JJFD 0392H‐IA01SC‐031222 2203546 TO15 Allyl Chloride 107‐05‐15.2µg/m3 UJ UJ CCV 0392H‐IA01SC‐031222 2203546 TO15 Bromomethane 74‐83‐96.5µg/m3 UJ UJ ICV 0392H‐IA01SC‐031222 2203546 TO15 Ethanol 64‐17‐5 2500 µg/m3 JJCAL 0392H‐IA01SC‐031222 2203546 TO15 Isopropyl Alcohol 67‐63‐026µg/m3 JJFD 0392H‐IA01SC‐031222 2203546 TO15SIM m,p‐Xylene 179601‐23‐11.2 µg/m3 JJFD 0392H‐IA01SC‐031222 2203546 TO15SIM o‐Xylene 95‐47‐60.52µg/m3 JJFD 0395H‐IA01SC‐031022 L1470817 TO15 Benzyl Chloride 100‐44‐71.04µg/m3 UJ UJ CCV 0395H‐IA01SC‐031022 L1470817 TO15 Ethanol 64‐17‐5 290 µg/m3 J J CCV 365S‐AA01SC‐031822 2203675 TO15 Bromomethane 74‐83‐93.4µg/m3 UJ UJ ICV 365S‐IA01SC‐031822 2203675 TO15 Bromomethane 74‐83‐93.1µg/m3 UJ UJ ICV 365S‐IA01SC‐031822 2203675 TO15 Ethanol 64‐17‐5 960 µg/m3 JJCAL 365S‐IA02SC‐031822 2203675 TO15 Bromomethane 74‐83‐93.6µg/m3 UJ UJ ICV 365S‐IA02SC‐031822 2203675 TO15 Ethanol 64‐17‐5 190 µg/m3 JJCAL 365S‐IA03SC‐031822 2203675 TO15 Bromomethane 74‐83‐93.7µg/m3 UJ UJ ICV 365S‐IA03SC‐031822 2203675 TO15 Ethanol 64‐17‐5 280 µg/m3 JJCAL B20‐IA01SC‐031522 2203674 TO15 Bromomethane 74‐83‐93.1µg/m3 UJ UJ ICV B20‐IA01SC‐031522 2203674 TO15 Isopropyl Alcohol 67‐63‐09.5µg/m3 JJFD B20‐IA01SC‐031522 2203674 TO15 Methylene Chloride 75‐09‐22.8µg/m3 U‐RL U LB B20‐IA02SC‐031522 2203674 TO15 Bromomethane 74‐83‐93.1µg/m3 UJ UJ ICV B20‐IA02SC‐031522 2203674 TO15 Ethanol 64‐17‐5 130 µg/m3 JJCAL B20‐IA02SC‐031522 2203674 TO15 Methylene Chloride 75‐09‐22.8µg/m3 U‐RL U LB Page 4 of 6 Table 4‐1 Qualification Summary 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Site Salt Lake City, Utah Field Sample ID Lab SDG Method Analyte CAS #Final Result Unit Validation  Qualifier Interpreted  Qualifier Qualifier  Reason B32‐AA01SC‐031522 2203596 TO15 Bromomethane 74‐83‐92.9µg/m3 UJ UJ ICV B32‐AA01SC‐031522 2203596 TO15 Methylene Chloride 75‐09‐22.6µg/m3 U‐RL U LB B32‐IA01SC‐031522 2203596 TO15 Bromomethane 74‐83‐93.4µg/m3 UJ UJ ICV B32‐IA01SC‐031522 2203596 TO15 Ethanol 64‐17‐5 700 µg/m3 JJCAL B32‐IA01SC‐031522 2203596 TO15 Methylene Chloride 75‐09‐23.1µg/m3 U‐RL U LB FD01‐IA030822 2203384 TO15 Ethanol 64‐17‐5 210 µg/m3 JJCAL FD02‐IA031022 L1470822 TO15 Acetone 67‐64‐1 34.9 µg/m3 JJFD FD02‐IA031022 L1470822 TO15 Benzyl Chloride 100‐44‐71.04µg/m3 UJ UJ CCV FD02‐IA031022 L1470822 TO15 Ethanol 64‐17‐5 61.1 µg/m3 J J FD,CCV FD02‐IA031022 L1470822 TO15 Ethylbenzene 100‐41‐41.74µg/m3 JJFD FD02‐IA031022 L1470822 TO15 m,p‐Xylene 179601‐23‐14.6 µg/m3 JJFD FD02‐IA031022 L1470822 TO15 o‐Xylene 95‐47‐6 0.958 µg/m3 JJFD FD02‐IA031022 L1470822 TO15 Toluene 108‐88‐36.37µg/m3 JJFD FD02‐IA031022 L1470822 TO15SIM 1,2‐Dichloroethane 107‐06‐2 0.102 µg/m3 JJFD FD02‐IA031022 L1470822 TO15SIM Chloroform 67‐66‐3 0.0973 µg/m3 UJ UJ FD FD02‐IA031022 L1470822 TO15SIM Tetrachloroethene 127‐18‐4 0.0957 µg/m3 JJFD FD03‐IA031222 2203546 TO15 2‐Butanone (MEK) 78‐93‐35.4µg/m3 JJFD FD03‐IA031222 2203546 TO15 Allyl Chloride 107‐05‐12.6µg/m3 UJ UJ CCV FD03‐IA031222 2203546 TO15 Bromomethane 74‐83‐93.2µg/m3 UJ UJ ICV FD03‐IA031222 2203546 TO15 Ethanol 64‐17‐5 2400 µg/m3 JJCAL FD03‐IA031222 2203546 TO15 Isopropyl Alcohol 67‐63‐013µg/m3 JJFD FD03‐IA031222 2203546 TO15 Methylene Chloride 75‐09‐22.8µg/m3 U‐RL U LB FD03‐IA031222 2203546 TO15SIM m,p‐Xylene 179601‐23‐10.82 µg/m3 JJFD FD03‐IA031222 2203546 TO15SIM o‐Xylene 95‐47‐60.26µg/m3 JJFD FD04‐IA031222 2203547 TO15 Allyl Chloride 107‐05‐12.4µg/m3 UJ UJ CCV FD04‐IA031222 2203547 TO15 Bromomethane 74‐83‐93µg/m3 UJ UJ ICV Page 5 of 6 Table 4‐1 Qualification Summary 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Site Salt Lake City, Utah Field Sample ID Lab SDG Method Analyte CAS #Final Result Unit Validation  Qualifier Interpreted  Qualifier Qualifier  Reason FD04‐IA031222 2203547 TO15 Ethanol 64‐17‐5 460 µg/m3 JJCAL FD04‐IA031222 2203547 TO15 Isopropyl Alcohol 67‐63‐026µg/m3 JJFD FD04‐IA031222 2203547 TO15 Methylene Chloride 75‐09‐22.7µg/m3 U‐RL U LB FD05‐IA031522 2203674 TO15 Bromomethane 74‐83‐93.1µg/m3 UJ UJ ICV FD05‐IA031522 2203674 TO15 Isopropyl Alcohol 67‐63‐016µg/m3 JJFD FD05‐IA031522 2203674 TO15 Methylene Chloride 75‐09‐22.8µg/m3 U‐RL U LB Acronyms: µg/m3 ‐ microgram per cubic meter IN ‐ presence of closely eluting non‐target peak caused interference with the quantitation mass ion SDG ‐ sample delivery group LB ‐ laboratory blank criteria CAS ‐ chemical abstract service J ‐ estimated EPA ‐ United States Environmental Protection Agency J+ ‐ estimated; biased high FD ‐ field duplicate criteria U ‐ nondetect ICV ‐ initial calibration verification UJ ‐ estimated nondetect result ID ‐ identification U‐RL ‐ result is qualified as nondetect at the reporting limit value CAL ‐ calibration TO‐15 ‐ Modified EPA Method TO‐15 for volatile organic compounds CCV ‐ continued calibration verification TO‐15 SIM ‐ Modified EPA Method TO‐15 for volatile organic compounds by selective ion monitoring (SIM) Page 6 of 6   5‐1  Section 5  Data Quality Indicators  This section summarizes the validation performed and the overall quality of the data. The validation reports are provided in Attachment 1. Achievement of the DQO regarding data usability was determined by the use of DQIs, expressed in terms of PARCCS. The DQIs provide a mechanism to measure and evaluate data quality throughout the project. These criteria are defined in Table 5‐1 and in the following subsections. 5.1 Precision  Precision is a quantitative term that estimates the reproducibility of a set of replicate measurements under a given set of conditions. It is defined as a measurement of mutual agreement between measurements of the same property and is expressed in terms of relative percent difference (RPD) between duplicate determinations. RPD is calculated as follows: RPD = absolute value [(C1 − C2)/{(C1 + C2)/2)}] × 100 Where: C1 = concentration of primary sample C2 = concentration of duplicate sample Field and analytical precision were determined from review of the field duplicate results, LCS/laboratory control sample duplicates (LCSDs), and laboratory duplicates. The duplicate sample results were compared after calculating their RPDs. Field duplicate samples were collected in the same manner as the normal field samples but collected in separate individual containers, given separate sample identifiers, and treated as unique samples by the laboratory. Table 5‐2 presents the field duplicate sample results for the air data. A control limit of 40% RPD was used for the indoor air field duplicate samples when both sample concentrations were greater than five times the MRL. If the sample concentrations were below five times the MRL, the absolute difference between the sample results was calculated, and if that value was below the MRL, no qualification was required. Laboratory RPDs are specific to the QC parameter. RPD and absolute difference results are summarized below:  SDGs 2203596, 2203547, and 2203674: Field duplicate RPDs or absolute criteria results were outside control limits for the TO-15 results for isopropyl alcohol/2-propanol. The isopropyl alcohol/2-propanol results for the field duplicate and parent sample in each of the SDGs were qualified as estimated “J.”  SDG 2203546: Field duplicate RPDs or absolute criteria results were outside control limits for the TO-15 isopropyl alcohol/2-propanol and 2-butanone results, and the TO-15 SIM Section 5  Data Quality Indicators    5‐2  m/p-xylenes and o-xylenes results. The TO-15 isopropyl alcohol/2-propoanol and 2- butanone results and the TO-15 SIM m/p-xylenes and o-xylenes results were qualified as estimated “J” in the field duplicate and parent samples.  SDG L1470822: Field duplicate RPDs or absolute criteria results were outside control limits for the TO-15 ethylbenzene, toluene, m/p-xylene, acetone, chloroform, o-xylene, and ethanol results, and the TO-15 SIM 1,2-dichloroethane, chloroform and tetrachloroethene results. The associated TO-15 and TO-15 SIM results were qualified as estimated “J/UJ” in the field duplicate and parent samples.  LCS/LCSD RPDs were within control limits.  Laboratory duplicate RPDs or absolute criteria were within control limits. No field or laboratory issues were identified from the RPD results outside criteria; the exceedances are reasonable for this type of sampling activity. 5.2 Accuracy  Accuracy is the degree of agreement of a measurement with an accepted reference or true value and is a measure of the bias in a system. Two different metrics are evaluated to assess result accuracy: calculation of percent recovery (%R) for spiked analytes with known concentrations; and review of blank results for cross-contamination. 5.2.1 Percent Recovery Accuracy of the data was assessed by comparing recoveries of LCSs, calibration standards, surrogates, and internal standards. Accuracy is expressed as %R, which is calculated as: %R = ([Total Analyte Found] – [Analyte Originally Present]) × 100 [Analyte Added] Analytical accuracy for the entire data collection activity is difficult to measure because several sources of error exist. Errors can be introduced by any of the following:  Sampling procedure and duration of sampling  Field contamination  Sample preservation and handling  Sample matrix  Sample preparation  Analytical techniques Section 5  Data Quality Indicators    5‐3  Accuracy is maintained by adhering to the laboratory methods and approved field and analytical standard operating procedures. The following is a summary of the accuracy parameters reviewed and the resulting qualifications for the data collected: Laboratory Control Sample/Laboratory Control Sample Duplicate Percent Recoveries For the SDGs reviewed, LCS/LCSD %Rs were within criteria. Calibration Percent Recoveries, Percent Differences, and Relative Standard Deviations The following SDGs had one or more calibration %Rs, percent differences (%Ds), and or relative standard deviations (RSDs) outside of criteria. The associated results were qualified as estimated “J/UJ” for the following SDGs and analytes:  SDGs 2203546, 2203547, 2203552: bromomethane, 3-chloropropene  SDGs 2203550, 2203596, 2203674, 2203675: bromomethane  SDGs L1470815, L1470817, L1470822: benzyl chloride, ethanol  SDGs L1470823, L1472579: benzyl chloride As stated in the laboratory case narratives, ethanol exceeded the instrument’s calibration range in SDGs 2203385, 2203674, 2203547, 2203552, 2203386, 2203546, 2203550, 2203384, 2203596, and 2203675, and isopropyl alcohol/2-propoanol exceeded the instrument’s calibration range in SDG 2203552. The associated results were qualified as estimated “J/UJ” for these analytes. Surrogates, Tunes, and Internal Standards For the SDGs reviewed, surrogate, tune, and internal standard results were within criteria. As stated in the laboratory case narrative for SDG 2203547, the presence of a closely eluting nontarget peak in sample 0145H-IA01SC-031222 interfered with the quantitation mass ion for carbon tetrachloride, indicating a potential high bias because of matrix contribution. Carbon tetrachloride results were flagged by the laboratory and subsequently qualified by the validator as estimated " J+." Sample preservation, sample handling, holding times, canister pressure, and canister certification are additional measures of accuracy of the data. Sample handling information, holding times, canister pressure readings, and canister certification results were acceptable for the indoor and ambient air, except for the following:  SDG 2203546: Sample information provided on the COC for sample 0273H-IA015C-031222 did not match the information provided with the canister barcode. The laboratory notified CDM Smith, who provided the laboratory with the correct information. Section 5  Data Quality Indicators    5‐4   SDG L1470815: Sample 0029H-IA01SC-030822 in SDG L1470815 was not analyzed because of an unacceptable final pressure reading. The sample was recollected and analyzed. 5.2.2 Blank Contamination Blanks are used to determine the level of laboratory and field contamination introduced into the samples, independent of the level of target analytes found in the sample source. Sources of sample contamination can include the containers and equipment used to collect the sample, preservatives added to the sample, laboratory sample storage refrigerators, standards and solutions used to calibrate instruments, glassware and reagents used to process samples, airborne contamination in the laboratory preparation area, and the analytical instrument sample introduction equipment. Each analyte group has its own particular suite of common laboratory contaminants. Active measures must be performed to continually measure the ambient contamination level, and steps must be taken to discover the source of the contamination to eliminate or minimize the levels. Random spot contamination can also occur from analytes that are not common laboratory problems but arise as a problem for a specific project or over a short period. Field blanks, equipment blanks, trip blanks, and laboratory method blanks are analyzed to identify possible sources of contamination. No field blanks or trip blanks were required to be collected during the March and April 2022 sampling events per the QAPP (CDM Smith 2020a); laboratory blanks were analyzed as specified. Sample result qualifications were required as a result of laboratory blank contamination for applicable samples in the following SDGs, where associated sample results were qualified as nondetect “U” at the MRL:  SDGs 2203546, 2203547, 2203550, 2203552, 2203596, 2203674 – methylene chloride Blank samples are used to determine the validity of the analytical results by determining the existence and magnitude of contamination resulting from laboratory (or field) activities or baseline drift during analysis. Ideally, no contaminants should be found in blank samples; however, the analytes detected in laboratory blanks are common in laboratory analyses and are almost unavoidable. For this sampling event, methylene chloride was detected in some of the laboratory blank samples at concentrations below the MRLs. Associated sample results for the laboratory blanks were therefore qualified following the specified guidelines. The resulting sample qualifications as nondetect "U” do not falsely diminish the identification of site-related contaminants and do not affect DQOs. 5.3 Representativeness  Representativeness is a qualitative term that expresses the degree to which the sample data accurately and precisely represent the environmental conditions corresponding to the location of sample collection. Requirements and procedures for sample collection were designed to maximize sample representativeness. Section 5  Data Quality Indicators    5‐5  Representativeness can be monitored by reviewing field documentation and/or performing field audits. For this report, a detailed review was performed on the COC forms and field data collection forms. Appropriate laboratory QA/QC requirements were described in the QAPP (CDM Smith 2020a) and laboratory statement of work to support laboratory analytical results being representative of true field conditions. Field sampling representativeness was attained through adherence to the sampling design in the remedial investigation work plan (RIWP; CDM Smith 2020b) and QAPP (CDM Smith 2020a) procedures, and by using EPA-approved analytical methods for sample analyses. As a result, the data represents as near as possible the actual field conditions at the time of sampling. Representativeness, as defined above, was met for the fieldwork and laboratory analyses. The data collected are suitable for project use. 5.4 Comparability  Comparability is a qualitative term that expresses the confidence with which a data set can be compared with another. Strict adherence to standard sample collection procedures and analytical methods with analytical detection limits specified is necessary so that data from similar samples and sample conditions are comparable. This comparability is independent of laboratory personnel, data reviewers, or sampling personnel. Comparability criteria are met for the project if, based on data review, the sample collection and analytical procedures used are similar and are determined to have been followed. To achieve comparability of data generated for the site, CDM Smith and Wasatch Environmental followed the standard sample collection procedures, and Eurofins and Pace followed the EPA- approved analytical methods and used the required reporting units. Using such procedures and methods enables the current data to be comparable to historical and future data sets generated with similar methods and units. 5.5 Completeness  Completeness of the field program is defined as the percentage of samples planned for collection, as listed in the RIWP (CDM Smith 2020b) versus the actual number of samples collected during the field program (see equation A). Completeness for acceptable data is defined as the percentage of acceptable data obtained judged to be valid versus the total quantity of data generated (see equation B). Acceptable data include both data that pass all the QC criteria (unqualified data) and data that may not pass all the QC criteria but had appropriate corrective actions taken (qualified but usable data). A. Where: C = actual number of samples collected n = total number of samples planned n 100Cxess%Completen  Section 5  Data Quality Indicators    5‐6  B. Where: V = number of measurements judged valid n' = total number of measurements made The overall completeness goal for this sampling event of 90% was met, based on the following:  All samples outlined in the RIWP (CDM Smith 2020b) were collected and analyzed as planned to meet specific sampling activity objectives.  The locations that were sampled are adequate for evaluating the extent of VOC indoor air impacts at the site to meet DQOs.  The number of samples planned to be collected versus the number of samples collected was 100%, which meets the DQO of 90%. As discussed previously, one sample had to be recollected and was subsequently analyzed.  The number of measurements judged to be valid versus the total number of measurements made was 100%, which meets the DQO of 90%.  Of the data validated and reported, 100% are suitable for their intended use for site characterization with the appropriate qualifiers applied. No results were rejected and all data collected met the overall project objective for data usability. The data usability DQO was achieved; the data reported are suitable for their intended use as stated in the QAPP (CDM Smith 2020a) and RIWP (CDM Smith 2020b). The achievement of the completeness goals provides sufficient data for project decisions. 5.6 Sensitivity  Sensitivity is related to the ability to compare analytical results with project-specific levels of interest, such as delineation levels or action levels. Analytical quantitation limits for the various sample analytes should be below the level of interest to allow an effective comparison. The method detection limit (MDL) study attempts to answer the question, “What is the minimum concentration of a substance that can be measured and reported with 99% confidence that the analyte concentration is greater than zero?” The study is based upon repetitive analysis of an interference-free sample spiked with a known amount of the target analyte. The MDL is a measure of the ability of the test procedure to generate a positive response for the target analyte in the absence of any other interferences from the sample. The MRL is generally defined as the lowest concentration at which an analyte can be confidently reported in a sample and its concentration reported with a reasonable degree of accuracy and precision. For samples that do not pose a particular matrix problem, the MRL is typically about three to five times higher than the MDL. n' 100Vxess%Completen  Section 5  Data Quality Indicators    5‐7  Laboratory results are reported according to rules that provide established certainty of detection. The result for an analyte is flagged with a "U" if that analyte was not detected and reported at the MRL value, or qualified with a "J" flag if associated QC results fall outside the appropriate QC criteria. Additionally, if an analyte is present at a concentration between the MDL and the MRL, the analytical result is flagged with a "J," indicating an estimated quantity. Qualifying the result as an estimated concentration reflects uncertainty in the reported value. When required, dilutions were performed and accounted for in the reported MRLs. For some of the indoor air samples, nondetect results were greater than the indoor air risk-based screening levels, which included 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane, 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene, 1,2-dibromoethane, 1,3- butadiene, 1,4-dichlorobenzene, 1,4-dioxane, allyl chloride/3-chloropropene, benzyl chloride, bromodichloromethane, bromoethene, bromoform, hexachloro-1,3-butadiene, and naphthalene. A few MRLs for 1,1,2-trichloroethane, 1,2-dichlorpropane, cis-1,3-dichloropropene, and trans-1,3- dichlororpropene were slightly above the screening levels, but the majority of the results were within criteria. The elevated MRLs were related to sample-specific parameters. These analytes with elevated MRLs are not known constituents of potential concern for the site. All MRLs were below the indoor air Tier 1 and Tier 2 removal action levels. In the situation where the MRL was above a screening level, the MDL was below the screening level for almost all analytes (based on dilutions), and as detected results are qualified as estimated between the MDL and MRL, no exceedances of the screening levels occurred for most of these results. For the remaining analytes, laboratory MRLs were low enough to compare with the project criteria stated in the laboratory statement of work and the QAPP (CDM Smith 2020a).   Section 5  Data Quality Indicators    5‐8  Table 5‐1 DQIs and Corresponding QC Parameters Data Quality Indicator QC Parameter Evaluation in Data Review/Validation Precision RPD values of:  1) Laboratory duplicates  2) Field duplicates  3) LCS/LCSDs  RSD values of:  1) Initial calibration verifications   Accuracy/Bias %R or %D values of:  1) LCS/LCSD %R  2) Initial calibration verification/continuing calibration verification %R  3) Tune check  4) Surrogates  5) Internal standards  Results of:  1) Instrument and calibration blanks  2) Method (preparation) blanks  Representativeness Results of all blanks  Adherence to field standard operating procedures  Sample integrity (COC and sample receipt forms)  Holding times  Comparability Similar reporting limits and units  Similar sample collection methods  Similar laboratory analytical methods  Completeness Data qualifiers  Laboratory deliverables  Requested/reported valid results  Field sample collection (primary and QC samples)  Contract compliance (i.e., method and instrument QC within limits)  Sensitivity Sample method reporting limits meet QAPP criteria  Adequacy of sample dilution    Table 5‐2 Summary of Field Duplicate Sampling Results 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Site Salt Lake City, Utah Method Analyte Unit Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q TO15SIM 1,1,1‐Trichloroethane µg/m3 0.042 J 0.042 J Abs Criteria 0.3 0.29 Abs Criteria 0.0383 J 0.109 U NC TO15SIM 1,1,2,2‐Tetrachloroethane µg/m3 0.21 U 0.22 U NC 0.22 U 0.22 U NC 0.137 U 0.137 U NC TO15SIM 1,1,2‐Trichloroethane µg/m3 0.16 U 0.18 U NC 0.18 U 0.17 U NC 0.163 U 0.163 U NC TO15 1,1,2‐Trichlorotrifluoroethane µg/m3 0.51 J 0.53 J Abs Criteria 0.46 J 0.5 J Abs Criteria 1.53 U 1.53 U NC TO15SIM 1,1‐Dichloroethane µg/m3 0.12 U 0.13 U NC 0.01 J 0.011 J Abs Criteria 0.0802 U 0.0802 U NC TO15SIM 1,1‐Dichloroethene µg/m3 0.06 U 0.065 U NC 0.064 U 0.062 U NC 0.0793 U 0.0793 U NC TO15 1,2,4‐Trichlorobenzene µg/m3 5.6 U 6 U NC 6 U 5.8 U NC 4.66 U 4.66 U NC TO15 1,2,4‐Trimethylbenzene µg/m3 0.52 J 0.56 J Abs Criteria 0.79 U 0.77 U NC 0.982 U 0.982 U NC TO15SIM 1,2‐Dibromoethane µg/m3 0.58 U 0.63 U NC 0.62 U 0.6 U NC 0.154 U 0.154 U NC TO15 1,2‐Dichlorobenzene µg/m3 0.91 U 0.98 U NC 0.97 U 0.94 U NC 1.2 U 1.2 U NC TO15SIM 1,2‐Dichloroethane µg/m3 0.073 J 0.069 J Abs Criteria 0.13 0.14 Abs Criteria 0.184 J 0.102 J Abs Criteria TO15 1,2‐Dichloropropane µg/m3 0.7 U 0.75 U NC 0.74 U 0.72 U NC ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ TO15SIM 1,2‐Dichloropropane µg/m3 ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐0.139 U 0.139 U NC TO15 1,2‐Dichlorotetrafluoroethane µg/m3 ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐1.4 U 1.4 U NC TO15SIM 1,2‐Dichlorotetrafluoroethane µg/m3 0.1 J 0.098 J Abs Criteria 0.12 J 0.11 J Abs Criteria ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ TO15 1,3,5‐Trimethylbenzene µg/m3 0.16 J 0.8 U ‐‐‐‐0.79 U 0.77 U NC 0.982 U 0.982 U NC TO15 1,3‐Butadiene µg/m3 0.34 U 0.36 U NC 0.36 U 0.35 U NC 4.43 U 4.43 U NC TO15 1,3‐Dichlorobenzene µg/m3 0.91 U 0.98 U NC 0.97 U 0.94 U NC 1.2 U 1.2 U NC TO15SIM 1,4‐Dichlorobenzene µg/m3 0.46 U 0.49 U NC 0.48 U 0.92 Abs Criteria 0.18 0.12 U NC TO15 1,4‐Dioxane µg/m3 0.55 U 0.59 U NC 0.58 U 0.56 U NC 0.721 U 0.721 U NC TO15 2,2,4‐Trimethylpentane µg/m3 3.6 U 3.8 U NC 3.8 U 3.7 U NC 0.934 U 0.934 U NC TO15 2‐Butanone (MEK)µg/m3 32.9Abs Criteria 0.78 J 0.78 J Abs Criteria 1.81 J 1.36 J Abs Criteria TO15 2‐Chlorotoluene µg/m3 ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐1.03 U 1.03 U NC TO15 2‐Hexanone µg/m3 3.1 U 3.3 U NC 3.3 U 3.2 U NC 5.11 U 5.11 U NC TO15 4‐Ethyltoluene µg/m3 0.45 J 0.52 J Abs Criteria 0.79 U 0.77 U NC 0.982 U 0.982 U NC TO15 4‐Methyl‐2‐Pentanone (MIBK)µg/m3 0.5 J 0.48 J Abs Criteria 0.66 U 0.64 U NC 5.12 U 5.12 U NC TO15 Acetone µg/m3 27 32 17%21 26 21%101 J 34.9 J 97% TO15 Allyl Chloride µg/m3 2.4 U 2.6 U NC 2.5 U 2.4 UJ NC 0.626 U 0.626 U NC TO15 Benzene µg/m3 ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐0.482 J Abs Criteria** TO15SIM Benzene µg/m3 0.34 0.34 Abs Criteria 0.43 0.42 Abs Criteria 0.47 J ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ TO15 Benzyl Chloride µg/m3 0.79 U 0.84 U NC 0.83 U 0.81 U NC 1.04 UJ 1.04 UJ NC TO15 Bromodichloromethane µg/m3 1 U 1.1 U NC 1.1 U 1 U NC 1.34 U 1.34 U NC TO15 Bromoethene µg/m3 ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐0.875 U 0.875 U NC TO15 Bromoform µg/m3 1.6 U 1.7 U NC 1.7 U 1.6 U NC 6.21 U 6.21 U NC TO15 Bromomethane µg/m3 3 U 3.2 U NC 3.1 UJ 3 UJ NC 0.776 U 0.776 U NC Location Sample Name Sample Date Sample Type 0172H 0172H‐IA01SC‐030822 3/8/2022 N Parent Sample Name N 0172H‐IA01SC‐030822 0315H‐IA01SC‐031222RPD 0366C FD02‐IA031022 3/10/2022 FD 0366C 0366C‐IA01SC‐031022 3/10/2022 N 0366C‐IA01SC‐031022 RPDRPD 0172H FD01‐IA030822 3/8/2022 FD 0315H FD04‐IA031222 3/12/2022 FD 0315H 0315H‐IA01SC‐031222 3/12/2022 Page 1 of 6 Table 5‐2 Summary of Field Duplicate Sampling Results 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Site Salt Lake City, Utah Location Sample Name Sample Date Sample Type 0172H 0172H‐IA01SC‐030822 3/8/2022 N Parent Sample Name N 0172H‐IA01SC‐030822 0315H‐IA01SC‐031222RPD 0366C FD02‐IA031022 3/10/2022 FD 0366C 0366C‐IA01SC‐031022 3/10/2022 N 0366C‐IA01SC‐031022 RPDRPD 0172H FD01‐IA030822 3/8/2022 FD 0315H FD04‐IA031222 3/12/2022 FD 0315H 0315H‐IA01SC‐031222 3/12/2022 TO15 Carbon Disulfide µg/m3 2.4 U 2.5 U NC 2.5 U 2.4 U NC 0.607 J 0.622 U NC TO15 Carbon Tetrachloride µg/m3 ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐0.503 J ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐Abs Criteria** TO15SIM Carbon Tetrachloride µg/m3 0.41 0.42 Abs Criteria 0.4 0.41 Abs Criteria ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐0.44 ‐‐‐‐ TO15 Chlorobenzene µg/m3 0.7 U 0.75 U NC 0.74 U 0.72 U NC 0.924 U 0.924 U NC TO15SIM Chloroethane µg/m3 0.2 U 0.22 U NC 0.21 U 0.21 U NC 0.106 U 0.106 U NC TO15 Chloroform µg/m3 ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐0.604 J ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐Abs Criteria** TO15SIM Chloroform µg/m3 0.14 J 0.14 J Abs Criteria 0.39 0.38 Abs Criteria ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐0.0973 UJ TO15 Chloromethane µg/m3 ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐1.34 1.31 Abs Criteria TO15SIM Chloromethane µg/m3 0.74 J 0.72 J Abs Criteria 1 J 1 J Abs Criteria ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ TO15SIM cis‐1,2‐Dichloroethene µg/m3 0.12 U 0.13 U NC 0.051 J 0.05 J Abs Criteria 0.0793 U 0.0793 U NC TO15 cis‐1,3‐Dichloropropene µg/m3 0.69 U 0.74 U NC 0.73 U 0.71 U NC ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ TO15SIM cis‐1,3‐Dichloropropene µg/m3 ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐0.0908 U 0.0908 U NC TO15 Cyclohexane µg/m3 2.6 U 2.8 U NC 2.8 U 2.7 U NC 0.689 U 0.689 U NC TO15 Dibromochloromethane µg/m3 1.3 U 1.4 U NC 1.4 U 1.3 U NC 1.7 U 1.7 U NC TO15 Dichlorodifluoromethane µg/m3 ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐2.57 2.75 Abs Criteria TO15SIM Dichlorodifluoromethane µg/m3 1.9 2 5%2.8 2.8 0%‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ TO15 Ethanol µg/m3 210 J 210 J 0%480 J 460 J 4%535 J 61.1 J 159% TO15 Ethylbenzene µg/m3 ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐4.9 J 1.74 J Abs Criteria TO15SIM Ethylbenzene µg/m3 0.098 J 0.1 J Abs Criteria 0.14 J 0.12 J Abs Criteria ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ TO15 Hexachloro‐1,3‐Butadiene µg/m3 8.1 U 8.7 U NC 8.6 U 8.4 U NC 6.73 U 6.73 U NC TO15 Hexane µg/m3 2.7 U 2.9 U NC 2.8 U 0.27 J Abs Criteria 2.22 U 2.22 U NC TO15 Isopropyl Alcohol µg/m3 12 16 Abs Criteria 17 J 26 J Abs Criteria 12.7 9.83 Abs Criteria TO15 Isopropylbenzene µg/m3 0.75 U 0.8 U NC 0.79 U 0.77 U NC 0.983 U 0.983 U NC TO15 m,p‐Xylene µg/m3 ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐12.2 J 4.6 J Abs Criteria TO15SIM m,p‐Xylene µg/m3 0.33 0.35 Abs Criteria 0.44 0.42 Abs Criteria ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ TO15 Methyl Methacrylate µg/m3 ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐0.819 U 0.819 U NC TO15 Methyl Tert‐Butyl Ether µg/m3 ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐0.721 U 0.721 U NC TO15SIM Methyl Tert‐Butyl Ether µg/m3 0.55 U 0.59 U NC 0.58 U 0.57 U NC ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ TO15 Methylene Chloride µg/m3 0.54 J 0.47 J Abs Criteria 2.8 U 2.7 U NC 0.622 J 0.722 Abs Criteria TO15 Naphthalene µg/m3 ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐3.3 U 3.3 U NC TO15 n‐Heptane µg/m3 3.1 U 3.3 U NC 0.43 J 3.2 U Abs Criteria 0.585 J 0.818 U NC TO15 n‐Propylbenzene µg/m3 0.75 U 0.8 U NC 0.79 U 0.77 U NC ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ TO15 o‐Xylene µg/m3 ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐2.42 J 0.958 J Abs Criteria TO15SIM o‐Xylene µg/m3 0.12 J 0.12 J Abs Criteria 0.14 0.13 J Abs Criteria ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ TO15 Propylene (Propene)µg/m3 ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐2.15 U 2.15 U NC TO15 Styrene µg/m3 0.094 J 0.69 U Abs Criteria 0.68 U 0.67 U NC 0.851 U 0.851 U NC Page 2 of 6 Table 5‐2 Summary of Field Duplicate Sampling Results 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Site Salt Lake City, Utah Location Sample Name Sample Date Sample Type 0172H 0172H‐IA01SC‐030822 3/8/2022 N Parent Sample Name N 0172H‐IA01SC‐030822 0315H‐IA01SC‐031222RPD 0366C FD02‐IA031022 3/10/2022 FD 0366C 0366C‐IA01SC‐031022 3/10/2022 N 0366C‐IA01SC‐031022 RPDRPD 0172H FD01‐IA030822 3/8/2022 FD 0315H FD04‐IA031222 3/12/2022 FD 0315H 0315H‐IA01SC‐031222 3/12/2022 TO15SIM Tetrachloroethene µg/m3 4.3 4.5 5%2.3 2.2 4%1.07 J 0.0957 J Abs Criteria TO15 Tetrahydrofuran µg/m3 2.2 2.2 J Abs Criteria 1.2 J 1.2 J Abs Criteria 0.59 U 0.59 U NC TO15 Toluene µg/m3 ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐16.5 J 6.37 J Abs Criteria TO15SIM Toluene µg/m3 0.7 0.7 Abs Criteria 2 1.8 11%‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ TO15SIM trans‐1,2‐Dichloroethene µg/m3 0.6 U 0.65 U NC 0.029 J 0.034 J Abs Criteria 0.0793 U 0.0793 U NC TO15 trans‐1,3‐Dichloropropene µg/m3 0.69 U 0.74 U NC 0.73 U 0.71 U NC ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ TO15SIM trans‐1,3‐Dichloropropene µg/m3 ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐0.136 U 0.136 U NC TO15SIM Trichloroethene µg/m3 0.028 J 0.03 J Abs Criteria 0.29 0.3 Abs Criteria 0.0659 J 0.14 Abs Criteria TO15 Trichlorofluoromethane µg/m3 1.2 1.2 Abs Criteria 1.2 1.3 Abs Criteria 1.39 1.32 Abs Criteria TO15SIM Vinyl Acetate µg/m3 ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐0.0704 U 0.0704 U NC TO15SIM Vinyl Chloride µg/m3 0.078 U 0.083 U NC 0.082 U 0.08 U NC 0.0511 U 0.0511 U NC Notes: µg/m3 ‐ microgram per meter cubed EPA ‐ United States Environmental Protection Agency  FD ‐ field duplicate ‐‐‐‐ : Not analyzed N ‐ normal sample Q: Qualifier RPD ‐ relative percent difference NC: Not Calculated U ‐ nondetect J ‐ estimated result UJ ‐ estimated nondetect result TO‐15 ‐ Modified EPA Method TO‐15 for VOCs    ABS Criteria = Sample concentrations less than 5x the reporting  limit ‐ absolute difference (ABS) between the two results less  than the reporting limit Abs Criteria** : The absolute difference calculated using the TO‐ 15 result and the TO‐15 SIM result. TO‐15 SIM ‐ Modified EPA Method TO‐15 for VOCs by selective  ion monitoring (SIM) Yellow highlighting ‐ RPD value is outside of 40% criteria or the  Abs Criteria is outside of control limits Page 3 of 6 Table 5‐2 Summary of Field Duplicate Sampling Results 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Site Salt Lake City, Utah Method Analyte Unit TO15SIM 1,1,1‐Trichloroethane µg/m3 TO15SIM 1,1,2,2‐Tetrachloroethane µg/m3 TO15SIM 1,1,2‐Trichloroethane µg/m3 TO15 1,1,2‐Trichlorotrifluoroethane µg/m3 TO15SIM 1,1‐Dichloroethane µg/m3 TO15SIM 1,1‐Dichloroethene µg/m3 TO15 1,2,4‐Trichlorobenzene µg/m3 TO15 1,2,4‐Trimethylbenzene µg/m3 TO15SIM 1,2‐Dibromoethane µg/m3 TO15 1,2‐Dichlorobenzene µg/m3 TO15SIM 1,2‐Dichloroethane µg/m3 TO15 1,2‐Dichloropropane µg/m3 TO15SIM 1,2‐Dichloropropane µg/m3 TO15 1,2‐Dichlorotetrafluoroethane µg/m3 TO15SIM 1,2‐Dichlorotetrafluoroethane µg/m3 TO15 1,3,5‐Trimethylbenzene µg/m3 TO15 1,3‐Butadiene µg/m3 TO15 1,3‐Dichlorobenzene µg/m3 TO15SIM 1,4‐Dichlorobenzene µg/m3 TO15 1,4‐Dioxane µg/m3 TO15 2,2,4‐Trimethylpentane µg/m3 TO15 2‐Butanone (MEK)µg/m3 TO15 2‐Chlorotoluene µg/m3 TO15 2‐Hexanone µg/m3 TO15 4‐Ethyltoluene µg/m3 TO15 4‐Methyl‐2‐Pentanone (MIBK)µg/m3 TO15 Acetone µg/m3 TO15 Allyl Chloride µg/m3 TO15 Benzene µg/m3 TO15SIM Benzene µg/m3 TO15 Benzyl Chloride µg/m3 TO15 Bromodichloromethane µg/m3 TO15 Bromoethene µg/m3 TO15 Bromoform µg/m3 TO15 Bromomethane µg/m3 Location Sample Name Sample Date Sample Type Parent Sample Name Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q 0.37 U 0.18 U NC 0.17 U 0.17 U NC 0.46 U 0.22 U NC 0.22 U 0.22 U NC 0.37 U 0.18 U NC 0.17 U 0.17 U NC 0.5 J 0.46 J Abs Criteria 0.5 J 0.45 J Abs Criteria 0.27 U 0.13 U NC 0.13 U 0.13 U NC 0.13 U 0.065 U NC 0.063 U 0.063 U NC 12 U 6 U NC 5.9 U 5.9 U NC 0.46 J 0.24 J Abs Criteria 0.78 U 0.78 U NC 1.3 U 0.63 U NC 0.61 U 0.61 U NC 2 U 0.98 U NC 0.96 U 0.96 U NC 0.084 J 0.079 J Abs Criteria 0.094 J 0.1 J Abs Criteria 1.6 U 0.75 U NC 0.73 U 0.73 U NC ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ 0.11 J 0.1 J Abs Criteria 0.11 J 0.11 J Abs Criteria 1.6 U 0.8 U NC 0.78 U 0.78 U NC 0.74 U 0.36 U NC 0.35 U 0.35 U NC 2 U 0.98 U NC 0.96 U 0.96 U NC 1 U 0.49 U NC 0.48 U 0.48 U NC 1.2 U 0.59 U NC 0.57 U 0.57 U NC 7.8 U 3.8 U NC 3.7 U 3.7 U NC 1.5 J 5.4 J Abs Criteria 0.64 J 2.3 U NC ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ 6.9 U 0.97 J Abs Criteria 3.2 U 3.2 U NC 1.6 U 0.8 U NC 0.78 U 0.78 U NC 1.4 U 1.1 Abs Criteria 0.65 U 0.65 U NC 50 63 23%14 15 Abs Criteria 5.2 UJ 2.6 UJ NC 2.5 U 2.5 U NC ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ 0.63 0.58 Abs Criteria 0.35 0.38 Abs Criteria 1.7 U 0.84 U NC 0.82 U 0.82 U NC 2.2 U 1.1 U NC 1.1 U 1.1 U NC ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ 3.5 U 1.7 U NC 1.6 U 1.6 U NC 6.5 UJ 3.2 UJ NC 3.1 UJ 3.1 UJ NC N 0392H FD03‐IA031222 3/12/2022 FD 0392H‐IA01SC‐031222 FD B20 B20‐IA01SC‐031522 3/15/2022 N B20‐IA01SC‐031522RPD RPD B20 FD05‐IA031522 3/15/2022 0392H 0392H‐IA01SC‐031222 3/12/2022 Page 4 of 6 Table 5‐2 Summary of Field Duplicate Sampling Results 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Site Salt Lake City, Utah Location Sample Name Sample Date Sample Type Parent Sample Name TO15 Carbon Disulfide µg/m3 TO15 Carbon Tetrachloride µg/m3 TO15SIM Carbon Tetrachloride µg/m3 TO15 Chlorobenzene µg/m3 TO15SIM Chloroethane µg/m3 TO15 Chloroform µg/m3 TO15SIM Chloroform µg/m3 TO15 Chloromethane µg/m3 TO15SIM Chloromethane µg/m3 TO15SIM cis‐1,2‐Dichloroethene µg/m3 TO15 cis‐1,3‐Dichloropropene µg/m3 TO15SIM cis‐1,3‐Dichloropropene µg/m3 TO15 Cyclohexane µg/m3 TO15 Dibromochloromethane µg/m3 TO15 Dichlorodifluoromethane µg/m3 TO15SIM Dichlorodifluoromethane µg/m3 TO15 Ethanol µg/m3 TO15 Ethylbenzene µg/m3 TO15SIM Ethylbenzene µg/m3 TO15 Hexachloro‐1,3‐Butadiene µg/m3 TO15 Hexane µg/m3 TO15 Isopropyl Alcohol µg/m3 TO15 Isopropylbenzene µg/m3 TO15 m,p‐Xylene µg/m3 TO15SIM m,p‐Xylene µg/m3 TO15 Methyl Methacrylate µg/m3 TO15 Methyl Tert‐Butyl Ether µg/m3 TO15SIM Methyl Tert‐Butyl Ether µg/m3 TO15 Methylene Chloride µg/m3 TO15 Naphthalene µg/m3 TO15 n‐Heptane µg/m3 TO15 n‐Propylbenzene µg/m3 TO15 o‐Xylene µg/m3 TO15SIM o‐Xylene µg/m3 TO15 Propylene (Propene)µg/m3 TO15 Styrene µg/m3 N 0392H FD03‐IA031222 3/12/2022 FD 0392H‐IA01SC‐031222 FD B20 B20‐IA01SC‐031522 3/15/2022 N B20‐IA01SC‐031522RPD RPD B20 FD05‐IA031522 3/15/2022 0392H 0392H‐IA01SC‐031222 3/12/2022 5.2 U 2.5 U NC 2.5 U 2.5 U NC ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ 0.38 J 0.38 Abs Criteria 0.39 0.41 Abs Criteria 1.5 U 0.75 U NC 0.73 U 0.73 U NC 0.44 U 0.1 J Abs Criteria 0.21 U 0.21 U NC ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ 0.27 J 0.26 Abs Criteria 0.1 J 0.1 J Abs Criteria ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ 1.2 J 1.1 J Abs Criteria 1 J 1.1 J Abs Criteria 0.27 U 0.13 U NC 0.13 U 0.13 U NC 1.5 U 0.74 U NC 0.72 U 0.72 U NC ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ 5.8 U 2.8 U NC 2.7 U 2.7 U NC 2.9 U 1.4 U NC 1.4 U 1.4 U NC ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ 2.1 2.1 Abs Criteria 2.2 2.2 0% 2500 J 2400 J 4%18 20 11% ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ 0.3 0.23 Abs Criteria 0.083 J 0.082 J Abs Criteria 18 U 8.7 U NC 8.5 U 8.5 U NC 0.65 J 0.56 J Abs Criteria 2.8 U 2.8 U NC 26 J 13 J Abs Criteria 9.5 J 16 J Abs Criteria 1.6 U 0.8 U NC 0.78 U 0.78 U NC ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ 1.2 J 0.82 J Abs Criteria 0.27 J 0.28 Abs Criteria ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ 1.2 U 0.016 J Abs Criteria 0.57 U 0.57 U NC 5.8 U 2.8 U NC 2.8 U 2.8 U NC ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ 6.9 U 3.3 U NC 3.2 U 3.2 U NC 1.6 U 0.8 U NC 0.78 U 0.78 U NC ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ 0.52 J 0.26 J Abs Criteria 0.091 J 0.087 J Abs Criteria ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ 1.4 U 0.69 U NC 0.68 U 0.68 U NC Page 5 of 6 Table 5‐2 Summary of Field Duplicate Sampling Results 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Site Salt Lake City, Utah Location Sample Name Sample Date Sample Type Parent Sample Name TO15SIM Tetrachloroethene µg/m3 TO15 Tetrahydrofuran µg/m3 TO15 Toluene µg/m3 TO15SIM Toluene µg/m3 TO15SIM trans‐1,2‐Dichloroethene µg/m3 TO15 trans‐1,3‐Dichloropropene µg/m3 TO15SIM trans‐1,3‐Dichloropropene µg/m3 TO15SIM Trichloroethene µg/m3 TO15 Trichlorofluoromethane µg/m3 TO15SIM Vinyl Acetate µg/m3 TO15SIM Vinyl Chloride µg/m3 Notes: µg/m3 ‐ microgram per meter cubed EPA ‐ United States Environmental Protection Agency  FD ‐ field duplicate ‐‐‐‐ : Not analyzed N ‐ normal sample Q: Qualifier RPD ‐ relative percent difference NC: Not Calculated U ‐ nondetect J ‐ estimated result UJ ‐ estimated nondetect result TO‐15 ‐ Modified EPA Method TO‐15 for VOCs    ABS Criteria = Sample concentrations less than 5x the reporting  limit ‐ absolute difference (ABS) between the two results less  than the reporting limit Abs Criteria** : The absolute difference calculated using the TO‐ 15 result and the TO‐15 SIM result. TO‐15 SIM ‐ Modified EPA Method TO‐15 for VOCs by selective  ion monitoring (SIM) Yellow highlighting ‐ RPD value is outside of 40% criteria or the  Abs Criteria is outside of control limits N 0392H FD03‐IA031222 3/12/2022 FD 0392H‐IA01SC‐031222 FD B20 B20‐IA01SC‐031522 3/15/2022 N B20‐IA01SC‐031522RPD RPD B20 FD05‐IA031522 3/15/2022 0392H 0392H‐IA01SC‐031222 3/12/2022 0.074 J 0.062 J Abs Criteria 0.069 J 0.069 J Abs Criteria 5 U 2.4 U NC 2.3 U 2.3 U NC ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ 1.2 1.1 Abs Criteria 0.59 0.6 Abs Criteria 1.3 U 0.022 J Abs Criteria 0.03 J 0.038 J Abs Criteria 1.5 U 0.74 U NC 0.72 U 0.72 U NC ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ 0.36 U 0.18 U NC 0.17 U 0.17 U NC 1.3 J 1.2 Abs Criteria 1.3 1.3 Abs Criteria ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ 0.17 U 0.083 U NC 0.081 U 0.081 U NC Page 6 of 6   6‐1  Section 6  Data Usability Assessment  One hundred percent of the data reported and validated in this QCSR are suitable for their intended use as stated in the QAPP (CDM Smith 2020a). Sample results that were qualified as estimated are usable for project decisions. No sample results were rejected. The achievement of the completeness goals for the number of samples collected and the number of sample results acceptable for use provides sufficient quality data to support project decisions.   7‐1  Section 7  References  CDM Smith. 2020a. Phase 2 Quality Assurance Project Plan, Operable Unit 1, 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Site, Salt Lake City, Utah. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Kansas City District. CDM Smith. 2020b. Phase 2 Remedial Investigation Work Plan, Operable Unit 1, 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Site, Salt Lake City, Utah. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Kansas City District. EPA. 2020. National Functional Guidelines for Organic Superfund Methods Data Review. EPA-540-R-20-005. EPA. 2014. Analysis of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) in Air Contained in Canisters by Method TO‐15. EPA Hazardous Waste Support Section Standard Operating Procedure No. HW-31. Attachment 1 Data Validation Reports 2203384 Eurofins Air Toxics Matrix:Air Collection date:3/8/2022 3/9/2022 Volatile Organic Compounds - EPA Method TO-15 Volatile Organic Compounds - EPA Method TO-15 SIM Samples in SDG: Sample Number Laboratory Number FD01-IA030822 2203384-01A / B 0274H-IA01SC-030822 2203384-02A / B 0329H-IA01SC-030822 2203384-03A / B 0347H-IA01SC-030922 2203384-04A / B Precision:Yes No N/A Yes Yes N/A Were the Laboratory Duplicate RPDs within limits?Yes Field TO-15 / SIM Sample (ug/m3)Duplicate (ug/m3)%RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples Duplicates 0172H-IA01SC- 030822**FD01-IA030822 TO-15 Acceptable SIM Acceptable **Results reported in SDG 2203386 LCS/LCSD TO-15 / SIM %RPD Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples 2203384-07A / 7AA Acceptable 2203384-07B / 07BB (SIM)Acceptable MS/MSD TO-15 / SIM %RPD Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Laboratory Sample (ug/m3)Duplicate (ug/m3)RL %RPD Qualifiers Duplicate 2203384-01A / 01AA Acceptable 2203384-01B / 01BB Acceptable Accuracy:Yes No N/A Was the Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate criteria met? (frequency ≥ 5% and laboratory determined control limits) N/A Laboratory Control Sample criteria met?Yes Were the Laboratory Method Blank results all < RL?No Were the Field Blanks results all < RL?N/A Was the ICAL criteria met? (30%)Yes Was the CCV criteria met? (30%)Yes Was the Tuning criteria met?Yes Were the Surrogate % recoveries within laboratory determined control limits?Yes Were the Internal Standard areas within ± 60 - 140%? Yes Was canister certification criteria met?Yes Were sample results able to be recalculated from the laboratory raw data and were they accurate?Yes Was target compound identification correctly performed by the laboratory?Yes Were chromatograms representative of the sample results?Yes Data validation was performed in accordance with the specific analytical methods and the U.S. EPA Analysis of Volatile Organic Compounds in Air Contained in Canisters by Method TO-15 (June 2014) and the project specific QAPP, 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah, Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Salt Lake City Health Care System, November, 2019. Are the field duplicate relative percent differences (RPDs) ≤40%? Were the Matrix Spike Duplicate RPDs ≤ 20%? (Or lab defined limits) Associated Samples Volatile Organic Compounds TO-15 / TO-15 SIM Laboratory Control Spike Duplicate RPDs within limits? Comments (note deviations): Comments (note deviations): 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Site Air Samples Laboratory: Analysis/Methods: Sample Delivery Group (SDG) Number: Salt Lake City, Utah Data Validation Report 1 of 3 Blanks TO-15 / SIM Concentration (ug/m3)MDL / RL (ug/m3)Qualifiers Associated Samples Lab Blank 2203384-05A Nondetect 2203384-05B (SIM) Benzene 0.019 J 0.016 / 0.16 None Field Blank TO-15 / SIM Concentration MDL / RL Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Surrogates TO-15 / SIM %R Limit Qualifiers Acceptable MS/MSD TO-15 SIM %R Limits (%)Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A LCS/LCSD TO-15 / SIM %R Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples 2203384-07A / 7AA Acceptable 2203384-07B / 07BB (SIM)Acceptable ICV/CCV TO-15 / SIM %R Qualifiers Associated Samples 3/4/2022 19:00 Acceptable ICV ICAL TO-15 / SIM RRF %RSD Qualifiers Associated Samples 3/04/2022 11:20 Acceptable Acceptable 3/04/2022 (9:04 (SIM)Acceptable Acceptable CCV TO-15 / SIM RRF %D Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples 3/18/2022 7:54 Acceptable Acceptable 3/18/2022 10:10 Acceptable Acceptable 3/18/2022 7:54 (SIM) Acceptable Acceptable 3/18/2022 10:10 (SIM)Acceptable Acceptable Tune TO-15 / SIM Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable Internal Standards TO-15 / SIM Area %Area % Criteria Qualifiers Associated Samples All Internal Standards Acceptable Canister Certification TO-15 / SIM Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable Sample results > RL Associated Samples 2 of 3 Raw Data Review TO-15 / SIM Results Recalculated Sample Result Acceptable Sample #Laboratory Reported Result Recalculated Sample Result (ug/m3)(ug/m3) TO-15 RRF / Concentration 2203384-03A 2-Propanol: 11 0.6833 / 11.499 2203384-03A Acetone: 15 0.32487/ 15.452 TO-15 - SIM 2203384-03B Benzene: 0.38 0.7758 / 0.385 2203384-03B Toluene: 0.62 0.9428 / 0.623 (OR) (OR) Target Compound Identification Acceptable Chromatogram review Acceptable Representativeness:Yes No N/A Were sampling procedures and design criteria met? Yes Were holding times met? Yes Was preservation criteria met? (0° - 6° C)N/A Were Chain-of-Custody records complete and provided in data package?Yes Holding Time / Canister Pressure Criteria Days to Analysis Criteria Qualifiers Associated Samples Holding Time Acceptable Canister Pressure Criteria Comparability:Yes No N/A Were analytical procedures and methods followed as defined in the QAPP or field change documentation?Yes Comments (note deviations): Completeness (90%):Yes No N/A Are all data in this SDG usable?Yes Sensitivity:Yes No N/A Are MDLs present and reported? Yes Do the reporting limits meet project requirements? Yes Comments (note deviations): Ethanol results were qualified as estimated "J". Data Validator:Date: Data Reviewer:Date:Cherie Zakowski Kristine Molloy 4/6/2022 Overall Comments: Data are usable with appropriate qualifiers applied. Initial and Final Canister Pressure Results Acceptable Comments (note 4/10/2022 As stated in the case narrative, ethanol exceeded the instrument's calibration range for samples FD01-IA030822, FD01- IA030822-LR, 0274H-IA01SC-030822 and 0347H-IA01SC-030922. Comments (note 3 of 3 2203385 Eurofins Air Toxics Matrix:Air Collection date:03/08/22 Volatile Organic Compounds - EPA Method TO-15 Volatile Organic Compounds - EPA Method TO-15 SIM Samples in SDG: Sample Number Laboratory Number 0072H-IA01SC-030822 2203385-01A / B 0180H-IA01SC-030822 2203385-02A / B 0197H-IA01SC-030822 2203385-03A / B 0013H-IA01SC-030822 2203385-04A / B Precision:Yes No N/A N/A Yes N/A Were the Laboratory Duplicate RPDs within limits?N/A Field TO-15 / SIM Sample (ug/m3)Duplicate (ug/m3)%RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples Duplicates N/A LCS/LCSD TO-15 / SIM %RPD Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples 2203385-07A / 7AA Acceptable 2203385-07B / 7BB (SIM)Acceptable MS/MSD TO-15 / SIM %RPD Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Laboratory Sample (ug/m3) Duplicate (ug/m3)RL %RPD Qualifiers Duplicate N/A Accuracy:Yes No N/A Was the Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate criteria met? (frequency ≥ 5% and laboratory determined control limits) N/A Laboratory Control Sample criteria met?Yes Were the Laboratory Method Blank results all < RL?Yes Were the Field Blanks results all < RL?N/A Was the ICAL criteria met? (30%)Yes Was the CCV criteria met? (30%)Yes Was the Tuning criteria met?Yes Were the Surrogate % recoveries within laboratory determined control limits?Yes Were the Internal Standard areas within ± 60 - 140%? Yes Was canister certification criteria met?Yes Were sample results able to be recalculated from the laboratory raw data and were they accurate?Yes Was target compound identification correctly performed by the laboratory?Yes Were chromatograms representative of the sample results?Yes Data validation was performed in accordance with the specific analytical methods and the U.S. EPA Analysis of Volatile Organic Compounds in Air Contained in Canisters by Method TO-15 (June 2014) and the project specific QAPP, 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah, Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Salt Lake City Health Care System, November, 2019. Are the field duplicate relative percent differences (RPDs) ≤40%? Were the Matrix Spike Duplicate RPDs ≤ 20%? (Or lab defined limits) Associated Samples Volatile Organic Compounds TO-15 / TO-15 SIM Laboratory Control Spike Duplicate RPDs within limits? Comments (note deviations): Comments (note deviations): 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Site Air Samples Laboratory: Analysis/Methods: Sample Delivery Group (SDG) Number: Salt Lake City, Utah Data Validation Report 1 of 3 Blanks TO-15 / SIM Concentration (ug/m3)MDL / RL (ug/m3)Qualifiers Associated Samples Lab Blank 2203385-05A Nondetect 2203385-05B (SIM) Nondetect Field Blank TO-15 / SIM Concentration MDL / RL Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Surrogates TO-15 / SIM %R Limit Qualifiers Acceptable MS/MSD TO-15 SIM %R Limits (%)Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A LCS/LCSD TO-15 / SIM %R Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples 2203385-07A / 7AA Acceptable 2203385-07B / 7BB (SIM)Acceptable ICV/CCV TO-15 / SIM %R Qualifiers Associated Samples 3/4/2022 19:00 Acceptable ICV ICAL TO-15 / SIM RRF %RSD Qualifiers Associated Samples 3/4/2022 11:20 Acceptable Acceptable 3/4/2022 9:04 (SIM)Acceptable Acceptable CCV TO-15 / SIM RRF %D Qualifiers Associated Samples 3/21/2022 7:51 Acceptable Acceptable 3/21/2022 9:58 Acceptable Acceptable 3/21/2022 7:51 (SIM) Acceptable Acceptable Tune TO-15 / SIM Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable Internal Standards TO-15 / SIM Area %Area % Criteria Qualifiers Associated Samples All Internal Standards Acceptable Canister Certification TO-15 / SIM Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable Associated Samples 2 of 3 Raw Data Review TO-15 / SIM Results Recalculated Sample Result Acceptable Sample #Laboratory Reported Result Recalculated Sample Result (ug/m3)(ug/m3) TO-15 RRF / Concentration 2203385-01A Freon 11: 1.2 1.472/ 1.198 TO-15 - SIM 2203385-01B Carbon Tetrachloride: 0.38 1.5080 / 0.384 2203385-01B Freon 12: 2.0 1.7869 / 1.963 (OR) (OR) Target Compound Identification Acceptable Chromatogram review Acceptable Representativeness:Yes No N/A Were sampling procedures and design criteria met? Yes Were holding times met? Yes Was preservation criteria met? (0° - 6° C)N/A Were Chain-of-Custody records complete and provided in data package?Yes Holding Time / Canister Pressure Criteria Days to Analysis Criteria Qualifiers Associated Samples Holding Time Acceptable Canister Pressure Criteria Comparability:Yes No N/A Were analytical procedures and methods followed as defined in the QAPP or field change documentation?Yes Comments (note deviations): Completeness (90%):Yes No N/A Are all data in this SDG usable?Yes Sensitivity:Yes No N/A Are MDLs present and reported? Yes Do the reporting limits meet project requirements? Yes Comments (note deviations): As stated in the case narrative, ethanol exceeded the instrument's calibration range for sample 0072H-IA01SC-030822. The ethanol result was qualified as estimated "J". Data Validator:Date: Data Reviewer:Date:Cherie Zakowski Kristine Molloy 4/9/2022 Overall Comments: Data are usable as reported. Initial and Final Canister Pressure Results Acceptable Comments (note 4/10/2022 Comments (note 3 of 3 2203386 Eurofins Air Toxics Matrix:Air Collection date:03/08/22 Volatile Organic Compounds - EPA Method TO-15 Volatile Organic Compounds - EPA Method TO-15 SIM Samples in SDG: Sample Number Laboratory Number 0064H-AA01SC-030822 2203386-01A / B 0064H-IA01SC-030822 2203386-02A / B 0336H-IA01SC-030822 2203386-03A / B 0172H-IA01SC-030822 2203386-04A / B Precision:Yes No N/A Yes Yes N/A Were the Laboratory Duplicate RPDs within limits?Yes Field TO-15 / SIM Sample (ug/m3)Duplicate (ug/m3)%RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples Duplicates 0172H-IA01SC- 030822 FD01-IA030822** TO-15 Acceptable SIM Acceptable **Results reported in SDG 2203384 LCS/LCSD TO-15 / SIM %RPD Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples 2203386-07A / 7AA Acceptable 2203386-07B / 7BB (SIM)Acceptable MS/MSD TO-15 / SIM %RPD Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Laboratory Sample (ug/m3)Duplicate (ug/m3)RL %RPD Qualifiers Duplicate 2203386-01A / 01AA Ethanol 6.3 ND NC None Hexane 0.2 J ND NC None 2203386-01B / 01BB Acceptable Data validation was performed in accordance with the specific analytical methods and the U.S. EPA Analysis of Volatile Organic Compounds in Air Contained in Canisters by Method TO-15 (June 2014) and the project specific QAPP, 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah, Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Salt Lake City Health Care System, November, 2019. Are the field duplicate relative percent differences (RPDs) ≤40%? Were the Matrix Spike Duplicate RPDs ≤ 20%? (Or lab defined limits) Associated Samples Sample results < 5xs RL; ABS Diff. < RL Volatile Organic Compounds TO-15 / TO-15 SIM Laboratory Control Spike Duplicate RPDs within limits? Comments (note deviations): 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Site Air Samples Laboratory: Analysis/Methods: Sample Delivery Group (SDG) Number: Salt Lake City, Utah Data Validation Report Sample results < 5xs RL; ABS Diff. < RL 1 of 3 Accuracy:Yes No N/A Was the Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate criteria met? (frequency ≥ 5% and laboratory determined control limits) N/A Laboratory Control Sample criteria met?Yes Were the Laboratory Method Blank results all < RL?Yes Were the Field Blanks results all < RL?N/A Was the ICAL criteria met? (30%)Yes Was the CCV criteria met? (30%)Yes Was the Tuning criteria met?Yes Were the Surrogate % recoveries within laboratory determined control limits?Yes Were the Internal Standard areas within ± 60 - 140%? Yes Was canister certification criteria met?Yes Were sample results able to be recalculated from the laboratory raw data and were they accurate?Yes Was target compound identification correctly performed by the laboratory?Yes Were chromatograms representative of the sample results?Yes Blanks TO-15 / SIM Concentration (ug/m3)MDL / RL (ug/m3)Qualifiers Associated Samples Lab Blank 2203386-05A Nondetect 2203386-05B (SIM) Nondetect Field Blank TO-15 / SIM Concentration MDL / RL Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Surrogates TO-15 / SIM %R Limit Qualifiers Acceptable MS/MSD TO-15 SIM %R Limits (%)Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A LCS/LCSD TO-15 / SIM %R Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples 2203386-07A / 7AA Acceptable 2203386-07B / 7BB (SIM)Acceptable ICV/CCV TO-15 / SIM %R Qualifiers Associated Samples 3/4/2022 19:00 Acceptable ICV ICAL TO-15 / SIM RRF %RSD Qualifiers Associated Samples 3/4/2022 11:20 Acceptable Acceptable 3/4/2022 9:04 (SIM)Acceptable Acceptable CCV TO-15 / SIM RRF %D Qualifiers Associated Samples 3/21/2022 7:51 Acceptable Acceptable 3/21/2022 9:58 Acceptable Acceptable 3/21/2022 7:51 (SIM) Acceptable Acceptable Tune TO-15 / SIM Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable Internal Standards TO-15 / SIM Area %Area % Criteria Qualifiers Associated Samples All Internal Standards Acceptable Canister Certification TO-15 / SIM Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable Comments (note deviations): Associated Samples 2 of 3 Raw Data Review TO-15 / SIM Results Recalculated Sample Result Acceptable Sample #Laboratory Reported Result Recalculated Sample Result (ug/m3)(ug/m3) TO-15 RRF / Concentration 2203386-04A Ethanol: 210 0.0623 / 211.1 2203386-04A Freon 11: 1.2 1.4723 / 1.193 TO-15 - SIM 2203386-04B 1,2-Dichloroethane: 0.073 0.2196 / 0.073 2203386-04B Tetrachloroethene: 4.3 0.8326/ 4.323 (OR) (OR) Target Compound Identification Acceptable Chromatogram review Acceptable Representativeness:Yes No N/A Were sampling procedures and design criteria met? Yes Were holding times met? Yes Was preservation criteria met? (0° - 6° C)N/A Were Chain-of-Custody records complete and provided in data package?Yes Holding Time / Canister Pressure Criteria Days to Analysis Criteria Qualifiers Associated Samples Holding Time Acceptable Canister Pressure Criteria Comparability:Yes No N/A Were analytical procedures and methods followed as defined in the QAPP or field change documentation?Yes Comments (note deviations): Completeness (90%):Yes No N/A Are all data in this SDG usable?Yes Sensitivity:Yes No N/A Are MDLs present and reported? Yes Do the reporting limits meet project requirements? Yes Comments (note deviations): Ethanol results were qualified as estimated "J". Data Validator:Date: Data Reviewer:Date:Cherie Zakowski Kristine Molloy 4/11/2022 Overall Comments: Data are usable with appropriate qualifiers applied. Initial and Final Canister Pressure Results Acceptable Comments (note 4/15/2022 As stated in the case narrative, ethanol exceeded the instrument's calibration range for samples 0336H-IA01SC-030822 and 0172H-IA01SC-030822. Comments (note 3 of 3 2203546 Eurofins Air Toxics Matrix:Air Collection date:3/11/2022 & 3/12/2022 Volatile Organic Compounds - EPA Method TO-15 Volatile Organic Compounds - EPA Method TO-15 SIM Samples in SDG: Sample Number Laboratory Number 0392H-IA01SC-031222 2203546-01A / B FD03-IA031222 2203546-02A / B 0273H-IA01SC-031222 2203546-03A / B 0192H-IA01SC-031122 2203546-04A / B Precision:Yes No N/A No No N/A Were the Laboratory Duplicate RPDs within limits?Yes Field TO-15 / SIM Sample (ug/m3)Duplicate (ug/m3)%RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples Duplicates 0392H-IA01SC- 031222 FD03-IA031222 TO-15 2-Propanol 26 13 NC J** 2-Butanone 1.5 J 5.4 NC J** SIM m/p-Xylene (SIM) 1.2 J 0.82 J NC J** o-Xylene (SIM) 0.52 0.26 NC J** LCS/LCSD TO-15 / SIM %RPD Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples 2203546-07A / 7AA Acceptable 2203546-07B / 7BB (SIM)Acceptable MS/MSD TO-15 / SIM %RPD Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Laboratory Sample (ug/m3)Duplicate (ug/m3)RL %RPD Qualifiers Duplicate 2203546-02A / 2AA 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 0. 24 J ND NC None 2-Hexanone 0.97 J ND NC None 4-Methyl-2-pentanone 1.1J ND NC None Methylene Chloride 0.47 J ND NC None 2203546-02B / 2BB Methyl-tert-butyl ether 0.26 ND NC None trans-1,2-Dichlorothene 0.002 J ND NC None Data validation was performed in accordance with the specific analytical methods and the U.S. EPA Analysis of Volatile Organic Compounds in Air Contained in Canisters by Method TO-15 (June 2014) and the project specific QAPP, 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah, Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Salt Lake City Health Care System, November, 2019. Are the field duplicate relative percent differences (RPDs) ≤40%? Were the Matrix Spike Duplicate RPDs ≤ 20%? (Or lab defined limits) Associated Samples 2203546-01A & 2203546-02A Volatile Organic Compounds TO-15 / TO-15 SIM Laboratory Control Spike Duplicate RPDs within limits? Comments (note deviations): Sample results < 5xs RL; ABS Diff. < RL Sample results < 5xs RL; ABS Diff. < RL ** ABS Diff. > RL 2203546-01A & 2203546-02A 2203546-01A & 2203546-02A 2203546-01A & 2203546-02A 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Site Air Samples Laboratory: Analysis/Methods: Sample Delivery Group (SDG) Number: Salt Lake City, Utah Data Validation Report 1 of 4 Accuracy:Yes No N/A Was the Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate criteria met? (frequency ≥ 5% and laboratory determined control limits) N/A Laboratory Control Sample criteria met?Yes Were the Laboratory Method Blank results all < RL?No Were the Field Blanks results all < RL?N/A Was the ICAL criteria met? (30%)Yes Was the CCV criteria met? (30%)No Was the Tuning criteria met?Yes Were the Surrogate % recoveries within laboratory determined control limits?Yes Were the Internal Standard areas within ± 60 - 140%? Yes Was canister certification criteria met?Yes Were sample results able to be recalculated from the laboratory raw data and were they accurate?Yes Was target compound identification correctly performed by the laboratory?Yes Were chromatograms representative of the sample results?Yes Blanks TO-15 / SIM Concentration (ug/m3)MDL / RL (ug/m3)Qualifiers Associated Samples Lab Blank 2203546-05A Acetone 0.64 J 0.24 / 2.4 None Sample results > RL 2-Propanol 1.2 J 0.13 / 2.4 None Sample results > RL Methylene Chloride 0.20 J 0.18 / 1.7 U-RL 2203546-05B (SIM) 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 0.039 J 0.014 / 0.14 None Field Blank TO-15 / SIM Concentration MDL / RL Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Surrogates TO-15 / SIM %R Limit Qualifiers Acceptable MS/MSD TO-15 SIM %R Limits (%)Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A LCS/LCSD TO-15 / SIM %R Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples 2203546-07A / 7AA Acceptable 2203546-07B / 7BB Acceptable ICV/CCV TO-15 / SIM %R Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples 3/4/2022 19:00 Bromomethane 67.6 70-130 J / UJ ICV ICAL TO-15 / SIM RRF %RSD Qualifiers Associated Samples 12/3/2022 13:37 Acceptable Acceptable 12/3/2022 11:34 (SIM)Acceptable Acceptable CCV TO-15 / SIM RRF %D Qualifiers Associated Samples 3/27/2022 10:27 3-Chloropropene Acceptable -32.599 J / UJ All samples 3/27/2022 10:04 Acceptable Acceptable 3/27/2022 10:27 (SIM) Acceptable Acceptable 3/27/2022 10:04 (SIM) Acceptable Acceptable Tune TO-15 / SIM Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable Internal Standards TO-15 / SIM Area %Area % Criteria Qualifiers Associated Samples All Internal Standards Acceptable Sample results nondetect Comments (note deviations): 2203546-02A, 2203546-03A, 2203546-04A, Associated Samples All samples 2 of 4 Canister Certification TO-15 / SIM Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable Raw Data Review TO-15 / SIM Results Recalculated Sample Result Acceptable Sample #Laboratory Reported Result Recalculated Sample Result (ug/m3)(ug/m3) TO-15 RRF / Concentration 2203546-03A Acetone: 28 0.6011 / 28.253 2203546-03A Ethanol: 240 0.13247 / 242.858 TO-15 - SIM 2203546-03B 1,2-Dichloroethane: 0.160 0.5462 / 0.155 2203546-03B Benzene: 0.450 1.0938 / 0.452 (OR) (OR) Target Compound Identification Acceptable Chromatogram review Acceptable Representativeness:Yes No N/A Were sampling procedures and design criteria met? Yes Were holding times met? Yes Was preservation criteria met? (0° - 6° C)N/A Were Chain-of-Custody records complete and provided in data package?Yes Holding Time / Canister Pressure Criteria Days to Analysis Criteria Qualifiers Associated Samples Holding Time Acceptable Canister Pressure Criteria Comparability:Yes No N/A Were analytical procedures and methods followed as defined in the QAPP or field change documentation?Yes Comments (note deviations): Completeness (90%):Yes No N/A Are all data in this SDG usable?Yes Initial and Final Canister Pressure Results Acceptable Comments (note Comments (note 3 of 4 Sensitivity:Yes No N/A Are MDLs present and reported? Yes Do the reporting limits meet project requirements? Yes Comments (note deviations): Ethanol results were qualified as estimated "J". As stated in the case narrative, the Chain of Custody (COC) information for sample 0273H-IA015C-031222 did not match the information on the canister with regard to canister barcode. The sample labeled 6L1436 on the COC is labeled as 6L1439 on the canister. The client was notified of the discrepancy and the information on the canister was used to process and report the sample. Data Validator:Date: Data Reviewer:Date:Cherie Zakowski Kristine Molloy 4/13/2022 Overall Comments: Data are usable with appropriate qualifiers applied. 4/15/2022 As stated in the case narrative, ethanol exceeded the instrument's calibration range for samples 0392H-IA01SC- 031222,FD03-IA031222, 0273H-IA01SC-031222, and 0192H-IA01SC-031122. 4 of 4 2203547 Eurofins Air Toxics Matrix:Air Collection date:03/12/22 Volatile Organic Compounds - EPA Method TO-15 Volatile Organic Compounds - EPA Method TO-15 SIM Samples in SDG: Sample Number Laboratory Number FD04-IA031222 2203547-01A / B 0277H-IA01SC-031222 2203547-02A / B 0041H-IA01SC-031222 2203547-03A/ B 0145H-IA01SC-031222 2203547-04A / B Precision:Yes No N/A No Yes N/A Were the Laboratory Duplicate RPDs within limits?No Field TO-15 / SIM Sample (ug/m3)Duplicate (ug/m3)%RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples Duplicates 03I5H-IA01SC- 031222**FD04-IA031222 2-Propanol 17 J 26 J NC Jaxx xx: ABS Diff. > RL ** Sample results reported in SDG 2203596 LCS/LCSD TO-15 / SIM %RPD Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples 2203547-07A / 7AA Acceptable 2203547-07B / 7BB Acceptable MS/MSD TO-15 / SIM %RPD Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Laboratory Sample (ug/m3)Duplicate (ug/m3)RL %RPD Qualifiers Duplicate 2203547-01A / 1AA Hexane 0. 27 J ND NC None 2203547-01B / 1BB 1,1-Dichloroethane 0.011 J ND NC None Data validation was performed in accordance with the specific analytical methods and the U.S. EPA Analysis of Volatile Organic Compounds in Air Contained in Canisters by Method TO-15 (June 2014) and the project specific QAPP, 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah, Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Salt Lake City Health Care System, November, 2019. Are the field duplicate relative percent differences (RPDs) ≤40%? Were the Matrix Spike Duplicate RPDs ≤ 20%? (Or lab defined limits) Associated Samples 03I5H-IA01SC-031222 & FD04- IA031222 Volatile Organic Compounds TO-15 / TO-15 SIM Laboratory Control Spike Duplicate RPDs within limits? Comments (note deviations): Sample results < 5xs RL; ABS Diff. < RL Sample results < 5xs RL; ABS Diff. < RL 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Site Air Samples Laboratory: Analysis/Methods: Sample Delivery Group (SDG) Number: Salt Lake City, Utah Data Validation Report 1 of 3 Accuracy:Yes No N/A Was the Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate criteria met? (frequency ≥ 5% and laboratory determined control limits) N/A Laboratory Control Sample criteria met?Yes Were the Laboratory Method Blank results all < RL?No Were the Field Blanks results all < RL?N/A Was the ICAL criteria met? (30%)Yes Was the CCV criteria met? (30%)No Was the Tuning criteria met?Yes Were the Surrogate % recoveries within laboratory determined control limits?Yes Were the Internal Standard areas within ± 60 - 140%? Yes Was canister certification criteria met?Yes Were sample results able to be recalculated from the laboratory raw data and were they accurate?Yes Was target compound identification correctly performed by the laboratory?Yes Were chromatograms representative of the sample results?Yes Blanks TO-15 / SIM Concentration (ug/m3)MDL / RL (ug/m3)Qualifiers Associated Samples Lab Blank 2203547-05A Acetone 0.40 J 0.24 / 2.4 None Sample results > RL 2-Propanol 0.84 J 0.13 / 2.4 None Sample results > RL Methylene Chloride 0.38 J 0.18 / 1.7 U-RL 2203547-01A, 2203547-03A 2203547-05B (SIM) 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 0.035 J 0.014 / 0.14 None 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 0.0091 J 0.009 / 0.11 None Field Blank TO-15 / SIM Concentration MDL / RL Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Surrogates TO-15 / SIM %R Limit Qualifiers Acceptable MS/MSD TO-15 SIM %R Limits (%)Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A LCS/LCSD TO-15 / SIM %R Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples 2203547-07A / 7AA Acceptable 2203547-07B / 7BB Acceptable ICV/CCV TO-15 / SIM %R Qualifiers Associated Samples 12/3/2021 22:15 ICV Bromomethane 67.6 J / UJ ICAL TO-15 / SIM RRF %RSD Qualifiers Associated Samples 12/3/2022 13:37 Acceptable Acceptable 12/3/2022 11:34 (SIM)Acceptable Acceptable CCV TO-15 / SIM RRF %D Qualifiers Associated Samples 3/25/2022 7:13 3-Chloropropene Acceptable -31.489 J / UJ All samples 3/25/2022 10:45 Acceptable Acceptable 3/25/2022 7:13 (SIM) Acceptable Acceptable 3/25/2022 10:45 (SIM) Acceptable Acceptable Tune TO-15 / SIM Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable Internal Standards TO-15 / SIM Area %Area % Criteria Qualifiers Associated Samples All Internal Standards Acceptable Sample results nondetect Sample results nondetect Comments (note deviations): Associated Samples All samples 2 of 3 Canister Certification TO-15 / SIM Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable Raw Data Review TO-15 / SIM Results Recalculated Sample Result Acceptable Sample #Laboratory Reported Result Recalculated Sample Result (ug/m3)(ug/m3) TO-15 RRF / Concentration 2203547-02A 4-Methyl-2-pentanone: 0.34 0.0887 / 0.336 2203547-02A Freon 11: 1.4 3.30271 / 1.455 TO-15 - SIM 2203547-02B Carbon Tetrachloride: 0.40 3.6389 / 0.398 2203547-02B Freon 12: 2.5 3.4358 / 2.464 (OR) (OR) Target Compound Identification Acceptable Chromatogram review Acceptable Representativeness:Yes No N/A Were sampling procedures and design criteria met? Yes Were holding times met? Yes Was preservation criteria met? (0° - 6° C)N/A Were Chain-of-Custody records complete and provided in data package?Yes Holding Time / Canister Pressure Criteria Days to Analysis Criteria Qualifiers Associated Samples Holding Time Acceptable Canister Pressure Criteria Comparability:Yes No N/A Were analytical procedures and methods followed as defined in the QAPP or field change documentation?Yes Comments (note deviations): Completeness (90%):Yes No N/A Are all data in this SDG usable?Yes Sensitivity:Yes No N/A Are MDLs present and reported? Yes Do the reporting limits meet project requirements? Yes Comments (note deviations): As stated in the case narrative, the presence of a closely eluting non-target peak in sample 0145H-IA01SC-031222 is interfering with the quantitation mass ion for Carbon Tetrachloride. The reported Carbon Tetrachloride concentration is flagged with a "CN" flag to indicate a high bias due to matrix contribution. Data Validator:Date: Data Reviewer:Date:Cherie Zakowski Kristine Molloy 4/13/2022 Overall Comments: Data are usable with appropriate qualifiers applied. Initial and Final Canister Pressure Results Acceptable Comments (note 4/15/2022 As stated in the case narrative, ethanol exceeded the instrument's calibration range for samples FD04-IA031222 and 0041H-IA01SC-031222. Ethanol results were qualified as estimated "J". Comments (note 3 of 3 2203550 Eurofins Air Toxics Matrix:Air Collection date:03/12/22 Volatile Organic Compounds - EPA Method TO-15 Volatile Organic Compounds - EPA Method TO-15 SIM Samples in SDG: Sample Number Laboratory Number 0302H-AA01SC-031222 2203550-01A / B 0302H-IA01SC-031222 2203550-02A /B 0062H-IA01SC-031222 2203550-03A / B 0230H-IA01SC-031222 2203550-04A / B Precision:Yes No N/A N/A Yes N/A Were the Laboratory Duplicate RPDs within limits?No Field TO-15 / SIM Sample (ug/m3)Duplicate (ug/m3)%RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples Duplicates N/A LCS/LCSD TO-15 / SIM %RPD Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples 2203550-07A / 7AA Acceptable 2203550-07B / 7BB Acceptable MS/MSD TO-15 / SIM %RPD Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Laboratory Sample (ug/m3)Duplicate (ug/m3)RL %RPD Qualifiers Duplicate 2203550-01A / 1AA Tetrahydrofuran 1.4 J ND NC None 2203550-01B / 1BB Acceptable Accuracy:Yes No N/A Was the Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate criteria met? (frequency ≥ 5% and laboratory determined control limits) N/A Laboratory Control Sample criteria met?Yes Were the Laboratory Method Blank results all < RL?No Were the Field Blanks results all < RL?N/A Was the ICAL criteria met? (30%)Yes Was the CCV criteria met? (30%)Yes Was the Tuning criteria met?Yes Were the Surrogate % recoveries within laboratory determined control limits?Yes Were the Internal Standard areas within ± 60 - 140%? Yes Was canister certification criteria met?Yes Were sample results able to be recalculated from the laboratory raw data and were they accurate?Yes Was target compound identification correctly performed by the laboratory?Yes Were chromatograms representative of the sample results?Yes 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Site Air Samples Laboratory: Analysis/Methods: Sample Delivery Group (SDG) Number: Salt Lake City, Utah Data Validation Report Data validation was performed in accordance with the specific analytical methods and the U.S. EPA Analysis of Volatile Organic Compounds in Air Contained in Canisters by Method TO-15 (June 2014) and the project specific QAPP, 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah, Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Salt Lake City Health Care System, November, 2019. Are the field duplicate relative percent differences (RPDs) ≤40%? Were the Matrix Spike Duplicate RPDs ≤ 20%? (Or lab defined limits) Associated Samples Volatile Organic Compounds TO-15 / TO-15 SIM Laboratory Control Spike Duplicate RPDs within limits? Comments (note deviations): Comments (note deviations): Sample results < 5xs RL; ABS Diff. < RL 1 of 3 Blanks TO-15 / SIM Concentration (ug/m3)MDL / RL (ug/m3)Qualifiers Associated Samples Lab Blank 2203550-05A 2-Propanol 1.2 J 0.13 / 2.4 None Sample results > RL Acetone 0.70 J 0.24 / 2.4 None Sample results > RL Methylene Chloride 0.20 J 0.18 / 1.7 U-RL All samples 2203550-05B (SIM) 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 0.029 J 0.014 / 0.14 None Field Blank TO-15 / SIM Concentration MDL / RL Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Surrogates TO-15 / SIM %R Limit Qualifiers Acceptable MS/MSD TO-15 SIM %R Limits (%)Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A LCS/LCSD TO-15 / SIM %R Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples 2203550-07A / 7AA Acceptable 2203550-07B / 7BB Acceptable ICV/CCV TO-15 / SIM %R Qualifiers Associated Samples 12/3/2021 22:15 ICV Bromomethane 67.6 J / UJ ICAL TO-15 / SIM RRF %RSD Qualifiers Associated Samples 12/3/2022 13:37 Acceptable Acceptable 12/3/2022 11:34 (SIM)Acceptable Acceptable CCV TO-15 / SIM RRF %D Qualifiers Associated Samples 3/28/2022 6:49 Acceptable Acceptable 3/28/2022 11:53 Acceptable Acceptable 3/28/2022 6:49 (SIM) Acceptable Acceptable 3/25/2022 10:45 (SIM) Acceptable Acceptable Tune TO-15 / SIM Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable Internal Standards TO-15 / SIM Area %Area % Criteria Qualifiers Associated Samples All Internal Standards Acceptable Canister Certification TO-15 / SIM Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable Associated Samples All samples Sample results nondetect 2 of 3 Raw Data Review TO-15 / SIM Results Recalculated Sample Result Acceptable Sample #Laboratory Reported Result Recalculated Sample Result (ug/m3)(ug/m3) TO-15 RRF / Concentration 2203550-03A Hexane: 2.2 2.02 / 0.6368 2203550-03A Freon 113: 0.52 2.69102 / 0.0682 TO-15 - SIM 2203550-03B 1,2-Dichloroethane: 0.17 0.5461 / 0.0411 2203550-03B Toluene: 2.6 1.4243 / 0.6920 (OR) (OR) Target Compound Identification Acceptable Chromatogram review Acceptable Representativeness:Yes No N/A Were sampling procedures and design criteria met? Yes Were holding times met? Yes Was preservation criteria met? (0° - 6° C)N/A Were Chain-of-Custody records complete and provided in data package?Yes Holding Time / Canister Pressure Criteria Days to Analysis Criteria Qualifiers Associated Samples Holding Time Acceptable Canister Pressure Criteria Comparability:Yes No N/A Were analytical procedures and methods followed as defined in the QAPP or field change documentation?Yes Comments (note deviations): Completeness (90%):Yes No N/A Are all data in this SDG usable?Yes Sensitivity:Yes No N/A Are MDLs present and reported? Yes Do the reporting limits meet project requirements? Yes Comments (note deviations): Data Validator:Date: Data Reviewer:Date: Comments (note Cherie Zakowski Kristine Molloy 4/15/2022 Overall Comments: Data are usable with appropriate qualifiers applied. Initial and Final Canister Pressure Results Acceptable Comments (note 4/20/2022 As stated in the case narrative, ethanol exceeded the instrument's calibration range for sample 0230H-IA01SC-031222. Ethanol results were qualified as estimated "J". 3 of 3 2203552 Eurofins Air Toxics Matrix:Air Collection date:03/11/22 Volatile Organic Compounds - EPA Method TO-15 Volatile Organic Compounds - EPA Method TO-15 SIM Samples in SDG: Sample Number Laboratory Number 0381H-AA01SC-031122 2203552-01A / 1B 0189H-IA01SC-031122 2203552-02A / 2B 0381H-IA01SC-031122 2203552-03A / 3B 0146H-IA01SC-031122 2203552-04A / 4B Precision:Yes No N/A N/A Yes N/A Were the Laboratory Duplicate RPDs within limits?N/A Field TO-15 / SIM Sample (ug/m3)Duplicate (ug/m3)%RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples Duplicates N/A LCS/LCSD TO-15 / SIM %RPD Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples 2203552-07A / 7AA Acceptable 2203552-07B / 7BB Acceptable MS/MSD TO-15 / SIM %RPD Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Laboratory Sample (ug/m3)Duplicate (ug/m3)RL %RPD Qualifiers Duplicate N/A Accuracy:Yes No N/A Was the Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate criteria met? (frequency ≥ 5% and laboratory determined control limits) N/A Laboratory Control Sample criteria met?Yes Were the Laboratory Method Blank results all < RL?No Were the Field Blanks results all < RL?N/A Was the ICAL criteria met? (30%)Yes Was the CCV criteria met? (30%)No Was the Tuning criteria met?Yes Were the Surrogate % recoveries within laboratory determined control limits?Yes Were the Internal Standard areas within ± 60 - 140%? Yes Was canister certification criteria met?Yes Were sample results able to be recalculated from the laboratory raw data and were they accurate?Yes Was target compound identification correctly performed by the laboratory?Yes Were chromatograms representative of the sample results?Yes 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Site Air Samples Laboratory: Analysis/Methods: Sample Delivery Group (SDG) Number: Salt Lake City, Utah Data Validation Report Data validation was performed in accordance with the specific analytical methods and the U.S. EPA Analysis of Volatile Organic Compounds in Air Contained in Canisters by Method TO-15 (June 2014) and the project specific QAPP, 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah, Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Salt Lake City Health Care System, November, 2019. Are the field duplicate relative percent differences (RPDs) ≤40%? Were the Matrix Spike Duplicate RPDs ≤ 20%? (Or lab defined limits) Associated Samples Volatile Organic Compounds TO-15 / TO-15 SIM Laboratory Control Spike Duplicate RPDs within limits? Comments (note deviations): Comments (note deviations): 1 of 3 Blanks TO-15 / SIM Concentration (ug/m3)MDL / RL (ug/m3)Qualifiers Associated Samples Lab Blank 2203552-05A Acetone 0.64 J 0.24 / 2.4 None Sample results > RL 2-Propanol 1.2 J 0.13 / 2.4 None Sample results > RL Methylene Chloride 0.20 J 0.18 / 1.7 U-RL 2203552-05B (SIM)1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 0.039 J 0.014 / 0.14 None Field Blank TO-15 / SIM Concentration MDL / RL Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Surrogates TO-15 / SIM %R Limit Qualifiers Acceptable MS/MSD TO-15 SIM %R Limits (%)Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A LCS/LCSD TO-15 / SIM %R Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples 2203552-07A / 7AA Acceptable 2203552-07B / 7BB Acceptable ICV/CCV TO-15 / SIM %R Qualifiers Associated Samples 12/3/2021 22:15 ICV Bromomethane 67.6 J / UJ ICAL TO-15 / SIM RRF %RSD Qualifiers Associated Samples 12/3/2022 13:37 Acceptable Acceptable 12/3/2022 11:34 (SIM)Acceptable Acceptable CCV TO-15 / SIM RRF %D Qualifiers Associated Samples 3/27/2022 10:27 3-Chloropropene Acceptable -32.59 J / UJ 3/27/2022 10:04 Acceptable Acceptable 3/27/2022 10:27 (SIM) Acceptable Acceptable 3/25/2022 10:45 (SIM) Acceptable Acceptable Tune TO-15 / SIM Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable Internal Standards TO-15 / SIM Area %Area % Criteria Qualifiers Associated Samples All Internal Standards Acceptable Canister Certification TO-15 / SIM Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable Associated Samples All samples All samples Sample results nondetect 2203552-01A, 2203552-02A, 2203552-03A 2 of 3 Raw Data Review TO-15 / SIM Results Recalculated Sample Result Acceptable Sample #Laboratory Reported Result Recalculated Sample Result (ug/m3)(ug/m3) TO-15 RRF / Concentration 2203552-01A Acetone: 18 0.6011 / 17.921 2203552-01A Freon 11: 1.1 3.30274 / 1.133 TO-15 - SIM 2203552-01B Carbon Tetrachloride: 0.37 3.6384 / 0.371 2203552-01B Tetrachloroethene: 0.190 0.9711 / 0.190 (OR) (OR) Target Compound Identification Acceptable Chromatogram review Acceptable Representativeness:Yes No N/A Were sampling procedures and design criteria met? Yes Were holding times met? Yes Was preservation criteria met? (0° - 6° C)N/A Were Chain-of-Custody records complete and provided in data package?Yes Holding Time / Canister Pressure Criteria Days to Analysis Criteria Qualifiers Associated Samples Holding Time Acceptable Canister Pressure Criteria Comparability:Yes No N/A Were analytical procedures and methods followed as defined in the QAPP or field change documentation?Yes Comments (note deviations): Completeness (90%):Yes No N/A Are all data in this SDG usable?Yes Sensitivity:Yes No N/A Are MDLs present and reported? Yes Do the reporting limits meet project requirements? Yes Comments (note deviations): Data Validator:Date: Data Reviewer:Date: Comments (note Cherie Zakowski Kristine Molloy 4/16/2022 Overall Comments: Data are usable with appropriate qualifiers applied. Initial and Final Canister Pressure Results Acceptable Comments (note 4/20/2022 As stated in the case narrative, ethanol exceeded the instrument's calibration range for sample 0189H-IA01SC-031122 and 0146H-IA01SC-031122. Ethanol results were qualified as estimated "J". As stated in the case narrative, 2-propanol exceeded the instrument's calibration range for sample 0189H-IA01SC- 031122. 2-Propanol results were qualified as estimated "J". 3 of 3 2203596 Eurofins Air Toxics Matrix:Air Collection date:3/12/2022 & 3/15/2022 Volatile Organic Compounds - EPA Method TO-15 Volatile Organic Compounds - EPA Method TO-15 SIM Samples in SDG: Sample Number Laboratory Number 03I5H-IA01SC-031222 2203596-01A / 1B B32-IA01SC-031522 2203596-02A / 2B B32-AA01SC-031522 2203596-03A / 3B Precision:Yes No N/A Yes No N/A Were the Laboratory Duplicate RPDs within limits?N/A Field TO-15 / SIM Sample (ug/m3)Duplicate (ug/m3)%RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples Duplicates 03I5H-IA01SC- 031222 FD04-IA031222** 2-Propanol 17 J 26 J NC Jxx xx: ABS Diff. > RL ** Sample results reported in SDG 2203547 LCS/LCSD TO-15 / SIM %RPD Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples 2203596-06A / 6AA Acceptable 2203596-06B / 6BB Acceptable MS/MSD TO-15 / SIM %RPD Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Laboratory Sample (ug/m3)Duplicate (ug/m3)RL %RPD Qualifiers Duplicate N/A Accuracy:Yes No N/A Was the Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate criteria met? (frequency ≥ 5% and laboratory determined control limits) N/A Laboratory Control Sample criteria met?Yes Were the Laboratory Method Blank results all < RL?No Were the Field Blanks results all < RL?N/A Was the ICAL criteria met? (30%)Yes Was the CCV criteria met? (30%)Yes Was the Tuning criteria met?Yes Were the Surrogate % recoveries within laboratory determined control limits?Yes Were the Internal Standard areas within ± 60 - 140%? Yes Was canister certification criteria met?Yes Were sample results able to be recalculated from the laboratory raw data and were they accurate?Yes Was target compound identification correctly performed by the laboratory?Yes Were chromatograms representative of the sample results?Yes 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Site Air Samples Laboratory: Analysis/Methods: Sample Delivery Group (SDG) Number: Salt Lake City, Utah Data Validation Report Data validation was performed in accordance with the specific analytical methods and the U.S. EPA Analysis of Volatile Organic Compounds in Air Contained in Canisters by Method TO-15 (June 2014) and the project specific QAPP, 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah, Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Salt Lake City Health Care System, November, 2019. Are the field duplicate relative percent differences (RPDs) ≤40%? Were the Matrix Spike Duplicate RPDs ≤ 20%? (Or lab defined limits) Associated Samples Volatile Organic Compounds TO-15 / TO-15 SIM Laboratory Control Spike Duplicate RPDs within limits? Comments (note deviations): Comments (note deviations): 03I5H-IA01SC-031222 & FD04- IA031222 1 of 3 Blanks TO-15 / SIM Concentration (ug/m3)MDL / RL (ug/m3)Qualifiers Associated Samples Lab Blank 2203596-04A Acetone 0.70 J 0.24 / 2.4 None Sample results > RL 2-Propanol 1.2 J 0.13 / 2.4 None Sample results > RL Methylene Chloride 0.20 J 0.18 / 1.7 U-RL 2203596-04B (SIM) 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 0.029 J 0.014 / 0.14 None Field Blank TO-15 / SIM Concentration MDL / RL Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Surrogates TO-15 / SIM %R Limit Qualifiers Acceptable MS/MSD TO-15 SIM %R Limits (%)Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A LCS/LCSD TO-15 / SIM %R Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples 2203596-06A / 6AA Acceptable 2203596-06B / 6BB Acceptable ICV/CCV TO-15 / SIM %R Qualifiers Associated Samples 12/3/2021 22:15 ICV Bromomethane 67.6 J / UJ ICAL TO-15 / SIM RRF %RSD Qualifiers Associated Samples 12/3/2022 13:37 Acceptable Acceptable 12/3/2022 11:34 (SIM)Acceptable Acceptable CCV TO-15 / SIM RRF %D Qualifiers Associated Samples 3/28/2022 6:49 Acceptable Acceptable 3/28/2022 11:53 Acceptable Acceptable 3/28/2022 6:49 (SIM) Acceptable Acceptable 3/28/2022 11:53 (SIM) Acceptable Acceptable Tune TO-15 / SIM Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable Internal Standards TO-15 / SIM Area %Area % Criteria Qualifiers Associated Samples All Internal Standards Acceptable Canister Certification TO-15 / SIM Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable Associated Samples All samples Sample results nondetect All samples 2 of 3 Raw Data Review TO-15 / SIM Results Recalculated Sample Result Acceptable Sample #Laboratory Reported Result Recalculated Sample Result (ug/m3)(ug/m3) TO-15 RRF / Concentration 2203596-02A 2-Butanone: 3.7 0.6386 / 3.687 2203596-02A Methylene Chloride: 0.72 1.21155 / 0.721 TO-15 - SIM 2203596-02B Carbon Tetrachloride: 0.40 3.6380 / 0.402 2203596-02B Freon 12: 2.2 3.4357 / 2.173 (OR) (OR) Target Compound Identification Acceptable Chromatogram review Acceptable Representativeness:Yes No N/A Were sampling procedures and design criteria met? Yes Were holding times met? Yes Was preservation criteria met? (0° - 6° C)N/A Were Chain-of-Custody records complete and provided in data package?Yes Holding Time / Canister Pressure Criteria Days to Analysis Criteria Qualifiers Associated Samples Holding Time Acceptable Canister Pressure Criteria Comparability:Yes No N/A Were analytical procedures and methods followed as defined in the QAPP or field change documentation?Yes Comments (note deviations): Completeness (90%):Yes No N/A Are all data in this SDG usable?Yes Sensitivity:Yes No N/A Are MDLs present and reported? Yes Do the reporting limits meet project requirements? Yes Comments (note deviations): Data Validator:Date: Data Reviewer:Date: Comments (note Cherie Zakowski Kristine Molloy 4/19/2022 Overall Comments: Data are usable with appropriate qualifiers applied. Initial and Final Canister Pressure Results Acceptable Comments (note 4/20/2022 As stated in the case narrative, ethanol exceeded the instrument's calibration range for sample 03I5H-IA01SC-031222 and B32-IA01SC-031522. Ethanol results were qualified as estimated "J". 3 of 3 2203674 Eurofins Air Toxics Matrix:Air Collection date:3/15/2022 & 3/18/2022 Volatile Organic Compounds - EPA Method TO-15 Volatile Organic Compounds - EPA Method TO-15 SIM Samples in SDG: Sample Number Laboratory Number B20-IA01SC-031522 2203674-01A / 1B B20-IA02SC-031522 2203674-02A / 2B FD05-IA031522 2203674-03A / 3B 0029H-IA01SC-031822 2203674-04A / 4B Precision:Yes No N/A No Yes N/A Were the Laboratory Duplicate RPDs within limits?N/A Field TO-15 / SIM Sample (ug/m3)Duplicate (ug/m3)%RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples Duplicates B20-IA01SC- 031522 FD05-IA031522 2-Propanol 9.5 16 NC J** ** ABS Diff. > RL LCS/LCSD TO-15 / SIM %RPD Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples 2203674-05A / 5AA Acceptable 2203674-05B / 5BB Acceptable MS/MSD TO-15 / SIM %RPD Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Laboratory Sample (ug/m3)Duplicate (ug/m3)RL %RPD Qualifiers Duplicate N/A Accuracy:Yes No N/A Was the Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate criteria met? (frequency ≥ 5% and laboratory determined control limits) N/A Laboratory Control Sample criteria met?Yes Were the Laboratory Method Blank results all < RL?No Were the Field Blanks results all < RL?N/A Was the ICAL criteria met? (30%)Yes Was the CCV criteria met? (30%)Yes Was the Tuning criteria met?Yes Were the Surrogate % recoveries within laboratory determined control limits?Yes Were the Internal Standard areas within ± 60 - 140%? Yes Was canister certification criteria met?Yes Were sample results able to be recalculated from the laboratory raw data and were they accurate?Yes Was target compound identification correctly performed by the laboratory?Yes Were chromatograms representative of the sample results?Yes Data validation was performed in accordance with the specific analytical methods and the U.S. EPA Analysis of Volatile Organic Compounds in Air Contained in Canisters by Method TO-15 (June 2014) and the project specific QAPP, 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah, Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Salt Lake City Health Care System, November, 2019. Are the field duplicate relative percent differences (RPDs) ≤40%? Were the Matrix Spike Duplicate RPDs ≤ 20%? (Or lab defined limits) Associated Samples Volatile Organic Compounds TO-15 / TO-15 SIM Laboratory Control Spike Duplicate RPDs within limits? Comments (note deviations): Comments (note deviations): B20-IA01SC-031522 & FD05- IA031522 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Site Air Samples Laboratory: Analysis/Methods: Sample Delivery Group (SDG) Number: Salt Lake City, Utah Data Validation Report 1 of 3 Blanks TO-15 / SIM Concentration (ug/m3)MDL / RL (ug/m3)Qualifiers Associated Samples Lab Blank 2203674-05A Acetone 0.70 J 0.24 / 2.4 None Sample results > RL 2-Propanol 1.2 J 0.13 / 2.4 None Sample results > RL Methylene Chloride 0.20 J 0.18 / 1.7 U-RL 2203674-05B (SIM) 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 0.029 J 0.014 / 0.14 None Field Blank TO-15 / SIM Concentration MDL / RL Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Surrogates TO-15 / SIM %R Limit Qualifiers Acceptable MS/MSD TO-15 SIM %R Limits (%)Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A LCS/LCSD TO-15 / SIM %R Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples 2203674-05A / 5AA Acceptable 2203674-05B / 5BB Acceptable ICV/CCV TO-15 / SIM %R Qualifiers Associated Samples 12/3/2021 22:15 ICV Bromomethane 67.6 J / UJ ICAL TO-15 / SIM RRF %RSD Qualifiers Associated Samples 12/3/2022 13:37 Acceptable Acceptable 12/3/2022 11:34 (SIM)Acceptable Acceptable CCV TO-15 / SIM RRF %D Qualifiers Associated Samples 3/28/2022 6:49 Acceptable Acceptable 3/28/2022 11:53 Acceptable Acceptable 3/28/2022 6:49 (SIM) Acceptable Acceptable 3/28/2022 11:53 (SIM) Acceptable Acceptable Tune TO-15 / SIM Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable Internal Standards TO-15 / SIM Area %Area % Criteria Qualifiers Associated Samples All Internal Standards Acceptable Canister Certification TO-15 / SIM Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable Sample results nondetect 2203674-01A, 2203674-02A, 2203674-03A Associated Samples All samples 2 of 3 Raw Data Review TO-15 / SIM Results Recalculated Sample Result Acceptable Sample #Laboratory Reported Result Recalculated Sample Result (ug/m3)(ug/m3) TO-15 RRF / Concentration 2203674-01A 2-Propanol: 16 2.21 / 15.768 2203674-01A Freon 113: 0.45 2.69108 / 0.451 TO-15 - SIM 2203674-01B Carbon Tetrachloride: 0.41 3.6381 / 0.408 2203674-01B Toluene: 0.60 1.4244 / 0.598 (OR) (OR) Target Compound Identification Acceptable Chromatogram review Acceptable Representativeness:Yes No N/A Were sampling procedures and design criteria met? Yes Were holding times met? Yes Was preservation criteria met? (0° - 6° C)N/A Were Chain-of-Custody records complete and provided in data package?Yes Holding Time / Canister Pressure Criteria Days to Analysis Criteria Qualifiers Associated Samples Holding Time Acceptable Canister Pressure Criteria Comparability:Yes No N/A Were analytical procedures and methods followed as defined in the QAPP or field change documentation?Yes Comments (note deviations): Completeness (90%):Yes No N/A Are all data in this SDG usable?Yes Sensitivity:Yes No N/A Are MDLs present and reported? Yes Do the reporting limits meet project requirements? Yes Comments (note deviations): Data Validator:Date: Data Reviewer:Date:Cherie Zakowski Kristine Molloy 4/29/2022 Overall Comments: Data are usable with appropriate qualifiers applied. Initial and Final Canister Pressure Results Acceptable Comments (note 5/5/2022 As stated in the case narrative, ethanol exceeded the instrument's calibration range for sample B20-IA02SC-031522 and 0029H-IA01SC-031822. Ethanol results were qualified as estimated "J". Comments (note 3 of 3 2203675 Eurofins Air Toxics Matrix:Air Collection date:03/18/22 Volatile Organic Compounds - EPA Method TO-15 Volatile Organic Compounds - EPA Method TO-15 SIM Samples in SDG: Sample Number Laboratory Number 365S-IA01SC-031822 2203675-01A / 1B 365S-IA02SC-031822 2203675-02A / 2B 365S-IA03SC-031822 2203675-03A / 3B 365S-AA01SC-031822 2203675-04A / 4B Precision:Yes No N/A N/A Yes N/A Were the Laboratory Duplicate RPDs within limits?Yes Field TO-15 / SIM Sample (ug/m3)Duplicate (ug/m3)%RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples Duplicates N/A LCS/LCSD TO-15 / SIM %RPD Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples 2203675-07A / 7AA Acceptable 2203675-07B / 7BB Acceptable MS/MSD TO-15 / SIM %RPD Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Laboratory Sample (ug/m3)Duplicate (ug/m3)RL %RPD Qualifiers Duplicate 2203675-01A / 1AA Acceptable 2203675-01B / 1BB Acceptable Accuracy:Yes No N/A Was the Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate criteria met? (frequency ≥ 5% and laboratory determined control limits) N/A Laboratory Control Sample criteria met?Yes Were the Laboratory Method Blank results all < RL?No Were the Field Blanks results all < RL?N/A Was the ICAL criteria met? (30%)Yes Was the CCV criteria met? (30%)Yes Was the Tuning criteria met?Yes Were the Surrogate % recoveries within laboratory determined control limits?Yes Were the Internal Standard areas within ± 60 - 140%? Yes Was canister certification criteria met?Yes Were sample results able to be recalculated from the laboratory raw data and were they accurate?Yes Was target compound identification correctly performed by the laboratory?Yes Were chromatograms representative of the sample results?Yes Data validation was performed in accordance with the specific analytical methods and the U.S. EPA Analysis of Volatile Organic Compounds in Air Contained in Canisters by Method TO-15 (June 2014) and the project specific QAPP, 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah, Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Salt Lake City Health Care System, November, 2019. Are the field duplicate relative percent differences (RPDs) ≤40%? Were the Matrix Spike Duplicate RPDs ≤ 20%? (Or lab defined limits) Associated Samples Volatile Organic Compounds TO-15 / TO-15 SIM Laboratory Control Spike Duplicate RPDs within limits? Comments (note deviations): Comments (note deviations): 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Site Air Samples Laboratory: Analysis/Methods: Sample Delivery Group (SDG) Number: Salt Lake City, Utah Data Validation Report 1 of 3 Blanks TO-15 / SIM Concentration (ug/m3)MDL / RL (ug/m3)Qualifiers Associated Samples Lab Blank 2203675-05A Acetone 0.70 J 0.24 / 2.4 None Sample results > RL 2-Propanol 1.2 J 0.13 / 2.4 None Sample results > RL 2203675-05B (SIM) 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 0.036 J 0.014 / 0.14 None 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 0.011 J 0.009 / 0.11 None Field Blank TO-15 / SIM Concentration MDL / RL Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Surrogates TO-15 / SIM %R Limit Qualifiers Acceptable MS/MSD TO-15 SIM %R Limits (%)Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A LCS/LCSD TO-15 / SIM %R Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples 2203675-07A / 7AA Acceptable 2203675-07B / 7BB Acceptable ICV/CCV TO-15 / SIM %R Qualifiers Associated Samples 12/3/2021 22:15 ICV Bromomethane 67.6 J / UJ ICAL TO-15 / SIM RRF %RSD Qualifiers Associated Samples 12/3/2022 13:37 Acceptable Acceptable 12/3/2022 11:34 (SIM)Acceptable Acceptable CCV TO-15 / SIM RRF %D Qualifiers Associated Samples 3/29/2022 6:33 Acceptable Acceptable 3/30/2022 12:05 Acceptable Acceptable 3/29/2022 6:33 (SIM) Acceptable Acceptable 3/30/2022 12:05 (SIM) Acceptable Acceptable Tune TO-15 / SIM Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable Internal Standards TO-15 / SIM Area %Area % Criteria Qualifiers Associated Samples All Internal Standards Acceptable Canister Certification TO-15 / SIM Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable Sample results nondetect All samples Sample results nondetect Associated Samples 2 of 3 Raw Data Review TO-15 / SIM Results Recalculated Sample Result Acceptable Sample #Laboratory Reported Result Recalculated Sample Result (ug/m3)(ug/m3) TO-15 RRF / Concentration 2203675-01A 2-Propanol: 69 2.2183 / 69.066 2203675-01A Acetone: 30 0.60110 / 30.506 TO-15 - SIM 2203675-01B Benzene: 0.45 1.0939 / 0.451 2203675-01B o-Xylene 12: 0.20 0.7388 / 0.201 (OR) (OR) Target Compound Identification Acceptable Chromatogram review Acceptable Representativeness:Yes No N/A Were sampling procedures and design criteria met? Yes Were holding times met? Yes Was preservation criteria met? (0° - 6° C)N/A Were Chain-of-Custody records complete and provided in data package?Yes Holding Time / Canister Pressure Criteria Days to Analysis Criteria Qualifiers Associated Samples Holding Time Acceptable Canister Pressure Criteria Comparability:Yes No N/A Were analytical procedures and methods followed as defined in the QAPP or field change documentation?Yes Comments (note deviations): Completeness (90%):Yes No N/A Are all data in this SDG usable?Yes Sensitivity:Yes No N/A Are MDLs present and reported? Yes Do the reporting limits meet project requirements? Yes Comments (note deviations): Data Validator:Date: Data Reviewer:Date:Cherie Zakowski Kristine Molloy 4/26/2022 Overall Comments: Data are usable with appropriate qualifiers applied. Initial and Final Canister Pressure Results Acceptable Comments (note 5/5/2022 As stated in the case narrative, ethanol exceeded the instrument's calibration range for samples 3655-IA01SC-031822, 3655-IA02SC-031822 and 3655-IA03SC-031822. Ethanol results were qualified as estimated "J". Comments (note 3 of 3 2205002 Eurofins Air Toxics Matrix:Air Collection date:04/29/22 Volatile Organic Compounds - EPA Method TO-15 Volatile Organic Compounds - EPA Method TO-15 SIM Samples in SDG: Sample Number Laboratory Number 0197H-IA01SC-042922 2205002-01A / B 0197H-IA02SC-042922 2205002-02A / B 0197H-IA03SC-042922 2205002-03A / B 0197H-IA04SC-042922 2205002-04A / B Precision:Yes No N/A N/A Yes N/A Were the Laboratory Duplicate RPDs within limits?Yes Field TO-15 / SIM Sample (ug/m3)Duplicate (ug/m3)%RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples Duplicates N/A LCS/LCSD TO-15 / SIM %RPD Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples 2205002-07A / 7AA Acceptable 2205002-07B / 7BB Acceptable MS/MSD TO-15 / SIM %RPD Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Laboratory Sample (ug/m3)Duplicate (ug/m3)RL %RPD Qualifiers Duplicate 2205002-01A / 1AA Acceptable 2205002-01B / 1BB Acceptable Accuracy:Yes No N/A Was the Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate criteria met? (frequency ≥ 5% and laboratory determined control limits) N/A Laboratory Control Sample criteria met?Yes Were the Laboratory Method Blank results all < RL?No Were the Field Blanks results all < RL?N/A Was the ICAL criteria met? (30%)Yes Was the CCV criteria met? (30%)Yes Was the Tuning criteria met?Yes Were the Surrogate % recoveries within laboratory determined control limits?Yes Were the Internal Standard areas within ± 60 - 140%? Yes Was canister certification criteria met?Yes Were sample results able to be recalculated from the laboratory raw data and were they accurate?Yes Was target compound identification correctly performed by the laboratory?Yes Were chromatograms representative of the sample results?Yes Data validation was performed in accordance with the specific analytical methods and the U.S. EPA Analysis of Volatile Organic Compounds in Air Contained in Canisters by Method TO-15 (June 2014) and the project specific QAPP, 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah, Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Salt Lake City Health Care System, November, 2019. Are the field duplicate relative percent differences (RPDs) ≤40%? Were the Matrix Spike Duplicate RPDs ≤ 20%? (Or lab defined limits) Associated Samples Volatile Organic Compounds TO-15 / TO-15 SIM Laboratory Control Spike Duplicate RPDs within limits? Comments (note deviations): Comments (note deviations): 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Site Air Samples Laboratory: Analysis/Methods: Sample Delivery Group (SDG) Number: Salt Lake City, Utah Data Validation Report 1 of 3 Blanks TO-15 / SIM Concentration (ug/m3)MDL / RL (ug/m3)Qualifiers Associated Samples Lab Blank 2205002-05A 2-Propanol 0.29 J 0.13 / 2.4 None Sample results > RL Acetone 0.63 J 0.24 / 2.4 None Sample results > RL 2205002-05B (SIM) 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 0.012 J 0.007 / 0.11 None Sample results > RL 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 0.016 J 0.014 / 0.14 None Field Blank TO-15 / SIM Concentration MDL / RL Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Surrogates TO-15 / SIM %R Limit Qualifiers Acceptable MS/MSD TO-15 SIM %R Limits (%)Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A LCS/LCSD TO-15 / SIM %R Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples 2205002-07A / AA Acceptable 2205002-07B / BB Acceptable ICV/CCV TO-15 / SIM %R Qualifiers Associated Samples 4/27/2022 17:27 Acceptable ICV ICAL TO-15 / SIM RRF %RSD Qualifiers Associated Samples 4/26/2022 22:22 Acceptable Acceptable 4/26/2022 21:42 (SIM)Acceptable Acceptable CCV TO-15 / SIM RRF %D Qualifiers Associated Samples 5/6/2022 8:02 Acceptable Acceptable 5/6/2022 11:23 Acceptable Acceptable 5/6/2022 8:02 (SIM) Acceptable Acceptable 5/6/2022 11:23 (SIM) Acceptable Acceptable Tune TO-15 / SIM Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable Internal Standards TO-15 / SIM Area %Area % Criteria Qualifiers Associated Samples All Internal Standards Acceptable Canister Certification TO-15 / SIM Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable Sample results nondetect Associated Samples 2 of 3 Raw Data Review TO-15 / SIM Results Recalculated Sample Result Acceptable Sample #Laboratory Reported Result Recalculated Sample Result (ug/m3)(ug/m3) TO-15 RRF / Concentration 2205002-02A 2-Propanol: 26 2.390 / 25.932 2205002-02A Acetone: 45 0.671 / 45.405 TO-15 - SIM 2205002-02B o-xylene: 0.31 0.780 / 0.310 2205002-02B Trichloroethene: 5.8 0.644 / 5.814 (OR) (OR) Target Compound Identification Acceptable Chromatogram review Acceptable Representativeness:Yes No N/A Were sampling procedures and design criteria met? Yes Were holding times met? Yes Was preservation criteria met? (0° - 6° C)N/A Were Chain-of-Custody records complete and provided in data package?Yes Holding Time / Canister Pressure Criteria Days to Analysis Criteria Qualifiers Associated Samples Holding Time Acceptable Canister Pressure Criteria Comparability:Yes No N/A Were analytical procedures and methods followed as defined in the QAPP or field change documentation?Yes Comments (note deviations): Completeness (90%):Yes No N/A Are all data in this SDG usable?Yes Sensitivity:Yes No N/A Are MDLs present and reported? Yes Do the reporting limits meet project requirements? Yes Comments (note deviations): Data Validator:Date: Data Reviewer:Date:Cherie Zakowski Kristine Molloy 5/12/2022 Overall Comments: Data are usable as reported. Initial and Final Canister Pressure Results Acceptable Comments (note deviations): 5/12/2022 Comments (note deviations): 3 of 3 L1470815 Pace Analytical Matrix:Air Collection date:03/09/22 Volatile Organic Compounds - EPA Method TO-15 Volatile Organic Compounds - EPA Method TO-15 SIM Samples in SDG: Sample Number Laboratory Number 0256H-IA01SC-030922 L1470815-02 0225H-IA01SC-030922 L1470815-03 0194H-IA01SC-030922 L1470815-04 Precision:Yes No N/A N/A Yes N/A Were the Laboratory Duplicate RPDs within limits?N/A Field TO-15 / SIM Sample (ug/m3)Duplicate (ug/m3)%RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples Duplicates N/A LCS/LCSD TO-15 / SIM %RPD Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples R3771705-1 / 2 Acceptable R3769329-1 / 2 Acceptable MS/MSD TO-15 / SIM %RPD Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Laboratory Sample (ug/m3)Duplicate (ug/m3)RL %RPD Qualifiers Duplicate N/A Accuracy:Yes No N/A Was the Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate criteria met? (frequency ≥ 5% and laboratory determined control limits) N/A Laboratory Control Sample criteria met?Yes Were the Laboratory Method Blank results all < RL?No Were the Field Blanks results all < RL?N/A Was the ICAL criteria met? (30%)Yes Was the CCV criteria met? (30%)No Was the Tuning criteria met?Yes Were the Surrogate % recoveries within laboratory determined control limits?Yes Were the Internal Standard areas within ± 60 - 140%? Yes Was canister certification criteria met?Yes Were sample results able to be recalculated from the laboratory raw data and were they accurate?Yes Was target compound identification correctly performed by the laboratory?Yes Were chromatograms representative of the sample results?Yes 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Site Air Samples Laboratory: Analysis/Methods: Sample Delivery Group (SDG) Number: Salt Lake City, Utah Data Validation Report Data validation was performed in accordance with the specific analytical methods and the U.S. EPA Analysis of Volatile Organic Compounds in Air Contained in Canisters by Method TO-15 (June 2014) and the project specific QAPP, 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah, Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Salt Lake City Health Care System, November, 2019. Are the field duplicate relative percent differences (RPDs) ≤40%? Were the Matrix Spike Duplicate RPDs ≤ 20%? (Or lab defined limits) Associated Samples Volatile Organic Compounds TO-15 / TO-15 SIM Laboratory Control Spike Duplicate RPDs within limits? Comments (note deviations): Comments (note deviations): 1 of 3 Blanks TO-15 / SIM Concentration (ug/m3)MDL / RL (ug/m3)Qualifiers Associated Samples Lab Blank R3771705-3 Nondetect R3771982-2 Propene 0.394 J 0.16 / 2.15 None Sample results nondetect R3772368-3 (Ethanol) Nondetect R3769329-3 Benzene 0.0444 0.0358 / 0.0639 None Field Blank TO-15 / SIM Concentration MDL / RL Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Surrogates TO-15 / SIM %R Limit Qualifiers TO-15 Acceptable TO-15 SIM Acceptable MS/MSD TO-15 SIM %R Limits (%)Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A LCS/LCSD TO-15 / SIM %R Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples R3771705-1 / 2 Acceptable R3771982-1 / 3 Acceptable R3772368-1 / 2 (Ethanol)Acceptable R3769329-1 / 2 Acceptable ICV/CCV TO-15 / SIM %R Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples ICV 3/19/2022 9:22 Acceptable 3/21/2022 8:23:00 AM (Ethanol ) 1,2-Dichlorotetrafluorethane 44.2 70-130 None 3/18/2022 9:02 Acceptable 3/13/2022 8:49 (SIM)Acceptable ICAL TO-15 / SIM RRF %RSD Qualifiers Associated Samples 3/16/22 3/17/22 Acceptable Acceptable 3/9/2022 (Ethanol)Acceptable Acceptable 3/10/2022 Acceptable Acceptable 3/8/2022 SIM Acceptable Acceptable CCV TO-15 / SIM RRF %D Qualifiers Associated Samples 3/17/2022 6:10 Benzyl Chloride Acceptable 48.8 J / UJ Vinyl Acetate Acceptable 45.7 J / UJ 3/9/2022 23:56 (Ethanol only) Ethanol Acceptable 75.1 J / UJ 3/10/2022 18:14 Benzyl Chloride Acceptable 55 J / UJ Vinyl Acetate Acceptable 44.4 J / UJ 3/13/2022 8:49 (SIM) Acceptable Acceptable **Applies to TO-15 results - reportable results are from the TO1-5 SIM analysis - no qualification required for the SIM results Tune TO-15 / SIM Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable Internal Standards TO-15 / SIM Area %Area % Criteria Qualifiers Associated Samples All Internal Standards Acceptable Associated Samples All samples All samples** All samples All samples All samples** No results associated with this ICV Sample results > RL 2 of 3 Canister Certification TO-15 / SIM Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable Raw Data Review TO-15 / SIM Results Recalculated Sample Result Acceptable Sample #Laboratory Reported Result Recalculated Sample Result (ug/m3)(ug/m3) TO-15 RRF / Concentration L1470815-02 Acetone: 6.99 0.3553 / 6.991 L1470815-02 Carbon Tetrachloride: 0.47 0.55762 / 0.468 TO-15 - SIM L1470815-02 Chloroform: 0.349 1.5781 / 0.351 L1470815-02 Ethylbenzene: 0.168 1.1731 / 0.168 (OR) (OR) Target Compound Identification Acceptable Chromatogram review Acceptable Representativeness:Yes No N/A Were sampling procedures and design criteria met? Yes Were holding times met? Yes Was preservation criteria met? (0° - 6° C)N/A Were Chain-of-Custody records complete and provided in data package?Yes Holding Time / Canister Pressure Criteria Days to Analysis Criteria Qualifiers Associated Samples Holding Time Acceptable Canister Pressure Criteria Comparability:Yes No N/A Were analytical procedures and methods followed as defined in the QAPP or field change documentation?Yes Comments (note deviations): Completeness (90%):Yes No N/A Are all data in this SDG usable?Yes Sensitivity:Yes No N/A Are MDLs present and reported? Yes Do the reporting limits meet project requirements? Yes Comments (note deviations): The final pressure reading for the canister associated with sample 0029H-IA01SC-030822 was 20" Hg. Analysis was not performed due to final pressure reading. Data Validator:Date: Data Reviewer:Date: Comments (note Cherie Zakowski Kristine Molloy 4/29/2022 Overall Comments: Data are usable with appropriate qualifiers applied. Initial and Final Canister Pressure Results Acceptable** Comments (note 5/1/2022 **The final pressure reading for the canister associated with sample 0029H-IA01SC-030822 was 20" Hg. Analysis was not performed due to final pressure reading. 3 of 3 L1470817 Pace Analytical Matrix:Air Collection date:03/10/22 Volatile Organic Compounds - EPA Method TO-15 Volatile Organic Compounds - EPA Method TO-15 SIM Samples in SDG: Sample Number Laboratory Number 0193H-IA01SC-031022 L1470817-01 0395H-IA01SC-031022 L1470817-02 0255H-IA01SC-031022 L1470817-03 0195H-IA01SC-031022 L1470817-04 Precision:Yes No N/A N/A Yes N/A Were the Laboratory Duplicate RPDs within limits?N/A Field TO-15 / SIM Sample (ug/m3)Duplicate (ug/m3)%RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples Duplicates N/A LCS/LCSD TO-15 / SIM %RPD Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples R3771705-1 / 2 Acceptable R3772368-1 / 2 (Ethanol)Acceptable R3769329-1 / 2 Acceptable MS/MSD TO-15 / SIM %RPD Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Laboratory Sample (ug/m3)Duplicate (ug/m3)RL %RPD Qualifiers Duplicate N/A Accuracy:Yes No N/A Was the Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate criteria met? (frequency ≥ 5% and laboratory determined control limits) N/A Laboratory Control Sample criteria met?Yes Were the Laboratory Method Blank results all < RL?Yes Were the Field Blanks results all < RL?N/A Was the ICAL criteria met? (30%)Yes Was the CCV criteria met? (30%)No Was the Tuning criteria met?Yes Were the Surrogate % recoveries within laboratory determined control limits?Yes Were the Internal Standard areas within ± 60 - 140%? Yes Was canister certification criteria met?Yes Were sample results able to be recalculated from the laboratory raw data and were they accurate?Yes Was target compound identification correctly performed by the laboratory?Yes Were chromatograms representative of the sample results?Yes 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Site Air Samples Laboratory: Analysis/Methods: Sample Delivery Group (SDG) Number: Salt Lake City, Utah Data Validation Report Data validation was performed in accordance with the specific analytical methods and the U.S. EPA Analysis of Volatile Organic Compounds in Air Contained in Canisters by Method TO-15 (June 2014) and the project specific QAPP, 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah, Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Salt Lake City Health Care System, November, 2019. Are the field duplicate relative percent differences (RPDs) ≤40%? Were the Matrix Spike Duplicate RPDs ≤ 20%? (Or lab defined limits) Associated Samples Volatile Organic Compounds TO-15 / TO-15 SIM Laboratory Control Spike Duplicate RPDs within limits? Comments (note deviations): Comments (note deviations): 1 of 3 Blanks TO-15 / SIM Concentration (ug/m3)MDL / RL (ug/m3)Qualifiers Associated Samples Lab Blank R3771705-3 Nondetect R3772368-3 (Ethanol) Nondetect R3769329-3 Benzene 0.0444 0.0358 / 0.0639 None Field Blank TO-15 / SIM Concentration MDL / RL Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Surrogates TO-15 / SIM %R Limit Qualifiers TO-15 Acceptable TO-15 SIM Acceptable MS/MSD TO-15 SIM %R Limits (%)Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A LCS/LCSD TO-15 / SIM %R Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples R3771705-1 / 2 Acceptable R3772368-1 / 2 (Ethanol)Acceptable R3769329-1 / 2 Acceptable ICV/CCV TO-15 / SIM %R Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples ICV 3/21/2022 8:23:00 AM (Ethanol ) 1,2-Dichlorotetrafluorethane 55.8 30 None 3/18/2022 9:02 Acceptable 3/13/2022 8:49 (SIM)Acceptable ICAL TO-15 / SIM RRF %RSD Qualifiers Associated Samples 3/9/2022 (Ethanol)Acceptable Acceptable 3/10/2022 Acceptable Acceptable 3/8/2022 SIM Acceptable Acceptable CCV TO-15 / SIM RRF %D Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples 3/9/2022 23:56 (Ethanol only) Ethanol Acceptable 75.1 30 J / UJ 3/10/2022 18:14 Benzyl Chloride Acceptable 55 30 J / UJ Vinyl Acetate Acceptable 44.4 30 J / UJ 3/08/2022 20:54 (SIM)Acceptable Acceptable **Applies to TO-15 results - reportable results are from the TO1-5 SIM analysis - no qualification required for the SIM results Tune TO-15 / SIM Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable Internal Standards TO-15 / SIM Area %Area % Criteria Qualifiers Associated Samples All Internal Standards Acceptable Canister Certification TO-15 / SIM Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable Associated Samples All samples All samples All samples** No results associated with this ICV Sample results > RL 2 of 3 Raw Data Review TO-15 / SIM Results Recalculated Sample Result Acceptable Sample #Laboratory Reported Result Recalculated Sample Result (ug/m3)(ug/m3) TO-15 RRF / Concentration L1470817-03 Chloroform: 1.47 0.7837 / 1.478 L1470817-03 Ethanol: 19.80 0.20840 / 19.797 TO-15 - SIM L1470817-03 Benzene: 0.585 0.7509 / 0.583 L1470817-03 1,1,1-Trichloroethane: 0.734 1.5233 / 0.734 (OR) (OR) Target Compound Identification Acceptable Chromatogram review Acceptable Representativeness:Yes No N/A Were sampling procedures and design criteria met? Yes Were holding times met? Yes Was preservation criteria met? (0° - 6° C)N/A Were Chain-of-Custody records complete and provided in data package?Yes Holding Time / Canister Pressure Criteria Days to Analysis Criteria Qualifiers Associated Samples Holding Time Acceptable Canister Pressure Criteria Comparability:Yes No N/A Were analytical procedures and methods followed as defined in the QAPP or field change documentation?Yes Comments (note deviations): Completeness (90%):Yes No N/A Are all data in this SDG usable?Yes Sensitivity:Yes No N/A Are MDLs present and reported? Yes Do the reporting limits meet project requirements? Yes Comments (note deviations): Data Validator:Date: Data Reviewer:Date: Comments (note deviations): Cherie Zakowski Kristine Molloy 4/29/2022 Overall Comments: Data are usable with appropriate qualifiers applied. Initial and Final Canister Pressure Results Acceptable Comments (note deviations): 5/1/2022 3 of 3 L1470822 Pace Analytical Matrix:Air Collection date:03/10/22 Volatile Organic Compounds - EPA Method TO-15 Volatile Organic Compounds - EPA Method TO-15 SIM Samples in SDG: Sample Number Laboratory Number 0366C-IA01SC-031022 L1470822-01 FD02-IA031022 L1470822-02 0366C-IA02SC-031022 L1470822-03 0366C-IA03SC-031022 L1470822-04 Precision:Yes No N/A N/A Yes N/A Were the Laboratory Duplicate RPDs within limits?N/A Field TO-15 / SIM Sample (ug/m3)Duplicate (ug/m3)%RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples Duplicates 0366C-IA01SC- 031022 FD02-IA031022 Acetone 101 34.9 97%J Ethanol 535 61.1 159%J Ethylbenzene 4.9 1.74 NC J** M&P-Xylene 12.2 4.6 NC J** O-Xylene 2.42 0.958 NC J** Toluene 16.5 6.37 NC J** 1,2-Dichloroethane (SIM) 0.184 0.102 NC J** Chloroform (TO-15 / SIM) 0.604 0.0973 U NC J** Tetrachloroethene (SIM) 1.07 0.0957 J NC J** **ABS Diff. > RL LCS/LCSD TO-15 / SIM %RPD Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples R3771705-1 / 2 Acceptable R3772368-1 / 2 (Ethanol)Acceptable R3769329-1 / 2 Acceptable MS/MSD TO-15 / SIM %RPD Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Laboratory Sample (ug/m3)Duplicate (ug/m3)RL %RPD Qualifiers Duplicate N/A 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Site Air Samples Laboratory: Analysis/Methods: Sample Delivery Group (SDG) Number: Salt Lake City, Utah Data Validation Report Data validation was performed in accordance with the specific analytical methods and the U.S. EPA Analysis of Volatile Organic Compounds in Air Contained in Canisters by Method TO-15 (June 2014) and the project specific QAPP, 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah, Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Salt Lake City Health Care System, November, 2019. Are the field duplicate relative percent differences (RPDs) ≤40%? Were the Matrix Spike Duplicate RPDs ≤ 20%? (Or lab defined limits) Associated Samples Volatile Organic Compounds TO-15 / TO-15 SIM Laboratory Control Spike Duplicate RPDs within limits? Comments (note deviations): 0366C-IA01SC-031022 & FD02-IA031022 1 of 4 Accuracy:Yes No N/A Was the Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate criteria met? (frequency ≥ 5% and laboratory determined control limits) N/A Laboratory Control Sample criteria met?Yes Were the Laboratory Method Blank results all < RL?Yes Were the Field Blanks results all < RL?N/A Was the ICAL criteria met? (30%)Yes Was the CCV criteria met? (30%)No Was the Tuning criteria met?Yes Were the Surrogate % recoveries within laboratory determined control limits?Yes Were the Internal Standard areas within ± 60 - 140%? Yes Was canister certification criteria met?Yes Were sample results able to be recalculated from the laboratory raw data and were they accurate?Yes Was target compound identification correctly performed by the laboratory?Yes Were chromatograms representative of the sample results?Yes Blanks TO-15 / SIM Concentration (ug/m3)MDL / RL (ug/m3)Qualifiers Associated Samples Lab Blank R3771705-3 Nondetect R3772368-3 (Ethanol) Nondetect R3769329-3 (SIM)Benzene 0.0444 J 0.0358 / 0.0639 None Field Blank TO-15 / SIM Concentration MDL / RL Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Surrogates TO-15 / SIM %R Limit Qualifiers TO-15 Acceptable TO-15 SIM Acceptable MS/MSD TO-15 SIM %R Limits (%)Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A LCS/LCSD TO-15 / SIM %R Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples R3771705-1 / 2 Acceptable R3772368-1 / 2 (Ethanol)Acceptable R3769329-1 / 2 Acceptable ICV/CCV TO-15 / SIM %R Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples ICV 3/21/2022 8:23:00 AM (Ethanol ) 1,2-Dichlorotetrafluorethane 44.2 70-130 None 3/18/2022 9:02 Acceptable 3/13/2022 8:49 (SIM)Acceptable ICAL TO-15 / SIM RRF %RSD Qualifiers Associated Samples 3/9/2022 (Ethanol)Acceptable Acceptable 3/10/2022 Acceptable Acceptable 3/8/2022 SIM Acceptable Acceptable CCV TO-15 / SIM RRF %D Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples 3/9/2022 23:56 (Ethanol only) Ethanol Acceptable 75.1 30 J / UJ 3/10/2022 18:14 Benzyl Chloride Acceptable 55 30 J / UJ Vinyl Acetate Acceptable 44.4 30 J / UJ 3/08/2022 20:54 (SIM) Acceptable Acceptable **Applies to TO-15 results - reportable results are from the TO1-5 SIM analysis - no qualification required for the SIM results Associated Samples All samples All samples All samples** No results associated with this ICV Sample results > RL Comments (note deviations): 2 of 4 Tune TO-15 / SIM Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable Internal Standards TO-15 / SIM Area %Area % Criteria Qualifiers Associated Samples All Internal Standards Acceptable Canister Certification TO-15 / SIM Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable Raw Data Review TO-15 / SIM Results Recalculated Sample Result Acceptable Sample #Laboratory Reported Result Recalculated Sample Result (ug/m3)(ug/m3) TO-15 RRF / Concentration L1470822-04 Acetone: 63.20 0.7462 / 63.277 L1470822-04 Cyclohexane: 0.87 0.3671 / 0.870 TO-15 - SIM L1470822-04 Chloromethane: 1.11 0.4573 / 1.107 L1470822-04 Trichloroethylene: 0.044 0.3326 / 0.044 (OR) (OR) Target Compound Identification Acceptable Chromatogram review Acceptable Representativeness:Yes No N/A Were sampling procedures and design criteria met? Yes Were holding times met? Yes Was preservation criteria met? (0° - 6° C)N/A Were Chain-of-Custody records complete and provided in data package?Yes Holding Time / Canister Pressure Criteria Days to Analysis Criteria Qualifiers Associated Samples Holding Time Acceptable Canister Pressure Criteria Comparability:Yes No N/A Were analytical procedures and methods followed as defined in the QAPP or field change documentation?Yes Comments (note deviations): Completeness (90%):Yes No N/A Are all data in this SDG usable?Yes Comments (note Initial and Final Canister Pressure Results Acceptable Comments (note 3 of 4 Sensitivity:Yes No N/A Are MDLs present and reported? Yes Do the reporting limits meet project requirements? Yes Comments (note deviations): Data Validator:Date: Data Reviewer:Date:Cherie Zakowski Kristine Molloy 4/30/2022 Overall Comments: Data are usable with appropriate qualifiers applied. 5/1/2022 4 of 4 L1470823 Pace Analytical Matrix:Air Collection date:03/10/22 Volatile Organic Compounds - EPA Method TO-15 Volatile Organic Compounds - EPA Method TO-15 SIM Samples in SDG: Sample Number Laboratory Number 0334H-IA01SC-031022 L1470823-01 0334H-AA01SC-031022 L1470823-02 0263H-IA01SC-031022 L1470823-03 Precision:Yes No N/A N/A Yes N/A Were the Laboratory Duplicate RPDs within limits?N/A Field TO-15 / SIM Sample (ug/m3)Duplicate (ug/m3)%RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples Duplicates N/A LCS/LCSD TO-15 / SIM %RPD Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples R3771705-1 / 2 Acceptable R3772729-1 / 2 (re-extract)Acceptable R3769329-1 / 2 Acceptable MS/MSD TO-15 / SIM %RPD Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Laboratory Sample (ug/m3)Duplicate (ug/m3)RL %RPD Qualifiers Duplicate N/A Accuracy:Yes No N/A Was the Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate criteria met? (frequency ≥ 5% and laboratory determined control limits) N/A Laboratory Control Sample criteria met?Yes Were the Laboratory Method Blank results all < RL?No Were the Field Blanks results all < RL?N/A Was the ICAL criteria met? (30%)Yes Was the CCV criteria met? (30%)No Was the Tuning criteria met?Yes Were the Surrogate % recoveries within laboratory determined control limits?Yes Were the Internal Standard areas within ± 60 - 140%? Yes Was canister certification criteria met?Yes Were sample results able to be recalculated from the laboratory raw data and were they accurate?Yes Was target compound identification correctly performed by the laboratory?Yes Were chromatograms representative of the sample results?Yes Comments (note deviations): 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Site Air Samples Laboratory: Analysis/Methods: Sample Delivery Group (SDG) Number: Salt Lake City, Utah Data Validation Report Data validation was performed in accordance with the specific analytical methods and the U.S. EPA Analysis of Volatile Organic Compounds in Air Contained in Canisters by Method TO-15 (June 2014) and the project specific QAPP, 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah, Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Salt Lake City Health Care System, November, 2019. Are the field duplicate relative percent differences (RPDs) ≤40%? Were the Matrix Spike Duplicate RPDs ≤ 20%? (Or lab defined limits) Associated Samples Volatile Organic Compounds TO-15 / TO-15 SIM Laboratory Control Spike Duplicate RPDs within limits? Comments (note deviations): 1 of 3 Blanks TO-15 / SIM Concentration (ug/m3)MDL / RL (ug/m3)Qualifiers Associated Samples Lab Blank R3771705-3 Nondetect R3772729-3 (re-extract) Propene 0.244 J 0.16 / 2.15 None Sample results nondetect R3769329-3 Benzene 0.0444 J 0.0358 / 0.0639 None Field Blank TO-15 / SIM Concentration MDL / RL Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Surrogates TO-15 / SIM %R Limit Qualifiers TO-15 Acceptable TO-15 SIM Acceptable MS/MSD TO-15 SIM %R Limits (%)Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A LCS/LCSD TO-15 / SIM %R Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples R3771705-1 / 2 Acceptable R3772729-1 / 2 (re-extract)Acceptable R3769329-1 / 2 Acceptable ICV/CCV TO-15 / SIM %R Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples ICV 3/22/2022 11:25 (re-extract)Acceptable 3/18/2022 9:02 Acceptable 3/13/2022 8:49 (SIM)Acceptable ICAL TO-15 / SIM RRF %RSD Qualifiers Associated Samples 3/10/2022 12:29 Acceptable Acceptable 3/10/2022 17:05 (re-extract)Acceptable Acceptable 3/8/2022 SIM Acceptable Acceptable CCV TO-15 / SIM RRF %D Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples 3/11/2022 00:51 (re-extract)Acceptable Acceptable 3/10/2022 18:14 Benzyl Chloride Acceptable 55 30 J / UJ Vinyl Acetate Acceptable 44.4 30 J / UJ 3/08/2022 20:54 (SIM) Acceptable Acceptable **Applies to TO-15 results - reportable results are from the TO1-5 SIM analysis - no qualification required for the SIM results Tune TO-15 / SIM Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable Internal Standards TO-15 / SIM Area %Area % Criteria Qualifiers Associated Samples Chlorobenzene-d5 196,150 207,465/484,085 None** L1470823-03 **IS associated with re-extraction - no associated reportable results - no qualification required Canister Certification TO-15 / SIM Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable Sample results > RL Associated Samples All samples** All samples 2 of 3 Raw Data Review TO-15 / SIM Results Recalculated Sample Result Acceptable Sample #Laboratory Reported Result Recalculated Sample Result (ug/m3)(ug/m3) TO-15 RRF / Concentration L1470823-01 Chloromethane: 1.21 0.3686 / 1.206 L1470823-01 Carbon Tetrachloride: 0.54 0.78413 / 0.539 TO-15 - SIM L1470823-01 1,4-Dichlorobenzene: 0.084 0.8470 / 0.084 L1470823-01 Tetrachloroethene: 0.096 0.5172 / 0.096 (OR) (OR) Target Compound Identification Acceptable Chromatogram review Acceptable Representativeness:Yes No N/A Were sampling procedures and design criteria met? Yes Were holding times met? Yes Was preservation criteria met? (0° - 6° C)N/A Were Chain-of-Custody records complete and provided in data package?Yes Holding Time / Canister Pressure Criteria Days to Analysis Criteria Qualifiers Associated Samples Holding Time Acceptable Canister Pressure Criteria Comparability:Yes No N/A Were analytical procedures and methods followed as defined in the QAPP or field change documentation?Yes Comments (note deviations): Completeness (90%):Yes No N/A Are all data in this SDG usable?Yes Sensitivity:Yes No N/A Are MDLs present and reported? Yes Do the reporting limits meet project requirements? Yes Comments (note deviations): Data Validator:Date: Data Reviewer:Date:Cherie Zakowski Kristine Molloy 4/30/2022 Overall Comments: Data are usable with appropriate qualifiers applied. Initial and Final Canister Pressure Results Acceptable Comments (note 5/5/2022 Comments (note 3 of 3 L1472579 Pace Analytical Matrix:Air Collection date:03/15/22 Volatile Organic Compounds - EPA Method TO-15 Volatile Organic Compounds - EPA Method TO-15 SIM Samples in SDG: Sample Number Laboratory Number 0040H-IA01SC-031522 L1472579-01 0040H-IA02SC-031522 L1472579-02 Precision:Yes No N/A N/A Yes N/A Were the Laboratory Duplicate RPDs within limits?N/A Field TO-15 / SIM Sample (ug/m3)Duplicate (ug/m3)%RPD Qualifiers Associated Samples Duplicates N/A LCS/LCSD TO-15 / SIM %RPD Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples R3772480-1 / 3 Acceptable R3773476-1 / 2 (SIM)Acceptable R3773480-1 / 2 (SIM)Acceptable (Tetrachloroethene) MS/MSD TO-15 / SIM %RPD Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Laboratory Sample (ug/m3)Duplicate (ug/m3)RL %RPD Qualifiers Duplicate N/A Accuracy:Yes No N/A Was the Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate criteria met? (frequency ≥ 5% and laboratory determined control limits) N/A Laboratory Control Sample criteria met?Yes Were the Laboratory Method Blank results all < RL?No Were the Field Blanks results all < RL?N/A Was the ICAL criteria met? (30%)Yes Was the CCV criteria met? (30%)No Was the Tuning criteria met?Yes Were the Surrogate % recoveries within laboratory determined control limits?Yes Were the Internal Standard areas within ± 60 - 140%? Yes Was canister certification criteria met?Yes Were sample results able to be recalculated from the laboratory raw data and were they accurate?Yes Was target compound identification correctly performed by the laboratory?Yes Were chromatograms representative of the sample results?Yes Data validation was performed in accordance with the specific analytical methods and the U.S. EPA Analysis of Volatile Organic Compounds in Air Contained in Canisters by Method TO-15 (June 2014) and the project specific QAPP, 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume, Salt Lake City, Utah, Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Salt Lake City Health Care System, November, 2019. Are the field duplicate relative percent differences (RPDs) ≤40%? Were the Matrix Spike Duplicate RPDs ≤ 20%? (Or lab defined limits) Associated Samples Volatile Organic Compounds TO-15 / TO-15 SIM Laboratory Control Spike Duplicate RPDs within limits? Comments (note deviations): Comments (note deviations): 700 South 1600 East PCE Plume Site Air Samples Laboratory: Analysis/Methods: Sample Delivery Group (SDG) Number: Salt Lake City, Utah Data Validation Report 1 of 3 Blanks TO-15 / SIM Concentration (ug/m3)MDL / RL (ug/m3)Qualifiers Associated Samples Lab Blank R3772480-2 Nondetect R3773476-3 (SIM) Benzene 0.0390 J 0.0358 / 0.0639 None Sample results > RL R3773480-3 (SIM) Nondetect (Tetrachloroethene) Field Blank TO-15 / SIM Concentration MDL / RL Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A Surrogates TO-15 / SIM %R Limit Qualifiers TO-15 Acceptable TO-15 SIM Acceptable MS/MSD TO-15 SIM %R Limits (%)Qualifiers Associated Samples N/A LCS/LCSD TO-15 / SIM %R Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples R3772480-1 / 3 Acceptable R3773476-1 / 2 (SIM)Acceptable R3773480-1 / 2 (SIM)Acceptable (Tetrachloroethene) ICV/CCV TO-15 / SIM %R Limits Qualifiers Associated Samples ICV 3/21/2022 8:52 Acceptable 3/23/2022 8:40 (SIM)Acceptable ICAL TO-15 / SIM RRF %RSD Qualifiers Associated Samples 3/10/2022 12:29 Acceptable Acceptable 3/8/2022 SIM Acceptable Acceptable CCV TO-15 / SIM RRF %D Limit Qualifiers Associated Samples 3/10/2022 18:14 Benzyl Chloride Acceptable 55 30 J / UJ Vinyl Acetate Acceptable 44.4 30 J / UJ 3/08/2022 20:54 (SIM) Acceptable Acceptable **Applies to TO-15 results - reportable results are from the TO1-5 SIM analysis - no qualification required for the SIM results Tune TO-15 / SIM Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable Internal Standards TO-15 / SIM Area %Area % Criteria Qualifiers Associated Samples All Internal Standards Acceptable Canister Certification TO-15 / SIM Qualifiers Associated Samples Acceptable Associated Samples All samples All samples** 2 of 3 Raw Data Review TO-15 / SIM Results Recalculated Sample Result Acceptable Sample #Laboratory Reported Result Recalculated Sample Result (ug/m3)(ug/m3) TO-15 RRF / Concentration L1472579-02 4-Ethyltoluene: 0.44 0.5540 / 0.440 L1472579-02 Methylene Chloride: 57.30 0.57188 / 57.34 TO-15 - SIM L1472579-02 Chloromethane: 1.11 0.4573 /1.104 L1472579-02 Ethylbenzene: 1.11 1.1731 / 1.11 (OR) (OR) Target Compound Identification Acceptable Chromatogram review Acceptable Representativeness:Yes No N/A Were sampling procedures and design criteria met? Yes Were holding times met? Yes Was preservation criteria met? (0° - 6° C)N/A Were Chain-of-Custody records complete and provided in data package?Yes Holding Time / Canister Pressure Criteria Days to Analysis Criteria Qualifiers Associated Samples Holding Time Acceptable Canister Pressure Criteria Comparability:Yes No N/A Were analytical procedures and methods followed as defined in the QAPP or field change documentation?Yes Comments (note deviations): Completeness (90%):Yes No N/A Are all data in this SDG usable?Yes Sensitivity:Yes No N/A Are MDLs present and reported? Yes Do the reporting limits meet project requirements? Yes Comments (note deviations): Data Validator:Date: Data Reviewer:Date:Cherie Zakowski Kristine Molloy 4/29/2022 Overall Comments: Data are usable with appropriate qualifiers applied. Initial and Final Canister Pressure Results Acceptable Comments (note 5/1/2022 Comments (note 3 of 3 Attachment 2 Data Package Completeness Review Checklists VA SLC OU-1 Data Package Completeness Review Checklist SDG: 2203384 Required Documentation Yes No Comments 1. Cover letter complete with the following information: X  Title of report and laboratory unique report identification (sample delivery group number) X  Project name, site location X  Name and location of laboratory and second-site or subcontracted laboratory X  Client name and address X  Statement of authenticity and official signature and title of person authorizing report release X 2. Summary of samples received that correlates field sample IDs with the laboratory IDs X 3. Laboratory qualifier flags and definitions X 4. Preparation and/or analytical methods X 5. Sample results for each analyte (dry weight basis for soils)  Date received X  Date analyzed (and time of analysis if the holding time is less than or equal to 48 hours) X  Percent solids results for soil samples Not Applicable  Dilution factor (provide both diluted and undiluted results when available) X  Sample-specific reporting limit adjusted for sample size, dilution/concentration X  Sample-specific MDL adjusted for sample size, dilution/concentration X  Units X 6. Case Narrative that addresses the following information at a minimum: X  Sample receipt discrepancies X  Descriptions of all nonconformances in the sample receipt, handling, preparation, analytical and reporting processes and the corrective action taken in each occurrence X  Identification and justification for sample dilution X  Sample cooler temperature at time of receipt Not Applicable  Final residual vacuum of each sample canister immediately prior to analysis, or upon receipt (Air analyses only) x 7. Surrogate percent recoveries (surrogate result, target concentration, percent recovery) X Required Documentation Yes No Comments 8. MS/MSD and LCS spike concentrations, native sample results, spiked sample results, percent recoveries, and RPDs between the MS and MSD results (associated QC limits must also be provided) X LCSs only 9. Method blank results X 10. Analytical batch reference number that cross references samples to QC sample analyses X 11. Executed COC and sample receipt checklist X 12. Analytical sequence or laboratory run log that contains sufficient information to correlate samples reported in the summary results to the associated method QC information, such as initial and continuing calibration analyses X 13. Calibration blank results for inorganic analyses (required in hardcopy format only) Not Applicable 14. Inductively coupled plasma (ICP) interference check sample for inorganic analyses, true and measured concentrations and percent recoveries (required in hardcopy format only) Not Applicable 15. Reporting Limit Check Standard for metals analyses, true and measured concentrations and percent recoveries (if applicable, required in hardcopy format only) Not Applicable 16. Post-digestion spike recoveries for metals analyses, (if applicable; required in hardcopy format only) Not Applicable 17. Internal Standard recovery and retention time information, as applicable X 18. Initial calibration summary, including standard concentrations, response factors, average response factors, RSDs or correlation coefficients, and calibration plots or equations, if applicable (required in hardcopy format only) X 19. Continuing calibration verification summary, including expected and recovered concentrations and percent differences (required in hardcopy format only) X 20. Instrument tuning and mass calibration information for ICP /mass spectrometry analyses X 21. All associated instrument printouts for all samples, standards, and QC samples (e.g., raw data) necessary to re-calculate results as well as all manual integrations (if performed) X 22. Sample preparation logs that include the following information X  Preparation start and end times (as applicable) X  Beginning and ending temperatures of water baths and digestion blocks Not Applicable Data package complete and ready for Validation Kristine Molloy Date: 03/27/2022 Signature VA SLC OU-1 Data Package Completeness Review Checklist SDG: 2203385 Required Documentation Yes No Comments 1. Cover letter complete with the following information: X  Title of report and laboratory unique report identification (sample delivery group number) X  Project name, site location X  Name and location of laboratory and second-site or subcontracted laboratory X  Client name and address X  Statement of authenticity and official signature and title of person authorizing report release X 2. Summary of samples received that correlates field sample IDs with the laboratory IDs X 3. Laboratory qualifier flags and definitions X 4. Preparation and/or analytical methods X 5. Sample results for each analyte (dry weight basis for soils)  Date received X  Date analyzed (and time of analysis if the holding time is less than or equal to 48 hours) X  Percent solids results for soil samples Not Applicable  Dilution factor (provide both diluted and undiluted results when available) X  Sample-specific reporting limit adjusted for sample size, dilution/concentration X  Sample-specific MDL adjusted for sample size, dilution/concentration X  Units X 6. Case Narrative that addresses the following information at a minimum: X  Sample receipt discrepancies X  Descriptions of all nonconformances in the sample receipt, handling, preparation, analytical and reporting processes and the corrective action taken in each occurrence X  Identification and justification for sample dilution X  Sample cooler temperature at time of receipt Not Applicable  Final residual vacuum of each sample canister immediately prior to analysis, or upon receipt (Air analyses only) x 7. Surrogate percent recoveries (surrogate result, target concentration, percent recovery) X Required Documentation Yes No Comments 8. MS/MSD and LCS spike concentrations, native sample results, spiked sample results, percent recoveries, and RPDs between the MS and MSD results (associated QC limits must also be provided) X LCSs only 9. Method blank results X 10. Analytical batch reference number that cross references samples to QC sample analyses X 11. Executed COC and sample receipt checklist X 12. Analytical sequence or laboratory run log that contains sufficient information to correlate samples reported in the summary results to the associated method QC information, such as initial and continuing calibration analyses X 13. Calibration blank results for inorganic analyses (required in hardcopy format only) Not Applicable 14. Inductively coupled plasma (ICP) interference check sample for inorganic analyses, true and measured concentrations and percent recoveries (required in hardcopy format only) Not Applicable 15. Reporting Limit Check Standard for metals analyses, true and measured concentrations and percent recoveries (if applicable, required in hardcopy format only) Not Applicable 16. Post-digestion spike recoveries for metals analyses, (if applicable; required in hardcopy format only) Not Applicable 17. Internal Standard recovery and retention time information, as applicable X 18. Initial calibration summary, including standard concentrations, response factors, average response factors, RSDs or correlation coefficients, and calibration plots or equations, if applicable (required in hardcopy format only) X 19. Continuing calibration verification summary, including expected and recovered concentrations and percent differences (required in hardcopy format only) X 20. Instrument tuning and mass calibration information for ICP /mass spectrometry analyses X 21. All associated instrument printouts for all samples, standards, and QC samples (e.g., raw data) necessary to re-calculate results as well as all manual integrations (if performed) X 22. Sample preparation logs that include the following information X  Preparation start and end times (as applicable) X  Beginning and ending temperatures of water baths and digestion blocks Not Applicable Data package complete and ready for Validation Kristine Molloy Date: 03/27/2022 Signature VA SLC OU-1 Data Package Completeness Review Checklist SDG: 2203386 Required Documentation Yes No Comments 1. Cover letter complete with the following information: X  Title of report and laboratory unique report identification (sample delivery group number) X  Project name, site location X  Name and location of laboratory and second-site or subcontracted laboratory X  Client name and address X  Statement of authenticity and official signature and title of person authorizing report release X 2. Summary of samples received that correlates field sample IDs with the laboratory IDs X 3. Laboratory qualifier flags and definitions X 4. Preparation and/or analytical methods X 5. Sample results for each analyte (dry weight basis for soils)  Date received X  Date analyzed (and time of analysis if the holding time is less than or equal to 48 hours) X  Percent solids results for soil samples Not Applicable  Dilution factor (provide both diluted and undiluted results when available) X  Sample-specific reporting limit adjusted for sample size, dilution/concentration X  Sample-specific MDL adjusted for sample size, dilution/concentration X  Units X 6. Case Narrative that addresses the following information at a minimum: X  Sample receipt discrepancies X  Descriptions of all nonconformances in the sample receipt, handling, preparation, analytical and reporting processes and the corrective action taken in each occurrence X  Identification and justification for sample dilution X  Sample cooler temperature at time of receipt Not Applicable  Final residual vacuum of each sample canister immediately prior to analysis, or upon receipt (Air analyses only) x 7. Surrogate percent recoveries (surrogate result, target concentration, percent recovery) X Required Documentation Yes No Comments 8. MS/MSD and LCS spike concentrations, native sample results, spiked sample results, percent recoveries, and RPDs between the MS and MSD results (associated QC limits must also be provided) X LCSs only 9. Method blank results X 10. Analytical batch reference number that cross references samples to QC sample analyses X 11. Executed COC and sample receipt checklist X 12. Analytical sequence or laboratory run log that contains sufficient information to correlate samples reported in the summary results to the associated method QC information, such as initial and continuing calibration analyses X 13. Calibration blank results for inorganic analyses (required in hardcopy format only) Not Applicable 14. Inductively coupled plasma (ICP) interference check sample for inorganic analyses, true and measured concentrations and percent recoveries (required in hardcopy format only) Not Applicable 15. Reporting Limit Check Standard for metals analyses, true and measured concentrations and percent recoveries (if applicable, required in hardcopy format only) Not Applicable 16. Post-digestion spike recoveries for metals analyses, (if applicable; required in hardcopy format only) Not Applicable 17. Internal Standard recovery and retention time information, as applicable X 18. Initial calibration summary, including standard concentrations, response factors, average response factors, RSDs or correlation coefficients, and calibration plots or equations, if applicable (required in hardcopy format only) X 19. Continuing calibration verification summary, including expected and recovered concentrations and percent differences (required in hardcopy format only) X 20. Instrument tuning and mass calibration information for ICP /mass spectrometry analyses X 21. All associated instrument printouts for all samples, standards, and QC samples (e.g., raw data) necessary to re-calculate results as well as all manual integrations (if performed) X 22. Sample preparation logs that include the following information X  Preparation start and end times (as applicable) X  Beginning and ending temperatures of water baths and digestion blocks Not Applicable Data package complete and ready for Validation Kristine Molloy Date: 03/27/2022 Signature VA SLC OU-1 Data Package Completeness Review Checklist SDG: 2203546 Required Documentation Yes No Comments 1.Cover letter complete with the following information:X Title of report and laboratory unique report identification (sample delivery group number)X Project name, site location X Name and location of laboratory and second-site or subcontracted laboratory X Client name and address X Statement of authenticity and official signature and title of person authorizing report release X 2.Summary of samples received that correlates field sample IDs with the laboratory IDs X COC / sample / canister label discrepancies noted in the case narrative / Situation resolved 3.Laboratory qualifier flags and definitions X 4.Preparation and/or analytical methods X 5.Sample results for each analyte (dry weight basis for soils) Date received X Date analyzed (and time of analysis if the holding time is less than or equal to 48 hours)X Percent solids results for soil samples Not Applicable Dilution factor (provide both diluted and undiluted results when available)X Sample-specific reporting limit adjusted for sample size, dilution/concentration X Sample-specific MDL adjusted for sample size, dilution/concentration X Units X 6.Case Narrative that addresses the following information at a minimum:X Sample receipt discrepancies X Descriptions of all nonconformances in the sample receipt, handling, preparation, analytical and reporting processes and the corrective action taken in each occurrence X Identification and justification for sample dilution X Sample cooler temperature at time of receipt Not Applicable Final residual vacuum of each sample canister immediately prior to analysis, or upon receipt (Air analyses only) x 7.Surrogate percent recoveries (surrogate result, target concentration, percent recovery) X Required Documentation Yes No Comments 8. MS/MSD and LCS spike concentrations, native sample results, spiked sample results, percent recoveries, and RPDs between the MS and MSD results (associated QC limits must also be provided) X LCSs only 9. Method blank results X 10. Analytical batch reference number that cross references samples to QC sample analyses X 11. Executed COC and sample receipt checklist X 12. Analytical sequence or laboratory run log that contains sufficient information to correlate samples reported in the summary results to the associated method QC information, such as initial and continuing calibration analyses X 13. Calibration blank results for inorganic analyses (required in hardcopy format only) Not Applicable 14. Inductively coupled plasma (ICP) interference check sample for inorganic analyses, true and measured concentrations and percent recoveries (required in hardcopy format only) Not Applicable 15. Reporting Limit Check Standard for metals analyses, true and measured concentrations and percent recoveries (if applicable, required in hardcopy format only) Not Applicable 16. Post-digestion spike recoveries for metals analyses, (if applicable; required in hardcopy format only) Not Applicable 17. Internal Standard recovery and retention time information, as applicable X 18. Initial calibration summary, including standard concentrations, response factors, average response factors, RSDs or correlation coefficients, and calibration plots or equations, if applicable (required in hardcopy format only) X 19. Continuing calibration verification summary, including expected and recovered concentrations and percent differences (required in hardcopy format only) X 20. Instrument tuning and mass calibration information for ICP /mass spectrometry analyses X 21. All associated instrument printouts for all samples, standards, and QC samples (e.g., raw data) necessary to re-calculate results as well as all manual integrations (if performed) X 22. Sample preparation logs that include the following information X  Preparation start and end times (as applicable) X  Beginning and ending temperatures of water baths and digestion blocks Not Applicable Data package complete and ready for Validation Kristine Molloy Date: 04/03/2022 Signature VA SLC OU-1 Data Package Completeness Review Checklist SDG: 2203547 Required Documentation Yes No Comments 1. Cover letter complete with the following information: X  Title of report and laboratory unique report identification (sample delivery group number) X  Project name, site location X  Name and location of laboratory and second-site or subcontracted laboratory X  Client name and address X  Statement of authenticity and official signature and title of person authorizing report release X 2. Summary of samples received that correlates field sample IDs with the laboratory IDs X 3. Laboratory qualifier flags and definitions X 4. Preparation and/or analytical methods X 5. Sample results for each analyte (dry weight basis for soils)  Date received X  Date analyzed (and time of analysis if the holding time is less than or equal to 48 hours) X  Percent solids results for soil samples Not Applicable  Dilution factor (provide both diluted and undiluted results when available) X  Sample-specific reporting limit adjusted for sample size, dilution/concentration X  Sample-specific MDL adjusted for sample size, dilution/concentration X  Units X 6. Case Narrative that addresses the following information at a minimum: X  Sample receipt discrepancies X  Descriptions of all nonconformances in the sample receipt, handling, preparation, analytical and reporting processes and the corrective action taken in each occurrence X  Identification and justification for sample dilution X  Sample cooler temperature at time of receipt Not Applicable  Final residual vacuum of each sample canister immediately prior to analysis, or upon receipt (Air analyses only) x 7. Surrogate percent recoveries (surrogate result, target concentration, percent recovery) X Required Documentation Yes No Comments 8. MS/MSD and LCS spike concentrations, native sample results, spiked sample results, percent recoveries, and RPDs between the MS and MSD results (associated QC limits must also be provided) X LCSs only 9. Method blank results X 10. Analytical batch reference number that cross references samples to QC sample analyses X 11. Executed COC and sample receipt checklist X 12. Analytical sequence or laboratory run log that contains sufficient information to correlate samples reported in the summary results to the associated method QC information, such as initial and continuing calibration analyses X 13. Calibration blank results for inorganic analyses (required in hardcopy format only) Not Applicable 14. Inductively coupled plasma (ICP) interference check sample for inorganic analyses, true and measured concentrations and percent recoveries (required in hardcopy format only) Not Applicable 15. Reporting Limit Check Standard for metals analyses, true and measured concentrations and percent recoveries (if applicable, required in hardcopy format only) Not Applicable 16. Post-digestion spike recoveries for metals analyses, (if applicable; required in hardcopy format only) Not Applicable 17. Internal Standard recovery and retention time information, as applicable X 18. Initial calibration summary, including standard concentrations, response factors, average response factors, RSDs or correlation coefficients, and calibration plots or equations, if applicable (required in hardcopy format only) X 19. Continuing calibration verification summary, including expected and recovered concentrations and percent differences (required in hardcopy format only) X 20. Instrument tuning and mass calibration information for ICP /mass spectrometry analyses X 21. All associated instrument printouts for all samples, standards, and QC samples (e.g., raw data) necessary to re-calculate results as well as all manual integrations (if performed) X 22. Sample preparation logs that include the following information X  Preparation start and end times (as applicable) X  Beginning and ending temperatures of water baths and digestion blocks Not Applicable Data package complete and ready for Validation Kristine Molloy Date: 04/03/2022 Signature VA SLC OU-1 Data Package Completeness Review Checklist SDG: 2203550 Required Documentation Yes No Comments 1. Cover letter complete with the following information: X  Title of report and laboratory unique report identification (sample delivery group number) X  Project name, site location X  Name and location of laboratory and second-site or subcontracted laboratory X  Client name and address X  Statement of authenticity and official signature and title of person authorizing report release X 2. Summary of samples received that correlates field sample IDs with the laboratory IDs X 3. Laboratory qualifier flags and definitions X 4. Preparation and/or analytical methods X 5. Sample results for each analyte (dry weight basis for soils)  Date received X  Date analyzed (and time of analysis if the holding time is less than or equal to 48 hours) X  Percent solids results for soil samples Not Applicable  Dilution factor (provide both diluted and undiluted results when available) X  Sample-specific reporting limit adjusted for sample size, dilution/concentration X  Sample-specific MDL adjusted for sample size, dilution/concentration X  Units X 6. Case Narrative that addresses the following information at a minimum: X  Sample receipt discrepancies X  Descriptions of all nonconformances in the sample receipt, handling, preparation, analytical and reporting processes and the corrective action taken in each occurrence X  Identification and justification for sample dilution X  Sample cooler temperature at time of receipt Not Applicable  Final residual vacuum of each sample canister immediately prior to analysis, or upon receipt (Air analyses only) x 7. Surrogate percent recoveries (surrogate result, target concentration, percent recovery) X Required Documentation Yes No Comments 8. MS/MSD and LCS spike concentrations, native sample results, spiked sample results, percent recoveries, and RPDs between the MS and MSD results (associated QC limits must also be provided) X LCSs only 9. Method blank results X 10. Analytical batch reference number that cross references samples to QC sample analyses X 11. Executed COC and sample receipt checklist X 12. Analytical sequence or laboratory run log that contains sufficient information to correlate samples reported in the summary results to the associated method QC information, such as initial and continuing calibration analyses X 13. Calibration blank results for inorganic analyses (required in hardcopy format only) Not Applicable 14. Inductively coupled plasma (ICP) interference check sample for inorganic analyses, true and measured concentrations and percent recoveries (required in hardcopy format only) Not Applicable 15. Reporting Limit Check Standard for metals analyses, true and measured concentrations and percent recoveries (if applicable, required in hardcopy format only) Not Applicable 16. Post-digestion spike recoveries for metals analyses, (if applicable; required in hardcopy format only) Not Applicable 17. Internal Standard recovery and retention time information, as applicable X 18. Initial calibration summary, including standard concentrations, response factors, average response factors, RSDs or correlation coefficients, and calibration plots or equations, if applicable (required in hardcopy format only) X 19. Continuing calibration verification summary, including expected and recovered concentrations and percent differences (required in hardcopy format only) X 20. Instrument tuning and mass calibration information for ICP /mass spectrometry analyses X 21. All associated instrument printouts for all samples, standards, and QC samples (e.g., raw data) necessary to re-calculate results as well as all manual integrations (if performed) X 22. Sample preparation logs that include the following information X  Preparation start and end times (as applicable) X  Beginning and ending temperatures of water baths and digestion blocks Not Applicable Data package complete and ready for Validation Kristine Molloy Date: 4/03/2022 Signature VA SLC OU-1 Data Package Completeness Review Checklist SDG: 2203552 Required Documentation Yes No Comments 1. Cover letter complete with the following information: X  Title of report and laboratory unique report identification (sample delivery group number) X  Project name, site location X  Name and location of laboratory and second-site or subcontracted laboratory X  Client name and address X  Statement of authenticity and official signature and title of person authorizing report release X 2. Summary of samples received that correlates field sample IDs with the laboratory IDs X 3. Laboratory qualifier flags and definitions X 4. Preparation and/or analytical methods X 5. Sample results for each analyte (dry weight basis for soils)  Date received X  Date analyzed (and time of analysis if the holding time is less than or equal to 48 hours) X  Percent solids results for soil samples Not Applicable  Dilution factor (provide both diluted and undiluted results when available) X  Sample-specific reporting limit adjusted for sample size, dilution/concentration X  Sample-specific MDL adjusted for sample size, dilution/concentration X  Units X 6. Case Narrative that addresses the following information at a minimum: X  Sample receipt discrepancies X  Descriptions of all nonconformances in the sample receipt, handling, preparation, analytical and reporting processes and the corrective action taken in each occurrence X  Identification and justification for sample dilution X Dilutions were identified in case narrative  Sample cooler temperature at time of receipt Not Applicable  Final residual vacuum of each sample canister immediately prior to analysis, or upon receipt (Air analyses only) x 7. Surrogate percent recoveries (surrogate result, target concentration, percent recovery) X Required Documentation Yes No Comments 8. MS/MSD and LCS spike concentrations, native sample results, spiked sample results, percent recoveries, and RPDs between the MS and MSD results (associated QC limits must also be provided) X LCSs only 9. Method blank results X 10. Analytical batch reference number that cross references samples to QC sample analyses X 11. Executed COC and sample receipt checklist X 12. Analytical sequence or laboratory run log that contains sufficient information to correlate samples reported in the summary results to the associated method QC information, such as initial and continuing calibration analyses X 13. Calibration blank results for inorganic analyses (required in hardcopy format only) Not Applicable 14. Inductively coupled plasma (ICP) interference check sample for inorganic analyses, true and measured concentrations and percent recoveries (required in hardcopy format only) Not Applicable 15. Reporting Limit Check Standard for metals analyses, true and measured concentrations and percent recoveries (if applicable, required in hardcopy format only) Not Applicable 16. Post-digestion spike recoveries for metals analyses, (if applicable; required in hardcopy format only) Not Applicable 17. Internal Standard recovery and retention time information, as applicable X 18. Initial calibration summary, including standard concentrations, response factors, average response factors, RSDs or correlation coefficients, and calibration plots or equations, if applicable (required in hardcopy format only) X 19. Continuing calibration verification summary, including expected and recovered concentrations and percent differences (required in hardcopy format only) X 20. Instrument tuning and mass calibration information for ICP /mass spectrometry analyses X 21. All associated instrument printouts for all samples, standards, and QC samples (e.g., raw data) necessary to re-calculate results as well as all manual integrations (if performed) X 22. Sample preparation logs that include the following information X  Preparation start and end times (as applicable) X  Beginning and ending temperatures of water baths and digestion blocks Not Applicable Data package complete and ready for Validation Kristine Molloy Date: 04/03/2022 Signature VA SLC OU-1 Data Package Completeness Review Checklist SDG: 2203596 Required Documentation Yes No Comments 1. Cover letter complete with the following information: X  Title of report and laboratory unique report identification (sample delivery group number) X  Project name, site location X  Name and location of laboratory and second-site or subcontracted laboratory X  Client name and address X  Statement of authenticity and official signature and title of person authorizing report release X 2. Summary of samples received that correlates field sample IDs with the laboratory IDs X Revised COC with corrections was provided on 3/25/22 3. Laboratory qualifier flags and definitions X 4. Preparation and/or analytical methods X 5. Sample results for each analyte (dry weight basis for soils)  Date received X  Date analyzed (and time of analysis if the holding time is less than or equal to 48 hours) X  Percent solids results for soil samples Not Applicable  Dilution factor (provide both diluted and undiluted results when available) X  Sample-specific reporting limit adjusted for sample size, dilution/concentration X  Sample-specific MDL adjusted for sample size, dilution/concentration X  Units X 6. Case Narrative that addresses the following information at a minimum: X  Sample receipt discrepancies X  Descriptions of all nonconformances in the sample receipt, handling, preparation, analytical and reporting processes and the corrective action taken in each occurrence X  Identification and justification for sample dilution X  Sample cooler temperature at time of receipt Not Applicable  Final residual vacuum of each sample canister immediately prior to analysis, or upon receipt (Air analyses only) x 7. Surrogate percent recoveries (surrogate result, target concentration, percent recovery) X Required Documentation Yes No Comments 8. MS/MSD and LCS spike concentrations, native sample results, spiked sample results, percent recoveries, and RPDs between the MS and MSD results (associated QC limits must also be provided) X LCSs only 9. Method blank results X 10. Analytical batch reference number that cross references samples to QC sample analyses X 11. Executed COC and sample receipt checklist X Revised COC was provided and executed with corrections 12. Analytical sequence or laboratory run log that contains sufficient information to correlate samples reported in the summary results to the associated method QC information, such as initial and continuing calibration analyses X 13. Calibration blank results for inorganic analyses (required in hardcopy format only) Not Applicable 14. Inductively coupled plasma (ICP) interference check sample for inorganic analyses, true and measured concentrations and percent recoveries (required in hardcopy format only) Not Applicable 15. Reporting Limit Check Standard for metals analyses, true and measured concentrations and percent recoveries (if applicable, required in hardcopy format only) Not Applicable 16. Post-digestion spike recoveries for metals analyses, (if applicable; required in hardcopy format only) Not Applicable 17. Internal Standard recovery and retention time information, as applicable X 18. Initial calibration summary, including standard concentrations, response factors, average response factors, RSDs or correlation coefficients, and calibration plots or equations, if applicable (required in hardcopy format only) X 19. Continuing calibration verification summary, including expected and recovered concentrations and percent differences (required in hardcopy format only) X 20. Instrument tuning and mass calibration information for ICP /mass spectrometry analyses X 21. All associated instrument printouts for all samples, standards, and QC samples (e.g., raw data) necessary to re-calculate results as well as all manual integrations (if performed) X 22. Sample preparation logs that include the following information X  Preparation start and end times (as applicable) X  Beginning and ending temperatures of water baths and digestion blocks Not Applicable Data package complete and ready for Validation Kristine Molloy Date: 04/04/2022 Signature VA SLC OU-1 Data Package Completeness Review Checklist SDG: 2203674 Required Documentation Yes No Comments 1. Cover letter complete with the following information: X  Title of report and laboratory unique report identification (sample delivery group number) X  Project name, site location X  Name and location of laboratory and second-site or subcontracted laboratory X  Client name and address X  Statement of authenticity and official signature and title of person authorizing report release X 2. Summary of samples received that correlates field sample IDs with the laboratory IDs X Revised COC with corrections was provided on 3/29/22 3. Laboratory qualifier flags and definitions X 4. Preparation and/or analytical methods X 5. Sample results for each analyte (dry weight basis for soils)  Date received X  Date analyzed (and time of analysis if the holding time is less than or equal to 48 hours) X  Percent solids results for soil samples Not Applicable  Dilution factor (provide both diluted and undiluted results when available) X  Sample-specific reporting limit adjusted for sample size, dilution/concentration X  Sample-specific MDL adjusted for sample size, dilution/concentration X  Units X 6. Case Narrative that addresses the following information at a minimum: X  Sample receipt discrepancies X  Descriptions of all nonconformances in the sample receipt, handling, preparation, analytical and reporting processes and the corrective action taken in each occurrence X  Identification and justification for sample dilution X  Sample cooler temperature at time of receipt Not Applicable  Final residual vacuum of each sample canister immediately prior to analysis, or upon receipt (Air analyses only) x 7. Surrogate percent recoveries (surrogate result, target concentration, percent recovery) X Required Documentation Yes No Comments 8. MS/MSD and LCS spike concentrations, native sample results, spiked sample results, percent recoveries, and RPDs between the MS and MSD results (associated QC limits must also be provided) X LCSs only 9. Method blank results X 10. Analytical batch reference number that cross references samples to QC sample analyses X 11. Executed COC and sample receipt checklist X Revised COC was provided and executed with corrections 12. Analytical sequence or laboratory run log that contains sufficient information to correlate samples reported in the summary results to the associated method QC information, such as initial and continuing calibration analyses X 13. Calibration blank results for inorganic analyses (required in hardcopy format only) Not Applicable 14. Inductively coupled plasma (ICP) interference check sample for inorganic analyses, true and measured concentrations and percent recoveries (required in hardcopy format only) Not Applicable 15. Reporting Limit Check Standard for metals analyses, true and measured concentrations and percent recoveries (if applicable, required in hardcopy format only) Not Applicable 16. Post-digestion spike recoveries for metals analyses, (if applicable; required in hardcopy format only) Not Applicable 17. Internal Standard recovery and retention time information, as applicable X 18. Initial calibration summary, including standard concentrations, response factors, average response factors, RSDs or correlation coefficients, and calibration plots or equations, if applicable (required in hardcopy format only) X 19. Continuing calibration verification summary, including expected and recovered concentrations and percent differences (required in hardcopy format only) X 20. Instrument tuning and mass calibration information for ICP /mass spectrometry analyses X 21. All associated instrument printouts for all samples, standards, and QC samples (e.g., raw data) necessary to re-calculate results as well as all manual integrations (if performed) X 22. Sample preparation logs that include the following information X  Preparation start and end times (as applicable) X  Beginning and ending temperatures of water baths and digestion blocks Not Applicable Data package complete and ready for Validation Kristine Molloy Date: 04/08/2022 Signature VA SLC OU-1 Data Package Completeness Review Checklist SDG: 2203675 Required Documentation Yes No Comments 1. Cover letter complete with the following information: X  Title of report and laboratory unique report identification (sample delivery group number) X  Project name, site location X  Name and location of laboratory and second-site or subcontracted laboratory X  Client name and address X  Statement of authenticity and official signature and title of person authorizing report release X 2. Summary of samples received that correlates field sample IDs with the laboratory IDs X 3. Laboratory qualifier flags and definitions X 4. Preparation and/or analytical methods X 5. Sample results for each analyte (dry weight basis for soils)  Date received X  Date analyzed (and time of analysis if the holding time is less than or equal to 48 hours) X  Percent solids results for soil samples Not Applicable  Dilution factor (provide both diluted and undiluted results when available) X  Sample-specific reporting limit adjusted for sample size, dilution/concentration X  Sample-specific MDL adjusted for sample size, dilution/concentration X  Units X 6. Case Narrative that addresses the following information at a minimum: X  Sample receipt discrepancies X  Descriptions of all nonconformances in the sample receipt, handling, preparation, analytical and reporting processes and the corrective action taken in each occurrence X  Identification and justification for sample dilution X  Sample cooler temperature at time of receipt Not Applicable  Final residual vacuum of each sample canister immediately prior to analysis, or upon receipt (Air analyses only) x 7. Surrogate percent recoveries (surrogate result, target concentration, percent recovery) X Required Documentation Yes No Comments 8. MS/MSD and LCS spike concentrations, native sample results, spiked sample results, percent recoveries, and RPDs between the MS and MSD results (associated QC limits must also be provided) X LCSs only 9. Method blank results X 10. Analytical batch reference number that cross references samples to QC sample analyses X 11. Executed COC and sample receipt checklist X 12. Analytical sequence or laboratory run log that contains sufficient information to correlate samples reported in the summary results to the associated method QC information, such as initial and continuing calibration analyses X 13. Calibration blank results for inorganic analyses (required in hardcopy format only) Not Applicable 14. Inductively coupled plasma (ICP) interference check sample for inorganic analyses, true and measured concentrations and percent recoveries (required in hardcopy format only) Not Applicable 15. Reporting Limit Check Standard for metals analyses, true and measured concentrations and percent recoveries (if applicable, required in hardcopy format only) Not Applicable 16. Post-digestion spike recoveries for metals analyses, (if applicable; required in hardcopy format only) Not Applicable 17. Internal Standard recovery and retention time information, as applicable X 18. Initial calibration summary, including standard concentrations, response factors, average response factors, RSDs or correlation coefficients, and calibration plots or equations, if applicable (required in hardcopy format only) X 19. Continuing calibration verification summary, including expected and recovered concentrations and percent differences (required in hardcopy format only) X 20. Instrument tuning and mass calibration information for ICP /mass spectrometry analyses X 21. All associated instrument printouts for all samples, standards, and QC samples (e.g., raw data) necessary to re-calculate results as well as all manual integrations (if performed) X 22. Sample preparation logs that include the following information X  Preparation start and end times (as applicable) X  Beginning and ending temperatures of water baths and digestion blocks Not Applicable Data package complete and ready for Validation Kristine Molloy Date: 04/08/2022 Signature VA SLC OU-1 Data Package Completeness Review Checklist SDG: 2205002 Required Documentation Yes No Comments 1. Cover letter complete with the following information: X  Title of report and laboratory unique report identification (sample delivery group number) X  Project name, site location X  Name and location of laboratory and second-site or subcontracted laboratory X  Client name and address X  Statement of authenticity and official signature and title of person authorizing report release X 2. Summary of samples received that correlates field sample IDs with the laboratory IDs X 3. Laboratory qualifier flags and definitions X 4. Preparation and/or analytical methods X 5. Sample results for each analyte (dry weight basis for soils)  Date received X  Date analyzed (and time of analysis if the holding time is less than or equal to 48 hours) X  Percent solids results for soil samples Not Applicable  Dilution factor (provide both diluted and undiluted results when available) X  Sample-specific reporting limit adjusted for sample size, dilution/concentration X  Sample-specific MDL adjusted for sample size, dilution/concentration X  Units X 6. Case Narrative that addresses the following information at a minimum: X  Sample receipt discrepancies X  Descriptions of all nonconformances in the sample receipt, handling, preparation, analytical and reporting processes and the corrective action taken in each occurrence X  Identification and justification for sample dilution X  Sample cooler temperature at time of receipt Not Applicable  Final residual vacuum of each sample canister immediately prior to analysis, or upon receipt (Air analyses only) x 7. Surrogate percent recoveries (surrogate result, target concentration, percent recovery) X Required Documentation Yes No Comments 8. MS/MSD and LCS spike concentrations, native sample results, spiked sample results, percent recoveries, and RPDs between the MS and MSD results (associated QC limits must also be provided) X LCSs only 9. Method blank results X 10. Analytical batch reference number that cross references samples to QC sample analyses X 11. Executed COC and sample receipt checklist X COC was not filled out with proper writing utensil 12. Analytical sequence or laboratory run log that contains sufficient information to correlate samples reported in the summary results to the associated method QC information, such as initial and continuing calibration analyses X 13. Calibration blank results for inorganic analyses (required in hardcopy format only) Not Applicable 14. Inductively coupled plasma (ICP) interference check sample for inorganic analyses, true and measured concentrations and percent recoveries (required in hardcopy format only) Not Applicable 15. Reporting Limit Check Standard for metals analyses, true and measured concentrations and percent recoveries (if applicable, required in hardcopy format only) Not Applicable 16. Post-digestion spike recoveries for metals analyses, (if applicable; required in hardcopy format only) Not Applicable 17. Internal Standard recovery and retention time information, as applicable X 18. Initial calibration summary, including standard concentrations, response factors, average response factors, RSDs or correlation coefficients, and calibration plots or equations, if applicable (required in hardcopy format only) X 19. Continuing calibration verification summary, including expected and recovered concentrations and percent differences (required in hardcopy format only) X 20. Instrument tuning and mass calibration information for ICP /mass spectrometry analyses X 21. All associated instrument printouts for all samples, standards, and QC samples (e.g., raw data) necessary to re-calculate results as well as all manual integrations (if performed) X 22. Sample preparation logs that include the following information X  Preparation start and end times (as applicable) X  Beginning and ending temperatures of water baths and digestion blocks Not Applicable Data package complete and ready for Validation Kristine Molloy Date: 05/11/2022 Signature VA SLC OU-1 Data Package Completeness Review Checklist SDG: L1470815 Required Documentation Yes No Comments 1. Cover letter complete with the following information: X  Title of report and laboratory unique report identification (sample delivery group number) X  Project name, site location X  Name and location of laboratory and second-site or subcontracted laboratory X  Client name and address X  Statement of authenticity and official signature and title of person authorizing report release X 2. Summary of samples received that correlates field sample IDs with the laboratory IDs X 3. Laboratory qualifier flags and definitions X 4. Preparation and/or analytical methods X 5. Sample results for each analyte (dry weight basis for soils)  Date received X  Date analyzed (and time of analysis if the holding time is less than or equal to 48 hours) X  Percent solids results for soil samples Not Applicable  Dilution factor (provide both diluted and undiluted results when available) X  Sample-specific reporting limit adjusted for sample size, dilution/concentration X  Sample-specific MDL adjusted for sample size, dilution/concentration X  Units X 6. Case Narrative that addresses the following information at a minimum: X  Sample receipt discrepancies X  Descriptions of all nonconformances in the sample receipt, handling, preparation, analytical and reporting processes and the corrective action taken in each occurrence X  Identification and justification for sample dilution X  Sample cooler temperature at time of receipt Not Applicable  Final residual vacuum of each sample canister immediately prior to analysis, or upon receipt (Air analyses only) x 7. Surrogate percent recoveries (surrogate result, target concentration, percent recovery) X Required Documentation Yes No Comments 8. MS/MSD and LCS spike concentrations, native sample results, spiked sample results, percent recoveries, and RPDs between the MS and MSD results (associated QC limits must also be provided) X LCSs only 9. Method blank results X 10. Analytical batch reference number that cross references samples to QC sample analyses X 11. Executed COC and sample receipt checklist X 12. Analytical sequence or laboratory run log that contains sufficient information to correlate samples reported in the summary results to the associated method QC information, such as initial and continuing calibration analyses X 13. Calibration blank results for inorganic analyses (required in hardcopy format only) Not Applicable 14. Inductively coupled plasma (ICP) interference check sample for inorganic analyses, true and measured concentrations and percent recoveries (required in hardcopy format only) Not Applicable 15. Reporting Limit Check Standard for metals analyses, true and measured concentrations and percent recoveries (if applicable, required in hardcopy format only) Not Applicable 16. Post-digestion spike recoveries for metals analyses, (if applicable; required in hardcopy format only) Not Applicable 17. Internal Standard recovery and retention time information, as applicable X 18. Initial calibration summary, including standard concentrations, response factors, average response factors, RSDs or correlation coefficients, and calibration plots or equations, if applicable (required in hardcopy format only) X 19. Continuing calibration verification summary, including expected and recovered concentrations and percent differences (required in hardcopy format only) X 20. Instrument tuning and mass calibration information for ICP /mass spectrometry analyses X 21. All associated instrument printouts for all samples, standards, and QC samples (e.g., raw data) necessary to re-calculate results as well as all manual integrations (if performed) X 22. Sample preparation logs that include the following information X  Preparation start and end times (as applicable) X  Beginning and ending temperatures of water baths and digestion blocks Not Applicable Data package complete and ready for Validation Kristine Molloy Date: 03/30/2022 Signature VA SLC OU-1 Data Package Completeness Review Checklist SDG: L1470817 Required Documentation Yes No Comments 1. Cover letter complete with the following information: X  Title of report and laboratory unique report identification (sample delivery group number) X  Project name, site location X  Name and location of laboratory and second-site or subcontracted laboratory X  Client name and address X  Statement of authenticity and official signature and title of person authorizing report release X 2. Summary of samples received that correlates field sample IDs with the laboratory IDs X 3. Laboratory qualifier flags and definitions X 4. Preparation and/or analytical methods X 5. Sample results for each analyte (dry weight basis for soils)  Date received X  Date analyzed (and time of analysis if the holding time is less than or equal to 48 hours) X  Percent solids results for soil samples Not Applicable  Dilution factor (provide both diluted and undiluted results when available) X  Sample-specific reporting limit adjusted for sample size, dilution/concentration X  Sample-specific MDL adjusted for sample size, dilution/concentration X  Units X 6. Case Narrative that addresses the following information at a minimum: X  Sample receipt discrepancies X  Descriptions of all nonconformances in the sample receipt, handling, preparation, analytical and reporting processes and the corrective action taken in each occurrence X  Identification and justification for sample dilution X  Sample cooler temperature at time of receipt Not Applicable  Final residual vacuum of each sample canister immediately prior to analysis, or upon receipt (Air analyses only) x 7. Surrogate percent recoveries (surrogate result, target concentration, percent recovery) X Required Documentation Yes No Comments 8. MS/MSD and LCS spike concentrations, native sample results, spiked sample results, percent recoveries, and RPDs between the MS and MSD results (associated QC limits must also be provided) X LCSs only 9. Method blank results X 10. Analytical batch reference number that cross references samples to QC sample analyses X 11. Executed COC and sample receipt checklist X 12. Analytical sequence or laboratory run log that contains sufficient information to correlate samples reported in the summary results to the associated method QC information, such as initial and continuing calibration analyses X 13. Calibration blank results for inorganic analyses (required in hardcopy format only) Not Applicable 14. Inductively coupled plasma (ICP) interference check sample for inorganic analyses, true and measured concentrations and percent recoveries (required in hardcopy format only) Not Applicable 15. Reporting Limit Check Standard for metals analyses, true and measured concentrations and percent recoveries (if applicable, required in hardcopy format only) Not Applicable 16. Post-digestion spike recoveries for metals analyses, (if applicable; required in hardcopy format only) Not Applicable 17. Internal Standard recovery and retention time information, as applicable X 18. Initial calibration summary, including standard concentrations, response factors, average response factors, RSDs or correlation coefficients, and calibration plots or equations, if applicable (required in hardcopy format only) X 19. Continuing calibration verification summary, including expected and recovered concentrations and percent differences (required in hardcopy format only) X 20. Instrument tuning and mass calibration information for ICP /mass spectrometry analyses X 21. All associated instrument printouts for all samples, standards, and QC samples (e.g., raw data) necessary to re-calculate results as well as all manual integrations (if performed) X 22. Sample preparation logs that include the following information X  Preparation start and end times (as applicable) X  Beginning and ending temperatures of water baths and digestion blocks Not Applicable Data package complete and ready for Validation Kristine Molloy Date: 03/30/2022 Signature VA SLC OU-1 Data Package Completeness Review Checklist SDG: L1470822 Required Documentation Yes No Comments 1. Cover letter complete with the following information: X  Title of report and laboratory unique report identification (sample delivery group number) X  Project name, site location X  Name and location of laboratory and second-site or subcontracted laboratory X  Client name and address X  Statement of authenticity and official signature and title of person authorizing report release X 2. Summary of samples received that correlates field sample IDs with the laboratory IDs X 3. Laboratory qualifier flags and definitions X 4. Preparation and/or analytical methods X 5. Sample results for each analyte (dry weight basis for soils)  Date received X  Date analyzed (and time of analysis if the holding time is less than or equal to 48 hours) X  Percent solids results for soil samples Not Applicable  Dilution factor (provide both diluted and undiluted results when available) X  Sample-specific reporting limit adjusted for sample size, dilution/concentration X  Sample-specific MDL adjusted for sample size, dilution/concentration X  Units X 6. Case Narrative that addresses the following information at a minimum: X  Sample receipt discrepancies X  Descriptions of all nonconformances in the sample receipt, handling, preparation, analytical and reporting processes and the corrective action taken in each occurrence X  Identification and justification for sample dilution X  Sample cooler temperature at time of receipt Not Applicable  Final residual vacuum of each sample canister immediately prior to analysis, or upon receipt (Air analyses only) x 7. Surrogate percent recoveries (surrogate result, target concentration, percent recovery) X Required Documentation Yes No Comments 8. MS/MSD and LCS spike concentrations, native sample results, spiked sample results, percent recoveries, and RPDs between the MS and MSD results (associated QC limits must also be provided) X LCSs only 9. Method blank results X 10. Analytical batch reference number that cross references samples to QC sample analyses X 11. Executed COC and sample receipt checklist X 12. Analytical sequence or laboratory run log that contains sufficient information to correlate samples reported in the summary results to the associated method QC information, such as initial and continuing calibration analyses X 13. Calibration blank results for inorganic analyses (required in hardcopy format only) Not Applicable 14. Inductively coupled plasma (ICP) interference check sample for inorganic analyses, true and measured concentrations and percent recoveries (required in hardcopy format only) Not Applicable 15. Reporting Limit Check Standard for metals analyses, true and measured concentrations and percent recoveries (if applicable, required in hardcopy format only) Not Applicable 16. Post-digestion spike recoveries for metals analyses, (if applicable; required in hardcopy format only) Not Applicable 17. Internal Standard recovery and retention time information, as applicable X 18. Initial calibration summary, including standard concentrations, response factors, average response factors, RSDs or correlation coefficients, and calibration plots or equations, if applicable (required in hardcopy format only) X 19. Continuing calibration verification summary, including expected and recovered concentrations and percent differences (required in hardcopy format only) X 20. Instrument tuning and mass calibration information for ICP /mass spectrometry analyses X 21. All associated instrument printouts for all samples, standards, and QC samples (e.g., raw data) necessary to re-calculate results as well as all manual integrations (if performed) X 22. Sample preparation logs that include the following information X  Preparation start and end times (as applicable) X  Beginning and ending temperatures of water baths and digestion blocks Not Applicable Data package complete and ready for Validation Kristine Molloy Date: 03/30/2022 Signature VA SLC OU-1 Data Package Completeness Review Checklist SDG: L1470823 Required Documentation Yes No Comments 1. Cover letter complete with the following information: X  Title of report and laboratory unique report identification (sample delivery group number) X  Project name, site location X  Name and location of laboratory and second-site or subcontracted laboratory X  Client name and address X  Statement of authenticity and official signature and title of person authorizing report release X 2. Summary of samples received that correlates field sample IDs with the laboratory IDs X 3. Laboratory qualifier flags and definitions X 4. Preparation and/or analytical methods X 5. Sample results for each analyte (dry weight basis for soils)  Date received X  Date analyzed (and time of analysis if the holding time is less than or equal to 48 hours) X  Percent solids results for soil samples Not Applicable  Dilution factor (provide both diluted and undiluted results when available) X  Sample-specific reporting limit adjusted for sample size, dilution/concentration X  Sample-specific MDL adjusted for sample size, dilution/concentration X  Units X 6. Case Narrative that addresses the following information at a minimum: X  Sample receipt discrepancies X  Descriptions of all nonconformances in the sample receipt, handling, preparation, analytical and reporting processes and the corrective action taken in each occurrence X  Identification and justification for sample dilution X  Sample cooler temperature at time of receipt Not Applicable  Final residual vacuum of each sample canister immediately prior to analysis, or upon receipt (Air analyses only) x 7. Surrogate percent recoveries (surrogate result, target concentration, percent recovery) X Required Documentation Yes No Comments 8. MS/MSD and LCS spike concentrations, native sample results, spiked sample results, percent recoveries, and RPDs between the MS and MSD results (associated QC limits must also be provided) X LCSs only 9. Method blank results X 10. Analytical batch reference number that cross references samples to QC sample analyses X 11. Executed COC and sample receipt checklist X 12. Analytical sequence or laboratory run log that contains sufficient information to correlate samples reported in the summary results to the associated method QC information, such as initial and continuing calibration analyses X 13. Calibration blank results for inorganic analyses (required in hardcopy format only) Not Applicable 14. Inductively coupled plasma (ICP) interference check sample for inorganic analyses, true and measured concentrations and percent recoveries (required in hardcopy format only) Not Applicable 15. Reporting Limit Check Standard for metals analyses, true and measured concentrations and percent recoveries (if applicable, required in hardcopy format only) Not Applicable 16. Post-digestion spike recoveries for metals analyses, (if applicable; required in hardcopy format only) Not Applicable 17. Internal Standard recovery and retention time information, as applicable X 18. Initial calibration summary, including standard concentrations, response factors, average response factors, RSDs or correlation coefficients, and calibration plots or equations, if applicable (required in hardcopy format only) X 19. Continuing calibration verification summary, including expected and recovered concentrations and percent differences (required in hardcopy format only) X 20. Instrument tuning and mass calibration information for ICP /mass spectrometry analyses X 21. All associated instrument printouts for all samples, standards, and QC samples (e.g., raw data) necessary to re-calculate results as well as all manual integrations (if performed) X 22. Sample preparation logs that include the following information X  Preparation start and end times (as applicable) X  Beginning and ending temperatures of water baths and digestion blocks Not Applicable Data package complete and ready for Validation Kristine Molloy Date: 03/30/2022 Signature VA SLC OU-1 Data Package Completeness Review Checklist SDG: L1472579 Required Documentation Yes No Comments 1. Cover letter complete with the following information: X  Title of report and laboratory unique report identification (sample delivery group number) X  Project name, site location X  Name and location of laboratory and second-site or subcontracted laboratory X  Client name and address X  Statement of authenticity and official signature and title of person authorizing report release X 2. Summary of samples received that correlates field sample IDs with the laboratory IDs X 3. Laboratory qualifier flags and definitions X 4. Preparation and/or analytical methods X 5. Sample results for each analyte (dry weight basis for soils)  Date received X  Date analyzed (and time of analysis if the holding time is less than or equal to 48 hours) X  Percent solids results for soil samples Not Applicable  Dilution factor (provide both diluted and undiluted results when available) X  Sample-specific reporting limit adjusted for sample size, dilution/concentration X  Sample-specific MDL adjusted for sample size, dilution/concentration X  Units X 6. Case Narrative that addresses the following information at a minimum: X  Sample receipt discrepancies X  Descriptions of all nonconformances in the sample receipt, handling, preparation, analytical and reporting processes and the corrective action taken in each occurrence X  Identification and justification for sample dilution X  Sample cooler temperature at time of receipt Not Applicable  Final residual vacuum of each sample canister immediately prior to analysis, or upon receipt (Air analyses only) x 7. Surrogate percent recoveries (surrogate result, target concentration, percent recovery) X Required Documentation Yes No Comments 8. MS/MSD and LCS spike concentrations, native sample results, spiked sample results, percent recoveries, and RPDs between the MS and MSD results (associated QC limits must also be provided) X LCSs only 9. Method blank results X 10. Analytical batch reference number that cross references samples to QC sample analyses X 11. Executed COC and sample receipt checklist X No analysis listed on COC – clarification provided – COC executed 12. Analytical sequence or laboratory run log that contains sufficient information to correlate samples reported in the summary results to the associated method QC information, such as initial and continuing calibration analyses X 13. Calibration blank results for inorganic analyses (required in hardcopy format only) Not Applicable 14. Inductively coupled plasma (ICP) interference check sample for inorganic analyses, true and measured concentrations and percent recoveries (required in hardcopy format only) Not Applicable 15. Reporting Limit Check Standard for metals analyses, true and measured concentrations and percent recoveries (if applicable, required in hardcopy format only) Not Applicable 16. Post-digestion spike recoveries for metals analyses, (if applicable; required in hardcopy format only) Not Applicable 17. Internal Standard recovery and retention time information, as applicable X 18. Initial calibration summary, including standard concentrations, response factors, average response factors, RSDs or correlation coefficients, and calibration plots or equations, if applicable (required in hardcopy format only) X 19. Continuing calibration verification summary, including expected and recovered concentrations and percent differences (required in hardcopy format only) X 20. Instrument tuning and mass calibration information for ICP /mass spectrometry analyses X 21. All associated instrument printouts for all samples, standards, and QC samples (e.g., raw data) necessary to re-calculate results as well as all manual integrations (if performed) X 22. Sample preparation logs that include the following information X  Preparation start and end times (as applicable) X  Beginning and ending temperatures of water baths and digestion blocks Not Applicable Data package complete and ready for Validation Kristine Molloy Date: 03/27/2022 Signature Attachment 3 Analytical Data Packages