DERR-2024-011990

November 6, 2024
Utah DERR
195 North 1950 West
Salt Lake City, Utah 84116
Attention:Lincoln Grevengoed, VCP Project Manager
Subject:Site Characterization Work Plan No. 4
Forsey Cleaners & Laundry
856 East 25 Streetth
Ogden, Utah
Applied Geotechnical Engineering Consultants, Inc., (AGEC) was requested to prepare a fourth
Site Characterization Work Plan (SCW) for the Forsey Cleaners & Laundry site at 856 East
25 Street in Ogden, Utah. This SCW was produced for Ogden City Redevelopment Agencyth
and the Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ) Division of Environmental
Response and Remediation (DERR). The Ogden City Redevelopment Agency entered into an
agreement (C115) with the Utah DERR Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP). The VCP
agreement is intended to help determine the presence of, and if present, remediate or mitigate
impacts due to the historical dry-cleaning operations on the property.
The attached report which includes the SCWP, a Sampling and Analysis Plan and a Quality
Assurance Project Plan, dated November 6, 2024, was prepared for Ogden City
Redevelopment Agency, a prospective developer of the property and current landowner.
If you need further information, please contact me at 801-566-6399 (office) 801-651-5379
(cell) or by email at [e-mail].
Sincerely,
APPLIED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC.
Thomas R. Atkinson
Enclosures
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SITE CHARACTERIZATION PLAN
1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................ 1
1.1 Purpose and Scope...................................... 1
1.2 Utah Voluntary Cleanup Program Requirements................... 2
1.3 Previous Assessments and Sampling Results..................... 2
2.0 SITE CHARACTERIZATION TASKS................................ 7
2.1 Soil Gas Sampling...................................... 8
3.0 DATA MANAGEMENT........................................ 10
4.0 PROJECT MANAGEMENT..................................... 10
5.0 REFERENCES.............................................. 11
SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN
1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................ 12
1.1 Potential Sources of Impact............................... 12
1.2 Potential Exposure Pathways.............................. 13
2.0 SAMPLING ACTIVITIES....................................... 14
2.1 Soil Gas Sampling...................................... 14
2.2 Equipment Decontamination Procedures....................... 15
2.3 Data Validation and Assessment............................ 15
2.4 Sampling Summary Report................................ 16
2.5 Contingency Plan...................................... 16
2.6 Project Schedule....................................... 16
QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN
1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................ 17
1.1 QA/QC Preparation and Guidelines........................... 17
1.2 Specific Objectives and DQOs.............................. 18
1.2.1 Sensitivity...................................... 18
1.2.2 Accuracy....................................... 18
1.2.3 Precision....................................... 19
1.2.4 Completeness.................................... 19
1.2.5 Representativeness................................ 19
1.2.6 Comparability.................................... 20
2.0 DATA VALIDATION AND ASSESSMENT PROGRAM................... 21
2.1 Holding Times......................................... 22
2.2 Blanks.............................................. 22
2.3 Laboratory Control Sample Analysis.......................... 22
2.4 Matrix Spike Analysis................................... 22
2.5 Matrix Spike Duplicate Analysis............................. 22
2.6 Completeness of Data................................... 23
2.7 Data Processing....................................... 23
2.7.1 Field Data Reduction............................... 24
2.7.2 Laboratory Data Reduction............................24
3.0 CUSTODY PROCEDURES...................................... 25
3.1 Field Logbook Records................................... 26
3.2 Storage of Project Files, Logbooks and Laboratory Data............ 26
4.0 CORRECTIVE ACTIONS....................................... 27
4.1 Field Corrective Actions.................................. 27
4.2 Laboratory Corrective Actions.............................. 27
4.3 Data Validation and Assessment Corrective Actions............... 28
5.0 PROJECT ORGANIZATION AND RESPONSIBILITIES.................... 29
5.1 Management Responsibilities.............................. 29
5.1.1 Project Manager.................................. 29
5.1.2 Site Manager.................................... 29
5.2 Laboratory Requirements................................. 30
FIGURES
Monitoring Wells and Sample Locations Figures 1A-1C
PCE Groundwater Concentrations Figures 2A-2C
Proposed Capitol Square Development Figure 3
TABLES
Summary of SC Sample Locations, Rationale and Analyses Table 1
Test Methods, Sample Containers, Preservatives & Holding Times Table 2
Result Data Qualifiers Table 3
APPENDIXES
ANALYTICAL RESULTS TABLES APPENDIX A
Page 1
SITE CHARACTERIZATION WORK PLAN NO. 4
FORSEY CLEANERS & LAUNDRY
OGDEN, UTAH
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report presents a fourth Site Characterization Work Plan (SCW) in the vicinity of the
Forsey Cleaners & Laundry (also known as 4C Laundromat) property at 856 East 25 Streetth
in Ogden, Utah. The site location is shown on Figures 1 to 3. This SCW was produced for
Ogden City Redevelopment Agency and the Utah Department of Environmental Quality
(UDEQ) Division of Environmental Response and Remediation (DERR). The Ogden City
Redevelopment Agency entered into an agreement (C115) with the Utah DERR Voluntary
Cleanup Program (VCP). The VCP agreement is intended to help determine the presence of,
and if present, remediate or mitigate impacts due to the historical dry-cleaning operations on
the property.
1.1 Purpose and Scope
This SCW is intended to help further characterize the property as the site is proposed
to be redeveloped primarily for residential uses. We understand the subject property
extending from the vicinity of the former Forsey Cleaners & Laundry facility at 856
25th Street to Monroe Boulevard is proposed to be redeveloped primarily for residential
uses in the Capitol Square development. Parking lots for the existing McGregor
Apartments at 810 25 Street currently are to the north-northeast of the apartments.th
We understand that a property exchange may be conducted where the McGregor
parking lot will be moved to the existing vacant parcel at 2466 and 2472 South
Monroe Boulevard to allow for residential redevelopment of the existing McGregor
parking lot (Figure 3).
Based on previous sampling investigations and the site history, the contaminants of
concern (COC) for the soil, groundwater and soil vapor are volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) related to the historical dry-cleaning operation.
Construction of the Q-25 apartment building is ongoing east and north of the former
Forsey Cleaners building site. During the remedial activities including the excavation
of source soils below the former dry cleaner building in the summer of 2023, most of
the monitoring wells around the former building were destroyed or have been impacted
during the removal of the surrounding asphalt pavement. We understand a new
asphalt-paved parking lot will be constructed west of the Q-25 building in the vicinity
of the former Forsey building. New replacement monitoring wells will be installed later
in the spring of 2025 to help access the groundwater impacts from the former dry
cleaner in this area.
Page 2
Upon completion of the site characterization work, potential remedial activities will be
evaluated that may include groundwater remediation and sampling, remedial activities
to mitigate the indoor air in the adjacent building at 846 East 25 Street, institutionalth
controls and environmental covenants, if necessary.
1.2 Utah Voluntary Cleanup Program Requirements
Utah Code, Title 19, Chapter 8, Section 110 entitled 19-8-110 Voluntary Cleanup
Work Plans and Reports gives the following requirements for the VCP SC documents:
1. After the Applicant and the Executive Director have signed the Voluntary
Cleanup Agreement (VCA), the Applicant shall prepare and submit the
appropriate work plans and reports to the Executive Director as provided in the
VCA.
2. The Executive Director shall review and evaluate the work plans and reports for
accuracy, quality, and completeness.
3. The Executive Director may approve a voluntary cleanup work plan or report,
or if he does not approve the work plan or a report, he shall notify the
Applicant in writing concerning additional information or commitments
necessary to obtain approval.
4. At any time during the evaluation of a work plan or report, the Executive
Director may request the Applicant to submit additional or corrected
information.
5. After considering the proposed future use of the property that is the subject of
the agreement, the Executive Director may approve work plans and reports
submitted under this section that do not require removal or remedy of all
discharges, releases, and threatened releases on the property if the Applicant's
response actions under the agreement: a) will be completed in a manner that
protects human health and the environment; b) will not cause, contribute to,
or exacerbate discharges, releases, or threatened releases on the property that
are not required to be removed or remedied under the work plan; and c) will not
interfere with or substantially increase the costs of response actions to address
any remaining discharges, releases, or threatened releases resulting from
releases initially generated on the property.
1.3 Previous Assessments and Sampling Results
Applied Geotechnical Engineering Consultants Inc. (AGEC) has completed two Phase
1 Environmental Site Assessments and eight sampling investigations on the subject
property and adjacent properties to the west. Findings of the sampling investigations
were reported under AGEC Project No. 1200034, dated January 29, 2020, AGEC
Page 3
Project No. 1200988, dated January 8, 2021, AGEC Project No. 1210017, dated
January 28, 2021, AGEC Project No. 1210086, dated February 22, 2021, AGEC
Project No. 1210149, dated March 18, 2021 and AGEC Project No. 1210230, dated
April 22, 2021.
A Site Characterization Work Plan (SCWP), Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) and
Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) were submitted to the Utah DERR in a report
dated August 11, 2022 and was approved in a letter dated June 23, 2023. The
SCWP, SAP and QAPP were approved in a letter from the DERR on August 23, 2022.
A Site Characterization Summary Report (SCSR) was submitted to the Utah DERR in
a report dated February 21, 2023, with a final revision dated May 30, 2023. The
SCSR included the installation and sampling of additional monitoring wells to help
delineate the extent of a plume of primarily perchloroethylene or tetrachloroethylene
(PCE or perc) groundwater contamination that extends westward from the former
Forsey Cleaners & Laundry (Forsey) building.
Further site characterization of the off-site impacts west of the Forsey parcel
continued with soil, groundwater and indoor air and soil vapor sampling. Areas
requiring further characterization included: 1) accessing the indoor air and subslab soil
vapor below the existing apartment building at 846 East 25th Street, 2) delineating
the west end of the plume, west of Monroe Boulevard, and 3) resampling the existing
deep (30 and 50-foot) groundwater monitoring wells.
To help determine if the PCE in the groundwater extending underneath the adjacent
apartment building at 846 East 25 Street is a vapor intrusion risk, a limited indoor airth
and subslab soil gas sampling investigation was performed on July 6, 2023. The
subslab sampling was conducted below the concrete floor slab in the basement of the
building. Two subslab soil gas samples (VP-3 and VP-4) were obtained by used a
hammer drill with a 0.625-inch concrete drill bit to drill holes through the concrete
slab. An indoor air sample was obtained with the use of a Summa canister. The
sampling location (approximately 3 feet south and 24 feet west of the northeast
interior building corner) was in the lowest inhabitable space (basement level) in the
north end of the building. The subslab soil vapor analytical results were compared to
the May 2023 US EPA risk-based Residential and Commercial Target Subslab and
Near-source Soil Gas Concentration Regional Screening Levels with THQ of 1.0, when
available. The only VOCs detected above the EPA Residential and Commercial Regional
Screening Levels were PCE and TCE. The only VOC detected in the indoor air samples
above the EPA Residential Air Regional Screening Levels was PCE.
Page 4
Three new 15-foot deep wells (MW-48 to 50) were installed on the west of the
Fontanelle Apartments on a parcel owned by the Junior League of Ogden. No VOCs
were detected in the soil or water samples from MW-48 to MW-50.

Groundwater samples were obtained from the existing deep (30 or 50-foot) monitoring
wells MW-33 to MW-40. No VOCs were detected in the water samples above the
laboratory reported detection limits from MW-33 to MW-40. Results of the second
site characterization work were submitted in a report dated October 10, 2023 under
AGEC Project No. 1230329.
A Remedial Action Plan (RAP) was submitted to the Utah DERR in a report dated May
31, 2023. This RAP focused on the planned excavation and removal of the PCE-
impacted soils below the Forsey building slab. On June 5, 2023, a notice was
published in the Ogden Standard Examiner beginning a required 30-day public
comment period for the RAP. In addition, adjacent landowners were also notified of
the project. The DERR subsequently accepted the RAP in a letter dated July 27, 2023.
To help remove the presumed source of the PCE groundwater contamination from the
subject property, the PCE-impacted soil below the former Forsey Cleaners building slab
was removed and properly disposed of at a regulated and permitted landfill. The
excavation work was performed between July 11 and August 2, 2023. Based on
measurements of the final excavation limits of approximately 55 feet wide east-west,
27 to 40 feet north-south and between 3 to 8 feet deep, approximately 450 cubic
yards of soil were excavated and removed from the site. Disposal manifests from
Moulding & Sons Landfill indicate that approximately 1,351,000 pounds (675.5 tons)
of soil were hauled to the landfill for disposal. As the excavation work continued, a
total of 31 confirmation soil samples were obtained along with seven site
characterization samples. Based on the sampling results, the remaining PCE soil
contamination is significantly below the EPA residential screening limits of 24 µg/kg.
A Remedial Action Summary Report was submitted in a report dated October 27,
2023.
A third SCWP was submitted on July 29, 2024 and was intended to help further
characterize the property as the site is proposed to be redeveloped primarily for
residential uses. In conversations with representatives with the Utah VCP, areas
requiring further characterization included: 1) resampling the groundwater monitoring
wells west of the Q-25 development, 2) resampling the indoor air and subslab soil
vapor below the existing apartment building at 846 East 25th Street and 3) resampling
the indoor air in the Fontanelle Apartments at 2465 Monroe Boulevard.
Page 5
Groundwater samples were subsequently obtained from the existing monitoring wells
MW-10, 12 to 20, 22 to 25, 29 to 32 and 37 to 50 on August 19 and 20, 2024. To
help determine if the PCE in the groundwater extending underneath the adjacent
apartment building at 846 East 25th Street and near the Fontanelle apartment building
at 2465 Monroe Boulevard continues to be a vapor intrusion risk, a limited indoor air
and subslab soil gas sampling investigation was performed on August 19 and 20,
2024. Indoor air samples were obtained from both buildings with the use of Summa
canisters. The sample locations were similar to the previous tests in 2023 and were
in the lowest inhabitable space in the basement level of the north-center end of the
building at 846 East 25th Street and in the basement laundry room of the Fontanelle
Apartments. The subslab sampling at 846 East 25th Street was conducted below the
concrete floor slab in the basement of the building, in the vicinity of the previous
sampling event from July 2023.
The analytical test results (Table 2 in Appendix A) indicate that the groundwater
samples from MW-10, 12, 14, 15, 17, 24, 25, 29 to 32, 43 to 45 and 47 contained
concentrations of PCE above the May 2024 EPA Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL)
of 0.005 mg/L. The PCE concentrations were higher than the previous sampling event
in nine wells and were lower in seven wells.
TCE was detected above the laboratory reporting limits in MW-10, 12, 15, 17, 24 to
29, 31, 32, 43 to 45 and 47 with the concentrations exceeding the MCL of 0.005
mg/L in MW-10, 12, 17, 24, 25, 29, 31, 43 and 44. The only other VOCs detected
above the laboratory reporting limits were cis-1,2-DCE in MW-25 and 31. These
concentrations were below the respective MCL of 0.07 mg/L.
The only VOCs detected above the EPA Residential and Commercial Regional
Screening Levels in the subslab soil gas were bromodichloromethane, chloroform, PCE
and TCE. The PCE and TCE concentrations were higher in one sample and lower in
the second sample, when compared to the sample results from July 2023.
The only VOCs detected above the EPA Residential Air Regional Screening Levels in
the indoor air in the Fontanelle Apartments sample were benzene and
1,4-dichlorobenzene. No compounds were above the residential screening levels in the
indoor air sample from 846 East 25th Street. PCE was detected in both samples
below the residential screening levels.
Based on the sampling to date, the PCE and TCE plumes are approximately 80-feet
wide and extend at least 600 feet from the vicinity of the former dry-cleaner building
Page 6
to the west-northwest, below the north parking lots for the houses/apartments at 824,
832 and 846 East 25 Street and across Monroe Boulevard. The plume appears toth
extend below the north end of the adjacent apartment building at 846 East 25 Streetth
and potentially below the Fontanelle Apartment building at 2465 Monroe Boulevard.
Page 7
2.0 SITE CHARACTERIZATION TASKS
This section describes the field activities and sampling rationale that will be performed during
this additional SC. Specifics about the field sample collection methods, equipment, sample
custody, and the management of investigation-derived wastes are provided in the SAP.
Quality Assurance (QA)/Quality Control (QC) measures and specific analytical and data
evaluation procedures are provided in the QAPP.
To help determine the current contaminant levels of the soil gas in the vicinity of the PCE
plume, AGEC proposes to perform a limited soil gas investigation with nine locations spread
across the site from the vicinity of the former dry-cleaner to Monroe Boulevard (Figures 1 to
3). This sampling event is not intended to delineate the extent of the contamination, if
present, in the soil gas, but to provide further site characterization data for future remedial
actions. The sampling rationale for this project includes the following:
•The only VOCs detected above the EPA Residential and Commercial Regional
Screening Levels in the subslab soil gas samples obtained in August 2024 were
bromodichloromethane, chloroform, PCE and TCE. The PCE and TCE concentrations
were higher in one sample and lower in the second sample, when compared to the
sample results from July 2023.
The only VOCs detected above the EPA Residential Air Regional Screening Levels in
the indoor air in the Fontanelle Apartments sample were benzene and
1,4-dichlorobenzene. No compounds were above the residential screening levels in the
indoor air sample from 846 East 25th Street. PCE was detected in both samples
below the residential screening levels.
•Of the 32 monitoring wells previously installed west of the Q-25 property, 15 wells
contained PCE at concentrations above the EPA MCL when last sampled in August
2024. The most recent PCE concentrations are indicated on Figures 2A to 2C and
Table 2.
•Previous subsurface investigations have indicated that soil gas with elevated
concentrations of PCE, TCE, 1,3-butadiene, chloroform and naphthalene were present
below and near the Forsey building. The concentrations of PCE were significantly
higher in the two subslab samples than the exterior PRT samples.
•The rationale and analytical testing program for each sample location is summarized
in Table 1.
Page 8
2.1 Soil Gas Sampling
Upon approval of this SCWP by the DERR, AGEC personnel will arrange for a Utah
licensed drilling subcontractor (AGEC or Direct Push Services) to perform the sampling
using a track-mounted Geoprobe rig. Soil gas samples will be obtained from nine
exterior borings (SG-1 to SG-9) with a Post-Run Tubing (PRT) system. The direct-push
method will be used to drive a disposable point to a depth of approximately 5 feet
below grade.
The sampling depth of 5 feet will be used as soil gas samples collected at less than
5 feet below the ground surface may be subject to barometric pressure effects and
may be prone to breakthrough of ambient air through the soil column. Once the
appropriate depth is reached, the probe rod will be retracted approximately 4 to 6
inches to push out the expendable point and expose the point to the subsurface soil
gas. Teflon tubing will be attached to the PRT and an adapter with an O-ring with a
threaded connection will engage the adapter with ¼-inch diameter tubing. A syringe
will then be used to purge the tubing of dead air. A T-valve on the sampling train will
then be turned to allow the soil gas sample to be collected with a certified clean 1-liter
Summa canister. The soil gas will be collected via the Summa’s flow regulator
(pre-calibrated to flow at 200 milliliters per minute) for 5 minutes. The initial and final
vacuum readings will be recorded for each canister.
The initial and final vacuum pressures and all quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC)
information labeled on the canister (canister tags, specifying cleaning and validation
dates) will be recorded. The canisters will be labeled with the date, time, and sample
name/location. Chain-of-Custody (COC) forms provided by the analytical laboratory will
be filled out. The laboratory will analyze the subsurface soil gas samples for VOCs by
Method TO-15.
The analytical results from the subsurface soil gas samples will be compared with the
current EPA risk-based Residential Vapor Intrusion Screening Level (VISL) calculator.
The VISL Calculator is a technical resource, developed by the EPA that: (1) identifies
chemicals considered to be typically vapor-forming under environmental conditions and
known to pose a potential cancer risk or noncancer hazard through the inhalation
pathway; (2) provides generally recommended screening-level concentrations for
groundwater, near-source soil gas (exterior to buildings), sub-slab soil gas, and indoor
air; and (3) facilitates calculation of site-specific screening levels and/or candidate
risk-based cleanup levels based on user-defined target risk levels, exposure scenarios,
and semi-site-specific or site-specific attenuation factors.
Page 9
An exceedance of a VISL does not necessarily identify a definitive, site-specific, indoor
air quality issue or concern but may indicate that additional monitoring of site-specific
conditions may be warranted.
Prior to the Geoprobe sampling, the proposed boring locations will be Blue Staked to
help determine the location of subsurface utilities and may need to be moved if there
are conflicts with subsurface or above-ground utilities. After the samples are obtained,
the borings will be filled with granular bentonite clay and the pavement repaired, if
necessary.
Page 10
3.0 DATA MANAGEMENT
Data reduction, review, validation, and reporting procedures are summarized in detail in the
QAPP. These procedures are required to ensure the overall objectives of analysis and reporting
meet the data quality objectives (DQOs) and established to: 1) minimize data transcription and
reduction errors, 2) ensure that all data are reviewed and the review is documented, 3)
provide ready access to data records, and 4) ensure that reported results are qualified
appropriately. Laboratory data reduction, review, and verification procedures are described
in detail within the QAPP.
SC data will be provided to AGEC in the form of Electronic Data Deliverable (EDD). All data
will be validated in accordance with EPA Level 3 data validation processes. Results of data
validation will be summarized in a Data Validation Report that will be included in the Site
Characterization Report.
The data will be reviewed against the criteria specified in the project QAPP and the criteria
detailed in the laboratory specific Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs). The laboratory will
apply data flags to each data result, inclusive of all field samples [e.g., ambient blanks,
equipment blanks, trip blanks, field duplicates, matrix spike (MS) samples, and matrix spike
duplicates (MSD) samples], which are not necessarily identified as such to the laboratory.
AGEC will review all data, including the field logs and field QC samples, and will then
appropriately flag field samples according to the explanations provided in Table 3.
The analytical samples are to be collected and processed in a manner to allow for the
generation of defensible data which provides a framework for screening and evaluating
potential remedial alternatives, if required. The detected soil gas contaminants will be
compared to the residential EPA Vapor Intrusion Screening Levels (VISLs) (currently dated
May 2024).
4.0 PROJECT MANAGEMENT
AGEC’s Project Manager for the Site Characterization work and QA/QC Manager will be
Thomas Atkinson. The Site Manager involved with the on-site sampling will be Joseph
DeGooyer. The Site Characterization Summary Report will be reviewed by Douglas R.
Hawkes, P.E., P.G.
Page 11
5.0 REFERENCES
AGEC, “Additional Monitoring Well Installation and Sampling Report, Forsey Cleaners &
Laundry, 856 East 25th Street, Ogden, Utah,” January 28, 2021.
AGEC, “Monitoring Well Installation and Sampling Report, Forsey Cleaners & Laundry, 856
East 25th Street, Ogden, Utah,” January 8, 2021.
AGEC, “Monitoring Wells 11 to 15 Installation and Sampling Report, Forsey Cleaners &
Laundry, 856 East 25th Street, Ogden, Utah,” February 22, 2021.
AGEC, “Monitoring Wells 16 to 20 Installation and Sampling Report, Forsey Cleaners &
Laundry, 856 East 25th Street, Ogden, Utah,” March 18, 2021.
AGEC, “Monitoring Wells 21 to 25 Installation and Sampling Report, Forsey Cleaners &
Laundry, 856 East 25th Street, Ogden, Utah,” April 22, 2021.
AGEC, “Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment, Gramercy Street Apartments, Monroe
Boulevard to Quincy Avenue and 24 and 25 Streets, Ogden, Utah,” February 8, 2018. th th
AGEC, “Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment, Forsey Cleaners & Laundry, 856 East 25th
Street, Ogden, Utah,” April 15, 2021.
AGEC, “Remedial Action Summary Report, Forsey Cleaners & Laundry, 856 East 25th Street,
Ogden, Utah,” October 27, 2023.
AGEC, “Site Characterization Summary Report, Forsey Cleaners & Laundry, 856 East 25th
Street, Ogden, Utah,” May 30, 2023.
AGEC, “Site Characterization Summary Report #3, Forsey Cleaners & Laundry, 856 East 25th
Street, Ogden, Utah,” October 2, 2024.
AGEC, “Subsurface Environmental Sampling Investigation, Forsey Cleaners & Laundry, 856
East 25 Street, Ogden, Utah,” January 29, 2020.th
Polk Ogden City Directories, 1925 to 2017.
Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, Ogden, Utah, sheet 47, 1906, 1950, 1956 and 1963.
Page 12
SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN
FORSEY CLEANERS & LAUNDRY
OGDEN, UTAH
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report presents a Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) for the vicinity of the Forsey
Cleaners & Laundry (also known as 4C Laundromat) property at 856 East 25 Street inth
Ogden, Utah. The site location is shown on Figures 1 to 3. This SAP was produced for
Ogden City Redevelopment Agency and the Utah Department of Environmental Quality
(UDEQ) Division of Environmental Response and Remediation (DERR). The Ogden City
Redevelopment Agency entered into an agreement (C115) with the Utah DERR Voluntary
Cleanup Program (VCP). The VCP agreement is intended to help determine the presence of,
and if present, remediate or mitigate impacts due to the historical dry-cleaning operations on
the property.
This Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) describes the technical procedures that will be
followed during this Site Characterization (SC) work. The SAP provides site-specific guidance
for field personnel by defining the number, type, and location of samples to be collected, and
the type of analyses to be performed. This portion of the SAP is intended to be amended as
required to fully delineate impacts. A second part of the SAP outlines non-site specific
standard operating procedures for the collection of samples and other investigation elements.
The SAP is to present the field sampling procedures, equipment-decontamination procedures,
analytical testing program, in-field quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) program, waste-
management procedures, and documentation procedures that will be used during the
proposed field activities at the site.
1.1 Potential Sources of Impact
The subject property was historically occupied by a dry cleaner from the early 1960s
to the mid 1980s. The dry-cleaning equipment was apparently located in the west
center end of the building. Polk City Directories indicate the building was occupied by
Norge Cleaning Village/Meyer's Norge Village from the 1960s to the late 1980s. In the
late 1980s, the business name changed to Forsey's Norge self serve laundry and then
Forsey's Laundry and Cleaning Village, 4-C's Wash Basin and Four Seasons
Laundromat. We understand that dry cleaning has not been performed on site since
about 1987.
Page 13
Previous subsurface investigations have indicated that soil vapor with elevated
concentrations of PCE, TCE, 1,3-butadiene, chloroform and naphthalene were present
below and near the Forsey building. The concentrations of PCE were significantly
higher in the two subslab samples than the exterior PRT samples.
Data from monitoring wells installed around the former dry cleaner building and farther
west and down gradient indicate that a plume of PCE and TCE extends from the
vicinity of the former Forsey Dry-Cleaner at least 600 feet to the west-northwest.
1.2 Potential Exposure Pathways
Based on measurements of the previous wells installed in the vicinity, the depth to
groundwater is approximately 5½ to 8½ feet below the top of well casings with a
gradient to west-northwest. The asphalt pavement previously observed around the
western side of the former dry-cleaner building was removed along with the building
in the summer of 2023. Most of the adjacent properties to the west are asphalt-paved
parking lots. The western vacant parcels near 2454, 2466 and 2472 Monroe
Boulevard are unpaved. Future potential exposure pathways include the surface soil
and soil vapor. The groundwater may be encountered during construction activities.
Future occupants of the property will be connected to municipal water supplies and
should not be exposed to the groundwater. The groundwater plume appears to have
migrated below the adjacent apartment building at 846 East 25 Street and potentiallyth
below the Fontanelle Apartment building at 2465 Monroe Boulevard and a house at
2455 Monroe Boulevard. The garage north of the apartment building at 846 East 25th
Street is likely above the plume but the building apparently is used for storage and is
not occupied for business or residential purposes. As part of the fourth SCWP,
subsurface soil gas sampling will be performed at nine locations in the vicinity of the
PCE plume and below proposed residential buildings in the Capitol Square
development. The only VOCs detected above the EPA Residential Regional Screening
Levels in the previous subsurface soil gas PRT sampling by the Forsey Cleaners
building were PCE and 1, 3-butadiene (Table 3).
Page 14
2.0 SAMPLING ACTIVITIES
AGEC will provide the majority of the technical and field staff to perform the sampling and
reporting aspects of the individual tasks related to this work. Qualified subcontractors will
perform the following specific tasks:
• Analytical services will be performed by Utah State Certified Laboratories,
Pace Analytical National Center for Testing and Innovation (Pace) located in
Mount Juliet, TN and potentially ALS Environmental in West Valley City, Utah.
• Subsurface soil gas sampling will be performed by AGEC.
2.1 Soil Gas Sampling
AGEC personnel will arrange for a Utah licensed drilling subcontractor (AGEC or Direct
Push Services) to perform the sampling using a track-mounted Geoprobe rig. Soil gas
samples will be obtained from nine exterior borings (SG-1 to SG-9) with a Post-Run
Tubing (PRT) system. The direct-push method will be used to drive a disposable point
to a depth of approximately 5 feet below grade.
The sampling depth of 5 feet will be used as soil gas samples collected at less than
5 feet below the ground surface may be subject to barometric pressure effects and
may be prone to breakthrough of ambient air through the soil column. Once the
appropriate depth is reached, the probe rod will be retracted approximately 4 to 6
inches to push out the expendable point and expose the point to the subsurface soil
gas. Teflon tubing will be attached to the PRT and an adapter with an O-ring with a
threaded connection will engage the adapter with ¼-inch diameter tubing. A syringe
will then be used to purge the tubing of dead air. A T-valve on the sampling train will
then be turned to allow the soil gas sample to be collected with a certified clean 1-liter
Summa canister. The soil gas will be collected via the Summa’s flow regulator
(pre-calibrated to flow at 200 milliliters per minute) for 5 minutes. The initial and final
vacuum readings will be recorded for each canister.
The initial and final vacuum pressures and all quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC)
information labeled on the canister (canister tags, specifying cleaning and validation
dates) will be recorded. The canisters will be labeled with the date, time, and sample
name/location. Chain-of-Custody (COC) forms provided by the analytical laboratory will
be filled out. The laboratory will analyze the subsurface soil gas samples for VOCs by
Method TO-15.
Page 15
The analytical results from the subsurface soil gas samples will be compared with the
current EPA risk-based Residential Vapor Intrusion Screening Level (VISL) calculator.
The VISL Calculator is a technical resource, developed by the EPA that: (1) identifies
chemicals considered to be typically vapor-forming under environmental conditions and
known to pose a potential cancer risk or noncancer hazard through the inhalation
pathway; (2) provides generally recommended screening-level concentrations for
groundwater, near-source soil gas (exterior to buildings), sub-slab soil gas, and indoor
air; and (3) facilitates calculation of site-specific screening levels and/or candidate
risk-based cleanup levels based on user-defined target risk levels, exposure scenarios,
and semi-site-specific or site-specific attenuation factors.
An exceedance of a VISL does not necessarily identify a definitive, site-specific, indoor
air quality issue or concern but may indicate that additional monitoring of site-specific
conditions may be warranted.
Prior to the Geoprobe sampling, the proposed boring locations will be Blue Staked to
help determine the location of subsurface utilities and may need to be moved if there
are conflicts with subsurface or above-ground utilities. After the samples are obtained,
the borings will be filled with granular bentonite clay and the pavement repaired, if
necessary.
2.2 Equipment Decontamination Procedures
Disposable sampling equipment (nitrile gloves and Teflon tubing) will be used where
possible to reduce the amount of equipment that needs to be decontaminated between
sample locations. Gloves, tubing and other investigation derived waste will be
disposed off-site at a municipal sanitary landfill.
2.3 Data Validation and Assessment
The objectives of the data validation and assessment program for this investigation are
to examine and validate all data and documentation from field and laboratory
instrumentation and method quality assurance elements to ensure that all requirements
specified in this Sampling Plan have been met.
The samples will be analyzed for the contaminants of concern in accordance with the
approved test method listed on Table 2 using Quality Assurance level 3 reporting. The
data validation reports will include analysis of the sample holding times, laboratory
method blanks, laboratory control sample analysis, matrix spike analysis, matrix spike
duplicate analysis, field duplicate analysis, completeness of data and an overall
assessment of the sensitivity, accuracy, precision, completeness, representativeness
Page 16
and comparability of the data. The method blanks, matrix spikes, matrix spike
duplicates and laboratory control samples will be analyzed for each group of samples
analyzed together by the laboratories. The group of samples may contain samples from
other project sites that were prepared and analyzed at the same time as the samples
submitted for this project. The matrix spike and matrix spike duplicates will be
performed on the samples submitted from this project.
2.4 Sampling Summary Report
A Site Characterization Report summary report will be prepared at the conclusion of
the field activities and once the laboratory test results are available. The summary
report will include a sampling introduction, laboratory results summary, data validation
report and a copy of the field notes. The sample laboratory results will be submitted
in the summary report along with the chain of custody forms and other pertinent
information.
2.5 Contingency Plan
If during the sampling activities unforseen issues arise related to the extent and degree
of the potential contamination that have not been specifically addressed in this
Sampling and Analysis Plan, the client will be notified by telephone and mail.
Addendums to the Sampling and Analysis Plan will be prepared to address the new
issues or deviations to the Plan.
2.6 Project Schedule
Sampling activities on this project are anticipated to begin within 1 to 3 weeks of the
acceptance of this SCW, SAP and QAPP by the Utah DERR. The Utah DERR will be
notified in advance of the planned sampling date(s).
Page 17
QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN
FORSEY CLEANERS & LAUNDRY
OGDEN, UTAH
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) describes the activities for collecting, handling,
and analyzing representative environmental samples obtained in the vicinity of the Forsey
Cleaners & Laundry (also known as 4C Laundromat) property at 856 East 25 Street inth
Ogden, Utah. All personnel involved with the collection and handling of samples shall be
required to read this plan and a copy of this plan will be available in the field during all
sampling activities.
The QAPP will serve as a controlling mechanism during the performance of the sampling and
analysis activities to help determine that technical data gathered are within set levels of
precision, accuracy, comparability, completeness and generally representative of the field
conditions and generally meet minimum QA/QC requirements for the project. The following
information helps ensure that QA/QC procedures for activities are performed in general
accordance with the data quality objectives for the soil gas sampling at the site.
1.1 QA/QC Preparation and Guidelines
All QA/QC procedures described below are structured in general accordance with
applicable technical standards, agency requirements, regulations and guidance. Quality
assurance (QA) is a management system to help ensure that the information, data,
and decisions resulting from the investigation are technically sound and properly
documented. Quality control (QC) is the functional mechanism through which quality
assurance goals are achieved. Analytical laboratories will be required to provide Level
3 Quality Assurance reporting packages. For the purposes of this QAPP, Level 3 QA
includes:
•Chain-of-Custody Record
•Analytical Results
•Narrative
•Surrogates
•Method Blank(s)
•Equipment Blank (s)
•Laboratory Control Sample(s)
•Matrix Spike(s)
•Matrix Spike Duplicate(s)
•Sample Duplicate(s)
Page 18
1.2 Specific Objectives and DQOs
Data Quality Objectives (DQOs) are qualitative and quantitative statements that
specify the quality of the data required to support decisions made during project
activities and are based on the end uses of the data to be collected. As such, different
data uses require different levels of data quality. The data quality objectives for the
property are detailed below. Sample data that does not meet the specified quality
control/quality assurance criteria may be re-analyzed if the analytical holding times
have not been exceeded and sufficient sample is available if the error/problem detected
by the data failure is likely a result of an error during the analytical analysis.
1.2.1 Sensitivity
Reporting limits for the COC will be established by the analytical laboratory based on
the method detection limits, historical data and a comparison to the EPA limits for the
respective test methods. While some of the analytical tests may be reported as non-
detect, none of the laboratory reporting limits will exceed the regulatory standards or
action levels established by the Utah DERR/EPA.
1.2.2 Accuracy
Accuracy is defined as the degree of agreement of a measurement to an accepted
reference or true value. Accuracy will be assessed by examining the results obtained
from spike recoveries for laboratory control samples, matrix spikes, matrix spike
duplicates, and surrogates for organic analyses and will be judged by the laboratory-
determined acceptance limits for the samples.
Data will be qualified in general accordance with the appropriate functional guidelines
for evaluating data if the laboratory QC blanks indicate that the accuracy or precision
of analytical results is compromised.
Sources of potential sampling errors include field handling and transportation and cross
contamination from sampling equipment. Sources of laboratory error include sample
preparation and analysis; replicate preparation and precision, and instrumentation and
quantification errors. Failing tests may also be attributed to the soil samples not being
homogeneous.
Laboratory accuracy will be assessed through the analysis of standard reference
materials in laboratory control samples, matrix spikes, matrix spike duplicates and
surrogate compounds and the determination of their recoveries in terms of percentage.
Control limits are established by the laboratory for each analyte based on statistically
valid historical recovery results, which meet or exceed the requirements specified by
Page 19
the analytical method. In addition, the project laboratory will analyze method blanks
to determine the potential for contamination introduced at any stage of sample
preparation or analysis. Laboratory control limits and frequency for spike recovery and
method blank analysis are specified in standard operating procedures for each
analytical method, which are on file with the selected analytical laboratories.
1.2.3 Precision
Precision is defined as the agreement between a set of replicate measurements
without the assumption of knowledge of the true value. Field duplicate samples are
not planned on being obtained during the soil gas sampling event.
Analytical precision will be determined by evaluating the results of matrix spikes and
matrix spike duplicates. The laboratory will be instructed to prepare one matrix
spike/matrix spike duplicate from 10 percent of the samples submitted for laboratory
analyses. Laboratory duplicate precision will be based on established laboratory quality
control limits for the analytes specified in the method. Applicable control limits are
based on statistically valid historical data compiled by the laboratory, which meet or
exceed precision requirements specified by the analytical method. The standard
operating procedures are on file with the selected analytical laboratories.
1.2.4 Completeness
Completeness is defined as the ratio of the number of valid analytical results to the
total number of analytical results requested on samples submitted for analysis. The
closer the numbers, the more complete the measurement process is. The intent of this
program is to attempt to achieve 100 percent completeness of the analytically tested
samples. As this may not be achievable, an acceptable level of completeness will be
defined as 90 percent of collected samples being deemed valid based on sensitivity,
precision, accuracy, representativeness and comparability acceptance criteria, the
sampling plan designs, and data collection activities proposed for each medium.
1.2.5 Representativeness
Representativeness is the degree to which data accurately and precisely represent a
characteristic of a population, parameter variations at a sampling point or an
environmental condition. The representativeness will be maintained during the
sampling efforts by completing all sampling while using similar sampling procedures.
The laboratory testing will be performed using the required quality control and quality
assurance standards.
Page 20
Representativeness is dependent upon the proper design of the sampling program and
will be satisfied by ensuring that the field sampling plan is followed and that proper
sampling procedures are employed.
Representativeness in the laboratory may be attained by using standard analytical
procedures, meeting sample holding times, specifying detection limits that are at or
below regulatory standards, and analyzing method blanks to check for laboratory
contamination. Sample results will not be considered representative if contaminants
are detected in the method blanks, or if the reporting limits are above the residential
action levels established by the Utah DERR/EPA.
1.2.6 Comparability
Comparability expresses the confidence with which one data set can be compared to
another. Comparability can be related to accuracy and precision because these
qualities are measures of data reliability. The data in these reports will be considered
comparable if the collection techniques, procedures, test methods and reporting are
equivalent for all samples within the sample set. Data sets will be compared only when
the precision and accuracy meet the specified acceptance criteria established in this
section.
Samples will be collected and analytical results will be reported according to standard
procedures and methods to ensure comparability with other similar data and results.
The comparability goal will be achieved through the use of SOPs applicable to
collecting and analyzing representative samples, specifying analysis by similar
analytical procedures with comparable reporting limits and by reporting analytical
results in appropriate and consistent units. If after the initial evaluation, the data does
not appear comparable, the Site Manager will attempt to identify other components
possibly affecting comparability, including but not limited to field conditions, sampling
protocols, and the occurrence of true data anomalies.
Analytical data will be considered comparable when similar sampling and analytical
methods are used and documented. Similar QA objectives will be used throughout the
project to help ensure comparability.
Page 21
2.0 DATA VALIDATION AND ASSESSMENT PROGRAM
The objectives of the data validation and assessment program for this investigation are to
examine and validate all data and documentation from field and laboratory instrumentation
and method quality assurance elements to help ensure that the requirements specified in this
QAPP have been met and to help ensure that the data generated are representative of
environmental conditions at the site. The data validation and assessment program should
meet the standards and accuracy established by the Utah DEQ/EPA and the client.
The groundwater and soil grab samples and field duplicate samples will be analyzed in general
accordance with SW-846 Methods using Quality Assurance level 3 reporting. The data
validation reports will include analysis of the chain of custody forms, sample holding times,
compound identification, reported detection limits, equipment blanks, laboratory method
blanks, laboratory control sample analysis, surrogate recovery, matrix spike analysis, matrix
spike duplicate analysis, field duplicate analysis, completeness of data and an overall
assessment of the sensitivity, accuracy, precision, completeness, representativeness and
comparability of the data.
Laboratories will be required to provide Quality Assurance Level 3 reporting packages. The
method blanks, matrix spikes, matrix spike duplicates and laboratory control samples will be
analyzed for each group of samples analyzed together by the laboratories. The laboratories
may perform or implement corrective actions on the analyses or data as a result of these
QC/QA checks as outlined in the applicable analytical methods and laboratory standard
operating procedures, should they be necessary.
The group of samples may contain samples from other project sites that were prepared and
analyzed at the same time as the samples submitted for this project. The laboratory will be
instructed to prepare matrix spike and matrix spike duplicates from samples collected from
this project to help ensure that representative matrices are evaluated. The laboratory raw data
and chromatograms will be kept on file for review either on paper or electronically by the
analytical laboratory for a minimum of 5 years.
Specific procedures for laboratory instrument calibration and maintenance, laboratory
analyses, internal QC/QA, sample custody, preventative maintenance, data management,
audits and corrective actions by the analytical laboratories are defined in each laboratory’s
quality assurance manual (QAM). The laboratories perform the instrument calibrations and
maintenance according to their standard operating procedures (SOP) and maintain
documentation of such maintenance and calibrations on file at the applicable laboratory. The
QAM and SOP for the Utah Certified laboratories used during this project can be obtained
directly from the individual laboratory upon request.
Page 22
2.1 Holding Times
Holding times for the soil gas samples are included on Table 2. The summa canisters
are typically analyzed within a few days upon receipt by the laboratory.
2.2 Blanks
The results of the method blanks for the sample groups will be reviewed. The target
analytes should be reported as non-detect in the method blanks in the QC group
reports provided by the analytical laboratories.
2.3 Laboratory Control Sample Analysis
The results of the laboratory control samples (LCS) for each group will be reviewed.
The laboratory control samples are well-characterized samples of the analyzed
compounds used to monitor the laboratory’s day to day performance of routine
analytical methods. The control samples are prepared by spiking samples of “clean”
matrix with known amounts of arsenic and then proceeding to analyze the matrix
using the same methodology as the other samples. The control sample results are then
compared to the known concentrations to monitor the accuracy and precision of the
analytical process. The percent recovery of the spiked compound is then evaluated.
The LCS percent recoveries for the samples should meet the laboratory pre-determined
acceptance limits for lead and arsenic.
2.4 Matrix Spike Analysis
The matrix spike is an analysis of an extra portion of a field sample into which known
amounts of a target analyte are spiked prior to the sample preparation. The matrix
spike results are expressed as a percent recovery of the spiked analyte and are used
to access the effects of the general sample matrix on the accuracy of the analysis.
The matrix spike recoveries are compared to the laboratory-determined acceptance
limits. Poor spike recoveries may occur due to suspected sample inhomogeneity or if
the matrix spike analyte concentration is too high for an accurate spike recovery.
2.5 Matrix Spike Duplicate Analysis
The matrix spike duplicate analysis is similar to the matrix spike analysis with the
exception that two additional sample portions are spiked with the target analyte prior
to the sample preparation. The matrix spike duplicate samples are processed in the
same fashion as the field samples. After analysis, the recoveries of the spike analyte
are calculated and reported. The matrix spike and duplicate sample results are
compared to each other by means of the RPD. The percent recoveries are used to
evaluate the effect of the sample matrix on the accuracy of the analysis. The RPDs
between the matrix spike and the duplicate are used to evaluate the effect of the
sample matrix on the precision of the analysis.
Page 23
The percent recoveries and RPDs obtained from the matrix spike and duplicate are
compared to the laboratory-determined acceptance limits. In accordance with
functional guidelines detailed in the laboratory’s QAM, no action is taken on associated
sample data based on the results of the matrix spike and duplicate data by itself. The
matrix spike and duplicate data are used in conjunction with other QC criteria to
determine the need for qualification of some sample data.
Poor spike recoveries or high RPDs due to suspected sample inhomogeneity is a
potential problem that may be encountered during the sampling at this project. The
matrix spike analyte concentrations may also be too high for an accurate spike
recovery in some samples.
2.6 Completeness of the Data
The analytical data will be evaluated for completeness of deliverables against the
presence of the following criteria:
•Tabulated results for all specified compounds identified and quantified.
•Reporting limits for analytes.
•Results for all methods requested on chain of custody forms.
•Presence of chain of custody forms, QC summary forms for blank results, QC
summary forms for matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate results with
calculated percent recoveries and RPDs and QC summary forms for laboratory
control sample results with calculated percent recoveries.
The laboratory data summary will be reviewed for potential data quality problems,
including unexpected results, common laboratory contaminants, samples in which
dilution was necessary and sample location, time and date.
2.7 Data Processing
All data collected will be reduced, managed, distributed and preserved in a manner
which substantiates and documents that data are of known quality. Data processing
includes data entry, validation, transfer, storage, and reporting. Precautions will be
taken each time the data are reduced, recorded, calculated, or transcribed to prevent
introduction of errors or loss of information.
•Transfers: Data transfer steps shall be minimized. Procedures shall be
established to help ensure that data transfer is error free (or there is an
acceptable error rate), no information is lost in transfer, and data output is
100% recoverable from data input.
Page 24
•Storage: At each stage of data processing, procedures will be established to
ensure data integrity and security. Raw data sheets will be retained on file.
The soil samples collected will be typically held for 30-60 days after the release
of the final laboratory results report.
•Reduction: Data reduction includes processes that change either the form of
expression, the numerical value of data results, or the quantity of data. This
includes validation, verification, and statistical or mathematical analysis of the
data. Reduction is distinct from data transfer in that it entails a change in the
dimensions of the data set.
2.7.1 Field Data Reduction
Field data is not anticipated to be collected with the exception of the documentation
of the location of the samples. The approximate location of the samples will be
determined with the use of aerial photographs and field measurements and noted on
project figures and reports. The sample numbers will be recorded on a site plan and
the COC forms. Therefore no field data reduction is anticipated.
2.7.2 Laboratory Data Reduction
Raw laboratory data will be recorded and processed using the procedures outlined in
the analytical laboratories QAM and SOP. The laboratory manager will review all data
to help ensure that the sample results meet all method specified criteria. Data from
laboratory quality control samples will be compared to the method acceptance criteria.
Unacceptable data will be appropriately qualified on the results reports.
Page 25
3.0 CUSTODY PROCEDURES
Chain of custody procedures will be established to help provide sample integrity for the
samples collected during the project. Custody procedures help to satisfy two major
requirements for admissibility in a court of law: relevance and authenticity. A sample or
evidence file will be considered to be under custody if the item is in actual possession of a
person; or the item is in the view of the person after being in actual possession of the person;
or the item was in actual physical possession, but is locked up to prevent tampering; or the
item is in a designated and identified secure area. Sample custody is addressed in three parts:
field sample collection, laboratory analysis and final evidence files.
A signed Chain of Custody form, indicating the sample location with the date and time
sampled, depth of sample, number of samples, the media sampled, the type of analysis, the
level of QA and the expected turn-around time will be submitted with the samples to the
analytical laboratory. The samples will be submitted to the laboratory generally the evening
of the sampling. Upon transfer to the analytical laboratory or an intermediary, the individuals
relinquishing and receiving the samples will sign, date and indicate the time of the transfer.
The original chain of custody form will remain with the laboratory until the test results are
returned. The laboratory will retain a copy of the chain of custody. A copy of the chain of
custody will be supplied by the laboratory to the submitting person which will be maintained
with the project file and compared to the original with the test results.
Once the samples have been submitted to the analytical laboratory, the laboratory custody
procedures will be adhering to as outlined in the laboratory’s internal QAM and SOPs.
The sample containers will be labeled in the field with the date and time the sample was
obtained and the sample number/location and depth. The field sampler will be personally
responsible for the care and custody of the samples until they are transferred or properly
dispatched, minimizing the number of people handling the samples.
If samples are split for field duplicate purposes or with a governmental agency, a separate
chain of custody form will be prepared for those samples. The original chain of custody form
will indicate which samples have been split.
Sample volumes, extracts, and digestates will be disposed of by the laboratory. The volumes
are typically held for 30-60 days after the release of the final report. All samples are
segregated by matrix and solvent used (if applicable), then placed in appropriate waste
disposal bins for pickup.
Page 26
3.1 Field Logbook Records
A field log of daily activities will be used to record sampling activities on a daily basis.
This book will be bound and have consecutively numbered pages. Entries in the field
logbook will be made in ink and will include:
•Project name/number
•Name of author/sampling member
•Date and time of entry
•Location of activity
•Chronological record of field activities observed
•Sample collection methods
•Number, location, depths and sample IDs of samples collected
•General field observation and comments
All logbook entries will be signed and dated. If an incorrect entry is made, the
information will be crossed out, initialed and dated.
3.2 Storage of Project Files, Logbooks and Laboratory Data
The project file will be the central repository for all documents that constitute evidence
relevant to sampling and analysis activities as described in this document and the
individual work plans. The Project Manager will be the custodian of the project file and
will maintain the contents of the project files generated by AGEC including all relevant
reports, records, COC forms, laboratory results, log books, field notes, pictures and
data reviews in a secured, limited access area at AGEC’s office. Electronic and/or
scanned versions of the reports, laboratory results and photographs generated in this
project will be backed up for long-term storage purposes.
Project documents generated by the Project Manager related to the technical, financial,
and scheduling objectives will be maintained at the Project Manager’s office along with
copies of the final Summary Report and QAPP.
Page 27
4.0 CORRECTIVE ACTIONS
During the analysis of the laboratory data, the general quality control/quality assurance
parameters will be monitored as part of this QAPP to ensure that conditions adverse to
quality, such as malfunctions, deficiencies, deviations and errors are promptly investigated,
documented, evaluated and corrected. When a significant condition adverse to quality is
noted at the site or laboratory, the cause of the condition will be determined and corrective
action promptly taken. All project personnel will have the responsibility to promptly identify
and report conditions adverse to quality. The Site Manager and Project Manager are
ultimately responsible for field QA/QC corrective actions. The laboratory QA manager will be
ultimately responsible for corrective actions concerning the laboratory testing. Conditions
which may warrant corrective action include the following situations:
•Predetermined acceptance standards are not attained.
•Procedures or data compiled are determined to be faulty.
•Equipment or instrumentation is faulty.
•Samples and test results have questionable COC.
•Quality assurance parameters to not meet requirements or goals.
•System or performance audits indicate problems.
4.1 Field Corrective Actions
If problems become apparent that are identified as originating in the field, immediate
corrective actions will take place. After the implementation of the corrective action
has occurred, the effectiveness of the action will be verified such that the end result
is the elimination of the problem. The corrective action may be necessary due to a
change in the sampling procedures due to unexpected conditions. If corrective actions
are implemented they will be documented in the field logbook as well as noted in the
final Summary Report.
4.2 Laboratory Corrective Actions
The need for corrective action resulting from QA audits will be initiated by the
laboratory QA/QC manager. The corrective actions will be performed prior to the
release of the data form the laboratory. If the corrective action does not rectify the
situation, the laboratory will contact the Site Manager. Corrective actions may include,
but are not limited to:
•Reanalyzing the samples, if holding times permit
•Evaluating and amending the sampling and analytical procedures
•Accepting data with an acknowledged level of uncertainty
Page 28
•Resampling and analysis, if the completeness of the data set or intended use
of the data is recognized during a preliminary review to be insufficient to meet
the project DQOs.
If the above corrective actions are deemed unacceptable, an alternative laboratory will
be selected to perform the necessary analyses.
4.3 Data Validation and Assessment Corrective Actions
The need for corrective action may be identified during the data validation or data
assessment reviews. Potential types of corrective activity may include obtaining new
samples from the field, reanalysis of the samples by the laboratory or appropriately
qualifying the unacceptable data on the results report. The actions will be dependent
upon the ability to obtain the new samples and whether the data collected will meet
the required quality assurance objectives such as holding times.
Page 29
5.0 PROJECT ORGANIZATION AND RESPONSIBILITIES
5.1 Management Responsibilities
5.1.1 Project Manager
The Project Manager will be responsible for implementing the project, and has the
authority to commit the resources necessary to meet project objectives and
requirements. The Project Manager's primary function is to help ensure that technical,
financial, and scheduling objectives are achieved successfully. The Project Manager
will serve as primary point of contact and control for matters concerning the project.
The Project Manager will:
•Define project objectives;
•Establish project policy and procedures to address the specific needs of the
project as a whole;
•Acquire and apply resources as needed to help ensure performance within
budget and schedule constraints;
•Review the work performed on each task to help ensure its quality,
responsiveness, and timeliness;
•Review and analyze overall task performance with respect to planned
requirements and authorization;
•Approve reports prior to their submission to agency representatives.
•Be ultimately responsible for the preparation and quality of interim and final
reports; and
•Represent the project team at meetings and public hearings.
5.1.2 Site Manager
The Site Manager will report directly to the Project Manager and direct the field
sampling staff. The Site Manager will be responsible for:
•Obtaining the analytical samples;
•Compiling the test results;
•Determining if the provisions of the QAPP are implemented and followed;
•Reporting problems to the Project Manager and/or Site Superintendent for
corrective actions;
•Observing and documenting the corrective measures; and
•Observing project activities on a daily basis.
Page 30
5.2 Laboratory Requirements
The laboratories performing sample analyses for this project should meet the applicable
certification requirements for the State of Utah. Copies of the Utah laboratory
certifications will be made available upon request.
FIGURES
TABLES
Table 1
Summary of Site Characterization No. 4 Sample Locations, Rationale and Analyses
Forsey Cleaners Laundry
Sample ID Sampling Media Location Sampling Rationale Sample Depth Interval Analytical Testing
SG-1 to SG-9 Soil Gas Vapor
In vicinity of PCE Plume between 846 East
25th Street and Monroe Boulevard Assess soil vapor in vicinity of PCE plume 4 to 5 feet below ground surface VOCs
Table 2
Test Methods, Sample Containers, Preservatives and Holding Times
Forsey Cleaners Laundry
Matrix Compounds Laboratory Test Method Container Preservation Maximum Holding Time
Soil Gas VOCs TO-15 1-Liter Summa NA 30 Days
Table 3
Result Data Qualifiers
Forseys Cleaners Laundry
Qualifier Description
B The analyte was found in an associated blank, as well as in the sample.
E
The analyte concentration exceeded the upper limit of the calibration range of the instrument
established by the initial calibration (ICAL)
J The analyte was positively identified; the quantitation is an estimation
M A matrix effect was present.
R
The data are unusable due to deficiencies in the ability to analyze the sample and meet quality
control criteria.
V The sample concentration was too high to evaluate accurate spike recoveries.
T8 The sample(s) were received/anaylzed past/too close to the holding time expiration
APPENDIX A
ANALYTICAL RESULTS TABLES
Soil and Groundwater Analytical Results
Forsey's Laundry
Sample Depth Sampling PID Acetone Benzene n-Butylbenzene 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 1,4-Dichlorobenzene MEK*1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane PCE**Toluene TCE***1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene Xylenes
ID (feet)Date (ppm)(mg/kg)(mg/kg)(mg/kg)(mg/kg)(mg/kg)(mg/kg)(mg/kg)(mg/kg)(mg/kg)(mg/kg)(mg/kg)(mg/kg)(mg/kg)(mg/kg)(mg/kg)
GP-1 0 to 2 1/20/2020 0.4 ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.0306 ND 0.0104 ND ND ND ND ND ND
GP-1 7 1/20/2020 5.4 ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.031 ND 0.0108 ND ND ND ND ND ND
GP-2 0 to 2 1/20/2020 0 ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.0275 ND 0.0135 ND ND ND ND ND ND
GP-2 7 1/20/2020 1.1 ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.0324 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
MW-1 6 to 8 12/22/2020 0 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
MW-2 6½ to 8½12/22/2020 0.1 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.00279 ND ND ND ND ND ND
MW-3 6½ to 8½12/22/2020 0.1 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.018 ND ND ND ND ND ND
MW-4 6½ to 8½12/22/2020 0.2 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.00385 ND ND ND ND ND ND
MW-5 6½ to 8½12/22/2020 0.1 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.00336 ND ND ND ND ND ND
MW-6 6 to 7 1/20/2021 0.4 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
MW-6 10 to 11 1/20/2021 0.5 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
MW-7 6½ to 8½1/20/2021 0.6 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.0221 ND ND ND ND ND ND
MW-8 6½ to 8½1/20/2021 0.3 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
MW-9 6½ to 8½1/20/2021 0.3 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
MW-10 6½ to 8½1/20/2021 0.2 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.0138 ND ND ND ND ND ND
MW-11 7 to 8 2/8/2021 0.2 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
MW-12 9 to 10 2/8/2021 0.2 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.239 ND 0.0028 ND ND ND ND
MW-13 8 to 9 2/8/2021 0.1 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
MW-14 7 to 8 2/8/2021 0.2 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.0318 ND ND ND ND ND ND
MW-15 6 to 7 2/8/2021 0.2 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.103 ND ND ND ND ND ND
MW-16 6 to 7 3/4/2021 0.5 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
MW-17 6½ to 7½3/4/2021 0.3 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.0202 ND ND ND ND ND ND
MW-18 5 to 6 3/4/2021 0.2 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
MW-19 6 to 7 3/4/2021 0.4 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
MW-20 8 to 9 3/4/2021 0.2 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
MW-20 10 to 11 3/4/2021 0.3 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
MW-21 6 to 7 4/13/2021 0 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.00654 ND ND ND ND ND ND
MW-21 48 to 49 4/13/2021 0.3 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
MW-22 6 to 7 4/13/2021 0 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
MW-23 7 to 8 4/13/2021 0 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
MW-24 8 to 9 4/13/2021 0.1 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.0615 ND ND ND ND ND ND
MW-25 6 to 7 4/13/2021 0 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.0376 ND ND ND ND ND ND
MW-26 1 11/4/2022 0 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.232 ND ND ND ND ND ND
MW-26 3 11/4/2022 0 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.242 ND ND ND ND ND ND
MW-26 5 11/4/2022 0 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.193 ND ND ND ND ND ND
MW-26 7 11/4/2022 0 ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.157 ND 0.497 ND ND ND ND ND ND
MW-27 1 11/4/2022 0 ND ND ND 0.00968 ND ND ND ND 3.44 ND ND ND ND ND ND
MW-27 3 11/4/2022 0 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.315 ND ND ND ND ND ND
MW-27 5 11/4/2022 0 ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.155 ND 0.248 ND ND ND ND ND ND
MW-27 7 11/4/2022 0 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.544 ND ND ND ND ND ND
MW-27 11 11/4/2022 0 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.215 ND ND ND ND ND ND
MW-28 1 11/4/2022 0 ND 0.0022 ND ND ND ND 0.18 ND 0.111 ND ND ND ND ND ND
MW-28 3 11/4/2022 0 ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.16 ND 0.315 ND ND ND ND ND ND
MW-28 5 11/4/2022 0 ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.153 ND 0.249 ND ND ND ND ND ND
MW-28 7 11/4/2022 0 ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.182 ND 0.425 ND ND ND ND ND ND
MW-28 9 11/4/2022 0 ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.212 ND 0.545 ND ND ND ND ND ND
MW-29 7.5 to 8.5 11/2/2022 0 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.236 ND 0.00205 ND ND ND ND
MW-30 6 to 7 10/31/2022 0 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.0152 ND ND ND ND ND ND
MW-31 5.5 to 6.5 10/31/2022 0 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.062 ND ND ND ND ND ND
MW-32 6 to 7 10/31/2022 0 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.00814 ND ND ND ND ND ND
MW-33 1 11/4/2022 0 ND 0.0029 ND 0.0133 ND ND ND ND 11.2 0.0164 ND 0.00655 ND ND 0.0162
MW-33 3 11/4/2022 0 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.661 ND ND ND ND ND ND
MW-33 5 11/4/2022 0 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.172 ND ND ND ND ND ND
MW-33 7 11/4/2022 0 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.277 ND ND ND ND ND ND
MW-34 0 to 2 11/7/2022 0 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.272 ND ND 0.00713 ND ND ND
MW-34 2 to 4 11/7/2022 0 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.274 ND ND ND ND ND ND
MW-34 4 to 6 11/7/2022 0 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.205 ND ND ND ND ND ND
MW-34 6 to 8 11/7/2022 0 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.284 ND ND ND ND ND ND
MW-34 8 to 10 11/7/2022 0 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.118 ND ND ND ND ND ND
MW-35 8.5 to 9.5 11/2/2022 0 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.131 ND ND ND ND ND ND
MW-36 7.5 to 8.5 11/3/2022 0 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.358 ND ND ND ND ND ND
MW-37 7 to 8 11/2/2022 0 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.215 ND 0.00268 ND ND ND ND
MW-38 6 to 7 11/2/2022 0 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.266 ND ND ND ND ND ND
MW-39 6 to 7 10/31/2022 0 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.0682 ND ND ND ND ND ND
Table 1 - Soil Analytical Results
Soil and Groundwater Analytical Results
Forsey's Laundry
Sample Depth Sampling PID Acetone Benzene n-Butylbenzene 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 1,4-Dichlorobenzene MEK*1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane PCE**Toluene TCE***1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene Xylenes
ID (feet)Date (ppm)(mg/kg)(mg/kg)(mg/kg)(mg/kg)(mg/kg)(mg/kg)(mg/kg)(mg/kg)(mg/kg)(mg/kg)(mg/kg)(mg/kg)(mg/kg)(mg/kg)(mg/kg)
MW-40 6.5 to 7.5 10/31/2022 0 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.0473 ND ND ND ND ND ND
MW-41 6.5 to 7.5 11/1/2022 0 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
MW-42 8 12/29/2022 0 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
MW-43 8 12/29/2022 0 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.0641 ND 0.00168 ND ND ND ND
MW-44 8 12/29/2022 0 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.00526 ND ND ND ND ND ND
MW-45 8 12/29/2022 0 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
MW-46 8 12/29/2022 0 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
MW-47 8 12/30/2022 0 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.0107 ND ND ND ND ND ND
MW-48 4 6/28/2023 12280 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
MW-48 7 6/28/2023 267 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
MW-49 7.5 6/28/2023 2 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
MW-50 8.5 6/28/2023 1 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
SC-1 1.5 7/13/2023 1299 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.167 ND ND ND ND ND ND
SC-2 1.5 7/13/2023 355 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 1.02 ND ND ND ND ND ND
SC-3 1.5 7/13/2023 36 ND ND 0.0800 0.288 ND ND ND ND 87.4 ND 0.343 ND ND ND ND
SC-4 2 7/13/2023 35 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.0997 ND ND ND ND ND ND
SC-5 1.5 7/25/2023 5050 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 1.49 ND ND ND ND ND ND
SC-6 1 7/25/2023 1100 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.268 ND ND ND ND ND ND
SC-7 0.5 7/25/2023 340 ND ND ND 0.489 0.0217 0.134 ND 0.0119 58.4 ND 0.00953 ND ND ND ND
CS-1 1 7/13/2023 211 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.262 ND ND ND ND ND ND
CS-2 1 7/13/2023 3600 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.417 ND ND ND ND ND ND
CS-3 1.7 7/13/2023 4.5 ND ND ND 0.0214 ND ND ND ND 5.09 ND 0.00162 ND ND ND ND
CS-4 1 7/13/2023 16.8 ND ND ND 0.0151 ND ND ND ND 5.97 ND ND ND ND ND ND
CS-5 2.5 7/14/2023 7 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.742 ND ND ND ND ND ND
CS-6 1 7/17/2023 922 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.932 ND ND ND ND ND ND
CS-7 3 7/17/2023 2 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.112 ND ND ND ND ND ND
CS-8 1 7/14/2023 24.5 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.584 ND 0.00818 ND ND ND ND
CS-9 7.5 7/13/2023 210 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.113 ND ND ND ND ND ND
CS-10 8 7/13/2023 2.8 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.334 ND ND ND ND ND ND
CS-11 8 7/13/2023 2.5 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.541 ND ND ND ND ND ND
CS-12 7.5 7/13/2023 35 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.286 ND ND ND ND ND ND
CS-13 7.5 7/17/2023 4700 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.101 ND ND ND ND ND ND
CS-14 7.5 7/17/2023 228 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.131 ND ND ND ND ND ND
SS-1/CS-14 7.5 7/17/2023 NA 0.11 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.05 ND ND ND ND ND ND
CS-15 7.5 7/17/2023 57 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.0847 ND ND ND ND ND ND
CS-16 8 7/14/2023 997 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.0604 ND ND ND ND ND ND
CS-17 7.5 7/17/2023 12.1 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.342 ND ND ND ND ND ND
SS-2/CS-17 7.5 7/17/2023 NA 0.09 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.10 ND ND ND 0.003 0.004 ND
CS-18 7.5 7/14/2023 2.2 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.207 ND ND ND ND ND ND
CS-19 1.75 7/14/2023 3470 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.553 ND ND ND ND ND ND
CS-20 7.5 7/17/2023 2360 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.0437 ND ND ND ND ND ND
CS-21 7.5 7/26/2023 950 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.0808 ND ND ND ND ND ND
CS-22 3.5 7/26/2023 28 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.588 ND ND ND ND ND ND
CS-23 8 7/27/2023 2700 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.156 ND ND ND ND ND ND
CS-24 8 7/27/2023 2 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.579 ND ND ND ND ND ND
CS-25 6 7/27/2023 25 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.0832 ND ND ND ND ND ND
CS-26 6 7/27/2023 1.4 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.282 ND ND ND ND ND ND
CS-27 1.5 7/27/2023 11 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 2.27 ND ND ND ND ND ND
CS-28 3 8/2/2023 249 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.175 ND ND ND ND ND ND
CS-29 3 8/2/2023 76 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.104 ND ND ND ND ND ND
CS-30 2.5 8/2/2023 52 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.185 ND ND ND ND ND ND
CS-31 6 8/2/2023 34 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.463 ND ND ND ND ND ND
3.7 0.00023 3.2 0.3 NS 0.00046 1.2 0.00022 0.0051 0.76 0.00018 0.081 0.021 0.0034 0.19
70,000 1.2 3,900 1,800 NS 2.6 2,700 2 24 4,900 0.94 300 63 24 580
1,100,000 5.1 58,000 9,300 NS 11 19,000 8.8 100 47,000 6 1,800 930 110 2,500
Italics = Above EPA Groundwater Protection SSL
Bold = Above Residential SL with THQ of 1.0
Shaded = Soil removed during subsequent excavation work
ND = Non Detect
NA = not analyzed
NS = No EPA standard
* MEK identified as 2-Butadone in lab results
** PCE identified as tetrachloroethene in lab results
*** TCE identified as trichloroethene in lab results
May 2023 EPA Residential SL
May 2023 EPA Industrial SL
May 2023 Protection of Groundwater SSLs
Sample Depth Sampling PCE TCE cis-1,2-DCE 1,2-Dichlorobenzene
ID (feet)Date (mg/L)(mg/L)(mg/L)(mg/L)
GP-1 14 1/20/2020 0.0422 ND ND ND
GP-2 14 1/20/2020 0.00661 ND ND ND
MW-1 13-14 12/28/2020 ND ND ND ND
MW-1-Dup 13-14 12/28/2020 ND ND ND ND
MW-1 13-14 10/12/2022 ND ND ND ND
MW-2 13-14 12/28/2020 0.0584 ND ND ND
MW-2 13-14 10/12/2022 0.0486 ND ND ND
MW-2-Dup 13-14 10/12/2022 0.0476 ND ND ND
MW-3 13-14 12/28/2020 0.739 0.00624 ND ND
MW-3 13-14 10/12/2022 0.787 0.00413 ND ND
MW-4 13-14 12/28/2020 0.00585 ND ND ND
MW-4 13-14 10/12/2022 0.0298 ND ND ND
MW-5 13-14 12/28/2020 ND ND ND ND
MW-5 13-14 10/12/2022 0.0287 ND ND ND
MW-6 12-13 1/20/2021 0.0224 ND ND ND
MW-6-Dup 12-13 1/20/2021 0.0213 ND ND ND
MW-6 12-13 10/12/2022 ND ND ND ND
MW-7 12-13 1/20/2021 0.204 ND ND ND
MW-7 12-13 10/12/2022 0.229 0.00237 ND ND
MW-8 11-12 1/20/2021 0.0372 ND ND ND
MW-8 11-12 10/12/2022 0.00596 ND ND ND
MW-9 12-13 1/20/2021 ND ND ND ND
MW-9 12-13 10/12/2022 ND ND ND ND
MW-10 12-13 1/20/2021 0.226 0.0127 ND ND
MW-10 12-13 10/12/2022 0.259 0.00834 ND ND
MW-10 13 8/19/2024 0.395 0.0155 ND ND
MW-11 12-13 2/10/2021 0.00729 ND ND ND
MW-11 12-13 10/12/2022 0.00593 ND ND ND
MW-12 12-13 2/10/2021 0.833 0.026 ND ND
MW-12-Dup 12-13 2/10/2021 0.771 0.0258 ND ND
MW-12 12-13 10/13/2022 0.789 0.0223 ND ND
MW-12-Dup 12-13 10/13/2022 0.967 0.0272 ND ND
MW-12 13 8/19/2024 1.37 0.0289 ND ND
MW-13 12-13 2/10/2021 0.002 ND ND ND
MW-13 12-13 10/12/2022 0.0018 ND ND ND
MW-13 13 8/19/2024 0.00283 ND ND ND
MW-14 12-13 2/10/2021 0.0326 ND ND ND
MW-14 12-13 10/12/2022 0.0175 0.00102 ND ND
MW-14 13 8/19/2024 0.0204 ND ND ND
MW-14A-Dup 13 8/19/2024 0.0313 ND ND ND
Table 2 - Groundwater Analytical Results
Sample Depth Sampling PCE TCE cis-1,2-DCE 1,2-Dichlorobenzene
ID (feet)Date (mg/L)(mg/L)(mg/L)(mg/L)
MW-15 12-13 2/10/2021 0.135 0.00619 ND ND
MW-15 12-13 10/13/2022 0.183 0.00414 ND ND
MW-15 13 8/19/2024 0.269 0.0105 ND ND
MW-16 12-13 3/10/2021 ND ND ND ND
MW-16 12-13 10/13/2022 ND ND ND ND
MW-16 13 8/19/2024 ND ND ND ND
MW-17 12-13 3/10/2021 0.388 0.0102 ND ND
MW-17-Dup 12-13 3/10/2021 0.417 0.0114 ND ND
MW-17 12-13 10/13/2022 0.645 0.0229 0.00127 ND
MW-17 13 8/19/2024 0.390 0.00913 ND ND
MW-18 12-13 3/10/2021 ND ND ND ND
MW-18 12-13 10/13/2022 ND ND ND ND
MW-18 13 8/19/2024 ND ND ND ND
MW-19 12-13 3/10/2021 ND ND ND ND
MW-19 12-13 10/13/2022 ND ND ND ND
MW-19 13 8/19/2024 ND ND ND ND
MW-20 12-13 3/10/2021 ND ND ND ND
MW-20 12-13 10/13/2022 ND ND ND ND
MW-20 13 8/19/2024 ND ND ND ND
MW-21 15 4/16/2021 0.00869 ND ND ND
MW-21-Dup 15 4/16/2021 0.00697 ND ND ND
MW-21 30 4/16/2021 0.0152 ND ND ND
MW-21 48 4/16/2021 0.0232 ND ND ND
MW-21 15 10/12/2022 0.325 0.00177 ND ND
MW-22 12-13 4/16/2021 ND ND ND ND
MW-22 12-13 10/12/2022 ND ND ND ND
MW-22 13 8/19/2024 ND ND ND ND
MW-23 12-13 4/16/2021 ND ND ND ND
MW-23 12-13 10/13/2022 ND ND ND ND
MW-23 13 8/19/2024 ND ND ND ND
MW-24 13 4/16/2021 0.463 0.0136 ND ND
MW-24 13 10/13/2022 0.749 0.0164 0.00177 ND
MW-24 13 8/20/2024 0.526 0.0172 ND ND
MW-25 12-13 4/16/2021 0.209 0.00829 ND ND
MW-25 12-13 10/13/2022 0.279 0.00704 0.00135 ND
MW-25 13 8/20/2024 0.228 0.00902 0.00107 ND
MW-26 14 11/11/2022 0.990 0.00144 ND 0.00100
MW-27 14 11/11/2022 0.487 0.00142 ND ND
MW-28 14 11/11/2022 0.699 0.00121 ND ND
MW-28-dup 14 11/11/2022 0.728 0.00113 ND ND
MW-29 14 11/11/2022 0.263 0.00495 ND ND
MW-29 14 8/19/2024 0.428 0.0127 ND ND
MW-30 13 11/10/2022 0.0122 ND ND ND
MW-30 15 8/20/2024 0.0307 ND ND ND
Sample Depth Sampling PCE TCE cis-1,2-DCE 1,2-Dichlorobenzene
ID (feet)Date (mg/L)(mg/L)(mg/L)(mg/L)
MW-31 15 11/9/2022 0.412 0.0113 ND ND
MW-31 15 8/20/2024 0.327 0.0125 0.00123 ND
MW-31A-dup 15 8/20/2024 0.304 0.00951 ND ND
MW-32 14 11/10/2022 0.0767 0.00102 ND ND
MW-32 14 8/20/2024 0.141 0.00231 ND ND
MW-33 29 11/11/2022 0.00144 ND ND ND
MW-33 29 7/6/2023 ND ND ND ND
MW-34 48 11/15/2022 ND ND ND ND
MW-34 49 7/6/2023 ND ND ND ND
MW-34-dup 49 7/6/2023 ND ND ND ND
MW-35 29 11/11/2022 ND ND ND ND
MW-35 30 7/6/2023 ND ND ND ND
MW-36 46 11/11/2022 0.00489 ND ND ND
MW-36 47 7/6/2023 ND ND ND ND
MW-37 29 11/14/2022 ND ND ND ND
MW-37 30 7/5/2023 ND ND ND ND
MW-37 30 8/19/2024 ND ND ND ND
MW-38 48 11/15/2022 ND ND ND ND
MW-38 48 7/6/2023 ND ND ND ND
MW-38 48 8/20/2024 ND ND ND ND
MW-39A 30 11/10/2022 ND ND 0.0011 ND
MW-39A 30 7/5/2023 ND ND ND ND
MW-39A 31 8/20/2024 ND ND ND ND
MW-40A 48 11/10/2022 ND ND ND ND
MW-40A 48 7/5/2023 ND ND ND ND
MW-40A 48 8/20/2024 ND ND ND ND
MW-41 13 11/9/2022 ND ND ND ND
MW-41 14 8/20/2024 ND ND ND ND
MW-42 14 1/13/2023 0.0321 ND ND ND
MW-42 14 8/20/2024 0.00138 ND ND ND
MW-43 14 1/13/2023 0.464 0.12 ND ND
MW-43-dup 14 1/13/2023 0.464 0.0122 ND ND
MW-43 14 8/20/2024 0.237 0.00593 ND ND
MW-44 14 1/9/2023 0.00832 0.00113 ND ND
MW-44 14 8/20/2024 0.0298 0.00662 ND ND
MW-45 14 1/9/2023 0.00286 ND ND ND
MW-45 14 8/20/2024 0.0105 0.00395 ND ND
MW-46 14 1/13/2023 ND ND ND ND
MW-46 14 8/20/2024 ND ND ND ND
MW-47 14 1/9/2023 0.129 0.00218 ND ND
MW-47 14 8/20/2024 0.125 0.00150 ND ND
MW-48 14 7/5/2023 ND ND ND ND
MW-48-dup 14 7/5/2023 ND ND ND ND
MW-48 14 8/20/2024 ND ND ND ND
Sample Depth Sampling PCE TCE cis-1,2-DCE 1,2-Dichlorobenzene
ID (feet)Date (mg/L)(mg/L)(mg/L)(mg/L)
MW-49 14 7/5/2023 ND ND ND ND
MW-49 14 8/20/2024 ND ND ND ND
MW-50 14 7/5/2023 ND ND ND ND
MW-50 14 8/20/2024 ND ND ND ND
Decon #2 NA 11/4/2022 ND ND ND ND
Decon #3 NA 12/29/2022 ND ND ND ND
Trip Blank NA 12/28/2020 ND ND ND ND
Trip Blank NA 1/20/2021 ND ND ND ND
Trip Blank NA 2/10/2021 ND ND ND ND
Trip Blank NA 3/10/2021 ND ND ND ND
Trip Blank NA 4/16/2021 ND ND ND ND
Trip Blank NA 10/13/2022 ND ND ND ND
Trip Blank NA 10/31/2022 ND ND ND ND
Trip Blank NA 11/7/2022 ND ND ND ND
Trip Blank NA 12/29/2022 ND ND ND ND
Trip Blank NA 1/13/2023 ND ND ND ND
Trip Blank NA 7/6/2023 ND ND ND ND
Trip Blank NA 7/17/2023 ND ND ND ND
Trip Blank NA 8/2/2023 ND ND ND ND
Trip Blank NA 8/19/2024 ND ND ND ND
May 2024 EPA MCL 0.005 0.005 0.07 0.600
ND = Non Detect
NA = Not Applicable
Above MCL
Depth = Tubing intake depth
Table 3 - Soil Gas Analytical Results
Forsey's Laundry
Chemical
CAS
Number
Toxicity
Basis
PRT-1
(µg/m3)
PRT-2
(µg/m3)
VP-1
(µg/m3)
VP-2
(µg/m3)
VP-3
(µg/m3)
VP-3 8-19
(µg/m3)
VP-4
(µg/m3)
VP-4 8-19
(µg/m3)
Residential Target
Sub-Slab and
Near-source Soil Gas
Concentration
(TCR=1E-06 or THQ=1.0)
Csg,Target
(µg/m3)
Commercial Target
Sub-Slab and
Near-source Soil Gas
Concentration
(TCR=1E-06 or THQ=1.0)
Csg,Target
(µg/m3)
Acetone 67-64-1 NC 122 31.1 81.7 96.7 27.1 129 29.7 89.3 NA NA
Benzene 71-43-2 CA 3.05 7.19 1.09 1.59 ND 4.15 0.846 5.46 12 52.4
Bromodichloromethane 75-27-4 CA ND ND ND ND ND 3.88 ND ND 2.53 11
Butadiene, 1,3-106-99-0 CA ND 26.8 ND ND ND ND ND ND 3.12 13.6
Carbon Disulfide 75-15-0 NC ND 7.66 ND ND ND 1.71 ND 1.62 24,300 102,000
Carbon Tetrachloride 56-23-5 CA 2.03 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 15.6 68.1
Chloroform 67-66-3 CA ND ND ND 17 ND 87.1 ND 25.1 4.07 17.8
Chloromethane 74-87-3 NC 1.31 0.498 0.764 ND 1.17 0.733 0.777 0.574 3,130 13,100
Cyclohexane 110-82-7 NC ND ND ND 0.813 ND 0.871 ND 2.34 209,000 876,000
Dichloroethene, 1,1-75-35-4 NC ND ND 2.37 ND ND ND ND ND 6,950 29,200
Dichloroethene, cis 1,2-156-59-2 NC ND ND 19.6 9.67 ND ND ND ND 1,390 5,840
Dioxane, 1,4-123-91-1 CA ND ND ND 6.56 ND ND ND ND 18.7 81.8
Ethanol 64-17-5 50.5 7.52 30.4 27.5 264 73.2 98.6 53.0 NA NA
Ethylbenzene 100-41-4 CA 1.08 1.21 1.68 ND ND 1.00 0.954 1.11 37.4 164
Ethyltoluene, 4-622-96-8 ND ND 2.91 ND 2.71 ND 2.65 ND NA NA
Trichlorofluoromethane 75-69-4 1.25 ND 2.24 1.31 2.82 3.04 2.57 2.71 NA NA
Dichlorodifluoromethane 75-71-8 NC ND 1.94 2.94 2.32 3.11 2.37 3.08 2.46 3,480 14,600
Heptane 142-82-5 NC 1.43 1.43 0.83 2.42 ND 3.33 2.25 7.36 13,900 58,400
Hexane, N-110-54-3 NC 2.92 4.05 1.23 6.49 ND 4.05 ND 9.48 24,300 102,000
Isopropylbenzene (cumene)98-82-8 NC ND ND 2.18 ND ND ND ND ND 13,900 58,400
Methylene Chloride 75-09-2 CA 2.57 0.847 ND 1.24 3.01 1.29 5.94 0.906 3,380 40,900
2-Butanone (MEK)78-93-3 NC 7.93 11.2 12.3 5.07 3.72 18.8 3.77 10.5 174,000 730,000
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK)108-10-1 NC ND ND ND ND 14.7 ND ND ND 104,000 438,000
Naphthalene 91-20-3 CA ND ND 5.97 ND ND ND ND ND 2.75 12
2-Propanol (Isopropanol)67-63-0 NC 5.92 ND 7.67 15 25.8 13.2 22.6 10.9 6,950 29,200
Propene (Propylene)115-07-1 NC ND 164 3.99 ND ND 5.03 ND 7.75 104,000 438,000
Styrene 100-42-5 NC ND 1.66 ND ND 0.987 ND 3.53 ND 34,800 146,000
Tetrachloroethylene 127-18-4 CA 25.4 468 37,100 74,000 35,000 52,300 34,200 6,390 360 1,570
Tetrahydrofuran 109-99-9 NC ND ND ND ND ND 1.08 ND ND 69,500 292,000
Toluene 108-88-3 NC 7.84 6.93 3.06 2.5 4.78 5.20 15.9 7.12 174,000 730,000
Trichloroethylene 79-01-6 NC ND ND 399 427 139 194 108 42.3 15.9 99.7
Trimethylbenzene, 1,2,4-95-63-6 NC 2.05 1.03 4.49 ND 3.09 3.30 3.14 3.00 2,090 8,760
Trimethylpentane, 2,2,4-540-84-1 5.05 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NA NA
Xylene, M & P-1330-20-7 NC 4.94 2.63 4.22 ND 2.79 3.31 3.27 3.96 3,480 14,600
Xylene, o-95-47-6 NC 1.78 1.09 1.22 ND 1.16 1.35 1.33 1.54 3,480 14,600
ND - Non Detect Bold Italics = Above Commercial Target Subslab RSL
NA = No EPA Target Available Bold = Above Residential Target Subslab RSL
Table 4 - Indoor Air Analytical Results
Forsey Cleaners VCP Investigation
Chemical CAS Number
Toxicity
Basis
2475 S
Monroe IA-1
(µg/m3)
Fontanelle
2465 S
Monroe
(µg/m3)
Fontanelle
2465 S
Monroe IA-
2 8-19
(µg/m3)
846 25th
Street IA-3
(µg/m3)
846 25th
Street IA-3
8-19
(µg/m3)
Residential Indoor
Air RSL
(TCR=1E-06 or
THQ=1.0)
Csg,Target
(µg/m3)
Commercial Indoor Air
RSL
(TCR=1E-06 or
THQ=1.0)
Csg,Target
(µg/m3)
Acetone 67-64-1 NC 342 5.94 61.3 20.8 28.3 NA NA
Benzene 71-43-2 CA 4.63 1.47 0.648 ND ND 0.36 1.57
Chloromethane 74-87-3 NC 1.29 1.15 1.16 1.84 1.36 93.9 394
Cyclohexane 110-82-7 NC 2.14 ND ND ND ND 6,260 26,300
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 CA ND ND 1.23 ND ND 0.26 1.11
1,4-Dioxane 123-91-1 CA 1.42 ND ND ND ND 0.56 2.45
Ethanol 64-17-5 18.3 12.9 61.7 19.4 14.8 NA NA
Ethylbenzene 100-41-4 CA 5.85 ND ND ND ND 1.12 4.91
Ethyltoluene, 4-622-96-8 6.87 ND ND ND ND NA NA
Trichlorofluoromethane 75-69-4 1.33 1.25 1.31 1.69 1.38 NA NA
Dichlorodifluoromethane 75-71-8 NC 1.88 2.29 2.18 2.67 2.42 104 438
Heptane 142-82-5 NC 6.38 ND 0.941 ND 1.79 417 1,750
Hexane, N-110-54-3 NC 10.7 ND ND ND ND 730 3,070
Methylene Chloride 75-09-2 CA ND ND 1.49 2.03 ND 101 1,230
2-Butanone (MEK)78-93-3 NC 15.7 ND ND 4.57 ND 5,210 21,900
2-Propanol (Isopropanol)67-63-0 NC 6.15 ND 75.5 3.69 4.35 209 876
Tetrachloroethylene 127-18-4 CA ND ND 2.37 13.4 5.85 10.8 47.2
Tetrahydrofuran 109-99-9 NC 28.9 ND ND ND 0.722 2,090 8,760
Toluene 108-88-3 NC 36.5 3.52 ND 4.07 3.13 5,210 21,900
Trichloroethylene 79-01-6 NC ND ND ND ND ND 0.478 2.99
Trimethylbenzene, 1,2,4-95-63-6 NC 8.05 ND ND ND ND 62.6 263
Trimethylbenzene, 1,3,5-108-67-8 NC 2.24 ND ND ND ND 62.6 263
Trimethylpentane, 2,2,4-540-84-1 24.6 0.948 1.05 ND ND NA NA
Xylene, M & P-1330-20-7 NC 23.5 2.21 ND ND ND 104 438
Xylene, o-95-47-6 NC 8.02 ND ND ND ND 104 438
ND - Non Detect Bold Italics = Above Commercial Indoor Air RSL
NA = No EPA Target Available Bold - Above Residential Indoor Air RSL
Table 5 - PFAS in Groundwater
Forsey Cleaners VCP Investigation
Sample Depth Sampling PFBS PFHxS PFHxA PFOS PFOA PFPeA
ID (feet)Date ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L ng/L
MW-26 14 11/11/2022 4.89 4.99 5.03 12.5 6.14 5.9
MW-27 14 11/11/2022 6.44 4.58 4.49 4.99 ND 4.41
MW-28 14 11/11/2022 7.05 5.07 4.77 5.7 ND 4.78
MW-28dup 14 11/11/2022 6.74 4.57 4.56 5.23 ND 4.39
MW-33 29 11/11/2022 ND ND ND ND ND ND
MW-34 48 11/15/2022 ND ND ND ND ND ND
Decon #2 NA 11/4/2022 ND ND ND ND ND ND
6,000 390 9,900 2 0.0027 NS
NS 10 NS 4 4 NS
NS = No EPA RSL
ND = Non Detect
May 2024 EPA Tapwater RSL
May 2024 EPA MCL
Monitor
Well ID Drilling Method Total
Depth
Date
Installed
Diameter/Well
Material
Top of
Casing
Elevation
Screened
Interval Sand Pack
Depth to
Water
BTOC
GW
Elevation
RSB
Depth to
Water
BTOC
GW
Elevation
RSB
Depth to
Water
BTOC
GW
Elevation
RSB
(BTOC)(RSB)(ft)(ft)(ft)(ft)(ft)(ft)(ft)(ft)
MW-1 Direct Push 15.33 12/22/2020 1 ½- inch/PVC 99.61 5 to 15 3 to 15 7.40 92.21 7.82 91.79 NM NA
MW-2 Direct Push 15.33 12/22/2020 1 ½- inch/PVC 99.74 5 to 15 3 to 15 8.09 91.65 7.91 91.83 NM NA
MW-3 Direct Push 15.33 12/22/2020 1 ½- inch/PVC 99.42 5 to 15 3 to 15 8.20 91.22 8.41 91.01 NM NA
MW-4 Direct Push 14.75 12/22/2020 1 ½- inch/PVC 99.25 5 to 15 3 to 15 7.83 91.42 8.22 91.03 NM NA
MW-5 Direct Push 15.33 12/22/2020 1 ½- inch/PVC 99.14 5 to 15 3 to 15 7.78 91.36 7.77 91.37 NM NA
MW-6 Direct Push 13.33 1/20/2021 1 ½- inch/PVC 99.44 3 to 13 3 to 13 8.31 91.13 8.53 90.91 NM NA
MW-7 Direct Push 13.17 1/20/2021 1 ½- inch/PVC 98.96 3 to 13 3 to 13 8.17 90.79 8.30 90.66 NM NA
MW-8 Direct Push 13.01 1/20/2021 1 ½- inch/PVC 99.18 3 to 13 3 to 13 8.21 90.97 8.30 90.88 NM NA
MW-9 Direct Push 13.33 1/20/2021 1 ½- inch/PVC 99.78 3 to 13 3 to 15 8.65 91.13 8.90 90.88 NM NA
MW-10 Direct Push 13.62 1/20/2021 1 ½- inch/PVC 96.52 3 to 13 3 to 13 6.31 90.21 6.55 89.97 6.76 89.76
MW-11 Direct Push 13.33 2/8/2021 1 ½- inch/PVC 98.97 3 to 13 3 to 13 7.95 91.02 8.14 90.83 NM NA
MW-12 Direct Push 13.23 2/8/2021 1 ½- inch/PVC 95.11 4 to 13 3 to 13 6.40 88.71 6.56 88.55 6.59 88.52
MW-13 Direct Push 13.42 2/8/2021 1 ½- inch/PVC 96.77 3 to 13 3 to 13 7.60 89.17 7.90 88.87 7.73 89.04
MW-14 Direct Push 13.88 2/8/2021 1 ½- inch/PVC 96.74 4 to 14 3 to 14 7.61 89.13 7.85 88.89 7.80 88.94
MW-15 Direct Push 13.58 2/8/2021 1 ½- inch/PVC 95.66 4 to 14 3 to 14 7.11 88.55 7.30 88.36 7.29 88.37
MW-16 Direct Push 13.43 3/4/2021 1 ½- inch/PVC 95.34 3 to 13 3 to 13 6.03 89.31 6.23 89.11 6.25 89.09
MW-17 Direct Push 13.33 3/4/2021 1 ½- inch/PVC 95.44 3 to 13 3 to 13 7.11 88.33 7.23 88.21 7.30 88.14
MW-18 Direct Push 13.43 3/4/2021 1 ½- inch/PVC 94.48 3 to 13 3 to 13 5.91 88.57 6.06 88.42 6.12 88.36
MW-19 Direct Push 13.54 3/4/2021 1 ½- inch/PVC 94.22 4 to 14 3 to 14 5.85 88.37 6.02 88.20 6.10 88.12
MW-20 Direct Push 13.54 3/4/2021 1 ½- inch/PVC 96.58 4 to 14 3 to 14 9.09 87.49 9.24 87.34 9.38 87.20
MW-21 Direct Push 49.05 4/13/2021 1 ½- inch/PVC 99.75 9 to 49 3 to 49 7.14 92.61 8.54 91.21 NM NA
MW-22 Direct Push 13.83 4/13/2021 1 ½- inch/PVC 96.97 4 to 14 3 to 14 7.10 89.87 7.29 89.68 7.21 89.76
MW-23 Direct Push 13.79 4/13/2021 1 ½- inch/PVC 96.31 4 to 14 3 to 14 7.71 88.60 7.84 88.47 7.95 88.36
MW-24 Direct Push 13.60 4/13/2021 1 ½- inch/PVC 97.13 4 to 14 3 to 14 8.50 88.63 8.60 88.53 8.71 88.42
MW-25 Direct Push 13.67 4/13/2021 1 ½- inch/PVC 95.35 4 to 14 3 to 14 7.93 87.42 8.05 87.30 8.19 87.16
MW-26 Direct Push 15.33 11/4/2022 1 ½- inch/PVC 99.59 5 to 15 3 to 15 7.85 91.74 8.05 91.54 NM NA
MW-27 Direct Push 15.33 11/4/2022 1 ½- inch/PVC 99.27 5 to 15 3 to 15 7.58 91.69 7.81 91.46 NM NA
MW-28 Direct Push 15.33 11/4/2022 1 ½- inch/PVC 99.58 5 to 15 3 to 15 7.93 91.65 8.14 91.44 NM NA
MW-29 Direct Push 14.95 11/2/2022 1 ½- inch/PVC 95.92 5 to 15 3 to 15 6.45 89.47 6.66 89.26 6.63 89.29
MW-30 Direct Push 15.33 11/3/2022 1 ½- inch/PVC 95.07 5 to 15 3 to 15 7.62 87.45 7.72 87.35 7.84 87.23
MW-31 Direct Push 15.33 11/3/2022 1 ½- inch/PVC 94.57 5 to 15 3 to 15 7.42 87.15 7.50 87.07 7.63 86.94
MW-32 Direct Push 14.98 11/3/2022 1 ½- inch/PVC 93.99 5 to 15 3 to 15 7.61 86.38 7.59 86.40 7.78 86.21
MW-33 Direct Push 29.85 11/4/2022 1 ½- inch/PVC 99.76 25 to 30 3 to 30 7.80 91.96 7.32 92.44 NM NA
MW-34 Direct Push 49.15 11/7/2022 1 ½- inch/PVC 99.70 44 to 49 3 to 49 7.72 91.98 7.13 92.57 NM NA
MW-35 Direct Push 30.14 11/2/2022 1 ½- inch/PVC 98.96 25 to 30 3 to 30 8.13 90.83 8.17 90.79 NM NA
MW-36 Direct Push 47.01 11/3/2022 1 ½- inch/PVC 99.06 42 to 47 3 to 47 7.88 91.18 7.43 91.63 NM NA
MW-37 Direct Push 30.33 11/2/2022 1 ½- inch/PVC 99.40 25 to 30 3 to 30 6.69 92.71 5.17 94.23 5.05 94.35
MW-38 Direct Push 48.90 11/2/2022 1 ½- inch/PVC 99.81 9 to 49 3 to 49 10.18 89.63 4.90 94.91 4.88 94.93
MW-39 Direct Push 15.33 11/2/2022 1 ½- inch/PVC 95.01 5 to 15 3 to 15 7.59 87.42 7.68 87.33 7.79 87.22
MW-39A Direct Push 31.57 11/3/2022 1 ½- inch/PVC 94.95 26 to 31 3 to 31 7.60 87.35 7.64 87.31 7.73 87.22
MW-40 Direct Push 15.33 11/2/2022 1 ½- inch/PVC 95.09 5 to 15 3 to 15 7.73 87.36 7.85 87.24 7.98 87.11
MW-40A Direct Push 49.35 11/1/2022 1 ½- inch/PVC 94.85 44 to 49 3 to 49 6.93 87.92 6.20 88.65 6.52 88.33
MW-41 Direct Push 14.27 11/1/2022 1 ½- inch/PVC 93.55 4 to 14 3 to 14 8.11 85.44 8.19 85.36 8.26 85.29
MW-42 Direct Push 15.33 12/29/2022 1 ½- inch/PVC 93.09 5 to 15 3 to 15 6.37 86.72 6.71 86.38 6.80 86.29
MW-43 Direct Push 15.33 12/29/2022 1 ½- inch/PVC 92.36 5 to 15 3 to 15 5.64 86.72 6.00 86.36 6.26 86.10
MW-44 Direct Push 15.33 12/29/2022 1 ½- inch/PVC 92.69 5 to 15 3 to 15 6.03 86.66 6.49 86.20 6.75 85.94
MW-45 Direct Push 15.33 12/29/2022 1 ½- inch/PVC 93.99 5 to 15 3 to 15 6.20 87.79 7.04 86.95 7.21 86.78
MW-46 Direct Push 15.33 12/29/2022 1 ½- inch/PVC 93.81 5 to 15 3 to 15 6.13 87.68 6.91 86.90 7.01 86.80
MW-47 Direct Push 15.33 12/30/2022 1 ½- inch/PVC 92.22 5 to 15 3 to 15 6.33 85.89 6.69 85.53 6.84 85.38
MW-48 Direct Push 15.33 6/28/2023 1 ½- inch/PVC 90.07 5 to 15 3 to 15 7.02 83.05 8.09 81.98
MW-49 Direct Push 15.33 6/28/2023 1 ½- inch/PVC 90.75 5 to 15 3 to 15 7.11 83.64 7.97 82.78
MW-50 Direct Push 14.66 6/28/2023 1 ½- inch/PVC 92.21 5 to 15 3 to 15 8.22 83.99 8.81 83.40
*Depth to water measured in wells on November 21, 2022 for MW-1 to 41 and January 9, 2023 for MW-42 to 47
BTOC = Below Top of Casing
RSB = Relative to Site Benchmark on southwest corner of Forsey building slab = 100'
NM = Not Measured
7/5/2023 & 7/6/202311/21/2022 & 1/9/2023*
Table 6 - Monitoring Well Construction Data
Forsey Cleaners
8/19/2024 & 8/20/2024