DERR-2025-006055

Lapwing Environmental LLC
Salt Lake City Fleet Block
Data Summary Report
300 West to 400 West 800 South to 900 South
Salt Lake City, Utah
June 24, 2024
Prepared for
Salt Lake City Corporation
Salt Lake City, Utah
Prepared by
Lapwing Environmental LLC
Grand Junction, Colorado
A KSU TAB Partner
This project has been funded wholly or in part by the United States Environmental Protection Agency under assistance agreement (TR-84027001) to
Kansas State University. The contents of this document do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Environmental Protection Agency, nor
does the EPA endorse trade names or recommend the use of commercial products mentioned in this document.
1

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction
1.1 Site Description
1.2 Project Background and Purpose
1.3 Project Limitations
2.0 Data Summary
2.1 Completed Environmental Assessments
2.1.1 Brownfields Environmental Assessment Report
2.1.2 Underground Storage Tanks and Fuel Filling Station
2.1.3 Limited Site Investigation Report November 2, 2017
2.1.4 Building Asbestos Survey
2.1.5 Geotechnical Report
2.2 Data Summary Conclusions
3.0 Data Gaps
3.1 Previously Identified Data Gaps
3.2 Potential Data Gaps
3.2.1 Building Demolition
3.2.2 Future Land Use
4.0 Funding Opportunities
4.1 The USEPA Brownfields Program
4.2 Department of Housing and Urban Development – Community Development Block Grant
Program
4.3 Federal Housing Finance Agency - Affordable Housing Program
4.4 Department of Agriculture - US Forest Service Urban and Community Forestry Program
4.5 Green Infrastructure
4.6 Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Credits
4.7 Low Income Housing Tax Credits
4.8 Tax Increment Financing
5.0 Conclusions
5.1 Site Wide Environmental Conditions
5.2 The 1 Acre Development Area
5.3 The 1.6 Acre Development Area
5.4 The 2.3 Acre Development Area
5.5 The 3 Acre Public Space and Adjacent Midblock Connections
5.6 The Midblock Streets
6.0 References

2

List of Figures

Figure 1 - Site Location and Boundaries
Figure 2 - Site Redevelopment Plan
Figure 3 - Areas of Petroleum-Impacted Soil removal during Facility No. 4000835 Corrective Actions
(Terracon, 2017a)
Figure 4 - 2017 Limited Site Investigation Soil Boring Locations (Terracon, 2017b)
Figure 5 - Investigation Areas designated in 2017 Limited Site Inspection (Terracon, 2017b)
Figure 6 – Summary of environmental concerns associated with contaminated soil.
Figure 7 – Summary of environmental concerns associated with contaminated groundwater.

Appendices
Appendix 1 Data Tables, Limited Site Investigation, Salt Lake City Fleet Yard, 300 West to 400 West 800
South to 900 South, Salt Lake City Utah, (Terracon, 2017b)

Appendix 2 Data Tables, Draft Brownfields Environmental Assessment Report, Salt Lake City Public
Services Department, Fleet Management Yard, 325 West 800 South, Salt Lake City, (MSE,
2005)

3

1.0 Introduction

This report documents the review of environmental assessment reports provided by the Salt Lake
City Corporation that were conducted on the Salt Lake City Fleet Block Site (the Site). This summary
was prepared to consolidate environmental data collected and to assist in decision-making and
marketing this site for redevelopment. No new data was gathered during this review.

1.1 Site Description

The Site encompasses an area of approximately 8 acres between 800 South and 900 South Streets
and 300 West and 400 West Streets of Salt Lake City, Utah. The Site is owned by the Salt Lake City
Corporation and was primarily utilized for city vehicle maintenance and repair, fueling, storage, and
administrative office activities. The city also housed the sign and signal shops, a material testing
laboratory, and equipment storage facilities at the Site. Other uses included coal storage and
asphalt plant operations. Figure 1 presents the location of the Site within Salt Lake City, Utah.

The Site is located within Salt Lake City’s Granary District. The Granary District is an industrial district
in transition. Warehouses are being repurposed for office, housing, retail, and restaurants. This has
infused new life and activity into the neighborhood, which makes the Site an excellent candidate for
redevelopment. However, redevelopment is being hindered due to uncertainties surrounding its
historic uses and the potential for residual contamination. Clarifying these aspects will be crucial in
the redevelopment of the Site.

1.2 Project Background and Purpose

The purpose of this project is to summarize past environmental assessments conducted at the Site,
providing a concise and informative overview of environmental assessments, studies, and reports
that will provide stakeholders with a comprehensive summary of the environmental conditions of
the Site. The Salt Lake City council has been discussing redevelopment of the Site since the fleet
maintenance facility was moved to a new location. Recently, the property was rezoned to support a
mixed-use development, and the southeast portion of the block was designated as public space.
The Site redevelopment plan is shown on Figure 2. The city plans to continue to engage the public
concerning the development of this property, including the design of the public space.

In addition, this report provides recommendations to further characterize the Site’s environmental
conditions that would support redevelopment and to identify funding opportunities to redevelop
this Brownfields site.

This document was produced by Lapwing Environmental, LLC, a partner of the Technical Assistance
to Brownfields (TAB) Program at Kansas State University (KSU) to assist Salt Lake City, community
leaders, and other stakeholders in making informed decision for site reuse. KSU TAB is an EPA-
funded program. User entities receiving TAB assistance should engage appropriate professional
services prior to making final decisions, plans, or actions on Brownfields redevelopment projects.
No warrantees are made, expressed or implied.

1.3 Project Limitations
4

While this report strives to provide a comprehensive summary of environmental assessments
conducted at the Site, it is essential to acknowledge certain inherent limitations. The primary
constraint lies in the exclusive reliance on the reports provided for review, with no direct
involvement in the data collection process. This approach limits the depth of analysis and
contextual understanding of the Site's environmental nuances. Additionally, the accuracy and
reliability of the information presented in this report are contingent upon the quality and
completeness of the original reports, which may vary. Absence of firsthand data collection and
verification poses a potential challenge in ensuring the thoroughness of this project. Moreover, the
scope of this report is confined to the content of the reviewed reports provided. Any additional
developments or changes post-report compilation are not considered. These limitations underscore
the need for caution in interpreting the findings, emphasizing the importance of considering
potential gaps and uncertainties in the environmental assessments presented.

2.0 Data Summary

This section presents a summary of distinct environmental assessment reports conducted at the
Site. The amalgamation of findings encompasses a 2005 Brownfields assessment, reports detailing
the removal of underground storage tanks and associated contaminated soils, a building asbestos
survey, a geotechnical report, and an environmental investigation report. These diverse
assessments collectively contribute to a nuanced understanding of the environmental conditions at
the Site, addressing concerns related to soil and groundwater contamination at the Site, as well as
assessing asbestos-containing materials within structures. The synthesis of information from these
reports serves as a vital foundation for our analysis, providing valuable insights into the
environmental status of the Site and facilitating informed decision-making for site reuse.

Throughout this section, contaminate concentrations are compared to screening levels established
at the time that the assessments were completed. Screening levels are constantly being updated.
Thus, all new investigation of cleanup plans should utilize current screening levels.

Figure 4 shows the sample locations for the different environmental investigations. The following
samples identifiers are used:

● B-1 through B-5: Borings advanced during the 2005 Brownfields Environmental Assessment
(Section 2.1.1)
● W-1 through W-10: Monitoring wells installed during the 2005 Brownfields Environmental
Assessment (Section 2.1.1)
● IHI-1 through IHI-10: Borings advanced in 2013 and reported in the 2017 Limited Site
Investigation (Section 2.1.3)
● T-1 through T-11: Borings advanced during the 2013 LUST investigation (Section 2.1.2)
● FB-1 through FB-48: Borings advanced during the 2016/2017 Limited Site Investigation
(Section 2.1.3)
● MW-4, -5, -12, and -13: Monitoring wells installed during the 2013 LUST investigation
(Section 2.1.2)

2.1 Completed Environmental Assessments
5

The following sections provide a summary of environmental assessments provided.

2.1.1 Brownfields Environmental Assessment Report

This Brownfield Environmental Assessment (MSE, 2005) was completed in
September 2005 to identify the nature of potential environmental contamination
within the Site. This work was part of the Salt Lake City Gateway Brownfields Pilot
Program Grant from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental
assessments completed under this grant were focused on the Salt Lake City
Downtown Gateway District.

This 2005 Brownfields assessment found that the Site had been used for various
city activities since the early 1950s. In 2005, the Site was the primary maintenance
and fueling center for city-owned vehicles. Also, the city’s Streets and Sanitation
Division used the Site to operate sign and signal shops, a material testing
laboratory, and storage facilities. Additionally, an asphalt plant was operated at the
Site.

This assessment included soil and groundwater sampling. Soil samples were
collected from 15 borings. Groundwater monitoring wells were completed in 10 of
these soil boring locations. Figure 4 shows the locations of these borings and
monitoring wells.

The results of the assessment identified six potential areas of concern on the Site.
The areas of concern identified were the (1) fueling station and underground
storage tanks (LUST Facility ID 4000835), (2) former asphalt plant, (3) former
gasoline tank (Lust Facility ID 4001789), (4) street maintenance garage, (5) heavy
vehicle maintenance area, and (6) the northern vehicle maintenance shop. The
conclusions of this study for each area of concern were (MSE, 2005):

• Fueling station and underground storage tanks: Remediation of the diesel
and gasoline tanks appears to be necessary.
• Former asphalt plant: The presence of semi-volatile organic compounds
(SVOCs), primarily polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and some
metals are elevated in soil and /or groundwater, suggesting further action
is appropriate.
• Former gasoline tank: This tank was located south of the former asphalt
plant and appears to have been decommissioned in the mid-1980s. The
report suggests removal of petroleum contaminated soil in this area.
• Street Maintenance Garage: Petroleum-related soil and groundwater
contamination were found. Remediation may be necessary to allow for
site reuse.
• Heavy vehicle maintenance area #1. A groundwater sample detected
tetrachloroethene. Since soil samples did not detect tetrachloroethene,
the source may be off-site.
6

• Northern vehicle maintenance shop: One groundwater sample was found
to have elevated metals concentrations. The source of elevated metals
concentrations was not identified through soil sampling. Further
assessment is suggested to identify the source of the elevated metals
concentrations.

2.1.2 Underground Storage Tanks and Fuel Filling Station

Several assessments and corrective actions conducted at the underground storage
tanks (USTs) and the fuel-filling station portion of the Site were completed between
2008 and 2015. These reports evaluated the extent of potential contamination,
document the corrective actions completed, and evaluate the effectiveness of
corrective actions conducted. These actions were all associated with Utah
Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Facility Identification No. 4000835.

This section summarizes the UST and fueling station reports chronologically. Please
note, the environmental data summarized below no longer reflect the current
environmental conditions on the remediated portion of the Site.

Four USTs, two 10,000-gallon gasoline, and two 10,000-gallon diesel tanks were
installed at the Site in 1987 to be used to fuel Salt Lake City fleet vehicles. A fuel
release associated with this fueling system was initially discovered in 1993.
Subsurface investigations and periodic groundwater monitoring were conducted
between 1993 and 2011. The four USTs were removed in 2011. In 2013, soil and
groundwater contaminants in the area surrounding the former tank basin were
identified at concentrations above the Utah DEQ’s Division of Environmental
Response and Remediation (DERR) Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST)
Program screening levels (Terracon, 2014).

In 2014, a corrective action in the vicinity of the former tank basin was conducted.
This corrective action included excavation and removal of the identified impacted
soils for off-site disposal, removal of impacted groundwater from the open
excavation, and a limited application of chemical oxidation reagents to treat
residual petroleum-impacted groundwater in the excavation area prior to
backfilling (Terracon, 2014). Figure 3 presents the area where the 2014 soil
excavation occurred.

Subsequently, six groundwater monitoring wells were installed, and groundwater
sampling was completed to evaluate concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons
remaining near the former fuel system. Four additional borings were advanced for
soil sampling and completed as monitoring wells. An additional round of post-
corrective action groundwater sampling was conducted. Results from these two
groundwater sampling events indicated that dissolved petroleum hydrocarbons,
specifically total petroleum hydrocarbons- diesel range organics (TPH-DRO) and
benzene, remained at concentrations above DERR’s Initial Screening Levels (ISLs) in
localized areas south of the former tank basin. (Terracon, 2015a and 2015b). Based
7

on these results, the residual petroleum impacts to soil exceeding ISLs appeared to
be confined to a relatively small area within the footprint of an existing building,
with dissolved petroleum impacts in the groundwater exceeding ISLs extending to
the southern property boundary.

A second soil removal corrective action was conducted to reduce residual
constituents in soil and groundwater to concentrations below ISLs to allow for
unrestricted land use. The scope of this corrective action included the removal of a
portion of a building and removal of petroleum-impacted soils and groundwater
from an area south of the former UST basin, where impacts were identified as
remaining above the ISLs. The impacted soil removed was disposed of off-site, and
impacted groundwater was removed from the open excavation. A limited
application of chemical oxidation reagents was conducted to treat residual
petroleum-impacted groundwater within the excavation area prior to backfilling.
During the excavation, an approximate 1,000-gallon diesel-containing orphaned
UST was uncovered. This tank was removed. The excavation area was backfilled
and compacted with clean, imported engineered fill material (Terracon, 2017a).
The location of the 2017 corrective action taken is shown in Figure 3.

A “No Further Action, Leaking Underground Storage Tank” letter was issued by Utah
DEQ on August 23, 2018 for this facility. The facility was closed above Tier 1
standards because the residual contamination is at depth and considered not to
pose a risk under land use and exposure characteristics at the time. Changes to
land use may change the exposure characteristics and additional corrective action
may be required.

2.1.3 Limited Site Investigation Report November 2, 2017

The objective of this Limited Site Investigation was to evaluate the presence of
impacted soil and groundwater on the Site. The investigation was conducted in two
phases. Initially, 25 soil borings were completed across the Site to evaluate impacts
observed during previous investigations as well as investigate potential impacts
from historic activities. During the second phase, an additional 23 soil borings were
completed to better define the extent of contamination identified in the first phase
of this investigation. Figure 4 presents the location of the soil borings.

This 2017 report identified two Utah DEQ LUST sites, Utah DEQ Facility
Identification No. 4000835 and No. 4001789 associated with the Site. The previous
section discussed the assessments and corrective actions at Facility Identification
No. 4000835.

The Utah Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) recommended that no
further action be taken at underground storage tank Utah DEQ Facility Identification
No. 4001789 on December 4, 1992 (Utah DEQ, 1992). Utah DEQ reported that the
corrective action included the removal of a 500-gallon waste oil tank and 45 cubic
yards of impacted soil. Confirmation samples showed oil and grease in soil above
Initial Screening Levels (ISLs), but below Tier 1 standards. Groundwater samples
8

were less than ISLs. The no further action determination was made subject to the
condition that additional action may be required if other evidence indicates a
release of contamination constitutes a threat to human health or the environment.
The approximate location of this underground storage tank is identified by the D
flag shown in Figure 5 (Terracon, 2017b).

Historically, a coal yard and an asphalt plant were operated on the Site. The
approximate location of these facilities is shown in Figure 5.

Three test pits were excavated in areas where anomalies were identified during the
geophysical survey to identify buried utilities. The test pits were excavated to a
depth of 5 feet below the ground surface. None of the test pits encountered
materials other than construction fill and native soils.

The soil and groundwater samples were analyzed for volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), total petroleum hydrocarbons-gasoline range organics (TPH-GRO), TPH-
DRO; oil and grease; methyl-tert-butyl ether, benzene, toluene, ethyl-benzene,
xylene, naphthalene (MBTEXN); and (PAHs). One soil sample was collected from
each soil boring from the zone exhibiting the highest potential for environmental
impacts based on visual observations and portable photoionization detector (PID)
readings. Groundwater samples were collected from selected soil boring locations
by creating temporary sampling points. Four of the soil borings were converted to
1-inch-diameter monitoring wells to evaluate groundwater gradient within the Site.

The Limited Site Inspection report includes drilling logs for borings conducted by IHI
Environmental in 2013 and by Terracon in 2016 and 2017. The drill logs for borings
IHI-1, IHI-2, IHI-3, IHI-4, IHI-5, FB-4, FB-5, FB-6, FB-14, FB-20, FB-40, FB-41, FB-42,
FB-43, FB-44, and FB-45 identified coal fines at depths ranging from 1 to 8 feet
below ground surface. All of these borings except for FB-20 are in the area where
historic coal yard operations were conducted.

The drill logs for borings IHI-1, IHI-2, IHI-3, IHI-4, IHI-5, IHI-6, IHI-7, FB-44, and FB-45
identified asphalt materials at depths ranging from 1.5 to 7 feet below ground
surface. These soil borings were all located within or near the area where the
historic asphalt plant operated.

A tar like substance was identified in the drill log for boring FB-32 at a depth of 3.5
feet. A soil sample was collected from the zone where this material was identified.
The analytical results from this sample did not detect any VOCs or petroleum
hydrocarbons above screening levels.

The analytical results tables in the provided report summarize analytical results for
analytes detected. These results are found in Appendix 2.

The analytical results from the soil samples are summarized as follows:

9

• Total petroleum hydrocarbons and petroleum-related VOCs (benzene and
naphthalene) were reported in samples across the Site. The most
predominant occurrence of petroleum hydrocarbons was TPH-DRO.
• VOCs analysis only found exceedances for naphthalene at six locations.
Naphthalene is a petroleum-related compound.
• Various PAH compounds were reported at elevated concentrations in
several soil samples, primarily in the northwest quadrant where historic
coal yard activities occurred.
• Arsenic was reported in several samples at elevated concentrations. The
arsenic concentrations reported were below naturally occurring levels
found in the Salt Lake Valley soils.
• Lead was reported in one sample at 400 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg).
Two additional borings were completed near where the elevated sample
was collected; elevated levels of lead were not detected.

The analytical results from the groundwater samples are summarized as follows:
• TPH-DRO concentrations in the groundwater were reported in several
samples at the Site; most impacts were observed in samples collected
within the Police Department Building.
• Several VOCs were detected in the groundwater samples across the Site.
None of the VOC concentrations in the samples exceeded their respective
regulatory levels. Note that the detection limit at two of the samples for
benzene exceeded the maximum contaminant level (MCL) due to the
presence of TPH-DRO and TPH-GRO at elevated concentrations. Thus, it is
possible that benzene could be present at these locations.
• No PAHs were detected in excess of EPA’s MCL for drinking water.
• Arsenic was detected above screening levels in most samples. Barium and
lead exceeded their respective MCLs in one sample.
• In groundwater samples collected from the western portion of the Site,
several metals were identified that were above EPA MCLs for drinking
water.

The report concludes by identifying further actions within the Site, shown on Figure
6 for soil remediation and Figure 7 for groundwater remediation, and described
below.

• Area A – Removal of contaminated soil and treatment of groundwater to
address diesel-contaminated soil and groundwater.
• Area B1 and 2 – Removal of gasoline-contaminated soil.
• Area C – Some lead-impacted soil may be present but does not appear to
be widespread. No further action.
• Area D – Removal of diesel-, oil and grease-, and PAHs-contaminated soil.
This is the area of LUST Facility ID 4001789; thus these activities will need
to be coordinated with Utah DEQ.
• Area E – Removal of petroleum hydrocarbons- and PAHs-contaminated soil.
10

• Area F – Further assessment to determine if there is an offsite source for
the elevated metals concentration in groundwater.
• Area G – The area where the underground storage tank and filling station
corrective action occurred. Groundwater and soil contamination from
these underground storage tanks remain at depth. Under current land use,
the contamination does not pose a threat to human health or the
environment. However, changes to land use could result in requiring
additional corrective action.
• Area H – Removal of oil and grease-contaminated soils.

2.1.4 Building Asbestos Survey

The asbestos survey (IHI Environmental, 2012) aimed to assess the presence of
asbestos-containing materials within various structures. The initial findings indicate
that only limited asbestos-containing material was identified during the survey. As
this survey was completed in 2012, an updated asbestos assessment is required
prior to building demolition. An updated assessment will provide a comprehensive
overview of asbestos-containing materials in accessible and previously inaccessible
areas, facilitating the development of an effective and safe asbestos abatement
plan prior to any demolition activities at the Site.

2.1.5 Geotechnical Report

The preliminary geotechnical report (Terracon, 2012) is a focused assessment with
limited data collection aimed at evaluating the Site's suitability for redevelopment
from a geotechnical engineering perspective. Key findings reveal that:
• Groundwater is encountered at a depth of 12 to 15 feet below the ground
surface.
• The typical subsurface profile from the surface to depth consists of
o 4 to 6 inches of asphalt,
o 2 to 4 feet of gravel fill with silt/sand and some debris, and
o a substantial depth of clay, sandy silty clay, and sand extending
from 4 to 76 feet.
• Notably, the report concludes that structures with significant loads, such as
multi-story or those with parking or below-grade levels, may require deep
foundations such as driven piles or drilled shafts to ensure load support
and limit settlement.

Overall, these preliminary findings provide a foundational understanding of the
Site's geotechnical characteristics, laying the groundwork for informed
decision-making for future redevelopment endeavors. The report emphasizes
the importance of conducting further geotechnical explorations and final
11

recommendations once the layout and loads of the final building(s) are
determined, as this will impact excavation requirements for construction.

2.2 Data Summary Conclusions

The key findings of the environmental conditions documented in the assessments and
corrective action reports reviewed are summarized as follows:

• Regional groundwater flows on the Site toward the southwest.
• Fuel-related constituents are found throughout the Site at low concentrations in
the soil and groundwater.
• Five areas were identified for targeted corrective action, designated as areas A, B,
D, E, and H on Figure 4, and described below.

o Area A – Removal of contaminated soil and treatment of groundwater to
address diesel-contaminated soil and groundwater.
o Area B – Removal of gasoline-contaminated soil.
o Area C – Some lead-impacted soil may be present but does not appear to
be widespread. No further action.
o Area D – Removal of diesel-, oil and grease-, and PAHs-contaminated soil.
This is the area of LUST Facility ID 4001789; thus these activities will need
to be coordinated with Utah DEQ.
o Area E – Removal of petroleum hydrocarbons- and PAHs-contaminated soil.
o Area F – Further assessment to determine if there is an offsite source for
the elevated metals concentration in groundwater.
o Area G – The area where the underground storage tank and filling station
corrective action occurred. Groundwater and soil contamination from
these underground storage tanks remain at depth. Under current land use,
the contamination does not pose a threat to human health or the
environment. However, changes to land use could result in requiring
additional corrective action.
o Area H – Removal of oil and grease-contaminated soils.

• A limited quantity of asbestos-containing materials was identified in the portions of
the buildings evaluated. Asbestos removal is required prior to building demolition.
• Geotechnical properties of site soils may require extensive removal to support
multi story building foundations.

3.0 Data Gaps

In the pursuit of comprehensively assessing environmental conditions at the Site, it is imperative to
acknowledge data gaps that may impede a thorough understanding of the Site’s environmental
conditions. Some of these data gaps were identified in previous reports and include potential
migration from off-site sources. Additional data gaps may emerge resulting from the demolition of
the current structure and from how plans for future land use take shape. This section discusses both
previously identified and potential data gaps, shedding light on their origins and implications.
12

3.1 Previously Identified Data Gaps

The 2005 Brownfields Assessment (MSE, 2005) identified two areas of potential
groundwater contamination migrating from off-site sources, PCE migrating from the north
of the site and metals migrating from the west.

i. PCE in Groundwater - The 2005 Brownfields Assessment reported elevated
concentrations of PCE from a groundwater sample collected at the northern
property boundary. This area of concern surrounds point D in Figure 5. Analytical
results from soil samples collected in this area did not detect PCE. Thus, it was
concluded that an upgradient source of this solvent could be migrating from the
north onto the Site. (MSE, 2005). The 2017 Limited Site Inspection reported that
groundwater samples collected from the northern portion of the Site and
evaluated for VOCs did not detect PCE above regulatory levels. This report
concluded that no further assessment of this data gap is needed (Terracon,
2017b).

ii. Metals in Groundwater - The 2005 Brownfields Assessment found metals
concentrations above EPA MCLs in groundwater samples collected from the
western boundary of the Site. Since soils samples in this area did not detect
elevated concentrations of these metals, the report concluded that the source of
these contaminates may be off-site (MSE, 2005). This area of concern surrounds
point F in Figure 5. The 2017 Limited Site Inspection reported that groundwater
samples collected from the western portion of the Site and evaluated for metals
also detected several metals at concentrations above the EPA MCLs. This report
concluded that the source of these elevated metals concentrations in
groundwater may be affected by the west-adjoining facility, the former Utah
Barrel facility (Terracon, 2017b). The source of metals contaminated groundwater
on the western boundary may require further evaluation depending on future
land use and redevelopment plans.

3.2 Potential Data Gaps

As the site undergoes the demolition of current structures and plans for future land use
take shape, additional data gaps may emerge. An iterative approach is recommended to
address these data gaps. For example, an initial evaluation of surface soils after removal of
buildings could identify contamination hot spots that may require further assessment to
delineate the extent of contamination. Potential data gaps for consideration are described
in the following paragraphs. Note that this is not a comprehensive list of data gaps as others
may be identified as site planning progresses.

3.2.1 Building Demolition

An asbestos assessment was completed in 2012 and identified a limited quantity of
asbestos-containing materials (ACM) (IHI, 2012). Asbestos regulations require an
13

asbestos inspection to be completed within 3 years of demolition. Thus, an
updated asbestos inspection is required prior to demolition.

3.2.2 Future Land Use

A notable data gap in our understanding of environmental conditions at the Site
pertains to the presence of contaminated soil beneath the buildings and other
historic operations that included motor vehicle maintenance, fuel storage, a fuel
filling station, an asphalt plant, and coal storage. The inherent risks lie in the
potential undetected leaks and spills that may have occurred over time, migrating
into underlying soil and groundwater. Data gaps will be dependent on the future
land use for each portion of the Site. Data gaps for consideration include:

• An evaluation of surface soils after the removal of existing foundation.
Additional data may be collected to delineate areas where contamination is
found.

• With the predicted construction of a multi-story building necessitating deep
excavation for the foundation, it is imperative to devise effective strategies
for managing excavated soils. This entails a review of existing data to
establish the nature and degree of soil contamination. Additional sampling
may be needed to define the extent of contamination. Based on this review,
additional data may be required to facilitate informed decisions on proper
soil handling, treatment, or disposal methods as well as to assure
protectiveness of future land uses.

• Upon removal of buildings from the southeast portion of the Site that is
earmarked for public space, a focused examination of surface and
subsurface soil is recommended to identify the extent of potential soil
contamination and evaluate remediation measures, as necessary, to ensure
environmental compatibility for the envisioned public use. This assessment
should include evaluating surface soil as well as sub-surface soil to a depth
that would be encountered during the construction and maintenance of the
public space. This will ensure that the transition from built structures to
public space is seamless and in harmony with the intended public use.

• Roadways, alleys, underground utilities, and parking areas are being
considered as part of the redevelopment of the Site. An examination of
surface and subsurface soil to ensure long-term protectiveness during
construction, operation, and maintenance of underground utilities and
paved areas is recommended.

• Soil sampling from the surface soils has not been conducted at this Site. For
areas where the redevelopment provides direct contact to surface soils,
data will be needed to assure surface soils does not contain metals,
petroleum constituents, and organic compound contamination.
14

• It is common for lead concentrations in surface soil to exceed screening
level concentrations at Brownfields sites. Thus, it is recommended to
evaluate surface soils for lead concentrations in areas where land use is
expected to result in direct exposures to the public.

• Coal was found in the subsurface soils around the former coal storage yard.
Additional sampling may be needed to further determine the extent of coal
in this part of the Site.

• Asphalt materials were identified at depth within or near the area where
the historic asphalt plant operated. Additional sampling may be needed to
determine the extent of subsurface asphalt in this part of the Site.

4.0 Funding Opportunities

Securing funding for the redevelopment of any brownfields site is a multifaceted endeavor that
involves tapping into various financial resources to address the unique challenges associated with
these underutilized or contaminated properties. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
Brownfields Program stands out as an initial source of support for brownfields revitalization,
offering funding for the assessment, cleanup, and reuse planning of brownfield sites. EPA funding
opportunities fill gaps and provide a mechanism to address environmental obstacles hindering
reuse of a site. Beyond EPA assistance, funding opportunities for housing and commercial
development present additional avenues for stakeholders seeking to transform these sites into
mixed-use communities, especially those projects that include affordable housing components
and/or public use space. Other financial resources, such as tax credits, also play a pivotal role in
making brownfield redevelopment financially viable. New funding opportunities and changing
program eligibility requirements and priorities will impact available resources. This section provides
an overview of currently available funding opportunities for this Site. Please note, the financial
resources highlighted are not a comprehensive list and will vary based on end use goals and
eligibility requirements.

4.1 The USEPA Brownfields Program

The USEPA Brownfields Program provides support for the assessment, cleanup, and
redevelopment of contaminated properties to state, tribal, and local government agencies
and non-profits. The primary focus of the Brownfields program is on environmental
assessment and remediation. Some of the ways in which the EPA Brownfields Program can
support this Site include:

i. Assessment Grants: Phase I and Phase II environmental assessments to identify
potential contamination issues and delineate known environmental conditions;
reuse planning; and market feasibility studies.
ii. Cleanup Grants address contamination on eligible sites. These funds can be used
for remediation activities to make the site suitable for redevelopment.
15

iii. Technical assistance to communities and stakeholders involved in brownfield
redevelopment. Technical assistance may include guidance on land use planning,
infrastructure development, and incorporating green and open spaces into
redevelopment plans. Visit their website to learn more and who to contact:
https://www.epa.gov/brownfields/technical-assistance.
iv. Community involvement support in the planning and decision-making process for
brownfield redevelopment. Community engagement helps ensure that the
redevelopment plans align with the needs and preferences of the residents,
including considerations for housing, commercial development, and open spaces.
v. A Revolving Loan Funds provide loans and grants to finance cleanup activities at
brownfield sites.

Since the City is the current landowner and was an operator at the site, there are
Brownfields program eligibility challenges for this Site. It is essential for interested parties
to discuss the eligibility for Brownfields program resources for this project with the USEPA
Region 8 office. . Contacts for the USEPA Brownfields program are found at the following
web site: https://www.epa.gov/brownfields/epa-region-8-brownfields-contacts. Due to the
presence of petroleum related contamination, the Utah DEQ should be contacted to
explore Brownfields petroleum program.

4.2 Department of Housing and Urban Development – Community Development Block Grant
Program

The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program is a flexible program that
provides communities with resources and broad discretion in selecting activities to address
a wide range of unique community development needs. Each activity funded through the
program must meet one of the following statutory national objectives: benefit low- and
moderate-income persons, prevent or eliminate slums or blight, or address community
development needs of urgency because existing conditions pose a serious and immediate
threat to the health or welfare of the community for which other funding is not available.
This program’s primary goal is to promote community development and improve the quality
of life for low- and moderate-income individuals and families.

4.3 Federal Housing Finance Agency - Affordable Housing Program

This program subsidizes the cost of owner-occupied housing for individuals and families
with incomes at or below 80 percent of the area median income, and rental housing in
which at least 20 percent of the units with affordable rents that are reserved for households
with incomes at or below 50 percent of the area median income. The subsidy may be in the
form of a grant or a subsidized advance. The Affordable Housing Program (AHP) can be used
to purchase, construct, and rehabilitate housing on a brownfield, but it cannot be used for
planning, assessment, or cleanup of environmental contamination. Funding may be used for
site preparation or other uses in conjunction with the purchase, construction, or
rehabilitation of housing.

4.4 Department of Agriculture - US Forest Service Urban and Community Forestry Program
16

The Urban and Community Forestry (UCF) Program is a cooperative program that focuses
on the stewardship of urban natural resources. UCF responds to the needs of communities
by maintaining, restoring, and improving forest ecosystems on more than 140 million acres
of urban land. Through these efforts, the program encourages the creation of healthier,
more livable urban environments across the nation. Urban forests include parks, street
trees, landscaped boulevards, public gardens, and natural areas. UCF provides financial and
technical assistance to plant, protect, establish, and manage trees, forests, and related
resources. Application of the UFC program include:

• Revitalizing city centers, older suburbs, and exurban areas through green
infrastructure planning.
• Planting, caring for, and using trees as part of brownfields reuse.
• Restoring degraded rivers or other ecological restoration activities.
• Planting trees for phytoremediation at brownfield sites.
• Providing service learning for youth working in the environment through
partner programs.

4.5 Green Infrastructure
Green infrastructure refers to a strategic and integrated approach that leverages natural
and semi-natural elements to address environmental, social, and economic challenges. This
multifaceted concept incorporates features such as parks, green roofs, urban forests, and
permeable surfaces to manage stormwater, mitigate heat islands, and enhance overall
resilience to climate change. By integrating green spaces into the urban fabric, cities can
improve air and water quality, support biodiversity, and provide recreational areas for
residents. Additionally, green infrastructure contributes to community well-being, reduces
energy consumption, and fosters sustainable urban development. Recognizing the
interconnectedness of ecosystems and urban life, large cities are increasingly embracing
green infrastructure as an essential component of smart, resilient, and sustainable urban
design.
There are numerous opportunities for federal green infrastructure funding. These funding
opportunities are summarized in the following web site:
https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-
06/Navigating%20Federal%20Funding%20for%20GI%20and%20NBS%20Master%20Summa
ry_06-02_2023%20508.pdf
4.6 Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Credits

The incorporation of energy efficiency and renewable energy tax credits plays a pivotal role
in redevelopment projects. These tax incentives serve as powerful catalysts for steering
construction practices towards environmentally conscious and energy-efficient
technologies. Developers are encouraged to adopt state-of-the-art building designs that
prioritize energy conservation, utilizing technologies like efficient insulation, smart lighting
systems, and energy-efficient HVAC systems. Moreover, renewable energy tax credits
incentivize the integration of solar panels, wind turbines, or other renewable sources into
17

the development, contributing not only to reduced environmental impact but also offering
long-term economic benefits through lower energy costs. As the federal tax code is
constantly modified, it is recommended to evaluate tax credits available at the time of
project completion.

4.7 Low Income Housing Tax Credits

The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) for new construction is a crucial tool in
addressing affordable housing challenges and fostering inclusive urban development. This
tax credit program incentivizes private developers to invest in the creation of affordable
housing units for low-income individuals and families. By providing financial incentives, in
the form of tax credits, the program encourages developers to embark on projects that
incorporate affordable housing components, ensuring that a percentage of the newly
constructed units remain accessible to those with limited financial means. This not only
helps alleviate the pressing issue of housing affordability but also promotes socio-economic
diversity within communities. As the federal tax code is constantly evolving, the availability
of these tax credits should be reviewed when the project is nearing completion.

4.8 Tax Increment Financing

Tax Incremental Financing (TIF) is a financing tool used by local governments to stimulate
economic development and to encourage local development goals in a specific area. The
basic idea behind TIF is to capture the increased property tax revenue generated by a
development project and use that revenue to finance public infrastructure improvements or
other economic development initiatives within the designated area.

Financial support for Brownfields projects is available to incentivize the revitalization of
contaminated or abandoned sites, promoting sustainable urban development. The USEPA
Brownfields program supports these projects by assessing and remediating contamination
concerns. Eligibility for EPA Brownfields program funding is dependent on the city’s ownership and
operational history of the Site. It is encouraged that the EPA and the Utah DEQ be contacted early in
the development process to determine program eligibility.

Funding from other federal programs and tax credits may be applicable to support other aspects of
the redevelopment such as housing and open space planning and construction. It is encouraged
that agencies responsible for these programs be contacted as eligibility for these programs is
contingent upon the unique characteristics of each site, program eligibility criteria, and the
intended final use of the property.

5.0 Conclusion

The Fleet Block Site presents a complex land use history that results in localized environmental
concerns. Multiple reports that discuss the environmental conditions and corrective actions
conducted at the site were reviewed to prepare this summary. A complete list of the documents
reviewed is found in the references section of this report.

18

This conclusion provides a summary of the environmental conditions, concerns, data gaps, and
proposed corrective actions for each of the 4 redevelopment sub-areas and the midblock streets
area. This structure will assist in decision-making and marketing of each of the of the sub-areas for
redevelopment. The redevelopment sub-areas are presented in Figure 2.

Initially, environmental conditions that are relevant to the complete site will be presented. Then,
environmental conditions relevant to each of the redevelopment subareas are presented.

5.1 Site Wide Environmental Conditions

The following environmental conditions are relevant to each of the redevelopment sub-
areas:
• Significant uncertainty exists under the existing buildings. Abandoned facilities or
releases not identified in environmental investigations conducted at the Site may
be discovered when buildings are removed. It is recommended that an
environmental professional should be included in the planning and on-site during
building and foundation removal. The Utah DEQ Voluntary Cleanup Program has
developed a fact sheet that provides helpful information when planning building
demolition and foundation removal. This fact sheet can be found online at:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lKJdOYpz9FTu4He2zJW9C3yjFJRA5pPE/view

• Surface soil sampling has not been conducted at this site. After paving and
buildings are removed, it is recommended that surface soils sampling and analysis
is conducted to evaluate potential surface soil exposure to contaminants for
pertinent areas.

• It is common for lead concentrations in surface soil to exceed screening level
concentrations at Brownfields sites. Thus, it is recommended to evaluate surface
soils for lead concentrations in areas where land use is expected to result in direct
exposures to the public.

• Environmental data suggests that fuel related contamination exists throughout the
site in localized areas due to historic land use

• The analytical results from soil sampling has identified zones of contamination at
depth. A soils management plan is recommended for areas where excavation is
planned. Contaminate screening levels are constantly being updated as knowledge
of toxicity is improved. In some cases, such as lead, the screening levels have been
lowered to 200 mg /kg. In other cases, such as PAHs, the screening levels have been
raised. New investigations and cleanup plans should be based on the current
screening levels.

• Arsenic concentrations in soil samples were reported in several samples above 2017
screening levels. However, all samples reported arsenic concentrations below
naturally occurring levels found in the Salt Lake Valley, thus soil remediation for
arsenic is not expected.
19

• Prior to demolition of existing buildings, an updated asbestos survey is required.

• The Utah Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP) is an option for cleanup oversight of
the Site. Note that the two LUST facilities located on the Site remain regulated
under Utah’s LUST program as the VCP does not displace existing regulatory
program involvement. Site cleanup goals will be specific to future land use and may
or may not rely on institutional/engineering controls. This ultimately depends on
the nature and extent of contamination, the exposure scenario, and the proposed
remedy.

5.2 The 1 Acre Development Area

The 1-Acre Development Site is located in the southwestern portion of the Site as shown in
Figure 2.

The following tables identify the groundwater and soil sample locations in the 1 Acre
Development Area where samples exceeded a 2017 screening levels and the class of
constituents that had a screening level exceedance. The analytical results for these
sampling locations are found in Appendices 1 and 2.

Summary of Constituents Detected Above
Screening Levels
Sample Location Groundwater
FB-19 Metals
FB-20 Metals
Sample Location Soil
FB-20 Lead

In addition to site wide environmental conditions and the constituents detected above
screening levels, the following environmental condition in this area may require
remediation depending on final land use:

• A study is recommended in this area to determine the source and extent of metals
contaminated groundwater. A Targeted Brownfields Assessment may be an option to
evaluate this groundwater contamination as metals contamination does not appear
attributable to Salt Lake City site operations.

5.3 The 1.6 Acre Development Area

The 1.6 Acre Development Area is located in the northwestern portion of the Site as shown
in Figure 2.

The following table identifies the soil sample locations in the 1.6 Acre Development Area
where analytical results exceeded 2017 screening levels and the class of constituents that
20

had a screening level exceedance. The analytical results for these sampling locations are
found in Appendices 1 and 2.

Summary of Constituents Detected Above
Screening Levels
Sample Location Soil
B-4 PAHs
IHI-3 PAHs
FB-4 PAHs
FB-6 PAHs, Oil and Grease
FB-7 PAHs, Oil and Grease, TPO-GRO
FB-41 VOCs

Groundwater analytical results taken from samples within this area did not exceed 2017
screening levels.

In addition to site wide environmental conditions and the constituents detected above
screening levels, the following environmental conditions in this area may require
remediation depending on final land use:

• Coal fines were found at depth at the following sample locations: IHI-1, IHI-2, IHI-3, IHI-
4, IHI-5, FB-5, FB-41, and FB-42. These sample locations are presented in Figure 4.

• Asphalt materials were identified in borings at depth in the following locations: IHI-1,
IHI-2, IHI-3, IHI-4, and IHI-5. These sample locations are presented in Figure 4.

• The 2017 Limited Site Inspection report recommended that soil remediation occur
within this area. The approximate area of the soil remediation is presented in Figure 6.

5.4 The 2.3 Acre Development Area

The 2.3 Acre Development Area is located in the northeastern portion of the Site as shown
in Figure 2.

The following table identifies the soil sample locations in the 1.6 Acre Development Area
where analytical results exceeded 2017 screening levels and the class of constituents that
had a screening level exceedance. The analytical results for these sampling locations are
found in Appendices 1 and 2.

Groundwater analytical results taken from samples within this area did not exceed 2017
screening levels.

21

Summary of Constituents Detected Above
Screening Levels
Sample Location Soil
B-3 Lead
FB-9 TPH-DRO, Oil and Grease
FB-15 VOCs, TPH-GRO
FB-16 PAHs
FB-23 Oil and Grease, TPH-GRO
FB-34 VOCs
FB-39 TPH-DRO
FB-40 Oil and Grease

In addition to site wide environmental conditions and the constituents detected above
screening levels, the following environmental conditions in this area may require
remediation depending on final land use:

• Coal fines were found at depth at the western side of this area at the following sample
locations: FB-14 and FB-40. These sample locations are presented in Figure 4.

• Asphalt materials were found at depth at sample location IHI-7. This sample locations
are presented in Figure 4.

• LUST facility 4001789 is located within this development area. Corrective action has
been completed at this facility. The facility was closed above Tier 1 standards because
the residual contamination is at depth and considered not to pose a risk under current
land use and exposure characteristics. Changes to land use will need to be discussed
with Utah DEQ to evaluate if the land use change alters the exposure characteristics
and if additional corrective action is required.

• The 2017 Limited Site Inspection report recommended that soil remediation occur
within this area. The approximate area of the soil remediation is presented in Figure 6.

• Elevated concentrations of PCE were measured in a groundwater sample collected near
point D in Figure 5 during the 2005 Brownfields assessment. Analytical results from soil
samples collected in this area did not detect PCE, indicating an upgradient source of this
solvent. Subsequent groundwater samples collected from the northern portion of the
Site did not detect PCE above regulatory levels. Additional sampling is suggested to
determine if PCE is migrating onto the Site.

5.5 The 3 Acre Public Space and Adjacent Midblock Connections

The 3 Acre Public Space and Adjacent Midblock Connections are in the southeastern
portion of the Site as shown in Figure 2.

The following tables identifies the soil and groundwater sample locations in the 3.0 Acre
Public Space and Adjacent Midblock Connections where analytical results exceeded 2017
22

screening levels and the class of constituents that had a screening level exceedance. The
analytical results for these sampling locations are found in Appendices 1 and 2.

Summary of Constituents Detected Above
Screening Levels
Sample Location Groundwater
FB-21 Petroleum Hydrocarbons, VOCs
FB-22 Petroleum Hydrocarbons, VOCs
FB-26 Petroleum Hydrocarbons
FB-27 Petroleum Hydrocarbons, VOCs
FB-28 Petroleum Hydrocarbons
FB-29 Petroleum Hydrocarbons
FB-30 Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Sample Location Soil
FB-21 VOCs
FB-22 VOCs
FB-29 VOCs
FB-48 Oil and Grease

In addition to site wide environmental conditions and the constituents detected above
screening levels, the following environmental conditions in this area may require
remediation depending on final land use:

• Coal fines were found at depth in the northern portion of the midblock connection of
this area at the following sample locations: IHI-6, FB-44 and FB-45. These sample
locations are presented in Figure 4.

• Asphalt materials were identified in borings at depth in the northern portion of the
midblock connection at the following sample locations: FB-44, and FB-45. These sample
locations are presented in Figure 4.

• LUST facility 4000835 is located within this development area. Corrective action has
been completed at this facility. However, the facility was closed above Tier 1 standards
as residual contamination remains at depth and considered not to pose a risk under
current land use and exposure characteristics at the time. Changes to land use will
need to be discussed with Utah DEQ to evaluate if the land use change alters the
exposure characteristics and if additional corrective action is required.

• The 2017 Limited Site Inspection report recommended that soil remediation occur
within this area. The approximate area of the soil remediation is presented in Figure 6.

• The 2017 Limited Site Inspection report recommended that groundwater remediation
occur within this area. The approximate area of the groundwater remediation is
presented in Figure 7.

23

5.6 The Midblock Streets

The Midblock Streets are located between the development areas and Public Space. The
Midblock Streets are shown in Figure 2.

In addition to site wide environmental conditions, the following environmental conditions
in this area may require remediation depending on street and underground utility design.

• Roadways, alleys, underground utilities, and parking areas are being considered in this
portion of the Site. An examination of surface and subsurface soil to ensure long-term
protectiveness during construction, operation, and maintenance of underground
utilities and paved areas is recommended.

• Coal fines were found at depth between the 1.0 Acre and 1.6 Acre Development Areas
at the following sample locations: FB-4, FB-6, and FB-43.

• Asphalt materials could be found at depth in the midblock street between the 1.6 Acre
and the 2.3 Acre Development Areas.

• The 2017 Limited Site Inspection report recommended that soil remediation occur
within this area. The approximate area of the soil remediation is presented in Figure 6.
24

References
IHI Environmental, 2012, Asbestos Survey and Assessment, Former Salt Lake City Maintenance Fleet Yard,
800 South 350 West, Salt Lake City, Utah, (June 12, 2012)

IHI Environmental, 2011, Groundwater Monitoring at the Salt Lake City Public Services Department Fleet
Management Yard, 325 West 800 South, Salt Lake City, Utah Facility Identification No. 4000835, Release Sie
EIEQ, (October 7, 2011)

MSE (Millennium Science & Engineering), 2005, Draft Brownfields Environmental Assessment Report, Salt
Lake City Public Services Department, Fleet Management Yard, 325 West 800 South, Salt Lake City,
(September 23, 2005)

MSE (Millennium Science & Engineering), 2008, Groundwater Monitoring at the Salt Lake City Public
Services Department Fleet Management Yard, 325 West 800 South, Salt Lake City, Utah Facility Identification
No. 4000835, Release Sie EIEQ, (October 17, 2008)

MSE (Millennium Science & Engineering), 2009, Groundwater Monitoring at the Salt Lake City Public
Services Department Fleet Management Yard, 325 West 800 South, Salt Lake City, Utah Facility Identification
No. 4000835, Release Sie EIEQ, (September 9, 2009)

MSE (Millennium Science & Engineering), 2010, Groundwater Monitoring at the Salt Lake City Public
Services Department Fleet Management Yard, 325 West 800 South, Salt Lake City, Utah Facility Identification
No. 4000835, Release Sie EIEQ, (September 23, 2010)

MSE (Millennium Science & Engineering), 2010, Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report - Salt Lake City
Public Services Department, Fleet Management Yard, 325 West 800 South, Salt Lake City, Utah (September
23, 2005)

Terracon, 2012, Preliminary Geothecnical Engineering Report, Former Fleet Facility, Salt Lake City, Utah,
(September 6, 2012)

Terracon, 2014, Petroleum-Impacted Soil Excavation Report, Fleet Management Yard, 850 South 325 West,
Salt Lake City Utah, Facility Identification No. 4000835, Release ID IEQ (November 20, 2014)

Terracon, 2015a, Monitoring Well Installation and Groundwater Sampling Report, Salt Lake City Fleet Yard,
850 South 325 West, Salt Lake City Utah, Facility Identification No. 4000835, Release ID IEQ (May 18, 2015)

Terracon, 2015b, Limited Site Investigation, Monitoring Well Installation and Groundwater Sampling
R2208eport, Salt Lake City Fleet Yard, 850 South 325 West, Salt Lake City Utah, Facility Identification No.
4000835, Release ID IEQ (November 5, 2015)

Terracon, 2016, Limited Site Investigation, Salt Lake City Fleet Yard, 850 South 325 West, Salt Lake City Utah,
Facility Identification No. 4000835, Release ID IEQ (June 22, 2016)

25

Terracon, 2017a, Petroleum-Impacted Soil Removal and Ground Water Remediation Report – Work Plan IEQ-
19, Fleet Management Yard, 850 South 325 West, Salt Lake City Utah, Facility Identification No. 4000835,
Release ID IEQ (June 15, 2017)

Terracon, 2017b, Limited Site Investigation, Salt Lake City Fleet Yard, 300 West to 400 West 800 South to 900
South, Salt Lake City Utah, (November 2, 2017)

Utah DEQ, 1992, Release Site EGRL, Facility Identification No. 4001789, (December 4, 1992)

Utah DEQ, 2018, No Further Action, Leaking Underground Storage Tank Release, Fleet Management Yard,
located at 325 West 800 South, Salt Lake City, Utah Facility Identification No. 4000835, Release Site IEQ,
(August 23, 2018)

26

Figure 1 - Site Location and Boundaries

27

Figure 2 - Site Redevelopment Plan

200 ft
N
➤➤
N
28

Figure 3 - Areas of Petroleum-Impacted Soil removal during Facility No. 4000835 Corrective Actions
(Terracon, 2017a)

Legend
1992 LUST Excavation Area - ID 4001789
2014 LUST Excavation Area - ID 4000835
2017 LUST Excavation Area - ID 4000835
Appoximate Location Of Historical Coal Yard
Approximate Location of Historical Asphalt Plant
Development Site
Development Site - Public Space
Heavy Vehicle Maintenance Shop
Northern Maintenance Shop
Street Maintenance Garage
200 ft
N
➤➤
N
29

Figure 4 - 2017 Limited Site Investigation Soil Boring Locations (Terracon, 2017b)

Legend
2005 Brownfields Monitoring Wells
2005 Brownfields Soil Borings
2013 LSI Soil Boring
2013 LUST Investigation Monitoring Well
2013 LUST Investigation Soil Boring
2017 LSI Piezometers
2017 LSI Soil Boring
Development Site
Development Site - Public Space
3000 ft
N
➤➤
N
30

Figure 5 - Investigation Areas designated in 2017 Limited Site Inspection (Terracon, 2017b)

Legend
Appoximate Location Of Historical Coal Yard
Approximate Location of Historical Asphalt Plant
Development Site
Development Site - Public Space
Floor Drain
Investigation Area A
Investigation Area B
Investigation Area C
Investigation Area D
Investigation Area E
Investigation Area F
Investigation Area G
Investigation Area H
300 ft
N
➤➤
N
31

Figure 6 – Summary of environmental concerns associated with contaminated soil.

Recommended remediation areas shown in this
figure are from the 2017 LSI Report. These areas
were based on information available in 2017 and
were drawn to show the anticipated extent of remediation.
Additional assessments may be needed to further define
contamination, remediation needs, and address data
gaps related to specific site development plans.
See Section 3.2.2 of the report for details on data gaps.
Legend
2005 Brownfields Soil Boring
2013 LSI Soil Boring
2017 LSI - Recommended Remediation Areas
2017 LSI Piezometer
2017 LSI Soil Boring
Development Site
Development Site - Public Space
Investigation Area A
Investigation Area B
Investigation Area C
Investigation Area D
Investigation Area E
Investigation Area F
Investigation Area G
Investigation Area H
Previously Remediated LUST Areas-
Further Action May be Needed Due
to Change in Land Use
3000 ft
N
➤➤
N
32

Figure 7 - Summary of environmental concerns associated with contaminated groundwater.
Recommended remediation areas shown in this
figure are from the 2017 LSI Report. These areas
were based on information available in 2017 and
were drawn to show the anticipated extent of remediation.
Additional assessments may be needed to further define
contamination, remediation needs, and address data
gaps related to specific site development plans.
See Section 3.2.2 of the report for details on data gaps.
Legend
2017 LSI - Recommended Remediation Areas
2017 LSI Soil Boring
Development Site
Development Site - Public Space
Investigation Area A
Investigation Area B
Investigation Area C
Investigation Area D
Investigation Area E
Investigation Area F
Investigation Area G
Investigation Area H
Previously Remediated LUST Areas-
Further Action May be Needed Due
to Change in Land Use
3000 ft
N
➤➤
N
33

Appendix 1

Data Tables
Limited Site Investigation
Salt Lake City Fleet Yard
300 West to 400 West 800 South to 900 South
Salt Lake City Utah
(Terracon 2017b)

TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF SAMPLE RATIONALE AND ANALYSIS

Sample / area investigated Sample Type No. of
Samples Analysis
FB-1 / northern property boundary
and historical coal yard Soil 1
VOCs
TPH GRO
TPH DRO
PAHs
Groundwater 1
VOCs
TPH GRO
TPH DRO
PAHs
FB-2 through FB-5 / elevated PAH
concentrations and historical coal
yard Soil 4
VOCs
TPH GRO
TPH DRO
PAHs
Groundwater 4
VOCs
TPH GRO
TPH DRO
PAHs
FB-6 through FB-7 / Historical
Asphalt Plant
Soil 2
VOCs
TPH GRO
TPH DRO
O&G
PAHs
Groundwater 2
VOCs
TPH GRO
TPH DRO
O&G
PAHs
FB-8 through FB-15 / o/w/s,
sumps, floor drains, wash down
area, historical waste oil USTs Soil 8
VOCs
TPH GRO
TPH DRO
O&G
Groundwater 8
VOCs
TPH GRO
TPH DRO
O&G
FB-16 through FB-17 / historical
garage/machine shop Soil 2
VOCs
TPH GRO
TPH DRO
O&G
Groundwater 2 VOCs
Sample / area investigated Sample Type No. of
Samples Analysis
TPH GRO
TPH DRO
O&G
FB-18 / Suspect gasoline UST
Soil 1
VOCs
TPH GRO
TPH DRO
Groundwater 1
VOCs
TPH GRO
TPH DRO
FB-19 through FB-20 / adjacent
property and sump
Soil 2
VOCs
TPH GRO
TPH DRO
O&G
RCRA 8
Groundwater 2
VOCs
TPH GRO
TPH DRO
O&G
RCRA 8
FB-21 through FB-22 / Historical
elevated TPH-DRO levels Soil 2
TPH GRO
TPH DRO
MBTEXN
Groundwater 2
TPH GRO
TPH DRO
MBTEXN
FB-23 / West side of Fire Dept
building - suspect UST location Soil 1
VOCs
TPH GRO
TPH DRO
O&G
Groundwater 1
VOCs
TPH GRO
TPH DRO
O&G
FB-24 /
Historical elevated PAHs and
petroleum hydrocarbons – north of
W-1
Soil 1
VOCs
TPH GRO
TPH DRO
PAHs
Groundwater 1
VOCs
TPH GRO
TPH DRO
PAHs
FB-25 – historical elevated lead
levels Soil 1 Lead
Groundwater 1 Lead
Sample / area investigated Sample Type No. of
Samples Analysis
FB-26 – FB 30 / southern end of
Police building and elevated TPH-
DRO
Soil 5
TPH GRO
TPH GRO
MBTEXN
Groundwater 5
TPH GRO
TPH GRO
MBTEXN
FB-31 – FB-32 / extent of impacts
observed in 2016 in central Fire
Apparatus building
Soil 2 TPH GRO
MBTEXN
FB-33 – FB-34 / extent of gasoline
impacts observed in 2016 on west
side of Fire Apparatus building
Soil 2 TPH GRO
MBTEXN
FB-35 – FB-36 / extent of historical
lead impacts in northern Fire
Apparatus building
Soil 2 Lead
FB-37- FB-40 / extent of impacts
observed in 2016 near sump at
south side of northern maintenance
building
Soil 4
TPH-DRO
TPH-DRO
O&G
PAHs
MBTEXN
FB-41-FB-46 / extent of historical
impacts observed in former coal
yard and asphalt plant area Soil 6
TPH-DRO
TPH-DRO
O&G
PAHs
MBTEXN
FB-47 / southwestern property
boundary
Soil 1
TPH-DRO
TPH-DRO
O&G
PAHs
MBTEXN
FB-48 / central portion of site -
historical garage / machine shop
Soil 1
TPH-DRO
TPH-DRO
O&G
PAHs
MBTEXN

NOTES:
MBTEXN: Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether, Benzene,
Toluene, Ethylbenzene, Xylenes, and
Naphthalene
O&G: Oil and Gas
PAHs: Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
RCRA 8: Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act 1976 list of 8 heavy metals: arsenic, barium ,
cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, selenium ,
silver.
TPH-DRO: Total petroleum hydrocarbons (diesel
range)
TPH-GRO: Total petroleum hydrocarbons
(gasoline range)
VOCs: Volatile organic compounds
Boring / Piezo survey height Elevations*
Depth to
water
Water Level
Elevation*
FB-24 5.67 98.85 7.44 91.41
FB-11 5.24 99.28 7.00 92.28
FB-6 4.96 99.56 8.99 90.57
FB-16 4.68 99.84 8.35 91.49
*Relative to an arbitrary datum of 100 feet.
TABLE 2
WATER LEVEL ELEVATION SURVEY
(measured 9/29/2016)
Analyte
Units
Method
Sample ID Depth Date Collected Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q
IHI-1 4-6 8/15/2013 NA NA NA <0.0063 <0.0063 <0.0063 <0.031 <0.031 <0.019 0.064 <0.0063 <0.0063 <0.0063 <0.0063 <0.0063 <0.0063 <0.063 <0.031 <0.063 <0.0063 <0.0063 <0.0063 <0.0063 <0.0063 <0.0063
IHI-1 8.5 8/15/2013 NA NA NA <0.0063 <0.0063 <0.0062 <0.031 <0.031 <0.019 0.12 <0.0062 <0.0062 <0.0062 <0.0063 <0.0062 <0.0062 <0.062 <0.031 <0.063 <0.0062 <0.0063 <0.0062 <0.0062 <0.0063 <0.0063
IHI-2 4 8/16/2013 NA NA NA <0.0063 <0.0063 <0.0067 <0.031 <0.031 <0.019 0.32 <0.0067 <0.0067 <0.0067 <0.0063 <0.0067 <0.0067 0.056 <0.034 <0.063 <0.0067 <0.0063 <0.0067 <0.0067 <0.0063 <0.0063
IHI-3 4-6 8/15/2013 NA NA NA <0.0063 <0.0063 <0.0068 <0.031 <0.031 <0.019 0.27 <0.0068 <0.0068 <0.0068 <0.0063 <0.0068 <0.0068 0.056 <0.034 <0.063 <0.0068 <0.0063 <0.0068 <0.0068 <0.0063 <0.0063
IHI-4 5 8/16/2013 NA NA NA <0.0063 <0.0063 <0.006 <0.031 <0.031 <0.019 0.35 <0.006 <0.006 <0.006 <0.0063 <0.006 <0.006 0.058 <0.03 <0.063 <0.006 <0.0063 <0.006 <0.006 <0.0063 <0.0063
IHI-5 10 8/16/2013 NA NA NA <0.0063 <0.0063 <0.066 <0.031 <0.031 <0.019 <3.3 0.39 0.21 0.041 <0.0063 0.082 <0.066 <0.66 <0.33 <0.063 0.23 <0.0063 0.028 0.047 <0.0063 <0.0063
IHI-6 7 8/16/2013 NA NA NA <0.0063 <0.0063 <0.0061 <0.031 <0.031 <0.019 0.12 0.0017 0.0029 <0.0061 <0.0063 0.0024 0.0086 0.043 0.0084 <0.063 0.0038 <0.0063 0.0017 0.0017 <0.0063 <0.0063
IHI-7 5 8/16/2013 <5.3 NA NA <0.0063 <0.0063 <0.0066 <0.031 <0.031 <0.019 <0.33 <0.0066 <0.0066 <0.0066 <0.0063 <0.0066 <0.0066 <0.066 <0.033 <0.063 <0.0066 <0.0063 <0.0066 <0.0066 <0.0063 <0.0063
IHI-8 8 8/16/2013 <5.6 NA NA <0.0063 <0.0063 <0.007 <0.031 <0.031 <0.019 <0.05 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.0063 <0.007 <0.007 <0.07 <0.035 <0.063 <0.007 <0.0063 <0.007 <0.007 <0.0063 <0.0063
IHI-9 8-10 10/4/2013 <5.1 <3.2 NA <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0064 <0.005 <0.005 <0.0030 <0.32 <0.0064 <0.0064 <0.0064 <0.0063 <0.0064 <0.0064 <0.064 <0.032 <0.010 <0.0064 <0.0010 <0.0064 <0.0064 <0.0010 <0.0063
IHI-10 2-4 10/4/2013 130 2.7 NA <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0053 <0.005 <0.005 <0.0030 <0.05 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.0010 <0.001 <0.001 <0.01 <0.005 <0.010 <0.001 <0.0010 <0.001 <0.001 <0.0010 <0.0063
FB-1 4.5 4.5 09/12/2016 <1.24 <0.295 NA 0.0259 0.00231 <0.000341 <0.00805 0.0189 0.00511 <0.0805 <0.00161 <0.00161 <0.00161 <0.00161 <0.00161 <0.00161 <0.0161 <0.00805 <0.0161 <0.00161 <0.00161 0.000567 J <0.00161 <0.00161 <0.00161
FB-2 5 5 09/12/2016 7.12 1.17 NA 0.233 0.0364 <0.000287 0.0113 0.245 0.0679 0.114 0.000593 J 0.000617 J <0.00135 <0.00135 0.0028 0.000474 J 0.0449 <0.00677 <0.0135 0.00411 <0.00135 0.00712 0.00249 0.00313 <0.00135
FB-3 4.5 4.5 09/12/2016 57.5 10.1 NA 0.161 0.021 <0.000293 0.00583 J 0.147 0.0374 0.182 0.00157 0.00596 0.00384 <0.00138 0.00747 0.00164 0.0515 <0.00691 <0.0138 <0.00138 <0.00138 0.00547 0.00204 0.00302 <0.00138
FB-4 5 5 09/12/2016 53.8 0.623 B NA 0.0505 0.00526 <0.000254 0.00443 J 0.0406 0.0133 0.164 <0.0012 <0.0012 <0.0012 <0.0012 0.000565 J <0.0012 0.0536 <0.006 <0.012 0.000665 J <0.0012 0.00182 <0.0012 0.000757 J <0.0012
FB-5 6 6 09/12/2016 18.2 1.88 B NA 0.221 0.0299 <0.000297 0.0316 0.216 0.0646 0.0854 0.000609 J <0.0014 <0.0014 <0.0014 0.00226 0.000523 J <0.014 <0.007 <0.014 0.00349 <0.0014 0.00779 <0.0014 0.00303 <0.0014
FB-6 4 4 09/12/2016 2020 0.459 B J 7490 J3 J5 0.00158 J3 J6 <0.00115 J3 J6 <0.000243 <0.00574 J3 J6 0.00115 J J3 J6 <0.00344 J3 J6 0.31 J6 <0.00115 J3 J6 <0.00115 J3 J6 <0.00115 J3 J6 <0.00115 J3 J6 <0.00115 J3 J6 <0.00115 J3 J6 0.089 <0.00574 J3 J6 0.00417 J J3 <0.00115 J3 J6 <0.00115 J3 J6 <0.00115 J3 J6 <0.00115 J3 J6 <0.00115 J3 J6 <0.00115
FB-7 5 5 09/12/2016 9950 879 B 49700 0.00478 0.000806 J <0.000218 0.00139 J <0.00513 0.0031 <0.0513 <0.00103 <0.00103 <0.00103 <0.00103 0.000308 J <0.00103 <0.0103 <0.00513 <0.0103 <0.00103 <0.00103 0.00059 J <0.00103 <0.00103 <0.00103
FB-7 10 10 09/12/2016 1.59 NA 118 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
FB-8 5-6'5.0-6.0 09/14/2016 16.9 <0.222 133 0.0106 0.00124 <0.000257 <0.00606 0.00861 0.00288 J 0.0182 J <0.00121 <0.00121 <0.00121 <0.00121 <0.00121 <0.00121 <0.0121 <0.00606 <0.0121 <0.00121 0.000597 J 0.000702 J <0.00121 <0.00121 0.000606 J
FB-9 4.5'4.5 09/13/2016 2850 88.7 4950 <0.0329 0.0203 J <0.00696 0.757 <0.164 0.0462 J <1.64 0.376 0.452 0.237 0.0986 0.164 0.0825 <0.329 <0.164 <0.329 0.519 <0.0329 0.57 0.189 0.0249 J <0.0329
FB-9 10'10 09/13/2016 <1.01 NA 118 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
FB-10 5'5 09/13/2016 <1.07 <0.254 278 <0.00139 <0.00139 <0.000294 <0.00694 <0.00694 <0.00416 <0.0694 <0.00139 <0.00139 <0.00139 <0.00139 <0.00139 <0.00139 <0.0139 <0.00694 <0.0139 <0.00139 <0.00139 <0.00139 <0.00139 <0.00139 <0.00139
FB-11 7'7 09/14/2016 <0.994 <0.236 103 J 0.011 0.00204 <0.000274 0.0016 J 0.0121 0.00444 <0.0646 <0.00129 <0.00129 <0.00129 <0.00129 <0.00129 <0.00129 <0.0129 <0.00646 <0.0129 <0.00129 <0.00129 0.000807 J <0.00129 <0.00129 <0.00129
FB-12 5'5 09/14/2016 <0.982 <0.234 63.8 J 0.00693 0.000629 J <0.000271 <0.00638 0.00511 J 0.00133 J <0.0638 <0.00128 <0.00128 <0.00128 <0.00128 <0.00128 <0.00128 <0.0128 <0.00638 <0.0128 <0.00128 <0.00128 0.000285 J <0.00128 <0.00128 0.00216
FB-13 8'8 09/13/2016 5.59 <0.196 42.9 J <0.00107 <0.00107 <0.000227 <0.00536 0.000784 J <0.00322 <0.0536 <0.00107 <0.00107 <0.00107 <0.00107 <0.00107 0.000265 J <0.0107 <0.00536 <0.0107 <0.00107 <0.00107 <0.00107 <0.00107 <0.00107 <0.00107
FB-14 5'5 09/13/2016 <0.887 <0.211 80.7 J 0.000502 J <0.00115 <0.000244 <0.00577 0.000691 J <0.00346 0.0175 J <0.00115 <0.00115 <0.00115 <0.00115 <0.00115 <0.00115 0.0061 J <0.00577 <0.0115 <0.00115 <0.00115 <0.00115 <0.00115 <0.00115 <0.00115
FB-15 3.5'3.5 09/14/2016 102 375 437 J5 <0.0269 0.012 J <0.0057 1.9 0.0222 J 0.0497 J <1.34 0.319 0.689 0.0882 <0.0269 0.31 <0.0269 <0.269 <0.134 <0.269 0.307 <0.0269 0.0485 0.0489 0.00734 J <0.0269
FB-16 5 5 09/12/2016 119 6.08 704 0.0203 J 0.0216 <0.000257 0.0283 0.189 0.0469 0.0874 0.0015 <0.00121 <0.00121 <0.00121 0.00332 0.00316 <0.0121 <0.00607 <0.0121 0.00498 <0.00121 0.0156 <0.00121 0.00626 <0.00121
FB-17 4'4 09/13/2016 91.7 <0.28 214 0.000715 J <0.00153 <0.000324 <0.00765 0.00115 J <0.00459 <0.0765 <0.00153 <0.00153 <0.00153 <0.00153 <0.00153 <0.00153 0.0083 J <0.00765 <0.0153 <0.00153 <0.00153 <0.00153 <0.00153 <0.00153 <0.00153
FB-18 8'8 09/13/2016 85.4 J3 J6 <0.254 NA <0.00139 <0.00139 <0.000295 <0.00695 <0.00695 <0.00417 <0.0695 <0.00139 0.000325 J <0.00139 <0.00139 <0.00139 <0.00139 0.00699 J <0.00695 <0.0139 0.000297 J <0.00139 <0.00139 <0.00139 <0.00139 <0.00139
FB-19 5'5 09/13/2016 <1.03 <0.246 135 J <0.00135 <0.00135 <0.000285 <0.00673 <0.00673 <0.00404 <0.0673 <0.00135 <0.00135 <0.00135 <0.00135 <0.00135 <0.00135 <0.0135 <0.00673 <0.0135 <0.00135 <0.00135 <0.00135 <0.00135 <0.00135 <0.00135
FB-20 4.5'4.5 09/13/2016 107 <0.234 281 0.000791 J <0.00128 <0.000271 <0.00639 0.00224 J 0.00165 J <0.0639 <0.00128 <0.00128 <0.00128 <0.00128 <0.00128 <0.00128 <0.0128 <0.00639 <0.0128 <0.00128 <0.00128 <0.00128 <0.00128 <0.00128 <0.00128
FB-21 8'8 09/14/2016 9810 132 NA <0.586 <0.586 <0.124 12.8 <2.93 <1.76 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
FB-21 15'15 09/14/2016 6.81 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
FB-22 7.5'7.5 09/14/2016 7180 114 NA <0.59 2.98 NA 11.2 <2.95 2.72 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
FB-22 15'15 09/14/2016 29.2 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
FB-23 9.5-10' 9.5-10.0 09/14/2016 34.9 650 97 J <0.238 <0.238 NA <1.19 <1.19 <0.713 <11.9 0.278 0.426 0.0616 J <0.238 0.502 0.205 J <2.38 <1.19 19.2 1.77 <0.238 0.0536 J <0.238 <0.238 <0.238
FB-24 4'4 09/14/2016 7.31 <0.208 NA 0.00312 0.000353 J NA <0.00568 0.00208 J 0.000992 J 0.0782 <0.00114 <0.00114 <0.00114 <0.00114 <0.00114 <0.00114 0.0302 <0.00568 <0.0114 <0.00114 <0.00114 0.000384 J <0.00114 <0.00114 <0.00114
FB-26 10'10 8/30/2017 2510 1.83 NA <0.000339 0.00045 J NA 1.1 0.000976 J 0.00123 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
FB-27 10'10 8/30/2017 2160 12.3 J J6 NA <0.00830 0.0117 J NA 4.46 V <0.0133 0.0266 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
FB-28 9'9 8/30/2017 2050 20.1 NA <0.00822 <0.00903 NA 0.372 <0.0132 <0.0212 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
FB-29 4.5'4.5 8/30/2017 2570 21.9 NA <0.00971 0.014 J NA 4.4 <0.0155 0.0284 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
FB-30 10'10 8/30/2017 2220 26.6 NA <0.00877 <0.00964 NA 0.276 <0.0140 <0.0226 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
FB-31 4'4 8/30/2017 NA <0.204 NA 0.00358 0.000603 J NA <0.00112 0.00263 J 0.00143 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
FB-32 3.5'3.5 8/30/2017 NA <0.185 NA 0.0019 0.000365 J NA 0.0034 J 0.0023 J 0.00206 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
FB-33 10'10 8/30/2017 NA <0.224 NA <0.000331 <0.000364 NA 0.00161 J 0.000717 J <0.000855 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
FB-34 7'7 8/30/2017 NA 2560 NA <0.181 0.825 NA 11.4 <0.291 0.514 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
FB-35 2'2 8/30/2017 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
FB-36 2'2 8/30/2017 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
FB-37 4.5'4.5 8/31/2017 11.3 <0.203 77.7 0.00586 0.000695 J NA <0.00111 0.00467 J 0.00164 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
FB-38 4.5'4.5 8/31/2017 3.08 <0.215 70.6 0.00919 0.00107 J NA <0.00118 0.00579 J 0.00219 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
FB-39 3.5'3.5 8/31/2017 578 0.365 562 0.00229 0.00132 NA <0.00108 0.0539 0.00917 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
FB-40 4.5'4.5 8/31/2017 290 0.349 J 1070 0.0639 0.0134 NA 0.00626 0.0756 0.0289 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
FB-41 7'7 8/31/2017 7910 73.7 587 <0.0369 0.0596 J NA 14.7 <0.0593 <0.0953 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
FB-42 8'8 8/31/2017 2020 0.383 1450 0.155 0.0214 NA 0.0297 0.132 0.0457 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
FB-43 5'5 8/31/2017 3.6 <0.207 295 0.00289 0.000505 J NA 0.0018 J 0.00302 J 0.00117 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
FB-43 8'8 8/31/2017 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
FB-44 9.5'9.5 8/31/2017 <1.06 1.13 110 0.196 0.0547 NA 0.0629 0.186 0.126 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
FB-45 7'7 8/31/2017 1.49 0.538 103 0.0505 0.0124 NA 0.0163 0.0649 0.0282 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
FB-46 5'5 8/31/2017 <0.818 <0.195 95.7 0.00221 0.000421 J NA <0.00106 0.0025 J 0.0011 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
FB-46 9'9 8/31/2017 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
FB-47 5'5 8/31/2017 27.9 <0.214 269 0.00732 0.00112 J NA <0.00117 0.00637 0.00253 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
FB-47 9'9 8/31/2017 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
FB-48 4'4 8/31/2017 202 <0.223 5340 0.0299 0.00315 NA 0.0137 0.0234 0.00786 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
FB-48 10'10 8/31/2017 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Notes:
Region 9 Regional Screening Levels Residential Soil 2017 NE - Not Established
NA - Not Analyzed
Gray shaded values exceed the laboratory's minimum detection limits < not detected above method detection limits
Gold shaded values exceed the Residential Region 9 RSLs
Green shaded values exceed the Industrial Region 9 RSLs
Blue shaded values exceed UT Initial Screening Levels
Orange shaded values exceed UT Tier 1 Screening Levels
Region 9 Residential RSLs
Region 9 Industrial RSLs
NE
NE
Region 9 Regional Screening Levels Industrial Soil 2017
TABLE 3 - SOIL ANALYTICAL RESULTS
PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS AND VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOCs)
SALT LAKE CITY FLEET MANAGEMENT YARD
Terracon Project Number 61167506
mg/kg
1,2,4-
TRIMETHYLBEN
ZENE
7800 300
8260B
25
8260B
3900
175.1 24000
8260B
SEC-
BUTYLBENZENE
N-
BUTYLBENZENE
TERT-
BUTYLBENZEN
E
5.8
mg/kg
8260B
mg/kg
8260B
340
mg/kg
8260B
ISOPROPYLBEN
ZENE
9300
19001800
8260B
1,2-
DICHLOROBENZ
ENE
1,3,5-
TRIMETHYLBE
NZENEBENZENE
mg/kg
9900
mg/kg
1,2,3-
TRIMETHYLBENZ
ENENAPHTHALENE
ETHYLBENZEN
E
8260B
61000
8260B
mg/kg
3300
8260B
Qualifiers:B: The same analyte is found in the associated blank.J: The identification of the analyte is acceptable; the reported value is an estimate.J1: Surrogate recovery limits have been exceeded; values are outside upper control limits.J3: The associated batch QC was outside the established quality control range for precision.J6: The sample matrix interfered with the ability to make any accurate determination; spike value is low.
2000100NE
57
8260B
1500190000
P-
ISOPROPYLTOL
UENE
N-
PROPYLBENZEN
E
TETRACHLORO
ETHENE
8260B8260B
2-BUTANONE
(MEK)
mg/kg
4-METHYL-2-
PENTANONE
(MIBK)
mg/kg
8260B
mg/kg
8260B8260B8260B
mg/kgmg/kg mg/kg
8260B8260B
1.7
mg/kg
8260B
47000
mg/kg
1800
38004900 270
mg/kg
1000
8260B
120000
mg/kg
270003.8
2500
580
58000
NE7800
ACETONE
1.2
XYLENES,
TOTALTOLUENE
mg/kg
TPH-DRO
8015
140000670000
mg/kg
VINYL
CHLORIDE
0.059
METHYLENE
CHLORIDE
mg/kg mg/kg
24
120000
TPH-GRO
8260B
TPH - OIL &
GREASE
9071B
mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
500 150
5000 1500
1000
10000 0.9
5 51 9 142
23 51 25 142
NE NE NEUT Initial Screening Levels
UT Tier 1 Screening Levels
NE
NE
NE NE0.2 NE NE
NE NE NE NE NE
NE NE NE
NE
NE NE
NE NENENENENENE
METHYL TERT-
BUTYL ETHER
mg/kg
8260B
0.3
0.3 NENE
NE NE NE
IHI-1 IHI-1 IHI-2 IHI-3 IHI-4 IHI-5 FB-24 4'
4-6 8.5 4 4-6 5 10 4
8/15/2013 8/15/2013 8/16/2013 8/15/2013 8/16/2013 8/16/2013 09/14/2016
Method Analyte Units
Region 9
RSL
Residential
Soil
Region 9
RSL
Industrial
Soil Result Result Result Result Result Result Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q
8270C ANTHRACENE mg/kg 18000 230000 0.067 <0.041 <0.044 0.16 <0.04 0.52 <0.0531 0.0209 J <0.0456 0.0486 J <0.0462 <3.79 <6.78 <0.4 0.023 0.00547 J <0.000706 0.0455 0.0488 J 1.01 0.338 <0.000724 0.00579 J <0.000776 <0.000777 <0.000720 <0.000752
8270C ACENAPHTHENE mg/kg 3600 45000 0.024 <0.041 <0.044 0.055 <0,04 1.10 <0.0531 <0.0446 <0.0456 <0.0792 0.0216 J <3.79 <6.78 <0.4 <0.0375 0.00163 J <0.000706 0.0289 J 0.0106 J 4.42 0.968 <0.000724 0.0139 <0.000776 <0.000777 <0.000720 <0.000752
8270C ACENAPHTHYLENE mg/kg NE NE 0.033 <0.041 <0.044 <0.045 <0.04 0.32 <0.0531 <0.0446 <0.0456 <0.0792 <0.0462 <3.79 <6.78 <0.4 <0.0375 <0.000666 <0.000706 0.0258 J <0.00689 1.22 0.188 <0.000724 <0.000826 <0.000776 <0.000777 <0.000720 <0.000752
8270C BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE mg/kg 1.1 21 0.48 <0.041 <0.044 0.15 0.026 0.015 0.049 J 0.0629 <0.0456 0.157 <0.0462 0.598 J <6.78 0.0823 J 0.0754 0.0293 0.0027 J 0.0462 0.13 0.02 0.013 <0.000724 <0.000826 <0.000776 <0.000777 <0.000720 <0.000752
8270C BENZO(A)PYRENE mg/kg 0.11 2.1 0.48 <0.041 <0.044 0.19 0.024 <0.044 0.0497 J 0.0634 <0.0456 0.182 <0.0462 0.624 J <6.78 0.0822 J 0.0788 0.0351 0.00319 J 0.0223 J 0.127 0.00742 J 0.0126 <0.000724 <0.000826 <0.000776 <0.000777 <0.000720 <0.000752
8270C BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE mg/kg 1.1 21 0.53 <0.041 <0.044 0.20 0.036 <0.044 0.0498 J 0.071 <0.0456 0.199 <0.0462 <3.79 <6.78 0.0969 J 0.08 0.0405 0.00362 J 0.0327 0.131 0.0104 0.0145 <0.000724 <0.000826 <0.000776 <0.000777 <0.000720 <0.000752
8270C BENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE mg/kg NE NE 0.23 <0.041 <0.044 0.12 0.019 <0.044 0.0298 J 0.0478 <0.0456 0.132 <0.0462 <3.79 <6.78 0.114 J 0.0466 0.0228 0.00257 J 0.0285 J 0.0827 0.00762 J 0.00998 <0.000724 <0.000826 <0.000776 <0.000777 <0.000720 <0.000752
8270C BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE mg/kg 11 210 0.20 <0.041 <0.044 0.047 0.010 <0.044 0.0226 J 0.0227 J <0.0456 0.0616 J <0.0462 <3.79 <6.78 <0.4 0.0262 0.0113 0.00164 J 0.00763 J 0.0425 J 0.00365 J 0.00698 J <0.000724 <0.000826 <0.000776 <0.000777 <0.000720 <0.000752
8270C CHRYSENE mg/kg 110 2100 0.42 <0.041 <0.044 0.19 0.032 0.021 0.0572 0.0773 <0.0456 0.188 <0.0462 <3.79 <6.78 <0.4 0.0849 0.033 0.00326 J 0.0715 0.208 0.0301 0.0235 <0.000724 <0.000826 <0.000776 <0.000777 <0.000720 <0.000752
8270C DIBENZ(A,H)ANTHRACENE mg/kg 0.11 2.1 0.057 <0.041 <0.044 0.029 <0.04 <0.044 <0.0531 0.00996 J <0.0456 0.0271 J <0.0462 <3.79 <6.78 <0.4 0.0126 0.00634 J 0.000745 J 0.00492 J 0.0259 J 0.00162 J 0.00235 J <0.000724 <0.000826 <0.000776 <0.000777 <0.000720 <0.000752
8270C FLUORANTHENE mg/kg 2400 30000 0.54 <0.041 <0.044 0.37 0.035 0.032 0.0594 0.112 <0.0456 0.332 <0.0462 0.814 J <6.78 0.158 J 0.135 0.0442 0.00344 J 0.0872 0.116 0.0975 J 0.0434 <0.000724 <0.000826 <0.000776 <0.000777 <0.000720 <0.000752
8270C FLUORENE mg/kg 2400 30000 0.028 <0.041 <0.044 0.14 <0.04 0.94 <0.0531 0.0137 J <0.0456 0.0258 J 0.0189 J <3.79 <6.78 <0.4 0.0111 0.00206 J <0.000706 0.0384 0.0232 J 4.53 0.566 <0.000724 0.0181 <0.000776 <0.000777 <0.000720 <0.000752
8270C INDENO(1,2,3-CD)PYRENE mg/kg 1.1 21 0.20 <0.041 <0.044 0.093 <0.04 <0.044 0.0313 J 0.0368 J <0.0456 0.0976 <0.0462 <3.79 <6.78 0.0859 J 0.0414 0.0193 0.00206 J 0.0124 J 0.0414 J 0.00335 J 0.00605 J <0.000724 <0.000826 <0.000776 <0.000777 <0.000720 <0.000752
8270C NAPHTHALENE mg/kg 3.8 17 0.44 0.0099 0.0091 0.095 0.014 3.5 0.0186 J 0.0289 J 0.0613 0.0932 0.016 J <3.79 <6.78 0.386 J 0.0169 0.0086 J <0.00235 0.598 0.0353 J 12.3 0.0592 <0.00241 <0.00275 <0.00259 <0.00259 <0.00240 <0.00251
8270C PHENANTHRENE mg/kg NE NE 0.25 <0.041 <0.044 0.58 0.018 2.1 0.0212 J 0.0765 <0.0456 0.165 0.0356 J <3.79 <6.78 0.105 J 0.0739 0.0197 0.00125 J 0.346 0.129 9.18 1.09 <0.000724 0.0191 <0.000776 <0.000777 <0.000720 <0.000752
8270C PYRENE mg/kg 1800 23000 0.58 <0.041 <0.044 0.44 0.043 0.11 0.0748 0.129 <0.0456 0.325 <0.0462 <3.79 <6.78 0.187 J 0.162 0.0466 0.00385 J 0.122 0.18 0.399 0.126 <0.000724 <0.000826 <0.000776 <0.000777 <0.000720 <0.000752
8270C 1-METHYLNAPHTHALENE mg/kg 18 73 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.0117 J <0.00235 1.06 0.0728 J 77.1 2.27 <0.00241 <0.00275 <0.00259 <0.00259 <0.00240 <0.00251
8270C 2-CHLORONAPHTHALENEmg/kg 4800 60000 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.00222 <0.00235 <0.0108 <0.0230 <0.0546 <0.00265 <0.00241 <0.00275 <0.00259 <0.00259 <0.00240 <0.00251
8270C 2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE mg/kg 240 3000 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.0117 J <0.00235 1.2 0.0857 J 71.7 0.0149 J <0.00241 <0.00275 <0.00259 <0.00259 <0.00240 <0.00251
Qualifiers:J: The identification of the analyte is acceptable; the reported value is an estimate.
Notes:
Region 9 RSL Residential Soil 2017 NE - Not Established
Region 9 RSL Industrial Soil 2017 NA - Not Analyzed
Gray shaded values exceed the laboratory's minimum detection limits < not detected above method detection limits
Gold shaded values exceed the Residential Region 9 RSLs
Green shaded values exceed the Industrial Region 9 RSLs
1054.5 4.5 3.5 74.54.5 5 4.5 5 6 4
09/12/2016 09/12/201609/12/2016
5
TABLE 4 - SOIL ANALYTICAL RESULTS
POLY AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS (PAHs)
SALT LAKE CITY FLEET MANAGEMENT YARD
FB-3 4.5
09/12/2016 09/12/2016
FB-5 6
09/12/201609/12/2016
FB-16 5Client Sample ID FB-7 5FB-4 5FB-1 4.5 FB-2 5
Terracon Project Number 61167506
Depth
Date Collected
FB-6 4
09/12/2016
FB-37 @ 4.5'
8/31/2017 8/31/2017 8/31/2017 8/31/2017 8/31/2017
FB-38 @ 4.5' FB-39 @ 3.5' FB-40 @ 4.5' FB-41 @ 7' FB-42 @ 8'
8/31/2017
FB-43 @ 8' FB-44 @ 9.5' FB-45 @ 7'FB-46 @ 9'
8 8 9.5 7
FB-47 @ 9' FB-48 @ 10'
8/31/2017 8/31/2017 8/31/2017 8/31/2017 8/31/2017 8/31/2017
9 9
Method
Analyte
Units
Region 9 RSL Residential Soil 2017
Region 9 RSL Industrial Soil 2017
Client Sample ID Depth (ft)Date Collected Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q
IHI-7 5 8/16/2013 5.8 180 <0.33 14 2.0 <1.3 0.25 0.0092
IHI-8 8 8/16/2013 37 280 <0.35 44 17 <1.4 <0.70 0.02
IHI-9 8-10 10/4/2013 5.8 140 0.059 12 11 1.9 <0.64 0.013
IHI-10 2-4 10/4/2013 6.3 76 0.15 15 37 <1.1 <0.53 0.045
FB-19 5'5 09/13/2016 5.03 194 0.336 J 17.6 8.95 <2.69 <1.35 <0.0269
FB-20 4.5'4.5 09/13/2016 17.3 297 1.35 18.4 260 1.43 J 0.701 J 0.666
FB-8 5-6'5.0-6 09/14/2016 6.33 98 0.191 J 20 16.4 1.03 J <1.21 0.157
FB-35 @ 2'2 8/30/2017 NA NA NA NA 13.3 J3 J5 O1 NA NA NA
FB-36 @ 2'2 8/30/2017 NA NA NA NA 36.7 NA NA NA
Notes:
Region 9 RSL Residential Soil 2017 NE - Not Established
Region 9 RSL Industrial Soil 2017 NA - Not Analyzed
Gray shaded values exceed the laboratory's minimum detection limits < not detected above method detection limits
Gold shaded values exceed the Residential Region 9 RSLs mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram
Green shaded values exceed the Industrial Region 9 RSLs
TABLE 5 - SOIL ANALYTICAL RESULTS
METALS
Terracon Project Number 61167506
SALT LAKE CITY FLEET MANAGEMENT YARD
5800
CHROMIUM
800
6010B
71
6010B
400
mg/kg mg/kg
Qualifiers:J: The identification of the analyte is acceptable; the reported value is an estimate. J3: The associated batch QC was outside the established quality control range for precision.J5: The sample
matrix interfered with the ability to make any accurate determination; spike value is high
BARIUM LEAD
11
6010B
MERCURY
6010B 7471A
SILVER
6010B6010B
ARSENIC
220000 46
6010B
SELENIUMCADMIUM
15000
3
0.68
mg/kgmg/kg
NE
mg/kg
390
mg/kg
980
390
5800
mg/kg
NE
mg/kg
8260B
UT Initial Screening Levels
UT Tier 1 Screening Levels
Region 9 RSL MCL
Client
Sample ID
Date
Collected Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q
IHI-1GW 8/15/2013 NA NA NA 0.0012 <0.001 <0.001 <0.005 <0.005 <0.011 ND ND <0.001 <0.001 ND ND ND ND ND <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
IHI-2GW 8/16/2013 NA NA NA <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.005 <0.005 <0.003 ND ND <0.001 <0.001 ND ND ND ND ND <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
IHI-3GW 8/15/2013 NA NA NA <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.005 <0.005 <0.003 ND ND <0.001 <0.001 ND ND ND ND ND <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
IHI-4GW 8/16/2013 NA NA NA <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.005 <0.005 <0.003 ND ND <0.001 <0.001 ND ND ND ND ND <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
IHI-5GW 8/16/2013 NA NA NA <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.15 <0.005 <0.003 ND ND 0.0064 0.0036 ND ND ND ND ND 0.0026 0.0057 0.0033 0.0048
IHI-6GW 8/16/2013 NA NA NA <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.0061 <0.005 <0.003 ND ND <0.001 <0.001 ND ND ND ND ND <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
IHI-7GW 8/16/2013 NA 0.2 NA <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.005 <0.005 <0.003 ND ND <0.001 <0.001 ND ND ND ND ND <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
IHI-8GW 8/16/2013 NA 0.16 NA <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.005 <0.005 <0.003 ND ND <0.001 <0.001 ND ND ND ND ND <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
IHI-9 10/4/2013 NA 0.28 <0.50 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.005 <0.005 <0.003 ND ND <0.001 <0.001 ND ND ND ND ND <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
IHI-10 10/4/2013 NA 0.24 <0.50 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.005 <0.005 <0.003 ND ND <0.001 <0.001 ND ND ND ND ND <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
W-1 10/4/2013 NA 7.0 <0.50 0.00036 <0.001 <0.001 0.0018 <0.005 <0.003 ND ND <0.001 <0.001 ND ND ND ND ND <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
W-2 10/4/2013 NA 0.2 <0.50 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.005 <0.005 <0.003 ND ND <0.001 <0.001 ND ND ND ND ND <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
W-5 10/7/2013 NA 3.7 <0.50 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.005 <0.005 <0.003 ND ND <0.001 <0.001 ND ND ND ND ND <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
W-6 10/7/2013 NA 0.52 <0.50 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.005 0.0015 <0.003 ND ND <0.001 <0.001 ND ND ND ND ND <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
W-7 10/7/2013 NA 0.61 <0.50 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.005 <0.005 <0.003 ND ND <0.001 <0.001 ND ND ND ND ND <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
W-8 10/7/2013 NA 0.89 <0.50 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.005 <0.005 <0.003 ND ND <0.001 <0.001 ND ND ND ND ND <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
FB-1 GW 09/12/2016 NA 0.0508 <0.5 <0.001 <0.001 NA <0.005 <0.005 <0.003 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 J4 <0.005 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
FB-2 GW 09/12/2016 NA 0.0991 <0.5 <0.001 <0.001 NA <0.005 <0.005 <0.003 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 J4 <0.005 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
FB-3 GW 09/12/2016 NA 0.0978 <0.5 <0.001 <0.001 NA <0.005 <0.005 <0.003 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 J4 <0.005 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
FB-4 GW 09/12/2016 NA 0.137 <0.5 <0.001 <0.001 NA <0.005 <0.005 <0.003 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.000411 J <0.001 J4 <0.005 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
FB-5 GW 09/12/2016 NA 0.0506 <0.5 0.000416 J <0.001 NA <0.005 <0.005 <0.003 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 J4 <0.005 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
FB-6 GW 09/12/2016 <5.26 0.182 <0.5 <0.001 <0.001 NA <0.005 <0.005 <0.003 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 J4 <0.005 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
FB-7 GW 09/12/2016 <5.26 0.665 <0.5 <0.001 <0.001 NA <0.005 <0.005 <0.003 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 J4 <0.005 <0.001 <0.001 0.000541 J <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
FB-8 GW 09/14/2016 <5.26 <0.1 <0.5 <0.001 <0.001 NA <0.005 <0.005 <0.003 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.00102 J <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
FB-9 GW 09/13/2016 <5.26 0.074 0.202 <0.001 <0.001 NA <0.005 <0.005 <0.003 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.005 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.000453 J 0.0012 0.000413 J
FB-10 GW 09/13/2016 <5.26 0.141 0.213 0.00238 0.000461 J NA <0.005 0.0028 J 0.00127 J 0.00199 0.000567 J <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.00182 0.00331 J <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
FB-11 GW 09/14/2016 <5.26 <0.1 0.218 <0.001 <0.001 NA <0.005 <0.005 <0.003 0.00375 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.00179 0.00861 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
FB-12 GW 09/14/2016 <5.26 <0.1 0.197 <0.001 <0.001 NA 0.00122 J <0.005 <0.003 0.000653 J <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.00135 J <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
FB-13 GW 09/13/2016 <5.26 0.107 0.198 0.000636 J <0.001 NA <0.005 0.000794 J <0.003 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.005 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
FB-14 GW 09/13/2016 <5.26 0.0402 0.184 0.00092 J <0.001 NA <0.005 0.00112 J <0.003 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.005 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
FB-15 GW 09/14/2016 0.737 0.0784 0.208 <0.001 <0.001 NA 0.00745 <0.005 <0.003 0.000765 J <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.00224 J <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
FB-16 GW 09/12/2016 <5.26 0.273 <0.5 <0.001 <0.001 NA <0.005 <0.005 <0.003 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 J4 <0.005 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
FB-17 GW 09/13/2016 0.737 0.411 0.222 <0.001 <0.001 NA <0.005 <0.005 <0.003 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.000384 J <0.001 <0.005 0.00113 0.00307 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
FB-18 GW 09/13/2016 NA 0.819 0.2 <0.001 0.000418 J NA <0.005 <0.005 0.00161 J <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.000392 J <0.001 <0.001 <0.005 <0.001 <0.001 0.000666 J 0.000684 J <0.001 <0.001
FB-19 GW 09/13/2016 <5.26 0.286 0.163 <0.001 <0.001 NA <0.005 <0.005 <0.003 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.005 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
FB-20 GW 09/13/2016 <5.26 0.0687 0.199 <0.001 <0.001 NA <0.005 <0.005 <0.003 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.005 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
FB-21 GW 09/14/2016 NA 75.8 4.17 <0.01 <0.01 NA 0.521 <0.05 <0.03 NA NA <0.001 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
FB-22 GW 09/14/2016 NA 4.26 4.24 <0.02 <0.02 NA 2.28 <0.1 <0.06 NA NA <0.001 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
FB-23 GW 09/14/2016 <5.26 0.0375 0.34 0.000423 J <0.001 NA 0.00206 J <0.005 <0.003 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.005 <0.001 <0.001 0.000459 J 0.000611 J <0.001 <0.001
FB-24 GW 09/14/2016 NA 0.0594 0.22 0.000759 J <0.001 NA <0.005 <0.005 <0.003 0.0014 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.000498 J 0.00467 J <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
FB-26 GW 8/30/2017 NA 6.54 NA <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.0674 <0.001 <0.003 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
FB-27 GW 8/30/2017 NA 69.9 NA <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.0241 <0.001 0.00136 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
FB-28 GW 8/30/2017 NA 2.3 NA <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.0153 <0.001 <0.003 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
FB-29 GW 8/30/2017 NA 349 NA <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.281 <0.005 <0.015 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
FB-30 GW 8/30/2017 NA 2.2 NA <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.005 <0.001 <0.003 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Notes:
Region 9 RSL water 2017 NE - Not Established
NA - Not Analyzed
Gray shaded values exceed the laboratory's minimum detection limits < not detected above method detection limits
Gold shaded values exceed the Residential Region 9 RSLs mg/L - milligrams per Liter
Green shaded values exceed the Industrial Region 9 RSLs
Blue shaded values exceed UT Initial Screening Levels
Orange shaded values exceed UT Tier 1 Screening Levels
8260B
TPH - GRO
Method
SEC-BUTYL
BENZENE
mg/l
1,2,4-
TRIMETHYL
BENZENE
8260B8260B
mg/l mg/l
8260B
1,2-DICHLORO
BENZENETOLUENE
CHLORO
BENZENEBROMOFORMBENZENE
8260B
BROMO
DICHLORO
METHANE
N-BUTYL
BENZENE
8260B
mg/l
8260B
mg/l
8260B
NE
mg/l mg/l
1,4-
DICHLORO
BENZENE
mg/l
8260B
CHLORO
DIBROMO
METHANE
0.005
8260B
mg/l
N-PROPYL
BENZENE
1,2,3-
TRIMETHYL
BENZENENAPHTHALENE
ETHYL
BENZENE
8260B
mg/l
10
mg/lmg/l
XYLENES,
TOTAL
NE NE
mg/l
TABLE 6 - GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS AND VOLATILE ORGANIC HYDROCARBONS (VOCS)
SALT LAKE CITY FLEET MANAGEMENT YARD
Terracon Project Number 61167506
0.7 0.08 NE
8260B8260B
mg/l mg/l
8260B
NE NENE
mg/l
NE
ISOPROPYL
BENZENE
NE
mg/l mg/l mg/l
CHLORO
FORM
8260B 8260B8260B
mg/l mg/l
8260B
NE NE NE
NE
NE
0.7 1 10
NE 1
NE NE NE NENENENENENE
NE NE NE NENENENENENENENE
NENE
0.1
NE
0.080.08 0.6
0.2
0.2
NE
0.005 0.7
0.3 4
TPH - OIL &
GREASE TPH - DRO
Region 9 RSL water 2017
0.7 3 10
1
10
1
10
Analyte
Units
Qualifiers:J: The identification of the analyte is acceptable; the reported value is an estimate.J4: The associated batch QC was outside the established quality control range for accuracy.
10
10
1664 8015 8260B
METHYL TERT-
BUTYL ETHER
mg/l
Region 9 RSL MCL
Client Sample ID
Date
Collected Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q
Method
FB-1 GW 09/12/2016 0.000115 B J <0.00025 <0.00005 0.0000127 J <0.00005 <0.00005 <0.00005 <0.00005 0.00000281 B J <0.00005 <0.00005 <0.00005 <0.00005 0.0000232 B J <0.00005 0.0000829 B J 0.0000313 B J 0.0000179 B J 0.0000657 B J
FB-2 GW 09/12/2016 0.000152 B J <0.00025 0.0000184 J 0.000021 J <0.00005 <0.00005 <0.00005 <0.00005 0.00000287 B J <0.00005 <0.00005 <0.00005 <0.00005 0.0000237 B J <0.00005 0.000082 B J 0.0000246 B J 0.0000149 B J 0.0000918 B J
FB-3 GW 09/12/2016 0.000151 B J <0.000285 0.0000376 J 0.0000353 J <0.000057 0.0000221 J <0.000057 0.00000934 B J 0.00000713 B J <0.000057 0.0000141 J <0.000057 0.0000294 J 0.0000419 B J <0.000057 0.0000996 B J 0.0000879 B 0.0000521 B J 0.000175 B J
FB-4 GW 09/12/2016 0.000105 B J <0.00025 0.0000247 J 0.0000175 J <0.00005 <0.00005 <0.00005 <0.00005 0.00000279 B J <0.00005 <0.00005 <0.00005 <0.00005 0.0000183 B J <0.00005 0.0000769 B J 0.0000255 B J 0.0000211 B J 0.0000617 B J
FB-5 GW 09/12/2016 0.000138 B J <0.00025 0.0000207 J 0.0000312 J <0.00005 <0.00005 <0.00005 0.00000281 B J 0.00000274 B J <0.00005 <0.00005 <0.00005 <0.00005 0.0000307 B J <0.00005 0.0000717 B J 0.000038 B J 0.0000164 B J 0.00013 B J
FB-6 GW 09/12/2016 0.0000954 B J <0.00025 0.0000227 J 0.0000134 J <0.00005 <0.00005 <0.00005 <0.00005 0.00000271 B J <0.00005 <0.00005 <0.00005 <0.00005 0.0000357 B J <0.00005 0.000065 B J 0.0000896 B 0.0000153 B J 0.0000534 B J
FB-7 GW 09/12/2016 0.000106 B J <0.00025 0.0000225 J 0.000891 <0.00005 <0.00005 <0.00005 <0.00005 <0.00005 <0.00005 <0.00005 <0.00005 <0.00005 0.0000849 B <0.00005 0.000555 B 0.0000331 B J 0.0000147 B J 0.000101 B J
FB-24 GW 09/14/2016 0.000323 B <0.00025 0.0000159 J 0.0000675 <0.00005 0.0000167 J 0.0000132 J 0.0000165 B J 0.0000182 B J <0.00005 <0.00005 0.00000616 B J 0.0000194 J 0.0000597 B <0.00005 0.000673 0.0000632 B 0.000025 J 0.000443
Method
IHI-1 10/4/2013 NA NA <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 NA <0.001 <0.001 NA <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 NA
IHI-2 10/4/2013 NA NA <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 NA <0.001 <0.001 NA <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 NA
IHI-3 10/4/2013 NA NA <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 NA <0.001 <0.001 NA <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 NA
IHI-4 10/4/2013 NA NA <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 NA <0.001 <0.001 NA <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 NA
IHI-5 10/4/2013 NA NA <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 NA <0.001 <0.001 NA 0.00052 <0.001 <0.001 NA
IHI-6 10/4/2013 NA NA <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 NA <0.001 <0.001 NA <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 NA
W-1 10/4/2013 NA NA <0.001 0.0016 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 NA <0.001 <0.001 NA 0.0028 <0.001 <0.001 NA
W-2 10/4/2013 NA NA <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 NA <0.001 <0.001 NA <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 NA
W-5 10/7/2013 NA NA <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 NA <0.001 <0.001 NA <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 NA
W-6 10/7/2013 NA NA <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 NA <0.001 <0.001 NA <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 NA
W-7 10/7/2013 NA NA <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 NA <0.001 <0.001 NA <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 NA
W-8 10/7/2013 NA NA <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 NA <0.001 <0.001 NA <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 NA
Notes
EPA Region 9 Maximum Contaminant Level 2017 NE - Not Established
Gray shaded values exceed the laboratory's minimum detection limits NA - Not Analyzed
Blue shaded values exceed the EPA Region 9 MCL < not detected above method detection limits
mg/L - milligrams per Liter
Qualifiers:B: The same analyte is found in the associated blank.J: The identification of the analyte is acceptable; the reported value is an estimate.
82708270827082708270 82708270827082708270
8270C-SIM 8270C-SIM 8270C-SIM8270C-SIM 8270C-SIM 8270C-SIM 8270C-SIM 8270C-SIM8270C-SIM 8270C-SIM 8270C-SIM 8270C-SIM 8270C-SIM
8270
8270C-SIM 8270C-SIM 8270C-SIM 8270C-SIM
TABLE 7 - GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS (PAHS)
SALT LAKE CITY FLEET MANAGEMENT YARD
Terracon Project Number 61167506
ACENAPHTHENE
8270C-SIM
NE
BENZO(A)
PYRENE
2-METHYL
NAPHTHALENE CHRYSENE
0.0002
2-
CHLORONAP
HTHALENE
mg/l
BENZO(G,H,I)
PERYLENEANTHRA CENE
BENZO(K)FLUO
RANTHENE FLUORENE
827082708270
NE
mg/l
PHENANTHRENE
mg/l
NE
ACENAPHTHYL
ENE
mg/l
NE
mg/l
1-
METHYLNAPHT
HALENE
NENE
mg/l
NE NE
8270C-SIM
mg/l
NE NE
BENZO(A)
ANTHRACENE
DIBENZ(A,H)AN
THRACENE
NE
mg/l
NENE NENE
mg/l mg/l
82708270827082708270
INDENO(1,2,3-
CD)PYRENE
FLUORANTHEN
E
BENZO(B)FLUO
RANTHENE
mg/lmg/l
PYRENE
mg/lmg/l mg/l mg/lUnits
Analyte NAPHTHALENE
NENE
mg/l mg/lmg/l
NE
Client Sample IDDate Collected Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q
FB-19 GW 09/13/2016 0.0466 J 2.2 <0.01 <0.05 0.0238 J <0.05 <0.025 <0.0002
FB-20 GW 09/13/2016 0.0127 0.11 <0.002 0.00481 B J 0.0101 <0.01 <0.005 <0.0002
IHI-7GW 8/16/2013 0.26 0.36 <0.005 0.0028 0.0078 <0.02 <0.01 <0.002
IHI-8GW 8/16/2013 0.017 0.11 <0.005 <0.01 0.0025 <0.02 <0.01 <0.002
W-1 10/4/2013 0.011 1.2 <0.005 <0.01 0.0019 <0.02 <0.01 <0.0002
W-2 10/4/2013 0.1 0.16 <0.005 <0.01 0.004 0.011 <0.01 <0.0002
W-5 10/7/2013 0.0076 1.9 <0.005 <0.01 0.011 0.024 <0.01 <0.0002
W-6 10/7/2013 0.054 0.12 <0.005 <0.01 <0.005 <0.02 <0.01 <0.0002
W-7 10/7/2013 0.16 0.15 <0.005 <0.01 <0.005 <0.02 <0.01 <0.0002
W-8 10/7/2013 <0.044 0.76 <0.005 <0.01 0.0056 0.014 <0.01 <0.0002
IHI-9 10/4/2013 0.12 0.13 <0.005 <0.01 0.0021 0.014 <0.01 <0.0002
IHI-10 10/4/2013 0.039 0.17 <0.005 0.0014 0.0071 0.016 <0.01 <0.0002
Notes:EPA Region 9 RSL Maximum Contaminant Level 2017
Gray shaded values exceed the laboratory's minimum detection limits mg/l - milligrams per liter
Blue shaded values exceed the MCLs < less than laboratory method detection limit.
Gold shaded values exceed the Utah Groundwater Quality Standards
Method
Analyte
Units
Region 9 MCL
Utah Groundwater Quality Standards
Qualifiers:B: The same analyte is found in the associated blank.J: The identification of the analyte is acceptable; the reported value is an estimate.
ARSENIC
0.005
mg/lmg/lmg/l
MERCURY
mg/lmg/l
SELENIUM
0.01
0.015
6010B
LEAD
mg/l
0.05
0.015
mg/l
2.0
2.0 0.1
0.10.05 0.1
CHROMIUM
0.002
0.0020.005
BARIUM
0.05
6010B
CADMIUM
6010B6010B6010B
TABLE 8 - GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
METALS
SALT LAKE CITY FLEET MANAGEMENT YARD
Terracon Project Number 61167506
6010B
mg/l
6010B 7470A
SILVER
34

Appendix 2

Draft Brownfields Environmental Assessment Report
Salt Lake City Public Services Department
Fleet Management Yard
325 West 800 South, Salt Lake City,
(MSE, 2005)