DERR-2024-011015

SAMPLING RESULTS REPORT

Reilly Tar
Utah County, Utah
UTD009087644

April, 2022

SAMPLING RESULTS REPORT
Reilly Tar
Utah County, Utah
UTD009087644
Utah Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Environmental Response and Remediation
Prepared by: Michael Swistak
Approved: Date: _________
Michael Swistak, Project Manager
Approved: Date: _________
Thomas Daniels, Site Assessment Section Manager
Approved: Date: _________
Martin McComb, On-Scene Coordinator EPA Region 8

Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
2.0 OBJECTIVES 1
3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION 1
3.1 Site Location and Description 1
3.2 Site History 2
3.3 Previous Investigations 2
3.4 Removal Activities 3
4.0 FIELD ACTIVITIES 5
4.1 Scope 5
4.2 Sampling Strategy 5
4.3 Data collection schedule 6
4.4 Groundwater Sample Collection 7
4.5 Soil Sample Collection 7
4.6 Quality Control Samples 8
4.7 Equipment Decontamination 8
4.8 Site Restoration 8
5.0 LABORATORY ANALYTICAL METHODS 8
6.0 SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS 9
6.1 Soil Data Summary 10
6.2 Groundwater Data Summary 10
7.0 DATA QUALITY ASSESSMENT 11
8.0 DATA EVALUATION 12
8.1 Soil Sample Results 12
8.2 Groundwater Sample Results 13

9.0 CONCLUSIONS 13
10.0 REFERENCES 15

APPENDICES

Appendix A Figures and Tables
Figure 1 General Site Location Map
Figure 2 Site Map
Figure 3 Groundwater Potentiometric Surface Map
Appendix B Data Tables
Table 1 Inorganic Groundwater Results
Table 2 VOC and SVOC Groundwater Results
Table 3 Inorganic Groundwater RPD QA QC
Table 4 Organic Groundwater RPD QA QC
Appendix C START Trip Report
Enclosure 1 Photolog
Enclosure 2 Site Figures (Site Location, Test Pit Location, Soil Sample
Exceedances)
Enclosure 3 Data Tables (Headspace Air Monitoring Readings, Subsurface Soil
Sample Results)
Appendix D Field Activities Report and Site Photographs

Appendix E Consent for Access to Property Form

Appendix F Groundwater Sample Laboratory Analytical Packages

Appendix G Chain-of-Custody and Shipping Documentation

Appendix H DERR Historical Soil and Groundwater Data

Appendix I START Trip Report
Enclosure 4 Soil Sample Laboratory Analytical Packages

Sampling Results Report
Reilly Tar – UTD009087644 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Sampling Results Report was prepared by the Utah Department of Environmental Quality,
Division of Environmental Response and Remediation to summarize site conditions at the Reilly
Tar (Vertellus Provo) Site (Site), (CERCLIS ID #UTD009087644), located at 2555 South
Industrial Parkway in Provo, Utah.
The scope of this investigation included recording groundwater elevations and
collecting groundwater samples for semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), volatile
organic compounds (VOCs), and metals. Additionally, test pits were excavated and sampled to
delineate the extent of coal tar in the subsurface.
The purpose of this Sampling Results Report (SRR) is to present new data, summarize
pertinent results from previous studies, identify potentially hazardous conditions, identify data
gaps in order to determine the appropriate next steps to protect human health and the
environment at the Site.
2.0 OBJECTIVES
Field sampling activities were conducted in September of 2021, and involved the collection
of groundwater samples from the existing well network on Site and the collection of soil
samples from test pits dug by an excavator. All samples were analyzed for volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), and total metals. The
objectives of the Sampling Work Plan were as follows:
• Characterize the location and spread of contamination at the Site, specifically in the
southern portion of the property.
• Determine if Site contaminants are present in on and off-site groundwater.
• Determine the distribution and concentration levels of contamination on Site.
• Evaluate human health and environmental targets associated with the soil and
groundwater exposure pathways, and determine if these targets are being exposed.

3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
3.1 Site Location and Description
The Site is a former coal tar processing facility located on the lot at 2555 South Industrial
Parkway in Provo, Utah County, Utah (Appendix A, Figure 1). All buildings and structures have
been removed from the Site with some foundations remaining. The Site covers approximately
31.84 acres. The northern portion of the Site is dry, and is bounded by the Ironton Canal which

Sampling Results Report
Reilly Tar – UTD009087644 2

eventually drains into Utah Lake to the west. The southern portion of the Site is a seasonal
wetland. Industrial properties border the Site to the east, west, and south.
3.2 Site History
The Site operated as a coal tar distillery from 1924 to 2002. The Site was initially developed by
the Republic Creosote Company in 1924 (ERM, 2009). The Republic Creosote Company
changed their name to Reilly Tar and Chemical in 1961, which became Reilly Industries in 1989.
Former structures at the Site included two pole barns, a separation tank, a condenser, storage
tanks, a wastewater biotreatment system, and an evaporation pond. As a result of these
operations, soil, sediment, groundwater, and surface water on Site has been contaminated with
volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), and metals.
Products produced at the Site include creosote oil, electrode binder pitch, and various other oil
and tar products. Waste products generated at the Site include polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAH’s), phenols, benzene, cyanides, and sulfides (McComb, 2017). From 1982 to 1985 spills
cleanup waste material was buried on Site in windrows. Much of this material remains in place at
the Site (August Mack, 2003). The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) program
administered by the Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control (DWMRC) has
regulated the site since the early 1990’s. Reilly discontinued production operation at the Site in
early 2001 and decommissioned the facility during 2002. In September of 2005, Arsenal Capital
Partners acquired Reilly Industries and in July of 2006, Arsenal merged Reilly with another
company to form Vertellus. Vertellus removed all existing structures from the Site during 2006.
Currently only concrete foundations remain at the Site. The property owner was preparing to do
a Risk Assessment at the site when the owners of the property declared bankruptcy May 2016.
3.3 Previous Investigations
A Preliminary Assessment Plus completed by EPA for the Site in 1993 identified 10 solid waste
management units (SWMUs) at the Site. Reilly entered into a Stipulation and Consent
Agreement (Consent Agreement) with the DSHW on November 13, 1996 that required Reilly to
investigate and perform corrective action, as necessary, for the 10 SWMUs identified at the Site.
A phase II RFI Supplemental Work Plan was completed by August Mack Environmental on
March 6, 2007. A follow up Phase II Groundwater and Surface Water Monitoring Report was
completed by August Mack on April 28, 2010. A Revised Risk Assessment Work Plan was
completed by URS Corporation in December, 2012. On July 18, 2011 a Risk Assessment Work
Plan was submitted by URS Corporation to the Utah Division of Solid & Hazardous Waste. A
follow up Risk Assessment was submitted by URS Corporation in June of 2013. A Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment was completed by Enviro Assessment P.C. on March 24, 2014.
Findings of these reports all indicate the presence of contamination in the soil and groundwater.

Sampling Results Report
Reilly Tar – UTD009087644 3

A Site Risk Assessment was prepared by URS in June of 2013. An overview of SWMU Areas at
the Site can be seen in this report as Figure 1-1 (URS, 2013). This report provided a baseline
evaluation of current or potential threats to human health and the environment from chemical
releases at the Vertellus property (URS, 2013). They determined that the human health risk at the
Site will be managed in a Site Management Plan and an Environmental Covenant without
additional correction action for certain areas (URS, 2013). However, in some areas cancer risk to
all receptors exceeded thresholds, and therefore, the Site Management Plan must include
procedures for a Corrective Action Plan to mitigate the risks to human health in these areas.
3.4 Removal Activities
In June of 2017 a Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team (START) and
Emergency and Rapid Response Services (ERRS) conducted a Removal Site Inspection with
UDEQ. Sitewide contamination including PAHs and volatile organic compounds (VOC's) was
observed, in some places reaching deeper than 13 feet. These contaminants were solid in the
eastern portion of the Site, but aqueous and mobile in the western portion of the Site, leading to
concerns that these contaminants could flow into the Ironton canal and discharge into Provo Bay.
Numerous asbestos containing tiles were also found at the site (McComb, 2017).
In November of 2017, EPA personnel conducted a limited time critical removal action (TCRA)
at the site to address concerns related to potential impacts to the Ironton Canal from
contamination in the northwest portion of the property. The TCRA consisted of the installation
of a flood resistant liner to prevent contamination from entering the Ironton canal and the
excavation of approximately 2,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil from the northern corner of
the Site and placing the excavated soil in an in-situ land farm on the eastern perimeter of the Site.
Runoff controls were established around the land farm area. Additionally, 1,780 pounds of
asbestos containing tiles were removed and properly disposed of off Site. Lastly, the entire area
was graded to ensure that surface water drains southward, erosion control features were installed
across the Site, and the entire area was re-seeded (Giggleman, 2018).
3.4.1 Post Removal Sampling
In 2017, six samples were collected from the soil that was placed in an in-situ land farm. RT-SS-
003 and RT-SS-006 were analyzed for metals (Appendix H). RT-SS-001 and RT-SS-004 were
analyzed for VOA's (Appendix H). RT-SS-002 and RT-SS-005 were analyzed for Semi-VOA's
and PAH's (Appendix H). Land farm samples exceeded the EPA's Industrial Soil Regional
Screening Level (RSL) for arsenic, nickel, benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene,
benzo(b)fluoranthene), benzo(g,h,i)perylene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, chrysene,
dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, dibenzofuran, indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, N-nitrosodiphenylamine, and
naphthalene. Additionally, 66 other non-volatile compounds were detected at fairly high

Sampling Results Report
Reilly Tar – UTD009087644 4

concentrations (Appendix B, Table 4). Additional sampling was scheduled annually, but was not
able to be completed as planned. Data gaps currently exist as to the effectiveness of the land
farm.
31 monitoring wells were installed around, across, and adjacent to the site by Vertellus
Specialties Inc. in 2009 (URS, 2011). Twelve of those wells were sampled in November of 2017
to assess groundwater contamination at the Site (Appendix H). Samples were analyzed for
metals, VOA's, semi-VOA's, PAH's, and non-volatile contaminants. Groundwater samples
exceeded the 2020 SCDM Benchmark Values for arsenic, cobalt, thallium, benzene,
ethylbenzene, 2-methylnaphthalene, 2,4-Dimethylphenol, 4-Methylphenol, benzo(a)anthracene,
benzo(a)pyrene, dibenzofuran, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, naphthalene,
phenanthrene and phenol. 96 other non-volatile compounds were also detected in the
groundwater.
Thirteen of the monitoring wells around and across the property were sampled in May of 2018.
The same analytes were assessed for. In 2018 the following analytes were present at
concentrations that exceed 2020 SCDM benchmarks: arsenic, thallium, benzene, ethylbenzene,
benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene,
indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, naphthalene, 4-Methylnaphthalene, 2,4-Dimethylphenol, 4-
Methylphenol and dibenzofuran (Appendix H). Additionally, nearly 200 non-volatile compounds
were detected in monitoring well samples in 2018.
In April of 2018 the indoor air at a guard room across the road from the Site was tested to
determine if chlorinated solvents from the contaminated groundwater at the site were traveling
and volatilizing into structures located on the adjacent property. A Summa canister was used to
collect a 24-hour air sample from a location inside the guard station (Figure 2). No contaminants
were detected in concentrations above the EPA's 2018 Regional Screening Levels for Industrial
Air.

Sampling Results Report
Reilly Tar – UTD009087644 5

4.0 FIELD ACTIVITIES
4.1 Scope
The Site sampling activities were developed in the Field Sampling Work Plan and designed
according to the Site Conceptual Model (DERR, 2021a). The approved scope of work for this
Field Sampling Work Plan consisted of the following:
• Excavation of 15 test pits for the purpose of delineation of contamination in the southern
portion of the property, and up to four soil samples to be taken from the test pits.
• Collection of seven groundwater samples from the existing monitoring well network on
Site.
• Gauging depth to water from 10 monitoring wells on Site.
Due to field conditions or other specific factors, modifications to the scope of work were made.
It was proposed in the work plan that a geoprobe advance 20 soil borings; however, due to
equipment availability, time constraints, and field conditions, an excavator was brought out on
Site to excavate 15 test pits instead. A summary of field activities can be seen in Appendix D.
4.2 Sampling Strategy
The sampling strategy for soil excavations was designed to assess the vertical and horizontal
extent of impacts to soils at the Site. The test pits in the southern portion of the Site were
designed to assess the extent of contamination in the vicinity of the former solid waste
management units (SWMUs) and determine if contamination was deposited in other areas which
had not been investigated. These samples were analyzed for volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
semi volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and
metals. After observation and sample collection was complete, each test pit was properly
backfilled and graded to surface conditions.
The sampling strategy for groundwater samples was designed to determine concentrations of
contamination on Site and to determine if contamination was migrating off Site to the adjacent
property. Four groundwater monitoring wells and three piezometers were gauged and sampled
for VOCs, SVOCs, PAHS, and metals. Groundwater and soil samples were delivered to an
analytical laboratory within holding times for all analytical methods to generate analytical data.
The table below provides a summary description of the sample locations, sample types, sampling
naming convention, laboratory analysis, and sampling rationale:

Sampling Results Report
Reilly Tar – UTD009087644 6

SUMMARY OF SOIL AND GROUNDWATER SAMPLES
Sample Location Rationale Sample IDs Sample Matrix Analytes

MW-19
Delineate
groundwater
contamination.

H0AA0

Groundwater
VOCs, SVOCs,
PAHs, Metals
MW-22 Delineate
groundwater
contamination.
H0AA1 Groundwater VOCs, SVOCs,
PAHs, Metals
MW-33 Delineate
groundwater
contamination.
H0AA2 Groundwater VOCs, SVOCs,
Metals
MW-18 Delineate
groundwater
contamination.
H0AA3 Groundwater VOCs, SVOCs,
Metals
PZ-4 Delineate
groundwater
contamination.
H0AA4 Groundwater VOCs, SVOCs,
Metals
PZ-5 Delineate
groundwater
contamination.
H0AA5 Groundwater VOCs, SVOCs,
Metals
PZ-6 Delineate
groundwater
contamination.
H0AA6 Groundwater VOCs, SVOCs,
Metals
TP01 Determine
impacts to soil.
RCT-SS-TP01 Soil VOCs, SVOCs,
Metals
TP04 Determine
impacts to soil.
RCT-SS-TP13 Soil VOCs, SVOCs,
Metals
TP14 Determine
impacts to soil.
RCT-SS-TP14 Soil VOCs, SVOCs,
Metals

4.3 Data collection schedule
The sampling for the Site was conducted during two separate sampling events (September 8,
and September 29-30, 2021). EPA Superfund Technical Assessment & Response Team
(START) contractors were on-Site to provide excavator services to dig test pits around the
Site to delineate the extent of soil contamination, as well as collecting soil samples from a
few of the test pits (September 8, 2021). DERR conducted a separate groundwater sampling
event of the existing well network at the Site (September 29-30, 2022). Site sampling

Sampling Results Report
Reilly Tar – UTD009087644 7

activities were conducted in accordance with the DERR Quality Assurance Project Plan
(QAPP) (DERR, 2020b).
4.3.1 Deviations from the work plan
The work plan stated 21 soil borings were to be advanced in the southern portion of the Site;
however, due to time constraints and availability of contractors, an excavator was brought to
the Site to dig test pits instead. Three soil samples were analyzed for the analyses requested
in the Sampling Work Plan.
4.4 Groundwater Sample Collection
Four monitoring wells and three piezometers were sampled on September 29 and 30, 2021 using
low-flow sampling methods. The wells were evacuated with a low-flow peristaltic pump. New
high-density polyethylene (HDPE) tubing was used for each well, the inlet of which was placed
within the top foot of the water column. Water quality parameters (pH, temperature,
conductivity, and turbidity) were measured with a Horiba U-51 Multiparameter Meter, calibrated
prior to use according to manufacturer’s specifications. Using depth to water and total depth of
well measurements, the casing volume of water for each well was calculated. The wells were
purged until one of the following criteria were met:
• Groundwater quality parameters of pH, temperature, conductivity, and turbidity readings
stabilized to within 10% over three consecutive readings. Readings were taken every five
minutes;
• Three casing volumes were removed; or
• The well no longer produced water.
In two of the three piezometers, groundwater did not recharge quickly enough, so members of
UDEQ DERR measured water levels of other wells around the Site while waiting for the
piezometers to recharge. After letting the piezometers recharge, groundwater samples were taken
immediately. An access agreement was signed and returned to DERR prior to sampling wells
located on the McWane Ductile property, which is located to the west of the Site (Appendix E).
4.5 Soil Sample Collection
Environmental Restoration LLC (ER) and Tetra Tech, EPA’s START contractor, conducted soil
sampling activities on Site with the DERR providing oversight (Tetra Tech, 2022). As directed
by the U.S. EPA, ER excavated 15 test pits to the maximum depth the excavator could reach,
between 10-20 feet below ground surface (bgs). Test pit locations were determined in the field

Sampling Results Report
Reilly Tar – UTD009087644 8

based on Site conditions and ability to safely maneuver and operate the excavator. Test pit
locations can be seen in Figure 2 and 3 of Appendix C.
During excavation activities, START photo-documented excavated soil conditions and used a
MultiRAE Pro to screen VOC concentrations in soil throughout investigation activities
(Appendix C). START identified the presence of coal tar in Test Pit (TP) 01, 14, and 15. The
remaining test pits did not reveal the presence of coal tar throughout the soil profile. START
collected grab subsurface samples from three test pits: two test pits that had observed coal tar
(TP01 and TP14) and one test pit without the presence of coal tar as a background (TP13).
4.6 Quality Control Samples
A field duplicate sample was collected for soil and groundwater as stated in the Sampling Work
Plan. For this investigation, the soil field duplicate was analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs, TPH, and
Metals. The groundwater field duplicate was analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs, and Metals. The
duplicate samples were as follows:
• H0AA7 is a field duplicate for H0AA3 for VOCs, SVOCs, and Metals.
o These samples were both taken from MW-18.
• RCT-SS-TP01-DUP is a field duplicate for RCT-SS-TP01 for VOCs, SVOCs,
TPH, and Metals.
A laboratory-prepared trip blank accompanied the soil samples during sample collection
activities and sample storage. The trip blank was sent to the laboratory with the rest of the soil
samples and analyzed for VOCs.
4.7 Equipment Decontamination
Clean disposable, single-use sampling equipment was used to conduct the soil and groundwater
sampling, and was properly disposed of after each use therefore decontamination of equipment
was not necessary.
4.8 Site Restoration
After sample collection was completed, each test pit was properly backfilled with native soil and
the surface was regraded to match the surrounding area.
5.0 LABORATORY ANALYTICAL METHODS
All soil and groundwater samples (including field duplicates and trip blanks) were placed in iced
coolers. The groundwater samples that were being analyzed for metals were shipped in iced

Sampling Results Report
Reilly Tar – UTD009087644 9

coolers under chain-of-custody protocols via overnight courier to Pace Analytical Services, LLC
in West Columbia, South Carolina (a CLP Certified Laboratory). Groundwater samples being
analyzed for VOCs and SVOCs were shipped to CHEMTEX in Port Arthur, Texas (a CLP
Certified Laboratory). Soil samples (including field duplicates and trip blanks) were placed in
iced coolers and shipped under chain-of-custody protocols via overnight courier to ALS
Environmental in Fort Collins, Colorado (a CLP Certified Laboratory).
Samples were analyzed using the following methods:
Sample Type Number of Samples Analysis / Method
Test pit soil 3 plus 1 duplicate VOCs / SW-846 8260C
SVOCs / SW-846 8270E
1TPH-GRO / SW-846 8015D
2TPH-DRO / SW-846 8015M_mod
3TPH-ORO / SW-846 8015C
Metals / SW-846 6020B
Groundwater 7 plus 1 duplicate VOCs / SW-846 8260C
SVOCs / SW-846 8270D
Metals / SW-846 6010D
1GRO = Gasoline Range Organics
2DRO = Diesel Range Organics
3ORO = Oil Range Organics
6.0 SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS
A summary of the groundwater analytical results with those constituents detected above the
laboratory limits are provided in Tables 1 and 2 of Appendix B. Analytical results for soil and
groundwater samples can be found in Appendix H. For soil, copies of reports and sample chain-
of-custody records can be found in Appendix C. For groundwater, copies of reports are found in
appendix F and sample chain-of-custody records are provided in Appendix G.
Constituent concentrations in soils were compared to current EPA Removal Management Levels
(RMLs) for industrial soil with target excess cancer risk level of 10-4 and a target hazard quotient
of 1.0 for non-carcinogens (Tetra Tech, 2022). Analytical results for soil were also compared to
current EPA RSLs for industrial soil with a target excess cancer risk level of 10-6 and a target
hazard quotient of 1.0 (Tetra Tech, 2022).
Constituent concentrations in groundwater were compared to current EPA Maximum
Contaminant Levels (MCL) and the EPA Tap Water RSLs. Constituents of concern that did not
have a listed MCL were compared to Tap Water RSLs. However, this shallow groundwater is

Sampling Results Report
Reilly Tar – UTD009087644 10

highly unlikely to be used for drinking water. There are no drinking water municipal wells
located within four downgradient miles of the Site.
6.1 Soil Data Summary
Analytical results for soil samples are summarized in Enclosure 3 of Appendix C.
• Metals: Arsenic was reported in soil samples RCT-SS-TP01 and RCT-SS-TP13 at
concentrations that exceed the EPA’s industrial RSL. The arsenic concentrations
identified in soil ranged from 6.8 to 7.0 mg/kg. Arsenic was the only contaminant of
concern that exceed EPA screening levels for metals.
• VOCs and TPH: TPH-DRO was detected in two samples at concentrations exceeding
EPA’s industrial RSL and RML [RSL = 440 mg/kg; RML = 440 mg/kg]. TPH-DRO
concentrations in soil samples ranged from 7,100 to 77,000 mg/kg. TPH-ORO and TPH-
GRO were detected at concentrations above EPA’s industrial RSL and RML [ORO RSL:
40,000mg/kg, RML: 40,000mg/kg; GRO RSL: 420mg/kg, RML: 420mg/kg] in sample
RCT-SS-TP14. Naphthalene was detected at concentrations ranging from 1,500 to 46,000
mg/kg in three of the soil samples, which is above EPA’s industrial RML of 590 mg/kg.
Benzene and Ethylbenzene were also detected in soil samples above the industrial RSL.
• SVOCs: 2-Methylnaphthalene, Benzo(a)pyrene, and Dibenzofuran were detected in
RCT-SS-TP14 at concentrations above EPA’s industrial RMLs. 1-Methylnaphthalene,
Benzo(a)anthracene, Benzo(a)pyrene, Benzo(b)fluoranthene, Benzo(k)fluoranthene,
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene, and Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene were detected in soil samples above
EPA’s industrial RSL.

Periodic headspace air monitoring readings for VOCs were also taken from test pits during the
sampling event (Appendix C, Table 1). Four of the readings were above the short-term exposure
limit (STEL) of 5.0 ppm and the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 12 ppm. Headspace air
monitoring sample locations with exceedances are identified in Appendix C, Figure 2.
6.2 Groundwater Data Summary
Analytical results for groundwater samples are summarized in Appendix B.
• Metals: Arsenic, Thallium, Lead, Cadmium, Cobalt, Iron, and Manganese were all
detected above reported detection limits. Arsenic and Thallium were detected in
numerous samples at levels above EPA’s MCL and Tap water RSL.
Arsenic was detected above EPA’s MCL of 10 ug/L in four groundwater samples at
concentrations ranging from 15 to 100 ug/L. Thallium was detected above EPA’s MCL
of 2 ug/L in five groundwater samples at concentrations ranging from 6.6 to 15 ug/L.

Sampling Results Report
Reilly Tar – UTD009087644 11

• VOCs: Benzene and 1,2-Dichloropropane were the only two VOCs detected above
EPA’s MCL’s (5 and 5 ug/L, respectively). Benzene was detected in MW-33 at 29 ug/L
and 1,2-Dichloropropane was detected in MW-19 at 5.6 ug/L. Naphthalene and phenol
were detected above EPA’s Tap Water RSL. Naphthalene was detected in four samples
and phenol was detected in one sample above the RSL.
• SVOCs: 1,1’-Biphenyl, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2,4-Dimethylphenol, 2,4-Dinitrotoluene,
and Dibenzofuran were all detected in MW-18 and MW-33 above EPA’s Tap Water
RSL. 2-Methylnaphthalene was detected above the Tap Water RSL in MW-33.
7.0 DATA QUALITY ASSESSMENT
Quality control for the sampling program included using standardized sample collection and
handling methods, documenting pertinent field information, and keeping chain-of-custody
records. The sampling work consisted of two phases of sampling: soil sampling and groundwater
sampling. Soil sampling included the collection of three samples plus one duplicate. Soil samples
went through a data validation process. Groundwater sampling included the collection of seven
groundwater sampling plus one duplicate. Groundwater samples did not go through a data
validation process as instructed by the EPA.
Documentation provided with the laboratory analytical results reports included case narratives;
analytical data with minimum detection limits (MDLs) and reported detection limits (RDLs)
listed for all analyses; surrogate recoveries for GC/MS analyses with laboratory control limits;
chain-of-custody records; and quality control summary, including method blanks, matrix
spike/matrix spike duplicates (MS/MSD) with control limits, laboratory control samples and
duplicates (LCS/LCSD) with control limits; and application of data qualifiers where warranted.
A summary of the quality control assessment for analytical precision is presented below:
• Soil samples were collected and received by ALS Environmental on 9/10/21. These
samples were analyzed following the current revision of SOP 424 generally based on
SW-846 Methods 8000C and 8015D. All initial and continuation calibration criteria were
met. All method blank criteria were met. All laboratory control sample and laboratory
control sample duplicate recoveries and relative percent differences (RPD) were within
acceptable criteria. All matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate recoveries and RPDs were
within acceptance criteria (Appendix G, Enclosure 4).
• Groundwater samples analyzed for metals were sent to Pace Analytical, LLC. These
groundwater samples were analyzed within holding times and of the 22 analytes that
were analyzed for, sodium was outside the standard RPD of 25% (Appendix B, Table 3).

Sampling Results Report
Reilly Tar – UTD009087644 12

• Groundwater samples analyzed for VOCs and SVOCs were shipped to CHEMTEX.
Groundwater samples analyzed for SVOCs were analyzed for within holding times;
however, samples being analyzed for VOCs were analyzed outside of holding times by
about four to five hours by the lab. The samples that were analyzed outside of holding
times were given a R qualifier for rejected; however, if the sample contained detections
of an analyte, it was reported with a J qualifier for estimated.
• 43 analytes had a calculable RPD value, and of these 43 analytes there were 12 that were
outside the standard RPD of 25% (Appendix B, Table 4).
8.0 DATA EVALUATION
The following is an overview of the identified contaminants in soil and groundwater sampling
during the course of this sampling event.
8.1 Soil Sample Results
Observations made during the excavation of 15 test pits showed the presence of coal tar in only
the northwest region of the investigated area, where a former solid waste management unit
(SWMU) existed (Appendix C, Enclosure 2). Three of the 15 test pits had observable coal tar:
TP01, TP14, and TP15. The three test pits with observed coal tar all lie within SWMU Area 4
(Figure 2) (ERM, 2010). The other 12 test pits were dug throughout the southern portion of the
property where no SWMUs previously existed and none of these test pits showed the presence of
coal tar.
Headspace readings were taken to screen for VOCs in each test pit except TP15. Exceedances of
the STEL and PEL occurred in TP01, TP04, and TP14. TP01 and TP14 had observable coal tar,
but TP04 did not. VOCs in TP04 were detected in soil 10 feet bgs, but not from soil screened at 3
feet bgs. Groundwater at the Site was encountered at 4 feet bgs. TP04 is within close proximity
and down the hydraulic gradient from the SWMU where TP01 and TP14 were dug; it is possible
groundwater has transported contaminants through the soil to TP04.
In samples from TP01 and TP14 there were exceedances of the EPA RMLs for TPH-DRO, TPH-
ORO, TPH-GRO, 2-methylnaphthalene, benzo(a)pyrene, dibenzofuran, and naphthalene.
Additionally there were exceedances of the EPA RSLs for 1-Methylnaphthalene,
benz(a)anthracene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fruoranthene, dibenz(a,h)anthracene,
indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, benzene, ethylbenzene, and arsenic. All exceedances of EPA RMLs and
RSLs corresponded to samples taken from test pits with observable coal tar, except arsenic.
Arsenic was detected above the RSL in TP13, which did not have coal tar. Arsenic values may
have been high in TP13 due to contamination migrating via the groundwater pathway into areas
without coal tar presence.

Sampling Results Report
Reilly Tar – UTD009087644 13

8.2 Groundwater Sample Results
Groundwater elevation and survey data was used to calculate the direction of groundwater flow.
Depth to groundwater at the Site ranged from three to ten feet bgs. The data indicates that
groundwater at the Site is generally flowing to the seasonal wetland at the south end of the Site
with a hydraulic gradient of 0.0063 feet/feet (Appendix A, Figure 3).
Arsenic and Thallium were detected above the MCL in MW-22, MW-33, PZ-4 and PZ-5.
Thallium was also detected above the MCL in MW-18. MW-18 and MW-33 are along the
perimeter of the Site in SWMU Area 4, while MW-22, PZ-4 and PZ-5 are down the hydraulic
gradient and have no known former SWMUs near them. This suggests metal contamination
associated with SWMU Area 4 may be transported through groundwater down the hydraulic
gradient. Naphthalene was detected in MW-18, MW-33, PZ-4, and PZ-5 above the EPA Tap
Water RSL; this also suggests contamination is moving via the groundwater pathway. It is also
possible arsenic and thallium levels in groundwater may be impacted by industrial operations at
McWane Ductile.
As mentioned in Section 7.0, groundwater samples that were analyzed for VOCs were analyzed
outside of laboratory holding times. These samples were given an R qualifier; however, analytes,
such as Benzene, that had detections were given a J qualifier. Benzene and 1,2-Dichloropropane
were the only two VOCs above MCLs. 1,2-Dichloropropane was found in MW-19, located next
to the Ironton Canal. Benzene was only found in MW-33, where SWMU Area 4 is. In URS’s
2011 groundwater sampling investigation, they reported benzene as non-detect in MW-18 and
MW-33 as an estimated detection of 42 ug/L (URS, 2012). In this investigation, MW-18 was
also non-detect and MW-33 had a detection of 29 ug/L J. While this groundwater data was
analyzed outside of laboratory holding times, the data is consistent with the URS’s groundwater
sampling event in 2011 (URS, 2012). Analytical data associated with VOCs is presented in this
report for informational purposes only, and does not represent quantitative data for current
groundwater levels.
9.0 CONCLUSIONS
This Sampling Results Report indicates that impacts to soil and groundwater are associated with
known SWMUs found on Site. 15 test pits were dug throughout the southern portion of the
property. Test pits with observable coal tar were only found in the former SWMU Area 4. Soil
samples were taken from two test pits with observable coal tar. These soil samples exceeded
screening levels for numerous contaminants of concern, including TPH, SVOCs, VOCs, and
Metals. Test pits dug during this investigation indicate that soil contamination is limited to the
northwestern portion of the investigated area.

Sampling Results Report
Reilly Tar – UTD009087644 14

Groundwater impacts appear to be most significant near the SWMU in MW-18 and MW-33,
however there still are multiple detections of contaminants of concern in MW-22, PZ-4, and PZ-
5. MW-19 and PZ-6 had little to no detections above screening levels. It is likely that
contamination from SWMUs is migrating via the groundwater pathway on Site.
Both human health and environmental exposure pathways for soil and groundwater are impacted
by contaminants at the Site. The indoor air (soil vapor intrusion) and surface water exposure
pathways do not appear to be impacted by Site contamination at this time. The 2013 Risk
Assessment prepared by URS recommended a Site Management Plan, Environmental Covenant,
and Corrective Action Plan to mitigate risk from Site contaminants. None of these
recommendations have been put in place.
A few quality control/quality assurance issues were identified in this investigation. All effort was
taken to ensure the proper collection of groundwater samples; however, due to uncontrollable
circumstances, many groundwater VOC samples were analyzed outside of holding times by the
lab and flagged as rejected. Analytes that were detected were flagged as estimated and these
values were consistent with groundwater data collected at the Site in 2011. RPDs for soil were
all within acceptable criteria, but groundwater samples exceeded acceptable criteria for
numerous samples.
Most notably this investigation shows that coal tar is unlikely to be present in the southern
portion of the Site. While there was observable coal tar in three of the test pits, these all existed
in the former SWMU Area 4 and most likely do not extend outside of that boundary.

Sampling Results Report
Reilly Tar – UTD009087644 15

10.0 REFERENCES
DERR, 2021a; Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Environmental Response
and Remediation; Field Sampling Work Plan for Reilly Tar, UTD0090087644
DERR, 2020b; Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Environmental Response
and Remediation; Quality Assurance Program Plan for Environmental Data Operations for the
CERCLA Branch, Final Plan – Revision No. 8; September 2011, Revised January 2020.
Tetra Tech Inc., 2022, Trip Report – Revision 0, Reilly Coal Tar Removal Assessment, Provo,
Utah
ERM, 2010, Phase II Supplemental Investigation – Groundwater and Surface Water Monitoring
Report
URS, 2012, Progress Report (4th Quarter 2011) Reilly Industries, Inc., Provo, Utah
UTD0090087644
URS, 2013, Risk Assessment – Former Reilly Industries, Provo, Utah UTD0090087644

Sampling Results Report
3220 South Solvents – UTD009087655 20

APPENDIX A
FIGURES

Figure 1Site Location MapReilly Tar2555 South Industrail ParkwayProvo, UT
Prepared By:
Michael Swistak Date:
Reference Scale:Map Scale:
3/31/2021
$)
UTD009087644
1:48,000 1 inch = 4,000 feet01,750 3,500 5,250 7,000875Feet
Subject Property
Property Boundary
@A@A
@A@A
@A
@A
@A
@A
@A@A
@A@A
@A
@A
@A
@A ED
@A
EDED
ED
@A
@A
@A
@A
@A
@A
@A
@A
ED
@A @A@A@A
@A
ED
EDED@A
@A
@A
@A
Ironton Canal
Mountain Springs Pkwy
E 1800 S St
SWMU #1
SWMU #2
SWMU #3
SWMU #4
SWMU #5
SWMU #6
SWMU #7
SWMU #8
SWMU #9
SWMU #11
SWMU #12
SWMU #14
SWMU AREA 4
(SW MU 's # 11 & 12)
SWMU AREA 2
(SWMU's # 2, 3, & 10)
SWMU AREA 1
(Ironton Canal SW MU #1)
SWMU AREA #3
(SWMU's # 4,5,6,7,8,9,14)
SWMU #10
MW-10
MW-14
MW-12
MW-13
MW-32
MW-9
MW-30
MW-29
MW-2
MW-31
MW-3
MW-5
MW-28
MW-27
MW-26
MW-16
PZ-7
MW-36
PZ-6PZ-5
PZ-4
MW-17
MW-11
MW-21
MW-18
MW-33
MW-22
MW-20
MW-19
PZ-9
MW-39 MW-34
TW-3 TW-2
MW-8
PZ-3
PZ-2
PZ-1
TW-1
MW-1
MW-6
MW-15
Figure 3Sept. 2021 Potentiometric Surface MapReilly Tar2555 South Industrial ParkwayProvo, UT
Prepared By:
Michael Swistak Date:
Reference Scale:Map Scale:
6/15/2022
$UTD009087644
1:3600 1 inch = 300 feet012525037550062.5 Feet
Legend
@A Monitoring W ell
ED Piezometer
SWMU Boundary
SWMU Area Boundary
water
Railroad
Property Boundary
@A@A
@A@A
@A
@A
@A
@A
@A@A
@A@A
@A
@A
@A
@A ED
@A
EDED
ED
@A
@A
@A
@A
@A
@A
@A
@A
ED
@A @A
@A @A
@A
ED
EDED
@A
@A
@A
@A
E
E
E
E
Iron ton Canal
Mountain Springs Pkwy
E 1800 S St
MW-10MW-14
MW-12MW-13
MW-32
MW-9
MW-30
MW-29
MW-2
MW-31
MW-3
MW-5
MW-28
MW-27
MW-26
MW-16
PZ-7
MW-36
PZ-6PZ-5
PZ-4
MW-17
MW-11
MW-21
MW-18
MW-33
MW-22
MW-20
MW-19
PZ-9
MW-39 MW-34
TW-3 TW-2
MW-8
PZ-3
PZ-2
PZ-1
TW-1
MW-1
MW-6
MW-15
4494.94
4491.35
4492.38
4491.70
4488.30
4489.58 4490.06
4490.10
4489.70
4489.10
4 4 9 2
4491
4 4 9 0
4 4 8 9
4 4 9 4
4 4 9 3
Figure 3Sept. 2021 Potentiometric Surface MapReilly Tar2555 South Industrial ParkwayProvo, UT
Prepared By:
Michael Swistak Date:
Reference Scale:Map Scale:
1/5/2022
$UTD009087644
1:3000 1 inch = 250 feet010020030040050Feet
Legend
E Groundwa ter Flow Direction
Groundwa ter Elevation (feet)
Groundwa ter C ontour (feet)
@A Monitoring W ell
ED Piezometer
Railroad
Prop erty Boundary4494

Sampling Results Report
3220 South Solvents – UTD009087655 21

APPENDIX B
TABLES

T Q D Q T Q D Q T Q D Q T Q D Q T Q D Q T Q D Q T Q D Q T Q D Q
MCL (ug/L)Tapwater RSL
(ug/L)Aluminum --20000 n 200 U 200 U 200 U 200 U 200 U 200 U 48 J 200 U 71 J 200 U 2700 200 U 11000 NA 460 NAAntimony67.8 n 60 U 60 U 60 U 60 U 60 U 60 U 60 U 60 U 60 U 60 U 60 U 60 U 60 U NA 60 U NAArsenic100.052 c 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 72 J+42 J+100 J+100 J+15 J+10 U 16 J+NA 10 U NABarium20003800 n 28 J 29 J 29 J 29 J 23 J 24 J 200 U 22 J 200 U 200 U 38 J 200 U 78 J NA 200 U NABeryllium----5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 0.79 J NA 5.0 U NACadmium59.2 n 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 0.82 J 5.0 U 5.0 U 1.8 J 1.4 J 2.2 J 2.1 J 1.6 J 5.0 U 5.9 NA 1.5 J NACalcium----410000 400000 380000 360000 130000 140000 590000 570000 480000 530000 270000 240000 530000 NA 450000 NAChromium100--10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 6.1 J 10 U 20 NA 10 U NACobalt--6 n 50 U 50 U 50 U 50 U 50 U 50 U 50 U 50 U 50 U 50 U 50 U 50 U 8.1 J NA 50 U NACopper1300230 n 10 J 11 J 9.6 J 12 J 4.4 J 4.3 J 14 J 16 J 14 J 15 J 15 J 7.5 J 35 NA 14 J NAIron--14000 n 100 U 100 U 100 U 100 U 100 U 100 U 13000 J+12000 J+9100 J+8900 J+12000 J+4700 J+20000 J+NA 12000 J+NALead15156.2 J 7.4 J 5.9 J 5.7 J 10 U 10 U 10 11 11 9.1 J 10 10 U 20 NA 8.0 J NAMagnesium----100000 110000 110000 110000 53000 57000 360000 350000 45000 49000 1500000 1600000 3400000 NA 3100000 NAManganese--430 n 290 280 290 280 9.4 J 11 J 210 270 150 160 200 150 490 NA 150 NANickel----40 U 40 U 40 U 40 U 40 U 40 U 7.1 J 8.5 J 6.3 J 40 U 12 J 9.0 J 40 NA 14 J NAPotassium----41000 43000 42000 42000 9800 11000 38000 45000 32000 35000 170000 170000 270000 NA 270000 NASelenium5010035U35U35U35U35U35U35U35U35U35U35U35U35UNA35UNASilver--94 n 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U NA 10 U NASodium----590000 630000 J+61000 560000 J+68000 J+73000 J+630000 600000 J+780000 J+930000 J+3700000 3800000 J+8500000 NA 3900000 NAThallium20.2 25 U 9.3 J 6.8 J 8.3 J 25 U 25 U 11 J 12 J 6.4 J 25 U 6.6 J 25 U 15 J NA 25 U NAVanadium--86 n 50 U 50 U 50 U 50 U 50 U 50 U 50 U 50 U 50 U 50 U 50 U 50 U 27 J NA 50 U NAZinc--6000 n 60 U 60 U 60 U 60 U 60 U 60 U 60 U 60 U 30 J 60 U 83 31 J 78 NA 16 J NA
Notes:
Bolded and Red Detection above 2022 EPA MCL Benchmark
Shaded orange Detection above 2022 EPA Tapwater RSL Benchmark
Shaded orange and bolded red Detection above 2022 EPA Tapwater RSL and MCL Benchmarks
MCL Maximum Contaminant Level
J Concentration is estimated
U Analyte was not detected
UJ Analyte was not detected due to deficiencies in one or more quality control criteria
NJ Analyte has been "tentatively identified" and the value is the approximate concentration in the sample
R Rejected (Sample was analyzed outside of laboratory holding time)
J-Concentration is estimated, biased low
J+Concentration is estimated, biased high
NA Not analyzed for
T Total Metals
D Dissolved Metals
--No MCL or RSL value
n Noncancer Tapwater RSL
c Cancer Tapwater RSL
MW-18_DUP
H0AA7
Table 1: Groundwater Inorganics Results for Reilly Tar Sept. 2021
MW-PZ-4
H0AA4
PZ-5
H0AA5
PZ-6
H0AA6
MW-19
H0AA0
MW-22
H0AA1
MW-33
H0AA2H0AA3Monitoring Well ID:
Sample Number:
Total/Dissolved
Analyte
MW-18
H0AA3 Q H0AA7 Q H0AA0 Q H0AA1 Q H0AA2 Q H0AA4 Q H0AA5 Q H0AA6 Q
MCL (ug/L)Tapwater RSL
(ug/L)
1(2H)-Isoquinolinone ----270 NJ 360 NJ NA NA 120 NJ NA NA NA
1,1'-Biphenyl --0.83 n 7.4 4.1 J 5.0 U 5.0 U 32 NA NA 5.0 U
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene --56 n 5.0 R 5.0 R 5.0 R 5.0 R 7.2 J 0.50 U 0.50 U 0.50 U
1,2-Dichloropropane 5 0.85 5.0 R 5.0 R 5.6 J 5.0 R 5.0 R 0.50 U 0.50 U 0.50 U
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 75 0.48 c 5.0 R 5.0 R NA 5.0 R 5.0 R 0.50 U 0.50 U NA
1,4-Benzenedicarboxylic acid ----NA NA 7.7 NJ NA NA NA NA 4.3 NJ
1,4-Dihydronaphthalene ----NA NA NA NA 16 NJ NA NA NA
1H-Indene, 2,3-dihydro-5-me...--NA NA NA NA 12 NJ NA NA NA
1-Methylnaphthalene --1.1 c 35 17 5.0 U 5.0 U 160 J 0.080 J 0.18 0.10 U
1-Naphthalenecarbonitrile ----18 NJ 28 NJ NA NA NA NA NA NA
1-Naphthalenol ----58 NJ 56 NJ NA NA NA NA NA NA
1-Naphthalenol, 2-methyl-----36 NJ NA NA NA 11 NJ NA NA NA
2(1H)-Quinolinone, 4,8-dime...----12 NJ 46 NJ NA NA 290 NJ NA NA NA
2,4-Dimethylphenol --360 n 230 180 5.0 U 5.0 U 770 NA NA 5.0 U
2,4-Dinitrotoluene --0.24 c 14 16 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 U NA NA 5.0 U
2-Benzothiophene #----16 NJ NA NA NA 410 NJ NA NA NA
2-Dibenzofuranol (01)----26 NJ 36 NJ NA NA NA NA NA NA
2-Hydroxyfluorene ----11 NJ NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
2-Methylindene ----NA NA NA NA 24 NJ NA NA NA
2-Methylnaphthalene --36 n 2.9 J 79 5.0 U 5.0 U 370 0.060 J 0.10 0.10 U
2-Methylphenol ----12 14 10 U 10 U 1400 NA NA 10 U
2-Naphthalenol, 1-amino---31 NJ 24 J+5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 U NA NA 5.0 U
2-Nitroaniline --190 n 5.0 UJ NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
3-Hydroxybiphenyl (01)----7.4 NJ NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
3-Phenyl-2-propyn-1-ol ----NA NA NA NA 41 NJ NA NA NA
3-Phenylbut-1-ene ----NA NA NA NA 21 NJ NA NA NA
4-Methylphenol ----4.2 J 4.8 J 10 U 10 U 2100 NA NA 10 U
5-Aminoindan --51 NJ 61 NJ NA NA NA NA NA NA
5H-Indeno[1,2-b]pyridine --24 NJ 59 NJ NA NA 74 NJ NA NA NA
6(5H)-Phenanthridinone (01)--49 NJ 60 NJ NA NA NA NA NA NA
9H-Pyrido[3,4-b]indole --NA 46 NJ NA NA NA NA NA NA
Acenaphthene --530 n 160 100 5.0 U 5.0 U 460 0.10 U 0.070 J 0.10 U
Acenaphthylene ----5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 0.10 U 0.070 J 0.10 U
Anthracene --1800 n 4.0 J 4.1 J 5.0 U 5.0 U 40 0.10 U 0.080 J 0.10 U
Benz[cd]indol-2(1H)-one (01)--14 NJ NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Benzene 5 0.46 5.0 R 5.0 R 5.0 R 5.0 R 29 J 0.50 U 0.50 U 0.50 U
Benzene, 1-ethyl-4-methoxy-----NA 17 NJ NA NA NA NA NA NA
Benzene, 1,2,3-trimethyl---55 n NA NA NA NA 7.0 NJ NA NA NA
Benzene, 1-ethyl-2-methyl-----NA NA NA NA 5.7 NJ NA NA NA
Benzocycloheptatriene ----NA 9.6 NJ NA NA NA NA NA NA
Benzofuran, 2-methyl-----8.2 NJ 7.8 NJ NA NA NA NA NA NA
Biphenyl ----NA 5.8 NJ NA NA NA NA NA NA
Benzo[b]thiophene, 2-methyl-----NA NA NA NA 6.6 NJ NA NA NA
Benzo[b]thiophene, 4-methyl-----NA NA NA NA 7.6 NJ NA NA NA
Benzofuran ----NA NA NA NA 44 NJ NA NA NA
Benzofuran, 2-methyl-----NA NA NA NA 88 NJ NA NA NA
Carbazole ----74 84 10 U 10 U 340 J NA NA 10 U
Chrysene --25 c 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 R 0.10 U 0.19 0.10 U
Cyclotetrasiloxane, octamet...--NA 7.0 NJ NA NA 8.2 NJ NA NA 0.68 NJ
Dibenzofuran --7.9 n 48 37 5.0 U 5.0 U 170 J NA NA 5.0 U
Di-n-octylphthalate ----2.4 J 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U NA NA 2.2 J
Fluoranthene ----5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 0.10 U 0.17 0.10 U
Fluorene --290 n 30 26 5.0 U 5.0 U 170 J 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.10 U
Formamide, N,N-dimethyl-----NA NA 5.1 NJ NA NA NA NA NA
Hexanedioic acid, bis(2-eth...----9.6 NJ NA 11 NJ NA NA NA NA 8.5 NJ
Indane ----15 NJ 16 NJ NA NA 180 NJ NA NA NA
Indene ----NA NA NA NA 310 NJ NA NA NA
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene --0.25 c 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 0.10 U 0.090 J 0.10 U
Isoquinoline, 1-methyl-----NA 53 NJ NA NA 13 NJ NA NA NA
m,p-Xylene ----5.0 R 5.0 R 5.0 R 5.0 R 13 J 0.50 U 0.50 U 0.50 U
Methylcyclohexane --5.0 R 5.0 R 7.1 J 5.0 R 5.0 R 0.50 U 0.50 U 0.50 U
Naphthalene --0.12 c 140 52 5.0 U 5.0 U 7100 0.97 0.94 0.10 U
o-Xylene ----5.0 R 5.0 R 5.0 R 5.0 R 7.2 J 0.50 U 0.50 U 0.50 U
Pentachlorophenol 1 0.041 c 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 0.20 UJ 0.20 UJ 0.20 UJ
Phenanthrene ----35 35 5.0 U 5.0 U 64 0.10 U 0.090 J 0.10 U
Phenol --5800 n 4.1 J 6.8 J 10 U 10 U 8800 NA NA 10 U
Phenol, 3,5-dimethyl-----7.9 NJ 62 NJ NA NA NA NA NA NA
Pyrene --120 n 5.0 U 5 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 0.10 U 0.18 0.10 U
Quinoline, 2,4-dimethyl-----11 NJ 130 NJ NA NA NA NA NA NA
Quinoline, 2,7-dimethyl-----20 NJ NA NA NA 100 NJ NA NA NA
Toluene 1000 1100 5.0 R 5.0 R 5.0 R 5.0 R 14 J 0.50 U 0.50 U 0.50 U
Total Alkanes ----15 J 16 J 9.5 J NA 180 J NA NA N NA
Notes:
Bolded and Red Detection above 2022 EPA MCL Benchmark
Shaded orange Detection above 2022 EPA Tapwater RSL Benchmark
Shaded orange and bolded red Detection above 2022 EPA Tapwater RSL and MCL Benchmarks
MCL Maximum Contaminant Level
RSL Regional Screening Level
J Concentration is Estimated
U Analyte was not detected
UJ Analyte was not detected due to deficiencies in one or more quality control criteria
NJ Analyte has been "tentatively identified" and the value is the approximate concentration in the sample
R Rejected (Sample was analyzed outside of laboratory holding time)
NA Not analyzed for
--No MCL or RSL value
n Noncancer Tapwater RSL
c Cancer Tapwater RSL
Table 2: Groundwater VOC, SVOC, and PAHs Results for Reilly Tar Sept. 2021
MW-18 MW-33 PZ-4MW-18DUP MW-19 MW-22 PZ-5 PZ-6Monitoring Well ID:
Analyte
Sample Number:
Screening Level Benchmarks:
RPD RPD
T D T D T D
MCL (ug/L)Tapwater RSL
(ug/L)Aluminum --20000 n 200 U 200 U 200 U 200 U 0.00 0.00Antimony67.8 n 60 U 60 U 60 U 60 U 0.00 0.00Arsenic100.052 c 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 0.00 0.00Barium20003800 n 28 J 29 J 29 J 29 J -3.51 0.00Beryllium----5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 0.00 0.00Cadmium59.2 n 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 0.82 J 0.00 NCCalcium----410000 400000 380000 360000 7.59 10.53Chromium100--10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 0.00 0.00Cobalt--6 n 50 U 50 U 50 U 50 U 0.00 0.00Copper1300230 n 10 J 11 J 9.6 J 12 J 4.08 -8.70Iron--14000 n 100 U 100 U 100 U 100 U 0.00 0.00Lead15156.2 J 7.4 J 5.9 J 5.7 J 4.96 25.95Magnesium----100000 110000 110000 110000 -9.52 0.00Manganese--430 n 290 280 290 280 0.00 0.00Nickel----40 U 40 U 40 U 40 U 0.00 0.00Potassium----41000 43000 42000 42000 -2.41 2.35Selenium5010035U35U35U35U0.00 0.00Silver--94 n 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 0.00 0.00Sodium----590000 630000 J+61000 560000 J+162.52 11.76Thallium20.2 25 U 9.3 J 6.8 J 8.3 J NC 11.36Vanadium--86 n 50 U 50 U 50 U 50 U 0.00 0.00Zinc--6000 n 60 U 60 U 60 U 60 U 0.00 0.00
Notes:
Bolded and Red Detection above 2022 EPA MCL Benchmark
NC RPD Not Calculated
MCL Maximum Contaminant Level
T Total Metals
D Dissolved Metals
--No MCL or RSL value
n Noncancer Tapwater RSL
c Cancer Tapwater RSL
RPD Relative Percent Difference
J Concentration is estimated
U Analyte was not detected
UJ Analyte was not detected due to deficiencies in one or more quality control criteria
NJ Analyte has been "tentatively identified" and the value is the approximate concentration in the sample
R Rejected (Sample was analyzed outside of laboratory holding time)
J-Concentration is estimated, biased low
J+Concentration is estimated, biased high
Table 3: Inorganic Groundwater RPD QA QC
Analyte
Monitoring Well ID:MW-18 MW-18_DUP
Sample Number:H0AA3 H0AA7
Total/Dissolved
RPD
H0AA3 Q H0AA7 Q
MCL (ug/L)Tapwater RSL
(ug/L)
1(2H)-Isoquinolinone ----270 NJ 360 NJ -28.57
1,1'-Biphenyl --0.83 n 7.4 4.1 J 57.39
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene --56 n 5.0 R 5.0 R 0.00
1,2-Dichloropropane 5 0.85 5.0 R 5.0 R 0.00
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 75 0.48 c 5.0 R 5.0 R 0.00
1-Methylnaphthalene --1.1 c 35 17 69.23
1-Naphthalenecarbonitrile ----18 NJ 28 NJ -43.48
1-Naphthalenol ----58 NJ 56 NJ 3.51
1-Naphthalenol, 2-methyl-----36 NJ NA NC
2(1H)-Quinolinone, 4,8-dime...----12 NJ 46 NJ -117.24
2,4-Dimethylphenol --360 n 230 180 24.39
2,4-Dinitrotoluene --0.24 c 14 16 -13.33
2-Benzothiophene #----16 NJ NA NC
2-Dibenzofuranol (01)----26 NJ 36 NJ -32.26
2-Hydroxyfluorene ----11 NJ NA NC
2-Methylindene ----NA NA NC
2-Methylnaphthalene --36 n 2.9 J 79 -185.84
2-Methylphenol ----12 14 -15.38
2-Naphthalenol, 1-amino---31 NJ 24 J+25.45
2-Nitroaniline --190 n 5.0 UJ NA NC
3-Hydroxybiphenyl (01)----7.4 NJ NA NC
4-Methylphenol ----4.2 J 4.8 J -13.33
5-Aminoindan --51 NJ 61 NJ -17.86
5H-Indeno[1,2-b]pyridine --24 NJ 59 NJ -84.34
6(5H)-Phenanthridinone (01)--49 NJ 60 NJ -20.18
9H-Pyrido[3,4-b]indole --NA 46 NJ NC
Acenaphthene --530 n 160 100 46.15
Acenaphthylene ----5.0 U 5.0 U 0.00
Anthracene --1800 n 4.0 J 4.1 J -2.47
Benz[cd]indol-2(1H)-one (01)--14 NJ NA NC
Benzene 5 0.46 5.0 R 5.0 R 0.00
Benzene, 1-ethyl-4-methoxy-----NA 17 NJ NC
Benzocycloheptatriene ----NA 9.6 NJ NC
Benzofuran, 2-methyl-----8.2 NJ 7.8 NJ 5.00
Biphenyl ----NA 5.8 NJ NC
Carbazole ----74 84 -12.66
Chrysene --25 c 5.0 U 5.0 U 0.00
Cyclotetrasiloxane, octamet...--NA 7.0 NJ NC
Dibenzofuran --7.9 n 48 37 25.88
Di-n-octylphthalate ----2.4 J 10 U NC
Fluoranthene ----5.0 U 5.0 U 0.00
Fluorene --290 n 30 26 14.29
Hexanedioic acid, bis(2-eth...----9.6 NJ NA NC
Indane ----15 NJ 16 NJ -6.45
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene --0.25 c 5.0 U 5.0 U 0.00
Isoquinoline, 1-methyl-----NA 53 NJ NC
m,p-Xylene ----5.0 R 5.0 R 0.00
Methylcyclohexane --5.0 R 5.0 R 0.00
Naphthalene --0.12 c 140 52 91.67
o-Xylene ----5.0 R 5.0 R 0.00
Pentachlorophenol 1 0.041 c 10 U 10 U 0.00
Phenanthrene ----35 35 0.00
Phenol --5800 n 4.1 J 6.8 J -49.54
Phenol, 3,5-dimethyl-----7.9 NJ 62 NJ -154.79
Pyrene --120 n 5.0 U 5 U 0.00
Quinoline, 2,4-dimethyl-----11 NJ 130 NJ -168.79
Quinoline, 2,7-dimethyl-----20 NJ NA NC
Toluene 1000 1100 5.0 R 5.0 R 0.00
Total Alkanes ----15 J 16 J -6.45
Notes:
Bolded and Red Detection above 2022 EPA MCL Benchmark
NC RPD Not Calculated
MCL Maximum Contaminant Level
T Total Metals
D Dissolved Metals
--No MCL or RSL value
n Noncancer Tapwater RSL
c Cancer Tapwater RSL
RPD Relative Percent Difference
J Concentration is estimated
U Analyte was not detected
UJ Analyte was not detected due to deficiencies in one or more quality control criteria
NJ Analyte has been "tentatively identified" and the value is the approximate concentration in the sample
R Rejected (Sample was analyzed outside of laboratory holding time)
J-Concentration is estimated, biased low
J+Concentration is estimated, biased high
Table 4: Organic Groundwater RPD QA QC
Analyte
Monitoring Well ID:MW-18 MW-18DUP
Sample Number:
Screening Level Benchmarks:
Sampling Results Report
3220 South Solvents – UTD009087655 22
APPENDIX C
START TRIP REPORT ENCLOSURES 1-3
1
February 17, 2022
Mr. Martin McComb
On-Scene Coordinator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8
1595 Wynkoop Street
Denver, Colorado 80202
Subject: Trip Report – Revision 0
Reilly Coal Tar Removal Assessment, Provo, Utah
U.S. EPA Region 8 START 5, Contract No. 68HE0820D0001
Task Order No. 68HE0820F0071
Task Monitor: Marty McComb, EPA On-Scene Coordinator
Dear Mr. McComb:
The Tetra Tech Inc. (Tetra Tech) Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team (START) is
submitting this Trip Report – Revision 0 for the Reilly Coal Tar Removal Assessment (the Site) in
Provo, Utah County, Utah for your review and comment. This report summarizes field activities
conducted at the Site during the September 8, 2021 investigation and sampling event.
The scope of this project was to provide technical assistance and sampling support to characterize the
extent and magnitude of contamination in subsurface soils on the 23-acre southern portion of the Site.
This trip report summarizes site activities and findings, including site background and physical location,
site activities, analytical results, and conclusions. Enclosure 1 presents the photolog; Enclosure 2
presents the site figures; Enclosure 3 contains tables; and Enclosure 3 presents the verified laboratory
data package.
SITE BACKGROUND AND PHYSICAL LOCATION
The Site is located at 2555 South Industrial Parkway, Provo, Utah County, Utah (Figure 1). The
geographic coordinates for the approximate center of the site are 40.199167° north latitude, -
111.630154° west longitude. The Site is an abandoned coal tar distillery that operated from 1924 to
2002. Land use in the area is largely industrial. The Ironton Canal constitutes the northern boundary of
the Site and discharges into Spring Creek and Utah Lake’s Provo Bay, approximately 1.5 miles west of
the Site. The southern portion of the Site is now a seasonal wetland, and groundwater tends to flow
westward beneath a nearby industrial facility.
SITE ACTIVITES
Environmental Restoration LLC (ER) and START conducted investigation and soil sampling activities

2

on September 8, 2021. As directed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), ER conducted
the excavation of fifteen test pits to the maximum depth the excavator could reach, between 10 feet
below ground surface (bgs) to 20 feet bgs. Test pit locations were selected based on site conditions and
accessibility to safely maneuver and operate the excavator. Test pit locations are identified on Figure 2
and 3.

During excavation activities, START photo documented excavated soil conditions and used a MultiRAE
Pro to screen VOC concentrations in soil throughout investigation activities. Headspace monitoring
results are summarized in Table 1. START identified the presence of coal tar in Test Pit (TP) 01, 14, and
15. The remaining test pits did not reveal the presence of coal tar throughout the soil profile of the test
pit. START collected a grab subsurface sample from three test pits; two test pits that contained coal tar
(TP01 and TP14) and one test pit without the presence of coal tar as a background (TP13).

After completing the documentation of test pit locations, all soil was returned to the original test pit to
match the surrounding grade.

ANALYTICAL RESULTS

The three subsurface soil samples and associated QC samples collected during the site activities were
analyzed by ALS Laboratory in Fort Collins, Colorado. Samples were analyzed for total petroleum
hydrocarbons gasoline range organics (TPH-GRO), total petroleum hydrocarbons diesel range organics
(TPH-DRO), total petroleum hydrocarbons oil range organics (TPH-ORO), Semi-volatile organic
compound s (SVOCs), Target Analyte List (TAL) Metals, and VOCs.

Analytical results were compared to EPA Removal Management Level (RML) for industrial soil with a
target excess cancer risk level of 10-4 and a target hazard quotient of 1.0 for non-carcinogens (EPA
2021a). Analytical results were also compared to EPA regional screening levels (RSL) for industrial soil
with a target excess cancer risk level of 10-6 and a target hazard quotient of 1.0 (EPA 2021b).

In three of the samples, there were exceedances of the EPA RMLs for TPH-DRO, TPH-ORO, TPH-
GRO, 2-methylnaphthalene, benzo(a)pyrene, dibenzofuran, and naphthalene. Additionally there were
exceedances of the EPA RSLs for 1-methylnaphthalene, benz(a)anthracene, benzo(b)fluoranthene,
benzo(k)fluoranthene, dibenz(a,h)anthracene, indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, benzene, ethylbenzene, and
arsenic. Table 2 summarizes the analytical results for the subsurface soil samples. Subsurface soil
sample locations with exceedances are identified on Figure 3.

Table 1 lists the readings documented from the periodic headspace air monitoring for VOCs. Four of the
readings were above the short-term exposure limit (STEL) of 5.0 ppm and the PEL of 12 ppm.
Headspace air monitoring sample locations with exceedances are identified on Figure 2.

CONCLUSIONS

START personnel collected a subsurface soil samples at three separate test pit locations (TP01, TP13, and
TP14). The presence of coal tar was identified in three test pits located in the northwest area of the
investigated area (TP01, TP14, and TP15.

DATA MANAGEMENT

START personnel collected mobile data using ESRI’s Survey123 mobile data collection application to

3

document subsurface soil information, and to collect general photos and other site observations.

All subsurface soil sample data and analytical results were loaded into a Scribe database.

If you have any questions or comments regarding this trip report, please call me at [phone].

Sincerely,

Madison Ericson
START V Project Manager

Enclosures (4)
Enclosure 1 – Photolog
Enclosure 2 – Site Figures
Enclosure 3 – Table
Enclosure 4 – Laboratory Analytical Packages

cc: Di Di Fung, START Region 8 Program Manager
Clayton Longest, START Region 8 Document Control Coordinator
ENCLOSURE 1
PHOTOLOG

PHOTOGRAPH LOG
Project Name:
Reilly Coal Tar
Site Location:
NW corner of site
Project No.
2071-2105-06

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 8
1595 Wynkoop St.
Denver, CO 80202 Page | 1

Photo Description: The site from the northwest corner looking southeast.

Date/Time Taken: 09/08/2021 9:17:AM Photographer: Resch_Ryan
Latitude: 40.19799183 Longitude: -111.6298815 Photo Direction: N

PHOTOGRAPH LOG
Project Name:
Reilly Coal Tar
Site Location:
NW corner of site
Project No.
2071-2105-06

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 8
1595 Wynkoop St.
Denver, CO 80202 Page | 2

Photo Description: The site from the northwest corner looking east.

Date/Time Taken: 09/08/2021 9:18:AM Photographer: Resch_Ryan
Latitude: 40.19799483 Longitude: -111.62984761 Photo Direction: N

PHOTOGRAPH LOG
Project Name:
Reilly Coal Tar
Site Location:
NW corner of site
Project No.
2071-2105-06
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 8
1595 Wynkoop St.
Denver, CO 80202 Page | 3
Photo Description: The site from the northwest corner looking south.
Date/Time Taken: 09/08/2021 9:18:AM Photographer: Resch_Ryan
Latitude: 40.19796842 Longitude: -111.62985317 Photo Direction: N
PHOTOGRAPH LOG
Project Name:
Reilly Coal Tar
Site Location:
SE corner of site
Project No.
2071-2105-06
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 8
1595 Wynkoop St.
Denver, CO 80202 Page | 4
Photo Description: The site from the southeast corner looking west.
Date/Time Taken: 09/08/2021 2:14:PM Photographer: Resch_Ryan
Latitude: 40.19562333 Longitude: -111.62684641 Photo Direction: N
PHOTOGRAPH LOG
Project Name:
Reilly Coal Tar
Site Location:
SE corner of site
Project No.
2071-2105-06
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 8
1595 Wynkoop St.
Denver, CO 80202 Page | 5
Photo Description: The site from the southeast corner looking northwest
Date/Time Taken: 09/08/2021 2:15:PM Photographer: Resch_Ryan
Latitude: 40.19573386 Longitude: -111.62685408 Photo Direction: N
PHOTOGRAPH LOG
Project Name:
Reilly Coal Tar
Site Location:
TP01
Project No.
2071-2105-06
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 8
1595 Wynkoop St.
Denver, CO 80202 Page | 6
Photo Description: Advancement of TP01.
Date/Time Taken: 09/08/2021 10:23:AM Photographer: Resch_Ryan
Latitude: 40.19763072 Longitude: -111.62975789 Photo Direction: N
PHOTOGRAPH LOG
Project Name:
Reilly Coal Tar
Site Location:
TP01
Project No.
2071-2105-06
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 8
1595 Wynkoop St.
Denver, CO 80202 Page | 7
Photo Description: Coal tar present in soil removed from TP01.
Date/Time Taken: 09/08/2021 10:59:AM Photographer: Resch_Ryan
Latitude: 40.19858333 Longitude: -111.62533264 Photo Direction: N

PHOTOGRAPH LOG
Project Name:
Reilly Coal Tar
Site Location:
TP01
Project No.
2071-2105-06

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 8
1595 Wynkoop St.
Denver, CO 80202 Page | 8

Photo Description: Soil profile of TP01.

Date/Time Taken: 09/08/2021 10:59:AM Photographer: Resch_Ryan
Latitude: 40.19763867 Longitude: -111.62967317 Photo Direction: N
PHOTOGRAPH LOG
Project Name:
Reilly Coal Tar
Site Location:
TP02
Project No.
2071-2105-06
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 8
1595 Wynkoop St.
Denver, CO 80202 Page | 9
Photo Description: Soil removed from TP02
Date/Time Taken: 09/08/2021 11:43:AM Photographer: Resch_Ryan
Latitude: 40.19694181 Longitude: -111.62939525 Photo Direction: N
PHOTOGRAPH LOG
Project Name:
Reilly Coal Tar
Site Location:
TP02
Project No.
2071-2105-06
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 8
1595 Wynkoop St.
Denver, CO 80202 Page | 10
Photo Description: Soil profile of TP02.
Date/Time Taken: 09/08/2021 11:44:AM Photographer:
Latitude: 40.19694703 Longitude: -111.62935818 Photo Direction: N
Photo Description:
Date/Time Taken: Photographer: Resch_Ryan
Latitude: 0 Longitude: 0 Photo Direction: N
PHOTOGRAPH LOG
Project Name:
Reilly Coal Tar
Site Location:
TP03
Project No.
2071-2105-06
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 8
1595 Wynkoop St.
Denver, CO 80202 Page | 11
Photo Description: Soil removed from TP03.
Date/Time Taken: 09/08/2021 11:51:AM Photographer: Resch_Ryan
Latitude: 40.19642528 Longitude: -111.62932528 Photo Direction: N
PHOTOGRAPH LOG
Project Name:
Reilly Coal Tar
Site Location:
TP03
Project No.
2071-2105-06
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 8
1595 Wynkoop St.
Denver, CO 80202 Page | 12
Photo Description: Soil profile of TP03.
Date/Time Taken: 09/08/2021 11:52:AM Photographer: Resch_Ryan
Latitude: 40.19641429 Longitude: -111.62924561 Photo Direction: N
Photo Description:
Date/Time Taken: 09/08/2021 12:02:PM Photographer: Resch_Ryan
Latitude: 0 Longitude: 0 Photo Direction: N

PHOTOGRAPH LOG
Project Name:
Reilly Coal Tar
Site Location:
TP04
Project No.
2071-2105-06

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 8
1595 Wynkoop St.
Denver, CO 80202 Page | 13

Photo Description: Advancement of TP04.

Date/Time Taken: 09/08/2021 12:06:PM Photographer: Resch_Ryan
Latitude: 40.19765775 Longitude: -111.62899697 Photo Direction: N

PHOTOGRAPH LOG
Project Name:
Reilly Coal Tar
Site Location:
TP04
Project No.
2071-2105-06
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 8
1595 Wynkoop St.
Denver, CO 80202 Page | 14
Photo Description: Soil profile of TP04.
Date/Time Taken: 09/08/2021 12:11:PM Photographer: Resch_Ryan
Latitude: 40.19772872 Longitude: -111.629109 Photo Direction: N
PHOTOGRAPH LOG
Project Name:
Reilly Coal Tar
Site Location:
TP04
Project No.
2071-2105-06
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 8
1595 Wynkoop St.
Denver, CO 80202 Page | 15
Photo Description: Soil removed from TP04.
Date/Time Taken: 09/08/2021 12:11:PM Photographer: Resch_Ryan
Latitude: 40.19775683 Longitude: -111.62910833 Photo Direction: N
Photo Description:
Date/Time Taken: 09/08/2021 12:21:PM Photographer: Resch_Ryan
Latitude: 0 Longitude: 0 Photo Direction: N
PHOTOGRAPH LOG
Project Name:
Reilly Coal Tar
Site Location:
TP05
Project No.
2071-2105-06
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 8
1595 Wynkoop St.
Denver, CO 80202 Page | 16
Photo Description: Advancement of TP05.
Date/Time Taken: 09/08/2021 12:26:PM Photographer: Resch_Ryan
Latitude: 40.19717058 Longitude: -111.62902806 Photo Direction: N
PHOTOGRAPH LOG
Project Name:
Reilly Coal Tar
Site Location:
TP05
Project No.
2071-2105-06
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 8
1595 Wynkoop St.
Denver, CO 80202 Page | 17
Photo Description: Soil profile of TP05.
Date/Time Taken: 09/08/2021 12:27:PM Photographer: Resch_Ryan
Latitude: 40.19704608 Longitude: -111.62896453 Photo Direction: N

PHOTOGRAPH LOG
Project Name:
Reilly Coal Tar
Site Location:
TP05
Project No.
2071-2105-06

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 8
1595 Wynkoop St.
Denver, CO 80202 Page | 18

Photo Description: Soil removed from TP05.

Date/Time Taken: 09/08/2021 12:29:PM Photographer: Resch_Ryan
Latitude: 40.19704983 Longitude: -111.62897936 Photo Direction: N

Photo Description:

Date/Time Taken: 09/08/2021 12:34:PM Photographer: Resch_Ryan
Latitude: 0 Longitude: 0 Photo Direction: N
PHOTOGRAPH LOG
Project Name:
Reilly Coal Tar
Site Location:
TP06
Project No.
2071-2105-06
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 8
1595 Wynkoop St.
Denver, CO 80202 Page | 19
Photo Description: Soil profile of TP06.
Date/Time Taken: 09/08/2021 12:40:PM Photographer: Resch_Ryan
Latitude: 40.196444 Longitude: -111.62865106 Photo Direction: N
PHOTOGRAPH LOG
Project Name:
Reilly Coal Tar
Site Location:
TP06
Project No.
2071-2105-06
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 8
1595 Wynkoop St.
Denver, CO 80202 Page | 20
Photo Description: Soil removed from TP06.
Date/Time Taken: 09/08/2021 12:41:PM Photographer: Resch_Ryan
Latitude: 40.19642461 Longitude: -111.62868872 Photo Direction: N
Photo Description:
Date/Time Taken: Photographer: Resch_Ryan
Latitude: 0 Longitude: 0 Photo Direction: N

PHOTOGRAPH LOG
Project Name:
Reilly Coal Tar
Site Location:
TP07
Project No.
2071-2105-06

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 8
1595 Wynkoop St.
Denver, CO 80202 Page | 21

Photo Description: Soil profile of TP07.

Date/Time Taken: 09/08/2021 12:53:PM Photographer: Resch_Ryan
Latitude: 40.19675925 Longitude: -111.62816583 Photo Direction: N

PHOTOGRAPH LOG
Project Name:
Reilly Coal Tar
Site Location:
TP07
Project No.
2071-2105-06

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 8
1595 Wynkoop St.
Denver, CO 80202 Page | 22

Photo Description: Soil removed from TP07.

Date/Time Taken: 09/08/2021 12:55:PM Photographer: Resch_Ryan
Latitude: 40.19674542 Longitude: -111.62813703 Photo Direction: N
PHOTOGRAPH LOG
Project Name:
Reilly Coal Tar
Site Location:
TP08
Project No.
2071-2105-06
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 8
1595 Wynkoop St.
Denver, CO 80202 Page | 23
Photo Description: Advancement of TP08.
Date/Time Taken: 09/08/2021 1:48:PM Photographer: Resch_Ryan
Latitude: 40.19705211 Longitude: -111.62748093 Photo Direction: N
PHOTOGRAPH LOG
Project Name:
Reilly Coal Tar
Site Location:
TP08
Project No.
2071-2105-06
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 8
1595 Wynkoop St.
Denver, CO 80202 Page | 24
Photo Description: Soil profile of TP08.
Date/Time Taken: 09/08/2021 1:53:PM Photographer: Resch_Ryan
Latitude: 40.19700764 Longitude: -111.62732246 Photo Direction: N

PHOTOGRAPH LOG
Project Name:
Reilly Coal Tar
Site Location:
TP08
Project No.
2071-2105-06

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 8
1595 Wynkoop St.
Denver, CO 80202 Page | 25

Photo Description: Soil removed from TP08.

Date/Time Taken: 09/08/2021 1:53:PM Photographer: Resch_Ryan
Latitude: 40.19700122 Longitude: -111.62728436 Photo Direction: N

PHOTOGRAPH LOG
Project Name:
Reilly Coal Tar
Site Location:
TP09
Project No.
2071-2105-06

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 8
1595 Wynkoop St.
Denver, CO 80202 Page | 26

Photo Description: Soil profile of TP09.

Date/Time Taken: 09/08/2021 2:04:PM Photographer: Resch_Ryan
Latitude: 40.19642689 Longitude: -111.62682424 Photo Direction: N

PHOTOGRAPH LOG
Project Name:
Reilly Coal Tar
Site Location:
TP09
Project No.
2071-2105-06

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 8
1595 Wynkoop St.
Denver, CO 80202 Page | 27

Photo Description: Soil removed from TP09.

Date/Time Taken: 09/08/2021 2:05:PM Photographer: Resch_Ryan
Latitude: 40.19640939 Longitude: -111.62684675 Photo Direction: N
PHOTOGRAPH LOG
Project Name:
Reilly Coal Tar
Site Location:
TP10
Project No.
2071-2105-06
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 8
1595 Wynkoop St.
Denver, CO 80202 Page | 28
Photo Description: Soil profile of TP10.
Date/Time Taken: 09/08/2021 2:23:PM Photographer: Resch_Ryan
Latitude: 40.19569178 Longitude: -111.62677073 Photo Direction: N
PHOTOGRAPH LOG
Project Name:
Reilly Coal Tar
Site Location:
TP10
Project No.
2071-2105-06
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 8
1595 Wynkoop St.
Denver, CO 80202 Page | 29
Photo Description: Soil removed from TP10
Date/Time Taken: 09/08/2021 2:23:PM Photographer: Resch_Ryan
Latitude: 40.19568156 Longitude: -111.62676797 Photo Direction: N
PHOTOGRAPH LOG
Project Name:
Reilly Coal Tar
Site Location:
TP11
Project No.
2071-2105-06
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 8
1595 Wynkoop St.
Denver, CO 80202 Page | 30
Photo Description: Soil profile of TP11.
Date/Time Taken: 09/08/2021 2:33:PM Photographer: Resch_Ryan
Latitude: 40.19615999 Longitude: -111.62825926 Photo Direction: N
PHOTOGRAPH LOG
Project Name:
Reilly Coal Tar
Site Location:
TP12
Project No.
2071-2105-06
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 8
1595 Wynkoop St.
Denver, CO 80202 Page | 31
Photo Description: Soil profile of TP12.
Date/Time Taken: 09/08/2021 2:40:PM Photographer: Resch_Ryan
Latitude: 40.19571864 Longitude: -111.62924853 Photo Direction: N

PHOTOGRAPH LOG
Project Name:
Reilly Coal Tar
Site Location:
TP13
Project No.
2071-2105-06

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 8
1595 Wynkoop St.
Denver, CO 80202 Page | 32

Photo Description: Soil profile of TP13.

Date/Time Taken: 09/08/2021 2:54:PM Photographer: Resch_Ryan
Latitude: 40.19748083 Longitude: -111.62827597 Photo Direction: N
PHOTOGRAPH LOG
Project Name:
Reilly Coal Tar
Site Location:
TP14
Project No.
2071-2105-06
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 8
1595 Wynkoop St.
Denver, CO 80202 Page | 33
Photo Description: Soil profile of TP14.
Date/Time Taken: 09/08/2021 3:22:PM Photographer:
Latitude: 40.19734597 Longitude: -111.62974572 Photo Direction: N
PHOTOGRAPH LOG
Project Name:
Reilly Coal Tar
Site Location:
TP14
Project No.
2071-2105-06
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 8
1595 Wynkoop St.
Denver, CO 80202 Page | 34
Photo Description: Soil removed from TP14.
Date/Time Taken: 09/08/2021 3:23:PM Photographer: Resch_Ryan
Latitude: 40.19732264 Longitude: -111.62974337 Photo Direction: N
PHOTOGRAPH LOG
Project Name:
Reilly Coal Tar
Site Location:
TP15
Project No.
2071-2105-06
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 8
1595 Wynkoop St.
Denver, CO 80202 Page | 35
Photo Description: Soil profile of TP15.
Date/Time Taken: 09/08/2021 3:51:PM Photographer: Resch_Ryan
Latitude: 40.19802586 Longitude: -111.63015481 Photo Direction: N
PHOTOGRAPH LOG
Project Name:
Reilly Coal Tar
Site Location:
TP15
Project No.
2071-2105-06
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 8
1595 Wynkoop St.
Denver, CO 80202 Page | 36
Photo Description: Soil removed from TP15.
Date/Time Taken: 09/08/2021 3:51:PM Photographer: Resch_Ryan
Latitude: 40.19802114 Longitude: -111.63013633 Photo Direction: N
ENCLOSURE 2
SITE FIGURES
TP01
TP02TP03
TP04
TP05
TP06
TP07
TP08
TP09
TP10
TP11
TP12
TP13
TP14
TP15
Arizona
Colorado
Idaho
Nevada
New
Mexico
Utah
Wyoming
0 100 20050 Feet
Utah County
File: \\tts194fs1\CAD\GIS\R8STARTV\ReillyCoalTar\ArcGIS_Pro
FIGURE 2
2071-2105-06
Reilly Coal Tar
Test Pit Locations with
Headspace Exceedances
TD No.:
Site Name:
UtahUtahIronton
State:County:
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
Region 8
±
Date:
2/9/2022
City:
Investigated Area
Site Boundary
Test Pit Locations
Spatial Reference
Name: GCS North American 1983
GCS: GCS North American 1983
Datum: North American 1983
Map Units: Degree
Depth VOC Results
20’ bgs 15.38
Depth VOC Results
3’ bgs 0
10’ bgs *510
Depth VOC Results
4’ bgs 32.7
10’ bgs 18.05
XXX The reported concentration
exceeds permissible exposure
limit (PEL)
*Saturated soil at depth
bgs Below Ground Surface
VOC Volatile Organic Compounds
All sample results are presented in units of parts
per million (ppm)
All depths below ground surface are presented in feet (')
TP01
TP02TP03
TP04
TP05
TP06
TP07
TP08
TP09
TP10
TP11
TP12
TP13
TP14
TP15
Arizona
Colorado
Idaho
Nevada
New
Mexico
Utah
Wyoming
0 100 20050 Feet
Spatial Reference
Name: GCS North American 1983
GCS: GCS North American 1983
Datum: North American 1983
Map Units: Degree
Utah County
File: \\tts194fs1\CAD\GIS\R8STARTV\ReillyCoalTar\ArcGIS_Pro
FIGURE 3
2071-2105-06
Reilly Coal Tar
Soil Sample Exceedances
TD No.:
Site Name:
UtahUtahIronton
State:County:
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
Region 8
±
Date:
2/9/2022
City:
Test Pit Locations
Investigated Area
Site Boundary
XXX
The reported concentration exceeds the
RSL for industrial soil
XXX The reported concentration exceeds the
RML and RSL for industrial soil
RML Removal Management Level, with hazard
quotient = 1.0 for non-carcinogens
RSL Regional Screening Level, with hazard
quotient = 1.0
NJ
Analyte has been "tentatively identified"
and the value is the approximate
concentration in the sample
J Concentration is estimated
J-Concentration is estimated, biased low
*All sample results are presented in units of
milligrams per kilograms
Analyte Results
Diesel Range Organics 7,100 J
Oil Range Organics 1,800 J
1-Methylnaphthalene 210
Benz(a)anthracene 98
Benzo(a)pyrene 39
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 50
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 3.3 J
Benzene 15 J
Naphthalene 1,500
Arsenic 6.8
--
3,000
7.3
4,100 J
310
130
55
70
5.0 J
RCT-SS-TP01 RCT-SS-TP01-DUP
Results
11,000 J
Analyte Results
Arsenic 7
RCT-SS-TP13
Analyte Results
Diesel Range Organics 77,000
Oil Range Organics 30,000 NJ
Gasoline Range Organics 1500 J-
1-Methylnaphthalene 2,900
2-Methylnaphthalene 5,600
Benz(a)anthracene 1,600
Benzo(a)pyrene 1,200
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 1,400
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 620
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 110 J
Dibenzofuran 3,400
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 430
Benzene 100
Ethylbenzene 62
Naphthalene 46,000
RCT-SS-TP14

ENCLOSURE 3
TABLES

Table 1. Headspace Air Monitoring Readings
Depth Below
Ground
Surface(bgs)
Lower
Explosive
Limit (LEL)
Oxygen (O2)
Volatile
Organic
Compounds
(VOCs)
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
Hydrogen
Sulfide
(H2S)
ft %%ppm ppm ppm
TP01 20’ bgs 4 20.9 15.38 4 3.4
4’ bgs 0 21.3 0 0 0
10’ bgs 0 21.3 0 0 0
3’ bgs 0 21.3 0 0 0
10’ bgs 0 21.3 0 0 0
3’ bgs 0 21.4 0 0 0
10’ bgs *0 21.3 510 0 0
3’ bgs 0 21.3 0 0 0
10’ bgs 0 21.3 0 0 0
3’ bgs 0 21.3 0 0 0
10’ bgs 0 21.3 0 0 0
10’ bgs 0 21.3 0 0 0
3’ bgs 0 21.3 0 0 0
10’ bgs 0 21.4 0 0 0
3’ bgs 0 21.4 0 0 0
TP09 11’ bgs 0 21.4 0 0 0
TP10 12’ bgs 0 21.3 0 0 0
TP11 10’ bgs 0 21.4 0 0 0
TP12 10’ bgs 0 21.3 0 0 0
3’ bgs 0 21.3 0 0 0
10’ bgs 0 21.3 0 0 0
4’ bgs 4 20.9 32.7 5 3.5
10’ bgs 3 20.9 18.05 3 3.3
10%>19.5%5 ppm 25 ppm 10 ppm
10%>19.5%12 ppm 50 ppm 20 ppm
Notes:
* saturated soil at depth
Bolded and shaded orange result indicates detection above the permissible exposure limit
ft Feet
PEL
STEL
ppm Parts per million
Short-term exposure limit, is the maximum concentration of a chemical to which
workers may be exposed continuously for a short period of time without any
danger to health, safety or work efficiency
TP08
TP13
TP14
Test Pit (TP)#
PEL
Permissible exposure limit, is the maximum amount or concentration of a chemical
that a worker may be exposed to under OSHA regulations
STEL
TP02
TP03
TP04
TP05
TP06
TP07
1 of 1
Table 2. Subsurface Soil Sample Results
RCT-SS-TP01 RCT-SS-TP01-
DUP RCT-SS-TP13 RCT-SS-TP14
(mg/kg) (mg/kg)(mg/kg)(mg/kg)(mg/kg)(mg/kg)
Diesel Range Organics 440 440 7,100 J 11,000 J 11 U 77,000
Oil Range Organics 30,000 30,000 1,800 J 4,100 J 11 UJ 30,000 NJ
Gasoline Range Organics 420 420 19 J 110 J 0.52 U 1500 J-
1-Methylnaphthalene 73 53,000 210 310 0.90U 2,900
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol 25,000 25,000 20 U 20 U 0.90U 160 U
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 82,000 82,000 20 U 20 U 0.90U 160 U
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 210 820 20 U 20 U 0.90U 160 U
2,4-Dichlorophenol 2,500 2,500 20 U 20 U 0.90U 160 U
2,4-Dimethylphenol 16,000 16,000 56 69 0.90U 490
2,4-Dinitrophenol 1,600 1,600 39 U 39 U 1.8 U 320 U
2,4-Dinitrotoluene 7.4 1,600 20 U 20 U 0.90U 160 U
2,6-Dinitrotoluene 1.5 250 20 U 20 U 0.90U 160 U
2-Chloronaphthalene 60,000 60,000 20 U 20 U 0.90U 160 U
2-Chlorophenol 5,800 5,800 20 U 20 U 0.90U 160 U
2-Methylnaphthalene 3,000 3,000 330 560 0.90U 5,600
2-Methylphenol ----110 130 0.90U 920
2-Nitroaniline 8,000 8,000 39 U 39 U 1.8 U 320 U
2-Nitrophenol ----20 U 20 U 0.90U 160 U
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine 5.1 --20 U 20 U 0.90U 160 U
3+4-Methylphenol ----270 430 0.90U 2,100
3-Nitroaniline ----39 U 39 U 1.8 U 320 U
4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol ----79 U 79 U 3.6 U 640 U
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether ----20 U 20 U 0.90U 160 U
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol ----20 U 20 U 0.90U 160 U
4-Chloroaniline 11 410 20 U 20 U 0.90U 160 U
p-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether ----20 U 20 U 0.90U 160 U
4-Nitroaniline 110 3,300 39 U 39 U 1.8 U 320 U
4-Nitrophenol ----39 U 39 U .26 J 320 U
Acenaphthene 45,000 --450 760 0.90U 8,200
Acenaphthylene ----34 48 0.90U 1,100
Aniline 400 5700 20 U 20 U .27 J 160 U
Anthracene 230,000 --200 320 0.90U 2,800
Azobenzene 26 --20 U 20 U 0.90U 160 U
Benz(a)anthracene 21 --98 130 .39 J+1,600
Benzo(a)pyrene 2.1 220 39 55 .46 J+1,200
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 21 --50 70 0.51 J+1,400
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene ----13 J 21 0.25 J 510
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 210 --18 J 25 0.19 J 620
Benzoic Acid 3,300,000 3,300,000 98 UJ 98 UJ 4.6 UJ 800 UJ
Benzyl alcohol 82,000 82,000 20 U 20 U 0.92U 160 U
Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane 2,500 2,500 20 U 20 U 0.92U 160 U
Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether 1 --20 U 20 U 0.92U 160 U
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether ----20 U 20 U 0.92U 160 U
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 160 16,000 29 U 29 U 1.4 U 240 U
Analyte
EPA
Industrial
RSL
EPA
Industrial
RML
Sample Concentration by Location
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH)
Semi-Volatile Organic Compound (SVOC)
1 of 4
Table 2. Subsurface Soil Sample Results
RCT-SS-TP01 RCT-SS-TP01-
DUP RCT-SS-TP13 RCT-SS-TP14
(mg/kg) (mg/kg)(mg/kg)(mg/kg)(mg/kg)(mg/kg)
Analyte
EPA
Industrial
RSL
EPA
Industrial
RML
Sample Concentration by Location
Butyl benzyl phthalate 1,200 160,000 20 U 20 U 0.92U 160 U
Carbazole ----140 180 0.90U 1,700
Chrysene 2100 --100 140 .48 J+1,600
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 2.1 --3.3 J 5.0 J 0.19 J 110 J
Dibenzofuran 1,200 1,200 210 200 U 0.90U 3,400
Diethyl phthalate 660,000 660,000 20 U 20 U 0.90U 160 U
Dimethyl phthalate ----20 U 20 U 0.90U 160 U
Di-n-butyl phthalate 82,000 --20 U 20 U 0.90U 160 U
Di-n-octyl phthalate 8,200 --29 U 29 U 1.4 U 240 U
Fluoranthene 30,000 30,000 380 650 0.88J 7,600
Fluorene 30,000 30,000 320 540 0.90U 5,600
Hexachlorobenzene 96 12 20 U 20 U 0.90U 160 U
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 7.5 7.5 20 U 20 U 0.90U 160 U
Hexachloroethane 8 460 20 U 20 U 0.90U 160 U
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 21 --12 J 18 J .25 J 430
Isophorone 2,400 160,000 20 U 20 U 0.92U 160 U
Nitrobenzene 22 1,300 20 U 20 U 0.90U 160 U
N-Nitrosodimethylamine 0.034 5.7 20 U 20 U 0.90U 160 U
n-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine 0.33 --20 U 20 U 0.90U 160 U
n-Nitrosodiphenylamine 470 --20 U 20 U 0.90U 160 U
Pentachlorophenol 4 2,800 79 U 79 U 3.6 U 640 U
Phenanthrene ----960 1600 1.3 J+18,000
Phenol 250,000 250,000 260 440 0.90U 2,800
Pyrene 23,000 23,000 390 690 1.1 J+7,600
Pyridine 1,200 1,200 59 U 59 U 2.7 U 480 U
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 8.8 35,000 37 U 38 U 0.0076 UJ 31 U
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 36,000 36,000 37 U 38 U 0.0076 UJ 31 U
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 2.7 23,000 37 U 38 U 0.0076 UJ 31 U
1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane 28,000 28,000 37 U 38 U 0.0076 UJ 31 U
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 5 6.3 37 U 38 U 0.0076 UJ 31 U
1,1-Dichloroethane 16 230,000 37 U 38 U 0.0076 UJ 31 U
1,1-Dichloroethene --1,000 37 U 38 U 0.0076 UJ 31 U
1,1-Dichloropropene ----37 U 38 U 0.0076 UJ 31 U
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene 930 930 37 U 38 U 0.0076 UJ 31 U
1,2,3-Trichloropropane 0.11 21 37 U 38 U 0.0076 UJ 31 U
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 110 260 37 U 38 U 0.0076 UJ 31 U
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 1,800 1,800 37 U 38 U 0.0076 UJ 74
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 0.064 25 75 U 76 U 0.015 UJ 62 U
1,2-Dibromoethane 0.16 330 37 U 38 U 0.0076 UJ 31 U
1,2-Dichlorobenzene 9,300 9,300 37 U 38 U 0.0076 UJ 31 U
1,2-Dichloroethane 2 140 45 U 46 U 0.0091 UJ 37 U
1,2-Dichloropropane 11 66 37 U 38 U 0.0076 UJ 31 U
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 1,500 1,500 37 U 38 U 0.0076 UJ 33
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ----37 U 38 U 0.0076 UJ 31 U
1,3-Dichloropropene 23,000 23,000 37 U 38 U 0.0076 UJ 31 U
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 11 25,000 37 U 38 U 0.0076 UJ 31 U
Volatile Organic Compound (VOC)
2 of 4
Table 2. Subsurface Soil Sample Results
RCT-SS-TP01 RCT-SS-TP01-
DUP RCT-SS-TP13 RCT-SS-TP14
(mg/kg) (mg/kg)(mg/kg)(mg/kg)(mg/kg)(mg/kg)
Analyte
EPA
Industrial
RSL
EPA
Industrial
RML
Sample Concentration by Location
1-Chlorohexane ----37 U 38 U 0.0076 UJ 31 U
2,2-Dichloropropane ----37 U 38 U 0.0076 UJ 31 U
2-Butanone 190,000 190,000 150 U 150 U 0.030 UJ 120 U
2-Chlorotoluene 23,000 --37 U 38 U 0.0076 UJ 31 U
2-Hexanone 1,300 1,300 150 U 150 U 0.030 UJ 120 U
4-Chlorotoluene 23,000 23,000 37 U 38 U 0.0076 UJ 31 U
4-Methyl-2-pentanone 140,000 140,000 150 U 150 U 0.030 UJ 120 U
Acetone 1,100,000 1,100,000 370 U 380 U 0.076 UJ 310 U
Benzene 5.1 420 15 J 38 U 0.0076 UJ 100
Bromobenzene 1,800 1,800 37 U 38 U 0.0076 UJ 31 U
Bromochloromethane 630 630 37 U 38 U 0.0076 UJ 31 U
Bromodichloromethane 1.3 9,300 37 U 38 U 0.0076 UJ 31 U
Bromoform 86 23,000 37 U 38 U 0.0076 UJ 31 U
Bromomethane 30 30 37 U 38 U 0.0076 UJ 31 U
Carbon disulfide 3500 3500 37 U 38 U 0.0076 UJ 31 U
Carbon tetrachloride 2.9 570 37 U 38 U 0.0076 UJ 31 U
Chlorobenzene 1,300 1,300 37 U 38 U 0.0076 UJ 31 U
Chloroethane 23,000 23,000 37 U 38 U 0.0076 UJ 31 U
Chloroform 1.4 1,000 37 U 38 U 0.0076 UJ 31 U
Chloromethane 460 460 37 U 38 U 0.0076 UJ 31 U
cis-1,2-dichloroethene ----37 U 38 U 0.0076 UJ 31 U
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene --310 37 U 38 U 0.0076 UJ 31 U
Dibromochloromethane 39 23,000 37 U 38 U 0.0076 UJ 31 U
Dibromomethane 99 330 37 U 38 U 0.0076 UJ 31 U
Dichlorodifluoromethane 370 370 45 U 46 U 0.0091 UJ 37 U
Ethylbenzene 25 17,000 37 U 38 U 0.0076 UJ 62
Hexachlorobutadiene 5.3 1,200 37 U 38 U 0.0076 UJ 31 U
Iodomethane ----37 U 38 U 0.0076 UJ 31 U
Isopropylbenzene ----37 U 38 U 0.0076 UJ 31 U
m+p-Xylene 2,400 2,400 52 U 53 U 0.011 UJ 150
Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE)210 64,000 60 U 61 U 0.012 UJ 49 U
Methylene chloride 1,000 3,200 75 U 76 U 0.015 UJ 62 U
Naphthalene 8.6 590 1,500 3,000 0.011 J-46,000
n-Butylbenzene 58,000 58,000 37 U 38 U 0.0076 UJ 31 U
n-Propylbenzene --24,000 37 U 38 U 0.0076 UJ 31 U
o-Xylene 2,800 2,800 37 U 38 U 0.0076 UJ 76
p-Isopropyltoluene ----37 U 38 U 0.0076 UJ 31 U
Sec-butylbenzene 120,000 120,000 37 U 38 U 0.0076 UJ 31 U
Styrene 35,000 35,000 37 U 38 U 0.0076 UJ 31
Tert-butylbenzene 120,000 120,000 37 U 38 U 0.0076 UJ 31 U
Tetrachloroethene ----37 U 38 U 0.0076 UJ 31 U
Toluene 47,000 47,000 30 J 38 U 0.0076 UJ 200
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ----37 U 38 U 0.0076 UJ 31 U
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ----37 U 38 U 0.0076 UJ 31 U
Trichloroethene ----37 U 38 U 0.0076 UJ 31 U
Trichlorofluoromethane 350,000 350,000 37 U 38 U 0.0076 UJ 31 U
Vinyl acetate 3,800 3,800 150 U 150 U 0.030 UJ 120 U
3 of 4
Table 2. Subsurface Soil Sample Results
RCT-SS-TP01 RCT-SS-TP01-
DUP RCT-SS-TP13 RCT-SS-TP14
(mg/kg) (mg/kg)(mg/kg)(mg/kg)(mg/kg)(mg/kg)
Analyte
EPA
Industrial
RSL
EPA
Industrial
RML
Sample Concentration by Location
Vinyl chloride 1.7 310 37 U 38 U 0.0076 UJ 31 U
Aluminum 1,100,000 1,100,000 6,600 6,200 3,600 480
Aatimony 470 470 .22 J 0.26 0.1 J-0.11 U
Arsenic 3 480 6.8 7.3 7 2.2
Barium 220,000 220,000 180 200 120 20
Beryllium 2,300 2,300 1.8 1.7 0.49 0.078
Cadmium 100 100 0.79 0.77 0.34 .21 J
Calcium ----150,000 150,000 150,000 J 35,000
Chromium 1,800,000 1,800,000 30 29 10 3.4
Cobalt 350 350 4.2 4.2 3.7 1.4
Copper 47,000 47,000 11 9.1 6.6 1.6 J
Iron 820,000 820,000 10,000 9,800 6,400 470
Lead 800 800 8.1 7.8 6.1 J 1.9
Magnesium ----4,600 4,400 7,800 720
Manganese 26,000 26,000 130 130 110 42
Nickel 22,000 22,000 31 30 19 5.1
Potassium ----1,700 1,600 1,700 160
Selenium 5,800 5,800 2.5 2.4 1.3 J 0.89J
Silver 5,800 5,800 0.14 0.13 0.065 J 0.022 J
Sodium ----2,900 2,700 7,600 1,000
Thallium 12 12 0.3 0.29 0.13 0.029
Vanadium 5,800 5,800 14 12 8.9 8
Zinc 350,000 350,000 170 160 49 23
Mercury 46 46 0.066 J 0.19 J 0.011 J 0.04
Notes:
Bolded and green shaded result indicates detection above only EPA industrial RML
Bolded and yellow shaded result indicates detection above the EPA industrial RSL
EPA RML U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Removal Management Level, with hazard quotient = 1.0 for non-carcinogens
EPA RSL U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Regional Screening Level, with hazard quotient = 1.0
J Concentration is estimated
J-Concentration is estimated, biased low
J+ Concentration is estimated, biased high
mg/kg Milligrams per kilogram
NJ Analyte has been "tentatively identified" and the value is the approximate concentration in the sample
U Analyte was not detected
UJ Analyte was not detected due to deficiencies in one or more quality control criteria
Target Analyte List (TAL) Metals
4 of 4
Sampling Results Report
3220 South Solvents – UTD009087655 23
APPENDIX D
FIELD ACTIVIES REPORT AND SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
1
Reilly Tar
Field Activities Report
September 29 & 30, 2021
On September 29 and 30, 2021 Michael Swistak, along with Tom Daniels, Chris Howell, Wes Sandlin,
and Hannah Marty, took groundwater samples from four monitoring wells and three piezometers at the
Reilly Tar Site in Provo, Utah. Groundwater sampling was conducted using low-flow sampling methods.
The wells were evacuated with a low-flow peristaltic pump. New high-density polyethylene (HDPE)
tubing was used for each well, the inlet of which was placed within the top food of the water column.
Water quality parameters (pH, temperature, conductivity, and turbidity) were measured with a Horiba U-
51 Multiparameter Meter, calibrated prior to use according to manufacturer’s specifications. Using depth
to water and total depth of well measurements collected with a water level indicator prior to sampling, the
casing volume of water for each well was calculated. The wells were purged until one of the following
criteria were met:
• Groundwater quality parameters of pH, temperature, conductivity, and turbidity readings
stabilized to within 10% over three consecutive readings. Readings were taken every five
minutes;
• three casing volumes were removed; or
• The well had pumped dry.
In two of the three piezometers, groundwater did not recharge quickly enough, so members of UDEQ
DERR gauged other wells around the Site while waiting for the piezometers to recharge. Wells that were
gauged were as follows: PZ-7, MW-10, and MW-11. After letting the piezometers recharge, groundwater
samples were taken immediately. An access agreement was signed and returned to DERR prior to
sampling wells located on the0 McWane Ductile property, which is located to the west of the Site.
Groundwater samples were collected from MW-18, MW-19, MW-22, MW-33, PZ-4, PZ-5, and PZ-6. A
field duplicate was collected from MW-18. VOC water samples were preserved with HCl and metal water
samples were preserved with HNO3. All samples were placed in a cooler filled with ice after collection.
Scribe was used to print labels and chain-of-custody (CoC) for the samples. Samples were packaged and
shipped as environmental samples via chain-of-custody to an EPA registered CLP laboratory and
analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs, and Metals using EPA approved methods SW-846 8260C, SW-846 8270D,
and SW-846 6010D, respectively. All samples described in the work plan were taken during this sampling
event.
Photos from the sampling event can be seen below.

2
Photo 1: Groundwater sampling at MW-19 @ 0900 on 9/29/21 with Wes, Tom, and Chris.

3
Photo 2 and 3: Groundwater Sampling at MW-22 @ 1015 on 9/29/21 with Wes, Chris, and Tom.
4
Photo 4 and 5: Groundwater Sampling at MW-33 @ 1145 on 9/29/21 with Wes, Chris, and Tom.
5
Photo 6: Groundwater Sampling at MW-33 @ 1310 on 9/29/21 with Wes.

6
Photo 7: Groundwater Sampling at PZ-4 @ 0900 on 9/30/21 with Chris.

7
Photo 8: Groundwater Sampling at PZ-4 @ 1040 on 9/30/21 with Chris and Hannah.

8
Photo 9: Groundwater Sampling at PZ-4 @ 1140 on 9/30/21.

9
Photo 10: MW-16 documentation of damage done to MW-16. Potentially from excavator during soil
sampling earlier in September.
Sampling Results Report
3220 South Solvents – UTD009087655 24
APPENDIX E
CONSENT FOR ACCESS TO PROPERTY FORM
Sampling Results Report
3220 South Solvents – UTD009087655 25
APPENDIX F
GROUNDWATER SAMPLE LABORATORY ANALYTICAL PACKAGE
Sampling Results Report
3220 South Solvents – UTD009087655 26
APPENDIX G
CHAIN-OF-CUSTODY AND SHIPPING DOCUMENTATION
Sampling Results Report
3220 South Solvents – UTD009087655 27
APPENDIX H
DERR Historical Data
Monitoring Well ID:MW #1 MW #10 MW #12 MW #14 MW #2 MW #29 MW #3 MW #30 MW #31 MW #32 MW #5 MW #9
Traffic Number:MH0AJ2 Q MH0AK2 Q MH0AK3 Q MH0AK1 Q MH0AJ1 Q MH0AJ8 Q MH0AJ4 Q MH0AJ9 Q MH0AJ3 Q MH0AJ7 Q MH0AJ5 Q MH0AJ6 Q
Analyte 2020 SCDM Benchmark
Value (mg/kg)Aluminum --22400 18600 1520 894 14000 45400 19100 16900 1240 3730 103 J 3890Antimony31.3 60.0 UJ 60.0 UJ 60.0 UJ 60.0 UJ 60.0 UJ 60.0 UJ 60.0 UJ 60.0 UJ 60.0 UJ 60.0 UJ 60.0 UJ 60.0 UJArsenic39.1 35.5 278 56.1 46.0 21.4 34.3 206 41.1 10.0 U 11.5 10.0 U 74.9Barium15600585301200U200U375852812362200U200U200U200 UBeryllium1562.1 J 1.3 J 5.0 U 5.0 U 1.8 J 3.5 J 1.7 J 1.5 J 0.37 J 5.0 U 5.0 U 0.31 JCadmium39.1 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 UCalcium--1130000 710000 152000 597000 1110000 1260000 898000 690000 742000 363000 181000 408000Chromium23550.2 40.5 9.3 J 5.1 J 32.8 84.5 35.8 38.2 2.4 J 25.0 10.0 U 8.0 JCobalt23.5 26.5 J 9.6 J 2.7 J 50.0 U 15.0 J 34.2 J 11.0 J 12.5 J 50.0 U 3.0 J 50.0 U 1.3 JCopper313085.5 17.2 J 85.5 25.0 U 38.6 66.4 33.4 53.8 25.0 U 2.2 J 25.0 U 3.0 JIron--79500 25300 7680 2680 47900 68000 55000 45300 5010 4950 268 5880Lead400**59.1 23.5 16.9 10.0 U 34.7 109 93.0 25.6 2.8 J 2.1 J 10.0 U 9.1 JMagnesium--134000 620000 537000 117000 130000 119000 91200 316000 54300 326000 60300 58600Manganese1100013406601941711310183058163026210358.2 158Nickel156010343.4 27.7 J 19.0 J 66.3 121 46.4 45.0 4.9 J 10.1 J 1.1 J 13.0 JPotassium--13600 118000 85300 38600 11500 32500 15600 53300 9800 107000 5920 24600Selenium39135.0 U 35.0 U 35.0 U 35.0 U 35.0 U 35.0 U 35.0 U 35.0 U 35.0 U 35.0 U 35.0 U 35.0 USilver39110.0 U 10.0 U 1.0 J 0.80 J 10.0 U 10.0 U 10.0 U 10.0 U 10.0 U 1.0 J 10.0 U 10.0 USodium--53200 878000 7920000 1220000 55100 139000 117000 396000 51800 10600000 58400 1160000Thallium0.78 2.4 J 25.0 U 25.0 U 2.7 J 2.9 J 1.6 J 2.1 J 1.8 J 1.8 J 25.0 U 25.0 U 1.6 JVanadium39458.9 37.7 J 39.9 J 5.3 J 41.5 J 86.9 47.8 J 47.3 J 2.8 J 43.8 J 50.0 U 10.2 JZinc2350051013111224.9 J 404 346 404 148 35.2 J 31.4 J 6.9 J 38.7 J
Hardness --3200 2680 1950 3180 3580 2650 3030 2070 2250 700 1260
*Superfund Chemical Data Matrix 10/2020 Q = Qualifier J, blank = detected by the laboratory
** = Regional Screening Level, 10/2020 U, UJ, R = Undetected
A bolded red value indicates the concentration is equal to or greater than the threshold value listed in the SCDM Benchmark Value columns .
Table 1: Groundwater Inorganics Results for Reilly Tar 2017
MW #1 MW #10 MW #12 MW #14 MW #13 MW #2 MW #29 MW #3 MW #30 MW #31 MW #32 MW #4 MW #5 MW #9
H0AJ2 Q H0AK2 Q H0AK3 Q H0AK1 Q H0AK0 Q H0AJ1 Q H0AJ8 Q H0AJ4 Q H0AJ9 Q H0AJ3 Q H0AJ7 Q H0AK4 Q H0AJ5 Q H0AJ6 Q
Analyte Cancer Risk Non-cancer Risk
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 14.4 1400 0.22 J 25 U 100 U 50 U 0.5 U 0.29 J 5.0 U 0.50 U 5 U 2.5 U 130 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 13 U
Acetone --1800 1.3 J 250 U 1000 U 69 J 1.2 J 1.3 J 6.1 J 1.9 J 6.1 J 25 U 240 J 7.1 5 U 130 U
Benzene 1.42 80.2 0.5 U 620 900 530 0.73 0.5 U 5.0 U 0.50 U 5 U 25 820 0.5 U 0.5 U 95
Carbon disulfide --2010 0.5 U 25 U 100 U 50 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 5.0 U 0.50 U 5 U 2.5 U 130 U 1.7 0.5 U 13 U
Chlorobenzene 100 401 0.5 U 25 U 100 U 50 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 5.0 U 0.50 U 5 U 2.5 U 130 U 0.74 0.5 U 13 U
Chloromethane ----0.5 U 25 U 100 U 50 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 5.0 U 0.50 U 5 U 2.5 U 130 U 0.27 J 0.5 U 13 U
Ethylbenzene 7.08 2010 1 150 55 J 93 1.1 1.1 5.0 U 0.39 J 5 U 2.5 U 57 J 0.5 U 0.52 18
Isopropylbenzene ----1.8 25 U 100 U 50 U 0.5 U 1.9 5.0 U 0.48 J 5 U 19 130 U 0.5 U 0.15 J 13 U
m,p-Xylene --4010 0.5 U 120 110 240 0.96 0.11 J 5.0 U 0.14 J 5 U 23 150 0.5 U 0.5 U 39
Methylene chloride 12.5 120 0.5 U 25 U 100 U 50 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 5.0 U 0.50 U 5 U 2.5 U 130 U 0.18 J 0.5 U 13 U
o-Xylene --4010 0.41 J 20 J 66 J 130 0.58 0.4 J 5.0 U 0.50 U 5 U 81 81 J 0.5 U 0.5 U 22
Toluene 1000 1600 0.2 J 6 J 230 590 0.53 0.22 J 5.0 U 0.50 U 5 U 8.9 270 0.5 U 0.11 J 34
*Superfund Chemical Data Matrix 10/2020 Q = Qualifier J, blank = detected by the laboratory
** = Regional Screening Level, 10/2020 U, UJ, R = Undetected
A bold value indicates the concentration is equal to or greater than the non-cancer threshold value listed in the SCDM Benchmark Value column.
A bolded red value indicates the concentration is equal to or greater than the cancer risk threshold value listed in the SCDM Benchmark Value columns .
Table 2: Groundwater Volatile Organic Compounds for Reilly Tar 2017
Monitoring Well ID:
Traffic Number:2020 SCDM Benchmark Value
(µg/L)
MW #1 MW #10 MW #12 MW #14 MW #13 MW #2 MW #29 MW #3 MW #30 MW #31 MW #32 MW #5 MW #9
H0AJ2 Q H0AK2 Q H0AK3 Q H0AK1 Q H0AK0 Q H0AJ1 Q H0AJ8 Q H0AJ4 Q H0AJ9 Q H0AJ3 Q H0AJ7 Q H0AJ5 Q H0AJ6 Q
Analyte Cancer Risk Non-cancer Risk
1,1'-Biphenyl ----6.2 2.6 J 9.6 33 6.7 8.3 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 49 16 5.0 U 5.0 U2-Chlorophenol ----5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 R 5.0 U 1.8 J2-Methylnaphthalene --80.2 5.0 U 5.0 U 110 J 340 J 1.7 J 2.0 J 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 2.1 J 1000 U 5.0 U 652-Methylphenol ----10 U 6.0 J 130 1000 J 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 6000 10 U 320 J2,4-Dimethylphenol --401 5.0 U 28 710 1200 3.9 J 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 3.7 J 5.0 U 5000 5.0 U 31004-Methylphenol --2.01 10 U 3.8 J 200 J 2200 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 60Acenaphthene--1200 220 260 110 J 290 J 120 300 5.0 UJ 220 58 380 1000 U 98 390Acenaphthylene----5.0 U 3.5 J 5.0 U 19 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 8.6 9.1 1.5 J 5.0 UAcetophenone----10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 1.8 J 10 U 10 U 10 UAnthracene--6020 2.8 J 5.0 U 5.0 U 57 5.0 U 4.0 J 5.0 U 6.4 5.0 U 14 5.6 4.8 J 8.0Benzaldehyde----10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 1.8 JBenzo(a)anthracene --0.25 5.0 U 5.0 U 1.3 J 10 J+5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 1.3 J 1.6 J 1.6 J 5.0 U 1.6 J 5.0 UBenzo(a)pyrene 0.02 6.02 5.0 UJ 5.0 U 5.0 R 4.8 J+5.0 UJ 5.0 UJ 1.4 J 5.0 UJ 2.3 J-1.3 J 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 RBenzo(b)fluoranthene ----5.0 UJ 5.0 U 5.0 R 7.4 J+5.0 UJ 5.0 UJ 1.4 J 5.0 UJ 2.5 J-1.3 J 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 RBenzo(g,h,i)perylene ----5.0 UJ 5.0 U 5.0 R 5.0 R 5.0 UJ 5.0 UJ 5.0 U 5.0 UJ 1.5 J-5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 RBenzo(k)fluoranthene 2.5 --5.0 UJ 5.0 U 5.0 R 2.1 J+5.0 UJ 5.0 UJ 5.0 U 5.0 UJ 5.0 UJ 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 RCarbazole----10 UJ 10 UJ 27 J 10 UJ 4.4 J 1.9 J 10 UJ 5.1 J 10 UJ 190 27 J 2.9 J 10 UJChrysene25.1 --5.0 U 5.0 U 1.3 J 7.5 J+5.0 U 5.0 U 1.4 J 5.0 U 2.2 J 1.8 J 5.0 U 1.4 J 5.0 UDibenzofuran--20 19 7.0 23 600 U 16 26 5.0 U 12 5.0 U 160 26 21 5.0 UFluoranthene----1.8 J 10 U 8.0 J 27 2.1 J 2.4 J 1.5 J 12 3.0 J 12 3.5 J 15 10 UFluorene--802 16 2.3 J 29 600 U 9.7 21 5.0 U 22 5.0 U 140 16 27 26Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.25 --5.0 UJ 5.0 U 5.0 R 5.0 R 5.0 UJ 5.0 UJ 5.0 U 5.0 UJ 1.4 J-0.96 J 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 RNaphthalene0.6 401 5.0 U 9.9 1600 6400 27 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 580 4400 5.0 U 1400Phenanthrene----5.0 U 23 39 180 J 23 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 1.9 J 78 23 5.0 U 39Phenol--6020 10 U 9.0 J 41 4000 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 17000 10 U 34Pyrene--602 1.9 J 5.0 U 8.1 600 U 1.8 J 2.7 J 2.0 J 12 3.6 J 5.0 U 3.9 J 14 5.0 U
*Superfund Chemical Data Matrix 10/2020 Q = Qualifier J, blank = detected by the laboratory
** = Regional Screening Level, 10/2020 U, UJ, R = Undetected
A bold value indicates the concentration is equal to or greater than the non-cancer threshold value listed in the SCDM Benchmark Value column.
A bolded red value indicates the concentration is equal to or greater than the cancer risk threshold value listed in the SCDM Benchmark Value columns .
Table 3: Groundwater Semivolatile Organic Compounds and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons for Reilly Tar 2017
Monitoring Well ID:
Traffic Number:2020 SCDM Benchmark Value
(µg/L)
Monitoring Well ID:MW #11 MW #12 MW #13 MW #14 MW #2 MW #29 MW #3 MW #30 MW #31 MW #32 MW #5 MW #6 MW #9
Traffic Number:MH0AL2 Q MH0AL3 Q MH0AL4 Q MH0AL5 Q MH0AL6 Q MH0AL7 Q MH0AL8 Q MH0AL9 Q MH0AM0 Q MH0AM1 Q MH0AM2 Q MH0AM3 Q MH0AM4 Q
Analyte 2020 SCDM Benchmark
Value (mg/kg)Aluminum --1280 J 234 J 2100 J 1070 J 7390 J 5340 J 7480 J 1990 J 1170 J 3240 J 1940 J 2530 J 5320 JAntimony31.3 60.0 U 4.3 J 60.0 U 60.0 U 60.0 U 60.0 U 3.0 J 3.1 J 60.0 U 60.0 U 60.0 U 60.0 U 60.0 UArsenic39.1 261 113 99.4 34.8 21.5 15.2 121 11.8 4.2 J 10.4 9.0 J 11.8 47.5Barium1560018.8 J 12.4 J 62.2 J 36.8 J 283 122 J 434 106 J 34.6 J 49.7 J 119 J 129 J 150 JBeryllium1560.87 J 5.0 U 0.45 J 0.44 J 1.6 J 0.86 J 1.5 J 0.40 J 5.0 U 0.50 J 0.43 J 0.50 J 0.81 JCalcium--455000 395000 503000 624000 800000 780000 861000 418000 675000 439000 527000 541000 492000Chromium23510.0 UJ 6.2 J 4.8 J 5.1 J 16.2 J 10.5 J 13.2 J 4.8 J 91.9 J 16.1 J 3.1 J 3.9 J 12.1 JCobalt23.5 21.1 J 50.0 U 2.4 J 50.0 U 10.2 J 4.7 J 7.1 J 1.8 J 50.0 U 50.0 U 50.0 U 50.0 U 50.0 UIron--51300 J 15700 J 10700 J 2820 J 39400 J 8370 J 26100 J 5760 J 2680 J 3150 J 4810 J 6610 J 7060 JLead400*5.6 J 10.0 U 19.7 5.5 J 35.6 24.7 110 8.2 J 8.6 J 13.8 15.1 15.6 20.5Magnesium--1740000 672000 237000 146000 146000 78400 97800 174000 47100 167000 201000 203000 65200Manganese1100041512714045886130551536963.1 104 488 516 225Nickel156046.2 17.2 J 17.1 J 13.3 J 50.2 17.4 J 27.9 J 9.0 J 52.8 5.5 J 4.8 J 6.9 J 7.5 JPotassium--138000 113000 45700 91400 8560 19100 11200 26200 9040 63300 23100 23300 24000Selenium3916.8 J 12.9 J 35.0 U 35.0 U 35.0 U 35.0 U 35.0 U 35.0 U 35.0 U 37.8 7.7 J 35.0 U 20.0 JSodium--5970000 12100000 2010000 1270000 59600 119000 130000 99500 65700 6370000 313000 313000 1400000Thallium0.78 25.0 U 25.0 U 25.0 U 25.0 U 25.0 U 25.0 U 25.0 U 25.0 U 25.0 U 25.0 U 25.0 U 25.0 U 4.5 JVanadium3948.1 J 14.0 J 5.9 J 50.0 U 23.5 J 12.1 J 25.3 J 4.7 J 50.0 U 24.0 J 50.0 U 5.9 J 13.4 JZinc2350028.8 J 43.6 J 29.3 J 53.5 J 240 70.6 433 29.6 J 93.1 50.1 J 54.4 J 76.5 54.8 J
*Superfund Chemical Data Matrix 10/2020 Q = Qualifier J, blank = detected by the laboratory
** = Regional Screening Level, 10/2020 U, UJ, R = Undetected
A bold value indicates the concentration is equal to or greater than the non-cancer threshold value listed in the SCDM Benchmark Value column.
A bolded red value indicates the concentration is equal to or greater than the cancer risk threshold value listed in the SCDM Benchmark Value columns .
Table 4: Groundwater Inorganics for Reilly Tar 2018
MW #1 MW #11 MW #12 MW #13 MW #14 MW #2 MW #29 MW #3 MW #30 MW #31 MW #32 MW #5 MW #6 MW #9
H0AL1 Q H0AL2 Q H0AL3 Q H0AL4 Q H0AL5 Q H0AL6 Q H0AL7 Q H0AL8 Q H0AL9 Q H0AM0 Q H0AM1 Q H0AM2 Q H0AM3 Q H0AM4 Q
Analyte Cancer Risk Non-Cancer RiskAcetone--1800 10 U 10 U 6.5 J+10 U 10 J+10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 200 R 10 U 10 U 10 RBenzene1.42 80.2 5.0 U 5.0 U 1500 J 3.3 J 290 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 46 2500 J 3.5 J 3.1 J 110 JCarbon disulfide --2010 2.1 J 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 2.9 J 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 100 R 5.0 U 5.0 U 1.8 JChlorobenzene1004011.5 J 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 100 R 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 REthylbenzene7.08 2010 5.0 U 5.0 U 76 4.2 J 70 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 290 170 J 5.4 5.7 21 JIsopropylbenzene----5.0 U 5.0 U 2.6 J 5.0 U 3.5 J 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 26 100 R 5.0 U 5.0 U 1.5 Jm,p-Xylene --4010 5.0 U 5.0 U 170 3.7 J 190 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 190 460 J 1.2 J 1.3 J 43 Jo-xylene --4010 5.0 U 5.0 U 100 2.2 J 100 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 170 260 J 1.4 J 1.2 J 24 JToluene100016005.0 U 5.0 U 360 J 2.3 J 350 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 70 810 J 1.9 J 1.9 J 39 J
*Superfund Chemical Data Matrix 10/2020 Q = Qualifier J, blank = detected by the laboratory
** = Regional Screening Level, 10/2020 U, UJ, R = Undetected
A bold value indicates the concentration is equal to or greater than the non-cancer threshold value listed in the SCDM Benchmark Value column.
A bolded red value indicates the concentration is equal to or greater than the cancer risk threshold value listed in the SCDM Benchmark Value columns .
Table 5: Groundwater Volatile Organic Compounds for Reilly Tar 2018
Monitoring Well ID:
Traffic Number:
2020 SCDM Benchmark Value (ug/L)
MW #11 MW #12 MW #13 MW #14 MW #2 MW #29 MW #3 MW #30 MW #31 MW #32 MW #5 MW #6 MW #9
H0AL2 Q H0AL3 Q H0AL4 Q H0AL5 Q H0AL6 Q H0AL7 Q H0AL8 Q H0AL9 Q H0AM0 Q H0AM1 Q H0AM2 Q H0AM3 Q H0AM4 Q
Analyte Cancer Risk Non-Cancer Risk1,1-Biphenyl ----5.0 U 16 16 40 J 1.7 J 5.0 U 5.3 U 5.0 U 91 44 J 4.6 J 2.8 J 202-Chlorophenol ----5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 50 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.3 U 5.0 U 6.8 U 50 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 3.5 J2-Methylnaphthalene --80.2 5.0 U 210 31 310 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.3 U 5.0 U 22 440 5.0 U 5.0 U 1002-Methylphenol ----10 U 300 10 U 450 10 U 10 U 11 U 10 U 14 U 5400 2.3 J 10 U 4602,4-Dimethylphenol --401 5.0 U 1300 10 460 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.3 U 5.0 U 6.8 U 5400 20 15 43004-Methylphenol --2.01 10 U 150 10 U 630 10 U 10 U 11 U 10 U 14 U 910 10 U 10 U 110Acenaphthene--1200 5.0 U 170 230 320 190 5.0 U 300 10 600 J 330 190 150 190Acenaphthylene----5.0 U 14 2.6 J 15 J 3.2 J 5.0 U 5.3 5.0 U 9.9 17 J 5.0 U 1.9 J 5.0 UAcetophenone----10 U 10 U 10 U 100 U 10 U 10 U 11 U 10 U 7.2 J 53 J+10 U 10 U 10 UAnthracene--6020 5.0 U 12 5.9 87 3.8 J 1.3 J 16 2.4 J 24 50 U 9.0 8.0 26 J+Benzo(a)anthracene --0.25 5.0 U 5.0 U 3.6 J 18 J 1.9 J 8.7 12 7.0 8.8 50 U 3.9 J 3.9 J 3.2 JBenzo(a)pyrene 0.02 6.02 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 50 U 2.6 J 15 9.9 9.9 8.8 50 U 5.0 U 2.3 J 1.7 JBenzo(b)fluoranthene ----5.0 U 5.0 U 2.0 J 50 U 2.7 J 16 9.9 11 9.3 50 U 2.6 J 2.8 J 2.2 JBenzo(g,h,i)perylene ----5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 50 U 2.7 J 12 5.0 J 6.5 8.0 50 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 UBenzo(k)fluoranthene 2.5 --5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 50 U 5.0 U 6.0 4.8 J 3.6 J 3.3 J 50 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 UCarbazole----10 U 39 13 160 10 U 10 U 6.3 J 10 U 170 26 J 12 9.9 J 51Chrysene25.1 --5.0 U 5.0 U 3.2 J 21 J 2.6 J 12 17 9.2 11 50 U 5.4 5.2 3.7 JDibenzo(a,h)anthracene 0.0251 --5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 50 U 5.0 U 3.2 J 1.7 J 1.8 J 2.0 J 50 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 UDibenzofuran--20 5.0 U 35 39 120 17 5.0 U 16 5.0 U 250 66 51 38 51Dimethylphthalate----1.9 J 3.0 J 2.6 J 50 U 2.9 J 1.4 J 5.3 U 5.0 U 6.8 U 50 U 3.2 J 1.8 J 3.7 JFluoranthene----10 U 9.2 J 19 68 J 4.9 J 11 40 12 33 100 U 28 25 21Fluorene--802 5.0 U 45 38 160 18 5.0 U 37 5.0 U 210 32 J 58 44 48Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.25 --5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 50 U 1.7 J 9.8 4.3 J 5.6 6.1 J 50 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 UNaphthalene0.6 401 5.0 U 3600 210 4600 5.0 U 5.0 U 1.7 J 5.0 U 2100 8400 29 21 2500Phenanthrene----5.0 U 45 74 250 5.0 U 5.4 2.3 J 6.8 190 55 1.9 J 1.9 J 69Phenol--6020 10 U 16 1.3 J 580 10 U 10 U 11 U 10 U 1.9 J 770 10 U 10 U 81Pyrene--602 5.0 U 7.8 16 68 4.9 J 14 21 14 31 50 U 24 22 16
*Superfund Chemical Data Matrix 10/2020 Q = Qualifier J, blank = detected by the laboratory
** = Regional Screening Level, 10/2020 U, UJ, R = Undetected
A bold value indicates the concentration is equal to or greater than the non-cancer threshold value listed in the SCDM Benchmark Value column.
A bolded red value indicates the concentration is equal to or greater than the cancer risk threshold value listed in the SCDM Benchmark Value columns .
Table 6: Groundwater Semi-volatile Organic Compounds and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons for Reilly Tar 2018
Monitoring Well ID:
Traffic Number:
2020 SCDM Benchmark Value (ug/L)
Monitoring Well ID:
Sample Number:
Industrial RSL (mg/kg):Q Q Q
Aluminum 1100000 8460 11000 10200Antimony4700.68 J 0.59 J 0.55 JArsenic37.9 9.8 9.0Barium220000153J232J178Beryllium23000.96 1.2 1.0Cadmium--2.2 1.9 2.0Calcium--106000 133000 123000Chromium--14.5 12.7 13.5Cobalt3504.8 J 5.8 5.7Copper4700025.4 27.8 29.5Iron820000166001890017300Lead800126160145Magnesium--14700 15900 15100Manganese26000402378352Nickel--16.9 20.5 20.1Potassium--1620 1920 1830Selenium58003.6 U 3.3 3.3Silver58000.24 J 0.26 J 0.23 JSodium--1170 1400 1330Thallium122.6 U 2.2 U 0.55 JVanadium580034.8 33.3 35.3Zinc350000441423415
Notes:
Bolded and Red Detection above 2022 EPA Industrial Soil Benchmark
RSL Regional Screening Level
J Concentration is Estimated
U Analyte was not detected
--No MCL or RSL value
Q Qualifier
Analyte
RT-SS-003 RT-SS-006
MH0AL0
Table 7: Soil Inorganics Results for Reilly Tar Landfarm 2017
RT-SS-006DUP
MH0AL0DH0AK7
Monitoring Well ID:
Sample Number:H0AK6 Q H0AK9 Q
Industrial RSL
(ug/kg):
Analysis: CLP Semivolatiles + PAH SIM
1,1'-Biphenyl 200 130000 200000
11H-Benzo[b]fluorene --670000 950000
13H-Dibenzo[a,h]fluorene --550000 700000
1-Isopropenylnaphthalene --1400 J 1800 J2,4-Dimethylphenol 16000 200000 230000
2-Methylnaphthalene 3000 210000 36000 JN
4H-Cyclopenta[def]phenanthrene --26000 JN 270000 J
4-Methylphenol --130000 J 19000
9-(Cyanomethylene)fluorene --17000 370000
9-Octadecenamide, (Z)---340000 2900 J
Acenaphthene 45000 NA 630000 J
Acenaphthylene --510000 2600 J
Anthracene 230000 1500 J 760000
Benz[a]anthracene, 7-methyl---560000 72000
Benzo(a)anthracene 21 23000 260000
Benzo(a)pyrene 2.1 210000 95000
Benzo(a)pyrene 4,5-oxide --65000 270000
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 21 240000 53000
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene --23000 47000
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 210 43000 64000
Benzo[b]triphenylene --57000 19000
Benzo[e]pyrene --6700 280000 J
Benzo[j]fluoranthene --210000 140000
Carbazole --48000 15000 JN
Chrysene 2100 13000 JN 73000 JN
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene --33000 JN NA
Dibenzo[def,mno]chrysene --12000 JN 5200 JN
Dibenzofuran 1200 NA 6900 JNDibenzofuran, 4-methyl---6800 JN 5900 JN
Fluoranthene 30000 5300 JN NA
Fluoranthene, 2-methyl---9700 JN 6900 JN
Fluorene 30000 6200 JN NA
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 21 14000 JN 29000 JN
Naphthalene --26000 JN 54000 JNNaphthalene, 1,3-dimethyl---43000 JN NA
Naphthalene, 1,4-dimethyl---12000 JN 26000 JNNaphthalene, 1,5-dimethyl---NA NA
Naphthalene, 1,5-dimethyl---7800 JN 29000 JN
Naphthalene, 1,6-dimethyl---NA 23000 JN
Naphthalene, 1-methyl---22000 JN 28000 JNNaphthalene, 2,3,6-trimethyl---NA NANaphthalene, 2-ethyl---13000 JN 22000 JNN-Nitrosodiphenylamine 470 20000 JN 17000 JN
Pentaphene --51000 JN 11000 JN
Perylene --NA 14000 JNPerylene--NA 110000 JN
Phenanthrene --94000 JN NA
Phenol 250000 82000 JN 110000 JN
Picene --NA 18000 JN
Pyrene 23000 14000 JN 6200 JN
Pyrene, 1-methyl---5200 JN NA
Triphenylene, 2-methyl---4600 JN 8700 JN
Monitoring Well ID:
Sample Number:H0AK5 Q H0AK8 Q
Screening Level
Benchmarks:
Industrial RSL
(ug/kg):
Analysis: CLP Volatiles1H-Indene, 1-methyl---NA 460 JN
2-Methylindene --330 JN 650 JN
Benzofuran, 2-methyl---760 JN 1000 JN
Acetone 670000 63 J 36 J
Benzene 5.1 12 J 19 J
Benzene, (1-methyl-2-cyclopropen-1-yl)---480 JN NA
Benzene, 1,2,3-trimethyl-2000 540 JN 280 JNBenzene, 1,2,4-trimethyl-1800 NA 710 JN
1H-Indene, 2,3-dihydro-4-methyl---260 JN 320 JN
Benzene, 1-ethyl-3-methyl---170 JN 190 JN
Benzene, 2-ethyl-1,4-dimethyl---79 JN NA
Benzo[b]thiophene --400 JN NA
Benzofuran, 7-methyl---320 JN 400 JN
Carbon disulfide 3500 5.7 J 6.4 J
2,4-Dimethylstyrene --520 JN 1000 JN
Ethylbenzene 25 26 J 29 J
Indan, 1-methyl---290 JN 350 JN
Indene --1500 JN 2300 JN
m,p-Xylene --470 610
Mesitylene --210 JN NA
Naphthalene, 1-methyl-73 1300 JN 480 JN
o-Xylene 2800 260 340
Styrene 35000 100 140
Tetrachloroethene 100 8.6 J 9.9 J
Notes:
Bolded and Red Detection above 2022 EPA MCL Benchmark
RSL Regional Screening Level
J Concentration is Estimated
U Analyte was not detected
JN Analyte has been "tentatively identified" and the value is the approximate concentration in the sample
NA Not analyzed for
--No MCL or RSL value
Q Qualifier
Table 8: Soil Organics Results for Reilly Tar Landfarm 2017
RT-SS-002 RT-SS-004
Analyte
Analyte
RT-SS-004RT-SS-001
Sampling Results Report
3220 South Solvents – UTD009087655 28
APPENDIX I
START TRIP REPORT ENCLOSURE 4
1
February 17, 2022
Mr. Martin McComb
On-Scene Coordinator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8
1595 Wynkoop Street
Denver, Colorado 80202
Subject: Trip Report – Revision 0
Reilly Coal Tar Removal Assessment, Provo, Utah
U.S. EPA Region 8 START 5, Contract No. 68HE0820D0001
Task Order No. 68HE0820F0071
Task Monitor: Marty McComb, EPA On-Scene Coordinator
Dear Mr. McComb:
The Tetra Tech Inc. (Tetra Tech) Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team (START) is
submitting this Trip Report – Revision 0 for the Reilly Coal Tar Removal Assessment (the Site) in
Provo, Utah County, Utah for your review and comment. This report summarizes field activities
conducted at the Site during the September 8, 2021 investigation and sampling event.
The scope of this project was to provide technical assistance and sampling support to characterize the
extent and magnitude of contamination in subsurface soils on the 23-acre southern portion of the Site.
This trip report summarizes site activities and findings, including site background and physical location,
site activities, analytical results, and conclusions. Enclosure 1 presents the photolog; Enclosure 2
presents the site figures; Enclosure 3 contains tables; and Enclosure 3 presents the verified laboratory
data package.
SITE BACKGROUND AND PHYSICAL LOCATION
The Site is located at 2555 South Industrial Parkway, Provo, Utah County, Utah (Figure 1). The
geographic coordinates for the approximate center of the site are 40.199167° north latitude, -
111.630154° west longitude. The Site is an abandoned coal tar distillery that operated from 1924 to
2002. Land use in the area is largely industrial. The Ironton Canal constitutes the northern boundary of
the Site and discharges into Spring Creek and Utah Lake’s Provo Bay, approximately 1.5 miles west of
the Site. The southern portion of the Site is now a seasonal wetland, and groundwater tends to flow
westward beneath a nearby industrial facility.
SITE ACTIVITES
Environmental Restoration LLC (ER) and START conducted investigation and soil sampling activities

2

on September 8, 2021. As directed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), ER conducted
the excavation of fifteen test pits to the maximum depth the excavator could reach, between 10 feet
below ground surface (bgs) to 20 feet bgs. Test pit locations were selected based on site conditions and
accessibility to safely maneuver and operate the excavator. Test pit locations are identified on Figure 2
and 3.

During excavation activities, START photo documented excavated soil conditions and used a MultiRAE
Pro to screen VOC concentrations in soil throughout investigation activities. Headspace monitoring
results are summarized in Table 1. START identified the presence of coal tar in Test Pit (TP) 01, 14, and
15. The remaining test pits did not reveal the presence of coal tar throughout the soil profile of the test
pit. START collected a grab subsurface sample from three test pits; two test pits that contained coal tar
(TP01 and TP14) and one test pit without the presence of coal tar as a background (TP13).

After completing the documentation of test pit locations, all soil was returned to the original test pit to
match the surrounding grade.

ANALYTICAL RESULTS

The three subsurface soil samples and associated QC samples collected during the site activities were
analyzed by ALS Laboratory in Fort Collins, Colorado. Samples were analyzed for total petroleum
hydrocarbons gasoline range organics (TPH-GRO), total petroleum hydrocarbons diesel range organics
(TPH-DRO), total petroleum hydrocarbons oil range organics (TPH-ORO), Semi-volatile organic
compound s (SVOCs), Target Analyte List (TAL) Metals, and VOCs.

Analytical results were compared to EPA Removal Management Level (RML) for industrial soil with a
target excess cancer risk level of 10-4 and a target hazard quotient of 1.0 for non-carcinogens (EPA
2021a). Analytical results were also compared to EPA regional screening levels (RSL) for industrial soil
with a target excess cancer risk level of 10-6 and a target hazard quotient of 1.0 (EPA 2021b).

In three of the samples, there were exceedances of the EPA RMLs for TPH-DRO, TPH-ORO, TPH-
GRO, 2-methylnaphthalene, benzo(a)pyrene, dibenzofuran, and naphthalene. Additionally there were
exceedances of the EPA RSLs for 1-methylnaphthalene, benz(a)anthracene, benzo(b)fluoranthene,
benzo(k)fluoranthene, dibenz(a,h)anthracene, indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, benzene, ethylbenzene, and
arsenic. Table 2 summarizes the analytical results for the subsurface soil samples. Subsurface soil
sample locations with exceedances are identified on Figure 3.

Table 1 lists the readings documented from the periodic headspace air monitoring for VOCs. Four of the
readings were above the short-term exposure limit (STEL) of 5.0 ppm and the PEL of 12 ppm.
Headspace air monitoring sample locations with exceedances are identified on Figure 2.

CONCLUSIONS

START personnel collected a subsurface soil samples at three separate test pit locations (TP01, TP13, and
TP14). The presence of coal tar was identified in three test pits located in the northwest area of the
investigated area (TP01, TP14, and TP15.

DATA MANAGEMENT

START personnel collected mobile data using ESRI’s Survey123 mobile data collection application to

3

document subsurface soil information, and to collect general photos and other site observations.

All subsurface soil sample data and analytical results were loaded into a Scribe database.

If you have any questions or comments regarding this trip report, please call me at [phone].

Sincerely,

Madison Ericson
START V Project Manager

Enclosures (4)
Enclosure 1 – Photolog
Enclosure 2 – Site Figures
Enclosure 3 – Table
Enclosure 4 – Laboratory Analytical Packages

cc: Di Di Fung, START Region 8 Program Manager
Clayton Longest, START Region 8 Document Control Coordinator

ENCLOSURE 4
LABORATORY ANALYTICAL PACKAGES