HomeMy WebLinkAboutDSHW-2024-008073 BINGHAM ENGINEERING, INC. 262 N Wright Brothers Drive, Salt Lake City, Utah 84116 801.532.2520
PROJECT MEMORANDUM & REPORT
TO: Ethan A. Upton - Utah Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control
Randy Owen – Colliers
George Vidalakis
FROM: Brent S. Bingham - Bingham Engineering, Inc.
DATE: July 15, 2024 (Revised August 20, 2024)
SUBJECT: Site Management Groundwater Monitoring Report (Event 43)
Sampling Performed on June 13, 2024
Family Center at East Downtown
Salt Lake City, Utah
NEW STUDIES
In addition to the recent and normal field, lab work and report preparation, additional focus and research
relating to the behavior of Tetrachloroethene (PCE) was undertaken. This resulted in a better
understanding of its past, recent and long term behavior. These were successful and, hopefully, will
provide everyone with better understanding for the Family Center location. These efforts and analyses
also provide explanations for spikes and variation in past testing. The results are summarized near the
end of this memorandum and before the tables and figures. In addition, there are numerous new figures
following Figure 3. We recommend those reviewing this material pay particular attention to the new
material as it is important to future discussions.
SUMMARY OF RECENT WORK
Following is a site management groundwater monitoring report on the Family Center at East Downtown,
Salt Lake City, Utah, performed at the request of George Vidalakis and Randy Owen. This work follows
earlier communications with personnel of the Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control and
those of the management of the Family Center at East Downtown. The previous sampling and water level
measurements were made in October 2023.
There are 3 monitoring wells at the site identified as MW-12, DH-19 and DH-21. The locations of the
three wells, along with 21 other exploratory locations, are shown on Figure 1. The monitoring plan calls
for groundwater depth measurements at all three wells, while also including groundwater sampling at
MW-12 and subsequent testing for Tetrachloroethylene (PCE).
Prior to this work and as stated above, the last sampling and measurements were made in October of
2023. On June 13, 2024, groundwater depth measurements were made at all 3 wells and sampling took
place at WM-12 with transport of the sample to Chemtech-Ford the same day. All measurements and
resulting groundwater elevations are shown in Table 2.
Site Management Groundwater Monitoring Report (June 2024)
Family Center at East Downtown
Bingham Engineering, Inc.. 2 June 2024 Sampling
Project No. 3453-006
The groundwater was tested as described in the approved Site Management Plan (SMP) for the risk-based
closure of the tetrachloroethene (PCE) release associated with the Family Center site located in East
Downtown, Salt Lake City. However, the current testing protocol was updated to EPA Method 8260D.
The groundwater sampled at MW-12 had a PCE concentration of 113 micrograms/liter and a groundwater
depth of 14.29 ft at the time of sampling. This concentration did not exceed the corrective action level of
396 ppb.
From the ground water measurements, it can be inferred that the direction of the groundwater flow in the
area of the site is toward the southwest and is shown on Figure 1.
INTRODUCTION
This project memorandum presents the results of the groundwater sampling event performed on June 13,
2024 at the Family Center located between 600 East and 700 East and between 4th South and 5th South in
Salt Lake City, Utah. This groundwater monitoring is required as described in the approved Site
Management Plan (SMP) for the risk-based closure of the tetrachloroethene (PCE) release associated with
the Family Center site located in East Downtown, Salt Lake City. This event, in addition to the previous
groundwater monitoring events, represents periodic groundwater sampling initiated in October 1995 and
continuing through the present with a period of non-sampling from 2018 to October 2023...
Prior to the current event, semi-annual and quarterly monitoring were performed due to the Site exceeding
the SMP action level of 396 ppb for tetrachloroethene (PCE) during the June 10, 1999 semi-annual
monitoring (Event 10). The PCE levels detected from the January 2000 sampling to the May 2010
sampling did not exceed the SMP action level. Based on lower levels of PCE the sampling frequency was
modified to annual sampling starting with the June 2011 sampling event. The June of 2011 sample and
August of 2011 re-sample from monitoring well MW-12 detected PCE level of 521 and 605
Micrograms/Liter, respectively. This prompted reverting back to semi-annual sampling from annual
sampling schedule. All sampling events since 2011 have been below the action level of 396
Micrograms/Liter. However, a period of non-sampling occurred from 2017 to October 2023.
The sampling prior to this sampling occurred on October 5, 2023 with results of 253 Micrograms/liter,
well below the action level of 396 Micrograms/Liter. Depth to groundwater at that time was 13.85 feet.
In addition to the current results, we have provided a review of the sampling activities, and a comparison
of the results with the risk-based Corrective Action Level developed in the Site Management Plan.
FIELD ACTIVITIES AND WELL HISTORY
Groundwater Sampling
Bingham Engineering, Inc. (Bingham) personnel performed groundwater sampling of the down-gradient
well identified on Figure 1 as MW-12. The sampling was performed following depth measurements and
purging of the well. The well was sampled on June 13, 2024. The groundwater sampling events were
performed according to the RCRA Ground-Water Monitoring Technical Enforcement Guidance
Document (TEGD) guidelines utilizing a bottom-dispensing disposable PVC bailer. The sampling
activities and groundwater measurements were documented on field data sheets which are provided along
with chain of custody forms in Appendix A.
Site Management Groundwater Monitoring Report (June 2024)
Family Center at East Downtown
Bingham Engineering, Inc.. 3 June 2024 Sampling
Project No. 3453-006
Groundwater samples were hand delivered to Chemtech-Ford located in Sandy, Utah, under proper chain
of custody control and on the same day as sampling.
Water Level Measurements
Following rehabilitation of all of the well covers, groundwater level measurements were obtained over a
one week period beginning on October 5, 2023 with the latest measurement on October 12, 2023.
Generally, three locations are being monitored for groundwater levels: MW-12, DH-19, and DH-21 as
shown on Figure 1. DH-21 is located 155 feet up-gradient from MW-12 and DH-19 is located 243 feet
up-gradient from MW-12 as shown on Figure 1.
Water level measurements (in feet below the top of the well pipe) at the three wells for current and
previous measurements are shown below:
Depth to Groundwater - More Recent Measurements
Date ===> 6/13/2024 10/5-12/2023 3/9/2016 8/12/2015 5/13/2015 3/12/2015
DH-21 15.87’ *15.75’ 16.6’ 16.40’ 16.26’ 16.57
DH-19 12.39’ *15.14’ 13.9’ 14.03’ 13.91’ 13.75’
MW-12 14.29’ 13.85’ 14.89’ 14.56’ 14.40’ 15.07’
* Measured several days after purging and sampling in MW-12
Direction of Groundwater Flow and Comparative Measurements
Based on the groundwater monitoring data in the past and the recent event, the inferred direction of the
shallow groundwater is towards the southwest as on the Site Map (Figure 1). The direction of flow
remains constant with past measurements. Groundwater data is presented in the attached bar graph titled
“Water Levels” (Figure 2). The period of record includes July 2005 through May 2016, October 2023
and June 2024. Additional results can be provided upon request. The graph shows the water levels along
the groundwater gradient extending from the down-gradient monitoring well (MW-12).
Comparison of current data with the groundwater levels obtained in August of 2015 indicates that the
direction of groundwater flow remains toward the southwest. The groundwater levels have ranged
between 12.41 and 16.04 feet below the top of casing during the site management sampling events (10/95
through 10/23). The most recent groundwater levels are shown above.
Past Modifications to the Monitoring Wells
For clarity of impacts on the wells and datum of each well, the following history is provided. Due to the
new development at the Site in 2013, DH-19 was paved over and was not accessible for water level
measurements during August and November of 2013 events. DH-19 was uncovered and a new protective
well casing was constructed for this piezometer on April 3, 2014. A protective well casing was
constructed for the DH-21 piezometer and the top of the well casing (piezometer pipe) was cut at 10.32’
to locate it at 0.86’ below its previous elevation of 103.54. The top of casing at the location of DH-21 is
currently set at 102.68. Well development was also performed on April of 2014 on MW-12 and
approximately 45 gallons of water was purged from the well.
Site Management Groundwater Monitoring Report (June 2024)
Family Center at East Downtown
Bingham Engineering, Inc.. 4 June 2024 Sampling
Project No. 3453-006
GROUNDWATER ANALYSES
Sample Collection
On June 13, 2024, the following events were completed: depth to groundwater measurements, subsequent
purging of 4.2 gallons of groundwater from MW-12, then sampling of groundwater from MW-12 was
completed, sample containers provided by Chemtech-Ford were filled and immediately placed in an
appropriate cooler. (See field data sheet in Appendix A.) Transport of the groundwater sample to
Chemtech-Ford took place the same day. Chain-of-custody form was initiated and completed at
Chemtech-Ford.
Sample Analyses
The analytical data generated from the June 13, 2024, sampling event has been reviewed and evaluated
for quality, accuracy, and precision according to EPA data validation general guidelines and
requirements. In general, the data passes the quality assurance review and can be used as reliable data.
The laboratory analysis reports are provided in Appendix B as well as the Laboratory Quality
Assurance/Quality Control documentation. Specifically, the results are shown on Pages 2-4 in Appendix
B.
Holding Times - All applicable holding times for the chemical analyses were met.
RESULTS
The tetrachloroethylene (PCE) level of 113 micrograms/liter in the downgradient monitoring well (MW-
12) did not exceed the risk-based corrective action level of 396 Micrograms/Liter. The results of the
sampling events are summarized in Table 1 and presented graphically in Figure 3. See Pages 2 thru 5 of
the Chemtech-Ford Laboratories “Certificate of Analysis” included in Appendix B.
CURRENT MONITORING CONCLUSIONS
The field and laboratory data meet the requirements of the TEGD guidelines and all results above
laboratory detection limits are acceptable in determining groundwater quality of the shallow, unconfined
aquifer. Based on water level measurements, the inferred direction of groundwater flow in the area of the
Site is toward the southwest.
PCE concentration for this monitoring event was 113 micrograms/liter on June 13, 2024. The
concentration of PCE reported for this monitoring event (Event No. 43) does not exceed the project action
level. PCE concentrations approaching or exceeding the risk-based action level of 396 Micrograms/Liter
appear to coincide with depths to groundwater less than 13.5 feet (Table 1). The PCE concentration
increase appears to lag the high groundwater readings, indicative of travel time between the
contamination source and the sampling point. Previous estimates of the groundwater velocity across the
site, utilizing assumed hydraulic properties of the subsurface soils, determined the velocity to be between
10 and 20 feet/year. However, the pattern may reflect multiple years of flow from the source. This
probability is suggested because what would be a nearby source (a single year of transport) was
extensively excavated and investigated for any potential contamination during site demolition.
Site Management Groundwater Monitoring Report (June 2024)
Family Center at East Downtown
Bingham Engineering, Inc.. 5 June 2024 Sampling
Project No. 3453-006
ADDITIONAL STUDIES, EVALUATIONS AND LONG-TERM CONCLUSIONS
Introduction to More Recent Considerations
PCE Specific Gravity = 1.62 (compared to 1.0 for water)
PCE is dense and non-aqueous and a DNAPL (dense, non-aqueous phase liquid)
PCE has a greater affinity for soil than it does for water.
Behavior in air differs greatly than behavior in water.
Settlement in a water column can be estimated
The effective diameter of PCE particles can vary due to the manufacturing of the product (PCE
manufactured for degreasing may be different than that for dry cleaning).
Typically, settling of PCE in a column of water will be less than 1 inch per hour.
Therefore, results of sampling will not be influenced by normal procedures.
However, if the water column in the sampling well represents the adjacent groundwater, the PCE
concentration may be influenced by depth of sampling.
There are many features of site soils that can dramatically affect PCE travel.
References
The following references were studied to better predict PCE behavior. References in the text that follows
or on figures reflects the numbers preceding the references below. It should be noted that all were helpful
although the most helpful documents were those from the UK, the two from the EPA, Cherry, and Zytner.
[1] CHAPELLE, F., KAUFFMAN, L. AND WIDDOWSON, M. 2015. Modeling Long-Term Trends of
Chlorinated Ethene Contamination at a Public Supply Well. Journal of the American Water Resources
Association (JAWRA) 51(1): 1-13. DOI: 10.1111/jawr.12230
[2] CHERRY, J. B.L. PARKER, K.R. BRADBURY, T.T. EATON, M.G. GOTKOWITZ, D.J. HART AND M.A.
BORCHARDT. 2004. Role of Aquitards in the Protection of Aquifers from Contamination: A “State of the
Science” Report. AWWA Research Foundation
[3] DUMFORD, D., MCWHORTER, D, MILLER, C., SWANSON, A., MARINELLI, H., AND TRANTHAM, H.
1997. DNAPL and LNAPL Distributions in Soils; Experimental and Modeling Studies. Colorado State
University, Fort Collins, CO.
[4] KRET, E., A. KIECAK, G. MALINA, I. NIJENHUIS, AND A. POSTAWA. 2015. Identification of TCE and
PCE Sorption and Biodegradation Parameters in a Sandy Aquifer for Fate and Transport Modelling:
Batch and Column Studies.
[5a] PERSONIUS, S. AND W. E. SCOTT. 1992. Surficial Geologic Map of the Salt Lake City Segment and
Parts of Adjacent segments of the Wasatch Fault Zone… USGS Map I-2106.
[5b] REYNOLDS, D. AND B KUEPER. 2002. Numerical Examination of the Factors Controlling DNAPL
Migration Through a Single Fracture. Journal of Groundwater, Vol. 40.
[6] U.K. ENVIRONMENT AGENCY. 2003. An Illustrated Handbook of DNAPL Transport and Fate in the
Subsurface. R&D Publication 133.
[7] U.S. EPA. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquids (DNAPLs), Chemistry and Behavior. U.S. EPA
Contaminated Site Cleanup Information. (More recent than 2015)
[8] U.S. EPA. 1992. Superfund record of decision: National Electric Coil/Cooper Industries, Ky. (First
remedial action), September 1992: Washington, D.C., Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, 42 p
[9] WOLFE, W., HAUGH, C., WEBBERS, A., AND DIEHL, T. 2016. Preliminary Conceptual Models of the
Occurrence, Fate, and Transport of Chlorinated Solvents in Karst Regions of Tennessee. USGS, Water-
Resources Investigations Report 97-4097.
Site Management Groundwater Monitoring Report (June 2024)
Family Center at East Downtown
Bingham Engineering, Inc.. 6 June 2024 Sampling
Project No. 3453-006
[10] ZYTNER, R., N. BISWAS, and J. BEWTRA. 1989. Adsorption and Desorption of Perchloroethylene in
Soils, Peat Moss, and Granular Activated Carbon. University of Windsor, Canada. In Canadian Journal
of Civil Engineering.
[11] TOTH, J. 1995. Hydraulic continuity in large sedimentary basins. Hydrogeology Journal 3:4-16
Reference 7 (EPA) is particularly helpful in that it contains many other recommended references which
are not listed above..
Site Soils
The nature of and stratification of soils can dramatically affect the travel and fate of PCE. The surficial
soils (which often includes the soil down to great depths not just that on the surface) have been mapped
by many geologists. This mapping is generally published by the USGS or the UGS. Reference 5a is one
of many geologic mapping efforts covering the site. The map, I-2106, indicates the very surficial soils are
fan alluvium deposits of during the last 12,000 years. These are expected to be relatively shallow (<15 ft
deep) and overlain by recent deposits of imported fill and disturbed alluvium. These very surficial soils
(say down to 12 feet) are not saturated but have a much greater vertical permeability than the soils below
them.
The soils deeper than 10 to 15 feet are lacustrine deposits from the ancient Lake Bonneville in its
regressive phase. These are very common over a large part of northern Utah. They are typically clay, silt
sand and small gravel. Typically they have been deposited in still waters and are very stratified. Through
a section the horizontal permeability (hydraulic conductivity) is orders of magnitude greater than the
vertical permeability. This is at least true for undisturbed native soils.
As can be seen on Figure 1, there have been at least 25 exploratory borings/drill holes (B, DH or MW on
the figure) at the site. There have been more by others but locations are not known. There are two
important conclusions that can be drawn.
1. The soil sequence surmised above of clay, silt, sand, and gravel layers is in fact the nature of
the soils below 10feet and possibly more shallow. Very permeable horizontal layers of
sand and gravel with much less permeable silt and clay between are dominant.
2. The borings often provide an extremely permeable vertical pathway connecting the layers,
especially where perforated well piping was installed.
The important condition to recognize is that water and any other constituent flowing across the site has
my opportunities to flow vertically downward if that is its nature. Generally it would be halted at some
depth normally more shallow than 25 feet.
Tetrachloroethene (PCE) Behavior
As stated previously, PCE is a DNAPL (dense non-aqueous phase liquid) with a specific gravity of 1.62
and much heavier than water. It does not have an affinity for water but it does for soil. In a saturated
mass it is often described as elongated globules or blobs or ganglia. However, these are small with the
length only about the size of a sand grain.
Several figures are attached which are intended to reflect PCE behavior. Unfortunately, none portray the
subsurface conditions at the site. Most research projects are in areas of moderately shallow bedrock
aquifers and the migration of PCE (or other chlorinated solvents) between the surface and the bedrock.
However, other than the bedrock and the Lake Bonneville layered deposits, the figures do illustrate
Site Management Groundwater Monitoring Report (June 2024)
Family Center at East Downtown
Bingham Engineering, Inc.. 7 June 2024 Sampling
Project No. 3453-006
behavior that is applicable to this site. Where the figures show an uninterrupted near vertical pathway, it
is probably not completely applicable to the Family Center site.
Figure 4 is from a USGS document [Ref. 9] and shows discharge of a DNAPL directly into saturated
unconsolidated soil and rock above a fractured bedrock. The DNAPL flows through the soil until it hits a
layer which is less permeable where it pools. In this case, the unconsolidated material is probably not
different in horizontal and vertical permeability. Where it does pool, it spreads until it finds a vertical
seepage route. The intended observation here is that PCE with its specific gravity will flow downward
until it hits layers of low permeability. It will tend to flow along them, either due to groundwater flow or
a sloping less permeable surface. The bedrock is not relevant to our site.
‘Because the vapor pressure of many DNAPL compounds is relatively high, the lifespan of residual
DNAPL in the unsaturated zone can be much less than the lifespan of residual DNAPL below the water
table. [6]
Figure 5 [from Reference 6] reflects the release of a DNAPL at the ground surface, flowing into the
unsaturated or vadose zone then into a saturated zone which appears to be slightly stratified. The DNAPL
in the vadose zone can move downward, some can evaporate and move upward or even laterally.
However, once below the water table it does not evaporate but seeks a lower elevation. Other lateral
forces from groundwater (GW) flow will pick up the DNAPL and carry it laterally. At the same time,
horizontal or sloping layers will affect the trajectory. In this particular figure, a downstream plume is
developing and some is shown pooling on the bedrock. ‘The various blobs and ganglia of residual
DNAPL dissolve slowly into flowing groundwater, giving rise to aqueous plumes. Because the solubility
of most DNAPLs is relatively low in water and groundwater velocities are typically low, it can be many
decades before all residual DNAPL is depleted due to natural processes.’[6] The downstream plume will
be slightly less contaminated due to sorption and flow may become stratified (dissolved plume in the
figure).
Figure 6 [Ref. 6] shows porous media (roughly sand size) with DNAPL presence. On the left (a) it is not
saturated but DNAPL does cling to some pore spaces along with some pores filled with air. On the right
(b) the porous media is saturated and typical of below the water table. Some of the pore spaces are filled
with DNAPL. This adsorption is an important process relating to PCE remediation. PCE is removed
from the groundwater stream and becomes less concentrated as it flows through such media.
The horizontal plumes of Figure 7 probably reflect a condition that exists at the site. Notice the
diminishing concentration of DNAPL in the plumes with distance from the surface release. The figure is
really intended to show how groundwater samples from different monitoring wells can reflect different
concentrations. As stated above, it is not included to address sampling but to show the nature of the
plumes and spatial variability. It is thought that the figure represents a layered soil sequence as at the
Family Center.
Figure 8 [Ref 6] is similar to Figure 7 in that it shows a layered soil system. It also depicts the nature of a
plume without and with attenuation. Both plumes would be affected by dispersion. It is suggested that
the attenuation is due to biodegradation.
Natural attenuation can caused by and generally are subject to:
a. Dispersion – spreading vertically and or laterally
b. Biodegradation due to organic material in the soil
c. Sorption (absorption and or adsorption where PCE clings to voids between sand grains)
d. Diffusion – where PCE penetrates fractures or less permeable materials and eventually is
released back into the groundwater flow
Site Management Groundwater Monitoring Report (June 2024)
Family Center at East Downtown
Bingham Engineering, Inc.. 8 June 2024 Sampling
Project No. 3453-006
As shown in Figure 6 and discussed above, adsorption is an important function that sand plays. This
affinity that PCE has for soil is thought to be permanent in the affected soil. Permanent in the sense that
it clings to the sand and the associated voids.
Variations in Monitoring Results
Over the past 20+ years there have been variations in the concentration of PCE in the water sampling.
There doesn’t seem to be a consistent relationship with depth to groundwater or time of year that would
explain a variation. With the focus on PCE behavior and some additional discussions on this matter, we
have some possible explanations. MW-12 was constructed with slotted PVC pipe which would have had
a short non-slotted section at the bottom with a solid cap on the very bottom. Based on the behavior of
PCE, it is probable that any horizontal groundwater flow past the well resulted in PCE accumulating in
the bottom non-perforated section of the well. Subsequent purging may have varied and probably left
concentrations of PCE laden groundwater in the bottom. Bingham personnel performing the sampling
understood they were to sample from the bottom using an open bottom bailer. Therefore, sampling may
have pulled from this concentrated groundwater to varying degrees. The more appropriate sampling
depth would have been higher in the well above the lowest perforations.
Expectations of Time Related Attenuations
It is assumed that the source zone has been remediated (above the groundwater) and no further PCE is
entering the unsaturated zone or saturated zone and groundwater up-gradient. The expectation of a
gradually decreasing concentrations of PCE is normal. It follows that a time element should be
considered. The schematic of Figure 9 [Refs 2 & 11] is not intended to reflect the features at the Family
Center site, but to help in understanding the order of magnitude of the time of groundwater flow. The
figure suggests that flow can, at times, take not just years but centuries. The figure reflects presupposes
aquitards through which vertical groundwater flow is slow – extremely slow. Although the clay layers
seen within Lake Bonneville sediments may not be termed as aquitards, they behave that way for vertical
groundwater flow. Therefore we should expect a flow regime which includes vertical flow through clay
layers.
Figure 10 [Ref 5b & 6] reflects a time element for fracture diffusion and back-diffusion. This particular
model was for fractured clay or rock. Although not exactly at our site it is somewhat relevant with upper
clay layers which became desiccated following the recession of Lake Bonneville. It is common to find
desiccation cracks in the uppermost clay layers associated with the recessional phase of Lake Bonneville.
Anyone who has examined and logged test pits in the Lake Bonneville deposits has seen such occurrences
The initial forward-diffusion occurs with penetration into cracks and then back-diffusion with PCE
eventually, and very slowly, released out of the cracks and back into the groundwater. Figure 10
indicates that back diffusion could take centuries, at least for the particular model studied.
Aquifer Cleanup Considerations
Most of the remediation technologies relate to the source zone. Some technologies can relate to both.
Following is a partial list with brief comments.
Groundwater pump-and-treat: Requires series of wells, treatment plant and re-injection wells or
other avenue of water disposal. Because of the long time required to desorb contaminants from
aquifer solids, the long timescales associated with back-diffusion from the rock matrix and the long
Site Management Groundwater Monitoring Report (June 2024)
Family Center at East Downtown
Bingham Engineering, Inc.. 9 June 2024 Sampling
Project No. 3453-006
time required to dissolve residual and pooled NAPL, most pump and-and-treat systems operate for
many decades. [Ref 6, page 51]
Permeable reactive barriers: Plumes flow through the barriers where degradation occurs. Only
practical where groundwater plumes are shallow and readily accessible but remediation is not
complete with current technologies. Requires long continuous trenches or narrow slit equipment
for barrier installation. This would involve installation through the non-saturated soil and some
depth into the saturated soil – probably 25 to 35 ft deep.
Physical barriers: Primarily for isolating source zones.
Enhanced biodegradation: Injection of nutrients and other agents to stimulate biological activity as
a means of degrading some contaminants in-situ. Generally results in a shorter steady state plume
length. Not applicable for all situations and does not fully remove all contaminants.
Thermal technologies: Generally for source zone.
Chemical flushing: Generally used in the source zone for partial removal.
Excavation: Source zone and doesn’t improve downstream groundwater quality.
Soil vacuum extraction: Pulls from the unsaturated zone and not effective for DNAPLs in the
groundwater.
Water flooding: Source zone technology intended to reverse the hydraulic gradient.
Air sparging: Source zone treatment but has not been effective at DNAPL sites.
Most of these methods apply to the source zone, which is assumed to have been already remediated at our
site. At best, these technologies would be expensive and, at best, only partially effective on residual PCE.
None would remove a noticeable amount of PCE.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Site Management Plan (SMP) of December 1994 states: If PCE levels exceed 396 ppb
(micrograms/liter) in the proposed monitoring program, the Site Management Plan will be revised to
include corrective actions”. To this point, the corrective actions are not necessary as PCE levels are
approximately 25% of the corrective action levels. It is believed that they will continue to be at this level
or lower.
The wells were installed some 30 years ago. Except for a recent period, monitoring has continued. Based
on science and available methodology, treatment options are not realistic. Since PCE concentrations
are relatively low and cannot be expected to disappear for decades if not centuries, it is
recommended to terminate monitoring and investigations at the site.
Site Management Groundwater Monitoring Report (June 2024)
Family Center at East Downtown
Bingham Engineering, Inc.. 10 June 2024 Sampling
Project No. 3453-006
TABLE 1
RESULTS OF SITE MANAGEMENT GROUNDWATER SAMPLING (at MW-12)
Project Action Level for Tetrachloroethene (PCE) = 396 (μg/L) (2)
Event(3) Sampling Event Depth to GW(1) PCE (μg/L)
43 June 13, 2024 14.29 113
42 October 5, 2023 13.85 253
41 March 9, 2016 14.89 77
40 May 13, 2015 14.40 210
39 November 12, 2014 14.80 163
38 May 22, 2014 14.36 241
37 November 14, 2013 14.60 246
36 May 8, 2013 14.32 177
35 October 5, 2012 14.17 263
34 April 3, 2012 14.45 290
33 June 13, 2011/August 22, 2011 Retest 13.32/13.75 521/605
32 May 25, 2010 13.57 160
31 November 20, 2009 14.54 190
30 May 5, 2009 14.20 200
29 October 29, 2008 14.53 150
28 April 25, 2008 14.51 150
27 July 11, 2007 14.44 130
26 November 16, 2006 14.38 260
25 May 24, 2006 14.41 200
24 December 1, 2005 14.71 120
23 July 14, 2005 15.07 61
(1) Measured in feet from the top of PVC casing.
(2) Risk-Based Corrective Action Level (1 x 10-4 Cancer Risk)
(3) Additional previous events were provided in previous reports but can be provided upon request.
PCE = Tetrachloroethene
BOLD indicates value exceeds the Project Action level or in the case of the water levels, an estimated
value (<13.5 feet), for possible elevated PCE concentration in following sampling events.
Site Management Groundwater Monitoring Report (June 2024)
Family Center at East Downtown
Bingham Engineering, Inc.. 11 June 2024 Sampling
Project No. 3453-006
TABLE 2
GROUNDWATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS (Chronological - most recent measurements shown at end of table)
WELL ID. DATE WEATHER
DEPTH
TO
WATER
FROM
CASING
TOP OF
CASING
ELEVATION
GW
ELEVATION COMMENTS
MW-12 2/3/2009 Warm & Clear 14.48 97.34 82.86
DH-21 2/3/2009 16.96 103.54 86.58
DH-19 2/3/2009 12.93 103.88 90.95
MW-12 11/20/2009 Sunny, 50 Degrees 14.54 97.34 82.80
DH-21 11/20/2009 16.84 103.54 86.70
DH-19 11/20/2009 12.92 103.88 90.96
MW-12 3/10/2010 Cool & Clear 14.4 97.34 82.94
DH-21 3/10/2010 16.93 103.54 86.61
DH-19 3/10/2010 13.13 103.88 90.75
MW-12 5/25/2010 Cool & Clear 13.57 97.34 83.77
DH-21 5/25/2010 15.78 103.54 87.76
DH-19 5/25/2010 12.4 103.88 91.48
MW-12 8/4/2010 Cool & Clear 14.34 97.34 83.00
DH-21 8/4/2010 16.55 103.54 86.99
DH-19 8/4/2010 12.72 103.88 91.16
MW-12 12/20/2010 Cool & Clear 14.5 97.34 82.84
DH-21 12/20/2010 16.75 103.54 86.79
DH-19 12/20/2010 12.88 103.88 91.00
MW-12 3/31/2011 Cool & Clear 14.13 97.34 83.21
DH-21 3/31/2011 16.5 103.54 87.04
DH-19 3/31/2011 12.41 103.88 91.47
MW-12 6/13/2011 Cool & Clear 13.32 97.34 84.02
DH-21 6/13/2011 15.08 103.54 88.46
DH-19 6/13/2011 11.75 103.88 92.13
MW-12 8/22/2011 Cool & Clear 13.75 97.34 83.59
DH-21 8/22/2011 15.68 103.54 87.86
DH-19 8/22/2011 11.94 103.88 91.94
MW-12 4/3/2012 Cool & Clear 14.42 97.34 82.92
DH-21 4/3/2012 16.89 103.54 86.65
DH-19 4/3/2012 12.6 103.88 91.28
MW-12 6/21/2012 Warm & Clear 13.21 97.34 84.13
DH-21 6/21/2012 15.18 103.54 88.36
DH-19 6/21/2012 11.66 103.88 92.22
MW-12 9/7/2012 Cool & Clear 14.21 97.34 83.13
DH-21 9/7/2012 16.24 103.54 87.30
Site Management Groundwater Monitoring Report (June 2024)
Family Center at East Downtown
Bingham Engineering, Inc.. 12 June 2024 Sampling
Project No. 3453-006
Table 2 (cont’d)
DH-19 9/7/2012 12.19 103.88 91.69
MW-12 10/5/2012 Cool & Clear 14.17 97.34 83.17
DH-21 10/5/2012 16.19 103.54 87.35
DH-19 10/5/2012 12.2 103.88 91.68
MW-12 12/7/2012 Cold & Clear 14.36 97.34 82.98
DH-21 12/7/2012 16.54 103.54 87.00
DH-19 12/7/2012 12.57 103.88 91.31
MW-12 3/14/2013 Cool & Clear 14.44 97.34 82.90
DH-21 3/14/2013 16.79 103.54 86.75
DH-19 3/14/2013 12.51 103.88 91.37
MW-12 5/8/2013 Warm & Cloudy 14.32 97.34 83.02
DH-21 5/8/2013 16.86 103.54 86.68
DH-19 5/8/2013 12.81 103.88 91.07
MW-12 8/9/2013 Warm & Sunny 14.04 97.34 83.30
DH-21 8/9/2013 16.42 103.54 87.12
DH-19 8/9/2013 103.88 *
MW-12 11/14/2013 Warm, Partly Cloudy 14.6 97.34 82.74
DH-21 11/14/2013 17.03 103.54 86.51
DH-19 11/14/2013 103.88 **
MW-12 12/17/2013 Cold, Partly Cloudy 14.46 97.34 82.88
DH-21 12/17/2013 17.27 103.54 86.27
DH-19 12/17/2013 13.53 103.88 90.35
MW-12 4/3/2014 Sunny 14.49 97.34 82.85
DH-21 4/3/2014 16.83 103.54 86.71
DH-19 4/3/2014 13.34 103.88 90.54
MW-12 5/22/2014 Sunny 14.36 97.34 82.98
DH-21** 5/22/2014 16.24 102.68 86.44
DH-19 5/22/2014 13.46 103.88 90.42
MW-12 11/12/2014 Mostly Cloudy 14.80 97.34 82.54
DH-21 11/12/2014 16.57 102.68 86.11
DH-19 11/12/2014 13.75 103.88 90.13
MW-12 3/12/2015 Sunny 15.07 97.34 82.27
DH-21 3/12/2015 17.10 102.68 85.58
DH-19 3/12/2015 14.40 103.88 89.48
MW-12 5/13/2015 Warm, Partly Cloudy 14.40 97.34 82.94
DH-21 5/13/2015 16.26 102.68 86.42
DH-19 5/13/2015 13.91 103.88 89.97
MW-12 8/12/2015 Warm, Clear 14.56 97.34 82.78
DH-21 8/12/2015 16.40 102.68 86.28
DH-19 8/12/2015 14.03 103.88 89.85
Site Management Groundwater Monitoring Report (June 2024)
Family Center at East Downtown
Bingham Engineering, Inc.. 13 June 2024 Sampling
Project No. 3453-006
Table 2 (cont’d)
MW-12 3/9/2016 Cool & Cloudy 14.89 97.34 82.45
DH-21 3/9/2016 16.6 102.68 86.08
DH-19 3/9/2016 13.9 103.88 89.98
MW-12 10/5/2023 Warm, Clear 13.85 97.34 83.49 Difficulty Removing Cover
DH-21 10/10/2023 Cool, Light Rain 15.75 102.68 86.93 Difficulty Removing Cover
DH-19 10/12/2023 Cool, Overcast 15.14 103.88 88.74 Difficulty Removing Cover
MW-12 6/13/2024 Warm, Clear 14.29 97.34 83.09 Slight Difficulty Removing Cover
DH-21 6/13/2024 Warm, Clear 15.87 102.68 86.81 Slight Difficulty Removing Cover
DH-19 6/13/2024 Warm, Clear 12.39 103.88 91.49 Slight Difficulty Removing Cover
* DH-19 Was paved over and was not accessible
** DH-21 Piezometer Pipe was cut 0.86 ft to install a protective casing. New TOC level is at 102.68
Site Management Groundwater Monitoring Report (June 2024)
Family Center at East Downtown
Bingham Engineering, Inc.. 14 June 2024 Sampling
Project No. 3453-006
Site Management Groundwater Monitoring Report (June 2024)
Family Center at East Downtown
Bingham Engineering, Inc.. 15 June 2024 Sampling
Project No. 3453-006
Site Management Groundwater Monitoring Report (June 2024)
Family Center at East Downtown
Bingham Engineering, Inc.. 17 June 2024 Sampling
Project No. 3453-006
Water table
1A
1B
5
2 2
1A
3
4 4 4
3
5
5
EXPLANATION
1 TRAPPING IN REGOLITH
1A RESIDUAL DNAPL
1B POOLING ON LOW
PERMEABILITY LAYER
2 POOLING AT TOP OF ROCK
3 POOLING IN BEDROCK
DIFFUSE-FLOW ZONE
4 POOLING IN CONDUIT
5 POOLING IN FRACTURES
ISOLATED FROM FLOW
REGOLITH
LOW-PERMEABILITY
REGOLITH LAYER
POOLED DNAPL
RESIDUAL DNAPL
CAVERNOUS CARBONATE
ROCK
FRACTURED CARBONATE
ROCK
DISSOLVED CONTAMINANT
Regolith
Ground-
water
flow
Land surface
Figure 4
From WOLFE, W., HAUGH, C., WEBBERS, A., AND
DIEHL, T. 2016. Preliminary Conceptual Models of the
Occurrence, Fate, and Transport of Chlorinated Solvents
in Karst Regions of Tennessee. USGS,
Water-Resources Investigations Report 97-4097.
DNAPL distribution in unconsolidated deposits (after Pankow and Cherry, 1996)
DNAPL pool in fractures DNAPL residual in fractures
GW flow pool
residual
vapour
release
drift
dissolved
plume
bedrock
3932 DNAPL handbook A/W 10/9/2003 10:36 am Page 10
Figure 5
Figure 3 Residual DNAPL in (a) unsaturated and (b) saturated porous media
water water
DNAPL DNAPL
air
aquifer/soil grain aquifer/soil grain
(a) (b)
3932 DNAPL handbook A/W 10/9/2003 10:36 am Page 11
Figure 6
Environment Agency Illustrated handbook of DNAPL transport and fate in the subsurface14
DNAPL dissolution in
unconsolidated deposits
Both residual DNAPL and pools will dissolve into
groundwater flowing through the DNAPL source zone,
giving rise to aqueous phase plumes. Given the tortuous
and sporadic nature of DNAPL occurrence within the
source zone, it follows that the associated aqueous
phase plumes will exhibit significant spatial variability
in terms of concentration.
Figure 7 illustrates a vertical cross-section through
a DNAPL source zone along with a depiction of the
associated aqueous phase plumes. Monitoring wells
have been placed at various locations in the cross-
section, along with posted concentrations.
Cross-section depicting spatial variability of groundwater concentrations in a plume
gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
f
l
o
w
DNAPL release
DNAPL
dissolved plume
5
mg/l
35
mg/l 3
mg/l N.D
1
mg/l N.D
3932 DNAPL handbook A/W 10/9/2003 10:36 am Page 14
Figure 7
Figure Steady-state plumes (a) without and (b) with biodegradation
DNAPL
DNAPL
steady-state plume
without attenuationgr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
f
l
o
w
gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
f
l
o
w
(a)
(b)
steady-state plume
with attenuation
(e.g. biodegradation)
3932 DNAPL handbook A/W 10/9/2003 10:37 am Page 50
Figure 8
10
Source: Adapted from Tóth 1995
Schematic diagram showing groundwater flow lines in a regional system
comprised of laterally extensive aquifers and aquitards. Slow groundwater flow through
the aquitards (unfractured) results in much older water in successively deeper aquifers
recha rge area
discharge
a rea
pumped
well
aquitard
aquifer
centuries
millennia
years days
Time
Figure 9
Environment Agency Illustrated handbook of DNAPL transport and fate in the subsurface 25
persist for many hundreds of years as a result of the
back-diffusion process. Although the residual DNAPL
dissolved itself out of existence in less than 21 weeks
in all cases, the exit concentrations persist for long
periods because the back-diffusion process is slower
than the initial forward-diffusion process. This stems
from the fact that solutes are continuing to migrate
further into the clay matrix while at the same time
diffusing back into the open fracture after the DNAPL
has completely dissolved itself away. In addition, the
concentration gradient driving back-diffusion is
typically less than the initial concentration gradient
driving forward-diffusion into the matrix while
residual DNAPL is present in the fracture.
Figure 16 Concentration versus time at exit of fracture (from Reynolds and Kueper, 2002)
Key: CB = chlorobenzene; DCE = dichloroethene;TCE = trichloroethene; PCE = tetrachloroethene, EDB = 1,2-dibromomethane
The implication of matrix diffusion in fractured clay
and rock is that solute plumes, as well as DNAPL
source zones, are difficult to remediate. In fractured
environments exhibiting matrix diffusion, conventional
technologies such as pump-and-treat should be
viewed as either a source zone containment
technology, or a plume interception technology, not
as a technology capable of restoring groundwater to
near-pristine quality within short periods of time. The
effectiveness of many remedial techniques is diffusion
limited and this process needs to be considered
during development of a remedial strategy, and
selection of a remedial technique.
3932 DNAPL handbook A/W 10/9/2003 10:37 am Page 25
Figure 10
The analyses presented on this report were performed in accordance with the
National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (NELAP) unless
noted in the comments, flags, or case narrative. If the report is to be used for
regulatory compliance, it should be presented in its entirety, and not be
altered.
Client Service Contact: 801.262.7299
Bingham Engineering
Attn: Brent Bingham
262 North Wright Brothers Drive
Salt Lake City, UT 84116
Work Order: 24F1127
Project: Family Center East Downtown
6/14/2024
Approved By:
Reed Hendricks, Lab Director
9632 South 500 West Sandy, Utah 84070
Serving the Intermountain West since 1953
801.262.7299 Main 866.792.0093 Fax www.ChemtechFord.com
Page 1 of 5
xx
Chemtech-Ford Laboratories
Serving the Intermountain West Since 1953
Certificate of Analysis
9632 South 500 West
Sandy, UT 84070
O:(801) 262-7299 F: (866) 792-0093
www.ChemtechFord.com
Bingham Engineering
Brent Bingham
262 North Wright Brothers Drive
Salt Lake City, UT 84116
PO#:
Receipt:
Date Reported:
Project Name:
6/13/24 12:00 @ 11.2 °C
6/14/2024
Family Center East Downtown
Sample ID: 3453-MW12-2406
Lab ID: 24F1127-01Matrix: Water
Flag(s)Units
Analysis
Date/Time
Date Sampled: 6/12/24 17:50
Preparation
Date/Time
Sampled By: Brent Bingham
Minimum
Reporting
Limit MethodResult
Volatile Organic Compounds
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1,1-Trichloroethane
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1,2-Trichloroethane
ug/L J-LOW-L6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1-Dichloroethane
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1-Dichloroethene
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1-Dichloropropene
ug/L 6/14/246/14/2410.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND2-Hexanone
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2,3-Trichloropropane
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB)
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2-Dichlorobenzene
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2-Dichloroethane
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2-Dichloropropane
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,3-Dichlorobenzene
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,3-Dichloropropane
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,4-Dichlorobenzene
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND2,2-Dichloropropane
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND2-Chlorotoluene
ug/L J-LOW-L6/14/246/14/242.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND2-Nitropropane
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND4-Chlorotoluene
ug/L 6/14/246/14/2420.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDAcetone
ug/L 6/14/246/14/245.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDAcrylonitrile
ug/L 6/14/246/14/240.4 EPA 8260D/5030BNDBenzene
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDBromobenzene
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDBromochloromethane
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDBromodichloromethane
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDBromoform
ug/L 6/14/246/14/242.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDBromomethane
ug/L J-LOW-C6/14/246/14/242.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDCarbon Disulfide
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDCarbon Tetrachloride
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDChlorobenzene
Project Name: Family Center East Downtown CtF WO#: 24F1127
www.ChemtechFord.com
Page 2 of 5Page 2 of 5
xx
Chemtech-Ford Laboratories
Serving the Intermountain West Since 1953
Certificate of Analysis
9632 South 500 West
Sandy, UT 84070
O:(801) 262-7299 F: (866) 792-0093
www.ChemtechFord.com
Bingham Engineering
Brent Bingham
262 North Wright Brothers Drive
Salt Lake City, UT 84116
PO#:
Receipt:
Date Reported:
Project Name:
6/13/24 12:00 @ 11.2 °C
6/14/2024
Family Center East Downtown
Sample ID: 3453-MW12-2406 (cont.)
Lab ID: 24F1127-01Matrix: Water
Flag(s)Units
Analysis
Date/Time
Date Sampled: 6/12/24 17:50
Preparation
Date/Time
Sampled By: Brent Bingham
Minimum
Reporting
Limit MethodResult
Volatile Organic Compounds (cont.)
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDChloroethane
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030B1.0Chloroform
ug/L J-LOW-L6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDChloromethane
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030B14.6cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDcis-1,3-Dichloropropene
ug/L 6/14/246/14/2410.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDCyclohexanone
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDDibromochloromethane
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDDibromomethane
ug/L J-LOW-L6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDDichlorodifluoromethane
ug/L 6/14/246/14/242.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDEthyl Acetate
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDEthylbenzene
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDEthyl Ether
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDHexachlorobutadiene
ug/L 6/14/246/14/2420.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDIsobutanol
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDIsopropylbenzene
ug/L 6/14/246/14/242.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDMethyl Ethyl Ketone
ug/L 6/14/246/14/245.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDMethyl Isobutyl Ketone
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDMethylene Chloride
ug/L J-LOW-C6/14/246/14/240.6 EPA 8260D/5030BNDMethyl-tert-butyl ether (MTBE)
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDNaphthalene
ug/L 6/14/246/14/2450.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDn-Butyl Alcohol
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDn-Butylbenzene
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDn-Propyl Benzene
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDPentachloroethane
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDp-Isopropyltoluene
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDsec-Butyl Benzene
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDStyrene
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDtert-Butylbenzene
ug/L 6/14/246/14/2410.0 EPA 8260D/5030B113Tetrachloroethene
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDToluene
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDtrans-1,2-Dichloroethene
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDtrans-1,3-Dichloropropene
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030B4.5Trichloroethene
ug/L J-LOW-L6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDTrichlorofluoromethane
ug/L 6/14/246/14/240.8 EPA 8260D/5030BNDVinyl Chloride
ug/L 6/14/246/14/243.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDXylenes, total
Project Name: Family Center East Downtown CtF WO#: 24F1127
www.ChemtechFord.com
Page 3 of 5Page 3 of 5
xx
Chemtech-Ford Laboratories
Serving the Intermountain West Since 1953
Certificate of Analysis
9632 South 500 West
Sandy, UT 84070
O:(801) 262-7299 F: (866) 792-0093
www.ChemtechFord.com
Bingham Engineering
Brent Bingham
262 North Wright Brothers Drive
Salt Lake City, UT 84116
PO#:
Receipt:
Date Reported:
Project Name:
6/13/24 12:00 @ 11.2 °C
6/14/2024
Family Center East Downtown
Report Footnotes
Abbreviations
ND = Not detected at the corresponding Minimum Reporting Limit (MRL).
1 mg/L = one milligram per liter or 1 mg/kg = one milligram per kilogram = 1 part per million.
1 ug/L = one microgram per liter or 1 ug/kg = one microgram per kilogram = 1 part per billion.
1 ng/L = one nanogram per liter or 1 ng/kg = one nanogram per kilogram = 1 part per trillion.
On calculated parameters, there may be a slight difference between summing the rounded values shown on the report
vs the unrounded values used in the calculation.
Flag Descriptions
J-LOW-C = Estimated low due to low recovery of CCV
J-LOW-L = Estimated low due to low recovery of LCS
Project Name: Family Center East Downtown CtF WO#: 24F1127
www.ChemtechFord.com
Page 4 of 5Page 4 of 5
Page 5 of 5
Water table
1A
1B
5
2 2
1A
3
4 4 4
3
5
5
EXPLANATION
1 TRAPPING IN REGOLITH
1A RESIDUAL DNAPL
1B POOLING ON LOW
PERMEABILITY LAYER
2 POOLING AT TOP OF ROCK
3 POOLING IN BEDROCK
DIFFUSE-FLOW ZONE
4 POOLING IN CONDUIT
5 POOLING IN FRACTURES
ISOLATED FROM FLOW
REGOLITH
LOW-PERMEABILITY
REGOLITH LAYER
POOLED DNAPL
RESIDUAL DNAPL
CAVERNOUS CARBONATE
ROCK
FRACTURED CARBONATE
ROCK
DISSOLVED CONTAMINANT
Regolith
Ground-
water
flow
Land surface
Figure 4
From WOLFE, W., HAUGH, C., WEBBERS, A., AND
DIEHL, T. 2016. Preliminary Conceptual Models of the
Occurrence, Fate, and Transport of Chlorinated Solvents
in Karst Regions of Tennessee. USGS,
Water-Resources Investigations Report 97-4097.
DNAPL distribution in unconsolidated deposits (after Pankow and Cherry, 1996)
DNAPL pool in fractures DNAPL residual in fractures
GW flow pool
residual
vapour
release
drift
dissolved
plume
bedrock
3932 DNAPL handbook A/W 10/9/2003 10:36 am Page 10
Figure 5
Figure 3 Residual DNAPL in (a) unsaturated and (b) saturated porous media
water water
DNAPL DNAPL
air
aquifer/soil grain aquifer/soil grain
(a) (b)
3932 DNAPL handbook A/W 10/9/2003 10:36 am Page 11
Figure 6
Environment Agency Illustrated handbook of DNAPL transport and fate in the subsurface14
DNAPL dissolution in
unconsolidated deposits
Both residual DNAPL and pools will dissolve into
groundwater flowing through the DNAPL source zone,
giving rise to aqueous phase plumes. Given the tortuous
and sporadic nature of DNAPL occurrence within the
source zone, it follows that the associated aqueous
phase plumes will exhibit significant spatial variability
in terms of concentration.
Figure 7 illustrates a vertical cross-section through
a DNAPL source zone along with a depiction of the
associated aqueous phase plumes. Monitoring wells
have been placed at various locations in the cross-
section, along with posted concentrations.
Cross-section depicting spatial variability of groundwater concentrations in a plume
gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
f
l
o
w
DNAPL release
DNAPL
dissolved plume
5
mg/l
35
mg/l 3
mg/l N.D
1
mg/l N.D
3932 DNAPL handbook A/W 10/9/2003 10:36 am Page 14
Figure 7
Figure Steady-state plumes (a) without and (b) with biodegradation
DNAPL
DNAPL
steady-state plume
without attenuationgr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
f
l
o
w
gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
f
l
o
w
(a)
(b)
steady-state plume
with attenuation
(e.g. biodegradation)
3932 DNAPL handbook A/W 10/9/2003 10:37 am Page 50
Figure 8
10
Source: Adapted from Tóth 1995
Schematic diagram showing groundwater flow lines in a regional system
comprised of laterally extensive aquifers and aquitards. Slow groundwater flow through
the aquitards (unfractured) results in much older water in successively deeper aquifers
recha rge area
discharge
a rea
pumped
well
aquitard
aquifer
centuries
millennia
years days
Time
Figure 9
Environment Agency Illustrated handbook of DNAPL transport and fate in the subsurface 25
persist for many hundreds of years as a result of the
back-diffusion process. Although the residual DNAPL
dissolved itself out of existence in less than 21 weeks
in all cases, the exit concentrations persist for long
periods because the back-diffusion process is slower
than the initial forward-diffusion process. This stems
from the fact that solutes are continuing to migrate
further into the clay matrix while at the same time
diffusing back into the open fracture after the DNAPL
has completely dissolved itself away. In addition, the
concentration gradient driving back-diffusion is
typically less than the initial concentration gradient
driving forward-diffusion into the matrix while
residual DNAPL is present in the fracture.
Figure 16 Concentration versus time at exit of fracture (from Reynolds and Kueper, 2002)
Key: CB = chlorobenzene; DCE = dichloroethene;TCE = trichloroethene; PCE = tetrachloroethene, EDB = 1,2-dibromomethane
The implication of matrix diffusion in fractured clay
and rock is that solute plumes, as well as DNAPL
source zones, are difficult to remediate. In fractured
environments exhibiting matrix diffusion, conventional
technologies such as pump-and-treat should be
viewed as either a source zone containment
technology, or a plume interception technology, not
as a technology capable of restoring groundwater to
near-pristine quality within short periods of time. The
effectiveness of many remedial techniques is diffusion
limited and this process needs to be considered
during development of a remedial strategy, and
selection of a remedial technique.
3932 DNAPL handbook A/W 10/9/2003 10:37 am Page 25
Figure 10
Water table
1A
1B
5
2 2
1A
3
4 4 4
3
5
5
EXPLANATION
1 TRAPPING IN REGOLITH
1A RESIDUAL DNAPL
1B POOLING ON LOW
PERMEABILITY LAYER
2 POOLING AT TOP OF ROCK
3 POOLING IN BEDROCK
DIFFUSE-FLOW ZONE
4 POOLING IN CONDUIT
5 POOLING IN FRACTURES
ISOLATED FROM FLOW
REGOLITH
LOW-PERMEABILITY
REGOLITH LAYER
POOLED DNAPL
RESIDUAL DNAPL
CAVERNOUS CARBONATE
ROCK
FRACTURED CARBONATE
ROCK
DISSOLVED CONTAMINANT
Regolith
Ground-
water
flow
Land surface
Figure 4
From WOLFE, W., HAUGH, C., WEBBERS, A., AND
DIEHL, T. 2016. Preliminary Conceptual Models of the
Occurrence, Fate, and Transport of Chlorinated Solvents
in Karst Regions of Tennessee. USGS,
Water-Resources Investigations Report 97-4097.
DNAPL distribution in unconsolidated deposits (after Pankow and Cherry, 1996)
DNAPL pool in fractures DNAPL residual in fractures
GW flow pool
residual
vapour
release
drift
dissolved
plume
bedrock
3932 DNAPL handbook A/W 10/9/2003 10:36 am Page 10
Figure 5
Figure 3 Residual DNAPL in (a) unsaturated and (b) saturated porous media
water water
DNAPL DNAPL
air
aquifer/soil grain aquifer/soil grain
(a) (b)
3932 DNAPL handbook A/W 10/9/2003 10:36 am Page 11
Figure 6
Environment Agency Illustrated handbook of DNAPL transport and fate in the subsurface14
DNAPL dissolution in
unconsolidated deposits
Both residual DNAPL and pools will dissolve into
groundwater flowing through the DNAPL source zone,
giving rise to aqueous phase plumes. Given the tortuous
and sporadic nature of DNAPL occurrence within the
source zone, it follows that the associated aqueous
phase plumes will exhibit significant spatial variability
in terms of concentration.
Figure 7 illustrates a vertical cross-section through
a DNAPL source zone along with a depiction of the
associated aqueous phase plumes. Monitoring wells
have been placed at various locations in the cross-
section, along with posted concentrations.
Cross-section depicting spatial variability of groundwater concentrations in a plume
gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
f
l
o
w
DNAPL release
DNAPL
dissolved plume
5
mg/l
35
mg/l 3
mg/l N.D
1
mg/l N.D
3932 DNAPL handbook A/W 10/9/2003 10:36 am Page 14
Figure 7
Figure Steady-state plumes (a) without and (b) with biodegradation
DNAPL
DNAPL
steady-state plume
without attenuationgr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
f
l
o
w
gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
f
l
o
w
(a)
(b)
steady-state plume
with attenuation
(e.g. biodegradation)
3932 DNAPL handbook A/W 10/9/2003 10:37 am Page 50
Figure 8
10
Source: Adapted from Tóth 1995
Schematic diagram showing groundwater flow lines in a regional system
comprised of laterally extensive aquifers and aquitards. Slow groundwater flow through
the aquitards (unfractured) results in much older water in successively deeper aquifers
recha rge area
discharge
a rea
pumped
well
aquitard
aquifer
centuries
millennia
years days
Time
Figure 9
Environment Agency Illustrated handbook of DNAPL transport and fate in the subsurface 25
persist for many hundreds of years as a result of the
back-diffusion process. Although the residual DNAPL
dissolved itself out of existence in less than 21 weeks
in all cases, the exit concentrations persist for long
periods because the back-diffusion process is slower
than the initial forward-diffusion process. This stems
from the fact that solutes are continuing to migrate
further into the clay matrix while at the same time
diffusing back into the open fracture after the DNAPL
has completely dissolved itself away. In addition, the
concentration gradient driving back-diffusion is
typically less than the initial concentration gradient
driving forward-diffusion into the matrix while
residual DNAPL is present in the fracture.
Figure 16 Concentration versus time at exit of fracture (from Reynolds and Kueper, 2002)
Key: CB = chlorobenzene; DCE = dichloroethene;TCE = trichloroethene; PCE = tetrachloroethene, EDB = 1,2-dibromomethane
The implication of matrix diffusion in fractured clay
and rock is that solute plumes, as well as DNAPL
source zones, are difficult to remediate. In fractured
environments exhibiting matrix diffusion, conventional
technologies such as pump-and-treat should be
viewed as either a source zone containment
technology, or a plume interception technology, not
as a technology capable of restoring groundwater to
near-pristine quality within short periods of time. The
effectiveness of many remedial techniques is diffusion
limited and this process needs to be considered
during development of a remedial strategy, and
selection of a remedial technique.
3932 DNAPL handbook A/W 10/9/2003 10:37 am Page 25
Figure 10
APPENDIX A
FIELD SAMPLING DOCUMENTATION
FIELD DATA SHEETS
APPENDIX B
GROUNDWATER QUALITY ANALYSES
CHAIN OF CUSTODY FORM
The analyses presented on this report were performed in accordance with the
National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (NELAP) unless
noted in the comments, flags, or case narrative. If the report is to be used for
regulatory compliance, it should be presented in its entirety, and not be
altered.
Client Service Contact: 801.262.7299
Bingham Engineering
Attn: Brent Bingham
262 North Wright Brothers Drive
Salt Lake City, UT 84116
Work Order: 24F1127
Project: Family Center East Downtown
6/14/2024
Approved By:
Reed Hendricks, Lab Director
9632 South 500 West Sandy, Utah 84070
Serving the Intermountain West since 1953
801.262.7299 Main 866.792.0093 Fax www.ChemtechFord.com
Page 1 of 5
xx
Chemtech-Ford Laboratories
Serving the Intermountain West Since 1953
Certificate of Analysis
9632 South 500 West
Sandy, UT 84070
O:(801) 262-7299 F: (866) 792-0093
www.ChemtechFord.com
Bingham Engineering
Brent Bingham
262 North Wright Brothers Drive
Salt Lake City, UT 84116
PO#:
Receipt:
Date Reported:
Project Name:
6/13/24 12:00 @ 11.2 °C
6/14/2024
Family Center East Downtown
Sample ID: 3453-MW12-2406
Lab ID: 24F1127-01Matrix: Water
Flag(s)Units
Analysis
Date/Time
Date Sampled: 6/12/24 17:50
Preparation
Date/Time
Sampled By: Brent Bingham
Minimum
Reporting
Limit MethodResult
Volatile Organic Compounds
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1,1-Trichloroethane
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1,2-Trichloroethane
ug/L J-LOW-L6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1-Dichloroethane
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1-Dichloroethene
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,1-Dichloropropene
ug/L 6/14/246/14/2410.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND2-Hexanone
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2,3-Trichloropropane
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB)
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2-Dichlorobenzene
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2-Dichloroethane
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,2-Dichloropropane
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,3-Dichlorobenzene
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,3-Dichloropropane
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND1,4-Dichlorobenzene
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND2,2-Dichloropropane
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND2-Chlorotoluene
ug/L J-LOW-L6/14/246/14/242.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND2-Nitropropane
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BND4-Chlorotoluene
ug/L 6/14/246/14/2420.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDAcetone
ug/L 6/14/246/14/245.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDAcrylonitrile
ug/L 6/14/246/14/240.4 EPA 8260D/5030BNDBenzene
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDBromobenzene
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDBromochloromethane
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDBromodichloromethane
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDBromoform
ug/L 6/14/246/14/242.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDBromomethane
ug/L J-LOW-C6/14/246/14/242.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDCarbon Disulfide
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDCarbon Tetrachloride
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDChlorobenzene
Project Name: Family Center East Downtown CtF WO#: 24F1127
www.ChemtechFord.com
Page 2 of 5Page 2 of 5
xx
Chemtech-Ford Laboratories
Serving the Intermountain West Since 1953
Certificate of Analysis
9632 South 500 West
Sandy, UT 84070
O:(801) 262-7299 F: (866) 792-0093
www.ChemtechFord.com
Bingham Engineering
Brent Bingham
262 North Wright Brothers Drive
Salt Lake City, UT 84116
PO#:
Receipt:
Date Reported:
Project Name:
6/13/24 12:00 @ 11.2 °C
6/14/2024
Family Center East Downtown
Sample ID: 3453-MW12-2406 (cont.)
Lab ID: 24F1127-01Matrix: Water
Flag(s)Units
Analysis
Date/Time
Date Sampled: 6/12/24 17:50
Preparation
Date/Time
Sampled By: Brent Bingham
Minimum
Reporting
Limit MethodResult
Volatile Organic Compounds (cont.)
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDChloroethane
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030B1.0Chloroform
ug/L J-LOW-L6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDChloromethane
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030B14.6cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDcis-1,3-Dichloropropene
ug/L 6/14/246/14/2410.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDCyclohexanone
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDDibromochloromethane
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDDibromomethane
ug/L J-LOW-L6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDDichlorodifluoromethane
ug/L 6/14/246/14/242.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDEthyl Acetate
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDEthylbenzene
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDEthyl Ether
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDHexachlorobutadiene
ug/L 6/14/246/14/2420.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDIsobutanol
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDIsopropylbenzene
ug/L 6/14/246/14/242.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDMethyl Ethyl Ketone
ug/L 6/14/246/14/245.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDMethyl Isobutyl Ketone
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDMethylene Chloride
ug/L J-LOW-C6/14/246/14/240.6 EPA 8260D/5030BNDMethyl-tert-butyl ether (MTBE)
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDNaphthalene
ug/L 6/14/246/14/2450.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDn-Butyl Alcohol
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDn-Butylbenzene
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDn-Propyl Benzene
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDPentachloroethane
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDp-Isopropyltoluene
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDsec-Butyl Benzene
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDStyrene
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDtert-Butylbenzene
ug/L 6/14/246/14/2410.0 EPA 8260D/5030B113Tetrachloroethene
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDToluene
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDtrans-1,2-Dichloroethene
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDtrans-1,3-Dichloropropene
ug/L 6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030B4.5Trichloroethene
ug/L J-LOW-L6/14/246/14/241.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDTrichlorofluoromethane
ug/L 6/14/246/14/240.8 EPA 8260D/5030BNDVinyl Chloride
ug/L 6/14/246/14/243.0 EPA 8260D/5030BNDXylenes, total
Project Name: Family Center East Downtown CtF WO#: 24F1127
www.ChemtechFord.com
Page 3 of 5Page 3 of 5
xx
Chemtech-Ford Laboratories
Serving the Intermountain West Since 1953
Certificate of Analysis
9632 South 500 West
Sandy, UT 84070
O:(801) 262-7299 F: (866) 792-0093
www.ChemtechFord.com
Bingham Engineering
Brent Bingham
262 North Wright Brothers Drive
Salt Lake City, UT 84116
PO#:
Receipt:
Date Reported:
Project Name:
6/13/24 12:00 @ 11.2 °C
6/14/2024
Family Center East Downtown
Report Footnotes
Abbreviations
ND = Not detected at the corresponding Minimum Reporting Limit (MRL).
1 mg/L = one milligram per liter or 1 mg/kg = one milligram per kilogram = 1 part per million.
1 ug/L = one microgram per liter or 1 ug/kg = one microgram per kilogram = 1 part per billion.
1 ng/L = one nanogram per liter or 1 ng/kg = one nanogram per kilogram = 1 part per trillion.
On calculated parameters, there may be a slight difference between summing the rounded values shown on the report
vs the unrounded values used in the calculation.
Flag Descriptions
J-LOW-C = Estimated low due to low recovery of CCV
J-LOW-L = Estimated low due to low recovery of LCS
Project Name: Family Center East Downtown CtF WO#: 24F1127
www.ChemtechFord.com
Page 4 of 5Page 4 of 5
Page 5 of 5