DSHW-2024-005868

WASATCH
ENVIRONMENTAL
Mr. Douglas J . Hansen
Director
Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control
P.O. Box 144880
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4880
SUBJECT: Request for Comfort Letter
Grantsville Soil Conservation Property
Along UT-112
Grantsville, Utah 84029
April 16, 2024
Project No.: 2649-004A
On behalf of Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration and its assigns, we are submitting
this letter to the Utah Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control ("Division") concerning the
proposed acquisition of the Grantsville Soil Conservation Property, a 787.78-acre area located south of
State Route UT-112 in Grantsville, Utah (see attached Figures 1 through 8). The property is currently
owned by Grantsville Soil Conservation and has historically been used for cattle grazing.
Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration has entered into a land swap agreement with
Grantsville Soil Conservation to acquire the subject property, referred to above as the Property, which is
scheduled to close in July 2024. In connection with the proposed acquisition, Utah School and
Institutional Trust Lands Administration seeks a comfort letter for the Property from the Division . The
information provided in this letter is based on a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment report ("Phase I
report") prepared by Wasatch Environmental , Inc., (Wasatch) dated August 9 , 2023, and a Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment Update prepared by Wasatch dated March 28, 2024, both prepared on
behalf of Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration . Copies of both reports are included as
Attachment 1.
BACKGROUND
Our research indicates the Property has been used for cattle grazing since at least 1938. The Property
consists of 787.78 acres of land used for grazing with a parking lot for the Deseret Peak Complex on the
southeast corner. The Property is developed two dilapidated grazing-related structures, four former stock
water ponds, and a horse corral. Additionally, several monitoring wells are present.
The Tooele Army Depot (TEAD) is located adjoining south of the Property . TEAD was constructed in
1942 and was a major munitions storage and equipment maintenance facility for the United States Army.
Agency files document that activities at TEAD consisted of repair and maintenance of tactical-wheeled
vehicles and power generation equipment, and the storage, maintenance, issuance, and disposal of
conventional munitions. Since 1998, the major task at TEAD has been the storage and demilitarization of
conventional ammunition.
Numerous releases of hazardous substances and petroleum products have been identified at the TEAD
site. A chlorinated solvent groundwater plume (Solid Waste Management Unit [SWMU] 2) extends
beneath the southern portion of the Property, its source being releases from a prior industrial waste
lagoon (IWL) on the TEAD property. The IWL was an unlined evaporation pond into which an average of
more than 125,000 gallons of industrial wastewater and stormwater were discharged daily. The IWL
received wastewater generated by the boiler plant, metals parts cleaning, degreasing, steam cleaning
operations, and dynamometer test cells from 1965 until 1988. In 1983, the Army initiated investigations of
elevated volatile organic compound (VOC) concentrations in groundwater in the area of the IWL. In 1985,
TEAD entered into a Consent Decree with the State of Utah which mandated, among other things, an
2410 WEST CALIFORNIA AVENUE• SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84104
PHONE [phone] • FAX [phone]
Website : www.wasatch-environmental.com • e-Mail: [e-mail]
expansion of the groundwater quality assessment at the IWL. Under the terms of the Consent Decree
(1986), the IWL and associated ditches were closed in November 1988.
Subsequent investigations were performed to evaluate the extent, magnitude, and transport rate of
hazardous constituents present in the groundwater. Several hazardous compounds were identified, but
trichloroethylene (TCE) was identified as the primary contaminant of concern. Quarterly groundwater
monitoring was performed until issuance of a Post-Closure Permit in January of 1991. In 1994, the Army
received a document that reported groundwater contamination in a production well on a property
northeast of TEAD. The Army subsequently installed and sampled a number of groundwater monitoring
wells off-site which were identified as C-series wells. Three of these wells (C-02, C-03, and C-04) were
installed on the Property. Other groundwater monitoring wells located on the Property are identified as B-
37 through B-40, B-44 through B-50, P-32 through 35, P-37, and P-38. The B and P-Series wells on the
Property were installed prior to 1994.
The most recent groundwater monitoring data available (November 28, 2023), documents that
groundwater at the Property is between 120 and 170 feet deep. Groundwater monitoring wells on the
Property that are routinely sampled are B-40, B-42, C-03, and C-04. TCE concentrations on the Property
in 2023 ranged between 0.110 micrograms per liter (µg/L) in C-04 and 15 µg/L in B-40. The TEAD Post-
Closure Permit groundwater concentration limits for TCE is 5 µg/L. In 2004, TEAD developed an interim
Groundwater Management Area (GWMA) Plan for the plume. After additional investigation activities, the
GWMA was finalized in 2010, and in 2022 the plan was updated. The majority of the subject property lies
within the GWMA. The GWMA sets forth water development restrictions and various restrictions for
domestic well use. The Property stock water well (2367) is located within the GWMA, but is outside the
plume. The Army states in the 2022 GWMA Update report that the Property stock water well is
approximately 0.4 miles downgradient of the main plume; therefore, "the likelihood of contamination
reaching this well in the near term is low." Well records document that water from the stock water well is
only used in the winter and at other times municipal water is used on the subject property. The TCE
plume is monitored and managed by the Army with regulatory oversite from the Division, and GWMA
restrictions.
SITE DETAILS
1. Description and Location of the Property. Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands
Administration is acquiring the Property which consists of 787.78 acres located south of State Route UT-
112 in Grantsville, Utah. According to information obtained from the Tooele Lake County Assessor's
office, the Property is further identified as parcel numbers: 01-130-0018, 01-131-0-0001, 01-131-0-0003,
and 14-042-0-0005. The legal descriptions for the Property are included as Attachment 2.
2. Current Ownership of the Property. The Property is currently owned by Grantsville Soil
Conservation. Copies of the recorded deeds are included as Attachment 3. A copy of the March 7, 2024,
Title Report for the Property is included as Attachment 4.
3. Contact Information. The contact for Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands
Administration:
Eric Baim
102 South 200 East, #600
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
4. Owner Status. Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration is not a
"permittee" under any "operation plan" affecting the Property.
5. Certification Regarding Compliance. Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands
Administration certifies that it has not violated any provision of the Solid and Hazardous Waste Act, Utah
Code Ann. § 19-6-101 et seq., or other environmental statute with respect to the Property.
Wasatch Environmental Inc.
Page2
6. Certification Regarding Affiliation. Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands
Administration certifies that (a) none of its affiliates or agents has violated any provision of the Solid and
Hazardous Waste Act, Utah Code Ann. §19-6-101 et seq., or any other environmental statute with
respect to the Property; (b) it is not potentially liable or affiliated with any other person that is potentially
liable, for response costs at the Property through: (i) any direct or indirect familial relationship; or (ii) any
contractual, corporate, or financial relationship (other than contractual, corporate, or financial relationship
that is created by the instruments by which title to the Property is conveyed or financed or by a contract
for the sale of goods or services); or (iii) the result of a reorganization of a business entity that was
potentially liable.
7. Certification Regarding Contamination. Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands
Administration certifies that it did not cause any environmental contamination on the Property. Utah
School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration further certifies that none of its affiliates or agents
caused any environmental contamination on the Property.
8. Use of the Property. The Property has been used for cattle grazing since at least 1938.
Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration plans to purchase the Property and continue
using the Property for cattle grazing in the short term, with future uses as a solar farm and potential
commercial/industrial development. The planned use for the Property will be consistent with the
environmental laws, regulations, covenants and related obligations applicable to the Property.
9. Compliance with Existing and Future Access Requirements and Activity and Land Use
Restrictions. Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration agrees to comply with all
applicable access requirements or institutional controls set forth in the 2022 GWMA Update report
included in Attachment 1 and Title Report included as Attachment 4 which outlines environmental
easements which are presented as Attachment 5.
10. Appropriate Care. Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration agrees to
exercise appropriate care with respect to hazardous substances or hazardous materials found or
suspected at the Property and in particular, what reasonable steps Utah School and Institutional Trust
Lands Administration determines are necessary to: (a) stop any continuing release originating from the
Property; (b) prevent any threatened future release originating from the Property; and (c) prevent or limit
human, environmental, or natural resource exposure to any previously related hazardous substance or
hazardous material in compliance with the GWMA Updated report.
11. Legally Required Notices. Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration
agrees to provide all legally required notices with respect to discovery or release of any hazardous
substances or hazardous materials originating from the Property.
12. Bonafide Prospective Purchaser. Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands
Administration has made all appropriate inquiries into the previous ownership and uses of the Property
pursuant to 40 CFR Part 312 and qualifies as a bonafide prospective purchaser under 42 USC
§ 9601(40).
13. Request for Comfort Letter. Based on the foregoing, Utah School and Institutional Trust
Lands Administration requests a "comfort letter'' stating that the Director does not contemplate requiring
Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration to obtain a permit under the Utah Solid and
Hazardous Waste Act or taking an enforcement action against Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands
Administration for contamination that existed or for violations of the Utah Solid and Hazardous Waste Act
that occurred before Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration acquires or acquired an
interest in the Property.
We would greatly appreciate your attention to this matter at your earliest convenience as the transaction
is scheduled to close in July 2024. Thank you for your time and attention. Please feel free to contact us
if you have any questions.
Wasatch Environmental Inc.
Page3
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
WASATCH ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
~~
Rebecca Studenka
Project Geologist
cc : Paige Walton (with enclosures)
Eric Baim (with enclosures)
~ ~~,7 d tk /~I/" -~
( ~~~~ Kilgore, President
Senior Environmental Manager
Wasatch Environmental Inc.
Page4
Figures
GRANTSVILLE SOIL CONSERVATION PROPERTY WEI 2649-004A
Sky di ve U ah q
A Mavenk Adventure '$ Marshal l
@) Y Firs. stop
nclerson Farms ft
by Richmond .. T ft And e son Ranch
T Grantsvill e, u ah
Approximate
Location of
Subject Property
A.WASATCH ..-= ENVIRONMENTA L
Purpl e Ma r ess
Fa ctory -Gra nt svtll e
Q
(ill)
Des eret ,a k Co mp le x 9 T ·
oo ele Gymnast .N Acad e
I!
Vicinity Map Figure 1
The use or reuse of this information is restricted to the referenced document unless otherwise authorized .
Wasatch Environmental Copyright 2006
A.WASATCH ..-= ENVIRONMENTAL
GRANTSVILLE SOIL CONSERVATION PROPERTY WEI 2649-004A
1u -11 ao -o~01L2
1-131-0-0003
• I
;:-ei
M
>'":"
F..--
~
,m
OJ e,
,.;,. " I
w ~
'"7'
I :s
01-131-0-0001
Approximate
Location of
Subject Property
Parcel Map Figure 2
The use or reuse of this information is restricted to the referenced document unless otherwise authorized .
Wasatch Environmental Copyright 2006
GRANTSVILLE SOIL CONSERVATION PROPERTY WEI 2649-004A
lf'2.ffe,W®lnl llll®
ffe,~~ll'@lZ Ol)j]jj ~fr@
IL@@~fro@llil@ll
~(ll][Q)j@©~ ~ll'@~@iruw -
\ Groundwater Flow Direction (Inferred)
.A.WASATCH ..-= ENVIRONMENTAL
®~®
0 . !Luu))
C
. . . ~mi rn@J
~(R/A]~@ll'®~~oo ~~@.'., ~-. i I
-I
@@~Ii'~~@ &il@\@~~mii/ I
«@~~ @J•~ l~l r -
'
2023 Aerial Photograph Figure 3
e use or reuse o t 1s m orma 10n 1s restncte tot e re erence ocument un ess ot erw1se aut onze .
Wasatch Environmental Copyright 2006
291
A.WASATCH ..-= ENVIRONMENTAL
GRANTSVILLE SOIL CONSERVATION PROPERTY WEI 2649-004A
Approximate
Location of
Subject Property \ ~
35
\_
~
\
,.,.,.
\
\ \
\ •. I
··--'-
....,,_
opograp 1c ap, apte rom . . eological Survey Figure 4 Grantsville/Tooele, Utah 7 .5 Minute Quad ran le
The use or reuse of this information is restricted to the referenced document unless otherwise authorized .
Wasatch Environmental Copyright 2006
Monitoring well locations depicted on Figure 6
GRANTSVILLE SOIL CONSERVATION PROPERTY WEI 2649-004.
~[l)J[l)Jli'@X(□IITiil®~®
IL@©@~□@lnl@!i
~llll@j®~ !Plii'@[l)J®lru1f
~
@11-il©l
--WASATCH
.. ENVUI..ONMENTAL
Site Visit Map/Detailed Site Map I Figure 5
The use or reuse of this information is restricted to the referenced document unless otherwise authorized .
Wasatch Environmental Copyright 2006
--WASATCH
.. ENVUI..ONMENTAL
GRANTSVILLE SOIL CONSERVATION PROPERTY WEI 2649-004.
ffe,~~ll'@lZ □iimicfilU@
IL@@cfilU □@ITTl@lf
~Mibl]@@U iPll'@~@~
Monitoring Well Location Map
♦·i
Figure 6
The use or reuse of this information is restricted to the referenced document unless otherwise authorized .
Wasatch Environmental Copyright 2006
"NS" were scheduled for sampling but could not be sampled
levels.
I1ow unless labelled as ·oeep Well.·
,dary was updated using results from lhe 2021 annual event.
·ells with an asterisk (') were not used for development of lhe
,tourn are from lhe 2021 annual monnoring report and were
results from the 2021 semi-annual and 2019 annual events.
,urposes only. All locations are approximate.
ing ESRI ArcMapv . 10.7.
otes
~
result is an estimated value.
;sample result / field duplicate result
: Esri , DignalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographi es,
, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID , IGN , and lhe GIS User Communny
3 National Geographic Society, i-cubed
A-WASATCH
.. ENVUI..ONMENTAL
GRANTSVILLE SOIL CONSERVATION PROPERTY WEI 2649-004,
2022 ANNUAL GROUNDWATER MONITORING
REPORT
TOOELE ARMY DEPOT, UTAH
SWMU-58 TCE CONCENTRATIONS IN
GROUNDWATER-2021ANNUALEVENT
oo•I• v
Legend
S Monitoring Well (TCE Concentration in µg/L)
S Monitoring Well (Not Sampled)
c:::J 2021 Shallow TCE lsoconcentration Contour (5 µg/L)
::_ 2021 Shallow TCE lsoconcentration Contour (50 µg /L)
c:::J 2021 Shallow TCE lsoconcentration Contour (100 µg /L)
~ _-_-_"j Previous Shallow TCE lsoconcentration Contour (5 µg/L)
----Previous Shallow TCE lsoconcentration Contour (50 µg /L)
~ _-_-_I Previous Shallow TCE lsoconcentration Contour (100 µg/L)
-Old Industrial Waste Lagoon
~ Former Sanfary Landfill
-Industrial Waste Lagoon
•111111111 Inferred Fault Location r:.:.-:: Tooele Anmy Depot North Boundary
c::::J BRAG Pa rcel
WGS8', UTM ZONE 12 N, METE N
HOR/ZONAL DATUM: WGS 19841 VERTICAL •
3,000 1,500 0
SCALE IN FEET
PROJECTNo.: I DATE: I~----
770108 10/11 /202
DRAWN
TEAD TCE Plume Boundary Figure 7
The use or reuse of this information is restricted to the referenced document unless otherwise authorized .
Wasatch Environmental Copyright 2006
ffe,[lll[lllll'@lI□llilil®U@
IL@@®U□@il11 @\r
~Mihlj@@U iPll'@[lll®lruW
ili E~ll>]~
--WASATCH
.. ENVUI..ONMENTAL
GRANTSVILLE SOIL CONSERVATION PROPERTY WEI 2649-004.
.... , .. .. ,
\
\
\
\
\
\
~
\
•·
GWMA Boundary Figure 8
The use or reuse of this information is restricted to the referenced document unless otherwise authorized .
Wasatch Environmental Copyright 2006
Attachment 1
Prior Phase I ESAs
WASATCH ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
GRANTSVILLE SOIL CONSERVATION
PROPERTY
UT-112
GRANTSVILLE, UTAH 84029
Project No. 2649-004
Prepared for:
Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands
Administration
Eric Baim
102 South 200 East, # 600
Salt Lake City, Utah, 84111
August 9, 2023
Prepared by:
Wasatch Environmental, Inc.
2410 West California Avenue
Salt Lake City, Utah 84104
2410 WEST CALIFORNIA AVENUE
SALTLAKECITY, UTAH84104
PHONE [phone]
FAX [phone]
e-mail: [e-mail]
www.wasatch-environmenta/.com
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Grantsville Soil Conservation Property
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page No.
1. SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................................................... 1
2. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 2
2.1 Detailed Scope of Work ...................................................................................................... 2
2.2 Limitations and Exceptions of Assessment ........................................................................ 2
2.3 Continued Viability of Environmental Site Assessments .................................................... 3
2.4 Reliance .............................................................................................................................. 3
3. PRIOR REPORTS ........................................................................................................................................... 3
4. SITE DESCRIPTION ....................................................................................................................................... 3
4.1 Location ............................................................................................................................... 3
4.2 Site and Vicinity General Characteristics ............................................................................ 3
4.3 Current Uses of the Subject Property ................................................................................. 3
4.4 Description of Structures, Roads, Other Improvements on the Site ................................... 3
4.5 Current Uses of Adjoining Properties .................................................................................. 4
5. USER PROVIDED INFORMATION ................................................................................................................. 4
5.1 Environmental Liens and Activity/Use Limitations .............................................................. 4
5.2 Specialized Knowledge or Experience ................................................................................ 4
5.3 Valuation Reduction for Environmental Issues ................................................................... 5
5.4 Commonly Known or Reasonably Ascertainable Information ............................................ 5
5.5 Degree of Obviousness ...................................................................................................... 5
6. RECORDS REVIEW ........................................................................................................................................ 5
6.1 Historical Use Information ................................................................................................... 5
6.1.1 Subject Property ..................................................................................................... 6
6.1.2 Adjoining Properties (to the extent identified) ......................................................... 6
6.2 Physical Setting Source(s) .................................................................................................. 7
6.3 Standard and Supplemental Environmental Record Sources, Federal and State ............. 7
6.3.1 Subject Property ..................................................................................................... 7
6.3.2 Adjoining Properties ................................................................................................ 7
6.3.3 Other Government Database Listings .................................................................... 8
6.4 Interviews with State and/or Local Government Officials ................................................... 8
7. SITE RECONNAISSANCE .............................................................................................................................. 8
7.1 Methodology and Limiting Conditions ................................................................................. 9
7 .2 General Observations ......................................................................................................... 9
7.2.1 Underground Storage Tanks .................................................................................. 9
7.2.2 Aboveground Storage Tanks .................................................................................. 9
7.2.3 Drums or Containers ............................................................................................... 9
7.2.4 Odors ...................................................................................................................... 9
7.2.5 Pools of Liquid ........................................................................................................ 9
7.2.6 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) .......................................................................... 9
7.2.7 Pits, Ponds, or Lagoons ......................................................................................... 9
7.2.8 Stained Soil or Pavement ..................................................................................... 10
7.2.9 Stressed Vegetation ............................................................................................. 10
7.2.10 Solid Waste ........................................................................................................... 10
7 .2. 11 Wastewater ........................................................................................................... 10
7.2.12 Wells ..................................................................................................................... 10
8. INTERVIEWS ................................................................................................................................................ 10
8.1 Key Site Manager .............................................................................................................. 10
8.2 Occupant Interview ........................................................................................................... 10
9. SCOPE LIMITING CONDITIONS/DEVIATIONS ............................................................................................ 10
10. FINDINGS AND OPINIONS ........................................................................................................................... 11
10.1 De Mini mis Conditions ...................................................................................................... 11
Wasatch Environmental, Inc. Table of Contents
Pagei
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Grantsville Soil Conservation Property
10.2 Historical Recognized Environmental Conditions ............................................................. 11
10.3 Controlled Recognized Environmental Conditions ........................................................... 11
10.4 Recognized Environmental Conditions ............................................................................. 11
10.5 Significant Data Gaps ....................................................................................................... 12
11. CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................................ 12
APPENDICES
Appendix A -Maps and Figures
Figure 1 -Vicinity Map
Figure 2 -Parcel Map
Figure 3 -2022 Aerial Photograph
Figure 4-1955 Topographic Map
Figure 5 -Detailed Site Map
Figure 6 -Monitoring Well Location Map
Figure 7 -TEAD TCE Plume Boundary
Figure 8 - GWMA Boundary
Appendix B -Site Photographs
Appendix C -User Questionnaire
Appendix D -Historical Aerial Photographs
Appendix E -Government Database Information
Appendix F -TEAD Regulatory Documentation
Appendix G -Well Records
Appendix H -Environmental Professional Qualifications
Wasatch Environmental, Inc. Table of Contents
Page ii
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Grantsville Soil Conservation Property
1. SUMMARY
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
GRANTSVILLE SOIL CONSERVATION PROPERTY
UT-112
GRANTSVILLE, UTAH 84029
We have conducted a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of the Grantsville Soil Conservation
Property located along UT-112 in Grantsville, Utah . This assessment has been conducted at the request
of Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA). It is our understanding that this
transaction is a land exchange between SITLA and the Grantsville Soil Conservation District. The
purpose of this Phase I Environmental Site Assessment is to identify, to the extent feasible pursuant to
the processes described in ASTM E 1527-21, recognized environmental conditions 1 in connection with the
subject property.
The subject property consists of 787 .78 acres of primarily grazing land with a parking lot for the Deseret
Peak Complex, a Tooele County recreational complex, on the southeast corner. Our research indicates
the subject property has been used for cattle grazing since at least 1938. At the time of our site visit we
observed several groundwater monitoring wells (discussed further below), four former stock water ponds,
a horse corral, two generator trailers, and two tank trailers on the subject property. A stock water
groundwater well is also located on the subject property . We observed an unlabeled plastic drum on the
southwestern portion of the subject property. Shallow oily staining was observed on the soil around the
drum. Given that the staining is shallow, it is our opinion that the staining would be considered a de
minimis condition.
Tooele Army Depot (TEAD), adjoining south, was identified on the National Priority List database.
Agency files document that TEAD was constructed in 1942 and was a major munitions storage and
equipment maintenance facility for the United States Army. Activities at TEAD consisted of repair and
maintenance of tactical-wheeled vehicles and power generation equipment, and the storage,
maintenance , issuance, and disposal of conventional munitions. Since 1998, the major task at TEAD has
been the storage and demilitarization of conventional ammunition.
Numerous releases of hazardous substances and petroleum products have been identified at the TEAD
site. A chlorinated solvent groundwater plume (Solid Waste Management Unit [SWMU] 2) extends
beneath the southern portion of the subject property, its source being releases from a prior industrial
waste lagoon (IWL) on the TEAD property. In 1983, the Army initiated investigations of elevated volatile
organic compound (VOC) concentrations in groundwater in the area of the IWL. In 1985, TEAD entered
into a Consent Decree with the State of Utah which mandated, among other things, an expansion of the
groundwater quality assessment at the IWL. Under the terms of the Consent Decree, the IWL and
associated ditches were closed in November 1988.
Subsequent investigations were performed to evaluate the extent, magnitude, and transport rate of
hazardous constituents present in the groundwater. Several hazardous compounds were identified , but
trichloroethylene (TCE) was identified as the primary contaminant of concern . Quarterly groundwater
monitoring was performed until issuance of a Post-Closure Permit in January of 1991. By that time
numerous groundwater monitoring wells had been installed on the subject property. In 1994, the Army
installed and sampled additional groundwater monitoring wells on the subject property. The most recent
groundwater monitoring data available (2022), documents that groundwater at the subject property is
between 119 and 182 feet deep. Five of the groundwater monitoring wells on the subject property are
routinely sampled as part of ongoing monitoring activities. TCE concentrations on the subject property in
1 The term recognized environmental condition means (1) the presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on , or at the subject
property due to a release to the environment; (2) the likely presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products in , on , or at the subject
property due to a release or likely release to the environment; or (3) the presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on , or at the
subject property under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment. A de minimis condition is not a recognized
environmental condition (ASTM E1527-21).
Wasatch Environmental, Inc. 1
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Grantsville Soil Conservation Property
2022 ranged between 0.120 micrograms per liter (µg/L) and 14 µg/L, exceeding the TEAD Post-Closure
Permit groundwater concentration limits for TCE of 5 µg/L. A Groundwater Management Area (GWMA)
was instituted to set forth institutional controls for sites impacted by the plume which includes the majority
of the subject property. The GWMA restrictions include water development restrictions and various
restrictions for domestic well use. The subject property stock water well is located within the GWMA but
is outside the plume and is not currently impacted. Given that the TCE plume is monitored and managed
by the Army with regulatory oversight, and the GWMA restrictions, the presence of the plume on the
subject property would be considered a controlled recognized environmental condition. Current and
future property owners will need to be aware of any changes to the GWMA restrictions and allow to the
Army to continue groundwater monitoring associated with the wells on the subject property. It is our
opinion that no further investigation is warranted at this time.
No other hazardous substance or petroleum product storage and/or release sites were identified within
ASTM-specified approximate minimum search distances from the subject property.
Detailed discussion is presented in the following sections of this report.
2. INTRODUCTION
This Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was conducted within the scope and limitations of the
Standard Practice for Environmental Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process as
presented in American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard E1527-21. This practice is
intended to reflect a commercially prudent and reasonable inquiry to identify recognized environmental
conditions in connection with a property.
2.1 Detailed Scope of Work
In accordance with ASTM E1527-21, the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment consists of the
following elements: 1) Obtain User-Provided Information Required by the 40 C.F.R. Part 312 All
Appropriate Inquiries Regulation, 2) Review Physical Settings Information, 3) Review Government
Records, 4) Review Historical Records, 5) Site Reconnaissance, 6) Interviews, and 7) Report.
There may be environmental issues or conditions at a property that parties may wish to assess in
connection with commercial real estate that are outside the scope of the ASTM E1527-21 practices. Non-
scope considerations include (but are not limited to) asbestos-containing building materials unrelated to
releases to the environment, lead-based paint unrelated to releases to the environment, wetlands, or
radon. No implication is intended as to the relative importance of inquiry into such non-scope
considerations, nor is this list intended to be all-inclusive.
No non-scope considerations are included in this scope of work.
2.2 Limitations and Exceptions of Assessment
Although conducting a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment can minimize the potential risks and
liabilities associated with real estate transactions, they cannot be completely eliminated. Limitations exist
as to the availability of documentation and constraints of visual and/or physical observations. This
assessment has been undertaken within reasonable limits of time and cost. Accuracy and completeness
of record information varies among information sources, including government sources. The information
provided has not been independently verified unless we have actual knowledge, or it appears obvious
that certain information is incorrect. The information presented in this report shall not be interpreted as a
warranty as to the presence or absence of recognized environmental conditions in connection with the
subject property.
Our services consist of professional opinions made in accordance with generally accepted principles and
practices set forth in ASTM E1527-21. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties either expressed or
implied.
Wasatch Environmental, Inc. 2
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Grantsville Soil Conservation Property
2.3 Continued Viability of Environmental Site Assessments
An environmental site assessment performed in accordance with ASTM E1527-21 and completed less
than 180 days prior to the date of acquisition or date of intended transaction is presumed to be valid.
After 180 days or if information regarding recognized environmental conditions in connection with the
subject property becomes known, the following portions of the environmental site assessment may need
to be updated prior to the date of acquisition or date of intended transaction:
• Interviews with owners, operators, and occupants (conducted August 1, 2023);
• Government records review (conducted July 24, 2023);
• Site reconnaissance (conducted August 2, 2023);
• Searches for recorded environmental cleanup liens (a user responsibility); and
• The declaration by the environmental professional responsible for the assessment or update
(signed August 9, 2023).
2.4 Reliance
This report is prepared for the sole benefit of the Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration
(SIL TA) and may not be relied upon by any other person or entity without the written authorization of
Wasatch Environmental, Inc. (Wasatch).
3. PRIOR REPORTS
Mr. Neil Johnson, Board Chair for the Grantsville Soil Conservation District, the subject property owner,
stated that he had no prior environmental reports for the subject property.
4. SITE DESCRIPTION
4.1 Location
The subject property consists of 787.78 acres located along UT-112 in Grantsville, Utah (see Figures 1
through 5 in Appendix A). According to information obtained from the Tooele County Assessor's office,
the subject property is further identified as parcel numbers 01-130-0018, 01-131-0-003, 01-131-0-001,
and 14-0422-0-0005.
4.2 Site and Vicinity General Characteristics
The subject property and vicinity generally consist of vacant land, agricultural land, Tooele Army Depot
(TEAD), and the Deseret Peak Complex, a Tooele County recreational complex (see Figure 3 in
Appendix A).
4.3 Current Uses of the Subject Property
The subject property is currently primarily grazing land with a parking lot for the Deseret Peak Complex
on the southeast corner. Site photographs are presented in Appendix B.
4.4 Description of Structures, Roads, Other Improvements on the Site
The subject property is developed with several groundwater monitoring wells (discussed in Section 6.3.2),
two dilapidated grazing-related structures, four former stock water ponds, and a horse corral. The
southeast corner of the subject property contains a portion of a parking area used for the Deseret Peak
Complex.
Wasatch Environmental, Inc. 3
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Grantsville Soil Conservation Property
The subject property is accessed by UT-112 along the northeast subject property boundary and North
Depot Boundary Road along the south subject property boundary. Multiple dirt roads traverse the subject
property.
There are no public utilities connected to the subject property. Stock water is provided by a groundwater
well on the eastern portion of the subject property and the pump is powered by a battery.
4.5 Current Uses of Adjoining Properties
At the time of our site visit, current uses of adjoining properties consisted of the following:
North/East:
South:
West:
UT-112 followed by vacant land, the Deseret Peak Complex, and associated
parking
TEAD (discussed further in Section 6.3.2)
Vacant land
5. USER PROVIDED INFORMATION
ASTM E1527-21 defines a "User'' as the party seeking to complete an environmental site assessment of
the subject property. If the User is aware of any specialized knowledge or experience that is material to
recognized environmental conditions in connection with the subject property, it is the User's responsibility
to communicate such information to the environmental professional. ASTM E1527-21 provides a User
Questionnaire to assist the User and the environmental professional in gathering information from the
User that may be material to identifying recognized environmental conditions.
It is our understanding this Phase I Environmental Site Assessment is being performed in anticipation of a
potential land swap. Therefore, for the purpose of this assessment, Mr. Eric Baim, representative for the
proposed purchaser, completed the User Questionnaire presented in Appendix C.
5.1 Environmental Liens and Activity/Use Limitations
ASTM E1527-21 requires the User to identify environmental liens and activity/use limitations currently
recorded against the subject property. This information is typically found during the course of research
for the issuance of title insurance and would be shown in the policy of title insurance issued to the owner,
buyer, or lender on the subject property. If the User has actual knowledge of any environmental liens or
activity/use limitations encumbering the subject property or in connection with the subject property, the
User should communicate such information to the environmental professional.
At the time of this assessment, Mr. Baim was not aware of any environmental liens or activity/use
limitation land records encumbering the subject property.
5.2 Specialized Knowledge or Experience
Users must take into account their specialized knowledge to identify conditions indicative of releases or
threatened releases. If the User has any specialized knowledge or experience that is material to
recognized environmental conditions in connection with the subject property, the User should
communicate this information to the environmental professional.
Mr. Baim reported that the US Army previously used the subject property. Mr. Baim stated that there is
possible contamination on the subject property from the TEAD. Mr. Baim stated that there is currently
groundwater monitoring taking place in the area by the Army.
Wasatch Environmental, Inc. 4
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Grantsville Soil Conservation Property
5.3 Valuation Reduction for Environmental Issues
The User should inform the environmental professional if the User believes that the purchase price of the
subject property is lower than the fair market value due to contamination. The User is not required to
disclose the purchase price to the environmental professional.
Mr. Baim was not aware of any property valuation reduction for environmental issues.
5.4 Commonly Known or Reasonably Ascertainable Information
Commonly known or reasonably ascertainable information within the local community about the subject
property must be taken into account by the User. If the User is aware of any commonly known or
reasonably ascertainable information within the local community about the subject property that is
material to recognized environmental conditions in connection with the subject property, the User should
communicate such information to the environmental professional.
Mr. Baim was not aware of any commonly known or reasonably ascertainable information material to
recognized environmental conditions in connection with the subject property.
5.5 Degree of Obviousness
The User must consider the degree of obviousness of the presence or likely presence of releases or
threatened releases at the subject property and the ability to detect releases or threatened releases by
appropriate investigation, including the information collected as part of this assessment.
Mr. Baim was not aware of any obvious indications of the presence or likely presence of releases or
threatened releases at the subject property.
6. RECORDS REVIEW
The purpose of records review is to obtain and review records that will help identify recognized
environmental conditions in connection with the subject property. The records review includes: a review
of physical setting sources; a review of standard federal, state, and tribal environmental record sources;
and historical use information.
6.1 Historical Use Information
The objective of reviewing historical sources is to develop a history of the previous uses of the subject
property, adjoining properties, and surrounding area to help identify the likelihood of past uses having led
to recognized environmental conditions. ASTM E1527-21 requires a review of historical use information
back to 1940 or first developed use, whichever is earlier. This task requires reviewing standard historical
sources that are reasonably ascertainable, and are likely to be useful.
For the purposes of this report, the following historical sources were reviewed:
• Prior Reports: No prior environmental site assessment reports were provided.
• Fire Insurance Maps: Based on our review of fire insurance maps at the Marriott Online Library,
fire insurance maps are not available for the area of the subject property.
• Aerial Photographs: We obtained aerial photographs from the Utah Geological Survey dated
1938, 1953, 1965, 1971, 1975, 1980, and 1985. We also obtained aerial photographs from
Google Earth dated 1993, 1997, 2003, 2006, 2013, 2017, and 2022 (Figure 3 in Appendix A).
Historical aerial photographs are presented in Appendix D.
Wasatch Environmental, Inc. 5
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Grantsville Soil Conservation Property
• Local Street Directories: According to our research at the Marriott Library and the Library of
Congress, city directories do not cover the area of the subject property.
• Topographic Map: We obtained a topographic map from the United States Geological Survey
dated 1955 (Figure 4 in Appendix A).
• Current Property Tax Assessor Records: We obtained dates of construction for adjoining
property buildings from the Tooele County Tax Assessor's website.
• Regulatory Agency Documentation: We obtained historical information for the adjoining south
TEAD from the Utah Department of Environmental Quality website.
• Water Right Records: We obtained historical information for the subject property from the Utah
Division of Water Rights website for water rights and wells on the subject property.
• Interview Information: We spoke with Mr. Neil Johnson, Board Chair for the Grantsville Soil
Conservation District, the subject property owner.
6.1.1 Subject Property
The subject property is depicted as vacant land on the 1938 aerial photograph. Aerial
photographs and topographic maps depict the subject property as vacant land with various
unpaved roads/trails traversing the property between 1953 and 1980. Water rights records
document that in 1962, an individual applied for water rights on the subject property and for a
permit to drill a water well for domestic and stock watering purposes. The request for a permit
lapsed and a well was never drilled. In 1986, the Grantsville Soil Conservation District applied for
a well permit and in 1993 they installed a groundwater well for stock watering purposes. The
1993 aerial photograph depicts several additional unpaved roads traversing the subject property
as well as two pits, one on the western boundary and one on the eastern. Mr. Johnson stated
that these pits were stock watering ponds.
The unpaved roads appear to extend onto TEAD to the south. Agency files document that the
United States Department of the Army installed several groundwater monitoring wells on the
subject property for the purposes of monitoring groundwater contamination migrating off of TEAD
onto the subject property (discussed further in Section 6.3.2). The 1997 aerial photograph
depicts the two structures on the northeast portion of the subject property as well as two
additional stock watering ponds. The subject property remains relatively unchanged in
subsequent aerial photographs with the exception of what appears to be soil piles on the
southeast corner in 2013 and a disturbed area in the same location as the current parking area
which is when the construction of the currently parking area began. Mr. Johnson stated that the
Grantsville Soil Conservation District has owned the subject property since at least the 1980s.
6.1.2 Adjoining Properties (to the extent identified)
Based on the totality of historical information, historical uses of adjoining properties have included
the following:
North/East: UT-112 is depicted adjoining northeast of the subject property boundary and as early
as 1938. Land across UT-112 and adjoining east of the subject property was vacant land
between at least 1938 and 2006 when the Deseret Peak Complex was constructed. Construction
of the adjoining north parking area began in 2017.
South: Land adjoining south was vacant land until TEAD (formerly Tooele Ordnance Depot) was
constructed in 1942. The Depot was a storage center for supplies, ammunition, and combat
vehicles during World War II. The northern portion of the Depot, adjoining the subject property,
was developed with munitions and chemical weapon storage bunkers. In 1993, the Depot was
Wasatch Environmental, Inc. 6
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Grantsville Soil Conservation Property
placed on the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) list and some of the land was deeded to
the Tooele Redevelopment Agency. The Depot buildings are now owned and occupied by
various private companies and munitions continue to be stored on the northern portion.
West: Land adjoining west has been vacant and grazing land since at least 1938.
6.2 Physical Setting Source(s}
We reviewed the 1955, Grantsville/Tooele, Utah, 7.5-minute topographic map that depicts the area that
includes the subject property (Figure 4 in Appendix A). The subject property is situated at an elevation of
approximately 4,430 feet above mean sea level. The subject property and nearby area generally slope to
the north.
Based on information obtained from the regulatory documentation for the adjoining south TEAD site
(discussed in Section 6.3.2), groundwater at the subject property is between 119 and 182 feet below
ground surface and flows to the northeast.
6.3 Standard and Supplemental Environmental Record Sources, Federal and State
Environmental Risk Information Services (ERIS) has conducted government database research for the
subject property (see Appendix E). A listing of the ASTM-specified standard databases and any
additional federal, state, tribal and local environmental record sources obtained by ERIS and the results
of the database search are summarized in Appendix E, Map Findings Summary.
6.3.1 Subject Property
The subject property was not identified on any of the standard or supplemental government
record sources.
6.3.2 Adjoining Properties
TEAD, adjoining south, was identified on the National Priority List (NPL) database. As discussed
in Section 6.1.2, TEAD was constructed in 1942 and was a major munitions storage and
equipment maintenance facility for the United States Army. Agency files document that activities
at TEAD consisted of repair and maintenance of tactical-wheeled vehicles and power generation
equipment, and the storage, maintenance, issuance, and disposal of conventional munitions.
Since 1998, the major task at TEAD has been the storage and demilitarization of conventional
ammunition.
Numerous releases of hazardous substances and petroleum products have been identified at the
TEAD site. A chlorinated solvent groundwater plume (Solid Waste Management Unit [SWMU] 2)
extends beneath the southern portion of the subject property (see Figure 7), its source being
releases from a prior industrial waste lagoon (IWL) on the TEAD property. The IWL was an
unlined evaporation pond into which an average of more than 125,000 gallons of industrial
wastewater and stormwater were discharged daily. The IWL received wastewater generated by
the boiler plant, metals parts cleaning, degreasing, steam cleaning operations, and dynamometer
test cells from 1965 until 1988. In 1983, the Army initiated investigations of elevated VOC
concentrations in groundwater in the area of the IWL. In 1985, TEAD entered into a Consent
Decree with the State of Utah which mandated, among other things, an expansion of the
groundwater quality assessment at the IWL. Under the terms of the Consent Decree (1986), the
IWL and associated ditches were closed in November 1988.
Subsequent investigations were performed to evaluate the extent, magnitude, and transport rate
of hazardous constituents present in the groundwater. Several hazardous compounds were
identified, but trichloroethylene (TCE) was identified as the primary contaminant of concern.
Quarterly groundwater monitoring was performed until issuance of a Post-Closure Permit in
January of 1991. In 1994, the Army received a document that reported groundwater
Wasatch Environmental, Inc. 7
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Grantsville Soil Conservation Property
contamination in a production well on a property northeast of TEAD. The Army subsequently
installed and sampled a number of groundwater monitoring wells off-site which were identified as
C-series wells. Three of these wells (C-02, C-03, and C-04) were installed on the subject
property (see Figure 6). Other groundwater monitoring wells located on the subject property are
identified as B-37 through B-40, B-44 through B-50, P-32 through 35, P-37, and P-38 (also
depicted on Figure 6). The B and P-Series wells on the subject property were installed prior to
1994.
The most recent groundwater monitoring data available (2022), documents that groundwater at
the subject property is between 119 and 182 feet deep. Groundwater monitoring wells on the
subject property that are routinely sampled are B-37, B-40, B-42, C-03, and C-04. TCE
concentrations on the subject in 2022 ranged between 0.120 micrograms per liter (µg/L) in C-04
and 14 µg/L in B-40. The TEAD Post-Closure Permit groundwater concentration limits for TCE is
5 µg/L. In 2004, TEAD developed an interim Groundwater Management Area (GWMA) Plan for
the plume. After additional investigation activities, the GWMA was finalized in 2010, and in 2022
the plan was updated. The majority of the subject property lies within the GWMA (see Figure 8).
The GWMA sets forth water development restrictions and various restrictions for domestic well
use. The subject property stock water well (2367) is located within the GWMA but is outside the
plume. The Army states in the 2022 GWMA Update report that the subject property stock water
well is approximately 0.4 miles downgradient of the main plume; therefore, "the likelihood of
contamination reaching this wells in the near term is low." Well records document that water from
the stock water well is only used in the winter and at other times municipal water is used on the
subject property. Given that the TCE plume is monitored and managed by the Army with
regulatory oversite, and GWMA restrictions, the presence of the plum on the subject property
would be considered a controlled recognized environmental condition. Copies of relevant
groundwater data and maps from the 2022 groundwater monitoring report and a copy of the
GWMA Update document are presented in Appendix F.
6.3.3 Other Government Database Listings
No other hazardous substance or petroleum product storage and/or release sites were identified
within ASTM-specified approximate minimum search distances from the subject property.
6.4 Interviews with State and/or Local Government Officials
ASTM E1527-21 requires that a reasonable attempt be made to interview at least one staff member of the
local fire department, health agency, state environmental agency having jurisdiction over hazardous
waste disposal or other environmental matters, or an agency responsible for the issuance of building
permits or groundwater permits that document the presence of activity and use limitations.
On July 20, 2023, we contacted Bryan Slade, the Environmental Health Director with the Tooele County
Health Department. Mr. Slade stated that the Health Department has no record of underground storage
tanks, hazardous materials incidents or violations, or any other environmental issues on the land itself.
He also stated that there is a plume of TCE contamination in the groundwater extending north underneath
the property from the army depot site.
On August 1, 2023, we contacted Jason Smith with the Grantsville Fire Department, who stated that the
fire department had no records regarding environmental issues or fire code violations for the subject
property.
7. SITE RECONNAISSANCE
On August 2, 2023, our Staff Geologist Jeffrey Hessburg conducted an unaccompanied site
reconnaissance. Site photographs are presented in Appendix B.
Wasatch Environmental, Inc. 8
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Grantsville Soil Conservation Property
7.1 Methodology and Limiting Conditions
Our reconnaissance included observations of the approximate perimeter of the subject property,
observations of the property interior, readily accessible areas of the building interior, and a cursory
observation of the adjoining properties. Our exterior observations were limited by vegetation. It is our
opinion that these limitations did not affect our ability to form reasonable opinions regarding recognized
environmental conditions on the subject property.
7.2 General Observations
Most of the subject property is relatively flat and covered by vegetation. Several wells, two dilapidated
structures, four stock water ponds, a horse corral, two generator trailers, and two tank trailers were
observed on the subject property. The southeast corner of the subject property contains a portion of a
parking area used for the Deseret Peak Complex.
7.2.1 Underground Storage Tanks
No evidence of underground storage tanks, such as fill ports or vent pipes, was observed on the
subject property.
7.2.2 Aboveground Storage Tanks
Two parked semi-truck tank trailers were observed on the south subject property boundary. One
appeared to be for water, and one was unlabeled.
7.2.3 Drums or Containers
One plastic drum was observed on the southwest corner of the subject property. The drum was
sealed and unlabeled. Shallow oily staining was observed on the soil surrounding the drum.
Give that the staining was shallow, it is our opinion that the staining represents a de minimis
condition.
7.2.4 Odors
No strong, pungent, or noxious odors were noted on the subject property.
7.2.5 Pools of Liquid
No pools of liquids were observed on the subject property.
7.2.6 Polychlorinated Biphenyls {PCBs)
Although no longer commercially produced in the United States, PCBs may be present in
products and materials produced before the 1979 PCB ban. Products that may contain PCBs
include but are not limited to transformers, capacitors and other electrical equipment, oil used in
motors and hydraulic systems, old electrical devices or appliances containing PCB capacitors.
Newer electrical equipment would not be expected to contain PCBs.
No electrical or hydraulic equipment known or likely to contain PCBs was observed on the subject
property.
7 .2. 7 Pits, Ponds, or Lagoons
Four former stock water ponds were observed on the subject property. No water was present in
the ponds.
Wasatch Environmental, Inc. 9
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Grantsville Soil Conservation Property
7 .2.8 Stained Soil or Pavement
No stained soil or pavement was observed on the subject property.
7 .2.9 Stressed Vegetation
No stressed vegetation was observed on the subject property.
7.2.10 Solid Waste
Some typical household trash was observed on the southwest corner of the subject property.
7 .2.11 Wastewater
No wastewater or other liquid was observed discharging into a drain, ditch, or stream on or
adjacent to the subject property.
7.2.12 Wells
Several wells were observed throughout the subject property and are discussed in Section 6.3.2.
There is a groundwater well located on the subject property that is owned and used by the
Grantsville Soil Conservation District. Utah Division of Water Rights records document that the
well was installed in 1986 and is 260 feet deep. The well is only used between November and
April for stock watering. The well is connected to a series of stock water troughs on the subject
property. Applicable well records are presented in Appendix G.
8. INTERVIEWS
ASTM E1527-21 requires that interviews with a key site manager and a reasonable number of occupants
should be made in an attempt to obtain information indicating recognized environmental conditions at the
subject property.
8.1 Key Site Manager
As stipulated in ASTM E1527-21, it is the responsibility of the subject property owner to identify the key
site manager. For the purposes of this report, Mr. Neil Johnson, Board Chair for the Grantsville Soil
Conservation District was interviewed as the key site manager. On August 1, 2023, Mr. Johnson stated
that he has been familiar with the subject property for decades. Mr. Johnson stated that the subject
property has always been used for cattle grazing. He stated that there have been no cattle dipping vats,
fence post treatment, or known dumps on the subject property. He was aware of the groundwater
contamination originating from TEAD, but was not aware of any environmental concerns originating from
the subject property.
8.2 Occupant Interview
There are no occupants of the subject property.
9. SCOPE LIMITING CONDITIONS/DEVIATIONS
During the completion of this Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, no significant scope limiting
conditions or deviations were encountered that resulted in significant data gaps affecting our ability to
form reasonable opinions regarding recognized environmental conditions.
Wasatch Environmental, Inc. 10
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Grantsville Soil Conservation Property
10. FINDINGS AND OPINIONS
The following sections present our findings and opinions related to known or suspect recognized
environmental conditions, controlled recognized environmental conditions, historical recognized
environmental conditions, and de minimis conditions identified through the course of this assessment.
10.1 De Minimis Conditions
A de minimis condition, as defined by ASTM E1527-21, is a release of hazardous substances or
petroleum products that generally does not present a threat to human health or the environment, and
generally would not be the subject of an enforcement action if brought to the attention of appropriate
governmental agencies. Conditions determined to be de minimis are not recognized environmental
conditions.
• Shallow oily staining was observed on the soil surrounding the drum. Give that the staining was
shallow, it is our opinion that the staining represents a de minimis condition.
10.2 Historical Recognized Environmental Conditions
A historical recognized environmental condition, as defined by ASTM E1527-21, is a past release of
hazardous substances or petroleum products affecting the subject property that has occurred in
connection with the subject property and has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable
regulatory authority or meeting unrestricted use criteria established by a regulatory authority. Historical
recognized environmental conditions, by definition, are past releases that are no longer considered
recognized environmental conditions.
• Wasatch identified no historical recognized environmental conditions in connection with the
subject property.
10.3 Controlled Recognized Environmental Conditions
A controlled recognized environmental condition, as defined by ASTM E1527-21, is a recognized
environmental condition resulting from a past release of hazardous substances or petroleum products
affecting the subject property that has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory
authority with hazardous substances or petroleum products allowed to remain in place.
• The groundwater beneath the southern portion of the subject property is impacted with TCE
originating from releases at the adjoining south TEAD. Numerous groundwater monitoring wells
associated with the release are present on the subject property and five are routinely sampled by
the Army. The most recent groundwater sampling data showed concentrations of TCE as high as
14 µg/L on the subject property, exceeding the TEAD Post-Closure Permit Groundwater Analyte
Concentration for TCE of 5 µg/L. The majority of the subject property lies within a GWMA
associated with the TCE contamination that sets forth water development restrictions and various
restrictions for domestic well use. The subject property stock water well is located within the
GWMA but is outside the plume. The plume is monitored and managed by the Army with
regulatory oversite. Given that the TCE plume is being managed with regulatory oversite, and the
GWMA restrictions, the presence of the plume on the subject property would be considered a
controlled recognized environmental condition.
10.4 Recognized Environmental Conditions
A recognized environmental condition, as defined by ASTM E1527-21, is (1) the presence of hazardous
substances or petroleum products in, on, or at the subject property due to a release to the environment;
(2) the likely presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at the subject property
due to a release or likely release to the environment; or (3) the presence of hazardous substances or
Wasatch Environmental, Inc. 11
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Grantsville Soil Conservation Property
petroleum products in, on, or at the subject property under conditions that pose a material threat of a
future release to the environment.
• The subject property has been used for cattle grazing purposes since at least 1938. We have
found no information to suggest recognized environmental conditions associated with past or
current uses of the subject property beyond the controlled recognized environmental condition
discussed in Section 10.3.
10.5 Significant Data Gaps
A significant data gap, as defined by ASTM E1527-21, is a data gap that affects the ability of the
environmental professional to identify recognized environmental conditions.
• Wasatch encountered no significant data gaps through the course of this assessment.
11. CONCLUSIONS
We have performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment in general conformance with the scope
and limitations of ASTM E1527-21 for the Grantsville Soil Conservation property located along UT-112 in
Grantsville, Utah. Any exceptions to, or deletions from, this practice are described in Section 9 of this
report. This assessment has identified no recognized environmental conditions, controlled recognized
environmental conditions, or significant data gaps in connection with the subject property except the
following:
• The known chlorinated solvent impacts to the subject property form releases on the adjoining
south TEAD site that are being managed with regulatory oversight and the GWMA restrictions
represent a controlled recognized environmental condition on the subject property . Current and
future property owners will need to be aware of any changes to the GWMA restrictions and allow
the Army to continue groundwater monitoring associated with the wells on the subject property. It
is our opinion that no further investigation is warranted at this time .
This report is based on our review of available historical and environmental records; visual observations
of the surface of the subject property and adjoining properties; and personal interviews with available
persons having knowledge of the subject property. Sections 10 and 11 of the report, Findings and
Opinions, and Conclusions are considered an Executive Summary and should be reviewed in conjunction
with the entire report.
We declare that, to the best of our professional knowledge and belief, we meet the definition of
Environmental Professional as defined in 312 .10 of 40 CFR 312 and have the specific qualifications
based on education, training, and experience to assess a property of the nature, history, and setting of
the subject property. We have developed and performed the all-appropriate inquiries in conformance with
the standards and practices set forth in 40 CFR Part 312.
Sincerely,
WASATCH ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
Audra Heinzel ulie Kilgore, President
Senior Project Environmental Scientist Principal Environmental Manager
Distribution: 1 Electronic
Wasatch Environmental, Inc. 12
Appendix A
Maps and Figures
GRANTSVILLE SOIL CONSERVATION PROPERTY wE12s49.004
Sky di ve U ah q
A Mavenk Adventure '$ Marshal l
@) Y Firs. stop
nclerson Farms ft
by Richmond .. T ft And e son Ranch
T Grantsvill e, u ah
Approximate
Location of
Subject Property
A.WASATCH ..-= ENVIRONMENTA L
Purpl e Ma r ess
Fa ctory -Gra nt svtll e
Q
(ill)
Des eret ,a k Co mp le x 9 T ·
oo ele Gymnast .N Acad e
I!
Vicinity Map Figure 1
The use or reuse of this information is restricted to the referenced document unless otherwise authorized .
Wasatch Environmental Copyright 2006
A.WASATCH ..-= ENVIRONMENTAL
GRANTSVILLE SOIL CONSERVATION PROPERTY wE12s49.004
1u -11 ao -o~01L2
1-131-0-0003
• I
;:-ei
M
>'":"
F..--
~
,m
OJ e,
,.;,. " I
w ~
'"7'
I :s
01-131-0-0001
Approximate
Location of
Subject Property
Parcel Map Figure 2
The use or reuse of this information is restricted to the referenced document unless otherwise authorized .
Wasatch Environmental Copyright 2006
GRANTSVILLE SOIL CONSERVATION PROPERTY wE12s49.004
ffei[flllfl)IT'@~ollml<IDfr@
IL@@<IDfr □@lnl @ll
. ~ ~1111iwj@@U [ll>U'@[fll@~
_J.i:loil..._r ~ tr'
[i;!]@~lru [Q)@[p)@U
~@111llnl@<ID111f Wl@<ID@
\ Groundwater Flow Direction (Inferred)
A.WASATCH ..-= ENVIRONMENTAL
[ij)@
2022 Aerial Photograph Figure 3
e use or reuse o t 1s m orma 10n 1s restncte tot e re erence ocument un ess ot erw1se aut onze .
Wasatch Environmental Copyright 2006
291
A.WASATCH ..-= ENVIRONMENTAL
GRANTSVILLE SOIL CONSERVATION PROPERTY wE12s49.004
Approximate
Location of
Subject Property \ ~
35
\_
~
\
,.,.,.
\
\ \
\ •. I
··--'-
....,,_
opograp 1c ap, apte rom . . eological Survey Figure 4 Grantsville/Tooele, Utah 7 .5 Minute Quad ran le
The use or reuse of this information is restricted to the referenced document unless otherwise authorized .
Wasatch Environmental Copyright 2006
Monitoring well locations depicted on Figure 6
~[l)J[l)Jli'@X(□IITiil®~®
IL@©@~□@lnl@!i
~llll@j®~ !Plii'@[l)J®lru1f
~
@11-il©l
--WASATCH
.. ENVUI..ONMENTAL
Site Visit Map/Detailed Site Map Figure 5
The use or reuse of this information is restricted to the referenced document unless otherwise authorized .
Wasatch Environmental Copyright 2006
--WASATCH
.. ENVUI..ONMENTAL
GRANTSVILLE SOIL CONSERVATION PROPERTY WEI 2649-00
ffe,~~ll'@lZ □limlcfil~®
IL@@cfil~□@ITTl@lf
~llJlibl]@@~ iPll'@~@~
Monitoring Well Location Map
♦·i
Figure 6
The use or reuse of this information is restricted to the referenced document unless otherwise authorized .
Wasatch Environmental Copyright 2006
"NS" were scheduled for sampling but could not be sampled
levels.
I1ow unless labelled as ·oeep Well.·
,dary was updated using results from lhe 2021 annual event.
·ells with an asterisk (') were not used for development of lhe
,tourn are from lhe 2021 annual monnoring report and were
results from lhe 2021 semi-annual and 2019 annual events.
,urposes only. All locations are approximate.
ing ESRI ArcMapv . 10.7.
otes
~
result is an estimated value.
;sample result / field duplicate result
: Esri , DignalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographi es,
, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID , IGN , and lhe GIS User Communny
3 National Geographic Society, i-cubed
A-WASATCH
.. ENVUI..ONMENTAL
GRANTSVILLE SOIL CONSERVATION PROPERTY WEI 2649-00
2022 ANNUAL GROUNDWATER MONITORING
REPORT
TOOELE ARMY DEPOT, UTAH
SWMU-58 TCE CONCENTRATIONS IN
GROUNDWATER-2021ANNUALEVENT
oo•I• v
Legend
S Monitoring Well (TCE Concentration in µg/L)
S Monitoring Well (Not Sampled)
c:::J 2021 Shallow TCE lsoconcentration Contour (5 µg/L)
::_ 2021 Shallow TCE lsoconcentration Contour (50 µg /L)
c:::J 2021 Shallow TCE lsoconcentration Contour (100 µg /L)
~ _-_-_"j Previous Shallow TCE lsoconcentration Contour (5 µg/L)
----Previous Shallow TCE lsoconcentration Contour (50 µg /L)
~ _-_-_I Previous Shallow TCE lsoconcentration Contour (100 µg/L)
-Old Industrial Waste Lagoon
~ Former Sanfary Landfill
-Industrial Waste Lagoon
•111111111 Inferred Fault Location r:.:.-:: Tooele Anny Depot North Boundary
c::::J BRAG Pa rcel
WGS8', UTM ZONE 12 N, METE N
HOR/ZONAL DATUM: WGS 19841 VERTICAL •
3,000 1,500 0
SCALE IN FEET
PROJECTNo.: I DATE: I~----
770108 10/11 /202
DRAWN
TEAD TCE Plume Boundary Figure 7
The use or reuse of this information is restricted to the referenced document unless otherwise authorized .
Wasatch Environmental Copyright 2006
ffe,[lll[lllll'@lI□llilil®U@
IL@@®U□@il11 @\r
~Mihlj@@U iPll'@[lll®lruW
ili E~ll>]~
--WASATCH
.. ENVUI..ONMENTAL
GRANTSVILLE SOIL CONSERVATION PROPERTY WEI 2649-00
.... , .. .. ,
\
\
\
\
\
\
~
\
•·
GWMA Boundary Figure 8
The use or reuse of this information is restricted to the referenced document unless otherwise authorized .
Wasatch Environmental Copyright 2006
Appendix B
Site Photographs
Photo 1. Subject property from the southeast corner
facing northwest
Photo 3. Subject property from the west subject
property boundary facing east
Photo 2. Subject property from the southwest corner
facing northeast
Photo 4. Subject property from the northwest corner
facing southeast
Photo 5. Subject property from the northernmost
corner facing south
Photo 7. North subject property boundary from the
northeast corner facing east
Photo 6. Subject property from the easternmost north
corner facing southwest
Photo 8. north subject property boundary from the
northernmost corner facing southeast
Photo 9. North subject property from the northeast
corner facing northwest
Photo 11. South subject property boundary from the
southeast corner facing west
Photo 10. East subject property boundary from the
northeast corner facing south
Photo 12. South subject property boundary from the
central portion of the south subject property boundary
facing east
Photo 13 . South subject property boundary from the
central portion of the south subject property boundary
facing west
Photo 15. West subject property boundary from the
southwest corner facing north
Photo 14. South subject property boundary from the
southwest corner facing east
Photo 16. West subject property boundary from the
northwest corner facing south
Photo 17. Tank trailer on the south subject property
boundary
Photo 19. Water tank trailer on the south subject
property boundary
Photo 18. Fill pile on the south subject property
boundary
Photo 20. Drum and trash stored on southwest corner
of subject property
Photo 21. Pit on subject property Photo 22 . Pit on subject property
.....
Photo 23 . Pit on subject property Photo 24. Pit on subject property
Photo 25. Dilapidated structures on northeast portion
of subject property
,W..a
Photo 27 . Interior of southernmost dilapidated
structure
Photo 26. Interior of northernmost dilapidated
structure
Photo 28. Water trough on subject property
Photo 29. Water trough on subject property
Photo 31. Corral on northeast portion of subject
property
Photo 30. Old culvert on central portion of subject
property
Photo 32. Trailer generators stored on southeast
corner of subject property
Photo 33. Well on subject property Photo 34. Well on subject property
Photo 35. Well on subject property Photo 36. Well on subject property
Photo 37. Well on subject property
Photo 39 . North adjoining property from the northwest
corner
Photo 38. Well on subject property
Photo 40. North adjoining property from the
northernmost corner
Photo 41. North adjoining property from the southeast
corner
Photo 43. south adjoining property from the southeast
corner
Photo 42. east adjoining property from the southeast
corner
Photo 44. South adjoining property from the southwest
corner
Photo 45. West adjoining property from the southwest
corner
Photo 47. West adjoining property from the northwest
corner
Photo 46. West adjoining property from the central
portion of the west subject property boundary
AppendixC
User Questionnaire
USER QUESTIONNAIRE
In order to qualify for one of the Landowner Liability Protections (LLPs )1 offered by the Small Busi ness Liability
Relief and Brown fi elds Revitalization Act of 2001 (the "Brownfields Amendments "),2 the user must prov ide the
following information (if available} to the environmental professional . Failure to provide this information could
result in a determination that "all appropriate inquiry" is not complete.
Site Name: Date :
M~"" ~ c...r
(1 .) Did a search of recorded land title records identify any environmental liens filed or recorded against the
property under federal, tribal, state or local law?
~ i /&o [\) Y es (Discribe or attach i[1formati on) ~
lv' (!J + ) lt. s-e. G\. (' C, V'\. 1: I
(2.) Did a search of recorded land title records identify any activity and use limitations , such as engineering
controls, land use restrictions or institutional controls that are in place at the property and/or have been
filed or recorded against the property under federal, tribal , state or local law?
/ No Yes kescribe or attach information) ~ A f\ Jo +,} s, o,,,cc. \,,. i3~ t
(3 .) Do you have any specialized knowledge or experience related to the property or nearby properties? For
example, are you involved in the same line of business as the current or former occupants of the property
or an adjoining property so that you would have specialized knowledge of the chemicals and processes
used b~pe of business?
~ Yes (Describe or attach information)
(4 .) Does the purchase price being paid for this property reasonably reflect the fair market value of the
property?
No
If you conclude that there is a difference, have you considered whether the lower purchase price is
because contamination is known or believed to be present at the property? l No Yes (Describe or attach information)
NA·
1 Landowner Liability Protections, or LLPs, is the term used to describe the three types of potential defenses to Superfund liability in EPA's Interim
Guidance Regarding Criteria Landowners Must Meet in Order lo Qualify for Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser, Contiguous Property Owner, or Innocent
Landowner Limitations on CERCLA Liability ("Common Elements" Guide) issued on March 6, 2003 .
2P.L. 107-118.
(5.) Are you aware of commonly known or reasonably ascertainable information about the property (such as
any prior Phase I Environmental Site Assessments) that would help the environmental professional to
identify conditions indicative of releases or threatened releases? For example,
(a .) Do you know ~st uses of the property?
No ~escribe or attach information)
(b .) Do ~ow of specific c~em icals that are present or once were present at the property?
~ Yes (Describe or attach information)
(c.) Do you know ills or other chemical releases that have taken place at the property?
Yes escribe or attach information)
I T
(d .) Do ~w of any environmental cleanups that have taken place at the property?
~ Yes (Describe or attach information)
(6.) Based on your knowledge and experience related to the property are there any obvious indicators that
point to ~~ence or likely presence of releases at the property?
~ Yes (Describe or attach information)
(7 .) Are you aware of any pending, threatened , or past litigation relevant to hazardous substances or
petroleum products in connection with the property; or any pending, threatened, or past administrative
procee~~evant to hazardous substances or petroleum products in connection with the property?
~ Yes (Describe or attach information)
(8 .) Are you aware of any notices from any governmental entity regarding any possible violation of
enviro~ws or possible liability relating to hazardous substances or petroleum products?
~ Yes (Describe or attach information)
Appendix D
Historical Aerial Photographs
GRANTSVILLE SOIL CONSERVATION PROPERTY wEI1000-000
1938 Aerial Photograph
A.WASATCH ..-= ENVIRONMENTAL
The use or reuse of this information is restricted to the referenced document unless otherwise authorized .
Wasatch Environmental Copyright 2006
WASATCH ..-= ENVIRONMENTAL
GRANTSVILLE SOIL CONSERVATION PROPERTY wEI1000-000
b\[ll)[ll)ll'@IZ □llml@lfr@
IL@@@lfr □@llil @ii
~llll@]@@fr [l2JIT'@[ll)@lfi1'W
1953 Aerial Photograph
The use or reuse of this information is restricted to the referenced document unless otherwise authorized .
Wasatch Environmental Copyright 2006
GRANTSVILLE SOIL CONSERVATION PROPERTY wEI1000-000
1965 Aerial Photograph
.A.WASATCH ..-= ENVIRONMENTAL
The use or reuse of this information is restricted to the referenced document unless otherwise authorized .
Wasatch Environmental Copyright 2006
GRANTSVILLE SOIL CONSERVATION PROPERTY wEI1000-000
1971 Aerial Photograph
.A.WASATCH ..-= ENVIRONMENTAL
The use or reuse of this information is restricted to the referenced document unless otherwise authorized .
Wasatch Environmental Copyright 2006
.A.WASATCH ..-= ENVIRONMENTAL
GRANTSVILLE SOIL CONSERVATION PROPERTY wEI1000-000
ffei[j2)[]2lll'©LZ □IITiil®~®
l@©®~□@llil @\f
~l\llllll]@©~ iPll'©IJ2l®ITi!V
..,
I
1980 Aerial Photograph
The use or reuse of this information is restricted to the referenced document unless otherwise authorized .
Wasatch Environmental Copyright 2006
a·zs, 'reoer JN
11E"o"'1 '1 q ClllM
WASATCH ..-= ENVIRONMENTAL
GRANTSVILLE SOIL CONSERVATION PROPERTY wEI1000-000
ffi;\[p)[p)l1'@21 □1IT1il ®it@
IL@©®it □@ll'il @'lf
~lllllbl]@©it iFlll'@IP)®iruW
1993 Aerial Photograph
The use or reuse of this information is restricted to the referenced document unless otherwise authorized .
Wasatch Environmental Copyright 2006
GRANTSVILLE SOIL CONSERVATION PROPERTY wE12s49.004
1997 Aerial Photograph
.A.WASATCH ..-= ENVIRONMENTAL
The use or reuse of this information is restricted to the referenced document unless otherwise authorized .
Wasatch Environmental Copyright 2006
GRANTSVILLE SOIL CONSERVATION PROPERTY wE12s49.004
2003 Aerial Photograph
WASATCH ..-= ENVIRONMENTAL
The use or reuse of this information is restricted to the referenced document unless otherwise authorized .
Wasatch Environmental Copyright 2006
lf!l@~Uil @@~~
~@QJ\lfi)(ru~~~
.A.WASATCH ..-= ENVIRONMENTAL
GRANTSVILLE SOIL CONSERVATION PROPERTY wE12s49.004
2006 Aerial Photograph
The use or reuse of this information is restricted to the referenced document unless otherwise authorized .
Wasatch Environmental Copyright 2006
GRANTSVILLE SOIL CONSERVATION PROPERTY wE12s49.004
2013 Aerial Photograph
.A.WASATCH ..-= ENVIRONMENTAL
The use or reuse of this information is restricted to the referenced document unless otheowise authorized .
Wasatch Environmental Copyright 2006
GRANTSVILLE SOIL CONSERVATION PROPERTY wE12s49.004
0 llilil@I~@
lo ITTl@ii'
~IUl@j @~@iruW
2017 Aerial Photograph
.A.WASATCH ..-= ENVIRONMENTAL
The use or reuse of this information is restricted to the referenced document unless otherwise authorized .
Wasatch Environmental Copyright 2006
Appendix E
Government Database Information
Project Property:
Project No:
Report Type:
Order No:
Requested by:
Date Completed:
Grantsville Soil Conservation Property
Sheep Lane
Tooele UT
2649-004
Database Report
23072100687
Wasatch Environmental
July 24, 2023
Environmental Risk Information Services
A division of Glacier Media Inc.
1.866.517.5204 I [e-mail] I erisinfo.com
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ........................................................................................... 2
Executive Summary ........................................................................................ 3
Executive Summary : Report Summary ....................................................................................................................... 4
Executive Summary: Site Report Summary -Project Property ................................................................................... 8
Executive Summary : Site Report Summary -Surrounding Properties ........................................................................ 9
Executive Summary : Summary by Data Source ....................................................................................................... 10
Map ............................................................................................................... 11
Aerial ............................................................................................................. 14
Topographic Map .......................................................................................... 15
Detail Report ................................................................................................. 16
Unplottable Summary ................................................................................... 18
Unplottable Report ........................................................................................ 19
Appendix: Database Descriptions ................................................................. 20
Definitions ..................................................................................................... 33
Notice: IMPORTANT LIMITATIONS and YOUR LIABILITY
Reliance on information in Report: This report DOES NOT replace a full Phase I Environmental Site Assessment but is solely intended to be used as
database review of environmental records .
License for use of information in Report: No page of this report can be used without this cover page, this notice and the project property identifier.
The information in Report(s) may not be modified or re-sold .
Your Liability for misuse: Using this Service and/or its reports in a manner contrary to this Notice or your agreement will be in breach of copyright and
contract and ERIS may obtain damages for such mis-use, including damages caused to third parties, and gives ERIS the right to terminate your account,
rescind your license to any previous reports and to bar you from future use of the Service .
No warranty of Accuracy or Liability for ERIS : The information contained in this report has been produced by ERIS Information Inc. ("ERIS") using
various sources of information, including information provided by Federal and State government departments . The report applies only to the address and
up to the date specified on the cover of this report, and any alterations or deviation from this description will require a new report. This report and the
data contained herein does not purport to be and does not constitute a guarantee of the accuracy of the information contained herein and does not
constitute a legal opinion nor medical advice . Although ERIS has endeavored to present you with information that is accurate, ERIS disclaims, any and
all liability for any errors, omissions, or inaccuracies in such information and data, whether attributable to inadvertence, negligence or otherwise, and for
any consequences arising therefrom . Liability on the part of ERIS is limited to the monetary value paid for this report.
Trademark and Copyright: You may not use the ERIS trademarks or attribute any work to ERIS other than as outlined above . This Service and Report
(s) are protected by copyright owned by ERIS Information Inc. Copyright in data used in the Service or Report(s) (the "Data") is owned by ERIS or its
licensors. The Service, Report(s) and Data may not be copied or reproduced in whole or in any substantial part without prior written consent of ERIS .
erisinfo .com I Environmental Risk Information Services Order No : 23072100687
Property Information:
Project Property:
Project No:
Coordinates:
Elevation:
Order Information:
Order No:
Date Requested:
Requested by:
Report Type:
Historicals/Products:
ERIS Xplorer
Excel Add-On
Latitude:
Longitude:
UTM Northing:
UTM Easting:
UTMZone:
-
Executive Summary
Grantsville Soil Conservation Property
Sheep Lane Tooele UT
2649-004
40.57092585
-112.39693516
4,492,065.15
381,755.22
12T
4,425 FT
23072100687
July 21, 2023
Wasatch Environmental
Database Report
ERIS Xplorer
Excel Add-On
erisinfo .com I Environmental Risk Information Services Order No : 23072100687
Executive Su-mmary: Report Su-mmary
Database Searched Search Project Within 0.125mi 0.25mito 0.50mito Total
Radius Property 0.12mi to0.25mi 0.50mi 1.00mi
Standard Environmental Records
Federal
NPL
y 0 1 0 0 0 1
PROPOSED NPL
y 0 0 0 0 0 0
DELETED NPL
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
SEMS
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
OD!
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
SEMS ARCHIVE
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
CERCLIS
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
IODI
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
CERCLIS NFRAP
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
CERCLIS LIENS
y PO 0 0
RCRA CORRACTS
y 0 0 0 0 0 0
RCRA TSD
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
RCRALQG
y 0.25 0 0 0 0
RCRASQG
y 0.25 0 0 0 0
RCRA VSQG
y 0.25 0 0 0 0
RCRANON GEN
y 0.25 0 0 0 0
RCRA CONTROLS
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
FED ENG
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
FED INST
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
LUCIS
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
NPLIC
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
ERNS 1982 TO 1986
y PO 0 0
ERNS 1987 TO 1989
y PO 0 0
ERNS
y PO 0 0
FED BROWNFIELDS
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
FEMAUST
y 0.25 0 0 0 0
FRP
y 0.25 0 0 0 0
erisinfo .com I Environmental Risk Information Services Order No : 23072100687
Database Searched Search Project Within 0.125mi 0.25mi to 0.50mito Total
Radius Property 0.12mi to0.25mi 0.50mi 1.00mi
DELISTED FRP
y 0.25 0 0 0 0
HIST GAS STATIONS
y 0.25 0 0 0 0
REFN
y 0.25 0 0 0 0
BULK TERMINAL
y 0.25 0 0 0 0
SEMS LIEN
y PO 0 0
SUPERFUND ROD
y 0 0 0 0 0 0
DOE FUSRAP
y 0 0 0 0 0 0
State
NPLUT
y 0 0 0 0 0 0
CONTAM POTENTIAL
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
SWF/LF
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
HSWF
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
LUST
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
LAST
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
DELISTED LST
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
UST
y 0.25 0 0 0 0
AST
y 0.25 0 0 0 0
UST LAPSE
y 0.25 0 0 0 0
DTNK
y 0.25 0 0 0 0
BROWN FIELDS
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
VCP
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
RESPONSE
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
INST
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
Tribal
INDIAN LUST
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
INDIAN UST
y 0.25 0 0 0 0
DELISTED INDIAN LST
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
DELISTED INDIAN UST
y 0.25 0 0 0 0
County No County standard environmental record sources available for this State.
Additional Environmental Record§
Federal
FINDS/FRS
y PO 0 0
TRIS
y PO 0 0
erisinfo .com I Environmental Risk Information Services Order No : 23072100687
Database Searched Search Project Within 0.125mi 0.25mi to 0.50mito Total
Radius Property 0.12mi to0.25mi 0.S0mi 1.00mi
PFAS NPL
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
PFAS FED SITES
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
PFASSSEHRI
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
ERNS PFAS
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
PFAS NPDES
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
PFASTRI
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
PFASWATER
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
PFASTSCA
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
PFAS E-MANIFEST
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
PFAS IND
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
HMIRS
y 0.125 0 0 0
NCDL
y 0.125 0 0 0
TSCA
y 0.125 0 0 0
HISTTSCA
y 0.125 0 0 0
FTTSADMIN
y PO 0 0
FTTSINSP
y PO 0 0
PRP
y PO 0 0
SCRD DRYCLEANER
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
ICIS
y PO 0 0
FED DRYCLEANERS
y 0.25 0 0 0 0
DELISTED FED DRY
y 0.25 0 0 0 0
FUDS
y 0 0 0 0 0 0
FUDS MRS
y 0 0 0 0 0 0
FORMER NIKE
y 0 0 0 0 0 0
PIPELINE INCIDENT
y PO 0 0
MLTS
y PO 0 0
HISTMLTS
y PO 0 0
MINES
y 0.25 0 0 0 0
SMCRA
y 0 0 0 0 0 0
MRDS
y 0 0 0 0 0 0
LM SITES
y 0 0 0 0 0 0
ALT FUELS
y 0.25 0 0 0 0
CONSENT DECREES
y 0.25 0 0 0 0
AFS
y PO 0 0
SSTS
y 0.25 0 0 0 0
erisinfo .com I Environmental Risk Information Services Order No : 23072100687
Database Searched Search Project Within 0.125mi 0.25m i to 0.50mito Total
Radius Property 0.12mi to0.25mi 0.S0mi 1.00mi
PCBT
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
PCB
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
State
SPILLS
y 0.125 0 0 0
CDL
y PO 0 0
DRY CLEANERS
y 0.25 0 0 0 0
DELISTED DRYCLEANERS
y 0.25 0 0 0 0
TIER2
y 0.125 0 0 0
Tribal No Tribal additional environmental record sources available for this State.
County No County additional environmental record sources available for this State.
Total : 0 1 0 0 0 1
* PO -Property Only
* 'Property and adjoining properties' database search radii are set at 0.25 miles.
erisinfo .com I Environmental Risk Information Services Order No : 23072100687
Executive Su-mmary: Site Report Su-mmary -Project Property
Map
Key
DB Company/Site Name Address
No records found in the selected databases for the project property .
erisinfo .com I Environmental Risk Information Services
Direction Distance
(mi/ft)
Elev Diff
(ft)
Page
Number
Order No : 23072100687
Executive Su-mmary: Site Report Su-mmary-Su-rrounding Properties
Map DB Company/Site Name Address Direction Distance Elev Diff Page
Key (mi/ft) (ft) Number
1 NPL TOOELE ARMY DEPOT 3 Ml S OF TOOELE ON HWY WSW 0 .00 / 25.08 9 16 -(NORTH AREA) 36
TOOELE UT 84074
EPA ID: UT3213820894
erisinfo .com I Environmental Risk Information Services Order No : 23072100687
Standard
Federal
NPL -National Priority List
A search of the NPL database, dated May 25, 2023 has found that there are 1 NPL site(s) within approximately 1.00 miles of the project
property .
Equal/Higher Elevation Address
TOOELE ARMY DEPOT (NORTH 3 Ml S OF TOOELE ON HWY 36
AREA) TOOELE UT 84074
EPA ID: UT3213820894
erisinfo .com I Environmental Risk Information Services
Direction
WSW
Distance (mi/ft)
0.00 I 25 .08
Map Key
Order No : 23072100687
112°26'W
I
I
I
0.55
112°25'30"W
0 ,275
112°25'W
I
I
I
#
112°24'30"W
# ------
112°24'W 112"23'30"W 112°23'W
Marshall
.... .... .. ............
........
_.-----.... .. .. ---....
........ .. .... ..
112"22'30"W 112°22'W
.... .. .. .. j
I .. f ' '\. ... -. ----------------------\ -------,
0
\ .... __ j~~~-------------------~------~ .. I
.. #
.. #
.. #
~---------~--------------------------
Miles
0.55
Map: 1.0 Mile Radius
Order Number: 23072100687
Address : Sheep Lane, Tooele, UT
112°21'30"W
I
I
I
1:35500
D Project Property ,_-~ Buffer Outline
,6 Sites with Higher Elevation Freeways ; Highways
Traffic Circle ; Ramp
Major & Minor Arterial
Traffic Circle ; Ramp
State ~ FWS Special Designation Areas
□ Sites with Same Elevation
T Sites with Lower Elevation
0 Sites with Unknown Elevation
II II Areas with Higher Elevation
II II Areas with Same Elevation
D Areas with Lower Elevation
D Areas with Unknown Elevation
C--Local Road
-+--Rail
Source: © 2021 ESRI StreetMap Premium
-Country
-National Wetland
~ Indian Reserve Land
C:J Plume
~ 100 Year Flood Zone
~ 500 Year Flood Zone
-National Priorities List (Active , Delisted ,
Proposed, Institutional Control)
© ERIS Information Inc.
z r,,
M
~
z ..
M
~
z
0
M
M
M
0 "
112'25'W
(
I
I
I
'
,
' I
I
' ' ~
#
112'24'30"W
---------,
I
'
112'24'W 112'23'30"W
J
.. .. ..
112'23'W
.... ............
Utah Mo
.. ..
~
'
-----------------------------
112'22'30"W
rsports Campus
112'22'W
•
( I
' '
.... -------------------------------------------
__ .,,,l
~
~ .. .. .... .... ---------------------------------------------
\
t; \
C')
~ I o.4 0.2 0
Map: 0.5 Mile Radius
Order Number: 23072100687
Address : Sheep Lane, Tooele, UT
Miles
0.4
D Project Property ,_-~ Buffer Outline
,6 Sites with Higher Elevation Freeways ; Highways
Traffic Circle ; Ramp
Major & Minor Arterial
Traffic Circle ; Ramp
□ Sites with Same Elevation
T Sites with Lower Elevation
0 Sites with Unknown Elevation
II II Areas with Higher Elevation
II II Areas with Same Elevation
D Areas with Lower Elevation
D Areas with Unknown Elevation
C--Local Road
-+--Rail
Source: © 2021 ESRI StreetMap Premium
State
-Country
-National Wetland
~ Indian Reserve Land
C:J Plume
~ 100 Year Flood Zone
~ 500 Year Flood Zone
1:26300
~ FWS Special Designation Areas
-National Priorities List (Active , Delisted ,
Proposed, Institutional Control)
© ERIS Information Inc.
112·2sw
I
' ' ~
~ ..
# ,
•
I
112•24•3o•w 112•24w 112°23'30"W
--...... .. .,,------------.... ..........
•
Grantsville
--------------------------------
112•23w 112°22'30"W
----------,
# .... ---------------------------------------------------
0.35 0.175 0
Map: 0.25 Mile Radius
Order Number: 23072100687
Address : Sheep Lane, Tooele, UT
D Project Property ,_-~ Buffer Outline
,6 Sites with Higher Elevation Freeways ; Highways
Traffic Circle ; Ramp
Major & Minor Arterial
Traffic Circle ; Ramp
□ Sites with Same Elevation
T Sites with Lower Elevation
0 Sites with Unknown Elevation
II II Areas with Higher Elevation
II II Areas with Same Elevation
D Areas with Lower Elevation
D Areas with Unknown Elevation
C--Local Road
-+--Rail
Source: © 2021 ESRI StreetMap Premium
State
-Country
-National Wetland
~ Indian Reserve Land
C:J Plume
~ 100 Year Flood Zone
~ 500 Year Flood Zone
1:21700
~ FWS Special Designation Areas
-National Priorities List (Active, Delisted,
Proposed, Institutional Control)
© ERIS Information Inc.
Aerial Year: 2019
Address: Sheep Lane, Tooele, UT
Source: ESRI World Imagery
Order Number: 23072100687
ER I S ~ ....__...
© ERIS Information Inc.
112'25'W 112'24'30"W 112'24'W
W TC03692
✓
i [
t --I t
I
I
I
I
I
I
4
t
\
+--
Topographic Map Year:2017
Address: Sheep Lane, UT
Quadrangle(s): Grantsville , UT ; Tooele , UT
Source: USGS Topograph ic Map
112'23'30"W 112'23'W 112'22'30"W 112'22'W
~ ,;, .,,..
"' 2
" I
~ .:;; ---
~
4)50
j
Q
0:
:j 2 ...
3;
0:
!
... ,.
2
---7
~
Order Number: 23072100687
© ERIS Information Inc.
Map Key Number of
Records
f 1 of1
EPA ID:
Site ID:
Street Addr Txt (SEMS):
City Name (SEMS):
State Code (SEMS):
Zip Code (SEMS):
County (SEMS):
Data Source:
NPL fSEMS FOIA 004/
Federal Facility: Yes
NPL Status Dt: 08/30/90
NA/: No
NA Entity (NA/ Status):
SAA (Superfund Alt):
NPL rsuperfund Sites Listi
SEMSID:
Status:
Site Score:
SITS ID:
Constr Complete No:
Constr Complete Dt:
Partial Deletion:
Proposed Fr Notice:
Final Fr Notice:
NOID Fr Notice:
Deletion Fr Notice:
Restoration Fr Notice:
800755
NPL Site
53.95
888
0
Notice of Data Availability:
Site Listing Narrative:
Site Progress Profile:
Detail Report
Direction
WSW
UT3213820894
Distance
(mi/ft)
0.00/
25.08
3 Ml S OF TOOELE ON HWY 36
TOOELE
UT
84074
TOOELE
Elev/Diff
(ft)
4,434.041
9
Site
TOOELE ARMY DEPOT (NORTH
AREA)
3 Ml S OF TOOELE ON HWY 36
TOOELE UT 84074
DB
NPL
U.S . EPA Site Boundaries Shapefile Download; U.S. EPA SUPERFUND PROGRAM . Source: SEMS Superfund
Public User Database . FOIA4 All Final NPL Sites. Retrieved on 25-MAY-2023.
County:
Latitude:
Longitude:
Proposed Date:
Listing Date:
NOIDDate:
Deletion Date:
Latitude:
Longitude:
No
TOOELE
+40 .526461
-112.410368
10/15/1984
08/30/1990
40.541669
-112 .375
<a href="https ://semspub.epa.gov/src/document/11/189641" target="_blank">10/15/1984 (PDF)</a>
<a href="https://semspub.epa.gov/src/document/11/189637" target="_blank">08/30/1990 (PDF)</a>
<a href="https ://semspub .epa .gov/src/document/08/100000229" target="_ blank">UT3213820894 (PDF)</a>
<a href="https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0800755" target="_ blank"> Tooele Army Depot
(North Area)</a>
NPL (EPA Boundaries/
EPA Program:
NPL Status:
Superfund Remedial
F
Feature 1:
Primary Telephone:
Fourth FYR
[phone]
Yes Fed Facility:
GISArea:
G/S Area Unit:
Last Changed:
Site Contact:
Site Contact 1:
Feature In:
Site Feature:
Site Feature 1:
Site Feature 2:
Yes Public Release:
23333.566251 Original C:
Acres Region Code:
26-AUG-22 12.00.00.000000 AM TierAccur:
Douglas Bacon
bacon .douglas@epa .gov
https://semspub.epa.gov/work/08/1893734 .pdf
Site Boundary
Comprehensive Site Area
1
erisinfo .com I Environmental Risk Information Services
8
3
Order No : 23072100687
Map Key
Site Feature 3:
Site Feature 4:
Site Feature 5:
Site Feature 6:
Uri Alias:
Number of
Records
Direction
2
Distance
(mi/ft)
Tooele Army Depot Site Map
Elev/Diff
(ft)
Site DB
Tooele Army Depot (TEAD) was originally established in 1942 as the Tooele Ordnance Depot by the U.S.Army
Ordnance Department. It was designated as TEAD-N in August 1962. In 1996, TEAD-Nwas designated as TEAD .
TEAD has functioned as a major ammunition sto
U.S . Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) -Region 8
www .epa .gov/superfund/tooele-army-depot
eris info.com I Environmental Risk Information Services Order No : 23072100687
-
Unplottable Summary
Total: 0 Unplottable sites
DB Company Name/Site
Name
Address
No unplottable records were found that may be relevant for the search criteria .
erisinfo .com I Environmental Risk Information Services
City Zip ERISID
Order No : 23072100687
Unplottable Report
No unplottable records were found that may be relevant for the search criteria .
erisinfo.com I Environmental Risk Information Services Order No : 23072100687
Appendix: Database Descriptions
Environmental Risk Information Services (ERIS) can search the following databases. The extent of historical information varies with
each database and current information is determined by what is publicly available to ERIS at the time of update . ERIS updates
databases as set out in ASTM Standard E1527-13 and E1527-21, Section 8.1.8 Sources of Standard Source Information :
"Government information from nongovernmental sources may be considered current if the source updates the information at least every
90 days, or, for information that is updated less frequently than quarterly by the government agency, within 90 days of the date the
government agency makes the information available to the public."
Standard Environmental Record Sources
Federal
National Priority List: NPL
Sites on the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s National Priorities List of the most serious uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous
waste sites identified for possible long-term remedial action under the Superfund program . The NPL, which EPA is required to update at least once a
year, is based primarily on the score a site receives from EPA's Hazard Ranking System. A site must be on the NPL to receive money from the
Superfund Trust Fund for remedial action . Sites are represented by boundaries where available in the EPA Superfund Site Boundaries maintained by
the Shared Enterprise Geodata and Services (SEGS). Site boundaries represent the footprint of a whole site , the sum of all of the Operable Units and
the current understanding of the full extent of contamination ; for Federal Facility sites, the total site polygon may be the Facility boundary. Where there is
no polygon boundary data available for a given site, the site is represented as a point.
Government Publication Date: May 25, 2023
National Priority List -Proposed: PROPOSED NPL
Sites proposed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the state agency, or concerned citizens for addition to the National
Priorities List (NPL) due to contamination by hazardous waste and identified by the EPA as a candidate for cleanup because it poses a risk to human
health and/or the environment. Sites are represented by boundaries where available in the EPA Superfund Site Boundaries maintained by the Shared
Enterprise Geodata and Services (SEGS). Site boundaries represent the footprint of a whole site , the sum of all of the Operable Units and the current
understanding of the full extent of contamination; for Federal Facility sites, the total site polygon may be the Facility boundary. Where there is no
polygon boundary data available for a given site , the site is represented as a point.
Government Publication Date: May 25, 2023
Deleted NPL: DELETED NPL
Sites deleted from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s National Priorities List. The National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) establishes the criteria that the EPA uses to delete sites from the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425.(e), sites
may be deleted from the NPL where no further response is appropriate . Sites are represented by boundaries where available in the EPA Superfund Site
Boundaries maintained by the Shared Enterprise Geodata and Services (SEGS). Site boundaries represent the footprint of a whole site, the sum of all of
the Operable Units and the current understanding of the full extent of contamination ; for Federal Facility sites, the total site polygon may be the Facility
boundary . Where there is no polygon boundary data available for a given site , the site is represented as a point.
Government Publication Date: May 25, 2023
SEMS List BR Active Site Inventory: SEMS
The U.S . Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Superfund Program has deployed the Superfund Enterprise Management System (SEMS), which
integrates multiple legacy systems into a comprehensive tracking and reporting tool. This inventory contains active sites evaluated by the Superfund
program that are either proposed to be or are on the National Priorities List (NPL) as well as sites that are in the screening and assessment phase for
possible inclusion on the NPL. The Active Site Inventory Report displays site and location information at active SEMS sites . An active site is one at
which site assessment, removal , remedial, enforcement, cost recovery , or oversight activities are being planned or conducted . This data includes SEMS
sites from the List SR Active file as well as applicable sites from the SEMS GIS/REST file layer obtained from EPA's Facility Registry Service.
Government Publication Date: Mar 23, 2023
erisinfo .com I Environmental Risk Information Services Order No : 23072100687
Inventory of Open Dumps. June 1985: ODI
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) provides for publication of an inventory of open dumps. The Act defines "open dumps" as
facilities which do not comply with EPA's "Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices" (40 CFR 257).
Government Publication Date: Jun 1985
SEMS List BR Archive Sites: SEMS ARCHIVE
The U.S . Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Superfund Enterprise Management System (SEMS) Archived Site Inventory displays site and
location information at sites archived from SEMS. An archived site is one at which EPA has determined that assessment has been completed and no
further remedial action is planned under the Superfund program at this time. This data includes sites from the List SR Archived site file .
Government Publication Date: Mar 23, 2023
Comprehensive Environmental Response. Compensation and Liability Information System -CERCLIS
CERCLIS:
Superfund is a program administered by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to locate, investigate, and clean up the worst
hazardous waste sites throughout the United States. CERCLIS is a database of potential and confirmed hazardous waste sites at which the EPA
Superfund program has some involvement. It contains sites that are either proposed to be or are on the National Priorities List (NPL) as well as sites
that are in the screening and assessment phase for possible inclusion on the NPL. The EPA administers the Superfund program in cooperation with
individual states and tribal governments; this database is made available by the EPA.
Government Publication Date: Oct 25, 2013
EPA Report on the Status of Open Dumps on Indian Lands: 1001
Public Law 103-399, The Indian Lands Open Dump Cleanup Act of 1994, enacted October 22, 1994, identified congressional concerns that solid waste
open dump sites located on American Indian or Alaska Native (Al/AN) lands threaten the health and safety of residents of those lands and contiguous
areas. The purpose of the Act is to identify the location of open dumps on Indian lands, assess the relative health and environment hazards posed by
those sites, and provide financial and technical assistance to Indian tribal governments to close such dumps in compliance with Federal standards and
regulations or standards promulgated by Indian Tribal governments or Alaska Native entities.
Government Publication Date: Dec 31, 1998
CERCLIS -No Further Remedial Action Planned: CERCLIS NFRAP
An archived site is one at which EPA has determined that assessment has been completed and no further remedial action is planned under the
Superfund program at this time. The Archive designation means that, to the best of EPA's knowledge, assessment at a site has been completed and
that EPA has determined no further steps will be taken to list this site on the National Priorities List (NPL). This decision does not necessarily mean that
there is no hazard associated with a given site ; it only means that, based upon available information , the location is not judged to be a potential NPL
site .
Government Publication Date: Oct 25, 2013
CERCLIS Liens : CERCLIS LIENS
A Federal Superfund lien exists at any property where EPA has incurred Superfund costs to address contamination ("Superfund site") and has provided
notice of liability to the property owner. A Federal CERCLA ("Superfund") lien can exist by operation of law at any site or property at which EPA has
spent Superfund monies. This database is made available by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This database was provided by
the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Refer to SEMS LIEN as the current data source for Superfund Liens.
Government Publication Date: Jan 30, 2014
RCRA CORRACTS-Corrective Action: RCRA CORRACTS
RCRA Info is the U .S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. At these sites, the Corrective
Action Program ensures that cleanups occur. EPA and state regulators work with facilities and communities to design remedies based on the
contamination, geology, and anticipated use unique to each site .
Government Publication Date: Apr 24, 2023
RCRA non-CORRACTS TSD Facilities: RCRA TSO
RCRA Info is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) comprehensive information system , providing access to data supporting the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. This database includes Non-
Corrective Action sites listed as treatment , storage and/or disposal facilities of hazardous waste as defined by RCRA.
Government Publication Date: Apr 24, 2023
erisinfo .com I Environmental Risk Information Services Order No : 23072100687
RCRA Generator List: RCRALQG
RCRA Info is the U .S . Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. RCRA Info replaces the data
recording and reporting abilities of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS) and the Biennial Reporting System (BRS). A
hazardous waste generator is any person or site whose processes and actions create hazardous waste (see 40 CFR 260.10). Large Quantity
Generators (LQGs) generate 1,000 kilograms per month or more of hazardous waste or more than one kilogram per month of acutely hazardous waste .
Government Publication Date: Apr 24, 2023
RCRA Small Quantity Generators List: RCRASQG
RCRA Info is the U .S . Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. RCRA Info replaces the data
recording and reporting abilities of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS) and the Biennial Reporting System (BRS). A
hazardous waste generator is any person or site whose processes and actions create hazardous waste (see 40 CFR 260.10). Small Quantity
Generators (SQGs) generate more than 100 kilograms , but less than 1,000 kilograms, of hazardous waste per month .
Government Publication Date: Apr 24, 2023
RCRA Very Small Quantity Generators List: RCRA VSQG
RCRA Info is the U .S . Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. A hazardous waste generator is
any person or site whose processes and actions create hazardous waste (see 40 CFR 260.10). Very Small Quantity Generators (VSQG) generate 100
kilograms or less per month of hazardous waste, or one kilogram or less per month of acutely hazardous waste . Additionally, VSQG may not
accumulate more than 1,000 kilograms of hazardous waste at any time .
Government Publication Date: Apr 24, 2023
RCRA Non-Generators: RCRANON GEN
RCRA Info is the U .S . Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. RCRA Info replaces the data
recording and reporting abilities of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS) and the Biennial Reporting System (BRS). A
hazardous waste generator is any person or site whose processes and actions create hazardous waste (see 40 CFR 260.10). Non-Generators do not
presently generate hazardous waste .
Government Publication Date: Apr 24, 2023
RCRA Sites with Controls: RCRA CONTROLS
List of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) facilities with institutional controls in place. RCRA gives the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) the authority to control hazardous waste from the "cradle-to-grave." This includes the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and
disposal of hazardous waste . RCRA also set forth a framework for the management of non-hazardous solid wastes. The 1986 amendments to RCRA
enabled EPA to address environmental problems that could result from underground tanks storing petroleum and other hazardous substances.
Government Publication Date: Apr 24, 2023
Federal Engineering Controls-ECs: FED ENG
This list of Engineering controls (ECs) is provided by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ECs encompass a variety of
engineered and constructed physical barriers (e.g., soil capping, sub-surface venting systems, mitigation barriers, fences) to contain and/or prevent
exposure to contamination on a property. The EC listing includes remedy component data from Superfund decision documents issued in fiscal years
1982-2021 for applicable sites on the final or deleted on the National Priorities List (NPL); and sites with a Superfund Alternative Approach (SAA)
Agreement in place . The only sites included that are not on the NPL; proposed for NPL; or removed from proposed NPL, are those with an SAA
Agreement in place .
Government Publication Date: Apr 26, 2023
Federal Institutional Controls-/Cs: FED INST
This list of Institutional controls (ICs) is provided by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ICs are non-engineered instruments,
such as administrative and legal controls, that help minimize the potential for human exposure to contamination and/or protect the integrity of the
remedy. Although it is EPA's expectation that treatment or engineering controls will be used to address principal threat wastes and that groundwater will
be returned to its beneficial use whenever practicable, ICs play an important role in site remedies because they reduce exposure to contamination by
limiting land or resource use and guide human behavior at a site. The IC listing includes remedy component data from Superfund decision documents
issued in fiscal years 1982-2021 for applicable sites on the final or deleted on the National Priorities List (NPL); and sites with a Superfund Alternative
Approach (SAA) Agreement in place . The only sites included that are not on the NPL; proposed for NPL; or removed from proposed NPL, are those with
an SAA Agreement in place .
Government Publication Date: Apr 26, 2023
erisinfo .com I Environmental Risk Information Services Order No : 23072100687
Land Use Control Information System: LUCIS
The LUCIS database is maintained by the U.S . Department of the Navy and contains information for former Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)
properties across the United States.
Government Publication Date: Sep 1, 2006
Institutional Control Boundaries at NPL sites: NPLIC
Boundaries of Institutional Control areas at sites on the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s National Priorities List, or Proposed or
Deleted , made available by the EPA's Shared Enterprise Geodata and Services (SEGS). United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s
National Priorities List of the most serious uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites identified for possible long-term remedial action under the
Superfund program . Institutional controls are non-engineered instruments such as administrative and legal controls that help minimize the potential for
human exposure to contamination and/or protect the integrity of the remedy.
Government Publication Date: May 25, 2023
Emergency Response Notification System: ERNS 1982 TO 1986
Database of oil and hazardous substances spill reports controlled by the National Response Center. The primary function of the National Response
Center is to serve as the sole national point of contact for reporting oil , chemical, radiological, biological, and etiological discharges into the environment
anywhere in the United States and its territories .
Government Publication Date: 1982-1986
Emergency Response Notification System: ERNS 1987 TO 1989
Database of oil and hazardous substances spill reports controlled by the National Response Center. The primary function of the National Response
Center is to serve as the sole national point of contact for reporting oil , chemical, radiological, biological, and etiological discharges into the environment
anywhere in the United States and its territories.
Government Publication Date: 1987-1989
Emergency Response Notification System: ERNS
Database of oil and hazardous substances spill reports made available by the United States Coast Guard National Response Center (NRC). The NRC
fields initial reports for pollution and railroad incidents and forwards that information to appropriate federal/state agencies for response . These data
contain initial incident data that has not been validated or investigated by a federal/state response agency.
Government Publication Date: Jan 16, 2023
The Assessment. Cleanup and Redevelopment Exchange System fACRESI Brownfield Database: FED BROWNFIELDS
Brownfields are real property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a
hazardous substance , pollutant, or contaminant. Cleaning up and reinvesting in these properties protects the environment, reduces blight, and takes
development pressures off greenspaces and working lands. This data is provided by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and
includes Brownfield sites from the Cleanups in My Community (CIMC) web application .
Government Publication Date: Sep 13, 2022
FEMA Underground Storage Tank Listing: FEMA UST
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) of the Department of Homeland Security maintains a list of FEMA owned underground storage
tanks.
Government Publication Date: Dec 31, 2017
Facility Response Plan: FRP
This listing contains facilities that have submitted Facility Response Plans (FRPs) to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Facilities that
could reasonably be expected to cause "substantial harm" to the environment by discharging oil into or on navigable waters are required to prepare and
submit FRPs. Harm is determined based on total oil storage capacity, secondary containment and age of tanks, oil transfer activities , history of
discharges, proximity to a public drinking water intake or sensitive environments. This listing includes FRP facilities from an applicable EPA FOIA file
and Homeland Infrastructure Foundation-Level Data (HIFLD) data file .
Government Publication Date: Aug 8, 2022
Delisted Facility Response Plans: DELISTED FRP
Facilities that once appeared in -and have since been removed from -the list of facilities that have submitted Facility Response Plans (FRP) to EPA.
Facilities that could reasonably be expected to cause "substantial harm" to the environment by discharging oil into or on navigable waters are required to
prepare and submit Facility Response Plans (FRPs). Harm is determined based on total oil storage capacity , secondary containment and age of tanks,
oil transfer activities, history of discharges, proximity to a public drinking water intake or sensitive environments.
Government Publication Date: Aug 8, 2022
eris info.com I Environmental Risk Information Services Order No : 23072100687
Historical Gas Stations: HIST GAS STATIONS
This historic directory of service stations is provided by the Cities Service Company. The directory includes Cities Service filling stations that were
located throughout the United States in 1930.
Government Publication Date: Jul 1, 1930
Petroleum Refineries: REFN
List of petroleum refineries from the U.S . Energy Information Administration (EIA) Refinery Capacity Report . Includes operating and idle petroleum
refineries (including new refineries under construction) and refineries shut down during the previous year located in the 50 States, the District of
Columbia, Puerto Rico , the Virgin Islands, Guam , and other U.S. possessions. Survey locations adjusted using public data.
Government Publication Date: Aug 30, 2022
Petroleum Product and Crude Oil Rail Terminals: BULK TERMINAL
List of petroleum product and crude oil rail terminals made available by the U.S . Energy Information Administration (EIA). Includes operable bulk
petroleum product terminals located in the 50 States and the District of Columbia with a total bulk shell storage capacity of 50,000 barrels or more,
and/or the ability to receive volumes from tanker, barge , or pipeline ; also rail terminals handling the loading and unloading of crude oil that were active
between 2017 and 2018. Petroleum product terminals comes from the EIA-815 Bulk Terminal and Blender Report, which includes working, shell in
operation , and shell idle for several major product groupings. Survey locations adjusted using public data.
Government Publication Date: Jun 29, 2022
LIEN on Property: SEMS LIEN
The U.S . Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Superfund Enterprise Management System (SEMS) provides Lien details on applicable properties,
such as the Superfund lien on property activity, the lien property information, and the parties associated with the lien .
Government Publication Date: Mar 23, 2023
Superfund Decision Documents: SUPERFUND ROD
This database contains a list of decision documents for Superfund sites. Decision documents serve to provide the reasoning for the choice of (or)
changes to a Superfund Site cleanup plan . The decision documents include completed Records of Decision (ROD), ROD Amendments, Explanations of
Significant Differences (ESD) for active and archived sites stored in the Superfund Enterprise Management System (SEMS), along with other associated
memos and files. This information is maintained and made available by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Government Publication Date: Mar 23, 2023
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program: DOE FUSRAP
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) established the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) in 1974 to remediate sites where
radioactive contamination remained from the Manhattan Project and early U.S . Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) operations . The DOE Office of
Legacy Management (LM) established long-term surveillance and maintenance (L TS&M) requirements for remediated FUSRAP sites. DOE evaluates
the final site conditions of a remediated site on the basis of risk for different future uses. DOE then confirms that L TS&M requirements will maintain
protectiveness .
Government Publication Date: Mar 4, 2017
Utah National Priorities List: NPLUT
The National Priorities List (NPL) is maintained by the Utah Department of Environmental Quality's Division of Environmental Response and
Remediation (DERR). Before a cleanup of a hazardous waste site can take place under Superfund , it must be included on the National Priority List. The
NPL is a published list of hazardous waste sites that are eligible for extensive , long-term cleanup action under the Superfund program . When no
responsible party can be found, listing on the NPL allows EPA and the State to access the Superfund Trust fund to pay for site cleanup . The DERR
assumes no responsibility or liability for the accuracy of the location of these properties.
Government Publication Date: May 15, 2023
Potential Contaminated Sites: CONTAM POTENTIAL
This database of Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability System sites is maintained by the Utah Department of
Environmental Quality's Division of Environmental Response and Remediation (DERR). The CERCLA Branch of the DERR performs site investigations
of potentially contaminated sites within the State of Utah to determine whether or not they pose a threat to human health and the environment and
should be included on the Federal Superfund National Priorities List. Sites are extracted from the Utah Environmental Interactive Map . The DERR
assumes no responsibility or liability for the accuracy of the location of these properties .
Government Publication Date: May 17, 2023
erisinfo .com I Environmental Risk Information Services Order No : 23072100687
Solid Waste Facilities and Landfills:
A list of solid waste facilities provided by the Utah Department of Environmental Quality Interactive Map.
Government Publication Date: Apr 26, 2023
SWF/LF
Historical Solid Waste and Landfill Facilities: HSWF
The Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste of the Department of Enviromental Quality (DEQ) maintains a list of historically closed landfills . Public Land
Survey System (PLSS) locations provided by the source are subject to accuracy limitations inherent to the PLSS system .
Government Publication Date: Sep 22, 2014
Sites With Leaking Underground Storage Tanks fLUSTI: LUST
A list of Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) sites made available by the Underground Storage Tank Branch of the Department of Environmental
Quality (DEQ), Division of Environmental Response and Remediation (DERR). The listing Includes sites from the DEQ's LUST Sites List as well as
LUST sites from the DEQ's Environmental Interactive Map, and the Facility UST sites data layer (applicable release sites) from the Utah Open Data
Portal.
Government Publication Date: Mar 20, 2023
Sites With Leaking Aboveground Storage Tanks fLASn:
A list of state regulated aboveground petroleum storage tank releases from the Utah Department of Environmental Quality.
Government Publication Date: Jun 8, 2023
Delisted Leaking Storage Tank:
LAST
DELISTED LST
This database contains a list of closed leaking storage tank sites that were removed from the Utah State Underground Storage Tank program of the
Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ).
Government Publication Date: Jun 8, 2023
Sites With Underground Storage Tanks (USTI: UST
A list of Underground Storage Tank (UST) sites made available by the Underground Storage Tank Branch of the Department of Environmental Quality
(DEQ), Division of Environmental Response and Remediation (DERR). The listing Includes sites from the DEQ's UST Sites list as well as UST sites
from the DEQ's Environmental Interactive Map, and the Facility UST sites data layer from the Utah Open Data Portal.
Government Publication Date: Mar 20, 2023
Sites With Aboveground Storage Tanks (ASTI:
A list of state regulated aboveground petroleum storage tanks from the Utah Department of Environmental Quality.
Government Publication Date: Jun 8, 2023
Tanks Lapse List:
AST
UST LAPSE
A list of tank facilities that do not have an active Certificate of Compliance due to lapsing, revocation , or installation in process . The listed USTs at these
facilities are ineligible to receive deliveries of fuel. Made available by the Underground Storage Tanks Compliance Branch of the Utah Department of
Environmental Quality.
Government Publication Date: Apr 13, 2023
Delisted Storage Tanks: DTNK
This database contains a list of closed storage tank sites that were removed from the Utah State Underground Storage Tank program of the Department
of Environmental Quality (DEQ).
Government Publication Date: Jun 8, 2023
List of Targeted and Non-targeted Brownfields: BROWNFIELDS
List of Brownfields Projects, either targeted or not targeted for cleanup, made available by the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Division of
Environmental Response and Remediation (DERR). The DERR conducts Brownfields activities under authorities of the Voluntary Release Cleanup Act,
Hazardous Substances Mitigation Act and the Small Business Liability Relief Brownfields Revitalization Act. These statutes provide mechanisms by
which the DERR oversees the assessment and cleanup of Brownfields.
Government Publication Date: Oct 11, 2022
Voluntary Cleanup Site List: VCP
The Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP) of the Utah Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) was created to promote the voluntary cleanup of
contaminated sites . The VCP is intended to encourage redevelopment of Brownfields and other impacted sites by providing a streamlined cleanup
program . This data is compiled from the DEQ's Division of Environmental Response & Remediation (DERR) VCP/Brownfields Section Site List and the
DERR VCP Map Data from the Utah Environmental Interactive Map tool.
erisinfo .com I Environmental Risk Information Services Order No : 23072100687
Government Publication Date: Oct 10, 2022
Response Action Sites: RESPONSE
The Voluntary Cleanup Program/Brownfields Section of the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) maintains a list of sites at which Response
Actions are planned or have been completed .
Government Publication Date: Mar 9, 2023
Sites with Institutional Controls: INST
Sites included in the Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP), Superfund and Underground Storage Tank Facilities list that have environmental convenants
and institutional controls in place .
Government Publication Date: Jun 20, 2023
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Tribal/Indian Lands: INDIAN LUST
This list of leaking underground storage tanks (LUSTs) on Tribal/Indian Lands in Region 8, which includes Utah, is made available by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Government Publication Date: Apr 20, 2023
Underground Storage Tanks on Tribal/Indian Lands: INDIAN UST
This list of underground storage tanks (USTs) on Tribal/Indian Lands in Region 8 , which includes Utah, is made available by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Government Publication Date: Apr 20, 2023
Delisted Tribal Leaking Storage Tanks: DELISTED INDIAN LST
Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) facilities which once appeared on -and have since been removed from -the Regional Tribal/Indian LUST
lists made available by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Government Publication Date: Apr 26, 2023
Delisted Tribal Underground Storage Tanks: DELISTED INDIAN UST
Underground Storage Tank (UST) facilities which once appeared on -and have since been removed from -the Regional Tribal/Indian UST lists made
available by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Government Publication Date: Apr 26, 2023
County
No County standard environmental record sources available for this State.
Additional Environmental Record Sources
Federal
Facility Registry Service/Facility Index: FINDS/FRS
The Facility Registry Service (FRS) is a centrally managed database that identifies facilities, sites, or places subject to environmental regulations or of
environmental interest. FRS creates high-quality, accurate, and authoritative facility identification records through rigorous verification and management
procedures that incorporate information from program national systems , state master facility records, and data collected from EPA's Central Data
Exchange registrations and data management personnel. This list is made available by the Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA).
Government Publication Date: Aug 18, 2022
Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) Program: TRIS
erisinfo .com I Environmental Risk Information Services Order No : 23072100687
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) is a database containing data on disposal or other releases of toxic
chemicals from U.S . facilities and information about how facilities manage those chemicals through recycling , energy recovery , and treatment. There are
currently 770 individually listed chemicals and 33 chemical categories covered by the TRI Program . Facilities that manufacture , process or otherwise
use these chemicals in amounts above established levels must submit annual reporting forms for each chemical. Note that the TRI chemical list does
not include all toxic chemicals used in the U.S . One of TRl's primary purposes is to inform communities about toxic chemical releases to the
environment.
Government Publication Date: Oct 19, 2022
PFOAIPFOS Contaminated Sites: PFAS NPL
List of National Priorities List (NPL) and related Superfund Alternative Agreement (SAA) sites where PFOA or PFOS contaminants have been found in
water and/or soil. The site listing is provided by the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Government Publication Date: Mar 28, 2023
Federal Agency Locations with Known or Suspected PFAS Detections: PFAS FED SITES
List of Federal agency locations with known or suspected detections of Per-and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS), made available by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in their PFAS Analytic Tools data . EPA outlines that these data are gathered from several federal entities, such
as the Federal Superfund program , Department of Defense (DOD), National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Department of Transportation , and
Department of Energy. The dates this data was extracted for the PFAS Analytic Tools range from March 2022 to April 2023. Sites on this list do not
necessarily reflect the source/s of PFAS contamination and detections do not indicate level of risk or human exposure at the site . Agricultural
notifications in this data are limited to DOD sites only. At th is time, the EPA is aware that this list is not comprehensive of all Federal agencies.
Government Publication Date: Apr 24, 2023
SSEHRI PFAS Contamination Sites: PFAS SSEHRI
This PFAS Contamination Site Tracker database is compiled by the Social Science Environmental Health Research Institute (SSEHRI) at Northeastern
University. According to the SSEHRI, the database records qualitative and quantitative data from each known site of PFAS contamination, including
timeline of discovery, sources, levels , health impacts , community response , and government response . The goal of this database is to compile
information and support public understanding of the rapidly unfolding issue of PFAS contamination. All data presented was extracted from government
websites, news articles, or publ icly available documents , and this is cited in the tracker. Locations for the Known PFAS Contamination Sites are sourced
from the PFAS Sites and Community Resources Map, credited to the Northeastern University's PFAS Project Lab , Silent Spring Institute, and the PFAS-
REACH team . Disclaimer: The source conveys the data undergoes regular updates as new information becomes available, some sites may be missing
and/or contain information that is incorrect or outdated , as well as their information represents all contamination sites SSEHRI is aware of, not all
possible contamination sites . This data is not intended to be used for legal purposes . Access the following source link for the most current information :
https ://pfasproject.com/pfas-sites-and-community-resources/
Government Publication Date: Oct 9, 2022
National Response Center PFAS Spills: ERNS PFAS
This Per-and Poly-Fluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Spills dataset is made available via the U.S . Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) PFAS
Analytic Tools. The National Response Center (NRC), operated by the U.S. Coast Guard, serves as an emergency call center that fields initial reports
for pollution and railroad incidents and forwards that information to appropriate federal/state agencies for response . Response center calls from 1990 to
the most recent complete calendar year where there was indication of Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) usage are included in th is dataset. NRC
calls may reference AFFF usage in the "Material Involved" or "Incident Description" fields . Limitations : The data from the NRC website contain initial
incident data that has not been validated or investigated by a federal/state response agency. Keyword searches may misidentify some incident reports
that do not contain PFAS. This dataset should also not be considered to be exhaustive of all PFAS spills/release incidents.
Government Publication Date: Apr 15, 2023
PFAS NPDES Discharge Monitoring: PFAS NPDES
This list of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitted facilities with required monitoring for Per-and Polyfluoroalkyl (PFAS)
Substances is made available via the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s PFAS Analytic Tools . Any point-source wastewater discharger to
waters of the United States must have a NPDES permit, which defines a set of parameters for pollutants and monitoring to ensure that the discharge
does not degrade water quality or impair human health. This list includes NPDES permitted facilities associated with permits that monitor for Per-and
Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS), limited to the years 2007 -present. EPA further advises the following regarding these data : currently , fewer than half
of states have required PFAS mon itoring for at least one of their permittees, and fewer states have established PFAS effluent lim its for permittees. For
states that may have required monitoring, some reporting and data transfer issues may exist on a state-by-state basis.
Government Publication Date: Feb 19, 2023
Perfluorinated Alkyl Substances (PFAS) from Toxic Release Inventory: PFAS TRI
erisinfo .com I Environmental Risk Information Services Order No : 23072100687
List of Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) facilities at which the reported chemical is a per-or polyfluoroalkyl (PFAS) substance included in the U.S .
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) consolidated PFAS Master List of PFAS Substances. Encompasses Toxics Release Inventory records
included in the EPA PFAS Analytic Tools . The EPA's TRI database currently tracks information on disposal or releases of 770 individually listed toxic
chemicals and 33 chemical categories from thousands of U.S. facilities and details about how facilities manage those chemicals through recycling,
energy recovery, and treatment.
Government Publication Date: Oct 19, 2022
Perfluorinated Alkyl Substances fPFAS) Water Quality: PFAS WATER
The Water Quality Portal (WQP) is a cooperative service sponsored by the United States Geological Survey (USGS), the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), and the National Water Quality Monitoring Council (NWQMC). This listing includes records from the Water Quality Portal where the
characteristic (environmental measurement) is in the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s consolidated Master List of PFAS Substances.
Government Publication Date: Jul 20, 2020
PFAS TSCA Manufacture and Import Facilities: PFAS TSCA
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued the Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) Rule under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and
requires chemical manufacturers and facilities that manufacture or import chemical substances to report data to EPA. This list is specific only to TSCA
Manufacture and Import Facilities with reported per-and poly-fluoroalkyl (PFAS) substances. Data file is sourced from EPA's PFAS Analytic Tools TSCA
dataset which includes CDR/lnventory Update Reporting data from 1998 up to 2020. Disclaimer: This data file includes production and importation data
for chemicals identified in EPA's CompTox Chemicals Dashboard list of PFAS without explicit structures and list of PFAS structures in DSSTox. Note
that some regulations have specific chemical structure requirements that define PFAS differently than the lists in EPA's CompTox Chemicals
Dashboard . Reporting information on manufactured or imported chemical substance amounts should not be compared between facilities, as some
companies claim Chemical Data Reporting Rule data fields for PFAS information as Confidential Business Information .
Government Publication Date: Jan 5, 2023
PFAS Waste Transfers from RCRA e-Manifest : PFAS E-MANIFEST
This Per-and Poly-Fluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Waste Transfers dataset is made available via the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
PFAS Analytic Tools. Every shipment of hazardous waste in the U.S . must be accompanied by a shipment manifest, which is a critical component of the
cradle-to-grave tracking of wastes mandated by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). According to the EPA, currently no Federal
Waste Code exists for any PFAS compounds. To work around the lack of PFAS waste codes in the RCRA database, EPA developed the PFAS
Transfers dataset by mining a-Manifest records containing at least one of these common PFAS keywords : • PFAS • PFOA • PFOS • PERFL • AFFF •
GENX • GEN-X (plus the Vermont state-specific waste codes). Limitations: Amount or concentration of PFAS being transferred cannot be determined
from the manifest information. Keyword searches may misidentify some manifest records that do not contain PFAS. This dataset should also not be
considered to be exhaustive of all PFAS waste transfers .
Government Publication Date: Apr 9, 2023
PFAS Industry Sectors: PFAS IND
This Per-and Poly-Fluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Industry Sectors dataset is made available via the U .S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
PFAS Analytic Tools. The EPA developed the dataset from various sources that show which industries may be handling PFAS including: EPA's
Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) records restricted to potential PFAS-handling industry sectors ; ECHO records for Fire Training
Sites identified where fire-fighting foam may have been used in training exercises; and 14 CFR Part 139 Airports compiled from historic and current
records from the FAA Airport Data and Information Portal. Since July 2006, all certificated Part 139 Airports are required to have fire-fighting foam onsite
that meet certain military specifications, which to date have been fluorinated (Aqueous Film Forming Foam). Limitations: Inclusion in this dataset does
not indicate that PFAS are being manufactured , processed, used, or released by the facility. Listed facilities potentially handle PFAS based on their
industrial profile, but are unconfirmed by the EPA. Keyword searches in ECHO for Fire Training sites may misidentify some facilities and should not be
considered to be an exhaustive list of fire training facilities in the U .S .
Government Publication Date: Apr 16, 2023
Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System: HMIRS
US DOT -Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) Incidents Reports Database taken from
Hazmat Intelligence Portal, U.S . Department of Transportation .
Government Publication Date: Sep 1, 2020
National Clandestine Drug Labs: NCDL
The U.S. Department of Justice ("the Department"), Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), provides this data as a public service . It contains
addresses of some locations where law enforcement agencies reported they found chemicals or other items that indicated the presence of either
clandestine drug laboratories or dumpsites. In most cases, the source of the entries is not the Department, and the Department has not verified the entry
and does not guarantee its accuracy.
Government Publication Date: Feb 8, 2023
erisinfo .com I Environmental Risk Information Services Order No : 23072100687
Toxic Substances Control Act: TSCA
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is amending the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) section 8(a) Inventory Update Reporting (IUR) rule
and changing its name to the Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule .
The CDR enables EPA to collect and publish information on the manufacturing, processing, and use of commercial chemical substances and mixtures
(referred to hereafter as chemical substances) on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory (TSCA Inventory). This includes current information on
chemical substance production volumes, manufacturing sites, and how the chemical substances are used . This information helps the Agency determine
whether people or the environment are potentially exposed to reported chemical substances . EPA publishes submitted CDR data that is not Confidential
Business Information (CBI).
Government Publication Date: Apr 11, 2019
Hist TSCA: HISTTSCA
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is amending the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) section 8(a) Inventory Update Reporting (IUR) rule
and changing its name to the Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule .
The 2006 IUR data summary report includes information about chemicals manufactured or imported in quantities of 25,000 pounds or more at a single
site during calendar year 2005. In addition to the basic manufacturing information collected in previous reporting cycles, the 2006 cycle is the first time
EPA collected information to characterize exposure during manufacturing, processing and use of organic chemicals . The 2006 cycle also is the first time
manufacturers of inorganic chemicals were required to report basic manufacturing information .
Government Publication Date: Dec 31, 2006
FTTS Administrative Case Listing: FTTS ADMIN
An administrative case listing from the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, & Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), together
known as FTTS. This database was obtained from the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) National Compliance Database (NCDB). The FTTS
and NCDB was shut down in 2006.
Government Publication Date: Jan 19, 2007
FTTS Inspection Case Listing: FTTS INSP
An inspection case listing from the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, & Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), together
known as FTTS. This database was obtained from the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) National Compliance Database (NCDB). The FTTS
and NCDB was shut down in 2006.
Government Publication Date: Jan 19, 2007
Potentially Responsible Parties List: PRP
Early in the site cleanup process, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducts a search to find the Potentially Responsible Parties
(PRPs). The EPA looks for evidence to determine liability by matching wastes found at the site with parties that may have contributed wastes to the site .
This listing contains PRPs, Noticed Parties, at sites in the EPA's Superfund Enterprise Management System (SEMS).
Government Publication Date: Jan 25, 2023
State Coalition for Remediation of Drvcleaners Listing: SCRD DRYCLEANER
The State Coalition for Remediation of Drycleaners (SCRD) was established in 1998, with support from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation . Coalition members are states with mandated programs and funding for drycleaner
site remediation . Current members are Alabama, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin . Since 2017, the SCRD no longer maintains this data, refer to applicable state source data where available.
Government Publication Date: Nov 08, 2017
Integrated Compliance Information System llCIS/: ICIS
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Enforcement and Compliance History Online system incorporates data from the Integrated Compliance
Information System -National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (ICIS-NPDES). ICIS-NPDES is an information management system maintained
by the Office of Compliance to track permit compliance and enforcement status of facilities regulated by the NPDES under the Clean Water Act. This
data includes permit, inspection, violation and enforcement action information for applicable ICIS records .
Government Publication Date: Oct 15, 2022
Drvcleaner Facilities: FED DRYCLEANERS
A list of drycleaner facilities from Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) data as made available by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), sourced from the ECHO Exporter file . The EPA tracks facilities that possess NAIC and SIC codes that classify businesses as drycleaner
establishments.
Government Publication Date: Apr 15, 2023
Delisted Drvcleaner Facilities: DELISTED FED DRY
erisinfo .com I Environmental Risk Information Services Order No : 23072100687
List of sites removed from the list of Drycleaner Facilities (sites in the EPA's Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS) with NAIC or SIC codes
identifying the business as a drycleaner establishment).
Government Publication Date: Apr 15, 2023
Formerly Used Defense Sites: FUDS
Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS) are properties that were formerly owned by, leased to, or otherwise possessed by and under the jurisdiction of the
Secretary of Defense prior to October 1986, where the Department of Defense (DOD) is responsible for an environmental restoration. The FUDS Annual
Report to Congress (ARC) is published by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE). This data is compiled from the USACE's Geospatial FUDS data
layers and Homeland Infrastructure Foundation-Level Data (HIFLD) FUDS dataset.
Government Publication Date: Jul 12, 2022
FUDS Munitions Response Sites: FUDS MRS
Boundaries of Munitions Response Sites (MRS), published with the Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS) Annual Report to Congress (ARC) by the U.S .
Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE). An MRS is a discrete location within a Munitions response area (MRA) that is known to require a munitions
response . An MRA means any area on a defense site that is known or suspected to contain unexploded ordnance (UXO), discarded military munitions
(DMM), or munitions constituents (MC). This data is compiled from the USACE's Geospatial MRS data layers and Homeland Infrastructure Foundation-
Level Data (HIFLD) MRS dataset.
Government Publication Date: Jul 12, 2022
Former Military Nike Missile Sites: FORMER NIKE
This information was taken from report DRXTH-AS-IA-83A016 (Historical Overview of the Nike Missile System, 12/1984) which was performed by
Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc. for the U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency Assessment Division . The Nike system was
deployed between 1954 and the mid-1970's. Among the substances used or stored on Nike sites were liquid missile fuel (JP-4); starter fluids (UDKH,
aniline, and furfuryl alcohol); oxidizer (IRFNA); hydrocarbons (motor oil, hydraulic fluid, diesel fuel , gasoline, heating oil); solvents (carbon tetrachloride ,
trichloroethylene, trichloroethane, stoddard solvent); and battery electrolyte. The quantities of material a disposed of and procedures for disposal are not
documented in published reports . Virtually all information concerning the potential for contamination at Nike sites is confined to personnel who were
assigned to Nike sites . During deactivation most hardware was shipped to depot-level supply points. There were reportedly instances where excess
materials were disposed of on or near the site itself at closure . There was reportedly no routine site decontamination .
Government Publication Date: Dec 2, 1984
PHMSA Pipeline Safety Flagged Incidents: PIPELINE INCIDENT
A list of flagged pipeline incidents made available by the U.S. Department of Transportation (US DOT) Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA). PHMSA regulations require incident and accident reports for five different pipeline system types .
Government Publication Date: Mar 31, 2021
Material Licensing Tracking System (ML TSJ: MLTS
A list of sites that store radioactive material subject to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licensing requirements. This list is maintained by the
NRC. As of September 2016, the NRC no longer releases location information for sites . Site locations were last received in July 2016 .
Government Publication Date: May 11, 2021
Historic Material Licensing Tracking System (ML TSJ sites: HISTMLTS
A historic list of sites that have inactive licenses and/or removed from the Material Licensing Tracking System (ML TS). In some cases, a site is removed
from the ML TS when the state becomes an "Agreement State". An Agreement State is a State that has signed an agreement with the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) authorizing the State to regulate certain uses of radioactive materials within the State .
Government Publication Date : Jan 31, 2010
Mines Master Index File: MINES
The Master Index File (MIF) is provided by the United State Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA). This file, which was
originally created in the 1970's, contained many Mine-IDs that were invalid. MSHA removes invalid IDs from the MIF upon discovery. MSHA applicable
data includes the following : all Coal and Metal/Non-Metal mines under MSHA's jurisdiction since 1/1/1970; mine addresses for all mines in the database
except for Abandoned mines prior to 1998 from MSHA's legacy system (addresses may or may not correspond with the physical location of the mine
itself); violations that have been assessed penalties as a result of MSHA inspections beginning on 1/1/2000; and violations issued as a result of MSHA
inspections conducted beginning on 1/1/2000.
Government Publication Date: Nov 7, 2022
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act Sites: SMCRA
erisinfo .com I Environmental Risk Information Services Order No : 23072100687
An inventory of land and water impacted by past mining (primarily coal mining) is maintained by the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
Enforcement (OSMRE) to provide information needed to implement the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA). The inventory
conta ins information on the location, type, and extent of Abandoned Mine Land (AML) impacts, as well as information on the cost associated with the
reclamation of those problems. The inventory is based upon field surveys by State, Tribal, and OSMRE program officials. It is dynamic to the extent that
it is modified as new problems are identified and existing problems are reclaimed .
Government Publication Date: Aug 18, 2022
Mineral Resource Data System: MRDS
The Mineral Resource Data System (MRDS) is a collection of reports describing metallic and nonmetallic mineral resources throughout the world .
Included are deposit name, location, commodity , deposit description, geologic characteristics , production, reserves , resources , and references . This
database contains the records previously provided in the Mineral Resource Data System (MRDS) of USGS and the Mineral Availability System/Mineral
Industry Locator System (MAS/MILS) originated in the U.S . Bureau of Mines, which is now part of USGS . The USGS has ceased systematic updates of
the MRDS database with their focus more recently on deposits of critical minerals while providing a well-documented baseline of historical mine
locations from USGS topographic maps.
Government Publication Date: Mar 15, 2016
DOE Legacy Management Sites: LM SITES
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Legacy Management (LM) currently manages radioactive and chemical waste, environmental
contamination , and hazardous material at over 100 sites across the U .S. The LM manages sites w ith diverse regulatory drivers (statutes or programs
that direct cleanup and management requirements at DOE sites) or as part of internal DOE or congressionally-recognized programs , such as but not
limited to: Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP), Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA Title I, Tile II),
Comprehensive Environmental Response , Compensation , and Liability Act (CERCLA), Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),
Decontamination and Decommissioning (D&D), Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA). This site listing includes data exported from the DOE Office of LM'
s Geospatial Environmental Mapping System (GEMS). GEMS Data disclaimer: The DOE Office of LM makes no representation or warranty, expressed
or implied , regarding the use, accuracy, availability , or completeness of the data presented herein.
Government Publication Date: Dec 1, 2022
Alternative Fueling Stations: ALT FUELS
This list of alternative fueling stations is sourced from the Alternative Fuels Data Center (AFDC). The U.S . Department of Energy's Office of Energy
Efficiency & Renewable Energy launched the AFDC in 1991 as a repository for alternative fuel vehicle performance data , which provides a wealth of
information and data on alternative and renewable fuels, advanced vehicles , fuel -saving strategies, and emerging transportation technologies. The data
includes Biodiesel (B20 and above), Compressed Natural Gas (CNG), Electric, Ethanol (E85), Hydrogen, Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG), Propane (LPG),
and Renewable Diesel (R20 and above) fuel type locations.
Government Publication Date: Jun 5, 2023
Superfunds Consent Decrees: CONSENT DECREES
This list of Superfund consent decrees is provided by the Department of Justice , Environment & Natural Resources Division (ENRD) through a Freedom
of Information Act (FOIA) applicable file . This listing includes Consent Decrees for CERCLA or Superfund Sites filed and/or as proposed within the
ENRD's Case Management System (CMS) since 2010. CMS may not reflect the latest developments in a case nor can the agency guarantee the
accuracy of the data. ENRD Discla imer: Congress excluded three discrete categories of law enforcement and national security records from the
requirements of the FOIA; response is limited to those records that are subject to the requirements of the FOIA; however, this should not be taken as an
indication that excluded records do, or do not, exist.
Government Publication Date: Apr 19, 2023
Air Facility System: AFS
Th is EPA retired Air Facil ity System (AFS) dataset contains emissions, compliance , and enforcement data on stationary sources of air pollution .
Regulated sources cover a wide spectrum ; from large industrial facilities to relatively small operations such as dry cleaners. AFS does not contain data
on facilities that are solely asbestos demolition and/or renovation contractors, or landfills. ECHO Clean Air Act data from AFS are frozen and reflect
data as of October 17 , 2014 ; the EPA retired this system for Clean A ir Act stationary sources and transitioned to ICIS-Air.
Government Publication Date: Oct 17, 2014
Registered Pesticide Establishments: SSTS
This national list of active EPA-registered foreign and domestic pesticide and/or device-producing establishments is based on data from the Section
Seven Tracking System (SSTS). The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Section 7 requires that each producing establishment
must place its EPA establishment number on the label or immediate container of each pesticide , active ingredient or device produced . An EPA
establishment number on a pesticide product label identifies the EPA reg istered location where the product was produced. The list of establishments is
made available by the U.S . Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Government Publication Date: Mar 1, 2023
erisinfo .com I Environmental Risk Information Services Order No : 23072100687
Polychlorinated Biphenyl fPCBI Transformers : PCBT
Locations of Transformers Containing Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) registered with the United States Environmental Protection Agency. PCB
transformer owners must register their transformer(s) with EPA. Although not required, PCB transformer owners who have removed and properly
disposed of a registered PCB transformer may notify EPA to have their PCB transformer de-registered . Data made available by EPA.
Government Publication Date: Oct 15, 2019
Polychlorinated Biphenyl fPCBI Notifiers: PCB
Facilities included in the national list of facilities that have notified the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of Polychlorinated Biphenyl
(PCB) activities. Any company or person storing , transporting or disposing of PCBs or conducting PCB research and development must notify the EPA
and receive an identification number.
Government Publication Date: Nov 3, 2022
Spill Reports 1988 current through February 7, 2013: SPILLS
Regulated industry, permitted facilities, waste transporters and others are required by state laws to report chemical spills and other environmental
incidents within certain time frames, depending on the type of incident. These incidents are reported to The Division of Environmental Response &
Remediation (DERR) of the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ).
Government Publication Date: Jul 10, 2023
Methamphetamine Contaminated Properties: CDL
Utah Administrative Rule 19-6-901 Illegal Drug Operations Site Reporting and Decontamination Act requires local health departments to maintain a list
of properties believed to be contaminated by the illegal manufacture of drugs. These properties were reported to the Salt Lake Valley Health Department
by a complaint or report from a law enforcement agency and the Department has determined that reasonable evidence exists that the property is
contaminated . Once a property is decontaminated, it is removed from this list.
Government Publication Date: Nov 15, 2022
Dry Cleaning Facilities: DRYCLEANERS
The Division of Air Quality of the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) maintains a list of regulated dry cleaners that use perchlorethylene (PCE).
This site data is compiled from applicable FOIA files received from the DEQ's Division of Air Quality, the DEQ's Environmental Interactive Map layer of
Dry Cleaner Facilities , and also the Utah OpenData Catalog Dry Cleaners dataset.
Government Publication Date: Apr 27, 2023
Delisted Drycleaners: DELISTED DRYCLEANERS
A list of sites which once appeared on -and have since been removed from -the list of regulated dry cleaners that use perchlorethylene (PCE) made
available by the Division of Air Quality of the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ).
Government Publication Date: Apr 27, 2023
Tier 2 Chemical Inventory Program : TIER2
A list of Tier 2 facilities managed by the Division of Environmental Response and Remediation (DERR) of the the Utah Department of Environmental
Quality (DEQ).
Government Publication Date: Nov 9, 2022
Tribal
No Tribal additional environmental record sources available for this State.
County
No County additional environmental record sources available for this State.
erisinfo .com I Environmental Risk Information Services Order No : 23072100687
Definitions
Database Descriptions: This section provides a detailed explanation for each database including : source , information available, time coverage, and
acronyms used. They are listed in alphabetic order.
Detail Report This is the section of the report which provides the most detail for each individual record . Records are summarized by location, starting
with the project property followed by records in closest proximity.
Distance: The distance value is the distance between plotted points, not necessarily the distance between the sites' boundaries . All values are an
approximation .
Direction: The direction value is the compass direction of the site in respect to the project property and/or center point of the report.
Elevation: The elevation value is taken from the location at which the records for the site address have been plotted . All values are an approximation .
Source : Google Elevation API.
Executive Summary: This portion of the report is divided into 3 sections :
'Report Summary'-Displays a chart indicating how many records fall on the project property and, within the report search radii.
'Site Report Summary'-Project Property'-This section lists all the records which fall on the project property. For more details, see the 'Detail Report'
section .
'Site Report Summary-Surrounding Properties'-This section summarizes all records on adjacent properties, listing them in order of proximity from the
project property. For more details, see the 'Detail Report' section .
Map Key: The map key number is assigned according to closest proximity from the project property . Map Key numbers always start at #1 . The project
property will always have a map key of '1' if records are available . If there is a number in brackets beside the main number, this will indicate the number
of records on that specific property . If there is no number in brackets , there is only one record for that property.
The symbol and colour used indicates 'elevation': the red inverted triangle will dictate 'ERIS Sites with Lower Elevation', the yellow triangle will dictate
'ERIS Sites with Higher Elevation' and the orange square will dictate 'ERIS Sites with Same Elevation.'
Unplottables: These are records that could not be mapped due to various reasons, including limited geographic information . These records may or
may not be in your study area , and are included as reference .
erisinfo .com I Environmental Risk Information Services Order No : 23072100687
Appendix F
TEAD Regulatory Documentation
DSHW-2022-025978
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
TOOELE ARMY DEPOT/HEADQUARTERS
1 TOOELE ARMY DEPOT, BUILDING 1
TOOELE, UT 84074-5001.>--"------------------
RECEIVED
October 27' 20 2 By Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control at 4:09 pm, Oct 31, 2022
SUBJECT: Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report, Tooele Army Depot North Area
(TEAD-N), State/EPA I.D. Number UT3213820894
Mr. Doug Hansen
Director, Division Waste Management and Radiation Control
195 North 1950 West
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4880
Dear Mr. Hansen:
TEAD is please to submit the Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report dated October
2022 for your review and comment.
As required in Module V, Table V-3 of the TEAD-N Post Closure Permit (PCP)
(TEAD 2018), groundwater monitoring reports are submitted annually for TEAD-N and
discuss results from the annual monitoring event completed during the fall of the
previous calendar year and semi-annual monitoring event completed in the spring of the
current calendar year. This Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report presents an
evaluation of the analytical groundwater data collected at TEAD-N during the (larger)
annual groundwater monitoring event in October and November 2021 and the (smaller)
semi-annual groundwater monitoring event in April 2022.
If you have any questions regarding this request, please contact Troy Johnson at
[phone].
Attachments
Sincerely,
BENTLEY KRIST Digitallysignedby
• BENTLEY.KRISTYL.1396144308
YL. l 3 96144308 ~~~~~~022.10.2706:48:46
Kristyl Bentley
Chief, Environmental Management Division
*CERTIFICATION STATEMENT
•1 certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that
qualified personnel property gathered and evaluated the information submitted . Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons
directly responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are
significant penalties for submitting false information , including the possibility of fines and imprisonment for knowing violations.
DRAFT FINAL
Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report
Tooele Army Depot North
October 2022
Environmental Remediation
Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah
Contract No. W9124J-21-D-0006
U.S. Army Environmental Command Tooele Army Depot
DRAFT FINAL
Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report
Tooele Army Depot North
October 2022
Environmental Remediation
Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah
Contract No. W9124J-21-D-0006
Prepared For:
U.S. Army Mission and Installation Contracting Command
Fort Sam Houston (MICC-FSH), U.S. Army Environmental Command (USAEC), and Tooele Army Depot (TEAD)
Prepared By :
Brice Engineering, LLC
362 Pierpont Avenue
Salt Lake City, Utah 84101
801-948-9319 PH
www.BriceEng.com
This page intentionally blank
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................................................... 111
1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Project Background ............................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Report Organization ............................................................................................................ 3
Z.O FIELD ACTIVITIES AND SAMPLE ANALYSIS ................................................................................ 5
2.1 Well Gauging ....................................................................................................................... 5
2.1.1 GaugingOverview .................................................................................................. 5
2.1.2 Field Activities ........................................................................................................ 5
2.2 Well Inspections and Maintenance .................................................................................... 5
2.3 Well Abandonment ............................................................................................................. 6
2.4 Groundwater Sampling ....................................................................................................... 6
2.4.1 Sampling Overview ................................................................................................ 6
2.4.2 Field Activities ........................................................................................................ 7
2.5 Sample Analysis and Data Quality ...................................................................................... 8
3.0 SWMU-58 MONITORING RESULTS ........................................................................................... 9
3.1 Groundwater Elevations ..................................................................................................... 9
3.2 Analytical Results .............................................................................................................. 10
3.2.1 TCE and Breakdown Products .............................................................................. 10
3.2.2 CTC and Degradation Byproducts ........................................................................ 11
3.2.3 Other Organic Compounds Detected .................................................................. 11
3.2.4 Sentinel Well Assessment .................................................................................... 12
4.0 SWMU-10 MONITORING RESULTS ......................................................................................... 13
4.1 Groundwater Elevations ................................................................................................... 13
4.2 Analytical Results .............................................................................................................. 13
5.0 CONCENTRATION TREND ANALYSIS ....................................................................................... 15
5.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 15
5.2 Statistical Methods ........................................................................................................... 15
5.3 Summary of Trend Results ................................................................................................ 16
5.3.1 Former Sanitary Landfill Source Area .................................................................. 17
5.3.2 BRAC Parcel Source Areas .................................................................................... 17
5.3.3 Main Plume Mid-Plume Area ............................................................................... 17
5.3.4 Main Plume Toe Area .......................................................................................... 17
5.3.5 NEB Plume Mid-Plume Area ................................................................................ 17
5.3.6 NEB Plume Toe Area ............................................................................................ 17
5.3.7 Trend Results for Other Compounds ................................................................... 18
6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................. 19
7 .0 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................... 21
Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report, Tooele Army Depot North
Environmental Remediation Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
TABLES
Table la
Table lb
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Table Sa
Table Sb
Table 6a
Table 6b
Table 7
Table 8
FIGURES
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure Sa
Figure Sb
Figure 6a
Figure 6b
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
APPENDICES
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Wells and Results -2021 Annual Event
Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Wells and Results-2022 Semi-Annual
Event
Well Inspection and Maintenance Summary
Corrective Measures Implementation Plan Wells Monitored, Frequency, and
Objective
Required Post-Closure Permit Groundwater Analytes and Concentration Limits
Wells Sampled During 2021 Annual Monitoring Event
Wells Sampled During 2022 Semi-Annual Monitoring Event
SWMU-S8 Analytical Results -2021 Annual Monitoring Event
SWMU-S8 Analytical Results-2022 Semi-Annual Monitoring Event
Summary of TCE Statistical Trend Results
Summary of Statistical Trend Results for Other Compounds
Project Location Map
Monitoring Well Locations
SWMU-S8 Shallow Groundwater Elevations
SWMU-S8 Deep Groundwater Elevations
SWMU-S8 TCE Concentrations in Groundwater-2021 Annual Event
SWMU-S8 TCE Concentrations in Groundwater-2022 Semi-Annual Event
SWMU-S8 CTC Concentarations in Grouindwater-2021 Annual Event
SWMU-S8 CTC Concentarations in Grouindwater-2022 Semi-Annual Event
SWMU-S8 Screening Level Exceedances in Groundwater for Other Analytes-
2021 Annual and 2022 Semi-Annual Events
SWMU-10 Groundwater Elevations and Analytical Results
SWMU-S8 TCE Concentration Trends in Groundwater Through 2022
Semi-Annual Event
Groundwater Hydrographs and Concentration Trend Graphs
Field Sampling Forms
Quality Control Summary Reports
Laboratory Analytical Data Reports
Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report, Tooele Army Depot North
Environmental Remediation Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah
ii
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
µg/L
µg/L/yr
%
amsl
AS
BRAC
Brice
CDQMP
CMIP
CTC
DCA
DCE
DoD
DWMRC
ELAP
EMAX
EPA
ft/ft
GWMA
HS
ISO/IEC
MICC
NEB
NELAC
PCE
PCP
QCSR
QSM
RCRA
RDX
SVE
SWMU
Synectics
TCE
TEAD-N
TNT
UDEQ
micrograms per liter
micrograms per liter per year
percent
above mean sea level
air sparging
Base Realignment and Closure
Brice Engineering, LLC
Chemical Data Quality Management Plan
Corrective Measures Implementation Plan
carbon tetrachloride
dichloroethane
dichloroethene
U.S. Department of Defense
Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control
Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program
EMAX Laboratories, Inc.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
feet per foot
Groundwater Management Area
HydraSleeve
International Organization for Standardization/International Electrotechnical
Commission
U.S. Army Mission and Installation Contracting Command
Northeast Boundary
National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Conference
tetrachloroethene
Post Closure Permit
Quality Control Summary Report
Quality Systems Manual
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
hexahydro-l,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine
soil vapor extraction
Solid Waste Management Unit
Environmental Synectics, Inc.
trichloroethene
Tooele Army Depot North
trinitrotoluene
Utah Department of Environmental Quality
Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report, Tooele Army Depot North
Environmental Remediation Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah
iii
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (CONTINUED)
UFP-QAPP
USACE
voe
Uniform Federal Policy-Quality Assurance Project Plan
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
volatile organic compound
Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report, Tooele Army Depot North
Environmental Remediation Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah
iv
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Brice Engineering, LLC (Brice) has been contracted under U.S. Army Mission and Installation Contracting
Command (MICC) Contract Number W9124J21D0006 to conduct periodic groundwater sampling and
analysis at Tooele Army Depot North (TEAD-N). As required in Module V, Table V-3 of the TEAD-N Post
Closure Permit (PCP) (TEAD 2018), groundwater monitoring reports are submitted annually for TEAD-N
and discuss results from the annual monitoring event completed during the fall of the previous calendar
year and semi-annual monitoring event completed in the spring of the current calendar year. This Annual
Groundwater Monitoring Report presents an evaluation of the analytical groundwater data collected at
TEAD-N during the (larger) annual groundwater monitoring event in October and November 2021 and the
(smaller) semi-annual groundwater monitoring event in April 2022.
Monitoring was performed in accordance with the requirements of the PCP, the Corrective Measures
Implementation Plan (CMIP) for Groundwater (Parsons 2014a), and the Uniform Federal Policy-Quality
Assurance Project Plan (UFP-QAPP) (Brice 2022a). The PCP was initially issued to TEAD-N by the State of
Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ) in January 1991. The PCP has since been reissued,
most recently in September 2018, and the current version incorporates provisions for monitoring
specified in the approved CMIP. The CMIP is a framework for implementing the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) corrective action process at Solid Waste Management Units (SWMUs) 58 and 10
that is based on conclusions from the SWMU-58 Corrective Measures Study Report (Parsons 2012), the
Natural Attenuation Evaluation Report (Parsons 2014b), other past investigations, and the past
performance of the groundwater treatment plant at TEAD-N. The finalized UFP-QAPP was approved by
UDEQ and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) prior to the 2022 semi-annual event and
incorporates requirements and recommendations presented in the PCP, CMIP, Chemical Data Quality
Management Plan (CDQMP) (Attachment 1 of the PCP), and the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) Quality
Systems Manual for Environmental Laboratories (QSM) (DoD 2019a). The UFP-QAPP outlines the current
data quality objectives, monitoring rationale, sampling and gauging locations and procedures, and
analytical and data quality requirements.
1.1 Project Background
TEAD-N is located 35 miles southwest of Salt Lake City, Utah, in eastern Tooele County and covers
approximately 25,000 acres of the Tooele Valley (Figure 1). From 1942 until the mid-1990s, one of
TEAD-N's missions included servicing, rebuilding, and storing wheeled vehicles and power generation
equipment used by the U.S. Army. These activities were carried out in the former industrial/vehicle
maintenance area, which is situated along the eastern margin of the facility just south of State Route 112.
The former industrial/vehicle maintenance area includes over 50 buildings within a rectangular-shaped
parcel that is approximately 1 mile long and 0.5 miles wide. In 1993, Congress included most of the
industrial/vehicle maintenance area in the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Program. Under BRAC,
this parcel was formally transferred to the Tooele City Redevelopment Agency in December 1998. After a
series of ownership changes, the BRAC property was acquired by the Ninigret Group in 2012 and is
currently operated as a commercial business/industrial park consisting of warehouses, machine shops,
manufacturing facilities, and related buildings.
Groundwater beneath TEAD-N and the BRAC parcel has been impacted by past practices with volatile
organic compound (VOC) contamination being by far the most widespread. Historical operations at the
TEAD-N industrial/vehicle maintenance area resulted in VOCs impacting soil and groundwater at several
known and suspected source areas (Figure 2). The primary contaminant of concern is the solvent
Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report, Tooele Army Depot North 1
Environmental Remediation Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah
trichloroethene (TCE), which was used in the service and repair of military vehicles and equipment. Past
investigations have also identified tetrachloroethene (PCE) and carbon tetrachloride (CTC) in soil and
groundwater. On the BRAC parcel, several separate source areas have been identified: Building 679,
Building 615, Building 620, and two former industrial waste lagoons and associated ditches (including the
former C Avenue Outfall). Within the installation, the Former Sanitary Landfill has also been identified as
a source area. Historically, these sources were managed under multiple SWMUs, which facilitated
management and remediation of soil contamination. However, groundwater contamination originating
from these source areas has formed a single comingled plume that extends beyond the original sources.
The comingled voe plume is now managed under a single SWMU, SWMU-58, which includes: the
Northeast Boundary (NEB) groundwater TCE plume (formerly SWMU-58), the main TCE plume (formerly
SMWU-2), impacted groundwater beneath the Former Sanitary Landfill (formerly SWMU-12/15), and
vadose zone VOC sources within the footprint of the plume that continue to impact groundwater. The
primary source of the NEB plume is the Building 679 source area, while the remaining identified sources
contribute to the main plume. In total, the entire comingled TCE plume encompasses approximately
5.5 square miles and is approximately 4 miles long at its longest point. The main TCE plume area is largely
contained within the installation and extends a maximum of approximately 0.15 miles beyond the
installation boundary. The NEB portion of the plume, however, extends approximately 1.4 miles beyond
the installation boundary.
Corrective measures consisting of soil vapor extraction (SVE) and air sparging (AS) have been implemented
at each VOC source area to remediate ongoing sources of contamination in the vadose zone and
groundwater and prevent further degradation of groundwater. Installation of the SVE and AS systems
occurred between 2010 and 2015 and their operation is ongoing. Away from the plume source areas,
corrective action in the diffuse portion of the plume consists of monitored natural attenuation. In concert
with these corrective actions, a Groundwater Management Area (GWMA) Plan was initially developed in
2004 and most recently updated in 2022 (Brice 2022b) to protect human health from risks related to the
possible use of the impacted groundwater on-or offsite.
In addition to VOCs associated with SWMU-58, groundwater at TEAD-N has been impacted by historical
explosives decommissioning activities at SWMU-10 (Figure 2). SWMU-10 is a former trinitrotoluene (TNT)
washout facility where munitions were decommissioned. The facility consisted of the former bomb
washout building (Building 1245), a former storage facility (Building 1246), and former TNT washout
ponds. The facility was constructed in 1948 and operated until 1986. Various munitions (e.g., projectiles,
bombs, and rockets) filled with TNT, hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-l,3,5-triazine (RDX), Composition B
(a mixture of TNT and RDX), and Tritonal were decommissioned at the facility. The munition casings were
cut open, autoclaved, then rinsed with water to remove any residual explosives. The rinse water
generated from the washout process was filtered to capture explosives before leaving the washout
building. After it was filtered, rinse water was routed outside the building into settling tanks and/or the
TNT Washout Ponds, which were a series of ponds connected by overflow pipes located directly north of
the washout building. In 2008, the explosives-contaminated soil in the TNT Washout Ponds was
remediated using organic and inorganic soil amendments to facilitate degradation of the nitroaromatic
compounds. With the removal of the contaminated soil source, aerobic microbial activity is expected to
continue to degrade the residual explosives in groundwater at SWMU-10 (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
[USACE] 2012). Current groundwater impacts at SWMU-10 are limited in magnitude and spatial extent.
Impacted groundwater associated with SWMU-10 is comingled with groundwater from SWMU-11, which
contains the Laundry Effluent Pond and Waste Pile Areas. However, ongoing sampling is only required for
RDX associated with SWMU-10; therefore, there is no discussion of SWMU-11 in this Annual Groundwater
Monitoring Report.
Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report, Tooele Army Depot North 2
Environmental Remediation Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah
1.2 Report Organization
Field activities and analytical data quality are discussed in Section 2. Section 3 presents the groundwater
elevation information and analytical results for SWMU-58, while Section 4 presents results for SWMU-10.
Section 5 presents the statistical trend analysis for groundwater concentrations at SWMU-58. Section 6
presents conclusions and recommendations, and Section 7 presents the references cited in the report.
The report is supported by four appendices: Appendix A contains hydrographs and concentration trend
graphs, Appendix B contains field forms, Appendix C contains Quality Control Summary Reports, and
Appendix D contains laboratory analytical data reports.
Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report, Tooele Army Depot North 3
Environmental Remediation Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah
This page intentionally blank
Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report, Tooele Army Depot North 4
Environmental Remediation Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah
2.0 FIELD ACTIVITIES AND SAMPLE ANALYSIS
2.1 Well Gauging
2.1.1 Gauging Overview
Extensive well gauging is conducted semi-annually at approximately 269 wells at TEAD-N to monitor
groundwater flow directions and support development of the TEAD-N groundwater flow model. Most
wells gauged during the events are associated with SWMU-58 and SWMU-10; however, additional wells
are also gauged to determine regional groundwater flow characteristics. At SWMU-58, two separate
hydrostratigraphic intervals are monitored: a shallow zone and a deep zone. In most cases, shallow zone
monitoring wells are defined as wells with less than 150 feet of groundwater above their screened interval
midpoints. Conversely, deep zone wells are defined as having more than 150 feet of groundwater above
their screen interval midpoints. This "150-foot rule" may conflict with shallow (S) or deep (D) designations
assigned to some wells at the time they were installed. Exceptions to the 150-foot rule include wells B-56,
C-37, C-38, C-39, C-46, C-55, and D-24. Water thicknesses in these wells are less than 150 feet, but they
are considered deep wells due to the lithology and hydrogeological characteristics of their screened
intervals. Wells included in the monitoring program are listed in the groundwater elevation results tables
(Tables la and lb) along with their associated SWMUs and depth zones.
Several wells in the vicinity ofTEAD-N's former Industrial Area are not plumb, and raw field measurements
yield erroneous groundwater elevations. Following geophysical surveys, correction factors were
developed for these wells to convert raw depth to water measurements to true depth to water. Raw field
measurements collected during the annual and semi-annual monitoring events are corrected for the out
of plumb wells to determine corrected water elevations that are compatible with elevations in
surrounding wells. Wells requiring correction are noted in the groundwater elevation data tables, and
their correction factors and corrected depth to water values are also reported.
2.1.2 Field Activities
Gauging for the 2021 annual event was conducted between 14 to 26 October 2021, and gauging for the
2022 semi-annual event was conducted between 12 to 24 April 2022. Depth to water measurements were
collected by Brice field personnel using an electronic water level meter accurate to the nearest 0.01 foot
following procedures specified in the UFP-QAPP. To eliminate the potential for cross-contamination
between wells, a strict regimen of equipment decontamination was followed, and water level meters
were decontaminated before use at each well. In addition to water level measurements, total well depth
measurements are collected once per year at all gauged wells to monitor whether wells have become
obstructed or impacted by siltation. Total depth measurements were collected during the Spring 2022
semi-annual event, and the measurements are included in the associated groundwater elevation results
table (Table lb).
2.2 Well Inspections and Maintenance
To verify well integrity, well inspections for all gauged wells are completed once per year during the
opposite event from which total depth measurements are collected. Well inspections for this reporting
period were conducted during the Fall 2021 annual event. At each well, the condition of the well lock, lid,
plug/cap, stenciled ID, and bollards were assessed and recorded on field forms along with any other
observed condition issues. Maintenance was performed to remedy identified deficiencies in February,
Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report, Tooele Army Depot North 5
Environmental Remediation Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah
April, June, and July 2022. Results of the well inspections and a summary of maintenance that was
performed are presented in Table 2.
2.3 Well Abandonment
In a letter dated 17 August 2021, TEAD-N submitted a request to the Division of Waste Management and
Radiation Control (DWMRC) to abandon well C-18 because it fell within the footprint of a new industrial
warehouse that is under construction (TEAD 2021). The DWMRC granted the request to abandon C-18 in
a letter dated 12 October 2021, with the requirement that a well abandonment work plan be submitted
to and approved by the DWMRC (DWMRC 2021). A work plan was submitted to DWMRC on 30 November
2021 and approved on 9 December 2021 (Brice 2021). Monitoring well C-18 was abandoned on
21 December 2021 with work being overseen by Brice personnel. Full details of the well abandonment
are provided in a technical memorandum (Brice 2022c). Due to its abandonment, C-18 was not gauged
during the 2022 semi-annual event, and it has been removed from the list of wells designated for sitewide
semi-annual gauging.
2.4 Groundwater Sampling
2.4.1 Sampling Overview
Groundwater sampling for compliance monitoring purposes is conducted semi-annually at SWMU-58 and
biennially at SWMU-10 in accordance with the PCP, CMIP, and UFP-QAPP. Sampling at SWMU-58 consists
of a larger annual monitoring event conducted in the fall in which 113 wells are designated for sampling
and a smaller semi-annual monitoring event conducted in the spring in which 43 wells are designated for
sampling. Table 3 provides a comprehensive list of wells that are monitored, their sampling frequency,
and their sampling objectives. Sampling during the annual event is designed to provide coverage of the
entire solvent plume, while sampling during the semi-annual event provides additional information on
conditions in the Sanitary Landfill source area, near the downgradient plume boundary, and in sentinel
wells downgradient ofthe plume. Sentinel well sample results are also tied to requirements in the GWMA
Plan (Brice 2022b), which specifies procedures to be taken if TCE concentrations exceed trigger values of
1 microgram per liter (µg/L) (for the first time) and 5 µg/L in any sentinel wells.
In addition to sampling for compliance monitoring purposes, groundwater sampling is also conducted
three times annually near the SVE and AS remediation systems for remedy monitoring purposes. Some
wells are sampled for both compliance monitoring and remedy monitoring, and monitoring events are
combined when possible for efficiency. This report only covers results from the annual and semi-annual
events for wells listed in Table 3. Remedy monitoring sample results are discussed separately from this
report in annual Performance Evaluation Reports for the BRAC parcel remediation systems and the landfill
remediation systems.
Samples collected during the SWMU-58 annual and semi-annual events are analyzed for the compounds
listed in Table V-2 of Module V of the TEAD-N PCP except for 1,4-dioxane. Analysis of 1,4-dioxane is only
required by the PCP near Buildings 619 and 609 on the BRAC parcel, and a subset of samples from this
area are analyzed for 1,4-dioxane during the annual event to meet this requirement. Wells designated for
1,4-dioxane are shown in Table 3. A summary of analyzed compounds is presented in Table 4 along with
their applicable permit concentration limits. The concentration limit for 1,4-dioxane in the current PCP
(35 µg/L) is considered out of date. For the purposes of this report, a more conservative screening limit
value of 0.46 µg/L is being used, which corresponds to the EPA Regional Screening Level for tapwater. This
updated level was incorporated in the UFP-QAPP at the request of UDEQ and is expected to be
Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report, Tooele Army Depot North 6
Environmental Remediation Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah
incorporated into the PCP when it is next updated. However, the project laboratory, EMAX Laboratories,
Inc. (EMAX), cannot currently achieve a limit of quantitation less than 0.46 µg/L for 1,4-dioxane in
groundwater using conventional analytical methods, although the limit of detection for the project
analytical lab is as low as 0.4 µg/L. Based on this limitation, non-detect results for 1,4-dioxane are flagged
as exceeding the EPA Regional Screening Level.
Sampling at SWMU-10 is conducted every other year in conjunction with the SWMU-S8 annual monitoring
event. Samples are collected from two wells (N-03A and N-03H) and analyzed for RDX.
2.4.2 Field Activities
Sampling for the 2021 annual event was completed at SWMU-S8 between 27 October and 9 November
2021, and sampling for the 2022 semi-annual event was completed between 6 and 11 April 2022. A total
of 107 wells were sampled during the annual event, and 42 were sampled during the semi-annual event.
Six wells designated for sampling during the annual event (B-04, B-12, B-30, Cl 7, D-01, and N-116-88) and
one well designated for sampling during the semi-annual event (B-30) could not be sampled due to low
water levels. Seventeen additional wells were sampled during the 2022 semi-annual event for remedy
monitoring purposes only.
SWMU-10 is sampled biennially and was last sampled in 2019. Therefore, wells N-03A and N-03H were
sampled during the 2021 annual event on 8 November 2021.
Designated wells were sampled using HydraSleeve (HS) samplers following procedures specified in the
CMIP and UFP-QAPP. For the 2021 annual event, new HS samplers were deployed several weeks prior to
sampling, while new samplers for the 2022 semi-annual event were deployed following sample collection
during the 2021 annual event. During each monitoring event, quality assurance/quality control samples
were collected as necessary to meet quality objectives specified in the UFP-QAPP. Field duplicate samples
were collected at a minimum frequency of one per 10 samples, and matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate
samples were collected at a minimum frequency of one per 20 samples. Samples were collected in new,
laboratory-provided containers labeled with indelible ink. Following collection, samples were placed in a
resealable plastic bag and stored in iced coolers. The coolers were sealed with shipping tape and custody
seals and transported to the project laboratory by overnight courier under chain-of-custody procedures.
Trip blanks accompanied coolers throughout sampling and transport to the analytical lab, and samples
were maintained within EPA SW-846 sample preservation requirement of less than 6 degrees Celsius (0 C)
during handling, storage, and transport to the lab. Copies of the chain-of-custody and cooler receipt
records for this event are included with the analytical data reports in Appendix D. Comprehensive
summaries of wells sampled, field sample IDs, and the date and time of sampling are presented in Tables
Sa and Sb for the 2021 annual and 2022 semi-annual events, respectively.
Following sample collection at each well, field parameters were collected with a field water quality meter
using excess water from the HS samplers. The meter was calibrated daily prior to use. Field parameters
collected include temperature, pH, conductivity, turbidity, dissolved oxygen, and oxidation-reduction
potential.
During field activities, Brice recorded field measurements and pertinent sampling information on field
forms, which are included in Appendix B.
Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report, Tooele Army Depot North
Environmental Remediation Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah
7
2.5 Sample Analysis and Data Quality
Groundwater samples from the annual and semi-annual events were submitted to EMAX in Torrance,
California, for analysis. The lab holds current certification by the State of Utah under the requirements of
the National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Conference (NELAC) for the analytical methods used
to support this monitoring event. EMAX has also been independently accredited under the DoD
Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (ELAP) to be compliant with the requirements of the
QSM for the methods used at TEAD-N. The QSM is based on the NELAC Institute Standard, Volume 1,
(September 2009), and incorporates the requirements of International Organization for
Standardization/International Electrotechnical Commission (ISO/IEC) Standard 17025:200S(E).
Comprehensive reviews of data quality are presented in Quality Control Summary Reports (QCSRs) for the
2021 annual and 2022 semi-annual events provided in Appendix C. As part of the quality control
assessments, Environmental Synectics, Inc. (Synectics) performed a Stage 2B validation on all data and a
Stage 4 validation on 10 percent (%) of the data (DoD 2019b). Additionally, Synectics performed a senior
review of the validation to confirm compliance with the CDQMP, UFP-QAPP, and QSM. Based on the
review of the laboratory data, the analytical data are deemed acceptable and usable with any
qualifications noted in the QCSRs (Appendix C) documenting the results of the data validations. Because
compliance monitoring and remedy monitoring were conducted concurrently in Spring 2022, the QCSR
for the 2022 semi-annual event includes data for the additional remedy monitoring wells that were
sampled. However, only results from the compliance monitoring program are discussed in this report, as
noted in Section 2.2.2.
Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report, Tooele Army Depot North 8
Environmental Remediation Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah
3.0 SWMU-58 MONITORING RESULTS
3.1 Groundwater Elevations
Groundwater elevations are presented in Table la for the 2021 annual monitoring event and Table lb for
the 2022 semi-annual monitoring event. Groundwater elevations and potentiometric contours for 2021
annual event are presented on Figures 3 and 4 for the shallow and deep groundwater zones, respectively.
Hydrographs of groundwater elevations for sampled wells are included in Appendix A.
The annual monitoring event was not conducted in 2020; therefore, year over year comparison of water
levels is not possible for the 2021 annual event. Year over year comparison is possible for the 2022
semi-annual event, although there is uncertainty inherent in the comparison because the 2021 and 2022
semi-annual events were completed during different months due to the delayed timing of the 2021 event.
However, the 2022 semi-annual event groundwater elevations are similar to those observed during the
2021 semi-annual event. On average, water levels decreased approximately 0.6 feet from June 2021 to
April 2022, and the maximum decrease was 2.78 feet in N-114-88. Water levels increased in some wells,
and five wells had an increase of 5 feet or more. Four of these wells (D-20, D-23, D-25, and M-03} are
located north of the NEB plume near agricultural land. The increases in these wells are likely attributable
to the different timing of the two gauging events (April vs. June) and seasonal variations in the amount of
drawdown caused by agricultural pumping north of the NEB plume (i.e., pumping causes more drawdown
in June than April). The largest observed water level increase was 12.38 feet at P-03D, which is a deep well
located along an inferred fault zone northwest of the Former Sanitary Landfill. The cause of this increase
is unknown but may be related to the fault.
As shown on Figures 3 and 4, the observed groundwater flow direction in both the shallow and deep zones
was generally to the north-northwest during the 2021 annual event, which is consistent with the regional
groundwater flow direction (Kleinfelder 2002). On a smaller scale, the presence of faults and a shallow,
uplifted bedrock block at TEAD-N exert a strong influence on local groundwater flow directions and
gradients. The location of these features is shown on Figures 3 and 4. The location of the bedrock block
has been interpreted from borehole data (Kleinfelder 2002}; however, the locations of the faults and
bedrock block are approximate, and their characteristics are not fully understood. The fault zones tend to
act as barriers to groundwater flow, resulting in abrupt changes in groundwater levels by as much as
100 feet across.
Groundwater gradients across TEAD-N vary by several orders of magnitude and are strongly influenced by
the faults and bedrock block. Near the plume source areas and BRAC parcel, the gradient within the
shallow zone was relatively shallow during the 2021 annual event with a value of approximately
0.0004 feet per foot (ft/ft). Gradients were somewhat steeper in the shallow zone near the toe of the
plume, with values of approximately 0.001 ft/ft at the toe of the main plume and 0.007 ft/ft at the toe of
the NEB plume. In contrast, gradients across the faults were very steep in the shallow zone with values of
approximately 0.05 ft/ft west of the bedrock block and 0.06 ft/ft east of the bedrock block. The shallow
groundwater gradients across the site are relatively consistent from year to year, and the values observed
during the 2021 annual event are consistent with previous events.
Spatial variations in hydraulic gradient were consistent between the shallow and deep zones, although
the specific gradient values differed. Near the plume source areas and BRAC parcel, the gradient within
the deep zone was approximately 0.002 ft/ft during 2021 annual event, which is steeper than the gradient
in the shallow zone. Conversely, the gradient within the deep zone near the toe of the main plume was
Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report, Tooele Army Depot North 9
Environmental Remediation Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah
approximately 0.0002 ft/ft, which is shallower than in the shallow zone. The gradient across the fault west
of the bedrock block was approximately 0.07 ft/ft, which is similar to the gradient within the shallow zone.
Due to site geology and the distribution of monitoring wells, gradients could not be calculated near the
toe of the NEB plume or across the fault east of the bedrock block.
3.2 Analytical Results
Analytical results for samples collected at SWMU-58 during the 2021 annual event are summarized in
Table 6a, and results for the 2022 semi-annual event are summarized in 6b. TCE results for the two events
are shown on Figures Sa and Sb along with an updated plume boundary based on results from the 2021
annual event. CTC results are shown on Figures 6a and 6b, and results for additional other compounds
with screening level exceedances are shown on Figure 7. Updated concentration trend graphs and
hydrographs for individual wells are presented in Appendix A.
3.2.1 TCE and Breakdown Products
2021 Annual Event
TCE was detected at 90 of the 99 shallow wells sampled at SWMU-58 during the 2021 annual monitoring
event. Of these, 65 exceeded the permit concentration limit of 5 µg/L. The highest detected
concentrations were in D-04 (140 µg/L) and M-04 (98 µg/L) along the centerline ofthe NEB plume and in
C-66 (140 µg/L) in the Former Sanitary Landfill. TCE was detected in all eight deep wells that were sampled
and exceeded the permit limit in three wells. The highest concentration detected in the deep zone was
26 µg/L in C-46, which is located along the NEB plume centerline. One well, D-24, had a concentration
(5.0 µg/L) that met or exceeded that permit limit for the first time. D-24 is a deep well located along the
centerline of the NEB plume downgradient of C-46.
The updated plume boundary and isoconcentration contours for the 2021 annual event are mostly
unchanged from the 2021 semi-annual event and 2019 annual event. Locally, the AS and SVE remediation
systems at Building 679 and the Former Sanitary Landfill have created small zones where TCE
concentrations are now less than 5 µg/L (Figure Sa). The western extent of the main plume has also shrunk
within the mid-plume area. During the previous site-wide monitoring event in 2019, the SWMU-58 plume
boundary extended west of well B-06; it is now located east of well T-06, which is a shift of approximately
1,500 feet. Concentration trend analysis (Section 5.0) indicates both B-06 and T-06 have decreasing TCE
concentration trends, which suggests the reduction in plume extent may be permanent in this area.
The TCE breakdown products monitored at SWMU-58 include 1,2-dichloroethene (DCE). 1,2-DCE was
detected in 25 of the 99 shallow groundwater wells sampled at SWMU-58 during the 2021 annual
monitoring event, with four locations exceeding the permit concentration limit of 1 µg/L. The highest
concentration detected was 5.3 µg/L at well C-66. The four wells with exceedances are all within or
immediately downgradient from the Former Sanitary Landfill, and the elevated 1,2-DCE concentrations
likely result from TCE degradation caused by active remediation in the area. 1,2-DCE was detected in only
one of the eight deep wells sampled, C-46, with a concentration of 0.1 µg/L.
2022 Semi-Annual Event
TCE was detected at 32 of the 40 shallow groundwater wells sampled at SWMU-58 during the 2022
semi-annual monitoring. Of these, 19 exceeded the permit concentration limit of 5 µg/L. The highest
detected concentrations were in M-04 (110 µg/L) along the centerline of the NEB plume and in C-66
Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report, Tooele Army Depot North 10
Environmental Remediation Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah
(120 µg/L) in the Former Sanitary Landfill. TCE was detected in both of the deep wells that were sampled
and exceeded the permit concentration limit in one well, D-24, with a concentration of 5.4 µg/L.
The TCE breakdown product 1,2-DCE was detected in 7 of the 40 shallow groundwater wells sampled at
SWMU-58 during the 2022 semi-annual monitoring event, with two locations exceeding the permit
concentration limit of 1 µg/L. The highest concentration detected was 4.3 µg/L at well C-66 in the Former
Sanitary Landfill. 1,2-DCE was detected in one of the two deep wells sampled, C-56, with a concentration
of 0.39 µg/L.
3.2.2 CTC and Degradation Byproducts
2021 Annual Event
CTC was detected in 69 of the 99 wells sampled during the 2021 annual event. Of these, 11 exceeded the
permit concentration limit of 5 µg/L. The highest detected concentration was 20 µg/L in well B-03. All
wells with CTC exceedances are within the BRAC parcel or in the area immediately to the northwest. CTC
was detected in four of the eight deep wells sampled and exceeded the permit concentration limit in one
well, C-46, with a concentration of 7 .3 µg/L.
Chloroform, a degradation product of CTC, was detected in 51 of the 99 shallow wells sampled during
2021 annual event. All detected concentrations were less than the permit concentration limit of 100 µg/L,
and the highest detected concentration was 2.1 µg/L in C-34. Chloroform was detected in two of the eight
deep wells sampled with a maximum concentration of 0.73 µg/L in C-46.
2022 Semi-Annual Event
CTC was detected in 15 of the 40 shallow wells sampled during the 2022 semi-annual event. All detected
concentrations were less than the permit concentration limit of 5 µg/L, and the highest detected
concentration was 2.5 µg/L at M-05. CTC was detected in one of the two deep wells sampled, D-24, with
a concentration of 0.18 µg/L.
Chloroform was detected in 12 of the 40 shallow wells sampled during 2022 semi-annual event. All
detected concentrations were less than the permit concentration limit of 100 µg/L, and the highest
detected concentration was 0.7 µg/L at M-01. Chloroform was not detected in either of the deep wells
that were sampled.
3.2.3 Other Organic Compounds Detected
2021 Annual Event
PCE and 1,4-dioxane were the only other compounds besides TCE, 1,2-DCE, and CTC to exceed their
screening levels during the 2021 annual event. PCE was detected in 25 of the 99 shallow wells sampled
during the 2021 annual event and exceeded the permit concentration limit (5 µg/L) in one well, B-26, with
a concentration of 11 µg/L. 1,4-Dioxane was detected and exceeded its screening level (0.46 µg/L) in all
four of the shallow wells for which it was analyzed (C-19, C-21, C-26, and C-35) with a maximum
concentration of 5.3 µg/L in C-35. 1,4-Dioxane concentrations in all four wells were comparable to results
from previous sampling events and were less than historical maximum concentrations. Other compounds
detected in shallow wells include 1,1-DCE (18 wells), 1,2-dichloroethane (DCA) (15 wells), 1,1-DCA
(13 wells), and 1,1,1-trichloroethane (2 wells). Detected concentrations for these compounds were less
than the permit concentration limits.
Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report, Tooele Army Depot North 11
Environmental Remediation Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah
PCE was not detected in any deep wells during the 2021 annual event, and 1,4-dioxane was not analyzed
in any deep wells. Other organic compounds detected in deep wells include 1,2-DCA (2 wells), 1,1-DCE
(1 well), and 1,1-DCA (1 well). Detected concentrations for these compounds were also less than the
permit concentration limits.
2022 Semi-Annual Event
No additional compounds besides TCE and 1,2-DCE exceeded their permit concentration limits during the
2022 semi-annual event. PCE was detected in 8 of the 40 shallow wells sampled with a maximum
concentration of 1.9 µg/L in C-66. Other compounds detected in shallow wells include 1,1-DCA (5 wells)
and 1,1-DCE (1 well). No additional compounds were detected in the two deep wells that were sampled
during the semi-annual event.
3.2.4 Sentinel Well Assessment
Contingency actions are required by the GWMA Plan (Brice 2022b) if the TCE concentration in a sentinel
well exceeds 1 µg/L for the first time or if it exceeds 5 µg/L at any time. As listed in Table 3, sentinel wells
for SWMU-58 include B-42, C-03, C-04, D-11 through 13, D-16, D-20 through 23, D-25, and M-01, and
M-02. TCE was detected in seven of the sentinel wells (B-42, C-03, C-04, D-20, D-22, D-23, and D-25) during
both the 2021 annual and 2022 semi-annual events. D-25 had a concentration of 1.2 µg/L during both
events and was the only well with a concentration greater than 1 µg/L. D-25 has had TCE concentrations
greater than or equal to 1 µg/L since at least 2013, and the highest concentration detected in the well was
1.4 µg/L during the 2017 annual event. Because TCE concentrations in D-25 have previously exceeded
1 µg/L, no additional action is required by the GWMA Plan.
Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report, Tooele Army Depot North 12
Environmental Remediation Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah
4.0 SWMU-10 MONITORING RESULTS
4.1 Groundwater Elevations
Groundwater elevations and potentiometric contours for the 2021 annual monitoring event are shown
on Figure 8. Depth-to-water measurement and groundwater elevations for the 2021 annual and 2022
semi-annual events are included in Tables la and lb, respectively. Groundwater elevations at SWMU-10
during the 2021 annual event ranged from 4,466.61 to 4,469.00 feet above mean sea level (amsl) in wells
N-133-90 and N-110-88, respectively. During the 2022 semi-annual event, groundwater elevations ranged
from to in 4,465.54 feet ams I in N-133-90 to 4,467.69 feet amsl in N-03A. Consistent with previous events,
the observed groundwater flow direction during the 2021 annual event across SWMU-10 was toward the
west with localized flow to the northwest and southwest.
4.2 Analytical Results
ROX was detected in both SWMU-10 wells that were sampled during the 2021 biennial event. N-03A had
a concentration of 23 µg/L, while N-03H had estimated concentrations of 0.97 µg/L in the primary sample
and 0.80 µg/L in the field duplicate. The result for N-03A is comparable to the concentration during the
2019 biennial event (20 µg/L). The concentration in N-03H decreased slightly compared to 2019, when
ROX was detected at 2.3 µg/L (primary) to 3.4 µg/L (field duplicate).
Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report, Tooele Army Depot North 13
Environmental Remediation Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah
This page intentionally blank
Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report, Tooele Army Depot North 14
Environmental Remediation Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah
5.0 CONCENTRATION TREND ANALYSIS
5.1 Introduction
Statistical trend analysis procedures have been developed for SWMU-58 to assess concentration changes
across the site. In previous annual reports, individual concentration trends were assessed only for a subset
of sampled wells, and the wells that were assessed were also grouped by location and evaluated together
using Regional Kendall tests to assess overall trends in different areas of SWMU-58. This approach has
been modified for the current report to include trend assessments for all wells designated for sampling in
Table 3, and the Regional Kendall assessment has been eliminated. The modified approach allows for a
more detailed evaluation of plume conditions and eliminates the potential for overgeneralization or
biases resulting from well selection inherent to Regional Kendall tests. To facilitate interpretation of
results for different areas of the plume, individual wells were assigned to one of six areas based on their
location. These areas, which largely correspond to the areas previously used in the Regional Kendall tests,
are shown on Figure 9 and include the Former Sanitary Landfill source area, BRAC parcel source areas,
main plume mid-plume area, main plume toe area, NEB plume mid-plume area, and NEB plume toe area.
These areas were selected based on site history, the distribution of contamination, groundwater flow
directions, and the regions formerly used for the Regional Kendall tests. However, specific boundary
locations do not imply a change in conditions due to the continuous and comingled nature of the plume.
The primary focus of the trend analysis is TCE because it is the most widespread contaminant at
SWMU-58; therefore, TCE concentration trends were assessed in all wells designated for sampling in
Table 3. As discussed in Section 3.2, 1,2-DCE, PCE, CTC, and 1,4-dioxane were also detected at levels
exceeding their corresponding screening levels in addition to TCE. Due to the limited number and spatial
extent of exceedances for these additional compounds, and CTC, trend assessment was only completed
for these compounds at locations with exceedances during the 2021 annual and 2022 semi-annual events.
The installation of SVE and AS systems in contaminant source areas has influenced or is expected to
influence contamination trends across SWMU-58. To assess trends associated with current site conditions
in which the SVE and AS systems are online, the period of analysis has been limited to the last sampling
event before the SVE and AS systems became substantially operational onward. The SVE and AS systems
outside of the Former Sanitary Landfill became fully operational in Summer 2013; consequently, data from
Spring 2013 onward were used for analysis except for wells in the Sanitary Landfill source area. Within the
landfill, the SVE and AS systems became substantially operational in Winter 2014, and data from Fall 2014
onward were used for the analysis.
5.2 Statistical Methods
Statistical trend analysis was performed using the Mann-Kendall test (Gilbert 1987; Helsel and Hirsch
2002; EPA 2009) to identify possible increasing or decreasing concentration trends in individual wells. The
Mann-Kendall test is a non-parametric test for linear trends based on the idea that a lack of trend should
correspond to a time-series plot fluctuating randomly about a constant mean level with no visually
apparent upward or downward pattern (EPA 2009). The Mann-Kendall statistic, S, is computed by
examining all possible pairs of measurements in the data set, scoring each pair as -1, 0, or 1, and adding
the scores. An earlier measurement lower in magnitude than a later one is assigned a value of 1, while an
earlier value greater in magnitude than a later sample is assigned a value of -1. Two identical
measurement values are assigned 0. Positive values of S indicate an increase in concentrations over time,
whereas negative values indicate a decrease in concentrations over time. The magnitude of Sis related to
Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report, Tooele Army Depot North 15
Environmental Remediation Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah
the strength of the trend with larger absolute values of S indicating stronger evidence for a real increasing
or decreasing trend. To assess statistical significance, a standard deviation of S is calculated based on the
number of samples in the data set and number of identical measurements. S and the standard deviation
of S are then used to calculate a Z-statistic from which a one-tailed p-value can be determined from the
standard normal distribution. To assess whether a statistically significant concentration trend is present,
the p-value is compared to a selected significance level, a. For p-values less than a, the null hypothesis
that there is no trend in the data is rejected, and the alternative hypothesis that a monotonic (upward or
downward) trend exists in the data is accepted. For this analysis, a value of 0.05 was selected for a (i.e., a
trend is considered to be statistically significant for p-values of less than 0.05), which corresponds to 95%
confidence, or a 1-in-20 chance that a statistically significant trend is falsely identified. Note that a
non-significant Mann-Kendall test result does not necessarily demonstrate that there is no trend-only
that the evidence available is insufficient to conclude a statistically significant trend is present at the
selected level of a.
Mann-Kendall tests were performed using the statistical software package R. For the purposes of the
analysis, non-detect results were assigned a common value of 0.1 µg/L to avoid errors resulting from small
variations in the method detection limit from year to year, which would result in paired non-detect results
being scored as -1 or 1 without evidence that the results are actually different. A value of 0.1 µg/L was
selected because it is approximately one-half of the method detection limit for most samples analyzed
and is lower than all detected TCE concentrations. For the purposes of the Mann-Kendall test, the specific
value used for non-detect values does not matter as long it is less than the lowest detected concentration,
because sample pairs with different concentrations are scored as -1 or 1 regardless of the magnitude of
the difference. The Mann-Kendall test also requires that sample results are not serially correlated
(e.g., collected closely together in time), which is the case for paired normal and field duplicate results.
Where both normal and field duplicate samples were collected at a given location, the highest sample
result was used.
Mann-Kendall tests indicate whether a statistically significant trend is present, but they do not indicate
the magnitude of the trend. The magnitude of the trend can be assessed using the Theil-Sen slope, which
is a non-parametric method that is relatively insensitive to outliers. For a given data set, the Theil-Sen
slope is the median of slopes computed for every pair of distinct measurements in the data set and
corresponds to the change in concentration per year. Unlike the Mann-Kendall test, the value used to
substitute for non-detect results affects the calculated Theil-Sen slope values. Calculation of the Theil-Sen
slope is generally not recommended when more than half of sample results in a well are non-detect
(Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council 2013). Therefore, Theil-Sen slopes were not calculated in
wells with more than 50% non-detects.
5.3 Summary of Trend Results
TCE trend analysis results including S values, p-values, and Theil-Sen slopes are presented in Table 7. Plots
showing TCE concentrations over time are presented in Appendix A. The plots include Theil-Sen linear
regressions where statistically significant trends were identified. Note that slopes for wells without
significant trends are reported in Table 7 for reference but do not indicate that an increasing or decreasing
trend is present. TCE trend results are discussed by area in the following sections, followed by a discussion
of the results for other compounds. Trend results for other compounds are presented in Table 8.
Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report, Tooele Army Depot North 16
Environmental Remediation Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah
5.3.1 Former Sanitary Landfill Source Area
Among the wells in the Former Sanitary Landfill source area, 20 have decreasing trends, none have an
increasing trend, and three have no trend. Theil-Sen slopes range from -87 to 2.1 µg/L per year (µg/L/yr)
with a median value of -6.25 µg/L/yr. These results indicate there is widespread and rapid decline in TCE
concentrations in the area, and the SVE and AS remediation systems are working as intended.
5.3.2 BRAC Parcel Source Areas
Among the wells in the BRAC parcel Former Sanitary Landfill source area, 15 have decreasing trends, four
have increasing trends, and six have no trend. Theil-Sen slopes range from -29 to 1.1 µg/L/yr with a median
value of-1.6 µg/L/yr. Overall these results indicate that TCE concentrations in the area are decreasing and
the SVE and AS remediation systems are working as intended.
5.3.3 Main Plume Mid-Plume Area
Within the mid-plume portion of the Main Plume, nine wells have decreasing trends, none have increasing
trends, and four have no trend. Theil-Sen slopes range from -6.5 to 0.25 µg/L/yr with a median value
of -0.95 µg/L/yr. These results indicate TCE concentrations in the area are generally decreasing,
particularly in the south and west.
5.3.4 Main Plume Toe Area
Among the wells near the toe of the Main Plume, none have decreasing trends, eight have increasing
trends, and five have no trend. Theil-Sen slopes range from -0.39 to 0.74 µg/L/yr with a median value of
0.25 µg/L/yr. These results suggest TCE concentrations near the toe of the Main Plume are increasing at
a slow rate and future migration of the plume boundary could occur. However, concentrations in the
sentinel wells beyond the Main Plume are unlikely to exceed 5 µg/L within the next 10 years based on
current concentrations and Theil-Sen slopes. This timeframe is consistent with the probabilistic
predictions made by the 2022 TEAD-N Groundwater Flow and Contaminant Transport Model (USACE and
Tetra Tech/Brice 2022). Three sentinel wells beyond the main plume have increasing concentration
trends: B-42, C-03, and C-04. Of these, C-03 is the only well with a calculated Theil-Sen slope because the
other two wells have more than 50% non-detect results. Based on the Theil-Sen slope, the concentration
at C-03 is expected to reach 1 µg/L by approximately 2030 but will not reach 5 µg/L for more than
100 years. Although slopes were not calculated for B-42 and C-04, the rate of TCE concentration increase
in B-24 is qualitatively similar to C-03, while the rate in C-04 is slower. At present, the highest TCE
concentration observed among the Main Plume sentinel wells 0.470 µg/L in B-42 during the 2022
semi-annual event.
5.3.5 NEB Plume Mid-Plume Area
Within the mid-plume portion of the NEB Plume, 11 wells have decreasing trends, five have increasing
trends, and eight have no trend. Theil-Sen slopes range from -13 to 2.5 µg/L/yr with a median value of
-1.09 µg/L/yr. TCE concentrations within the southern half of the area are decreasing at low to moderate
rates. Further north, concentrations are generally increasing at a slow rate.
5.3.6 NEB Plume Toe Area
Among the wells near the toe of the NEB Plume, two have decreasing trends, six have increasing
trends, and seven have no trend. Theil-Sen slopes range from Oto 0.89 µg/L/yr with a median value of
Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report, Tooele Army Depot North 17
Environmental Remediation Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah
0.12 µg/L/yr. These results suggest TCE concentrations near the toe of the NEB plume are increasing in
some areas, though the trend is not spatially uniform. Concentrations in the sentinel wells beyond the
Main Plume are unlikely to exceed 5 µg/L within the next 10 years based on current concentrations and
Theil-Sen slopes. This timeframe is consistent with the probabilistic predictions made by the 2022 TEAD-N
Groundwater Flow and Contaminant Transport Model (USACE and Tetra Tech/Brice 2022). Two sentinel
wells beyond the NEB plume have increasing concentration trends: D-20 and D-22. Of these, D-20 is the
only well with a calculated Theil-Sen slope because D-22 has more than 50% non-detect results. Based on
the Theil-Sen slope, the concentration at D-20 is expected to reach 1 µg/L by approximately 2043 but will
not reach 5 µg/L for approximately 100 years. Qualitatively, the rate of concentration increase in D-22 is
slower than in D-20. Among the NEB plume sentinel wells with increasing trends, D-20 has the highest
observed concentration (0.67 µg/L during the 2021 annual event).
5.3.7 Trend Results for Other Compounds
1,2-DCE
Of the four wells with exceedances for 1,2-DCE during the 2021 annual event and/or 2022 semi-annual
event, two have decreasing trends, one has an increasing trend, and one has no trend. Concentrations in
the well with an increasing trend, A-02A, declined significantly from 2019 to 2021 and may have peaked.
CTC
Of the 12 wells with exceedances for CTC during the 2021 annual event, four have decreasing trends,
three have increasing trends, and five have no trend. The three wells with increasing trends (B-10, C-44,
and C-45) are at the northern end of the CTC plume boundary, suggesting the boundary may continue to
expand to the north.
PCE
B-26 was the only well with an exceedance for PCE during the 2021 annual and 2022 semi-annual events.
PCE concentrations in the well have a decreasing trend and will decrease less than the permit
concentration limit within the next several years if the current rate of decrease (-4.0 µg/L/yr) remains
relatively stable.
1,4-Dioxane
None of the four wells with 1,4-dioxane exceedances during the 2021 annual event have a statistically
significant trend. As shown on the trend graphs for 1,4-dioxane in Appendix A, concentrations in all four
wells are comparable to previous sampling events and are less than historical maximum concentrations.
Qualitatively, the trends in C-19, C-21, and C-26 appear stable, while C-35 has a general decreasing trend
that may become statistically significant in the future.
Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report, Tooele Army Depot North 18
Environmental Remediation Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah
6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Following disruption in 2020 and the start of 2021, groundwater monitoring at TEAD-N returned to its
typical schedule for the 2021 annual and 2022 semi-annual events. Results from these two events were
mostly consistent with recent monitoring at SWMU-58 and SWMU-10. Groundwater flow directions and
gradients are comparable to previous events and are strongly influenced by site faulting and the uplifted
bedrock block near the middle of the plume. At SWMU-58, statistical trend analysis indicates TCE
concentrations in the plume source areas and mid-plume areas are decreasing, although increasing trends
are present in some wells. Notably, the vast majority of wells in the Former Sanitary Landfill source area
have decreasing trends and no wells have increasing trends. These results suggest the SVE and AS
remediation systems have been effective at reducing TCE mass in the plume source areas. In the distal
portion of the plume, TCE concentrations are increasing in some wells, most notably near the toe of the
Main Plume. However, the observed rates of concentration increase (Theil-Sen slopes) in these wells are
low, and estimates of plume breakthrough suggest the plume will not migrate beyond existing sentinel
wells for multiple decades at current rates of concentration increase. These timeframes are generally
consistent with the probabilistic predictions made by the TEAD-N Groundwater Flow and Contaminant
Transport Model (USACE and Tetra Tech/Brice 2022). The highest TCE concentration detected among
sentinel wells was 1.2 µg/L at D-25 during both the 2021 annual and 2022 semi-annual events. The TCE
concentration in D-25 is stable and has been greater than or equal to 1 µg/L since at least 2013.
Besides TCE, the only other compounds with screening level exceedances during the 2021 annual event
and/or 2022 semi-annual event are 1,2-DCE, CTC, PCE, and 1,4-dioxane. 1,2-DCE has an increasing trend
in one well with a screening level exceedance, A-02A, near the Former Sanitary Landfill source area. This
increasing trend likely results from TCE degradation caused by active remediation in the area; however,
1,2-DCE concentrations in the well declined significantly from 2019 to 2021 and may have peaked. Three
wells with screening level exceedances for CTC have increasing concentration trends. These wells are
located near the northern end of the CTC plume boundary, suggesting the boundary may continue to
expand to the north, but will remain within the larger TCE plume boundary. PCE only exceeded the
screening level in one well, B-26, which has a decreasing concentration trend, and concentrations in the
well are likely to decrease below the screening level within the next few years. The four wells
monitored for 1,4-dioxane near Buildings 619 and 609 had concentrations exceeding the screening level
during the 2021 annual event. None of the wells have a statistically significant concentration trend for
1,4-dioxane, and concentrations in the wells appear to be stable or decreasing.
RDX was detected in both SWMU-10 wells sampled during the 2021 biennial event. The observed
concentrations were comparable or lower than those observed in 2019, suggesting conditions at
SWMU-10 are stable.
Based on current site conditions, potential exists for the monitoring program to be optimized in the
Former Sanitary Landfill area. For historical reasons, 13 compliance monitoring wells within the landfill
are currently designated for semi-annual sampling. These wells (C-56 through C-68) were installed in 2014
to delineate potential additional source areas and to support the design and monitoring of the landfill SVE
and AS systems (TEAD 2015). The wells were added to the compliance monitoring program with an initial
semi-annual sampling frequency that has remained unchanged. Seven of the wells were also subsequently
designated for remedy monitoring purposes and are sampled three times annually with compliance
monitoring and remedy monitoring events being combined when possible for efficiency. Conditions in
wells C-56 through C-68 are well understood, and they all have decreasing TCE concentration trends.
Therefore, it is recommended that the frequency of compliance monitoring for these 13 wells be changed
Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report, Tooele Army Depot North 19
Environmental Remediation Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah
to annual. With this change, wells C-58, C-62, C-63, C-64, C-65, and C-67 would be sampled during the
annual event only. The remaining wells in the Former Sanitary Landfill area would continue to be sampled
three times annually for remedy monitoring purposes.
Groundwater monitoring at SWMU-58 will continue on a semi-annual basis in accordance with the
UPF-QAPP (Brice 2022a). The larger annual monitoring event is scheduled to occur in October 2022, and
the smaller semi-annual monitoring event is scheduled to occur in April 2023. Monitoring at SWMU-10
will continue on a biennial basis with the next event scheduled for October 2023 during the annual
monitoring event.
Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report, Tooele Army Depot North 20
Environmental Remediation Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah
7 .0 REFERENCES
Brice Engineering, LLC (Brice). 2021. C-18 Well Abandonment Work Plan. November.
Brice. 2022a. Final Uniform Federal Policy-Quality Assurance Project Plan, Tooele Army Depot North,
Utah. February.
Brice. 2022b. Final Groundwater Management Plan Update, Tooele Army Depot North, Utah. July.
Brice. 2022c. C-18 Well Abandonment Technical Memorandum -January 2022. Prepared for Bryan
Lynch, U.S. Army Environmental Command.
Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control (DWMRC). 2021. RE: Request to Abandon
Monitoring Well C-18. Letter dated October 12, 2021, from Deborah Ng, Program Manager,
DWMRC, to Lonnie Brown, Acting Chief, Environmental Management Division, Tooele Army
Depot.
Gilbert. 1987. Statistical Methods for Environmental Pollution Monitoring, Gilbert, R.O., Van Nostrand
Reinhold, New York, NY.
Helsel. D.R., and R.M. Hirsch. 2002. Statistical methods in water resources: U.S. Geological Survey
Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 4, chap. A3, 524 p.
Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council. 2013. Groundwater Statistics and Monitoring Compliance:
Statistical Tools for the Project Life Cycle. GSMC-1. December.
Kleinfelder. 2002. RCRA Facility Investigation Report, Tooele Army Depot Utah. March.
Parsons. 2012. Final Corrective Measures Study Report, Tooele Army Depot, Tooele, Utah. June 2012.
Parsons. 2014a. Corrective Measures Implementation Program Plan for Groundwater, Tooele Army
Depot, Tooele, Utah. April.
Parsons. 2014b. SWMU 58 Natural Attenuation Evaluation Report, Tooele Army Depot, Tooele, Utah.
June.
Tooele Army Depot (TEAD). 2015. Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report. Tooele Army Depot, Tooele,
Utah. October.
TEAD. 2018. Utah Hazardous Waste Post-Closure Permit for Post-Closure Monitoring and Corrective
Action of Solid Waste Management Units for Tooele Army Depot, Tooele, Utah. EPA ID
UT3213820894. November.
TEAD. 2021. Request to Abandon Monitoring Well C-18. Letter dated August 17, 2021, from Lonnie
Brown, Acting Chief, Environmental Management Division, Tooele Army Depot, to Doug Hansen,
Director, DWMRC.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2012. Semi-Annual Groundwater Quality Report and Voluntary
SWMU Sampling, Spring 2012, Tooele Army Depot, Utah, October.
USACE and Tetra Tech/Brice. 2022. Tooele Army Depot Groundwater Flow and Contaminant Transport
Model (2021). October.
Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report, Tooele Army Depot North
Environmental Remediation Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah
21
U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). 2019a. Quality Systems Manual for Environmental Laboratories,
Version 5.3. May.
DoD. 2019b. General Data Validation Guidelines. November.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009. Statistical Analysis of Groundwater Monitoring Data
at RCRA Facilities, Unified Guidance. EPA 530/R-09-007. March.
Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report, Tooele Army Depot North 22
Environmental Remediation Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah
TABLES
This page intentionally blank
Table la
Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Wells and Results -2021 Annual Event
Well
Ground Measuring Measured Depth Corrected Depth
Corrected Water
Shallow(S)
WellDry(D) Measurement Surface Point to Water to Water
Elevation We11Corre4 Location SWMU orWet(W) Date Elevation Elevation (feet below (feet below
or Deep(D) (feetamsl) (feetamsl) measuring point) measuring point)
(feetamsl)
A-02A 2 s w 10/14/2021 4757 .98 4757.98 289.51 289.51 4468.47
A-03 2 s D 10/21/2021 4702 .10 4704.58 Dry Dry Dry
A-04 2 s D 10/21/2021 4716.82 4719.75 Dry Dry Dry
A-05 2 s w 10/21/2021 4687.60 4690 .06 224.67 224 .67 4465 .39
A-07A 2 s w 10/20/2021 4669.27 4671.16 316.11 316.11 4355 .05
B-01 2 s w 10/19/2021 4677.89 4680.06 212.43 212.43 4467 .63
B-02 2/58 s D 10/14/2021 4813 .30 4815 .14 Dry Dry Dry
B-03 (") 2/58 s w 10/21/2021 4718.45 4721.12 255 .71 255 .55 4465 .57 y=0.9976
B-04 2 s w 10/19/2021 4642 .56 4645 .58 180.75 180.75 4464.83
B-05 2 s w 10/21/2021 4689.40 4692 .08 332.74 332 .74 4359 .34
B-06 2 s w 10/20/2021 4585.68 4587 .63 287.82 287 .82 4299 .81 -
B-07 2 s w 10/20/2021 4605 .42 4607.65 253.50 253.50 4354.15
B-08 2 s D 10/20/2021 4603 .18 4605.27 Dry Dry Dry
B-09 2/58 s w 10/21/2021 4652.00 4654 .76 300.53 300.53 4354 .23
B-10 2/58 s w 10/20/2021 4680.15 4681.42 224.58 224 .58 4456 .84
B-11 58 s w 10/22/2021 4587.10 4589 .29 235 .18 235.18 4354 .11
B-12 2 s D 10/20/2021 4567.54 4569 .42 Dry Dry Dry
B-13 2 D w 10/20/2021 4565 .52 4566.75 268.47 268.47 4298.28
B-14A 2 s D 10/20/2021 4536 .84 4536.87 Dry Dry Dry
B-15 2 s w 10/21/2021 4531.56 4534 .81 236 .72 236.72 4298 .09 -
B-16 2/58 s w 10/22/2021 4532 .74 4534.86 239 .39 239.39 4295 .47
B-17A 2 D w 10/22/2021 4492 .68 4493 .47 198.94 198.94 4294.53
B-18(") 2 s w 10/22/2021 4502 .75 4504 .13 211 .03 211.02 4293 .11 y=x -
B-19 2 s w 10/22/2021 4483 .90 4484 .74 189.39 189.39 4295 .35
B-20 2 s w 10/21/2021 4642 .61 4644 .63 290.32 290.32 4354 .31
B-21 2 s w 10/21/2021 4680.17 4682 .12 239.22 239.22 4442 .90
B-22 2 s w 10/21/2021 4692 .94 4694.68 228.55 228.55 4466.13
B-23 2,12/15 s w 10/19/2021 4622.27 4623 .32 159.44 159.44 4463 .88 -
B-24 2/58 s w 10/22/2021 4679.71 4681.50 327.24 327.24 4354.26
B-25 2 D w 10/25/2021 4476 .36 4478.75 182.96 182.96 4295.79
B-26 2/58 s w 10/19/2021 4776.76 4779.12 314.55 314.55 4464 .57
B-27 2 s w 10/21/2021 4702.88 4706 .08 239.58 239 .58 4466 .50
B-28 2 s w 10/19/2021 4605.22 4608 .34 291.02 291.02 4317 .32
B-29 2 D w 10/21/2021 4539.09 4542 .16 246.09 246.09 4296 .07
B-30 2 s D 10/20/2021 4532.73 4535 .64 Dry Dry Dry
B-31 2 D w 10/22/2021 4511.39 4514.17 219.47 219.47 4294.70
B-32 2 s w 10/18/2021 4499 .44 4502.46 207 .61 207.61 4294 .85
B-33 2 D w 10/25/2021 4477 .65 4480.35 184.94 184.94 4295 .41 -
B-34 2 s w 10/25/2021 4475 .17 4477 .79 182 .87 182.87 4294.92
B-35 (") 2 s w 10/25/2021 4466.51 4469.53 180.66 179.62 4289 .91 y=0 .9938
B-36 2, 12/15 s w 10/19/2021 4621.04 4623 .85 160.75 160.75 4463 .10
B-37 2 s w 10/18/2021 4442 .60 4445 .09 15 6 .9 3 15 6.93 4288.16 (-
B-38 2 D w 10/18/2021 4442.60 4445 .08 150.29 150.29 4294 .79 (_
B-3 9 2 D w 10/18/2021 4457 .90 4460.17 165 .28 165.28 4294 .8 9 (-
B-40 2 s w 10/15/2021 4459 .50 4461.72 170.55 170.55 42 91.17 ~
B-41 2 s w 10/15/2021 4476 .00 4478 .35 183.94 183.94 4294.41
B-42 2 s w 10/15/2021 4421.00 4423 .31 135.26 135.26 4288 .05
B-43 2 D w 10/15/2021 4421.00 4423.75 129.54 129.54 4294.21
B-44 2 s w 10/15/2021 4432.40 4434 .92 147 .86 147 .86 42 87.06 ~
B-45 2 D w 10/15/2021 4432.40 44 35.10 140.57 140.57 4294 .53 (-
B-46 2 s w 10/15/2021 441 6.70 4417 .8 0 130.58 130.58 42 87.22 ~-
B-47 2 s w 10/18/2021 4412.00 4414 .52 127.62 127.62 42 86.90 (_
B-4 8 2 D w 10/18/2021 4412.00 4414 .24 119.99 119.99 4294 .25 ~-
B-4 9 2 s w 10/15/2021 44 32.80 4435.17 141.60 141.60 429 3.57 [-
~ e ~ --... ...... , ...... , .............. .. ----.. ----.. ,.,,..,..,. .. ,.,,..,..,. .. .................
Well
Location SWMU Shallow(S)
or Deep(D)
P-28D 2
P-28S 2
P-29 2
P-30 2
P-31 2
P-32 2
P-33 2
P-34 2
P-35 2
P-36 2
P-37 2
P-38 2
P-39 2
P-40 2
P-41 2
P-42 2
P-43 2
P-44 58
T-02 2
T-03 2
T-04 2
T-05 2
T-06 2
T-07 2
WW-07 2
WW-08 2
Notes :
ams I-above mean sea level
bgs -below ground surface
ft-feet
D
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
D
s
D
D
s
s
s
s
s
s
D
s
WellDry(D)
orWet(W)
w
D
w
D
D
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
SWMU -Solid Waste Management Unit
(A) -Measured depth to water requires correction
Table la
Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Wells and Results -2021 Annual Event
Ground Measuring Measured Depth Corrected Depth
Corrected Water Measurement Surface Point to Water to Water
Elevation Well Corre• Date Elevation Elevation (feet below (feet below
(feetamsl) (feetamsl) measuring point) measuring point) (feetamsl)
10/25/2021 4452 .37 4454.46 160.75 160.75 4293 .71
10/25/2021 4452 .37 4454.28 Dry Dry Dry
10/19/2021 4654.18 4655 .61 189.30 189.30 4466 .31
10/20/2021 4598.73 4600.59 Obstruction Obstruction Obstruction
10/20/2021 4598 .73 4600.47 Obstruction Obstruction Obstruction
10/18/2021 4443.68 4446.12 158.07 158.07 4288.05 ~-
10/18/2021 4427.20 4429.40 141.96 141.96 4287.44 (-
10/18/2021 4429.47 4431.83 144.20 144.20 4287.63 t-
10/18/2021 4417.97 4418.14 131.06 131.06 4287.08 (-
10/25/2021 4487 .92 4490.25 200 .92 200.92 4289 .33
10/18/2021 4428.46 4430.80 141.94 141.94 4288.86 (-
10/15/2021 4438 .79 4441.28 147 .20 147.20 4294.08 ~-
10/15/2021 4444.74 4446 .90 153.57 153.57 4293 .33
10/19/2021 4603 .80 4605 .31 161.86 161.86 4443.45
10/19/2021 4603 .61 4605 .24 150.28 150.28 4454 .96
10/20/2021 4577.74 4580.03 279.22 279 .22 4300.81 -
10/20/2021 4578.17 4580.01 279.65 279.65 4300 .36
10/15/2021 4617.35 4619 .20 264.99 264.99 4354 .21 -
10/22/2021 4688.71 4690.25 247 .54 247 .54 4442.71 -
10/22/2021 4680 .00 4683.31 217.38 217.38 4465.93
10/19/2021 4617 .00 4619.89 171.03 171.03 4448.86
10/21/2021 4609 .46 4611 .87 257 .52 257 .52 4354 .35
10/20/2021 4596.94 4599 .45 257 .13 257 .13 4342 .32
10/19/2021 4793 .20 4795 .47 325 .23 325.23 4470 .24
10/20/2021 --4552 .50 253 .83 253 .83 4298 .67
10/20/2021 --4598 .52 244.20 244.20 4354 .32
This page intentionally blank
Table Ga
SWMU-58 Analytical Results -2021 Annual Monitoring Event
Location: B-34 B-35 B-37 B-40 B-42 B-54 B-56 B-62
Zone Monitored: Shallow Shallow Shallow Shallow Shallow Shallow Deep Shallow
TEAD-11-21-TEAD-11-21-
Sample ID:
TEAD-11-21-TEAD-11-21-TEAD-11-21-TEAD-11-21-S-B40-01-HY-TEAD-11-21-TEAD-11-21-TEAD-11-21-
S-B56-01-HY-
TEAD-11-2
B34-HY-236 B35-HY-224 B37-HY-201 B40-HY-182 192
B42-HY-197 B54-HY-362 B56-HY-662
672
B62-HY-27
Sample Date: 11/2/2021 11/2/2021 10/27/2021 10/27/2021 10/27/2021 10/27/2021 11/1/2021 11/4/2021 11/4/2021 11/3/202:
Sample Type: N N N N FD N N N FD N
voe (µg/L) Permit Limit
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 200 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 5 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U
1,1-Dichloroethane 170 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.230J 0.200 U 0.400J 0.480J 0.220J
1,1-Dichloroethene 7 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.130J 0 .120J 0.200 U
1,2-Dichloroethane 5 0 .200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.480J 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 1 0.260J 0.200 U 0.l00J 0.200J 0.220J 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.290J
trans-1 ,2-Dichloroethene 1 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U
1,2-Dichloroethene (total) 1 0.260J 0.200 U 0.l00J 0.200J 0.220J 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.290J
Carbon Tetrachloride 5 0.250J 0.150J 0.260J 0.430J 0.460J 0.450J 4.2 0.200 U 0.200 U 1.7
Chloroform 100 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.740 J 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.180J
Methylene chloride 5 1.00U 1.00U l.00U l.00U l.00U l.00U l.00U l.00U l.00U l.00U
Tetrachloroethene (PCE) 5 0 .300 U 0.300 U 0.300 U 0.300 U 0.300 U 0.300 U 0.300 U 0.300 U 0.300 U 0.300 U
Trichloroethene (TCE) 5 13 5 5.5 12 13 0.460J 6 1.9 2.1 26
SVOC (~g/L)
1,4-Dioxane 0.46 --------------------
Table6b
SWMU-58 Analytical Results -2022 Semi-Annual Monitoring Event
Location: 8-16 8-40 8-42 C-03 C-04 C-56 C-57 C-58
Zone Monitored: Shallow Shallow Shallow Shallow Shallow Deep Shallow Shallow s
Sample ID:
TEAD-04-22-TEAD-04-22-S TEAD-04-22-TEAD-04-22-S TEAD-04-22-TEAD-04-22-TEAD-04-22-TEAD-04-22-TEAD-04-22-TEAD-04-22-TEt
B16-HY-290 B16-HY-300 B40-HY-179 B40-HY-189 B42-HY-195 C03-HY-263 C04-HY-240 C56-HY-290 C57-HY-298 C58-HY-292 CS'
Sample Date: 4/7/2022 4/7/2022 4/7/2022 4/7/2022 4/7/2022 4/7/2022 4/7/2022 4/6/2022 4/6/2022 4/6/2022 41
Sample Type: N FD N FD N N N N N N
VOC(µg/L) Permit Limit
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 200 0.200 U 0.200 U 0 .200 U 0 .200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0 .200 U 0 .200 U 0 .200 U 0.200 U C
1, 1,2-Trich loroetha ne 5 0 .200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0 .200 U 0.200 U C
1,1-Dichloroethane 170 0.160J 0.160J 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200J 0 .200 U 0.200 U 0 .200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U C
1,1-Dichloroethene 7 0 .200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0 .200 U 0.200 U 0 .200 U 0 .200 U C
1,2-Dichloroethane 5 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0 .200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U C
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 1 0.200 U 0 .200 U 0.230J 0.220J 0.200 U 0 .200 U 0.200 U 0.390J 0.200 U 0.200 U I
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 1 0 .200 U 0 .200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0 .200 U 0 .200 U 0 .200 U 0 .200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U C
1,2-Dichloroethene (total) 1 0.200 U 0 .200 U 0.230J 0.220J 0 .200 U 0 .200 U 0.200 U 0.390J 0.200 U 0.200 U I
Carbon Tetrachloride 5 1.6 1.6 0.410J 0.380J 0.340J 0 .200 U 0 .200 U 0 .200 U 0.200 U 0 .200 U C
Chloroform 100 0.160J 0.170J 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0 .200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U C
Methylene chloride 5 l.00U l.00U 1.00 U 1.00 U l.00U l.00U l.00U l.00U l.00U l.00U
Tetrachloroethene (PCE) 5 0.300 U 0.300 U 0.300 U 0.300 U 0.300 U 0.300 U 0.300 U 0.300 U 0.300 U 0.300 U I
Trichloroethene (TCE) 5 16 16 14 13 0.470 J 0.380J 0.140 J 4 .8 1.1 1.1
!
~ ~
~ ;:,
I,
fi5 a
~I
~
;:'
~I
~
~,
j'
Abbreviations
µg/L micrograms per liter
BRAG Base Real ignment and Closure
MSL mean sea level
SWMU Solid Waste Management Unit
TCE trichloroethene
Notes
1. TCE plume boundary is based on results from 2021 annual monitoring event.
2. For conceptual purposes only. All locations are approximate .
3. Map produced using ESRI ArcMap v. 10.7.
References
1. Basemap source : Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographies ,
CNES/Airbus DS, USDA , USGS , AeroGRID , IGN, and the GIS User Community
Copyrigh t:© 2013 National Geographic Society , i-cubed
NEBJBl!l!J.MEr~RE ~
-$-
:$-
:$-:$-:$-$
:$-:$-,$-,
:$-:$-:$-:$-:$-:$-:$-
:$-
:$-
:$-
:$-
:$-
~
:$-:$-:$-:$--$-:$-:$-
##------------------~----------------,-~-------,--v~----♦-"'$---"'"'$'----~-........ :$-
#/ II :$-:$-:$-.... ~-""-
,;# ' -""-~'","" , ~.:-• =,'!..---=----...c..:::=;c......--:$-:$-"" 1 ► -...... .i-..' :$-
## ~✓ .. ....-.., _,h _J -$-_,h :$--1·1 V° ' ~ --qll'" ' -:$---qll'" :$-I ,,
:$-I
~
:$-~,
-$-,$ '\ -.Jil::,,. ... : t ,$-.-.... , -$-~· ..... -""-
-, ... ,' "" :$-
=-•--•-m ., .••• _._, __ ,_', -$--$--$-
:$-~
-:$-:$-~:$-
:$-:$-:$-:$-~
-$-C -$-i•
:$-.J, -""--$--""-_...-J:-""
"" -~ -""-... :$-• '<. "" :$-♦ --♦ ..... ♦
♦ • --♦
:$-
,:$-
~(llB.MER{S~Nl iF~RiYA~Nlll F.11!1!:
B~l!ll 1!81 NGI 6"2'Q
g
i
~ ::;
0 a.,
ill :::, ::;
i
~
" ~I
0
NI ;: ~,
~
§
<,
i'
~)l
Abbreviations
µg/L micrograms per liter
BRAC Base Realignment and Closure
MSL mean sea level
SWMU Solid Waste Management Unit
TCE trichloroethene
Notes
1. Groundwater elevation and contours based on measurements collected during s_::
g
ci.
~
~
~
~I
:,
~I
X
:;,
~
" ~I
0
NI ;: ~,
~
§
<,
i'
8~81
~29it7.t9)\_
8~9'
~29~~89:
s
--------------.....-~---~-~~-·----~--------s
81'6~1
~'s
Abbreviations
µg/L micrograms per liter
BRAG Base Realignment and Closure
MSL mean sea level
SWMU Solid Waste Management Unit
TCE trichloroethene
Notes
1. Groundwater elevation and contours based on measurements collected during
JL-l'\IV'\,t ---••-1 -•·-•-'
i
UJ u
ii
le ;,
:::,
::; !,
~
X ::.,
iii ; ;,
e>,
1 .. ,
i'
Abbreviations
µg/L micrograms per liter
BRAG Base Realignment and Closure
NS not sampled
SWMU Solid Waste Management Unit
TCE trichloroethene
Notes
1. Wells labeled as "NS" were scheduled for sampling but could not be sampled
due to low water levels.
2. All wells are shallow unless labelled as "Deep Well ."
3. TCE plume boundary was updated using results from the 2021 annual event.
Deep wells and wells with an asterisk (*) were not used for development of the
isocontours .
B!'fa' ~~
~
B!O"& ~ s
B~g•:
K
~ i1.a s
~ §,§. s
D"!2~1 mf s
~ 1PZ1:s: &II ~ s s
~
D!(f5· r s
o-r13·
N0'""
s""""'
g
uj
~I
~ !,
:::,
::; ;,
~
X ::.,
iii ; ;,
e>,
1 .. ,
i'
Abbreviations
µg/L micrograms per liter
BRAG Base Realignment and Closure
NS not sampled
SWMU Solid Waste Management Unit
TCE trichloroethene
Notes
1. Wells labeled as "NS" were scheduled for sampling but could not be sampled
due to low water levels.
~
M;Q;1 M.t .... s
M!0.3' Nii>• ' ~ s
0~9
£Q
s
~71 3
s
~7l
s ~.9.
~
0 ?06 ~ s
0 ?02 §w) s
~
~
9;~~
~ s
0 ?:16 N0~
""""" s
0 ?:13 N0~ ;;=
il
E
~
u' u,
~
le ;,
:::,
::; !,
~
X ::.,
iii ; ;,
e>,
1 .. ,
i'
Abbreviations
µg/L micrograms per liter
BRAG Base Realignment and Closure
CTC carbon tetrachloride
NS not sampled
SWMU Solid Waste Management Unit
Notes
~" ~ s
1. Wells labeled as "NS" were scheduled for sampling but could not be sampled
due to low water levels.
...... ,
er1s
§"'
B!62
"s
s
0!09 M s
..... fi~~ ,,
-s ' '\
B:09 ~ s
or19 ~ s
0!06 ~ s
Pl!! ND s
~ ~ s
g
d o,
,;
~ !,
:::,
::; ;,
~
X ::.,
iii ; ;,
e>,
1 .. ,
i'
Abbreviations
µg/L micrograms per liter
BRAG Base Realignment and Closure
CTC carbon tetrachloride
NS not sampled
SWMU Solid Waste Management Unit
Notes
1. Wells labeled as "NS" were scheduled for sampling but could not be sampled
due to low water levels.
......
' .. ...
M!03
t:.10· s
0?'09
t!.10" = s
,-. .. r:r
' \
\
\ .. ..
~ \. ...
\ ......
\.
0 ?:19
~(
s
Ii>;~~
NID s
ij7l lj6 ~-2 NID,
s s
0 ?06
~]
s
0 ?:13
t!.10" "-"= s
g
.~
i'
~
~ o,
:g
::,
:;
~I
~
X :.,
iii ; ;,
e>,
1 .. ,
i'
s
s
s
--------~-ior s-
Abbreviations
µg/L micrograms per liter
BRAC Base Realignment and Closure
DCE Dichloroethene
PCE Tetrachloroethene
SWMU Solid Waste Management Unit
TCE Trichloroethene
Notes
1. TCE plume boundary was updated using results from the 2021 annual event.
2. For conceptual purposes only. All locations are approximate .
s s
s
s
s s
:CIS.1
·1r?!n ·r.i::fl?n•nr.~:;:;;;;;;.;11 i::;;;;;:;t\':'l •::1:i:-,
s ,
.. .,
'
s
....
s
s
s
s
s
s
s r
9 s
9
~ s
~s
' -
' \ r, s
:\
\
" ~ \
' ~ ,,
~ ,0•,(l;;i.,)
s
s
s
s
I .. s
s s$'
~ -....,/i.... ~ ·r, "s-_____
~--
' s
@
s
s
(<ll
;t.J
C:
0
Iii!
'5
0
!G
<ll
~
al
!11
0
l!I!
;!
E
-ci
~ -, :g
::, :.
i
[ii
" _,
~
-.:.'
i' ", i' ~
Main Plume Toe Area
Main Plume Mid-Plume Area
Abbreviations
µg/L micrograms pe r liter
D □ A f' D,..,..,.. □ ...... 1:,.. ............... ,...,.,J f'I,..,..., , .. ,.
1:>!1:E[ NEB Plun
:!J!
Polf011:
1:>lOJI:
1:110]1
DSHW-2022-022711
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
TOOELE ARMY DEPOT/HEADQUARTERS
1 TOOELE ARMY DEPOT, BUILDING 1
TOOELE, UT 84074-5003
RECEIVED
August 11, 2022 By Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control at 4:20 pm, Aug 11, 2022
SUBJECT: Final Groundwater Management Area Plan Update, Tooele Army Depot
North Area {TEAD-N), State/EPA I.D. Number UT3213820894
Mr. Doug Hansen
Director, Division Waste Management and Radiation Control
195 North 1950 West
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4880
Dear Mr. Hansen:
TEAD is pleased to submit the July 2022 Final Groundwater Management Area Plan
Update along with the redlined version and the comment resolution package.
This Groundwater Management Area Plan Update (GWMA Plan Update)
incorporates the changes that have occurred at SWMU-58 since the GWMA Plan was
prepared in 2010. This update documents the current condition within the GWMA,
including land use, implemented remedial actions, TCE concentration trends,
groundwater model predictions, and plume extent.
If you have any questions regarding this request, please contact the undersigned at
[phone].
Sincerely,
rogram Manager
E;RTI . N STATEMENT
•1 certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that
qualified personnel properly gathered and evaluated the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system , or those persons
direcUy responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are
significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fines and imprisonment for knowing violations.
QRAl=T FINAL
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North
JulyApril 2022
Environmental Remediation
Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah
Contract No. W9124J-21-D-0006
U.S. Army Environmental Command Tooele Army Depot
DRAFT FINAL
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North
April July 2022
Environmental Remediation
Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah
Contract No. W9124J-21-D-0006
Prepared For :
U.S. Army Mission and Installation Contracting Command
Fort Sam Houston (MICC-FSH), U.S . Army Environmental Command (USAEC), and Tooele Army Depot (TEAD)
Prepared By :
B ee
ENGINEERING
Brice Engineering, LLC
362 Pierpont Avenue
Salt Lake City, Utah 84101
801-948-9319 PH
www.BriceEng.com
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................................................... IV
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................ VI
1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background ......................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Purpose of the GWMA Plan and Plan Update .................................................................... 1
1.3 Regulatory Requirements ................................................................................................... 2
1.4 Document Organization ...................................................................................................... 2
2.0 CURRENT SITE CONDITIONS ..................................................................................................... 3
2.1 Land Use .............................................................................................................................. 3
2.1.1 Land Use on TEAD-N .............................................................................................. 3
2.1.2 Land Use on BRAC Parcel and North of TEAD-N .................................................... 3
2.2 Corrective Measures Implementation ................................................................................ 3
2.3 Current Plume Extent and Concentration Trends .............................................................. 4
2.3.1 Plume Extent .......................................................................................................... 4
2.3.2 Concentration Trend Assessment .......................................................................... 4
2.3.3 Groundwater Model Assessment .......................................................................... 6
3.0 UPDATED GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT AREA PLAN ........................................................... 9
3.1 Identification of Potential Receptors .................................................................................. 9
3.1.1 Water Well Survey ................................................................................................. 9
3.1.2 Risk Assessment Summary and Groundwater Risk-Based Concentrations ......... 11
3.2 Groundwater Monitoring Approach ................................................................................. 12
3.2.1 Compliance Monitoring Program ........................................................................ 13
3.3 Groundwater Modeling Approach .................................................................................... 14
3.4 SWMU-58 Groundwater Management Area and Institutional Controls .......................... 14
3.4.1 GWMA Boundary Delineation ............................................................................. 14
3.4.2 Institutional Controls ........................................................................................... 15
3.5 Actions Based on Detections and Exceedances at Sentinel Wells .................................... 16
3.6 Contingency Plan for Wells Impacted by TCE ................................................................... 17
3.7 Community Involvement Program .................................................................................... 17
4.0 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................... 19
ACRONYMS AND ADDRE'JIATIONS "''"''"''''"''"''"''"''"''"''''"''"''"''"''"''"'''''"''"''"''"''"''''"''"''"''' Ill
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY "''''"''"''"''"''"''"''''"''"''"''"''"''"''''"''"'''"''"''"''''''''"''"''"''"''"''""''"''"''"'J
1.0
;a,g
INTRODUCTION ''''"''"''"''"''"''"''""''"''"''"''"''"''""''"''"'''"''"''''''''"''"''"''"''"''""''"''"''" 1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
BaclEgro1::1Rel ......................................................................................................................... 1
P1::1rpose of the GWM/\ PlaR a Rel Plan Upelate .................................................................... 1
Reg1::1lator,· Reei1::1iremeRts ................................................................................................... 2
Doc1::1meRt OrgaRi2:atioR ...................................................................................................... 2
CURRENT SITE CONDITIONS''"''"''''"''"''"''"''"''"''''"''"''"''"''"''"''''"'''"''"''"''"''''"''"''"''" 3
2.1 LaRel Use .............................................................................................................................. 3
2.1.1 La Rel Use OR TE/\D N .............................................................................................. 3
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
4,g
2.1.2 Land Use on BR/\C Parcel and North of HAD N .................................................... 3
2.2 Corrective Meas1::1res Implementation ................................................................................ 3
C1::1rrent Pl1::1me Extent and Concentration Trends .............................................................. 4
2.3.1 Pl1::1me Extent .......................................................................................................... 4
2.3.2 Concentration Trend Assessment .......................................................................... 4
2.3.3 Gro1::1ndwater Model Assessment .......................................................................... 6
YPDATl!:D GROYND)J/A.Tl!:R MANAGl!:Ml!:NT ARl!:A PlAN hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhiiiiiiiihiiiii g
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
lelentification of Potential Receptors .................................................................................. 9
3.1.1 \A/ater\A/ell S1::1rvey ................................................................................................. 9
3.1.2 Risk Assessment S1::1mmar>,1 and Gro1::1ndwater Risk Based Concentrations ......... 11
Gro1::1ndi.•.1ater Monitoring Approach ................................................................................. 12
3.2.1 Compliance Monitoring Program ........................................................................ 13
Gro1::1neli.•,ater Modeling Approach .................................................................................... 14
SWMU 58 Gro1::1ndwater Management Area and lnstit1::1tional Controls .......................... 14
3.4.1 G\A/M/\ Bo1::1ndary Delineation ............................................................................. 14
3.4.2 lnstit1::1tional Controls ........................................................................................... 14
Actions Based on Detections and E>Eceedances at Sentinel Wells .................................... 15
Contingency Plan for Wells Impacted by TCE ................................................................... 16
Comm1::1nity Involvement Program .................................................................................... 17
Rl!:Fl!:Rl!:NCl!:S lllhllllhllhllhllhllhllhllhhllhllhllhllhllhllllhlllhllhllhllhllllllllhllhllhllhllhllhhllhllhll :1:9
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
TABLES
Table 3-1
Table 3 2
Table 3 3
FIGURES
Figure 1-1
Figure 1-2
Figure 2-1
Figure 2-2
Figure 2-3
Figure 3-1
Figure 3-2
Figure 3-3
Figure 3-4
Figure 3-5
Figure 3-6
Figure 3-7
Figure 3-8
Water Wells Within 2 Miles of SWMU-58 Plume Boundary
Risk Based Concentration equations and Parameters for Groundwater
Ingestion by Industrial 1.\/orkers
Risk Based Concentrations f:or Groundwater Ingestion b>t Industrial Worl~ers
TEAD-N Location Map
SWMU-58 Site Location Map
SWMU-58 Plume Extent and TCE Concentration Trends
Cumulative Distribution Curves for the Maximum Predicted TCE
Concentrations Along the NEB Plume GWMA Boundary
Cumulative Distribution Curves for the Maximum Predicted TCE
Concentrations Along the Main Plume GWMA Boundary
Water Wells Within 2 Miles of Plume Boundary-All Uses
Water Wells Within 2 Miles of Plume Boundary-Domestic and Municipal
Uses
Water Wells Within 2 Miles of Plume Boundary-Irrigation Use
Water Wells Within 2 Miles of Plume Boundary-Stock Use
Water Wells Within 2 Miles of Plume Boundary-Commercial and Industrial
Uses
SWMU-58 Compliance Monitoring Groundwater Sampling Locations
SWMU-58 Compliance Monitoring Groundwater Gauging Locations
Proposed GWMA Boundary
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
iii
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
µg/L
AS
BRAC
Brice
CCR
CMF
CMIP
CMS
coc
CTC
days/yr
DSHW
DWR
EPA
GWMA
HRA
kg
L/day
MCL
mg/kg-day
NA
NEB
PCE
PCP
RBC
RCRA
RFI
SVE
SWMU
TCE
TEAD
TEAD-N
UDEQ
UFP-QAPP
USACE
voe
WIN
yr
micrograms per liter
air sparging
Base Realignment and Closure
Brice Engineering, LLC
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions
Consolidated Maintenance Facility
Corrective Measures Implementation Plan
Corrective Measures Study
contaminant of concern
carbon tetrachloride
days per year
Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste
Utah Department of Natural Resources Division of Water Rights
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Groundwater Management Area
Human Risk Assessment
kilograms
liters per day
Maximum Contaminant Level
milligrams per kilograms per day
not applicable
Northeast Boundary
tetrachloroethene
Post Closure Permit
risk-based concentration
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RCRA Facility Investigation
soil vapor extraction
Solid Waste Management Unit
trichloroethene
Tooele Army Depot
Tooele Army Depot North
Utah Department of Environmental Quality
Uniform Federal Policy-Quality Assurance Project Plan
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
volatile organic compound
well identification number
year(s)
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
iv
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
This page intentionally blank
V
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In 2004, TEAD developed an Interim Groundwater Management Area (GWMA) Plan for the Northeast
Boundary (NEB) plume to protect human health from risks related to the possible use of the impacted
groundwater until further investigation and remedial action could be implemented. In 2010, a Final
GWMA Plan superseding the Interim Plan was prepared to serve as a long-term institutional control to
protect potable well users from health risks associated with the entire comingled trichloroethene (TCE)
plume at TEAD-N now designated as SWMU-58. Because the plume extent and possible receptors are
subject to change and corrective measures had not yet been implemented when the GWMA Plan was
prepared in 2010, it recommended the GWMA Plan be formally reviewed at regular intervals and updated
as needed. This Groundwater Management Area Plan Update (GWMA Plan Update) incorporates the
changes that have occurred at SWMU-58 since the GWMA Plan was prepared in 2010. This update
documents current conditions within the GWMA, including land use, implemented remedial actions, TCE
concentration trends, groundwater model predictions, and plume extent. Since 2010, the SWMU-58
plume has expanded slightly but remains within the previously established GWMA boundary except for a
small area on the western edge of the plume that lies inside the TEAD-N installation. Current groundwater
modeling results indicate it is unlikely the plume will reach the downgradient GWMA boundary within the
next 10 years. Therefore, the GWMA boundary was expanded slightly to encompass the western edge of
the current plume boundary but otherwise remains unchanged. Due to the potential installation or
abandonment of water wells since the GWMA Plan was prepared, an updated water well search was
conducted to identify possible receptors. No new water wells installed within the GWMA boundary were
identified, and current management practices remain protective of human health.
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
vi
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
This page intentionally blank
vii
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Tooele Army Depot North (TEAD-N) encompasses almost 25,000 acres in eastern Tooele County at the
southern end of Tooele Valley (Figure 1-1). Historical site operations at TEAD-N have created a large,
comingled volatile organic compound (VOC) plume that originates from multiple identified source areas
and consists predominantly of trichloroethene (TCE) with minor amounts of tetrachloroethene (PCE) and
carbon tetrachloride (CTC). Historically, the plume has been divided into several subareas including: the
Northeast Boundary (NEB) groundwater plume, the main TCE plume, and the impacted groundwater
beneath the TEAD-N landfill (Figure 1-2). In the past, these subareas were managed under separate Solid
Waste Management Units (SWMUs) but are now managed under a single SWMU designated as SMWU-58.
The plume currently encompasses approximately 5.5 square miles and is approximately 4 miles long at its
longest point. The main portion of the plume is contained largely within the TEAD-N boundary and extends
a maximum of approximately 0.15 miles beyond the installation boundary. The NEB portion of the plume,
however, extends approximately 1.4 miles beyond the installation boundary.
In 2003, the Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ) Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste
(DSHW) requested that the Toole Army Depot (TEAD) implement an interim remedial action to prevent the
NEB plume from impacting any offsite receptors (DSHW 2003). In response, TEAD developed an interim
Groundwater Management Area (GWMA) Plan for the NEB plume (Interim Plan; Parsons 2004). The Interim
Plan was submitted to municipal and county stakeholders for review and approved by DSHW prior to
publication. Its primary purpose was to protect human health from risks related to the possible use of the
impacted groundwater while a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Facility Investigation (RFI)
and Corrective Measures Study (CMS) for the NEB plume were being conducted. The Interim Plan defined
a GWMA and presented a management strategy for the NEB plume based on risk-based concentrations
(RBCs) for groundwater. The Interim Plan also recommended amending the State of Utah's Tooele Valley
Ground-Water Management Plan (Utah Department of Natural Resources Division of Water Rights [DWR]
1996) to restrict water resource development within the GWMA boundary. The Tooele Valley Ground-
Water Management Plan was subsequently amended to prohibit installation of culinary water wells within
the 2004 GWMA boundary unless it was demonstrated that the water could be used without adverse
impacts to human health or the plume containment and cleanup program (Utah DWR 2004).
Upon completion of the TCE plume RFI, a Final GWMA Plan (GWMA Plan) was prepared to supersede the
Interim Plan and serve as a long-term institutional control to protect potable well users from health risks
associated with the SWMU-58 groundwater plume (Parsons 2010). The GWMA Plan was expanded to
include the entire TCE plume, in addition to the NEB plume, and was updated based on results from the RFI.
Because the plume extent and possible receptors are subject to change and the corrective measures had
not yet been implemented, the GWMA Plan recommended the document be formally reviewed at regular
intervals and updated as needed. This GWMA Plan Update documents and incorporates the changes that
have occurred at SWMU-58 since the GWMA Plan was prepared.
1.2 Purpose of the GWMA Plan and Plan Update
The purpose of the GWMA Plan is to protect Tooele Valley groundwater users from downgradient
SWMU-58 plume movement. To achieve this objective, the plan includes the following key elements:
1. Identification of potential receptors
2. A groundwater monitoring program
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
1
3. A groundwater modeling program
4. Delineation of a GWMA boundary with defined groundwater development restrictions
5. Actions to be taken based on detections and exceedances at sentinel wells
6. A contingency plan for supply wells impacted by contamination
7. A community involvement program
These elements were developed and presented in the GWMA Plan; however, Elements 1 through 4 require
updating due to changes at the SWMU-58 since the GWMA Plan was prepared.
1.3 Regulatory Requirements
Requirements for SWMU-58 are encompassed by the TEAD-N RCRA Post Closure Permit (PCP) (TEAD 2017),
the Corrective Measures Implementation Program (CMIP) Plan for Groundwater (Parsons 2014), and the
current Uniform Federal Policy-Quality Assurance Project Plan (UFP-QAPP) forTEAD-N groundwater (Brice
Engineering, LLC [Brice] 2022a). The PCP is the overarching regulatory document and includes provisions
requiring groundwater monitoring and modeling at SWMU-58. The CMIP, developed in accordance with
the PCP, represents a framework for the implementation of the RCRA corrective action process for the
protection of human health and the environment from chemical releases at SWMU-58. It specifies the
required corrective actions in the source and downgradient areas of SWMU-58 and provides an update to
the groundwater monitoring program. Finally, the Uniform Federal Policy-Quality Assurance Project Plan
(UFP-QAPP), which was developed in accordance with the PCP and CMIP, provides an additional update to
the sampling program included in the CMIP and presents the current groundwater sampling locations,
analytes, and sampling frequencies at SWMU-58 along with associated quality assurance/quality control
requirements.
1.4 Document Organization
In general, the provisions of the GWMA Plan remain protective of health for Tooele Valley groundwater
users and only minor updates are required. Therefore, this document does not duplicate the background
facility and original risk evaluation information, which can be found in the GWMA Plan (Parsons 2010).
Instead, this GWMA Plan Update focuses on changes that have occurred since the GWMA Plan was
prepared and an includes assessment of current plume conditions.
This document is organized into the following sections:
• Section 1-Introduction: Presents the GWMA Plan history and background, purpose of the
GWMA Plan and current GWMA Plan Update, and applicable regulatory requirements for
SWMU-58.
• Section 2 -Current Site Conditions: Section 2 presents an assessment of current site conditions
at SWMU-58 with a focus on changes to the site since the GWMA Plan was prepared. This section
also includes an updated concentration trend assessment and groundwater model trend
assessment, which demonstrate that the risk of plume migration beyond the GWMA boundary
remains limited.
• Section 3 -Updated Groundwater Management Area Plan: This section presents the key
elements of the GWMA Plan as listed in Section 1.2. Where applicable, elements have been
updated based on current site conditions. Elements that have not changed are also presented for
the purpose of completeness.
• Section 4 -References: Cited references are presented.
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
2
2.0 CURRENT SITE CONDITIONS
2.1 Land Use
2.1.1 Land Use on TEAD-N
Prior to 1993, TEAD-N had two missions; the first was to provide storage, maintenance, and demilitarization
of conventional weapons. The second mission was to provide storage, maintenance, and demilitarization
of equipment, troop support items, construction equipment, power generators, and wheeled vehicles. The
mission of maintaining and repairing equipment was discontinued in 1993; and the industrial portion of the
facility located on the eastern side of the installation was closed and eventually sold to a commercial
developer as part of the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process. The munitions storage mission
remains active at TEAD-N, which is a Tier I ammunition storage site, responsible for storing training
ammunition and war reserve conventional munitions. Developed features at TEAD-N include igloos,
magazines, administrative buildings, a maintenance area, military housing, roads, and other allied
infrastructure. No substantial changes to the munitions storage mission or installation infrastructure have
occurred since the GWMA Plan was prepared.
2.1.2 Land Use on BRAC Parcel and North of TEAD-N
Areas where the SWMU-58 plume has the potential to impact offsite receptors include the industrial area
transferred under the BRAC process (the BRAC parcel) and the off-installation area to the north and
northeast of the installation. Since its transfer to private ownership, the BRAC parcel has been redeveloped
as an industrial park under a series of owners and names. Portions of the BRAC parcel are currently known
as the Peterson Industrial Depot and the Ninigret Depot. The BRAC parcel currently contains warehouses,
manufacturing facilities, office space, a wholesale automotive storage lot, a sporting goods distribution
center, and a gymnastics center. The residential areas of Tooele City lie east of the BRAC Parcel,
approximately 0.75 miles cross-gradient from the SWMU-58 plume boundary.
State Route 112 runs along the northeastern boundaries ofTEAD-N and the BRAC parcel. Land use northeast
of the highway includes open undeveloped grazing land, a gravel pit and ready-mix operation, and a closed
Tooele County landfill. Most off-installation groundwater impacts are located in this area due to past
migration of the NEB plume. Historically, the land immediately north of TEAD-N has been used chiefly for
livestock grazing and cultivation. That remains the predominant land use, but several other land uses are
now occurring in the area. The Deseret Sports Complex, a County-owned multiple use facility used as
fairgrounds, rodeo ground, and for other events, was constructed in the 1990s approximately 0.5 miles
north of the TEAD-N northern boundary, at the intersection of Sheep Lane and State Route 112. A
motorsports park used for amateur and professional auto racing was constructed immediately north of the
Deseret Sports Complex in 2006. Ground was subsequently broken east of Sheep Lane in 2009 for a
development named the Miller Industrial Park; however, the only building that has been constructed on
the property is a mattress factory northeast of the motorsports park. The property has since been sold and
renamed the Lakeview Business Park, and further development is expected.
2.2 Corrective Measures Implementation
When the GWMA Plan was prepared, the RFI for SWMU-58 had been completed, but the CMS was still in
progress and corrective measures had not been established or implemented. The CMS Report (Parsons
2012) was finalized in 2012 and included separate corrective measures for the source and diffuse (i.e.,
downgradient) areas of the plume. For each individual source area, the CMS recommended maintaining
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
3
institutional controls, continuing or implementing vadose zone remediation through soil vapor extraction
(SVE), and implementing air sparging (AS) for direct treatment of source area groundwater. For the diffuse
area, the CMS recommended maintaining institutional controls and implementing monitored natural
attenuation. These recommendations have since been implemented and are detailed in the CMIP (Parsons
2014).
On the BRAC parcel, individual SVE and AS systems were installed at four separate source areas:
Building 615, Building 620, Building 679, and C Avenue. Installation of the SVE systems preceded installation
of the AS systems, and the systems became fully operational in 2013. Within the TEAD-N installation, three
SVE and two AS systems were installed within the former sanitary landfill. These systems became
substantially operational in 2014. Operation and maintenance of all SVE and AS systems are ongoing. The
systems have been effective at reducing source TCE concentrations in the vadose zone and groundwater,
which has been demonstrated by required performance monitoring associated with the systems.
In the diffuse portion of the plume, MNA is ongoing and is completed in accordance with the requirements
in the CMIP and UFP-QAPP. Sampling at SWMU-58 consists of a larger annual sampling event typically
conducted in October in which approximately 113 wells are sampled, and a smaller semi-annual sampling
event typically conducted in April in which approximately 43 wells are sampled. Sampling during the annual
event is designed to provide coverage of the entire plume, whereas the subset of wells sampled during the
semi-annual event is limited to the area near and beyond the distal plume boundary and in the Sanitary
Landfill source area. Wells are sampled semi-annually near the distal plume boundary to monitor plume
movement and ensure contamination does not reach offsite receptors. Water levels are gauged in
approximately 269 wells during both monitoring events. The sample results and water levels are used to
update the groundwater model annually as required by the PCP.
2.3 Current Plume Extent and Concentration Trends
2.3.1 Plume Extent
The most recent plume boundary for SWMU-58, defined as the 5-microgram-per-liter (µg/L) concentration
contour for TCE, is shown on Figure 2-1 along with the plume boundary from the GWMA Plan (Parsons
2010). The current boundary is presented in the 2021 Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report (Brice 2022b)
and was updated based on results from the June 2021 semi-annual groundwater monitoring event. The
plume boundary included in the GWMA Plan was developed based on results from the annual groundwater
sampling event in Fall 2008. A comparison of the plume boundaries indicates that the downgradient extent
ofthe plume has expanded somewhat since 2008. Expansion along the downgradient main plume boundary
was variable with a maximum length of expansion of approximately 0.25 miles. Expansion along the
downgradient NEB plume boundary was similarly variable with a maximum expansion of approximately
0.31 miles. Despite these changes, the downgradient extent of the SWMU-58 plume remains approximately
0.5 miles or more from the GWMA boundary established in the GWMA Plan, and TCE has not been detected
at a concentration greater than 1 µg/L in any sentinel wells.
2.3.2 Concentration Trend Assessment
A Mann-Kendall concentration trend assessment of individual wells in the main and NEB plumes was
previously presented in the GWMA Plan. The assessment found that most analyzed wells within the main
and NEB plumes exhibited either increasing or stable trends, which suggested that the plumes were still
expanding as of 2010 but were possibly approaching a state of equilibrium. An updated and expanded trend
analysis based on recent monitoring results is presented in this section.
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
4
As recommended by the GWMA Plan, concentration trends at SWMU-58 are evaluated regularly to monitor
and quantify plume dynamics. Statistical trend analysis procedures have been developed for SWMU-58 that
assess concentration changes in both individual wells and plume regions. Select individual wells are
assessed using the Mann-Kendall test to assess whether statistically significant trends are present, while
trends in different regions of SWMU-58 are assessed with the Regional Kendall test, a variation of the
Mann-Kendall test that utilizes data from multiple wells. The Regional Kendall test analyzes a subset of wells
that have been grouped into the following regions: sanitary landfill source area, industrial source area
(BRAC parcel sources), main plume toe, NEB plume centerline, and NEB plume toe. To assess the rate of
concentration change, the Sen-Theil slope is calculated for concentrations in individual wells, while its
equivalent, the Regional Kendall slope, is calculated for different regions of the plume. To assess trends
associated with current site conditions where the SVE and AS systems are operational, the range of data
used in the analysis was limited from the latest sampling event before the SVE and AS systems became
substantially operational to June 2021. Trend results from the most recent annual groundwater monitoring
report (Brice 2022b) are summarized below, and trends in individual wells are shown on Figure 2-1.
Additional information on the statistical methods and results is presented in the Annual Groundwater
Monitoring Report (Brice 2022b).
Sanitary Landfill TCE Trend Results
Trend results for the Sanitary Landfill provide a strong indication that TCE concentrations in the region are
decreasing. The Regional Kendall test result indicates there is a statistically significant decreasing trend. Five
of the seven individual wells in the region also had statistically significant decreasing concentration trends
for TCE, while one had a statistically significant increasing trend, and one had no significant trend. The
calculated Regional Kendall Slope suggests TCE concentrations in the region are decreasing at a rate of
approximately 1.9 µg/L per year (Brice 2022b). These results suggest the SVE and AS remediation systems
are working as intended and effectively reducing the mass of TCE in the Sanitary Landfill source area.
Industrial Source Area TCE Trend Results
Trend results for the Industrial Source Area provide a strong indication that TCE concentrations in the region
are decreasing. The Regional Kendall test result indicates there is a statistically significant decreasing trend.
Six of the eight individual wells in the region also had statistically significant decreasing concentration trends
for TCE, while two had no significant trends. The calculated Regional Kendall Slope suggests TCE
concentrations in the region are decreasing at a rate of approximately 6.2 µg/L per year (Brice 2022b). These
results suggest the SVE and AS remediation systems are working as intended and are effectively reducing
the mass of TCE in the Industrial Source Area.
Main Plume Toe TCE Trend Results
Trend results for the main plume toe indicate that TCE concentrations in the area are increasing slightly.
The Regional Kendall test result indicates there is a statistically significant increasing trend. Three of the five
individual wells in the region also had statistically significant increasing concentration trends for TCE, while
two had no significant trends. The calculated Regional Kendall Slope suggests TCE concentrations in the
region are increasing at a rate of approximately 0.5 µg/L per year (Brice 2022b). These results suggest that
TCE concentrations are increasing slightly at the toe of the main plume due to advective and diffusive
transport. It also suggests that the reduction in source zone strength due to SVE and AS operation has not
yet influenced concentrations in the distal portion of the main plume.
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
5
NEB Plume Centerline TCE Trend Results
Trend results for the NEB Plume Centerline provide a strong indication that TCE concentrations in the region
are decreasing. The Regional Kendall test result indicates there is a statistically significant decreasing trend.
Six of the nine individual wells in the region also had statistically significant decreasing concentration trends
for TCE, one had an increasing trend, and two had no significant trends. The calculated Regional Kendall
Slope suggests TCE concentrations in the region are decreasing at a rate of approximately 6.3 µg/L per year
(Brice 2022b). These results suggest the SVE and AS remediation systems are working as intended and
effectively reducing the mass of TCE in the NEB plume source area. The reduction in source zone strength
augmented by natural attenuation has also caused downgradient TCE concentrations to decrease along the
NEB plume centerline into the mid-plume area.
NEB Plume Toe TCE Trend Results
Trend results for the NEB plume toe indicate that TCE concentrations in the area are increasing slightly. The
Regional Kendall test result indicates there is a statistically significant increasing trend. Three of the five
individual wells in the region also had statistically significant increasing concentration trends for TCE, while
two had no significant trends. The calculated Regional Kendall Slope suggests TCE concentrations in the
region are increasing at a rate of approximately 0.2 µg/L per year (Brice 2022b). These results suggest TCE
concentrations are increasing slightly at the toe of the NEB Plume due to advective and diffusive transport.
It also suggests that the reduction in source zone strength due to SVE and AS operation has not yet
influenced concentrations in the distal portion of the NEB plume.
2.3.3 Groundwater Model Assessment
As required by the PCP, the TEAD-N groundwater model is updated annually and has been refined
significantly since the GWMA Plan was prepared. The most recent model was updated based on water level
and analytical data collected in 2019 {Hydrologic Engineering Center [HEC] et al. 2021). A detailed history
of the model's development is included in Appendix A of the most recent groundwater modeling report
(HEC et al. 2021). Notable changes to the model since the GWMA Plan was prepared include an increased
focus on matching conditions at the leading edge of the plume, incorporation of TCE decay to better match
observed conditions, use of transient water levels from data loggers for model calibration, and
development of probabilistic predictive analysis to assess future plume migration.
For long-term management purposes, the model outputs a probabilistic predictive analysis, which provides
the likelihood that the plume will expand beyond the GWMA boundary over a given period of time. The
analysis is performed by varying the model parameters within plus or minus 20 percent (%) of their mean
values to create parameter probability distributions. Uncertainty in model parameters is propagated to
model predictions via Monte Carlo analysis, wherein a set of parameter values (a realization) is randomly
selected from the parameter probability distributions. The groundwater model is then run for the
realization, and the process is repeated multiple times to determine the distribution of possible outcomes
given the established uncertainty. For the 2021 groundwater model, 400 model parameter realizations
were sampled, which was demonstrated to provide a statistically robust analysis. The TEAD-N groundwater
flow and transport model was run into the future from a January 2020 starting condition for each of the
400 unique realizations of calibrated model input parameter values. For each run, the maximum
concentrations along the GWMA in the main plume and NEB plume areas was recorded at various
timepoints. The distribution of maximum concentrations was then assessed to determine the likelihood
that the TCE concentration exceeded 5 µg/L along the GWMA boundary after 6 years (December 2025),
8 years (December 2027), 10 years (December 2029), 12 years (December 2031), and 15 years (December
2034) of prediction.
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
6
Cumulative probability distributions resulting from the probabilistic analysis are presented on Figures 2-2
and 2-3 for the GWMA boundary beyond the NEB and main plumes, respectively. The cumulative likelihood
curves suggest there is 100% likelihood that concentrations remain below 5 µg/L at the GWMA boundary
downgradient of the NEB plume through at least 2034. Downgradient of the main plume, there is 100%
likelihood that concentrations remain below 5 µg/L at the GWMA boundary through 2027. This likelihood
decreases to 98% through 2029, 90% through 2031, and 60% through 2034. Collectively, these results
suggest there is minimal likelihood of concentrations exceeding 5 µg/L at the downgradient GWMA
boundary in the next 10 years or more.
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
7
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
This page intentionally blank
8
3.0 UPDATED GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT AREA PLAN
This section presents the elements that constitute the Updated GWMA Plan for SMWU-58. These elements
include:
1. Identification of potential receptors (Section 3.1)
2. A groundwater monitoring program (Section 3.2)
3. A groundwater modeling program (Section 3.3)
4. Delineation of GWMA boundary and groundwater development restrictions (Section 3.4)
5. Actions to be taken based on detections and exceedances at sentinel wells (Section 3.5)
6. A contingency plan for supply wells impacted by contamination (Section 3.6)
7. A community involvement program (Section 3.7)
Where applicable, these elements have been updated from the GWMA Plan. Each element is discussed
individually in the following subsections.
3.1 Identification of Potential Receptors
3.1.1 Water Well Survey
To assess current and future exposure risks to potential well users, a water well and water rights survey
was conducted previously in the GWMA Plan. The water well and water rights survey identified wells within
a 2-mile radius ofthe 5-µg/L TCE plume boundary. This analysis used the 2008 TCE plume boundary (shown
on Figure 2-1) to develop a 2-mile buffer surrounding the plume. As discussed in Section 2.3.1, the plume
boundary has expanded somewhat since this analysis was performed. Additionally, water wells have been
installed and abandoned since the original analysis was performed. Due to these changes, an updated water
well survey was performed in February 2022 using the Utah DWR on line Water Rights database (Utah DWR
2022). The database was used to identify water wells with active underground water rights within 2 miles
of the current plume boundary. Identified wells are summarized in Table 3-1 along with their associated
water right number(s), well identification number (WIN), coordinates, depth, use, and other relevant
information. In a few instances, a well has been approved for a certain location, but it is unclear from
available information whether the well has been installed. These wells were conservatively retained in the
search and their unclear statuses are noted in Table 3-1. Additionally, some wells (particularly older wells)
have not been assigned WINs but exist and are active according to available records.
In addition to a well's position relative to the current plume, the well depths included in Table 3-1 provide
a general indication of how susceptible a given well is to future contamination. Contaminated groundwater
near the downgradient portions of the SWMU-58 plume is typically present under unconfined conditions
at depths of 250 feet or less. A review of well driller logs downgradient of the plume indicates wells greater
than 250 feet are generally screened within one or more confined water-bearing units with artesian
conditions. The artesian conditions observed in these wells make them unlikely to be impacted by the
shallower contamination. This is because they are separated from the contamination by one or more
low-permeability confining units, and there is an upward vertical hydraulic gradient between the
unconfined and confined units that prevents downward groundwater flow. As a general guideline, wells
deeper than approximately 250 feet will be at a lower risk of contamination, although the depth of
contamination and confining units is variable, and well construction in deeper wells may allow for
communication with the shallower unconfined unit. For interpretive purposes, water wells have been
categorized as being shallower or deeper than 250 feet in the figures presented in the following sections.
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
9
In total, 12 water wells were identified within 1 mile of the current plume boundary, and 195 water wells
were identified within 2 miles of the plume boundary (Figure 3-1). No new wells within the GWMA boundary
were identified; however, the GWMA Plan had previously identified 7 water wells within 1 mile of the 2008
plume boundary and 119 water wells within 2 miles. The increase in identified wells results from a slight
expansion of the 1-and 2-mile buffer zone boundaries, installation of new wells since 2010, and most
significantly, inclusion of wells without WINs in the updated survey. The previous survey methodology did
not include water wells without WINs; however, the updated survey includes 62 wells within 2 miles of the
plume that do not have WINs but do have an active water right.
As reported in the DWR database, each identified well has one or more approved use categories including
domestic, municipal, irrigation, stock, and commercial/industrial. Wells are discussed in the sections below
and shown on Figures 3-2 through 3-5 based on use category. Note that a single well may have multiple
approved uses.
3.1.1.1 Domestic and Municipal Use Wells
As defined by the DWR, domestic use includes water used for inside household purposes only such as
drinking, preparing food, bathing, laundry, and brushing teeth. These wells are not connected to a municipal
supply system and are generally privately owned . Municipal use includes water used by a municipality
within its municipal limits and/or service area. Municipal water is distributed through a public water
conveyance system to residential, industrial, and commercial users for drinking and various other uses.
Thus, both types of wells provide potable water that is suitable for consumption, making them a potentially
significant exposure pathway. TEAD-N is supplied with two wells that have a domestic use designation.
These wells are essentially municipal wells but are categorized by the Utah DWR as having a domestic use
because they do not serve a public water supply .
Wells approved for domestic and municipal uses located within 2 miles of the current plume boundary are
shown on Figure 3-2 . There are 115 domestic use wells and 12 municipal use wells within 2 miles of the
current plume boundary. However, only three domestic use wells and five municipal use wells are located
within 1 mile of the plume boundary, and none are located within the GWMA boundary. Because all wells
used for drinking water are located outside of the GWMA boundary, no domestic or municipal users have
the potential to be exposed to contaminant concentrations greater than residentia hfornestic RBCs,
discussed in Section 3.1.2.
3.1.1.2 Irrigation Use Wells
The irrigation use category includes both wells used to irrigate agricultural crops and to water lawns and
gardens. Many wells supplying a single household are approved for both domestic and irrigation use. Wells
approved for irrigation use located within 2 miles of the current plume boundary are shown on Figure 3-3.
There are 155 wells approved for irrigation use within 2 miles of the current plume boundary, but only four
are within 1 mile of the plume . No irrigation wells are within the GWMA boundary. Because all irrigation
wells are outside of the GWMA boundary, the potential for contamination to reach these wells is low.
3.1.1.3 Stock Use Wells
The stock use category includes wells used for watering cattle and other stock animals . The number of
animals served by a given well ranges from less than 10 to several hundred or more . Wells approved for
stock use located within 2 miles of the current plume boundary are shown on Figure 3-4. There are 122 wells
approved for stock use within 2 miles of the current plume boundary, but only four are within 1 mile of the
plume . Two stock wells are located within the GWMA boundary but are outside of the plume . These include
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
10
well (WIN) 20819 (Cassidy Well), which is 117 feet deep and located approximately 0.5 miles downgradient
of the NEB plume, and well 2367, which is 260 feet deep and located approximately 0.4 miles downgradient
of the main plume . Both wells are used for stock watering only and were previously identified in the GWMA
Plan . Given their distance from the plume, the likelihood of contamination reaching these wells in the near
term is low.
3.1.1.4 Commercial and Industrial Use Wells
In addition to the categories discussed above, a few wells in the vicinity of TEAD-N have uses related to
commercial and industrial activities that are categorized as "other" in the DWR database. In most cases,
these wells are not used for drinking or are also approved for domestic use. Six wells with
commercial/industrial use are within 2 miles of the current plume boundary, and three are within 1 mile of
the plume (Figure 3-5). One well (WIN 9549) is located within the plume itself at a gravel mining pit and was
previously identified in the GWMA Plan. Based on an interview of a gravel facility representative by the
DWR in 2007 and water-use records submitted by the facility to the DWR in 2019, Well 9549 is screeRed
froRl 243 to 263 foot laelow gr01:md surface the wellaM is used as a non:-potable water supply for restrooms
and other general uses associated with the gravel pit operation (e.g., dust control and gravel washing) (DWR
2022). According to the well log provided in the DWR database, well 9549 is screened from 243 to 263 feet
below ground surface, and multiple clay intervals were observed during drilling. Despite the presence of
clay layers ; however, the static water level at the time of well installation was 221 feet below ground surface
(D\AJR 2022), which-:--+A-is suggests the well is not artesian and has the potential to be impacted by the TCE
plume . Based on the location of the well within the plume, contaminant concentrations in the well likely
€9¼::He-exceed Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) iRdustrial RBCs (Section 3.1.2); however, it is not used
as a drinking water sourcc water iR the well is Rot used for coRSURlr,JtioR . As discussed in Section 3.1.2, other
possible exposure pathways including dermal contact and inhalation are considered insignificant.
The remaining two wells within 1 mile of the plume are WW-1 (WIN 2603) and WW3 (WIN 2618), which are
owned and operated by TEAD and are located upgradient of the plume. Both WW-1 and WW3 are also
approved for domestic and irrigation uses.
3.1.2 Risk Assessment Summary and Groundwater Risk-Based Concentrations
The designated well uses summarized in Section 3.1.1 are fundamental for evaluating risk to potential
receptors because exposure risk varies based on use . Detailed assessments of potential exposure pathways
at TEAD-N were presented in the SWMU-58 Risk Assumptions Document (Parsons 2005) and the Human
Risk Assessment (HRA) in the Phase II RFI (Parsons 2008). For groundwater, ingestion by future residents
and ingestion by future industrial workers were determined to be the only potentially significant exposure
pathways; therefore, wells with domestic and municipal uses are of primary concern for identifying
potential receptors. Conversely, the following exposure pathways were assessed and determined to be
incomplete or insignificant:
• Dermal contact and inhalation of contaminants of concern (COCs) during domestic use of
groundwater
• Inhalation of COCs volatilized from groundwater into outdoor or indoor air
• Ingestion of fruits and vegetables irrigated with groundwater
• Ingestion of meat and dairy products from cattle ingesting groundwater
• Ingestion of meat and dairy products from cattle exposed to COCs volatilized from groundwater
into outdoor air
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
11
• Inhalation of COCs volatilized from groundwater used as stock water
• Inhalation of COCs volatilized from impacted groundwater used for industrial processes
Because these potential exposure pathways are insignificant or incomplete, irrigation, stock, and
non-consumptive commercial/industrial groundwater uses are not considered a significant exposure
concern.
As a management tool for evaluating risk from groundwater ingestion to future residents and industrial
workers, the GWMA Plan developed RBCs for groundwater ingestion using standard U.S . Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) methods and input assumptions from the Human Risk Assessment (Parsons 2008).
If ingested, groundwater concentrations greater than RBCs pose unacceptable cancer risks and/or non-
cancer hazards to residential and industrial users. For residential groundwater ingestion, RBCs are
equivalent to EPA MaxiR'H::Jm CoRtamiRaRt bevels (MCLs}. Drinking water MCLs for TCE, PCE, and CTC are all
equal to 5 µg/L and have not changed since the GWMA Plan was prepared . The GWMA Plan also includes
less restrictive industrial RBCs calculated in accordance with Utah Administrative Code R315-101-5.2(b) and
R315-101-6(d) that are applicable for determining whether corrective action is required in non-residential
land-use areas (DSHW 2013). The industrial RBCs in the GWMA Plan are now out of date; however. TEAD
has previously noted that unrestricted exposure to groundwater with concentrations above MCLs poses an
unacceptable risk, and that it intends to control use of all groundwater with concentrations above MCLs
(Parsons 2005). Consequently, the potential actions to be taken if contamination reaches sentinel wells are
based on residential RBCs, discussed further in Section 3.6.
However, tl:le RBCs fer grouRswater iRgestioR b•t iRsustrial worl~ers 13reseRtes iR tl:le GWMA PlaR are
outsates because tl:ley were calculates usiRg cl:lroRic oral reforeRce soses aRs cl:lroRic oral slo13e factors
tl:lat l:la•.ie siRce beeR u13sates by EPA . Due to tl:lese cl:laRges, u13sates iRsustrial RBCs were calculates usiRg
tl:le curreRt refereRce soses aRs slo13e factors wl:lile leaviRg all otl:ler 13arameters aRs assum13ti0Rs
URCRaRges from tl:le GWMA PlaR . EquatioRs aRs iR13ut 13arameters fer tl:lese calculatioRs are 13reseRtes iR
Table 3 2, aRs tl:le u13sates RBCs are 13resentes in Table 3 3. RBCs were calculates fer botl:l carcinogenic
ans non carcinogenic scenarios, ans tl:le lowest concentrations from tl:le two scenarios were selectes as
tl:le final RBCs . Bases on tl:le u13sates calculations, tl:le current RBCs fer grounswater ingestion by insustrial
workers are listes below followes by tl:le 13re1.iious insustrial RBC fer reforence:
• SO j::!g/b fer TCE (13re\1iously 600 µg/b)
• 600 µg/b fer PCE (13re 1.iiously SO µg/b)
• 400 µg/b fer CTC (13re 1.iiously 70 µg/b)
l=or assitional information on tl:le se 1.ielo13ment of tl:le RBCs, refer to tl:le Interim ans GWMA Plans (Parsons
2004, 2010).
3.2 Groundwater Monitoring Approach
As established in the GWMA Plan, the objectives of groundwater monitoring for the GWMA are to:
• Evaluate movement of TCE at the toe and downgradient of the margins of the main and NEB
plumes
• Identify areas where contamination may impact drinking water wells
An extensive compliance groundwater monitoring program has been established at TEAD-N that fulfills
these objectives in addition to monitoring natural attenuation in the diffuse portion of the plume .
Compliance monitoring is conducted to fulfill monitoring requirements specified in Module V of the PCP
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
12
(TEAD 2017) and implemented through the CMIP Plan for Groundwater (Parsons 2014) and the current
UFP-QAPP (Brice 2022a). Additional remedy monitoring unrelated to permit compliance and the GWMA is
also conducted to evaluate progress at individual AS and SVE systems.
The compliance monitoring portion of the current monitoring program is summarized in the following
sections. Full details of the program are presented in the UFP-QAPP (Brice 2022a).
3.2.1 Compliance Monitoring Program
3.2.1.1 Program Overview
Compliance groundwater monitoring at SWMU-58 is conducted semi-annually at the locations shown on
Figure 3-6. Forty-three wells are sampled semi-annually in the spring and fall, and an additional 75 wells are
sampled annually during the fall only. Spring sampling typically occurs in April and fall sampling typically
occurs in October. Wells are sampled using HydraSleeve samplers, and water quality field parameters
including pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen, specific conductance, and oxidation-reduction potential are
also collected. Samples are analyzed for a limited list of VOCs that includes TCE, PCE, and CTC.
Sampling locations at SWMU-58 were selected to provide full delineation of the voe plume and fulfill the
GWMA monitoring objectives. Fourteen sentinel wells at or beyond the GWMA boundary are sampled
semi-annually to identify contamination and ensure it does not impact drinking water wells. These wells
include D-11, D-21, and D-22, which were proposed in the GWMA Plan to define the GWMA boundary and
have now been installed. A total of 17 wells located near or beyond the downgradient margins of the main
and NEB plumes are also sampled semi-annually (10 wells) or annually (7 wells) to evaluate downgradient
plume movement. Additional wells are sampled throughout the source and distal areas of the plume to
provide full plume delineation.
In addition to groundwater sampling, extensive water level gauging is conducted in conjunction with the
groundwater sampling events to determine groundwater flow directions and support development and
calibration of the TEAD-N groundwater model (Section 3.3). Approximately 274 wells are gauged annually
in the spring and fall using an electronic water level meter (Figure 3-7).
Compliance monitoring results are reported annually in groundwater monitoring reports. These reports
include data evaluation and trend analysis, discussed in the following sections. No substantial changes to
the compliance monitoring program are anticipated at this time, and monitoring results will continue to be
reported annually.
3.2.1.2 Data Analysis
Evaluation and Mitigation of Risk to Downgradient Receptors
Following each sampling event, analytical results from the sentinel wells are reviewed for TCE detections.
If TCE is detected in a sentinel well at concentrations above 1 µg/L or 5 µg/L, additional actions (outlined in
Section 3.6) will occur, which are designed to mitigate risk to downgradient receptors.
Evaluation of Plume Movement
An evaluation of plume movement at TEAD-N is included in the annual groundwater monitoring reports.
The evaluation includes generation of TCE concentration time-series plots and statistical analysis.
Concentration trends are assessed using Mann-Kendall and Regional Kendall tests to identify statistically
significant trends in individual wells and in different plume regions, including the toes of the main and NEB
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
13
plumes. Statistically significant trends are evaluated using the Sen-Theil non-parametric slope estimator to
quantify the rates of concentration change. The results of the statistical data are used to assess whether
the diffuse portion of the plume is expanding and if downgradient groundwater users may be impacted in
the future.
3.3 Groundwater Modeling Approach
Groundwater modeling predictions are used to inform the groundwater management strategy at TEAD-N
and assess the likelihood of future plume migration beyond the GWMA boundary. As discussed in
Section 2.3.3, the TEAD-N groundwater model is currently updated annually and has been refined
significantly since the GWMA Plan was prepared. Following each update, mM odel results are presented
annually in £...groundwater modeling reports. Notable changes to the model since the GWMA Plan was
prepared include an increased focus on matching conditions at the leading edge of the plume, incorporation
of TCE decay to better match observed conditions, use of transient water levels from data loggers for model
calibration, and development of probabilistic predictive analysis to assess future plume migration. The
probabilistic predictive analysis is a very powerful tool for assessing future risk to groundwater users outside
of the GWMA boundary because it provides the likelihood that the plume will expand beyond the GWMA
boundary over givens periods of time. Recent modeling results suggest plume migration beyond the GWMA
boundary is unlikely for the next 10 or more years .
+Re-g,§roundwater model updates and reports will continue to be prepared as necessary to meet
requirements updated specified in the PCP.annually to incorporate new analytical results and water levels
and irnpro1•1e rnodel accuracy. Modeling results will continue to be reported annuall•1. If future monitoring
results suggest that plume migration beyond the GWMA boundary is likely, changes to GWMA or
groundwater management strategy may be necessary.
3.4 SWMU-58 Groundwater Management Area and Institutional Controls
3.4.1 GWMA Boundary Delineation
The GWMA was initially defined in the Interim Plan and consisted of the off-Depot portion of the NEB plume
and a surrounding buffer zone between the plume boundary and several sentinel monitoring wells
(Figure 3-8). In the GWMA Plan, the GWMA was expanded to include the NEB and main plumes in their
entirety, the entire BRAC parcel, and an expanded buffer zone downgradient of the plume boundary
defined by additional sentinel wells. In general, minimal modification of the GWMA boundary is required
based on the current extent of the SWMU-58 plume. Although the plume has expanded somewhat since
the GWMA boundary in the GWMA Plan was adopted, the downgradient plume boundary remains well
within the buffer zone and remains protective of downgradient water users. The only portion of the GWMA
requiring updating is the western border in the vicinity of monitoring well B-30. This portion of the GWMA
boundary was defined by the 2008 plume boundary in the GWMA Plan; however, the plume has since
expanded slightly to the west . To encompass the entire plume, it is proposed that the GWMA boundary be
expanded westward to pass through well B-18 but otherwise remain unchanged. The proposed update to
the GWMA boundary is shown on Figure 3-8. The new area included in the GWMA would be located entirely
within the TEAD-N boundary and is occupied by munitions igloos .
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
14
3.4.2 Institutional Controls
A variety of institutional controls are in place within the GWMA boundary to prevent exposure to
contaminated groundwater. Applicable restrictions vary depending on the location within the GWMA.
These restrictions are summarized by area in the following sections.
3.4.2.1 BRAC Parcel
Existing groundwater use and development restrictions for the BRAC parcel are contained within the
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CCRs) dated 18 December 1998 (included in Appendix B of the
GWMA Plan). Section 6.3 of Article VI of that document prohibits access to or extraction of any
groundwater, or the injection of materials into the aquifer for the purpose of economic development, with
the following exception: water may be accessed from any existing potable water well located within the
BRAC parcel. The aforementioned CCRs apply to the entire BRAC parcel with the exception of the
Consolidated Maintenance Facility (CMF), which was transferred separately and prior to the remainder of
the BRAC parcel.
Groundwater use restrictions for the CMF are contained within Enclosure 11 (Deed Restrictions -
Environmental Protection) of "the Findings of Suitability to Transfer" document dated July 1996 (included
in Appendix C of the GWMA Plan). Language in that document states that there shall be no disturbance of
the subsurface or groundwater without prior written approval of the government. This language is not as
strong as that contained in the CCRs for the BRAC parcel. However, the effect is the same: to prohibit any
development and use of groundwater within the CMF property, as the Army will not consent to any
proposals to that would disturb the aquifer. Language from the CMF conveyance document and the BRAC
CCRs that pertains solely to groundwater management is included in Appendix D of the GWMA Plan.
Businesses within the BRAC parcel, including the CMF, currently obtain their water from Tooele City. The
nearest municipal wells are situated directly east of the BRAC parcel and upgradient of the plumes
(Figure 3-2).
3.4.2.2 2004 and 2010 GWMA Boundaries
The Interim Plan recommended amending the State of Utah's Tooele Valley Ground-Water Management
Plan (Utah DWR 1996) to restrict water resource development within the 2004 GWMA boundary (shown
on Figure 3-8). The Tooele Valley Ground-Water Management Plan was subsequently amended to prohibit
installation of culinary water wells within the 2004 GWMA boundary unless it was demonstrated that the
water could be used without adverse impacts to human health or the plume containment and cleanup
program (Utah DWR 2004). The GWMA Plan recommended petitioning the Utah Water Rights Engineer to
expand the area with water development restrictions to match the expanded GWMA boundary. However,
it appears that this petition was not completed, and the area with water development restrictions remains
the same as the 2004 GWMA boundary, shown on Figure 3-8. Upon acceptance ofthis GWMA Plan Update,
it is recommended that the Utah Water Rights Engineer be petitioned to expand water development
restrictions to the proposed GWMA boundary.
3.4.2.3 TEAD-N
There are currently no specific provisions within the TEAD-N Master Plan that address groundwater
management on the installation (Johnson, pers. Comm., 2022). The currently established TEAD-N dig
(excavation) permit system serves as the de facto mechanism to prevent future groundwater development
and use within the facility. Requests for permits must be approved by all TEAD departments before issuance
for any activities that would result in subsurface disturbance. Portions of TEAD-N included in the GWMA
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
15
could have additional groundwater use restrictions in the future if a petition is approved by the Utah Water
Rights Engineer to update the restricted area from the 2004 GWMA boundary to the proposed GWMA
boundary. It is also recommended that groundwater development and use restrictions be established for
the TEAD-N Environmental Management System. The latter is an integral component of the TEAD-N Master
Plan .
3.5 Actions Based on Detections and Exceedances at Sentinel Wells
This GWMA Plan Update specifies actions that will be taken ifTCE detections or residential RBC exceedances
are identified in the sentinel wells located downgradient of the SWMU-58 plume. A specific corrective
action has not been designated if an exceedance is identified as this will be based on risk, which will vary
depending on where the detection has occurred . However, general A£ctions to be taken if TCE is detected
above a concentration of 1 µg/L or the TCE RBC for residential groundwater ingestion of 5 µg/L have been
established. The initial trigger value for action is set at 1 µg/L to provide sufficient time to develop an
appropriate response prior to concentrations reaching the residential RBC of 5 µg/L.
If TCE is detected above 1 µg/L in a sentinel well for the first time, TEAD will take the following actions:
1. Notify DSHW within 7 days of receiving validated data confirming the presence of TCE.
2. Continue monitoring the sentinel well having the detectable TCE .
3. Evaluate whether additional action is required .
If TCE is detected above 5 µg/L, TEAD will take the following actions:
1. Submit to the DSHW a variance to this GWMA Plan Update within 90 days of receiving validated
data. The variance will include a reevaluation of the pertinent monitoring data to determine if
there has been a change in the current conceptual groundwater and contaminant transport
model, reevaluate human health and environmental risks, and provide specific changes to the
GWMA Plan.
2. If there is not an existing downgradient well, install a new downgradient sentinel well (if feasible).
3. Evaluate the closest water wells downgradient from the impacted sentinel well. Preliminary
information for these wells will be obtained from the Utah DWR well database and will be
confirmed by interviews with the well owners. Information to be evaluated include :
a. Use(s) of the groundwater (i.e., potable, stock irrigation, etc.)
b. Construction and operation parameters, including screened interval(s), pumping rate,
pumping schedule, and pump depths
c. Groundwater sampling results, if available
4. Use evaluation criteria in Item 3 to identify the downgradient wells that are at highest risk for
contamination and determine if monitoring for any of those wells is warranted. Wells with
domestic or municipal uses would be considered the highest risk because they are used for
drinking.
5. Develop a contingency plan for downgradient users whose groundwater is at high risk of being
impacted by the migrating TCE contamination.
The approach described above will focus on wells with the highest risk of being impacted in the future.
This plan provides ample time for TEAD to develop appropriate responses in conjunction with the DSHW
to mitigate any impacts to potential receptors.
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
16
3.6 Contingency Plan for Wells Impacted by TCE
If a downgradient domestic well user is determined to be impacted by the SWMU-58 TCE Plume, a
contingency plan will be developed for the well user. The plan will outline the actions needed to provide
the user with long-term clean water for domestic use should the TCE concentration in a user's well(s) exceed
the MCL of 5 µg/L for TCE. Possible actions to meet this objective could include wellhead treatment,
installation of a filtration/treatment system at the tap, installation of a new water supply well, conveyance
via pipeline of clean water from a nearby non-impacted well, or periodic delivery combined with onsite
storage of potable water. In the short-term, TEAD will supply drinking water (such as bottled water) to
replace the impacted well water. For wells characterized by mixed use, such as irrigation and domestic,
treatment at the tap might be most cost-effective. A specific plan would be developed for each user and
domestic use well.
3.7 Community Involvement Program
After the GWMA Plan Update has been approved by DSHW, TEAD will meet with the state, county, and
municipal stakeholders to present the GWMA Plan update. Stakeholders include the Utah DWR, Tooele
City, Tooele County, and the Tooele County Health Department, as well as residents of the Erda area that
may potentially be affected.
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
17
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
This page intentionall•r blank
18
4.0 REFERENCES
Brice Engineering, LLC (Brice). 2022a. Uniform Federal Policy-Quality Assurance Project Plan, Tooele
Army Depot North, Utah. February.
Brice. 2022b. Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report, Tooele Army Depot North. Final. March.
Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste (DSHW). 2003. Re: Interim Remedial Action, SWMU 58, Tooele
Army Depot, Utah. Letter from Dennis Downs, DSHW, to Tom Turner, TEAD, dated 28 July 2003.
DSHW. 2013 . Administrative Rules for Cleanup Action and Risk-Based Closure Standards. Utah
Department of Environmental Quality. R315-101. Utah Administrative Code . Effective 25 April
2013.
Johnson, Troy. 2022. Personal communication regarding existing restrictions on groundwater
development and use within TEAD. 8 March.
Parsons. 2004. Groundwater Management Area Plan -Northeast Boundary Plume. Tooele Army Depot,
Tooele, Utah. March.
Parsons. 2005. SWMU-58 Risk Assumptions Document, Revision 1, Tooele Army Depot, Tooele, Utah.
July.
Parsons. 2008. Phase II RCRA Facility Investigation Report, SWMU-58, Tooele Army Depot, Tooele, Utah.
December.
Parsons . 2010. Groundwater Management Area Plan, SWMU-58 Plume. August.
Parsons. 2012 . Corrective Measures Study Report, Tooele Army Depot, Tooele, Utah. June.
Parsons . 2014. Corrective Measures Implementation Program Plan for Groundwater. April.
Tooele Army Depot (TEAD). 2017. Utah Hazardous Waste Post-Closure Permit for Post-Closure
Monitoring and Corrective Action of Solid Waste Management Units for Tooele Army Depot,
Tooele, Utah. November.
USACE Hydrologic Engineering Center, Tetra Tech, and Brice. 2021. Tooele Army Depot Groundwater
Flow and Contaminant Transport Model Report {2021). December.
Utah Department of Natural Resources Division of Water Rights (DWR). 1996. Tooele Valley Ground-
Water Management Plan. 27 February 1996.
Utah DWR. 2004. Amendment to Tooele Valley Ground-Water Management Plan. Letter to Water Users
from Jerry D. Olds, State Engineer. 21 September 2004.
Utah DWR. 2022. Water Rights Database . Available online at
https://waterrights.utah.gov/wrinfo/query.asp. Accessed 17 February 2022.
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
19
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
This page intentionally blank
20
Division Comments
1. Section 3.1.1.4 Commercial and Industrial Use Wells
How is it determined that water from Well 9549 isn't used for consumption? How
frequently is it reconfirmed that it isn't used for consumption?
Response: The use ofWell 9549 is based on digital records associated with water rights
15-4826, 15-3037, 15-4825, and 15-4824 as presented on the Utah Division of Water
Rights online well database
(https ://waterrights .utah.gov/wrdb/WINlookup.asp?WIN=9549&Key=Submit+Ouery).
These records include a field review sheet from 3/16/2007 that documents an interview
with gravel pit personnel. Uses were described as non-potable and included dust
suppression, batch mixing, and restrooms . More recent documents include a record of
water usage from 1/22/2019 provided by the pit operator that includes estimates of water
usage for dust suppression and batch mixing. Water uses from Well 9549 have not been
independently verified by TEAD. Additional text has been added to Section 3 .1.1.4
clarifying the source of information on Well 9549 .
2. Section 3.1.2 Risk Assessment Summary and Groundwater Risk-Based
Concentrations
The Section talks about groundwater ingestion by industrial worker as a complete
exposure pathway and the need to update the industrial risk-based concentration (RBC)
using the updated toxicity values.
The TEAD-N risk assumptions document indicates this pathway needs to be evaluated.
However, the Division on hindsight would want more clarification on the significance of
assessing this pathway for the industrial/commercial receptor.
Please explain why RBCs for the Industrial worker ingestion of groundwater should be
different from the residential RBCs for ingestion of groundwater given that the
industrial/commercial receptor should be as protected as the residential receptor when
ingesting contaminated groundwater.
Response : The difference between the residential and industrial RBCs are based on Utah
Administrative Code (UAC) R315-101. UAC R315-101-5.2(b)(2) allows risk
assessments to be completed for actual or potential land use conditions where land use is
not residential. UAC R315-101-6(d) indicates a TR of lx10·4 is applicable for
determining whether corrective actions are required for risk assessments completed under
UAC R315-101-5 .2(b)(2) (i.e., non-residential sites). This differs from residential sites,
for which TR of lx10·6 is applicable. (A hazard index of 1 is applicable regardless ofland
use.) Due to land use around TEAD-N, the SWMU-58 Risk Assumptions Document
(Parsons 2005), the risk assessment included in the Phase II RCRA Facility Investigation
Report (Parsons 2008), and the previous GWMA Plan (Parsons 2010) developed
industrial RBs using TR of 1x10-4 .
Discussion of industrial RBCs was included in the Draft GWMA Plan Update for
consistency with the previous plan. However, it has been determined that derivation of
industrial RBCs is not necessary for the plan update because they are not being used to
manage the GWMA. TEAD has previously acknowledged that unrestricted exposure to
groundwater with concentrations above MCLs poses an unacceptable risk and that it
intends to control use of all groundwater with concentrations above MCLs (Parsons
2005). Consequently, actions to be taken if the plume migrates are all based on MCLs not
industrial RBCs (Section 3.6). For clarity, Section 3.1.2 has been revised to remove the
discussion of updated industrial RBCs and Tables 3-2 and 3-3 have been eliminated.
3. Table 3-2 Risk-Based Concentration Equation and Parameters for Groundwater
Ingestion by Industrial Worker.
OSWER Directive 9200 .1-120, Feb 6, 2014 publication, reported an updated standard
default exposure factors . Please revise Table 3-2 and any other relevant Section of the
for consistency with the directive .
Response: See response to Comment #2. Table 3-2 has been removed.
Table 3-2 also reported a target risk (TR) of lx10-4 as excess individual lifetime cancer
risk. Please note that the State of Utah evaluates all RBCs using a TR of lxI0-6 . This is
the default point of departure (POD) in the state of Utah.
Please revise all RB Cs, if any, based on TR of 1x104 to a TR of 1 x 1 o-6 .
Response: See response to Comment #2 . Table 3-2 has been removed. Note that a TR of
lxl04 appears to be applicable in some cases based on UAC R315-101-6(d).
4. Table 3-3 Risk-Based Concentration for Groundwater Ingestion by Industrial
Workers Groundwater Management Area Plan Update.
Based on comment #1 above, Table 3-3 may be eliminated or deleted.
Response: Table 3-3 has been removed.
5. As a general comment, the risk assumptions document for SWMU 58 may need to
be updated to reflect current accepted EPA standard exposure parameters .
Response : Comment noted.
6. Section 3.3 Groundwater Modeling Approach
The Section states that the groundwater model will be updated annually. It would be
better to say that the model will be updated in accordance with the PCP so that if it
changes in the PCP this document won't need to be changed.
Response: Concur. The language in Section 3.3 has been revised to reference PCP
requirements and no longer specifies annual updates.
FINAL
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North
July 2022
Environmental Remediation
Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah
Contract No. W9124J-21-D-0006
U.S. Army Environmental Command Tooele Army Depot
FINAL
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North
July 2022
Environmental Remediation
Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah
Contract No. W9124J-21-D-0006
Prepared For :
U.S. Army Mission and Installation Contracting Command
Fort Sam Houston (MICC-FSH), U.S . Army Environmental Command (USAEC), and Tooele Army Depot (TEAD)
Prepared By :
B ee
ENGINEERING
Brice Engineering, LLC
362 Pierpont Avenue
Salt Lake City, Utah 84101
801-948-9319 PH
www.BriceEng.com
This page intentionally blank
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................................................... 111
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... V
1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background ......................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Purpose of the GWMA Plan and Plan Update .................................................................... 1
1.3 Regulatory Requirements ................................................................................................... 2
1.4 Document Organization ...................................................................................................... 2
2.0 CURRENT SITE CONDITIONS ..................................................................................................... 3
2.1 Land Use .............................................................................................................................. 3
2.1.1 Land Use on TEAD-N .............................................................................................. 3
2.1.2 Land Use on BRAC Parcel and North of TEAD-N .................................................... 3
2.2 Corrective Measures Implementation ................................................................................ 3
2.3 Current Plume Extent and Concentration Trends .............................................................. 4
2.3.1 Plume Extent .......................................................................................................... 4
2.3.2 Concentration Trend Assessment .......................................................................... 4
2.3.3 Groundwater Model Assessment .......................................................................... 6
3.0 UPDATED GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT AREA PLAN ........................................................... 9
3.1 Identification of Potential Receptors .................................................................................. 9
3.1.1 Water Well Survey ................................................................................................. 9
3.1.2 Risk Assessment Summary and Groundwater Risk-Based Concentrations ......... 11
3.2 Groundwater Monitoring Approach ................................................................................. 12
3.2.1 Compliance Monitoring Program ........................................................................ 12
3.3 Groundwater Modeling Approach .................................................................................... 13
3.4 SWMU-58 Groundwater Management Area and Institutional Controls .......................... 14
3.4.1 GWMA Boundary Delineation ............................................................................. 14
3.4.2 Institutional Controls ........................................................................................... 14
3.5 Actions Based on Detections and Exceedances at Sentinel Wells .................................... 15
3.6 Contingency Plan for Wells Impacted by TCE ................................................................... 16
3.7 Community Involvement Program .................................................................................... 16
4.0 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................... 17
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
TABLES
Table 3-1
FIGURES
Figure 1-1
Figure 1-2
Figure 2-1
Figure 2-2
Figure 2-3
Figure 3-1
Figure 3-2
Figure 3-3
Figure 3-4
Figure 3-5
Figure 3-6
Figure 3-7
Figure 3-8
Water Wells Within 2 Miles of SWMU-58 Plume Boundary
TEAD-N Location Map
SWMU-58 Site Location Map
SWMU-58 Plume Extent and TCE Concentration Trends
Cumulative Distribution Curves for the Maximum Predicted TCE
Concentrations Along the NEB Plume GWMA Boundary
Cumulative Distribution Curves for the Maximum Predicted TCE
Concentrations Along the Main Plume GWMA Boundary
Water Wells Within 2 Miles of Plume Boundary-All Uses
Water Wells Within 2 Miles of Plume Boundary-Domestic and Municipal
Uses
Water Wells Within 2 Miles of Plume Boundary-Irrigation Use
Water Wells Within 2 Miles of Plume Boundary-Stock Use
Water Wells Within 2 Miles of Plume Boundary-Commercial and Industrial
Uses
SWMU-58 Compliance Monitoring Groundwater Sampling Locations
SWMU-58 Compliance Monitoring Groundwater Gauging Locations
Proposed GWMA Boundary
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
ii
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
µg/L
AS
BRAC
Brice
CCR
CMF
CMIP
CMS
coc
CTC
days/yr
DSHW
DWR
EPA
GWMA
HRA
kg
L/day
MCL
mg/kg-day
NA
NEB
PCE
PCP
RBC
RCRA
RFI
SVE
SWMU
TCE
TEAD
TEAD-N
UDEQ
UFP-QAPP
USACE
voe
WIN
yr
micrograms per liter
air sparging
Base Realignment and Closure
Brice Engineering, LLC
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions
Consolidated Maintenance Facility
Corrective Measures Implementation Plan
Corrective Measures Study
contaminant of concern
carbon tetrachloride
days per year
Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste
Utah Department of Natural Resources Division of Water Rights
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Groundwater Management Area
Human Risk Assessment
kilograms
liters per day
Maximum Contaminant Level
milligrams per kilograms per day
not applicable
Northeast Boundary
tetrachloroethene
Post Closure Permit
risk-based concentration
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RCRA Facility Investigation
soil vapor extraction
Solid Waste Management Unit
trichloroethene
Tooele Army Depot
Tooele Army Depot North
Utah Department of Environmental Quality
Uniform Federal Policy-Quality Assurance Project Plan
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
volatile organic compound
well identification number
year(s)
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
iii
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
This page intentionally blank
iv
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In 2004, TEAD developed an Interim Groundwater Management Area (GWMA) Plan for the Northeast
Boundary (NEB) plume to protect human health from risks related to the possible use of the impacted
groundwater until further investigation and remedial action could be implemented. In 2010, a Final
GWMA Plan superseding the Interim Plan was prepared to serve as a long-term institutional control to
protect potable well users from health risks associated with the entire comingled trichloroethene (TCE)
plume at TEAD-N now designated as SWMU-58. Because the plume extent and possible receptors are
subject to change and corrective measures had not yet been implemented when the GWMA Plan was
prepared in 2010, it recommended the GWMA Plan be formally reviewed at regular intervals and updated
as needed. This Groundwater Management Area Plan Update (GWMA Plan Update) incorporates the
changes that have occurred at SWMU-58 since the GWMA Plan was prepared in 2010. This update
documents current conditions within the GWMA, including land use, implemented remedial actions, TCE
concentration trends, groundwater model predictions, and plume extent. Since 2010, the SWMU-58
plume has expanded slightly but remains within the previously established GWMA boundary except for a
small area on the western edge of the plume that lies inside the TEAD-N installation. Current groundwater
modeling results indicate it is unlikely the plume will reach the downgradient GWMA boundary within the
next 10 years. Therefore, the GWMA boundary was expanded slightly to encompass the western edge of
the current plume boundary but otherwise remains unchanged. Due to the potential installation or
abandonment of water wells since the GWMA Plan was prepared, an updated water well search was
conducted to identify possible receptors. No new water wells installed within the GWMA boundary were
identified, and current management practices remain protective of human health.
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
V
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
This page intentionally blank
vi
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Tooele Army Depot North (TEAD-N) encompasses almost 25,000 acres in eastern Tooele County at the
southern end of Tooele Valley (Figure 1-1). Historical site operations at TEAD-N have created a large,
comingled volatile organic compound (VOC) plume that originates from multiple identified source areas
and consists predominantly of trichloroethene (TCE) with minor amounts of tetrachloroethene (PCE) and
carbon tetrachloride (CTC). Historically, the plume has been divided into several subareas including: the
Northeast Boundary (NEB) groundwater plume, the main TCE plume, and the impacted groundwater
beneath the TEAD-N landfill (Figure 1-2). In the past, these subareas were managed under separate Solid
Waste Management Units (SWMUs) but are now managed under a single SWMU designated as SMWU-58.
The plume currently encompasses approximately 5.5 square miles and is approximately 4 miles long at its
longest point. The main portion of the plume is contained largely within the TEAD-N boundary and extends
a maximum of approximately 0.15 miles beyond the installation boundary. The NEB portion of the plume,
however, extends approximately 1.4 miles beyond the installation boundary.
In 2003, the Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ) Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste
(DSHW) requested that the Toole Army Depot (TEAD) implement an interim remedial action to prevent the
NEB plume from impacting any offsite receptors (DSHW 2003). In response, TEAD developed an interim
Groundwater Management Area (GWMA) Plan for the NEB plume (Interim Plan; Parsons 2004). The Interim
Plan was submitted to municipal and county stakeholders for review and approved by DSHW prior to
publication. Its primary purpose was to protect human health from risks related to the possible use of the
impacted groundwater while a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Facility Investigation (RFI)
and Corrective Measures Study (CMS) for the NEB plume were being conducted. The Interim Plan defined
a GWMA and presented a management strategy for the NEB plume based on risk-based concentrations
(RBCs) for groundwater. The Interim Plan also recommended amending the State of Utah's Tooele Valley
Ground-Water Management Plan (Utah Department of Natural Resources Division of Water Rights [DWR]
1996) to restrict water resource development within the GWMA boundary. The Tooele Valley Ground-
Water Management Plan was subsequently amended to prohibit installation of culinary water wells within
the 2004 GWMA boundary unless it was demonstrated that the water could be used without adverse
impacts to human health or the plume containment and cleanup program (Utah DWR 2004).
Upon completion of the TCE plume RFI, a Final GWMA Plan (GWMA Plan) was prepared to supersede the
Interim Plan and serve as a long-term institutional control to protect potable well users from health risks
associated with the SWMU-58 groundwater plume (Parsons 2010). The GWMA Plan was expanded to
include the entire TCE plume, in addition to the NEB plume, and was updated based on results from the RFI.
Because the plume extent and possible receptors are subject to change and the corrective measures had
not yet been implemented, the GWMA Plan recommended the document be formally reviewed at regular
intervals and updated as needed. This GWMA Plan Update documents and incorporates the changes that
have occurred at SWMU-58 since the GWMA Plan was prepared.
1.2 Purpose of the GWMA Plan and Plan Update
The purpose of the GWMA Plan is to protect Tooele Valley groundwater users from downgradient
SWMU-58 plume movement. To achieve this objective, the plan includes the following key elements:
1. Identification of potential receptors
2. A groundwater monitoring program
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
1
3. A groundwater modeling program
4. Delineation of a GWMA boundary with defined groundwater development restrictions
5. Actions to be taken based on detections and exceedances at sentinel wells
6. A contingency plan for supply wells impacted by contamination
7. A community involvement program
These elements were developed and presented in the GWMA Plan; however, Elements 1 through 4 require
updating due to changes at the SWMU-58 since the GWMA Plan was prepared.
1.3 Regulatory Requirements
Requirements for SWMU-58 are encompassed by the TEAD-N RCRA Post Closure Permit (PCP) (TEAD 2017),
the Corrective Measures Implementation Program (CMIP) Plan for Groundwater (Parsons 2014), and the
current Uniform Federal Policy-Quality Assurance Project Plan (UFP-QAPP) forTEAD-N groundwater (Brice
Engineering, LLC [Brice] 2022a). The PCP is the overarching regulatory document and includes provisions
requiring groundwater monitoring and modeling at SWMU-58. The CMIP, developed in accordance with
the PCP, represents a framework for the implementation of the RCRA corrective action process for the
protection of human health and the environment from chemical releases at SWMU-58. It specifies the
required corrective actions in the source and downgradient areas of SWMU-58 and provides an update to
the groundwater monitoring program. Finally, the Uniform Federal Policy-Quality Assurance Project Plan
(UFP-QAPP), which was developed in accordance with the PCP and CMIP, provides an additional update to
the sampling program included in the CMIP and presents the current groundwater sampling locations,
analytes, and sampling frequencies at SWMU-58 along with associated quality assurance/quality control
requirements.
1.4 Document Organization
In general, the provisions of the GWMA Plan remain protective of health for Tooele Valley groundwater
users and only minor updates are required. Therefore, this document does not duplicate the background
facility and original risk evaluation information, which can be found in the GWMA Plan (Parsons 2010).
Instead, this GWMA Plan Update focuses on changes that have occurred since the GWMA Plan was
prepared and an includes assessment of current plume conditions.
This document is organized into the following sections:
• Section 1-Introduction: Presents the GWMA Plan history and background, purpose of the
GWMA Plan and current GWMA Plan Update, and applicable regulatory requirements for
SWMU-58.
• Section 2 -Current Site Conditions: Section 2 presents an assessment of current site conditions
at SWMU-58 with a focus on changes to the site since the GWMA Plan was prepared. This section
also includes an updated concentration trend assessment and groundwater model trend
assessment, which demonstrate that the risk of plume migration beyond the GWMA boundary
remains limited.
• Section 3 -Updated Groundwater Management Area Plan: This section presents the key
elements of the GWMA Plan as listed in Section 1.2. Where applicable, elements have been
updated based on current site conditions. Elements that have not changed are also presented for
the purpose of completeness.
• Section 4 -References: Cited references are presented.
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
2
2.0 CURRENT SITE CONDITIONS
2.1 Land Use
2.1.1 Land Use on TEAD-N
Prior to 1993, TEAD-N had two missions; the first was to provide storage, maintenance, and demilitarization
of conventional weapons. The second mission was to provide storage, maintenance, and demilitarization
of equipment, troop support items, construction equipment, power generators, and wheeled vehicles. The
mission of maintaining and repairing equipment was discontinued in 1993; and the industrial portion of the
facility located on the eastern side of the installation was closed and eventually sold to a commercial
developer as part of the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process. The munitions storage mission
remains active at TEAD-N, which is a Tier I ammunition storage site, responsible for storing training
ammunition and war reserve conventional munitions. Developed features at TEAD-N include igloos,
magazines, administrative buildings, a maintenance area, military housing, roads, and other allied
infrastructure. No substantial changes to the munitions storage mission or installation infrastructure have
occurred since the GWMA Plan was prepared.
2.1.2 Land Use on BRAC Parcel and North of TEAD-N
Areas where the SWMU-58 plume has the potential to impact offsite receptors include the industrial area
transferred under the BRAC process (the BRAC parcel) and the off-installation area to the north and
northeast of the installation. Since its transfer to private ownership, the BRAC parcel has been redeveloped
as an industrial park under a series of owners and names. Portions of the BRAC parcel are currently known
as the Peterson Industrial Depot and the Ninigret Depot. The BRAC parcel currently contains warehouses,
manufacturing facilities, office space, a wholesale automotive storage lot, a sporting goods distribution
center, and a gymnastics center. The residential areas of Tooele City lie east of the BRAC Parcel,
approximately 0.75 miles cross-gradient from the SWMU-58 plume boundary.
State Route 112 runs along the northeastern boundaries ofTEAD-N and the BRAC parcel. Land use northeast
of the highway includes open undeveloped grazing land, a gravel pit and ready-mix operation, and a closed
Tooele County landfill. Most off-installation groundwater impacts are located in this area due to past
migration of the NEB plume. Historically, the land immediately north of TEAD-N has been used chiefly for
livestock grazing and cultivation. That remains the predominant land use, but several other land uses are
now occurring in the area. The Deseret Sports Complex, a County-owned multiple use facility used as
fairgrounds, rodeo ground, and for other events, was constructed in the 1990s approximately 0.5 miles
north of the TEAD-N northern boundary, at the intersection of Sheep Lane and State Route 112. A
motorsports park used for amateur and professional auto racing was constructed immediately north of the
Deseret Sports Complex in 2006. Ground was subsequently broken east of Sheep Lane in 2009 for a
development named the Miller Industrial Park; however, the only building that has been constructed on
the property is a mattress factory northeast of the motorsports park. The property has since been sold and
renamed the Lakeview Business Park, and further development is expected.
2.2 Corrective Measures Implementation
When the GWMA Plan was prepared, the RFI for SWMU-58 had been completed, but the CMS was still in
progress and corrective measures had not been established or implemented. The CMS Report (Parsons
2012) was finalized in 2012 and included separate corrective measures for the source and diffuse (i.e.,
downgradient) areas of the plume. For each individual source area, the CMS recommended maintaining
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
3
institutional controls, continuing or implementing vadose zone remediation through soil vapor extraction
(SVE), and implementing air sparging (AS) for direct treatment of source area groundwater. For the diffuse
area, the CMS recommended maintaining institutional controls and implementing monitored natural
attenuation. These recommendations have since been implemented and are detailed in the CMIP (Parsons
2014).
On the BRAC parcel, individual SVE and AS systems were installed at four separate source areas:
Building 615, Building 620, Building 679, and C Avenue. Installation of the SVE systems preceded installation
of the AS systems, and the systems became fully operational in 2013. Within the TEAD-N installation, three
SVE and two AS systems were installed within the former sanitary landfill. These systems became
substantially operational in 2014. Operation and maintenance of all SVE and AS systems are ongoing. The
systems have been effective at reducing source TCE concentrations in the vadose zone and groundwater,
which has been demonstrated by required performance monitoring associated with the systems.
In the diffuse portion of the plume, MNA is ongoing and is completed in accordance with the requirements
in the CMIP and UFP-QAPP. Sampling at SWMU-58 consists of a larger annual sampling event typically
conducted in October in which approximately 113 wells are sampled, and a smaller semi-annual sampling
event typically conducted in April in which approximately 43 wells are sampled. Sampling during the annual
event is designed to provide coverage of the entire plume, whereas the subset of wells sampled during the
semi-annual event is limited to the area near and beyond the distal plume boundary and in the Sanitary
Landfill source area. Wells are sampled semi-annually near the distal plume boundary to monitor plume
movement and ensure contamination does not reach offsite receptors. Water levels are gauged in
approximately 269 wells during both monitoring events. The sample results and water levels are used to
update the groundwater model annually as required by the PCP.
2.3 Current Plume Extent and Concentration Trends
2.3.1 Plume Extent
The most recent plume boundary for SWMU-58, defined as the 5-microgram-per-liter (µg/L) concentration
contour for TCE, is shown on Figure 2-1 along with the plume boundary from the GWMA Plan (Parsons
2010). The current boundary is presented in the 2021 Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report (Brice 2022b)
and was updated based on results from the June 2021 semi-annual groundwater monitoring event. The
plume boundary included in the GWMA Plan was developed based on results from the annual groundwater
sampling event in Fall 2008. A comparison of the plume boundaries indicates that the downgradient extent
of the plume has expanded somewhat since 2008. Expansion along the downgradient main plume boundary
was variable with a maximum length of expansion of approximately 0.25 miles. Expansion along the
downgradient NEB plume boundary was similarly variable with a maximum expansion of approximately
0.31 miles. Despite these changes, the downgradient extent of the SWMU-58 plume remains approximately
0.5 miles or more from the GWMA boundary established in the GWMA Plan, and TCE has not been detected
at a concentration greater than 1 µg/L in any sentinel wells.
2.3.2 Concentration Trend Assessment
A Mann-Kendall concentration trend assessment of individual wells in the main and NEB plumes was
previously presented in the GWMA Plan. The assessment found that most analyzed wells within the main
and NEB plumes exhibited either increasing or stable trends, which suggested that the plumes were still
expanding as of 2010 but were possibly approaching a state of equilibrium. An updated and expanded trend
analysis based on recent monitoring results is presented in this section.
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
4
As recommended by the GWMA Plan, concentration trends at SWMU-58 are evaluated regularly to monitor
and quantify plume dynamics. Statistical trend analysis procedures have been developed for SWMU-58 that
assess concentration changes in both individual wells and plume regions. Select individual wells are
assessed using the Mann-Kendall test to assess whether statistically significant trends are present, while
trends in different regions of SWMU-58 are assessed with the Regional Kendall test, a variation of the
Mann-Kendall test that utilizes data from multiple wells. The Regional Kendall test analyzes a subset of wells
that have been grouped into the following regions: sanitary landfill source area, industrial source area
(BRAC parcel sources), main plume toe, NEB plume centerline, and NEB plume toe. To assess the rate of
concentration change, the Sen-Theil slope is calculated for concentrations in individual wells, while its
equivalent, the Regional Kendall slope, is calculated for different regions of the plume. To assess trends
associated with current site conditions where the SVE and AS systems are operational, the range of data
used in the analysis was limited from the latest sampling event before the SVE and AS systems became
substantially operational to June 2021. Trend results from the most recent annual groundwater monitoring
report (Brice 2022b) are summarized below, and trends in individual wells are shown on Figure 2-1.
Additional information on the statistical methods and results is presented in the Annual Groundwater
Monitoring Report (Brice 2022b).
Sanitary Landfill TCE Trend Results
Trend results for the Sanitary Landfill provide a strong indication that TCE concentrations in the region are
decreasing. The Regional Kendall test result indicates there is a statistically significant decreasing trend. Five
of the seven individual wells in the region also had statistically significant decreasing concentration trends
for TCE, while one had a statistically significant increasing trend, and one had no significant trend. The
calculated Regional Kendall Slope suggests TCE concentrations in the region are decreasing at a rate of
approximately 1.9 µg/L per year (Brice 2022b). These results suggest the SVE and AS remediation systems
are working as intended and effectively reducing the mass of TCE in the Sanitary Landfill source area.
Industrial Source Area TCE Trend Results
Trend results for the Industrial Source Area provide a strong indication that TCE concentrations in the region
are decreasing. The Regional Kendall test result indicates there is a statistically significant decreasing trend.
Six of the eight individual wells in the region also had statistically significant decreasing concentration trends
for TCE, while two had no significant trends. The calculated Regional Kendall Slope suggests TCE
concentrations in the region are decreasing at a rate of approximately 6.2 µg/L per year (Brice 2022b). These
results suggest the SVE and AS remediation systems are working as intended and are effectively reducing
the mass of TCE in the Industrial Source Area.
Main Plume Toe TCE Trend Results
Trend results for the main plume toe indicate that TCE concentrations in the area are increasing slightly.
The Regional Kendall test result indicates there is a statistically significant increasing trend. Three of the five
individual wells in the region also had statistically significant increasing concentration trends for TCE, while
two had no significant trends. The calculated Regional Kendall Slope suggests TCE concentrations in the
region are increasing at a rate of approximately 0.5 µg/L per year (Brice 2022b). These results suggest that
TCE concentrations are increasing slightly at the toe of the main plume due to advective and diffusive
transport. It also suggests that the reduction in source zone strength due to SVE and AS operation has not
yet influenced concentrations in the distal portion of the main plume.
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
5
NEB Plume Centerline TCE Trend Results
Trend results for the NEB Plume Centerline provide a strong indication that TCE concentrations in the region
are decreasing. The Regional Kendall test result indicates there is a statistically significant decreasing trend.
Six of the nine individual wells in the region also had statistically significant decreasing concentration trends
for TCE, one had an increasing trend, and two had no significant trends. The calculated Regional Kendall
Slope suggests TCE concentrations in the region are decreasing at a rate of approximately 6.3 µg/L per year
(Brice 2022b). These results suggest the SVE and AS remediation systems are working as intended and
effectively reducing the mass of TCE in the NEB plume source area. The reduction in source zone strength
augmented by natural attenuation has also caused downgradient TCE concentrations to decrease along the
NEB plume centerline into the mid-plume area.
NEB Plume Toe TCE Trend Results
Trend results for the NEB plume toe indicate that TCE concentrations in the area are increasing slightly. The
Regional Kendall test result indicates there is a statistically significant increasing trend. Three of the five
individual wells in the region also had statistically significant increasing concentration trends for TCE, while
two had no significant trends. The calculated Regional Kendall Slope suggests TCE concentrations in the
region are increasing at a rate of approximately 0.2 µg/L per year (Brice 2022b). These results suggest TCE
concentrations are increasing slightly at the toe of the NEB Plume due to advective and diffusive transport.
It also suggests that the reduction in source zone strength due to SVE and AS operation has not yet
influenced concentrations in the distal portion of the NEB plume.
2.3.3 Groundwater Model Assessment
As required by the PCP, the TEAD-N groundwater model is updated annually and has been refined
significantly since the GWMA Plan was prepared. The most recent model was updated based on water level
and analytical data collected in 2019 {Hydrologic Engineering Center [HEC] et al. 2021). A detailed history
of the model's development is included in Appendix A of the most recent groundwater modeling report
(HEC et al. 2021). Notable changes to the model since the GWMA Plan was prepared include an increased
focus on matching conditions at the leading edge of the plume, incorporation of TCE decay to better match
observed conditions, use of transient water levels from data loggers for model calibration, and
development of probabilistic predictive analysis to assess future plume migration.
For long-term management purposes, the model outputs a probabilistic predictive analysis, which provides
the likelihood that the plume will expand beyond the GWMA boundary over a given period of time. The
analysis is performed by varying the model parameters within plus or minus 20 percent{%) of their mean
values to create parameter probability distributions. Uncertainty in model parameters is propagated to
model predictions via Monte Carlo analysis, wherein a set of parameter values (a realization) is randomly
selected from the parameter probability distributions. The groundwater model is then run for the
realization, and the process is repeated multiple times to determine the distribution of possible outcomes
given the established uncertainty. For the 2021 groundwater model, 400 model parameter realizations
were sampled, which was demonstrated to provide a statistically robust analysis. The TEAD-N groundwater
flow and transport model was run into the future from a January 2020 starting condition for each of the
400 unique realizations of calibrated model input parameter values. For each run, the maximum
concentrations along the GWMA in the main plume and NEB plume areas was recorded at various
timepoints. The distribution of maximum concentrations was then assessed to determine the likelihood
that the TCE concentration exceeded 5 µg/L along the GWMA boundary after 6 years (December 2025),
8 years (December 2027), 10 years (December 2029), 12 years (December 2031), and 15 years (December
2034) of prediction.
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
6
Cumulative probability distributions resulting from the probabilistic analysis are presented on Figures 2-2
and 2-3 for the GWMA boundary beyond the NEB and main plumes, respectively. The cumulative likelihood
curves suggest there is 100% likelihood that concentrations remain below 5 µg/L at the GWMA boundary
downgradient of the NEB plume through at least 2034. Downgradient of the main plume, there is 100%
likelihood that concentrations remain below 5 µg/L at the GWMA boundary through 2027. This likelihood
decreases to 98% through 2029, 90% through 2031, and 60% through 2034. Collectively, these results
suggest there is minimal likelihood of concentrations exceeding 5 µg/L at the downgradient GWMA
boundary in the next 10 years or more.
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
7
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
This page intentionally blank
8
3.0 UPDATED GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT AREA PLAN
This section presents the elements that constitute the Updated GWMA Plan for SMWU-58. These elements
include:
1. Identification of potential receptors (Section 3.1)
2. A groundwater monitoring program (Section 3.2)
3. A groundwater modeling program (Section 3.3)
4. Delineation of GWMA boundary and groundwater development restrictions (Section 3.4)
5. Actions to be taken based on detections and exceedances at sentinel wells (Section 3.5)
6. A contingency plan for supply wells impacted by contamination (Section 3.6)
7. A community involvement program (Section 3.7)
Where applicable, these elements have been updated from the GWMA Plan. Each element is discussed
individually in the following subsections.
3.1 Identification of Potential Receptors
3.1.1 Water Well Survey
To assess current and future exposure risks to potential well users, a water well and water rights survey
was conducted previously in the GWMA Plan. The water well and water rights survey identified wells within
a 2-mile radius ofthe 5-µg/L TCE plume boundary. This analysis used the 2008 TCE plume boundary (shown
on Figure 2-1) to develop a 2-mile buffer surrounding the plume. As discussed in Section 2.3.1, the plume
boundary has expanded somewhat since this analysis was performed. Additionally, water wells have been
installed and abandoned since the original analysis was performed. Due to these changes, an updated water
well survey was performed in February 2022 using the Utah DWR on line Water Rights database (Utah DWR
2022). The database was used to identify water wells with active underground water rights within 2 miles
of the current plume boundary. Identified wells are summarized in Table 3-1 along with their associated
water right number(s), well identification number (WIN), coordinates, depth, use, and other relevant
information. In a few instances, a well has been approved for a certain location, but it is unclear from
available information whether the well has been installed. These wells were conservatively retained in the
search and their unclear statuses are noted in Table 3-1. Additionally, some wells (particularly older wells)
have not been assigned WINs but exist and are active according to available records.
In addition to a well's position relative to the current plume, the well depths included in Table 3-1 provide
a general indication of how susceptible a given well is to future contamination. Contaminated groundwater
near the downgradient portions of the SWMU-58 plume is typically present under unconfined conditions
at depths of 250 feet or less. A review of well driller logs downgradient of the plume indicates wells greater
than 250 feet are generally screened within one or more confined water-bearing units with artesian
conditions. The artesian conditions observed in these wells make them unlikely to be impacted by the
shallower contamination. This is because they are separated from the contamination by one or more
low-permeability confining units, and there is an upward vertical hydraulic gradient between the
unconfined and confined units that prevents downward groundwater flow. As a general guideline, wells
deeper than approximately 250 feet will be at a lower risk of contamination, although the depth of
contamination and confining units is variable, and well construction in deeper wells may allow for
communication with the shallower unconfined unit. For interpretive purposes, water wells have been
categorized as being shallower or deeper than 250 feet in the figures presented in the following sections.
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
9
In total, 12 water wells were identified within 1 mile of the current plume boundary, and 195 water wells
were identified within 2 miles of the plume boundary (Figure 3-1). No new wells within the GWMA boundary
were identified; however, the GWMA Plan had previously identified 7 water wells within 1 mile of the 2008
plume boundary and 119 water wells within 2 miles. The increase in identified wells results from a slight
expansion of the 1-and 2-mile buffer zone boundaries, installation of new wells since 2010, and most
significantly, inclusion of wells without WINs in the updated survey. The previous survey methodology did
not include water wells without WINs; however, the updated survey includes 62 wells within 2 miles of the
plume that do not have WINs but do have an active water right.
As reported in the DWR database, each identified well has one or more approved use categories including
domestic, municipal, irrigation, stock, and commercial/industrial. Wells are discussed in the sections below
and shown on Figures 3-2 through 3-5 based on use category. Note that a single well may have multiple
approved uses.
3.1.1.1 Domestic and Municipal Use Wells
As defined by the DWR, domestic use includes water used for inside household purposes only such as
drinking, preparing food, bathing, laundry, and brushing teeth. These wells are not connected to a municipal
supply system and are generally privately owned. Municipal use includes water used by a municipality
within its municipal limits and/or service area. Municipal water is distributed through a public water
conveyance system to residential, industrial, and commercial users for drinking and various other uses.
Thus, both types of wells provide potable water that is suitable for consumption, making them a potentially
significant exposure pathway. TEAD-N is supplied with two wells that have a domestic use designation.
These wells are essentially municipal wells but are categorized by the Utah DWR as having a domestic use
because they do not serve a public water supply.
Wells approved for domestic and municipal uses located within 2 miles of the current plume boundary are
shown on Figure 3-2. There are 115 domestic use wells and 12 municipal use wells within 2 miles of the
current plume boundary. However, only three domestic use wells and five municipal use wells are located
within 1 mile of the plume boundary, and none are located within the GWMA boundary. Because all wells
used for drinking water are located outside of the GWMA boundary, no domestic or municipal users have
the potential to be exposed to contaminant concentrations greater than residential RBCs, discussed in
Section 3.1.2.
3.1.1.2 Irrigation Use Wells
The irrigation use category includes both wells used to irrigate agricultural crops and to water lawns and
gardens. Many wells supplying a single household are approved for both domestic and irrigation use. Wells
approved for irrigation use located within 2 miles of the current plume boundary are shown on Figure 3-3.
There are 155 wells approved for irrigation use within 2 miles of the current plume boundary, but only four
are within 1 mile of the plume. No irrigation wells are within the GWMA boundary. Because all irrigation
wells are outside of the GWMA boundary, the potential for contamination to reach these wells is low.
3.1.1.3 Stock Use Wells
The stock use category includes wells used for watering cattle and other stock animals. The number of
animals served by a given well ranges from less than 10 to several hundred or more. Wells approved for
stock use located within 2 miles of the current plume boundary are shown on Figure 3-4. There are 122 wells
approved for stock use within 2 miles of the current plume boundary, but only four are within 1 mile of the
plume. Two stock wells are located within the GWMA boundary but are outside of the plume. These include
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
10
well (WIN) 20819 (Cassidy Well), which is 117 feet deep and located approximately 0.5 miles downgradient
of the NEB plume, and well 2367, which is 260 feet deep and located approximately 0.4 miles downgradient
of the main plume. Both wells are used for stock watering only and were previously identified in the GWMA
Plan. Given their distance from the plume, the likelihood of contamination reaching these wells in the near
term is low.
3.1.1.4 Commercial and Industrial Use Wells
In addition to the categories discussed above, a few wells in the vicinity of TEAD-N have uses related to
commercial and industrial activities that are categorized as "other" in the DWR database. In most cases,
these wells are not used for drinking or are also approved for domestic use. Six wells with
commercial/industrial use are within 2 miles of the current plume boundary, and three are within 1 mile of
the plume (Figure 3-5). One well (WIN 9549) is located within the plume itself at a gravel mining pit and was
previously identified in the GWMA Plan. Based on an interview of a gravel facility representative by the
DWR in 2007 and water-use records submitted by the facility to the DWR in 2019, the well is used as a
non-potable water supply for restrooms and other general uses associated with the gravel pit operation
(e.g., dust control and gravel washing) (DWR 2022). According to the well log provided in the DWR database,
well 9549 is screened from 243 to 263 feet below ground surface, and multiple clay intervals were observed
during drilling. Despite the presence of clay layers, the static water level at the time of well installation was
221 feet below ground surface, which suggests the well is not artesian and has the potential to be impacted
by the TCE plume. Based on the location of the well within the plume, contaminant concentrations in the
well likely exceed Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) (Section 3.1.2); however, it is not used as a drinking
water source. As discussed in Section 3.1.2, other possible exposure pathways including dermal contact and
inhalation are considered insignificant.
The remaining two wells within 1 mile of the plume are WW-1 (WIN 2603) and WW3 (WIN 2618), which are
owned and operated by TEAD and are located upgradient of the plume. Both WW-1 and WW3 are also
approved for domestic and irrigation uses.
3.1.2 Risk Assessment Summary and Groundwater Risk-Based Concentrations
The designated well uses summarized in Section 3.1.1 are fundamental for evaluating risk to potential
receptors because exposure risk varies based on use. Detailed assessments of potential exposure pathways
at TEAD-N were presented in the SWMU-58 Risk Assumptions Document (Parsons 2005) and the Human
Risk Assessment (HRA) in the Phase II RFI (Parsons 2008). For groundwater, ingestion by future residents
and ingestion by future industrial workers were determined to be the only potentially significant exposure
pathways; therefore, wells with domestic and municipal uses are of primary concern for identifying
potential receptors. Conversely, the following exposure pathways were assessed and determined to be
incomplete or insignificant:
• Dermal contact and inhalation of contaminants of concern (COCs) during domestic use of
groundwater
• Inhalation of COCs volatilized from groundwater into outdoor or indoor air
• Ingestion of fruits and vegetables irrigated with groundwater
• Ingestion of meat and dairy products from cattle ingesting groundwater
• Ingestion of meat and dairy products from cattle exposed to COCs volatilized from groundwater
into outdoor air
• Inhalation of COCs volatilized from groundwater used as stock water
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
11
• Inhalation of COCs volatilized from impacted groundwater used for industrial processes
Because these potential exposure pathways are insignificant or incomplete, irrigation, stock, and
non-consumptive commercial/industrial groundwater uses are not considered a significant exposure
concern.
As a management tool for evaluating risk from groundwater ingestion to future residents and industrial
workers, the GWMA Plan developed RBCs for groundwater ingestion using standard U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) methods and input assumptions from the Human Risk Assessment (Parsons 2008).
If ingested, groundwater concentrations greater than RBCs pose unacceptable cancer risks and/or non-
cancer hazards to residential and industrial users. For residential groundwater ingestion, RBCs are
equivalent to EPA MCLs. Drinking water MCLs for TCE, PCE, and CTC are all equal to 5 µg/L and have not
changed since the GWMA Plan was prepared. The GWMA Plan also includes less restrictive industrial RBCs
calculated in accordance with Utah Administrative Code R315-101-5.2(b) and R315-101-6(d) that are
applicable for determining whether corrective action is required in non-residential land-use areas (DSHW
2013). The industrial RBCs in the GWMA Plan are now out of date; however, TEAD has previously noted
that unrestricted exposure to groundwater with concentrations above MCLs poses an unacceptable risk,
and that it intends to control use of all groundwater with concentrations above MCLs (Parsons 2005).
Consequently, the potential actions to be taken if contamination reaches sentinel wells are based on
residential RBCs, discussed further in Section 3.6.
3.2 Groundwater Monitoring Approach
As established in the GWMA Plan, the objectives of groundwater monitoring for the GWMA are to:
• Evaluate movement of TCE at the toe and downgradient of the margins ofthe main and NEB
plumes
• Identify areas where contamination may impact drinking water wells
An extensive compliance groundwater monitoring program has been established at TEAD-N that fulfills
these objectives in addition to monitoring natural attenuation in the diffuse portion of the plume.
Compliance monitoring is conducted to fulfill monitoring requirements specified in Module V of the PCP
(TEAD 2017) and implemented through the CMIP Plan for Groundwater (Parsons 2014) and the current
UFP-QAPP (Brice 2022a). Additional remedy monitoring unrelated to permit compliance and the GWMA is
also conducted to evaluate progress at individual AS and SVE systems.
The compliance monitoring portion of the current monitoring program is summarized in the following
sections. Full details of the program are presented in the UFP-QAPP (Brice 2022a).
3.2.1 Compliance Monitoring Program
3.2.1.1 Program Overview
Compliance groundwater monitoring at SWMU-58 is conducted semi-annually at the locations shown on
Figure 3-6. Forty-three wells are sampled semi-annually in the spring and fall, and an additional 75 wells are
sampled annually during the fall only. Spring sampling typically occurs in April and fall sampling typically
occurs in October. Wells are sampled using HydraSleeve samplers, and water quality field parameters
including pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen, specific conductance, and oxidation-reduction potential are
also collected. Samples are analyzed for a limited list of VOCs that includes TCE, PCE, and CTC.
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
12
Sampling locations at SWMU-58 were selected to provide full delineation of the voe plume and fulfill the
GWMA monitoring objectives. Fourteen sentinel wells at or beyond the GWMA boundary are sampled
semi-annually to identify contamination and ensure it does not impact drinking water wells. These wells
include D-11, D-21, and D-22, which were proposed in the GWMA Plan to define the GWMA boundary and
have now been installed. A total of 17 wells located near or beyond the downgradient margins of the main
and NEB plumes are also sampled semi-annually (10 wells) or annually (7 wells) to evaluate downgradient
plume movement. Additional wells are sampled throughout the source and distal areas of the plume to
provide full plume delineation.
In addition to groundwater sampling, extensive water level gauging is conducted in conjunction with the
groundwater sampling events to determine groundwater flow directions and support development and
calibration of the TEAD-N groundwater model (Section 3.3). Approximately 274 wells are gauged annually
in the spring and fall using an electronic water level meter (Figure 3-7).
Compliance monitoring results are reported annually in groundwater monitoring reports. These reports
include data evaluation and trend analysis, discussed in the following sections. No substantial changes to
the compliance monitoring program are anticipated at this time, and monitoring results will continue to be
reported annually.
3.2.1.2 Data Analysis
Evaluation and Mitigation of Risk to Downgradient Receptors
Following each sampling event, analytical results from the sentinel wells are reviewed for TCE detections.
If TCE is detected in a sentinel well at concentrations above 1 µg/L or 5 µg/L, additional actions (outlined in
Section 3.6) will occur, which are designed to mitigate risk to downgradient receptors.
Evaluation of Plume Movement
An evaluation of plume movement at TEAD-N is included in the annual groundwater monitoring reports.
The evaluation includes generation of TCE concentration time-series plots and statistical analysis.
Concentration trends are assessed using Mann-Kendall and Regional Kendall tests to identify statistically
significant trends in individual wells and in different plume regions, including the toes of the main and NEB
plumes. Statistically significant trends are evaluated using the Sen-Theil non-parametric slope estimator to
quantify the rates of concentration change. The results of the statistical data are used to assess whether
the diffuse portion of the plume is expanding and if downgradient groundwater users may be impacted in
the future.
3.3 Groundwater Modeling Approach
Groundwater modeling predictions are used to inform the groundwater management strategy at TEAD-N
and assess the likelihood of future plume migration beyond the GWMA boundary. As discussed in
Section 2.3.3, the TEAD-N groundwater model is currently updated annually and has been refined
significantly since the GWMA Plan was prepared. Following each update, model results are presented in a
groundwater modeling report. Notable changes to the model since the GWMA Plan was prepared include
an increased focus on matching conditions at the leading edge of the plume, incorporation of TCE decay to
better match observed conditions, use of transient water levels from data loggers for model calibration,
and development of probabilistic predictive analysis to assess future plume migration. The probabilistic
predictive analysis is a very powerful tool for assessing future risk to groundwater users outside of the
GWMA boundary because it provides the likelihood that the plume will expand beyond the GWMA
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
13
boundary over givens periods of time. Recent modeling results suggest plume migration beyond the GWMA
boundary is unlikely for the next 10 or more years.
Groundwater model updates and reports will continue to be prepared as necessary to meet requirements
specified in the PCP. lffuture monitoring results suggest that plume migration beyond the GWMA boundary
is likely, changes to GWMA or groundwater management strategy may be necessary.
3.4 SWMU-58 Groundwater Management Area and Institutional Controls
3.4.1 GWMA Boundary Delineation
The GWMA was initially defined in the Interim Plan and consisted of the off-Depot portion of the NEB plume
and a surrounding buffer zone between the plume boundary and several sentinel monitoring wells
(Figure 3-8). In the GWMA Plan, the GWMA was expanded to include the NEB and main plumes in their
entirety, the entire BRAC parcel, and an expanded buffer zone downgradient of the plume boundary
defined by additional sentinel wells. In general, minimal modification of the GWMA boundary is required
based on the current extent of the SWMU-58 plume. Although the plume has expanded somewhat since
the GWMA boundary in the GWMA Plan was adopted, the downgradient plume boundary remains well
within the buffer zone and remains protective of downgradient water users. The only portion of the GWMA
requiring updating is the western border in the vicinity of monitoring well B-30. This portion of the GWMA
boundary was defined by the 2008 plume boundary in the GWMA Plan; however, the plume has since
expanded slightly to the west. To encompass the entire plume, it is proposed that the GWMA boundary be
expanded westward to pass through well B-18 but otherwise remain unchanged. The proposed update to
the GWMA boundary is shown on Figure 3-8. The new area included in the GWMA would be located entirely
within the TEAD-N boundary and is occupied by munitions igloos.
3.4.2 Institutional Controls
A variety of institutional controls are in place within the GWMA boundary to prevent exposure to
contaminated groundwater. Applicable restrictions vary depending on the location within the GWMA.
These restrictions are summarized by area in the following sections.
3.4.2.1 BRAC Parcel
Existing groundwater use and development restrictions for the BRAC parcel are contained within the
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions {CCRs) dated 18 December 1998 (included in Appendix B of the
GWMA Plan). Section 6.3 of Article VI of that document prohibits access to or extraction of any
groundwater, or the injection of materials into the aquifer for the purpose of economic development, with
the following exception: water may be accessed from any existing potable water well located within the
BRAC parcel. The aforementioned CCRs apply to the entire BRAC parcel with the exception of the
Consolidated Maintenance Facility (CMF), which was transferred separately and prior to the remainder of
the BRAC parcel.
Groundwater use restrictions for the CMF are contained within Enclosure 11 (Deed Restrictions -
Environmental Protection) of "the Findings of Suitability to Transfer" document dated July 1996 (included
in Appendix C of the GWMA Plan). Language in that document states that there shall be no disturbance of
the subsurface or groundwater without prior written approval of the government. This language is not as
strong as that contained in the CCRs for the BRAC parcel. However, the effect is the same: to prohibit any
development and use of groundwater within the CMF property, as the Army will not consent to any
proposals to that would disturb the aquifer. Language from the CMF conveyance document and the BRAC
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
14
CCRs that pertains solely to groundwater management is included in Appendix D of the GWMA Plan.
Businesses within the BRAC parcel, including the CMF, currently obtain their water from Tooele City. The
nearest municipal wells are situated directly east of the BRAC parcel and upgradient of the plumes
(Figure 3-2).
3.4.2.2 2004 and 2010 GWMA Boundaries
The Interim Plan recommended amending the State of Utah's Tooele Valley Ground-Water Management
Plan (Utah DWR 1996) to restrict water resource development within the 2004 GWMA boundary (shown
on Figure 3-8). The Tooele Valley Ground-Water Management Plan was subsequently amended to prohibit
installation of culinary water wells within the 2004 GWMA boundary unless it was demonstrated that the
water could be used without adverse impacts to human health or the plume containment and cleanup
program (Utah DWR 2004). The GWMA Plan recommended petitioning the Utah Water Rights Engineer to
expand the area with water development restrictions to match the expanded GWMA boundary. However,
it appears that this petition was not completed, and the area with water development restrictions remains
the same as the 2004 GWMA boundary, shown on Figure 3-8. Upon acceptance ofthis GWMA Plan Update,
it is recommended that the Utah Water Rights Engineer be petitioned to expand water development
restrictions to the proposed GWMA boundary.
3.4.2.3 TEAD-N
There are currently no specific provisions within the TEAD-N Master Plan that address groundwater
management on the installation (Johnson, pers. Comm., 2022). The currently established TEAD-N dig
(excavation) permit system serves as the de facto mechanism to prevent future groundwater development
and use within the facility. Requests for permits must be approved by all TEAD departments before issuance
for any activities that would result in subsurface disturbance. Portions of TEAD-N included in the GWMA
could have additional groundwater use restrictions in the future if a petition is approved by the Utah Water
Rights Engineer to update the restricted area from the 2004 GWMA boundary to the proposed GWMA
boundary. It is also recommended that groundwater development and use restrictions be established for
the TEAD-N Environmental Management System. The latter is an integral component ofthe TEAD-N Master
Plan.
3.5 Actions Based on Detections and Exceedances at Sentinel Wells
This GWMA Plan Update specifies actions that will be taken ifTCE detections or residential RBC exceedances
are identified in the sentinel wells located downgradient of the SWMU-58 plume. A specific corrective
action has not been designated if an exceedance is identified as this will be based on risk, which will vary
depending on where the detection has occurred. However, general actions to be taken if TCE is detected
above a concentration of 1 µg/L or the TCE RBC for residential groundwater ingestion of 5 µg/L have been
established. The initial trigger value for action is set at 1 µg/L to provide sufficient time to develop an
appropriate response prior to concentrations reaching the residential RBC of 5 µg/L.
If TCE is detected above 1 µg/L in a sentinel well for the first time, TEAD will take the following actions:
1. Notify DSHW within 7 days of receiving validated data confirming the presence of TCE.
2. Continue monitoring the sentinel well having the detectable TCE.
3. Evaluate whether additional action is required.
If TCE is detected above 5 µg/L, TEAD will take the following actions:
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
15
1. Submit to the DSHW a variance to this GWMA Plan Update within 90 days of receiving validated
data. The variance will include a reevaluation of the pertinent monitoring data to determine if
there has been a change in the current conceptual groundwater and contaminant transport
model, reevaluate human health and environmental risks, and provide specific changes to the
GWMAPlan.
2. If there is not an existing downgradient well, install a new downgradient sentinel well (if feasible).
3. Evaluate the closest water wells downgradient from the impacted sentinel well. Preliminary
information for these wells will be obtained from the Utah DWR well database and will be
confirmed by interviews with the well owners. Information to be evaluated include:
a. Use(s) of the groundwater (i.e., potable, stock irrigation, etc.)
b. Construction and operation parameters, including screened interval(s), pumping rate,
pumping schedule, and pump depths
c. Groundwater sampling results, if available
4. Use evaluation criteria in Item 3 to identify the downgradient wells that are at highest risk for
contamination and determine if monitoring for any of those wells is warranted. Wells with
domestic or municipal uses would be considered the highest risk because they are used for
drinking.
5. Develop a contingency plan for downgradient users whose groundwater is at high risk of being
impacted by the migrating TCE contamination.
The approach described above will focus on wells with the highest risk of being impacted in the future.
This plan provides ample time for TEAD to develop appropriate responses in conjunction with the DSHW
to mitigate any impacts to potential receptors.
3.6 Contingency Plan for Wells Impacted by TCE
If a downgradient domestic well user is determined to be impacted by the SWMU-58 TCE Plume, a
contingency plan will be developed for the well user. The plan will outline the actions needed to provide
the user with long-term clean water for domestic use should the TCE concentration in a user's well(s) exceed
the MCL of 5 µg/L for TCE. Possible actions to meet this objective could include wellhead treatment,
installation of a filtration/treatment system at the tap, installation of a new water supply well, conveyance
via pipeline of clean water from a nearby non-impacted well, or periodic delivery combined with onsite
storage of potable water. In the short-term, TEAD will supply drinking water (such as bottled water) to
replace the impacted well water. For wells characterized by mixed use, such as irrigation and domestic,
treatment at the tap might be most cost-effective. A specific plan would be developed for each user and
domestic use well.
3.7 Community Involvement Program
After the GWMA Plan Update has been approved by DSHW, TEAD will meet with the state, county, and
municipal stakeholders to present the GWMA Plan update. Stakeholders include the Utah DWR, Tooele
City, Tooele County, and the Tooele County Health Department, as well as residents of the Erda area that
may potentially be affected.
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
16
4.0 REFERENCES
Brice Engineering, LLC (Brice). 2022a. Uniform Federal Policy-Quality Assurance Project Plan, Tooele
Army Depot North, Utah. February.
Brice. 2022b. Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report, Tooele Army Depot North . Final. March.
Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste (DSHW). 2003. Re: Interim Remedial Action, SWMU 58, Tooele
Army Depot, Utah. Letter from Dennis Downs, DSHW, to Tom Turner, TEAD, dated 28 July 2003 .
DSHW. 2013 . Administrative Rules for Cleanup Action and Risk-Based Closure Standards . Utah
Department of Environmental Quality. R315-101, Utah Administrative Code. Effective 25 April
2013.
Johnson , Troy. 2022. Personal communication regarding existing restrictions on groundwater
development and use within TEAD. 8 March.
Parsons. 2004. Groundwater Management Area Plan -Northeast Boundary Plume. Tooele Army Depot,
Tooele, Utah. March.
Parsons. 2005. SWMU-58 Risk Assumptions Document, Revision 1, Tooele Army Depot, Tooele, Utah.
July.
Parsons . 2008. Phase II RCRA Facility Investigation Report, SWMU-58, Tooele Army Depot, Tooele, Utah .
December.
Parsons. 2010. Groundwater Management Area Plan, SWMU-58 Plume. August.
Parsons . 2012. Corrective Measures Study Report, Tooele Army Depot, Tooele, Utah . June .
Parsons . 2014. Corrective Measures Implementation Program Plan for Groundwater. April.
Tooele Army Depot (TEAD). 2017. Utah Hazardous Waste Post-Closure Permit for Post-Closure
Monitoring and Corrective Action of Solid Waste Management Units for Tooele Army Depot,
Tooele, Utah. November.
USACE Hydrologic Engineering Center, Tetra Tech, and Brice. 2021. Tooele Army Depot Groundwater
Flow and Contaminant Transport Model Report (2021). December.
Utah Department of Natural Resources Division of Water Rights (DWR). 1996. Tooele Valley Ground-
Water Management Plan. 27 February 1996.
Utah DWR. 2004. Amendment to Tooele Valley Ground-Water Management Plan. Letter to Water Users
from Jerry D. Olds, State Engineer. 21 September 2004.
Utah DWR. 2022. Water Rights Database . Available online at
https://waterrights.utah.gov/wrinfo/guery.asp . Accessed 17 February 2022 .
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
17
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
This page intentionally blank
18
TABLES
This page intentionally blank
WIN 1
WATER
LATITUDE3
RIGHT{s)2
19 15-3314 40 .602558
74 15-3097 40.602601
728 15-3339 40.584657
1333 15-3113 40.601707
1513 15-3038 40.603498
1514 15-3361 40.595719
2039 15-799 40 .601037
2367 15-3148 40.572588
2603 15-310 40.508403
2618 15-377 40.520230
2672 15-2646 40 .542955
2801 15-321 40.522980
2864 15-321 40.519498
4882 15-3380 40.594765
5922 15-413 40.594008
6038 15-3141 40.588487
6301 15-2974 40.595896
7232 15-383 40 .600865
7518 15-3484 40.596289
7618 15-3469 40.593091
8233 15-2178 40.524082
8474 15-3499 40.593047
8558
15-3483, 15-40.596420
4171
8579 15-3350 40 .604107
8849 15-3130 40.592933
9137 15-3519 40 .604581
9290 15-729 40.601550
9537 15-3019 40.595849
9541 15-1704 40.589886
9549 15-3037 40.552767
9621
15-3564, 15-
40.592268 3837
10337
15-3840, 15-
4810
40.592138
10571 15-3622 40.592822
11015 15-3420 40.597738
11274 15-3189, 15-
3916 40.593208
Table3-1
Water Wells Within 2 Miles of SWMU-58 Plume Boundary
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
LONGITUDE 3 DEPTH (feet) USE
-112.355742 235 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112 .356265 474 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.411764 177 Irrigation and Domestic
-112.320391 218 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.355931 414 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.393669 170 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.332590 250 Irrigation and Stock
-112 .386908 260 Stock
-112.351129 763 Irrigation, Domestic, and
Industrial
-112.346321 700 Irrigation, Domestic, and
Industrial
-112 .392751 430 Stock
-112 .306861 589 Municipal
-112 .330558 1025 Municipal
-112 .391315 365 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112 .357318 325 Irrigation
-112.417621 188 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112 .354827 140 Irrigation and Domestic
-112 .366164 650 Irrigation and Domestic
-112 .393533 100 Irrigation and Domestic
-112 .304524 125 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.329047 1000 Municipal
-112.308420 217 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.391105 400 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.355743 315 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112 .310758 260 Irrigation and Stock
-112 .356304 374 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.352689 379 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.390661 123 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.418394 131 Irrigation
-112.345555 264 Other
-112 .307604 191 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.306216 207 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.312287 190 Irrigation and Domestic
-112 .341683 600 Stock
-112.322330 240 Irrigation
NOTES
Within GWMA boundary.
Depot supply well WW-1. Within 1 mile of plume
boundarv.
Depot supply well WW3 . Within 1 mile of plume
boundarv.
Depot stock well. Within 1 mile of plume
boundarv.
Well No.5
Well No. 8. Within 1 mile of plume boundary.
Within 1 mile of plume boundary.
Well No. 7. Within 1 mile of plume boundary.
Used for restrooms and gravel pit operations.
Within plume and GWMA boundaries.
Page 1 of6
WIN 1
WATER
LATITUDE3
RIGHT{s)2
11503 15-3579 40 .604990
11763 15-3516 40.606487
12187 15-618 40 .603112
12568 15-3658 40.607623
12619 15-2833 40.564179
12715 15-418 40.597954
12716 15-885 40.599418
12717 15-1229 40.600559
12730 15-750 40 .602012
12731 15-1931 40 .595057
12732 15-1927 40 .600970
12733 15-441 40 .600757
12819 15-507 40.594128
12820 15-1954 40.595513
12823 15-2347 40.597023
12843 15-3024 40 .601740
12844 15-1683 40 .604212
12845 15-2488, 15-40 .608129 3707
12847 15-1771 40.599794
13100 15-3657, 15-40 .606031 3717
13956 15-3649, 15-40 .606680
3651
14546 15-3623 40.592852
14556 15-3585 40 .604844
14575 15-3640 40.591768
14702 15-3566 40 .602564
15763 15-3727 40.592033
17202 15-3588 40.593403
17212 15-3902 40.592034
17247 15-3625 40.593165
18697
15-3636, 15-
40.592327
4054
19017 15-3328 40.601717
20819 15-3664 40.587147
21264 15-4097 40.597540
21801 15-383 40 .601285
21902 15-3635 40.592114
Table3-1
Water Wells Within 2 Miles of SWMU-58 Plume Boundary
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
LONGITUDE 3 DEPTH (feet) USE
-112.358349 273 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112 .359299 439 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112 .317648 250 Stock and Domestic
-112.356124 385 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.425815 210 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.343232 500 Irrigation and Stock
-112.338750 Domestic
-112 .342003 265 Stock and Domestic
-112.320217 316 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.315226 193 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.314040 320 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112 .323765 189 Stock
-112.390643 452 Irrigation and Stock
-112 .392293 251 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112 .391516 127 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112 .357858 323 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112 .358488 535 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112 .358622 495 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112 .378880 307 Irrigation and Stock
-112 .356741 370 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.355983 400 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.309870 280 Irrigation and Domestic
-112.355405 400 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.312039 240 Irrigation and Domestic
-112 .357356 390 Irrigation and Domestic
-112 .310931 139 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.307264 160 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.310161 156 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.304021 180 Irrigation and Domestic
-112.304999 201 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.334412 198 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.333276 117 Stock
-112.338646 459 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.362754 445 Irrigation and Domestic
-112.303993 180 Irrigation and Domestic
NOTES
Same as WIN 31310.
Cassity Well. Within GWMA boundary.
Page 2 of6
WIN 1
WATER
LATITUDE3
RIGHT{s)2
22516
15-3849, 15-
40.591965
5298
23326 15-321 40.528559
23625 15-4228 40.600691
23917 15-2349 40.597087
24411 15-390 40.603411
26343 15-4349 40 .600748
26952 15-1721 40.599964
27868 15-3883 40.601803
28152 15-4002 40.522592
28547 15-2178 40 .513926
28643 15-4348 40 .601721
29486 15-4347 40 .603866
29604 15-4345 40 .603018
29962 15-4346 40 .603392
29981 15-412 40 .600730
30139 15-360 40 .601182
30142 15-334, 15-40 .600757 3213
31037 15-4424 40 .601761
31208 15-372, 15-690, 40.594559 15-691
31209 15-372, 15-690 40.598303
31387 15-2465 40 .602025
31402 15-2496 40 .603516
31886 15-643 40 .607149
31887 15-822 40.599477
33028 15-2382 40 .601486
33134 15-1721 40 .600199
33531 15-2178 40.531118
33536 15-2383 40.601896
33540 15-986 40 .602083
33974 15-1679 40 .603203
33990 15-2381 40.601911
34060 15-4521 40.601710
34829 15-4510 40 .600245
35200 15-3841 40.593063
35575 15-4600 40.594037
Table3-1
Water Wells Within 2 Miles of SWMU-58 Plume Boundary
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
LONGITUDE 3 DEPTH (feet) USE
-112.308664 182 Irrigation and Stock
-112 .327228 586 Municipal
-112 .377407 210 Domestic
-112.392758 385 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.350488 343 Irrigation and Stock
-112.355299 300 Irrigation and Other
-112.379602 220 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.317324 196 Domestic
-112.313449 580 Irrigation
-112.306955 920 Municipal
-112.337621 236 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.313888 301 Irrigation and Domestic
-112.313795 260 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112 .313810 333 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.371356 648 Irrigation and Stock
-112 .370933 650 Irrigation and Stock
-112.371331 645 Irrigation and Stock
-112 .324866 84 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.316042 225 Municipal
-112 .316477 400 Municipal
-112.342640 273 Irrigation and Stock
-112.357474 535 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.328087 452 Irrigation and Stock
-112.327613 437 Irrigation
-112 .343375 283 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112 .379700 223 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.304879 1120 Municipal
-112.343088 263 Irrigation and Stock
-112.327171 281 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.358367 533 Irrigation and Domestic
-112.343935 282 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.338298 238 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.356486 352 Irrigation
-112.305964 230 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.392442 380 Irrigation and Domestic
NOTES
Same as WIN 22515
Well No. 6. Within 1 mile of plume boundary.
Owned by Salt Lake City Corporation . Associated
with airstrip.
Used for fire station by employees and for truck
washinR/fillinR.
Well No. 14 (Anderson Well)
Same as WIN 30138
Same as WIN 11329
Owned by Salt Lake City Corporation. Associated
with airstrio.
Well No . 15 (England Acres Well)
Owned by Salt Lake City Corporation. Associated
with airstrio.
Page 3 of 6
WIN 1
WATER
LATITUDE3
RIGHT{s)2
427209 15-2811 40 .602275
427230 15-2214 40.594935
427261 15-554 40.601171
427262 15-459 40.601247
427648 15-1478 40.601540
427791
15-4327
40.597573 a29682
427796
15-959, 15-
40.601659 2412
428584 15-542 40.596954
428588 15-550 40 .601761
429395 15-4247 40 .600431
430714 15-728 40 .597784
430727 15-420 40 .601435
431343 15-3399 40 .600263
433539 15-3298 40 .601247
435067 15-2566 40.601713
435144 15-566, 15-649 40.599659
435565 15-3508, 15-40 .601652 3509
436568 15-2178 40.542033
436579 15-3045 40.595262
438284 15-1761 40 .601787
439818 15-3301 40.595048
440130 15-574, 15-40 .597423 2568
440950 15-705, 15-40 .601646
1140
441120 15-4153 40 .602165
441782 15-3610 40.601837
443466 15-2178 40.557708
443673 15-719 40.600779
NA 15-1001 40.597972
NA 15-1062 40 .600469
NA 15-1093 40.597638
NA 15-1094 40.601575
NA 15-1094 40.601926
NA 15-1100 40.597758
NA 15-1102 40.597650
NA 15-2178 40.523904
Table3-1
Water Wells Within 2 Miles of SWMU-58 Plume Boundary
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
LONGITUDE 3 DEPTH (feet) USE
-112.313990 300 Irrigation and Stock
-112 .314302 180 Stock and Domestic
-112 .325971 220 Stock
-112.371013 100 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.353301 389 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.354652 346 Irrigation
-112.375615 620 Irrigation, Domestic, and Other
-112 .393547 143 Irrigation and Domestic
-112.324866 310 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.365701 225 Irrigation and Domestic
-112.340583 200 Irrigation
-112.323779 257 Irrigation
-112.342810 260 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112 .337468 46 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112 .333763 200 Irrigation and Domestic
-112.328499 300 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.332364 Unknown Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.305129 1000 Municipal
-112.392691 210 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.336899 300 Irrigation and Domestic
-112.393789 135 Irrigation and Domestic
-112.390624 525 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.332447 271 Irrigation and Stock
-112.314704 211 Irrigation
-112 .318650 185 Irrigation and Domestic
-112 .302531 850 Municipal
-112.340877 241 Irrigation and Domestic
-112.322834 150 Irrigation
-112.362514 145 Stock and Domestic
-112.338006 Unknown Stock
-112.341866 Unknown Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112 .341459 227 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.337162 204 Stock
-112.342165 200 Stock
-112.329209 1000 Municipal
NOTES
Used for egg farm operations.
Same coordinates as WIN 31037, but different
well dimensions.
Well No. 17 (Rodeo grounds well)
Well No. 19 (Berra Well)
Within 1 mile of plume boundary .
Page 4 of 6
WIN 1
WATER
LATITUDE3
RIGHT{s)2
NA 15-2183 40 .601199
NA 15-2526 40.601795
NA 15-2540 40.601177
NA 15-2569 40.599958
NA 15-2570 40.603703
NA 15-2570 40 .604755
NA 15-2571 40 .607514
NA 15-2631 40.606551
NA 15-2735 40 .600785
NA 15-2818 40 .601728
NA 15-2820 40 .603243
NA 15-308 40.599032
NA 15-3093 40 .602040
NA 15-3093 40 .604112
NA 15-3158 40.600928
NA 15-3212 40 .607991
NA 15-3355 40 .601583
NA 15-3382 40 .604369
NA 15-3386 40 .606533
NA 15-3445 40 .600851
NA 15-3932 40 .601596
NA 15-4092 40 .603534
NA 15-4097 40 .600930
NA 15-420 40.599559
NA 15-420 40.600894
NA 15-420 40.601446
NA 15-4226 40.601660
NA 15-4782 40 .601414
NA 15-497 40.601523
NA 15-5150 40 .605344
NA 15-536 40.601848
NA 15-536 40.602454
NA 15-550 40.601797
NA 15-555 40.600340
Table3-1
Water Wells Within 2 Miles of SWMU-58 Plume Boundary
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
LONGITUDE 3 DEPTH (feet) USE
-112 .337860 285 Stock and Domestic
-112 .340898 230 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112 .339732 210 Irrigation and Stock
-112.342984 232 Stock
-112.334973 Unknown Irrigation and Stock
-112.334292 Unknown Irrigation and Stock
-112.342055 Unknown Irrigation and Stock
-112 .333265 206 Stock
-112.340409 Unknown Irrigation and Stock
-112.322956 213 Irrigation
-112 .334406 Unknown Stock
-112.332389 450 Irrigation
-112.356391 474 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112 .356433 571 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.314615 433 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.355912 18 Irrigation
-112 .330075 201 Irrigation and Domestic
-112 .355446 400 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112 .356365 29 Irrigation
-112 .327103 300 Irrigation and Domestic
-112.330093 201 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.334671 230 Stock
-112 .314172 320 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112 .325291 500 Irrigation
-112.323840 Unknown Irrigation
-112.323793 Unknown Irrigation
-112.333103 265 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.353795 442 Irrigation
-112.339487 221 Irrigation and Domestic
-112.316609 286 Irrigation and Stock
-112 .339641 228 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.339488 Unknown Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.325245 212 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112 .327306 150 Stock
NOTES
Underground water drain
Underground water drain
Underground water drain
Well recently approved for replacement. Depth is
from proposed new well near this location.
Page 5 of 6
WIN 1
WATER
LATITUDE3
RIGHT{s)2
NA 15-563 40.579772
NA 15-581 40.601724
NA 15-602 40 .601216
NA 15-649 40.599477
NA 15-705 40.599957
NA 15-705 40 .603024
NA 15-720 40 .601417
NA 15-723 40 .604046
NA 15-727 40.597922
NA 15-750 40 .602206
NA 15-758 40 .603363
NA 15-797 40.597168
NA 15-823 40 .601464
NA 15-876 40 .608777
NA 15-877 40 .608797
NA 15-879 40 .607546
NA 15-881 40 .608614
NA 15-902 40 .601546
NA 15-959 40 .601086
NA 15-994 40 .601481
Notes:
Table3-1
Water Wells Within 2 Miles of SWMU-58 Plume Boundary
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
LONGITUDE 3 DEPTH (feet) USE
-112.387975 100-500 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112 .329988 201 Stock
-112.339892 241 Domestic
-112.327613 216 Irrigation and Domestic
-112 .343146 185 Irrigation
-112 .335554 225 Irrigation
-112 .360554 300 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.356297 571 Municipal
-112.340586 200 Irrigation
-112.320041 254 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.334289 200 Stock
-112 .389214 400 Stock
-112 .345770 352 Irrigation and Stock
-112.342080 200 Irrigation and Stock
-112 .342495 200 Irrigation and Stock
-112.339282 Unknown Irrigation
-112 .349317 200 Irrigation
-112 .335399 197 Irrigation and Domestic
-112.375581 Unknown Irrigation, Domestic, and Other
-112 .344492 240 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
For definitions, refer to the Acronyms and Abbreviations section.
NOTES
Status is ambiguous . Installation of well was
planned in 2007 but no record that it was
completed . Within 1 mile of plume boundary.
Owned by Stansbury Park Improvement District.
Use in database is categorized as irrigation and
domestic, but appears to better fit within
municioal cateRorv .
Underground water drain .
Used for egg farm operations.
1. Some wells (particularly older wells) have not been assigned WINs but exist and are active according to available records. Wells are sorted by WIN then by water right
number for wells without WINs.
2. There is not a one-to-one relationship between wells and water rights. A single well may be associated with multiple water rights, or multiple wells may have the same water
right .
3. Coordinates are based on World Geodetic System 1984 ellipsoid.
Page 6 of 6
FIGURES
This page intentionally blank
~ ,,;
Q)
·~
-g
_g
Q)
E
~
~I
X
::;;,
iii
c3
~ u a ::,
a..' ::;;
~,
z,
~
~
~
:E a,
::,
Cl)
"
,-------------------------------------------... ~---
//
Mai nlP.lumeU o:~
,·
' ' ,' ,,
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ~
' '
-._
'6!'1 ~~ ~ ·p
!NEB]P,lumeffi@
~
~
~
' ·~
#
# ,
·,._ --,
\
\
' '
~I
~ fill P. \.~ ~<::,:.t
\
pxw·s11aMJa1eM11e (-£ ::IIOXV>J nsm 1a1ep n dV>JMEI N 0\131\Sl\llilV>JBns
• .. ,
• I --....
pxw·1e p1unwnnsawop z-£ ::IIOXVII l\SIE> 1a1ep n dl'IIME> N O\f31\Sl\fil11'11Bns
0
<9
--....
pxw·uo!)e !JJ! £-£ ::IIOXV\I l\SIE) 1e1ep n dV\IMEI N OV31\SlVillVIIBns
--....
pxw-~001s I>-£ :1\0XVII l\SIE> 1a1ep n dVIIME> N 0'<131\Sl'o'lilVIIBnS
--....
pxw·pu1wwoo g-£ ::1\0XVII l\SIE> 1a1ep n dl'IIME> N 0'<131\Sl'o'illl'IIBnS
'<::?oa1 s--·
<::;()3'
~--"
,-------------------------------------------~~-~
8 ~2 s -
,/ 1; ' ~ ™~o
# I .......... S
11 llif!mkl / 'Cl { . -v; J ] ,,'_:...__ . ~
C:
~
C:
0
i'
ILi
~ ::;;
[ii
c3
§
"' "' ::::,
ll.l
::;;
~
(!)
I
z,
I ~
~
"' ::::,
Cl) m
-'"-~--6\
'(::?'f9
'<::1521~--
B!18 s
e!62 s
B!f2 s
B107l s
M~O~1
~
0J25J& _.
~10]22t I M~3.
s
0!1.5. s
0?03' s __ ,
,, [0!1~1 ,~s ~,
\,
'
Mroa1 r
\t!fO'
·1,"= B?:09 ~s )s;
'
0!1 s
I
~
B?:'fO -·s ,~
9<::!1~1
s
Ss
s
s a.
~,a
~
,
0
/'"' 0
,,
0 0 ,< 0 0
0 ,/ ,
~ 0 0 ,/ 0 0 0 /' 0
/0 0 I , 0 0 0 "' ,
0 0 0 0 ~0 0
0 ' 0
0 0 0
0 0
" 0 0
0 0 0 0
0
0 0 ✓ 0
" 0 0 0
0
0
0
0 0 0 0
0 0
pxw·suo11e:io1 U! ne L-£ ::I IOXl/>J l\SIE> 1a1ep n dl/>JME> N O\f31\Sl\filll/>JBns
z
I
Q
~ w
I=
pxw ·seµepunos ::JI 8·£ .:11axv,i (IS1£l 1e1ep n dv.JM£l N O\f31\Sl\fl.llv.JBns
AppendixG
Well Records
-PJoposed Determination Book for Tooele Valley Division . Tooele City Subdivision. Area: 15 Book Number: 4 Page: 75 -1------Northwest Quarter ------•------Northeas t Quar ter------•------Southwest Quarter------•------Southeast Qu arter ------1
as TOWN RANG sci NW I NE I sw I SE • NW I NE I sw I SE • NW I NE I sw I SE • NW I NE I sw I SE I
SL 3s 4W 16 l ___ l ___ l ___ l ___ •x Ix Ix Ix • I I I • I I I I
LIMITATION{s) --Water Right 15-3130 is limited to:
an annual diversion for Irrigation of 1.0000 acre-feet
EXPLANATORY:
The originally authorized use of water is described herein , however, the
owner has amended the use of water under this right. A change application
[a36614] for this amendment has been filed and is being processed by the State
Engineer. As part of the change application process , required proof of
beneficial use documents will evidence and define the amendment.
The described place of use for this water right has not been mapped on the
hydrographic survey maps. The exact location of the historic irrigation cannot
be determined because the water use is no longer occurring at the heretofore
location of t he change application .
Group Total:
Sectio n!
Total s ]
56 .27 00 1
160 .8 2 00
--~-------------------~--------------~
58 15-3148 NAME: Grantsville Soil Conservation District
TYPE OF RIGHT: A61910
FLOW: 0.015 cfs OR 5.404 acft
POINT OF DIVERSION --UNDERGROUND:
INTEREST: 100%
PRIORITY: Jul 16 , 1986
SOURCE: Underground Water Well(s)
[1] N 3013 feet E 610 feet from the SW corner, Section 11 T 3S R 5W SLB&M
We ll Diameter: 6 inches Well Depth: 260 feet
DECREED
03 O 1
Date of Publication: November 02. 2010
-Proposed Determination Book for Tooele Vallev Division. Tooele Citv Subdivision . Area: 15 Book Number: 4 Page: 76 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------· -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------·
BENEFICIAL USE:
Water Use Group No. 9824.
STOCKWATER:from Nov 01 to Apr 30 SOLE SUPPLY: 500 .0000 ELUs of the Group Total of 500 .0000 .
This right is used for winter grazing only now that the water user connected to Grantsville City's
Municipal Water System .
PLACE OF USE (Stockwatering): [which includes all or part of the following legal subdivisions:]
NORTH-WEST 0 NORTH-EAST 0 SOUTH-WEST 0 SOUTH-EAST 0
BASE TOWN RANG SEC NW NE SW SE NW NE SW SE NW NE SW SE NW NE SW SE
SL 3S SW 03 X X X X *** X X X X *** X X X X *** X X X X
SL 3S SW 04 X X X *** X X X X *** X X X X *** X X X X
SL 3S SW 09 X X X X *** X X X X *** X X X X *** X X X X
SL 3S SW 10 X X X X *** X X X X *** X X X X *** X X X X
SL 3S SW 11 X X X *** X X *** X X X X *** X X X X
LIMITATION(s) --Water Right 15-3148 is limited to:
an annual diversion for Stockwatering of 5.4040 acre-feet
F
03
AJ= D
1
---------------------------------------------------------::J
59 15-3171 NAME: Cyrus Land Investments LLC % Mathew R. Arbshay INTEREST: 100%
TYPE OF RIGHT: A62238 PRIORITY: Jan 13, 1987
FLOW: 0 .015 cfs OR 7 acft SOURCE: Honerine Mine Tunnel
POINT OF DIVERSION --UNDERGROUND:
[1] S 2855 feet W 3270 feet from the NE corner, Section 13 T 4S R 5W SLB&M
Date of Publication: November 02, 2010
F°Rf'Ce1'ffi' 1 t JUL 161986
-J6 63 -46
Application No/1ielg_,_Q _____ _
APPLICATION TO APPROPRIATE WATER J5-3J'-IH
STATE OF UTAH
Wl(f(ft:-Rt8+tliionnation given in the following blanks should be free from explanatory matter, but when necessary, a complete
supp)ementary statement should be made on the following page under the heading "Explanatory."
For the purpose of acquiring the right to use a portion of the unappropriated water of the State of
Utah, for uses indicated by (X) in the proper box or boxes, application is hereby made to the State
Engineer, based upon the following showing of facts, submitted in accordance with the requirements of
the Laws of Utah. /-8(0-~""2--4 :::2 , -"1
1. Irrigation C Domestic~ Stockwateringl]) Municipal □ Power D Mining □ Other UsesO
2. The name of the applicant is ___ Gr.an_t.sJiille __ .S.oil __ £.n.n.s.e..r_1La-t.i.o..n--ll.is-t.i:.i..c..t---·--······--···-··
3. The Post Office address of the applicant is ... 4 5 0 .. Sou th·-2nd_. West __ Too e 1 e, .. UT ..... 84 0 7 4 ·---• 4. The quantity of water to be appropriated ... !._QJ . .2 ___ ··-··· second.feet and/or ..... ]:.~.~···---·acre•feet
5. The water is to be used for ··-~~~.~-~-::_:.~,-----·--·---···-·-from_Q.,$:f __ J. ______ ._to ·-~~-3_1. .. _ ..
(Major Purpose) (Month) ( Day) (\fonth) (Day)
other use period..._ ___ ·----_i:.,. •• _ _______ __ ·-········-···from·--------······to···-~----------·-····
(Minor Purpose) (Month) (Day) (Month) (Day)
and stored each year (if stored) from ·····--···-------·---------··---------·------· to -----·------------------------
( Month) (Day) (Month) (Day)
6. The drainage area to which the direct source of supply belongs is ______ ···---···-··-----··-·-·-----------·----------·-----
(Leave Blank)
7. The dire ct source of supply is* --·----·----un..d.er_g.:c.o..urui. ____ . ____ . ____ .. ________ . ______ . ___ ._ .. __ . __ . ___ . __ .. ____ ···--·-·--··-·
(Name of stream or other source)
which is tributary to-------·-------------·---------·------------------------------------, tributary to ··----········-····-·················
*Note.-Where water is to be diverted from a well, a tunnel, or drain, the source should be designated as "Underground Water" in the
first space and the remaining spaces should be left blank. If the s,>urce is a sti'eam, a spring, a spring area, or a drain, so indicate in the first
space, giving its name, if named, and in the remaining spaces, designate the stream channels to which it is tributary, even though the water
may sink, evaporate, or be diverted before reaching said channels. If water from a spring flows in a natural surface channel before being
diverted, the direct source should be designated as a stream and not a spring.
8. The point of diversion from the source is in._ .. I.o.o-e.l~···--··········-··-·····-···County, situated at a point*
·-·····E.a.s..t. .. 3..0.0 •• ..£.e.e..t. .. .&..~u-t-h.-·3.0.Q.-.£~-t ... £~--0111-••t:h-e-••-N-W•-.Co~.Jl..e~ .. -o.f ... S_e_c..t..i.n.n. .. .2. ... _ ..... .
·-····-T 3 South •• R 5 ~·West~~ SL B&M·-=r• ~J e: l-e s ~~~~~4 ~ {~a[~G ro.-=As 0 ~I{~)-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*Note.-The point of diversion must be located definitely by course and distance or by giving the distances north or south, and east or
west with reference to a United States land survey corner or United States mineral monument, if within a distance of six miles of either, or if
at a greater distance, to some prominent and permanent natural object. No application will be received for filing in which the point of
diversion is not defined definitely. 1
9. The diverting and carrying works will consist of .B ... .6 .. in.c_h ... ~.i'LS.in_g .. J.~Q ....... f.e.e.t ... d.e.e.p ..... .
·····--·A--.L-.l•L4.!_._.c.o.n.v..e.y.a.n.c.e ___ p.i.f>-e._.t.o ... p.l.a:::..e.. .. .n_f_ .. lLS.e ....................... -....... _ ..... -.... _._ ...... _ .......... .
10. If water is to be stored, give capacity of reservoir in acre.feet -·················-········"--height of dam-········-·
area inundated in acres ··-·······-·-·-········.legal subdivision of area inundated······-····-··················-·············
11. If application is for irrigation purposes, the legal subdivisions of the area irrigated are as follows: •
, .... +i.~
-···-····---·······--···--·-···--··--····-····--··---·······-·-·-··· ·-··-··-·-··--·······-····-·········-·-········· Tot al .. ~z:? . .£!.:" ..... _ .... Acres
12. Is the land owned by the applicant? Yes ..... ..I.-.. -. No_ ......... If "No," explain on page 2.
13. Is this water to be used supplementally with other water rights? Yes -········-····No _.X_ ........ .
If "yes," identify other water rights on page 2.
14. If application is for power purposes, describe type of plant, size and rated capacity.··········-····--····-···--·
15. If application is for mining, the water will be used in················-····-····················-·····Mining District at
the···-···--····-·····-··---···--······-···--···· mine, where the following ores are mined······-·-··-····-··········-··--··-·-···-
16. If application is for stockw~ri~ .f~r~~s~syn!:~b_:,r a_:11_kind_;>f.,stocf,,;vateird ._5.QO_ .. c.a.t.tl.e.._ ..... .
-.
I
I
I
I
~------------~
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
0)
~
14. EXPLANATORY -(Water right 15-3148, Application a 17255
The system consists of a six inch well pumped into two
concrete storage -tanks each having di-mansions of 20. 68 feet by
20.68 feet by 3.0 feet deep. The storage capacity of each tank is
approximately 9,600 gallons. The floor of the tanks is set
approximately 1 foot below the grade of the surrounding ground.
Each tank is -covered with a pitched, wood frame and asphalt shingle
roof. Both tanks are enclosed within a 6 foot -chain link fence.
Piping from the well to the storage tanks and connecting the tanks
is 2 inch schedule 40 PVC.
Water is distributed from the storage tanks by gravity flow
through 1-1/2 inch schedule 40 PVC pi-pe to 12 troughs. The troughs
are 12 foot diameter galvanized, c-orrugated steel with a depth of
1~8 feet placed on 18 foot diameter concrete pads. One line runs in
a westerly direction from the storage tanks through approximately
10,235 feet of pipe feeding 4 troughs. A gate valve at each trough
location diverts water from the main line into the troughs. A
second line runs northerly through approximately 5,190 feet of pipe
to feed the remaining two troughs.
: . ' .. ' , ..
'I' .. -. ·,,:
k ,.
t •·,:
f
. / • .. •. "'.'"::,' • .
FORM '9
IN THE OFflCE OF THE STATE f.N<llNHA OF THf. STATE 0, UTAH
AEOUfST FOA REINSTATEMENT ANO E.ICTENSION OF TIME
111!0,1 Fourtwn Yur1t
A .. llCATION NO 374-43 (l~-1446)
.STATE OF UTAH
COUNTY OF __ T_ooe_,_l_e _____ _
,.., i ~ ••
H. JAMES CLEQG .ho 1119 first duly _,,n that he,, the 1..-,,t of thel _,.,
of the at>ow numberwd appl.c.11011, that hi knowi of hll 011,., knowl«tgt of the conttruct,on of WOtkt compwred
to date .
Oetcribe briefly the type and tllttnt ol oonstructoon complttad to date; cost of mil cx,nstruct,on, and the
est,mated oost of any remaining comtruct,on to be done lo, co,,.,i.tion of pro,act Mid to tubmit Proof of
App,opr..Wion. Give n, .. .ont why the work oould not bl comf)let9d llld wat., put to ~icial ""'wimin twne
hffetofore all<Med. Clegg Live ■tock ccap;any u,q\Jired the re.,l e■tate and "·ater
permit from Terracor. A -11 had been drilled and enca,ed to a reported
Jepth of 300 feet. There i ■ insufficient pr~■•'Jre for -£rte ■ian flow and
there i ■ no electrical or ga ■ power clo ■e to the well. we plan to bring
V .P. & L. power to the ■ite, if at all poa ■ible. Otherwi ■e, we will in ■tall
a submergible pump which will be operated ~y battery and provide a tank for
storage between pumping ■.
Request ,s made for re1nst11tement and extPn!ion of lime for filing proof
fro~ctober 31 , 19 E, to ___ o_c_t_o_b_e_r_l_l ________ , 19 i
Aff,ant understands . he will be. notified of • rearing date, at which time he or his rapretentati~ must attend, be
able 10 defend data !liven;. and affiant upon oath Stites that the information given above is to the best of his
knowledge true and correct . CLEnG LIVESTOCK COMPANY, INC.
BY:
, I . -1
/ . ; / (; ·,_ •1 r;'Vice President
.-~ -% >
APP(ICANT
(If I corporation , giw totle . of officer s,gningl
Subscrolled and sworn 10 before,.,.. tnis __ l_O_t_h __ dav of ___ o_c_t_o_b_e_r ________ _ 19.21
NOTARY .
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
PROOF DUE DATE __ .1,,..._:.,c.:..'---'~'------14 YEAR PERIOD ENDS L. / '-• ''. c
HEARING ______________________________ _
APPLICANT DID APPEAR ________ APPLICANT DID NOT APPEAR _____ _
APPLICANT REPRESE~TED BY _____________________ _
... , .
Appendix H
Environmental Professional Qualifications
WASATCH
• ENVIRONMENTAL
Jeffrey Hessburg
Staff Geologist
Education
B.S. Geology, 2019
University of Wisconsin -Eau Claire
Registration / Certification / Accreditation
Utah Soil and Groundwater Sampler (GS 1874)
Related Experience
Environmental Assessment Services
Mr. Hessburg professional experience includes, conducting Phase I Environmental Site
Assessments (Phase I ESA), Subsurface Investigation field work, and geotechnical field work.
Mr. Hessburg has experience in groundwater sampling, sub-slab, and sub-surface soil sampling.
Mr . Hessburg's field experience varies from physical research of agriculture lands, vacant lots,
and commercial uses . Mr. Hessburg has assisted in drilling activities, soil sampling, and
groundwater sampling.
Wasatch Environmental
WASATCH
• ENVIRONMENTAL
Related Experience
Environmental Assessment Services
Audra Heinze!
Senior Project Environmental Scientist
Education
B.A. Environmental Studies, with a minor in Biology, 2003
Registration / Certification I Accreditation
OSHA 40-Hour Hazardous Materials Operation
Utah Certified Asbestos Inspector
Utah Certified Asbestos Contractor Supervisor
Utah Certified Asbestos Project Designer
Utah Certified Lead Inspector
Salt Lake County Pre-Demolition Inspector
Utah Soil and Groundwater Sampler
Utah Certified UST Remover
Ms. Heinzel has been a practicing environmental scientist for more than 18 years in the areas of
industrial hygiene, environmental due diligence, subsurface investigations, remediation,
ecological toxicology, and ecological risk assessments. Ms. Heinzel is also a Geographic
Information System (GIS) Specialist. Responsibilities have included asbestos inspections, lead-
based paint inspections, hazardous materials inspections, hazardous materials abatement and
remediation oversight and management, RFP creation, indoor and outdoor air quality
investigations and monitoring, field sampling and analysis plans, producing field investigation
reports, project management of personnel and budgets, supervising drilling and sampling
activities, core logging, remediation, sample processing, contamination control, equipment and
personnel decontamination, waste management, ensuring compliance with OSHA health and
safety requirements, mapping and drafting.
Additional Site Assessment and Remediation Experience
Ms. Heinzel is experienced in environmental assessments (including HUD, Freddie MAC and
Fannie May compliant reports and environmental checklists), asbestos, lead-based paint, mold
and hazardous materials surveys; pre-demolition surveys; asbestos abatement project design
and Operation and Maintenance plans; and responding to small and large scale situations in
which hazardous materials releases have impacted the soil and/or groundwater creating
various potential hazards. The following are examples of this experience;
• Numerous Asbestos Sampling and Demolition Oversight, Utah, Idaho, Arizona: Certified
asbestos inspector that has participated in asbestos sampling for demolition and
remodeling purposes.
• Demolition Sampling and Oversight, Utah: Certified asbestos contractor supervisor that has
performed various alternative work practice sampling and oversight as the OSHA
"competent person".
• Asbestos in Soil Abatement, Utah: Designed the project cleanup, interfaced with agency,
and oversaw abatement of over 4,000 cubic yards of asbestos-contaminated soil and debris
for British Petroleum.
• Radon Sampling, Utah: Residential radon sampling.
• Lead Paint: Lead-based and lead-containing paint investigations and surveys for private
companies and Federal agencies.
• Mold Sampling, Utah: Various mold sampling prior to and after mold abatement.
• Air Quality Monitoring and Investigations, Utah: Numerous indoor and outdoor air quality
investigations and monitoring for hazardous materials during abatement and remediation.
• Numerous Phase I and II Environmental Site Assessments projects, Utah, Arizona, Nevada:
Wasatch Environmental
WASATCH
• ENVIRONMENTAL
Environmental Assessment Services
Various soil investigative activities to determine impact of petroleum products and solvents
at the sites. Various remediation activities including impacted soil removal and disposal.
• Historical dry cleaning properties, Salt Lake City, Utah: Site investigations at former dry
cleaning properties where soil and groundwater contamination have occurred.
• Underground Storage Tank Closures, Utah: Removal and disposal of USTs per Utah
Department of Environmental Response and Remediation UST closure rules and remediation
of releases from the USTs.
• Remedial Investigation, Afton, Wyoming: remediation of dioxin contaminated soil resulting
from historical pole dipping operations.
• Various Brownfields projects, Arizona: Various soil and groundwater investigations of
potential Brownfields sites.
• City of Phoenix Light Rail, Phoenix, Arizona: Soil and groundwater investigation activities,
as well as, removal and disposal of contaminated soil due to the release of PCE at a site.
• 98-acres of squatter land, Buckeye, Arizona: Soil and asbestos investigation and
remediation activities due to numerous contaminant releases.
• Various Circle-K gas stations, Arizona: Soil and groundwater investigative activities and
supervision of soil removal for abatement due to various releases of petroleum substances
at the site. Supervision of monitoring well installation and sampling.
• Luke Air Force Base, Surprise, Arizona: 500 base housing asbestos sampling and
remediation for renovation and demolition activities.
• Numerous agricultural Phase I and II projects, Arizona: Various soil investigative activities
to determine impact of pesticides and herbicides at the sites. Various remediation
activities including impacted soil removal and disposal and AULs.
• ArcView GIS drafting: Ms. Heinze! has developed and been involved with the creation of
various GIS programs and mapping projects.
Ms. Heinze! has been involved with projects where soil and groundwater have been impacted
with gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel, waste oil, heating oil and halogenated hydrocarbons,
dioxins and furans, pentachlorophenol, and various solvents. Soil remedial technologies
utilized include soil vapor extraction, landfill disposal, and hazardous waste disposal in Canada.
Wasatch Environmental
WASATCH
• ENVIRONMENTAL
Julie H. Kilgore, President
Environmental Manager
Environmental Assessment Services
Julie H. Kilgore is President of Wasatch Environmental, an
environmental science and engineering firm based out of Salt
Lake City, Utah. She has over 25 years experience in
environmental assessment, investigation, remediation, and
regulatory agency coordination.
Since 2000, Ms. Kilgore has chaired the national task force
responsible for developing the revisions to the ASTM 1527 Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment Standard, and was appointed by
EPA to serve on the regulatory negotiation Federal Advisory
Committee to assist EPA in developing the federal All Appropriate
Inquiry regulation. In addition to ASTM International, Julie has
been involved in the Environmental Affairs Committee of the Salt
Lake Chamber of Commerce, the Envision Utah Brownfields Task Force, and was recently elected
to the Environmental Bankers Association Board of Governors.
Experience
Ms. Kilgore conducts or oversees professional services related to property transactions and
redevelopment projects including All Appropriate Inquiries (Phase I), site
investigations/delineations, and remedial implementation and oversight.
Ms. Kilgore has been directly involved in various phases of hundreds of environmental site
assessments for lenders, buyers, home builders, large retail developers, ski resorts, tribes,
municipalities, and federal agencies. Ms. Kilgore provides and/or oversees turn-key
environmental consulting ranging from Phase I Environmental Site Assessments, through
investigation/site characterization and remediation. Redevelopment projects have included
multi-parcel big-box store acquisitions in historical industrialized areas, and major
renovation/change-of-use projects for transitional low-income housing. Ms. Kilgore has also
provided environmental due diligence for conservation acquisition projects.
Standards Development and Rulemaking
As the current chair of the national ASTM E1527 Phase I ESA task force and as chair of the past
chair of ASTM Committee E50, Ms. Kilgore directly participates in the on-going development of
the various standard practice and guidance documents related to environmental assessments
and commercial property transactions. Standard documents currently under consideration
within ASTM include revisions to the D6008 Standard Practice for Conducting Environmental
Baseline Surveys, and the E2790 Standard Guide Identifying and Complying with Continuing
Obligations, to address "continuing obligations" associated with CERCLA landowner liability
protections.
As a result of Ms. Kilgore's role with ASTM, Wasatch Environmental was appointed by EPA to
represent the Environmental Professional category of stakeholders for the EPA regulatory
negotiation rulemaking process for developing the "All Appropriate Inquiry" regulation as
commissioned by Congress in the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization
Act of 2002. Ms . Kilgore's direct involvement in developing the ASTM E1527 standard provided
EPA with unique insight into the process designed to satisfy specific elements related to
innocent landowner, bona fide prospective purchaser, or contiguous property owner liability
protections to CERCLA liability.
Wasatch Environmental, Inc.
WASATCH
• ENVIRONMENTAL
Environmental Assessment Services
This EPA regulation for All Appropriate Inquiries was promulgated in October 2005 and became
effective November 2006. As the ASTM E1527 Task Force chair, Ms. Kilgore facilitated direct
EPA participation as ASTM worked to modify the E1527 to comply with the EPA All Appropriate
Inquiry regulation. Ms. Kilgore continues to facilitate EPA participation with each E1527
standard practice revision process to ensure an EPA reference to the most current ASTM E1527
standard practice as being compliant with the EPA All Appropriate Inquiry regulation.
Training and Industry Outreach
As a result of Ms. Kilgore's involvement in development of industry standards, federal
regulation, and local policies, she assisted in the development of numerous Phase I ESA,
Transaction Screen, and Phase II Environmental Site Assessment training courses, and conducts
industry training courses throughout the country. These training courses include the following:
• ASTM International CELI-Accredited Phase I/Phase II ESA Training Classes, 2004-2021
• Understanding Environmental Due Diligence Reports, Salt Lake Board of Realtors,
1994 -2021
• CLE-Accredited Current State of Environmental Due Diligence, Bloomberg BNA, 2014
• Bureau of Land Management ASTM E1527 and AAI Training, 2014 -2016
• EPA Region VII, Region IX, and Region X ASTM 1527 and AAI Training;
• Environmental Issues in Property Development, National Business Institute, 2011
• National Guard National Environmental Training Conference, 2007, 2008, 2009, and
2015
Ms. Kilgore has conducted industry outreach for professional organizations and participated in
national conference panel presentations regarding Phase I Environmental Assessments, All
Appropriate Inquiry, and 2002 Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act.
Recent events include:
• Environmental Due Diligence, Current State of the Practice Webinars, 2013 -2021
• Pennsylvania Association of Environmental Professionals -Communities, Corridors &
Connections Conference, 2021
• Environmental Bankers Association, Risk Management Series, 2020 -2021
• Bridging Environmental and Appraisal, Environmental Bankers Association, 2015
• Strategies for Implementing ASTM E1527-13, GeoSearch Four-Part Training Series, 2015
• Identifying and Managing Impacted Waters of the State, NAIOP 2014
• ASTM E1527-13 and Vapor Intrusion" American Bar Association, 2014
• Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management, 2014
• EPA Brownfields Conferences, 2003 -2011;
• RTM Communications National Conferences, 2003-2011;
Publications and Awards
SES/ ASTM Robert J. Painter Award, 2013
"Brownfields, A Comprehensive Guide to Redevelopment Contaminated Property, Third
Edition," Chapter 6 "Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments," American Bar
Association, 2010
ASTM Award of Merit, 2009
"Working Together; The Recent History of the Practice for Phase I Environmental Site
Assessments," ASTM International Standardization News, June 2006
"All Appropriate Inquiry and Brownfields Redevelopment," Air & Waste Management
Association, EM Magazine, December 2005
Kilgore, J., "All Appropriate Standards," Brownfields News, Vol. 1, March 2004.
Wasatch Environmental, Inc.
WASATCH ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
UPDATE
GRANTSVILLE SOIL CONSERVATION
PROPERTY
UT-112
GRANTSVILLE, UTAH 84029
Project No. 2649-004A
Prepared for:
Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands
Administration
Mr. Eric Baim
102 South 200 East, #600
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
March 28, 2024
Prepared by:
Wasatch Environmental, Inc.
2410 West California Avenue
Salt Lake City, Utah 84104
2410 WEST CALIFORNIA AVENUE
SALTLAKECITY, UTAH84104
PHONE [phone]
FAX [phone]
e-mail: [e-mail]
www.wasatch-environmenta/.com
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Grantsville Soil Conservation Property
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page No.
1. SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................................... 1
2. PRIOR REPORTS ........................................................................................................................... 1
3. USER PROVIDED INFORMATION ................................................................................................. 2
3.1 Environmental Liens and Activity/Use Limitations .............................................................. 2
3.2 Specialized Knowledge or Experience ................................................................................ 2
3.3 Valuation Reduction for Environmental Issues ................................................................... 2
3.4 Commonly Known or Reasonably Ascertainable Information ............................................ 3
3.5 Degree of Obviousness ...................................................................................................... 3
4. REVIEW OF GOVERNMENT RECORDS ....................................................................................... 3
Subject Property .................................................................................................................. 3
Adjoining Properties ............................................................................................................ 3
Other Government Database Listings ................................................................................. 4
5. INTERVIEWS ................................................................................................................................... 4
5.1 Owner/Occupant/Key Site Manager ................................................................................... 4
5.2 Interviews with State and/or Local Government Officials ................................................... 4
6. SITE RECONNAISSANCE .............................................................................................................. 5
6.1 Methodology and Limiting Conditions ................................................................................. 5
6.2 General Observations ......................................................................................................... 5
6.2.1 Underground Storage Tanks .................................................................................. 5
6.2.2 Aboveground Storage Tanks .................................................................................. 5
6.2.3 Drums or Containers ............................................................................................... 5
6.2.4 Odors ...................................................................................................................... 5
6.2.5 Pools of Liquid ........................................................................................................ 5
6.2.6 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) .......................................................................... 6
6.2. 7 Interior Stains or Corrosion ..................................................................................... 6
6.2.8 Interior Floor Drains and Sumps ............................................................................. 6
6.2.9 Pits, Ponds, or Lagoons ......................................................................................... 6
6.2. 10 Stained Soil or Pavement ....................................................................................... 6
6.2.11 Stressed Vegetation ............................................................................................... 6
6.2.12 Solid Waste ............................................................................................................. 6
6.2. 13 Wastewater ............................................................................................................. 6
6.2.14 Wells ....................................................................................................................... 6
7. SEARCH FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CLEAN UP LIENS ................................................................... 7
8. FINDINGS AND OPINIONS ............................................................................................................. 7
8.1 De Minimis Conditions ........................................................................................................ 7
8.2 Historical Recognized Environmental Conditions ............................................................... 7
8.3 Controlled/Recognized Environmental Conditions ............................................................. 7
8.4 Significant Data Gaps ......................................................................................................... 8
9. CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................... 8
Wasatch Environmental, Inc. Table of Contents
Pagei
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Grantsville Soil Conservation Property
APPENDICES
Appendix A -Maps and Figures
Figure 1 -Vicinity Map
Figure 2 -Parcel Map
Figure 3 -2023 Aerial Photograph
Figure 4-1955 Topographic Map
Figure 5 -Detailed Site Map
Figure 6 -Monitoring Well Location Map
Figure 7 -TEAD TCE Plume Boundary
Figure 8 - GWMA Boundary
Appendix B -Site Photographs
Appendix C -August 9, 2023, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report
Appendix D -User Questionnaire
Appendix E -Government Database Information
Appendix F -November 28, 2023, TEAD Semi-Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report
Appendix G -Environmental Professional Qualifications
Wasatch Environmental, Inc. Table of Contents
Page ii
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Update Grantsville Soil Conservation Property
1. SUMMARY
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT UPDATE
GRANTSVILLE SOIL CONSERVATION PROPERTY
UT-112
GRANTSVILLE, UTAH 84029
We have conducted a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) Update for the Grantsville Soil
Conservation Property located at UT-112 in Grantsville, Utah. This assessment has been conducted at
the request of Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration , the proposed purchaser. The
purpose of this Phase I ESA Update is to identify, to the extent feasible pursuant to the processes
described in ASTM E1527-21 , recognized environmental conditions 1 in connection with the subject
property. Wasatch Environmental, Inc., (Wasatch) prepared an August 9, 2023, Phase I ESA for the
subject property. In accordance with ASTM E152721 , five specific components of the Phase I ESA must
be conducted or updated within 180 days prior to closing . In accordance with ASTM E1527-21 , the
Phase I ESA Update consists of the following elements:
• Interviews with owners, operators , and occupants (previously conducted August 1, 2023);
• Government records review (previously conducted July 24, 2023);
• Site reconnaissance (previously conducted August 2, 2023);
• Searches for recorded environmental cleanup liens (a user responsibility); and
• The declaration by the environmental professional responsible for the assessment or update
(signed August 9 , 2023).
Although conducting a Phase I ESA Update can minimize the potential risks and liabilities associated with
real estate transactions , they cannot be completely eliminated. Limitations exist as to the availability of
documentation and constraints of visual and/or physical observations. This assessment Update has been
undertaken within reasonable limits of time and cost. Accuracy and completeness of record information
varies among information sources, including government sources. The information provided has not
been independently verified unless we have actual knowledge , or it appears obvious that certain
information is incorrect. The information presented in this report shall not be interpreted as a warranty as
to the presence or absence of recognized environmental conditions in connection with the subject
property.
Our services consist of professional opinions made in accordance with generally accepted principles and
practices set forth in ASTM E1527-21. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties either expressed or
implied.
2. PRIOR REPORTS
Wasatch previously prepared a Phase I ESA for the subject property dated August 9 , 2023, on behalf of
Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration. A copy of the August 9 , 2023 , Phase I ESA
report is presented in Appendix C .
Consistent with our current observations, at the time of the August 2023 report, the subject property
consists of 787.78 acres of primarily grazing land with a parking lot for the Deseret Peak Complex, a
Tooele County recreational complex , on the southeast corner. The subject property is developed with
several groundwater monitoring wells , two dilapidated grazing-related structures , four former stock water
ponds, a stock well , and a horse corral.
1 The term recognized environmental condition means (1) the presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at the subject
property due to a release to the environment; (2) the likely presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on , or at the subject
property due to a release or likely release to the environment; or (3) the presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at the
subject property under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment. A de minimis condition is not a recognized
environmental condition (ASTM E1527-21).
Wasatch Environmental, Inc. 1
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Update Grantsville Soil Conservation Property
Consistent with our current findings, the report dated August 9, 2023, identified the following
controlled/recognized environmental condition:
• The known chlorinated solvent impacts to the subject property from releases on the adjoining
south Tooele Army Depot (TEAD) site that are being managed with regulatory oversight and the
GWMA restrictions represent a controlled recognized environmental condition on the subject
property. Current and future property owners will need to be aware of any changes to the
Groundwater Management Area (GWMA) restrictions and allow the Army to continue
groundwater monitoring associated with the wells on the subject property. It was our opinion that
no further investigation was warranted at this time.
3. USER PROVIDED INFORMATION
ASTM E1527-21 defines a "User'' as the party seeking to complete an environmental site assessment of
the subject property. If the User is aware of any specialized knowledge or experience that is material to
recognized environmental conditions in connection with the subject property, it is the User's responsibility
to communicate such information to the environmental professional. ASTM E1527-21 provides a User
Questionnaire to assist the User and the environmental professional in gathering information from the
User that may be material to identifying recognized environmental conditions.
It is our understanding that this Phase I Environmental Site Assessment is being performed in anticipation
of a potential land swap. Therefore, for the purpose of this assessment, Mr. Eric Baim, representative for
the proposed purchaser, completed the User Questionnaire presented in Appendix D.
3.1 Environmental Liens and Activity/Use Limitations
ASTM E1527-21 requires the User to identify environmental liens and activity/use limitations currently
recorded against the subject property. This information is typically found during the course of research
for the issuance of title insurance and would be shown in the policy of title insurance issued to the owner,
buyer, or lender on the subject property. If the User has actual knowledge of any environmental liens or
activity/use limitations encumbering the subject property or in connection with the subject property, the
User should communicate such information to the environmental professional.
At the time of this assessment, Mr. Baim stated that he had reviewed a March 7, 2024, title report
prepared for the subject property and he was not aware of any environmental liens or activity/use
limitation land records encumbering the subject property.
3.2 Specialized Knowledge or Experience
Users must take into account their specialized knowledge to identify conditions indicative of releases or
threatened releases. If the User has any specialized knowledge or experience that is material to
recognized environmental conditions in connection with the subject property, the User should
communicate this information to the environmental professional.
Mr. Baim reported no specialized knowledge or experience regarding recognized environmental
conditions in connection with the subject property outside those discussed in the August 2023 report.
3.3 Valuation Reduction for Environmental Issues
The User should inform the environmental professional if the User believes that the purchase price of the
subject property is lower than the fair market value due to contamination. The User is not required to
disclose the purchase price to the environmental professional.
Mr. Baim was not aware of any property valuation reduction for environmental issues.
Wasatch Environmental, Inc. 2
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Update Grantsville Soil Conservation Property
3.4 Commonly Known or Reasonably Ascertainable Information
Commonly known or reasonably ascertainable information within the local community about the subject
property must be taken into account by the User. If the User is aware of any commonly known or
reasonably ascertainable information within the local community about the subject property that is
material to recognized environmental conditions in connection with the subject property, the User should
communicate such information to the environmental professional.
Mr. Baim was not aware of any commonly known or reasonably ascertainable information material to
recognized environmental conditions in connection with the subject property outside those discussed in
the August 2023 report.
3.5 Degree of Obviousness
The User must consider the degree of obviousness of the presence or likely presence of releases or
threatened releases at the subject property and the ability to detect releases or threatened releases by
appropriate investigation, including the information collected as part of this assessment.
Mr. Baim was not aware of any obvious indications of the presence or likely presence of releases or
threatened releases at the subject property.
4. REVIEW OF GOVERNMENT RECORDS
Environmental Risk Information Service (ERIS) conducted government database research for the subject
property on March 19, 2024. A listing of the ASTM-specified standard databases and any additional
federal, state, tribal and local environmental record sources obtained by the database company and the
results of the database search are summarized in Appendix E, Map Findings Summary.
Subject Property
Consistent with the August 9, 2023, Phase I ESA report, the subject property was not identified on any of
the standard or supplemental government record sources.
Adjoining Properties
Consistent with the August 9, 2023, Phase I ESA report, TEAD, adjoining south, was identified on the
National Priority List (NPL) database. As discussed in the August 2023 report, TEAD was constructed in
1942 and was a major munitions storage and equipment maintenance facility for the United States Army.
Agency files document that activities at TEAD consisted of repair and maintenance of tactical-wheeled
vehicles and power generation equipment, and the storage, maintenance, issuance, and disposal of
conventional munitions. Since 1998, the major task at TEAD has been the storage and demilitarization of
conventional ammunition.
Numerous releases of hazardous substances and petroleum products have been identified at the TEAD
site. A chlorinated solvent groundwater plume (Solid Waste Management Unit [SWMU] 2) extends
beneath the southern portion of the subject property (see Figure 7), its source being releases from a prior
industrial waste lagoon {IWL) on the TEAD property. The IWL was an unlined evaporation pond into
which an average of more than 125,000 gallons of industrial wastewater and stormwater were discharged
daily. The IWL received wastewater generated by the boiler plant, metals parts cleaning, degreasing,
steam cleaning operations, and dynamometer test cells from 1965 until 1988. In 1983, the Army initiated
investigations of elevated voe concentrations in groundwater in the area of the IWL. In 1985, TEAD
entered into a Consent Decree with the State of Utah which mandated, among other things, an expansion
of the groundwater quality assessment at the IWL. Under the terms of the Consent Decree (1986), the
IWL and associated ditches were closed in November 1988.
Wasatch Environmental, Inc. 3
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Update Grantsville Soil Conservation Property
Subsequent investigations were performed to evaluate the extent, magnitude, and transport rate of
hazardous constituents present in the groundwater. Several hazardous compounds were identified, but
trichloroethylene (TCE) was identified as the primary contaminant of concern. Quarterly groundwater
monitoring was performed until issuance of a Post-Closure Permit in January of 1991. In 1994, the Army
received a document that reported groundwater contamination in a production well on a property
northeast of TEAD. The Army subsequently installed and sampled a number of groundwater monitoring
wells off-site which were identified as C-series wells. Three of these wells (C-02, C-03, and C-04) were
installed on the subject property (see Figure 6). Other groundwater monitoring wells located on the
subject property are identified as B-37 through B-40, B-44 through B-50, P-32 through 35, P-37, and P-38
(also depicted on Figure 6). The B and P-Series wells on the subject property were installed prior to
1994.
The most recent groundwater monitoring data available (November 28, 2023), documents that
groundwater at the subject property is between 120 and 170 feet deep. Groundwater monitoring wells on
the subject property that are routinely sampled are B-40, B-42, C-03, and C-04. TCE concentrations on
the subject property in 2023 ranged between 0.110 micrograms per liter (µg/L) in C-04 and 15 µg/L in B-
40. The TEAD Post-Closure Permit groundwater concentration limits for TCE is 5 µg/L. In 2004, TEAD
developed an interim Groundwater Management Area (GWMA) Plan for the plume. After additional
investigation activities, the GWMA was finalized in 2010, and in 2022 the plan was updated. The majority
of the subject property lies within the GWMA (see Figure 8). The GWMA sets forth water development
restrictions and various restrictions for domestic well use. The subject property stock water well (2367,
depicted on Figure 5) is located within the GWMA but is outside the plume. The Army states in the 2022
GWMA Update report that the subject property stock water well is approximately 0.4 miles downgradient
of the main plume; therefore, "the likelihood of contamination reaching this well in the near term is low."
Well records document that water from the stock water well is only used in the winter and at other times
municipal water is used on the subject property. The TCE plume is monitored and managed by the Army
with regulatory oversite and the GWMA restrictions. A copy of the November 28, 2023, Semi-Annual
Groundwater Monitoring Report is presented as Appendix F. A copy of the GWMA Update document
was provided in the August 2023 Phase I ESA report.
Other Government Database Listings
Consistent with the August 9, 2023, Phase I ESA report, no other hazardous substance or petroleum
product storage and/or release sites were identified within ASTM-specified approximate minimum search
distances from the subject property.
5. INTERVIEWS
5.1 Owner/Occupant/Key Site Manager
On March 26, 2024, Wasatch Project Geologist Rebecca Studenka interviewed Mr. Todd Arbon,
supervisor with the Grantsville Soil Conservation, the current owner of the subject property. He stated
that there was no material change in use of the property since August 2023 and no incidents of an
environmental nature have occurred.
5.2 Interviews with State and/or Local Government Officials
ASTM E1527-21 require that a reasonable attempt be made to interview at least one staff member of the
local fire department, health agency, state environmental agency having jurisdiction over hazardous
waste disposal or other environmental matters, or an agency responsible for the issuance of building
permits or groundwater permits that document the presence of activity and use limitations.
On March 19, 2024, we contacted Bryan Slade, the Environmental Health Director with the Tooele
County Health Department. Mr. Slade stated that the Health Department has no record of underground
storage tanks, hazardous materials incidents or violations, or any other environmental issues on the land
Wasatch Environmental, Inc. 4
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Update Grantsville Soil Conservation Property
itself. He also stated that there is a plume of TCE contamination in the groundwater underneath the
property from the army depot site.
6. SITE RECONNAISSANCE
On March 18, 2024, Wasatch Staff Geologist Jeffrey Hessburg conducted an unaccompanied site
reconnaissance. Site visit photographs are presented in Appendix B.
The subject property consisted of 787.78 acres of land used for grazing with a parking lot for the Deseret
Peak Complex on the southeast corner. The subject property is developed with several groundwater
monitoring wells (discussed in Section 4), two dilapidated grazing-related structures, four former stock
water ponds, and a horse corral. The subject property looked similar to conditions observed during the
August 2023 Phase I ESA.
6.1 Methodology and Limiting Conditions
Our reconnaissance included observations of the approximate perimeter of the subject property,
observations of the property interior, readily accessible areas of the building interiors, and a cursory
observation of the adjoining properties. Our exterior observations were limited by vegetation. It is our
opinion that these limitations did not affect our ability to form reasonable opinions regarding recognized
environmental conditions on the subject property.
6.2 General Observations
Most of the subject property is relatively flat and covered by vegetation. Several wells, two dilapidated
structures, four stock water ponds, a horse corral, and two cattle water troughs were observed on the
subject property. The southeast corner of the subject property contains a portion of a parking area used
for the Deseret Peak Complex.
6.2.1 Underground Storage Tanks
No evidence of underground storage tanks, such as fill ports or vent pipes, was observed on the
subject property.
6.2.2 Aboveground Storage Tanks
No aboveground storage tanks were observed on the subject property.
6.2.3 Drums or Containers
During completion of the August 2023 Phase I ESA, one plastic drum was observed on the
southwest corner of the subject property. The drum was sealed and unlabeled. Shallow oily
staining was observed on the soil surrounding the drum. Given that the staining was shallow, it
was our opinion that the staining represented a de minimis condition. During our current site
reconnaissance, the drum and minimal staining were no longer present.
No drums or containers of hazardous substances or petroleum products were observed on the
subject property.
6.2.4 Odors
No strong, pungent, or noxious odors were noted on the subject property.
6.2.5 Pools of Liquid
No pools of liquids were observed on the subject property.
Wasatch Environmental, Inc. 5
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Update Grantsville Soil Conservation Property
6.2.6 Polychlorinated Biphenyls {PCBs)
Although no longer commercially produced in the United States, PCBs may be present in
products and materials produced before the 1979 PCB ban. Products that may contain PCBs
include but are not limited to transformers, capacitors and other electrical equipment, oil used in
motors and hydraulic systems, old electrical devices or appliances containing PCB capacitors.
Newer electrical equipment would not be expected to contain PCBs.
No electrical or hydraulic equipment known or likely to contain PCBs was observed on the subject
property.
6.2. 7 Interior Stains or Corrosion
No interior stains or corrosion were observed.
6.2.8 Interior Floor Drains and Sumps
No interior floor drains or sumps were observed.
6.2.9 Pits, Ponds, or Lagoons
Four former stock water ponds were observed on the subject property. No water was present in
the ponds.
6.2.10 Stained Soil or Pavement
No stained soil or pavement was observed on the subject property.
6.2.11 Stressed Vegetation
No stressed vegetation was observed on the subject property.
6.2.12 Solid Waste
Some typical household trash was observed on the southwest corner and southeast corner of the
subject property. No excess solid waste or surface evidence of buried solid waste was observed
on the subject property.
6.2.13 Wastewater
No wastewater or other liquid was observed discharging into a drain, ditch, or stream on or
adjacent to the subject property.
6.2.14 Wells
Consistent with our August 2023 observations, several groundwater monitoring wells are located
throughout the subject property and are discussed in Section 4. There is a groundwater well
{depicted on Figure 5) located in the eastern portion of the subject property that is owned and
used by the Grantsville Soil Conservation District. Utah Division of Water Rights records
document that the well was installed in 1986 and is 260 feet deep. The well is only used between
November and April for stock watering. The well is connected to a series of stock water troughs
on the subject property.
Wasatch Environmental, Inc. 6
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Update Grantsville Soil Conservation Property
7. SEARCH FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CLEAN UP LIENS
On March 19, 2024, Eric Baim with Trust Lands Administration informed us that a title report had recently
been completed which he provided to Wasatch. Wasatch reviewed the title report and found no
environmental liens or environmental covenants encumbering the subject property.
8. FINDINGS AND OPINIONS
The following sections present our findings and opinions related to known or suspect recognized
environmental conditions, controlled recognized environmental conditions, historical recognized
environmental conditions, and de minimis conditions identified through the course of this assessment
Update.
8.1 De Minimis Conditions
A de minimis condition, as defined by ASTM E1527-21, is a release of hazardous substances or
petroleum products that generally does not present a threat to human health or the environment, and
generally would not be the subject of an enforcement action if brought to the attention of appropriate
governmental agencies. Conditions determined to be de minimis are not recognized environmental
conditions.
• Wasatch identified no de minimis conditions in connection with the subject property.
8.2 Historical Recognized Environmental Conditions
A historical recognized environmental condition, as defined by ASTM E1527-21, is a past release of
hazardous substances or petroleum products affecting the subject property that has occurred in
connection with the subject property and has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable
regulatory authority or meeting unrestricted use criteria established by a regulatory authority. Historical
recognized environmental conditions, by definition, are past releases that are no longer considered
recognized environmental conditions.
• Wasatch identified no historical recognized environmental conditions in connection with the
subject property.
8.3 Recognized Environmental Conditions (Including Controlled Recognized Environmental
Conditions
A recognized environmental condition, as defined by ASTM E1527-21, is (1) the presence of hazardous
substances or petroleum products in, on, or at the subject property due to a release to the environment;
(2) the likely presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at the subject property
due to a release or likely release to the environment; or (3) the presence of hazardous substances or
petroleum products in, on, or at the subject property under conditions that pose a material threat of a
future release to the environment. A controlled recognized environmental condition, as defined by ASTM
E1527-21, is a recognized environmental condition resulting from a past release of hazardous substances
or petroleum products affecting the subject property that has been addressed to the satisfaction of the
applicable regulatory authority with hazardous substances or petroleum products allowed to remain in
place.
Wasatch identified the following:
• The groundwater beneath the southern portion of the subject property is impacted with TCE
originating from releases at the adjoining south TEAD. Numerous groundwater monitoring wells
associated with the release are present on the subject property and five are routinely sampled by
the Army. The most recent groundwater sampling data showed concentrations of TCE as high as
Wasatch Environmental, Inc. 7
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Update Grantsville Soil Conservation Property
14 µg/L on the subject property, exceeding the TEAD Post-Closure Permit Groundwater Analyte
Concentration for TCE of 5 µg/L. The majority of the subject property lies within a GWMA
associated with the TCE contamination that sets forth water development restrictions and various
restrictions for domestic well use. The subject property stock water well is located within the
GWMA but is outside the plume. The plume is monitored and managed by the Army with
regulatory oversite. The TCE plume is being managed with regulatory oversite, and the GWMA
restrictions.
8.4 Significant Data Gaps
A significant data gap, as defined by ASTM E1527-21, is a data gap that affects the ability of the
environmental professional to identify recognized environmental conditions.
• Wasatch encountered no data gaps affecting our ability to form opinions regarding recognized
environmental conditions.
9. CONCLUSIONS
We have performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Update in general conformance with the
scope and limitations of ASTM E1527-21 for the Grantsville Soil Conservation Property located at UT-112
in Grantsville, Utah . This assessment Update has identified no recognized environmental conditions ,
controlled recognized environmental conditions , or significant data gaps in connection with the subject
property , except the following :
• The known chlorinated solvent impacts to the subject property from releases on the adjoining
south TEAD site that are being managed with regulatory oversight and the GWMA restrictions
represent a controlled recognized environmental condition on the subject property. Current and
future property owners will need to be aware of any changes to the GWMA restrictions and allow
the Army to continue groundwater monitoring associated with the wells on the subject property. It
is our opinion that no further investigation is warranted at this time.
This report is based on our review of available historical and environmental records ; visual observations
of the surface of the subject property and adjoining properties ; and personal interviews with available
persons having knowledge of the subject property. Sections 8 and 9 of the report, Findings and Opinions ,
and Conclusions are considered an Executive Summary and should be reviewed in conjunction with the
entire report.
We declare that, to the best of our professional knowledge and belief, we meet the definition of
Environmental Professional as defined in 312 .10 of 40 CFR 312 and have the specific qualifications
based on education, training, and experience to assess a property of the nature, history, and setting of
the subject property. We have developed and performed the all-appropriate inquiries in conformance with
the standards and practices set forth in 40 CFR Part 312 .
Sincerely,
WASATCH ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
Rebecca Studenka
Senior Project Geologist
Distribution: (1) Addressee -Electronic
Wasatch Environmental, Inc.
~~
(::Kilgore
Principal Environmental Manager
8
Appendix A
Maps and Figures
GRANTSVILLE SOIL CONSERVATION PROPERTY WEI 2649-004A
Sky di ve U ah q
A Mavenk Adventure '$ Marshal l
@) Y Firs. stop
nclerson Farms ft
by Richmond .. T ft And e son Ranch
T Grantsvill e, u ah
Approximate
Location of
Subject Property
A.WASATCH ..-= ENVIRONMENTA L
Purpl e Ma r ess
Fa ctory -Gra nt svtll e
Q
(ill)
Des eret ,a k Co mp le x 9 T ·
oo ele Gymnast .N Acad e
I!
Vicinity Map Figure 1
The use or reuse of this information is restricted to the referenced document unless otherwise authorized .
Wasatch Environmental Copyright 2006
A.WASATCH ..-= ENVIRONMENTAL
GRANTSVILLE SOIL CONSERVATION PROPERTY WEI 2649-004A
1u -11 ao -o~01L2
1-131-0-0003
• I
;:-ei
M
>'":"
F..--
~
,m
OJ e,
,.;,. " I
w ~
'"7'
I :s
01-131-0-0001
Approximate
Location of
Subject Property
Parcel Map Figure 2
The use or reuse of this information is restricted to the referenced document unless otherwise authorized .
Wasatch Environmental Copyright 2006
GRANTSVILLE SOIL CONSERVATION PROPERTY WEI 2649-004A
lf'2.ffe,W®lnl llll®
ffe,~~ll'@lZ Ol)j]jj ~fr@
IL@@~fro@llil@ll
~(ll][Q)j@©~ ~ll'@~@iruw -
\ Groundwater Flow Direction (Inferred)
.A.WASATCH ..-= ENVIRONMENTAL
®~®
0 . !Luu))
C
. . . ~mi rn@J
~ffial~@ll'®~~oo ~~@.'., ~-. i I
-I
@@~Ii'~~@ ~@\@~~mii/ I
«@~~ @J•~ l~l r -
'
2023 Aerial Photograph Figure 3
e use or reuse o t 1s m orma 10n 1s restncte tot e re erence ocument un ess ot erw1se aut onze .
Wasatch Environmental Copyright 2006
291
A.WASATCH ..-= ENVIRONMENTAL
GRANTSVILLE SOIL CONSERVATION PROPERTY WEI 2649-004A
Approximate
Location of
Subject Property \ ~
35
\_
~
\
,.,.,.
\
\ \
\ •. I
··--'-
....,,_
opograp 1c ap, apte rom . . eological Survey Figure 4 Grantsville/Tooele, Utah 7 .5 Minute Quad ran le
The use or reuse of this information is restricted to the referenced document unless otherwise authorized .
Wasatch Environmental Copyright 2006
Monitoring well locations depicted on Figure 6
GRANTSVILLE SOIL CONSERVATION PROPERTY WEI 2649-004.
~[l)J[l)Jli'@X(□IITiil®~®
IL@©@~□@lnl@!i
~llll@j®~ !Plii'@[l)J®lru1f
~
@11-il©l
--WASATCH
.. ENVUI..ONMENTAL
Site Visit Map/Detailed Site Map I Figure 5
The use or reuse of this information is restricted to the referenced document unless otherwise authorized .
Wasatch Environmental Copyright 2006
--WASATCH
.. ENVUI..ONMENTAL
GRANTSVILLE SOIL CONSERVATION PROPERTY WEI 2649-004.
ffe,~~ll'@lZ □iimicfilU@
IL@@cfilU □@ITTl@lf
~Mibl]@@U iPll'@~@~
Monitoring Well Location Map
♦·i
Figure 6
The use or reuse of this information is restricted to the referenced document unless otherwise authorized .
Wasatch Environmental Copyright 2006
"NS" were scheduled for sampling but could not be sampled
levels.
I1ow unless labelled as ·oeep Well.·
,dary was updated using results from lhe 2021 annual event.
·ells with an asterisk (') were not used for development of lhe
,tourn are from lhe 2021 annual monnoring report and were
results from the 2021 semi-annual and 2019 annual events.
,urposes only. All locations are approximate.
ing ESRI ArcMapv . 10.7.
otes
~
result is an estimated value.
;sample result / field duplicate result
: Esri , DignalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographi es,
, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID , IGN , and lhe GIS User Communny
3 National Geographic Society, i-cubed
A-WASATCH
.. ENVUI..ONMENTAL
GRANTSVILLE SOIL CONSERVATION PROPERTY WEI 2649-004,
2022 ANNUAL GROUNDWATER MONITORING
REPORT
TOOELE ARMY DEPOT, UTAH
SWMU-58 TCE CONCENTRATIONS IN
GROUNDWATER-2021ANNUALEVENT
oo•I• v
Legend
S Monitoring Well (TCE Concentration in µg/L)
S Monitoring Well (Not Sampled)
c:::J 2021 Shallow TCE lsoconcentration Contour (5 µg/L)
::_ 2021 Shallow TCE lsoconcentration Contour (50 µg /L)
c:::J 2021 Shallow TCE lsoconcentration Contour (100 µg /L)
~ _-_-_"j Previous Shallow TCE lsoconcentration Contour (5 µg/L)
----Previous Shallow TCE lsoconcentration Contour (50 µg /L)
~ _-_-_I Previous Shallow TCE lsoconcentration Contour (100 µg/L)
-Old Industrial Waste Lagoon
~ Former Sanfary Landfill
-Industrial Waste Lagoon
•111111111 Inferred Fault Location r:.:.-:: Tooele Anmy Depot North Boundary
c::::J BRAG Pa rcel
WGS8', UTM ZONE 12 N, METE N
HOR/ZONAL DATUM: WGS 19841 VERTICAL •
3,000 1,500 0
SCALE IN FEET
PROJECTNo.: I DATE: I~----
770108 10/11 /202
DRAWN
TEAD TCE Plume Boundary Figure 7
The use or reuse of this information is restricted to the referenced document unless otherwise authorized .
Wasatch Environmental Copyright 2006
ffe;\[lll[lllll'@lI□llilil®U@
IL@@®U□@il11 @\r
~Mihlj@@U iPll'@[lll®lruW
ili E~ll>]~
--WASATCH
.. ENVUI..ONMENTAL
GRANTSVILLE SOIL CONSERVATION PROPERTY WEI 2649-004.
.... , .. .. ,
\
\
\
\
\
\
~
\
•·
GWMA Boundary Figure 8
The use or reuse of this information is restricted to the referenced document unless otherwise authorized .
Wasatch Environmental Copyright 2006
Appendix B
Site Photographs
Photo 1. Subject property/east subject property
boundary from the northeast corner facing south
Photo 3. Subject property from the central portion of
the west subject property boundary facing east
Photo 2. Subject property from the northwest corner
facing southeast
Photo 4. Subject property/west subject property
boundary from the northwest corner facing southeast
Photo 5. Subject property from the central portion of
the south subject property boundary facing north
Photo 7. Subject property from the northernmost
location on the subject property facing south
Photo 6. Subject property and north subject property
boundary from the southeast corner facing northwest
Photo 8. North subject property boundary from the
northwest corner facing east
Photo 9. North subject property boundary from the
northeast corner facing northwest
Photo 11. South subject property boundary from the
southwest corner facing east
Photo 10. South subject property boundary from the
southeast corner facing west
Photo 12. West subject property from the northwest
corner facing south
Photo 13. Corral on northeast portion of subject
property
Photo 15. Interior of northernmost dilapidated
structure
Photo 14. Dilapidated structures on northeast portion
of subject property
Photo 16. Interior of southernmost dilapidated
structure
Photo 17. Well on subject property Photo 18. Well on subject property
Photo 19. Well on subject property Photo 20. Well on subject property
Photo 21. Water trough on subject property
Photo 23. Garbage on southwest corner of subject
property
Photo 22. Water trough on subject property
Photo 24. Water utility along south subject property
boundary
Photo 25. Garbage on southeast portion of subject
property
Photo 27. Old culvert on the central portion of subject
property
Photo 26. Fill pile on the south subject property
boundary
Photo 28 . Pond on subject property
Photo 29. Pond on subject property Photo 30. North adjoining property
Photo 31. North adjoining property Photo 32. East adjoining property
Photo 33. East adjoining property Photo 34. South adjoining property
Photo 35. West adjoining property
Appendix C
August 9, 2023, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
WASATCH ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
GRANTSVILLE SOIL CONSERVATION
PROPERTY
UT-112
GRANTSVILLE, UTAH 84029
Project No. 2649-004
Prepared for:
Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands
Administration
Eric Baim
102 South 200 East, # 600
Salt Lake City, Utah, 84111
August 9, 2023
Prepared by:
Wasatch Environmental, Inc.
2410 West California Avenue
Salt Lake City, Utah 84104
2410 WEST CALIFORNIA AVENUE
SALTLAKECITY, UTAH84104
PHONE [phone]
FAX [phone]
e-mail: [e-mail]
www.wasatch-environmenta/.com
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Grantsville Soil Conservation Property
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page No.
1. SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................................................... 1
2. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 2
2.1 Detailed Scope of Work ...................................................................................................... 2
2.2 Limitations and Exceptions of Assessment ........................................................................ 2
2.3 Continued Viability of Environmental Site Assessments .................................................... 3
2.4 Reliance .............................................................................................................................. 3
3. PRIOR REPORTS ........................................................................................................................................... 3
4. SITE DESCRIPTION ....................................................................................................................................... 3
4.1 Location ............................................................................................................................... 3
4.2 Site and Vicinity General Characteristics ............................................................................ 3
4.3 Current Uses of the Subject Property ................................................................................. 3
4.4 Description of Structures, Roads, Other Improvements on the Site ................................... 3
4.5 Current Uses of Adjoining Properties .................................................................................. 4
5. USER PROVIDED INFORMATION ................................................................................................................. 4
5.1 Environmental Liens and Activity/Use Limitations .............................................................. 4
5.2 Specialized Knowledge or Experience ................................................................................ 4
5.3 Valuation Reduction for Environmental Issues ................................................................... 5
5.4 Commonly Known or Reasonably Ascertainable Information ............................................ 5
5.5 Degree of Obviousness ...................................................................................................... 5
6. RECORDS REVIEW ........................................................................................................................................ 5
6.1 Historical Use Information ................................................................................................... 5
6.1.1 Subject Property ..................................................................................................... 6
6.1.2 Adjoining Properties (to the extent identified) ......................................................... 6
6.2 Physical Setting Source(s) .................................................................................................. 7
6.3 Standard and Supplemental Environmental Record Sources, Federal and State ............. 7
6.3.1 Subject Property ..................................................................................................... 7
6.3.2 Adjoining Properties ................................................................................................ 7
6.3.3 Other Government Database Listings .................................................................... 8
6.4 Interviews with State and/or Local Government Officials ................................................... 8
7. SITE RECONNAISSANCE .............................................................................................................................. 8
7.1 Methodology and Limiting Conditions ................................................................................. 9
7 .2 General Observations ......................................................................................................... 9
7.2.1 Underground Storage Tanks .................................................................................. 9
7.2.2 Aboveground Storage Tanks .................................................................................. 9
7.2.3 Drums or Containers ............................................................................................... 9
7.2.4 Odors ...................................................................................................................... 9
7.2.5 Pools of Liquid ........................................................................................................ 9
7.2.6 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) .......................................................................... 9
7.2.7 Pits, Ponds, or Lagoons ......................................................................................... 9
7.2.8 Stained Soil or Pavement ..................................................................................... 10
7.2.9 Stressed Vegetation ............................................................................................. 10
7.2.10 Solid Waste ........................................................................................................... 10
7 .2. 11 Wastewater ........................................................................................................... 10
7.2.12 Wells ..................................................................................................................... 10
8. INTERVIEWS ................................................................................................................................................ 10
8.1 Key Site Manager .............................................................................................................. 10
8.2 Occupant Interview ........................................................................................................... 10
9. SCOPE LIMITING CONDITIONS/DEVIATIONS ............................................................................................ 10
10. FINDINGS AND OPINIONS ........................................................................................................................... 11
10.1 De Mini mis Conditions ...................................................................................................... 11
Wasatch Environmental, Inc. Table of Contents
Pagei
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Grantsville Soil Conservation Property
10.2 Historical Recognized Environmental Conditions ............................................................. 11
10.3 Controlled Recognized Environmental Conditions ........................................................... 11
10.4 Recognized Environmental Conditions ............................................................................. 11
10.5 Significant Data Gaps ....................................................................................................... 12
11. CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................................ 12
APPENDICES
Appendix A -Maps and Figures
Figure 1 -Vicinity Map
Figure 2 -Parcel Map
Figure 3 -2022 Aerial Photograph
Figure 4-1955 Topographic Map
Figure 5 -Detailed Site Map
Figure 6 -Monitoring Well Location Map
Figure 7 -TEAD TCE Plume Boundary
Figure 8 -GWMA Boundary
Appendix B -Site Photographs
Appendix C -User Questionnaire
Appendix D -Historical Aerial Photographs
Appendix E -Government Database Information
Appendix F -TEAD Regulatory Documentation
Appendix G -Well Records
Appendix H -Environmental Professional Qualifications
Wasatch Environmental, Inc. Table of Contents
Page ii
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Grantsville Soil Conservation Property
1. SUMMARY
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
GRANTSVILLE SOIL CONSERVATION PROPERTY
UT-112
GRANTSVILLE, UTAH 84029
We have conducted a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of the Grantsville Soil Conservation
Property located along UT-112 in Grantsville, Utah . This assessment has been conducted at the request
of Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA). It is our understanding that this
transaction is a land exchange between SITLA and the Grantsville Soil Conservation District. The
purpose of this Phase I Environmental Site Assessment is to identify, to the extent feasible pursuant to
the processes described in ASTM E 1527-21, recognized environmental conditions 1 in connection with the
subject property.
The subject property consists of 787 .78 acres of primarily grazing land with a parking lot for the Deseret
Peak Complex, a Tooele County recreational complex, on the southeast corner. Our research indicates
the subject property has been used for cattle grazing since at least 1938. At the time of our site visit we
observed several groundwater monitoring wells (discussed further below), four former stock water ponds,
a horse corral, two generator trailers, and two tank trailers on the subject property. A stock water
groundwater well is also located on the subject property . We observed an unlabeled plastic drum on the
southwestern portion of the subject property. Shallow oily staining was observed on the soil around the
drum. Given that the staining is shallow, it is our opinion that the staining would be considered a de
minimis condition.
Tooele Army Depot (TEAD), adjoining south, was identified on the National Priority List database.
Agency files document that TEAD was constructed in 1942 and was a major munitions storage and
equipment maintenance facility for the United States Army. Activities at TEAD consisted of repair and
maintenance of tactical-wheeled vehicles and power generation equipment, and the storage,
maintenance , issuance, and disposal of conventional munitions. Since 1998, the major task at TEAD has
been the storage and demilitarization of conventional ammunition.
Numerous releases of hazardous substances and petroleum products have been identified at the TEAD
site. A chlorinated solvent groundwater plume (Solid Waste Management Unit [SWMU] 2) extends
beneath the southern portion of the subject property, its source being releases from a prior industrial
waste lagoon (IWL) on the TEAD property. In 1983, the Army initiated investigations of elevated volatile
organic compound (VOC) concentrations in groundwater in the area of the IWL. In 1985, TEAD entered
into a Consent Decree with the State of Utah which mandated, among other things, an expansion of the
groundwater quality assessment at the IWL. Under the terms of the Consent Decree, the IWL and
associated ditches were closed in November 1988.
Subsequent investigations were performed to evaluate the extent, magnitude, and transport rate of
hazardous constituents present in the groundwater. Several hazardous compounds were identified , but
trichloroethylene (TCE) was identified as the primary contaminant of concern . Quarterly groundwater
monitoring was performed until issuance of a Post-Closure Permit in January of 1991. By that time
numerous groundwater monitoring wells had been installed on the subject property. In 1994, the Army
installed and sampled additional groundwater monitoring wells on the subject property. The most recent
groundwater monitoring data available (2022), documents that groundwater at the subject property is
between 119 and 182 feet deep. Five of the groundwater monitoring wells on the subject property are
routinely sampled as part of ongoing monitoring activities. TCE concentrations on the subject property in
1 The term recognized environmental condition means (1) the presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on , or at the subject
property due to a release to the environment; (2) the likely presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products in , on , or at the subject
property due to a release or likely release to the environment; or (3) the presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on , or at the
subject property under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment. A de minimis condition is not a recognized
environmental condition (ASTM E1527-21).
Wasatch Environmental, Inc. 1
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Grantsville Soil Conservation Property
2022 ranged between 0.120 micrograms per liter (µg/L) and 14 µg/L, exceeding the TEAD Post-Closure
Permit groundwater concentration limits for TCE of 5 µg/L. A Groundwater Management Area (GWMA)
was instituted to set forth institutional controls for sites impacted by the plume which includes the majority
of the subject property. The GWMA restrictions include water development restrictions and various
restrictions for domestic well use. The subject property stock water well is located within the GWMA but
is outside the plume and is not currently impacted. Given that the TCE plume is monitored and managed
by the Army with regulatory oversight, and the GWMA restrictions, the presence of the plume on the
subject property would be considered a controlled recognized environmental condition. Current and
future property owners will need to be aware of any changes to the GWMA restrictions and allow to the
Army to continue groundwater monitoring associated with the wells on the subject property. It is our
opinion that no further investigation is warranted at this time.
No other hazardous substance or petroleum product storage and/or release sites were identified within
ASTM-specified approximate minimum search distances from the subject property.
Detailed discussion is presented in the following sections of this report.
2. INTRODUCTION
This Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was conducted within the scope and limitations of the
Standard Practice for Environmental Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process as
presented in American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard E1527-21. This practice is
intended to reflect a commercially prudent and reasonable inquiry to identify recognized environmental
conditions in connection with a property.
2.1 Detailed Scope of Work
In accordance with ASTM E1527-21, the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment consists of the
following elements: 1) Obtain User-Provided Information Required by the 40 C.F.R. Part 312 All
Appropriate Inquiries Regulation, 2) Review Physical Settings Information, 3) Review Government
Records, 4) Review Historical Records, 5) Site Reconnaissance, 6) Interviews, and 7) Report.
There may be environmental issues or conditions at a property that parties may wish to assess in
connection with commercial real estate that are outside the scope of the ASTM E1527-21 practices. Non-
scope considerations include (but are not limited to) asbestos-containing building materials unrelated to
releases to the environment, lead-based paint unrelated to releases to the environment, wetlands, or
radon. No implication is intended as to the relative importance of inquiry into such non-scope
considerations, nor is this list intended to be all-inclusive.
No non-scope considerations are included in this scope of work.
2.2 Limitations and Exceptions of Assessment
Although conducting a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment can minimize the potential risks and
liabilities associated with real estate transactions, they cannot be completely eliminated. Limitations exist
as to the availability of documentation and constraints of visual and/or physical observations. This
assessment has been undertaken within reasonable limits of time and cost. Accuracy and completeness
of record information varies among information sources, including government sources. The information
provided has not been independently verified unless we have actual knowledge, or it appears obvious
that certain information is incorrect. The information presented in this report shall not be interpreted as a
warranty as to the presence or absence of recognized environmental conditions in connection with the
subject property.
Our services consist of professional opinions made in accordance with generally accepted principles and
practices set forth in ASTM E1527-21. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties either expressed or
implied.
Wasatch Environmental, Inc. 2
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Grantsville Soil Conservation Property
2.3 Continued Viability of Environmental Site Assessments
An environmental site assessment performed in accordance with ASTM E1527-21 and completed less
than 180 days prior to the date of acquisition or date of intended transaction is presumed to be valid.
After 180 days or if information regarding recognized environmental conditions in connection with the
subject property becomes known, the following portions of the environmental site assessment may need
to be updated prior to the date of acquisition or date of intended transaction:
• Interviews with owners, operators, and occupants (conducted August 1, 2023);
• Government records review (conducted July 24, 2023);
• Site reconnaissance (conducted August 2, 2023);
• Searches for recorded environmental cleanup liens (a user responsibility); and
• The declaration by the environmental professional responsible for the assessment or update
(signed August 9, 2023).
2.4 Reliance
This report is prepared for the sole benefit of the Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration
(SIL TA) and may not be relied upon by any other person or entity without the written authorization of
Wasatch Environmental, Inc. (Wasatch).
3. PRIOR REPORTS
Mr. Neil Johnson, Board Chair for the Grantsville Soil Conservation District, the subject property owner,
stated that he had no prior environmental reports for the subject property.
4. SITE DESCRIPTION
4.1 Location
The subject property consists of 787.78 acres located along UT-112 in Grantsville, Utah (see Figures 1
through 5 in Appendix A). According to information obtained from the Tooele County Assessor's office,
the subject property is further identified as parcel numbers 01-130-0018, 01-131-0-003, 01-131-0-001,
and 14-0422-0-0005.
4.2 Site and Vicinity General Characteristics
The subject property and vicinity generally consist of vacant land, agricultural land, Tooele Army Depot
(TEAD), and the Deseret Peak Complex, a Tooele County recreational complex (see Figure 3 in
Appendix A).
4.3 Current Uses of the Subject Property
The subject property is currently primarily grazing land with a parking lot for the Deseret Peak Complex
on the southeast corner. Site photographs are presented in Appendix B.
4.4 Description of Structures, Roads, Other Improvements on the Site
The subject property is developed with several groundwater monitoring wells (discussed in Section 6.3.2),
two dilapidated grazing-related structures, four former stock water ponds, and a horse corral. The
southeast corner of the subject property contains a portion of a parking area used for the Deseret Peak
Complex.
Wasatch Environmental, Inc. 3
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Grantsville Soil Conservation Property
The subject property is accessed by UT-112 along the northeast subject property boundary and North
Depot Boundary Road along the south subject property boundary. Multiple dirt roads traverse the subject
property.
There are no public utilities connected to the subject property. Stock water is provided by a groundwater
well on the eastern portion of the subject property and the pump is powered by a battery.
4.5 Current Uses of Adjoining Properties
At the time of our site visit, current uses of adjoining properties consisted of the following:
North/East:
South:
West:
UT-112 followed by vacant land, the Deseret Peak Complex, and associated
parking
TEAD (discussed further in Section 6.3.2)
Vacant land
5. USER PROVIDED INFORMATION
ASTM E1527-21 defines a "User'' as the party seeking to complete an environmental site assessment of
the subject property. If the User is aware of any specialized knowledge or experience that is material to
recognized environmental conditions in connection with the subject property, it is the User's responsibility
to communicate such information to the environmental professional. ASTM E1527-21 provides a User
Questionnaire to assist the User and the environmental professional in gathering information from the
User that may be material to identifying recognized environmental conditions.
It is our understanding this Phase I Environmental Site Assessment is being performed in anticipation of a
potential land swap. Therefore, for the purpose of this assessment, Mr. Eric Baim, representative for the
proposed purchaser, completed the User Questionnaire presented in Appendix C.
5.1 Environmental Liens and Activity/Use Limitations
ASTM E1527-21 requires the User to identify environmental liens and activity/use limitations currently
recorded against the subject property. This information is typically found during the course of research
for the issuance of title insurance and would be shown in the policy of title insurance issued to the owner,
buyer, or lender on the subject property. If the User has actual knowledge of any environmental liens or
activity/use limitations encumbering the subject property or in connection with the subject property, the
User should communicate such information to the environmental professional.
At the time of this assessment, Mr. Baim was not aware of any environmental liens or activity/use
limitation land records encumbering the subject property.
5.2 Specialized Knowledge or Experience
Users must take into account their specialized knowledge to identify conditions indicative of releases or
threatened releases. If the User has any specialized knowledge or experience that is material to
recognized environmental conditions in connection with the subject property, the User should
communicate this information to the environmental professional.
Mr. Baim reported that the US Army previously used the subject property. Mr. Baim stated that there is
possible contamination on the subject property from the TEAD. Mr. Baim stated that there is currently
groundwater monitoring taking place in the area by the Army.
Wasatch Environmental, Inc. 4
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Grantsville Soil Conservation Property
5.3 Valuation Reduction for Environmental Issues
The User should inform the environmental professional if the User believes that the purchase price of the
subject property is lower than the fair market value due to contamination. The User is not required to
disclose the purchase price to the environmental professional.
Mr. Baim was not aware of any property valuation reduction for environmental issues.
5.4 Commonly Known or Reasonably Ascertainable Information
Commonly known or reasonably ascertainable information within the local community about the subject
property must be taken into account by the User. If the User is aware of any commonly known or
reasonably ascertainable information within the local community about the subject property that is
material to recognized environmental conditions in connection with the subject property, the User should
communicate such information to the environmental professional.
Mr. Baim was not aware of any commonly known or reasonably ascertainable information material to
recognized environmental conditions in connection with the subject property.
5.5 Degree of Obviousness
The User must consider the degree of obviousness of the presence or likely presence of releases or
threatened releases at the subject property and the ability to detect releases or threatened releases by
appropriate investigation, including the information collected as part of this assessment.
Mr. Baim was not aware of any obvious indications of the presence or likely presence of releases or
threatened releases at the subject property.
6. RECORDS REVIEW
The purpose of records review is to obtain and review records that will help identify recognized
environmental conditions in connection with the subject property. The records review includes: a review
of physical setting sources; a review of standard federal, state, and tribal environmental record sources;
and historical use information.
6.1 Historical Use Information
The objective of reviewing historical sources is to develop a history of the previous uses of the subject
property, adjoining properties, and surrounding area to help identify the likelihood of past uses having led
to recognized environmental conditions. ASTM E1527-21 requires a review of historical use information
back to 1940 or first developed use, whichever is earlier. This task requires reviewing standard historical
sources that are reasonably ascertainable, and are likely to be useful.
For the purposes of this report, the following historical sources were reviewed:
• Prior Reports: No prior environmental site assessment reports were provided.
• Fire Insurance Maps: Based on our review of fire insurance maps at the Marriott Online Library,
fire insurance maps are not available for the area of the subject property.
• Aerial Photographs: We obtained aerial photographs from the Utah Geological Survey dated
1938, 1953, 1965, 1971, 1975, 1980, and 1985. We also obtained aerial photographs from
Google Earth dated 1993, 1997, 2003, 2006, 2013, 2017, and 2022 (Figure 3 in Appendix A).
Historical aerial photographs are presented in Appendix D.
Wasatch Environmental, Inc. 5
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Grantsville Soil Conservation Property
• Local Street Directories: According to our research at the Marriott Library and the Library of
Congress, city directories do not cover the area of the subject property.
• Topographic Map: We obtained a topographic map from the United States Geological Survey
dated 1955 (Figure 4 in Appendix A).
• Current Property Tax Assessor Records: We obtained dates of construction for adjoining
property buildings from the Tooele County Tax Assessor's website.
• Regulatory Agency Documentation: We obtained historical information for the adjoining south
TEAD from the Utah Department of Environmental Quality website.
• Water Right Records: We obtained historical information for the subject property from the Utah
Division of Water Rights website for water rights and wells on the subject property.
• Interview Information: We spoke with Mr. Neil Johnson, Board Chair for the Grantsville Soil
Conservation District, the subject property owner.
6.1.1 Subject Property
The subject property is depicted as vacant land on the 1938 aerial photograph. Aerial
photographs and topographic maps depict the subject property as vacant land with various
unpaved roads/trails traversing the property between 1953 and 1980. Water rights records
document that in 1962, an individual applied for water rights on the subject property and for a
permit to drill a water well for domestic and stock watering purposes. The request for a permit
lapsed and a well was never drilled. In 1986, the Grantsville Soil Conservation District applied for
a well permit and in 1993 they installed a groundwater well for stock watering purposes. The
1993 aerial photograph depicts several additional unpaved roads traversing the subject property
as well as two pits, one on the western boundary and one on the eastern. Mr. Johnson stated
that these pits were stock watering ponds.
The unpaved roads appear to extend onto TEAD to the south. Agency files document that the
United States Department of the Army installed several groundwater monitoring wells on the
subject property for the purposes of monitoring groundwater contamination migrating off of TEAD
onto the subject property (discussed further in Section 6.3.2). The 1997 aerial photograph
depicts the two structures on the northeast portion of the subject property as well as two
additional stock watering ponds. The subject property remains relatively unchanged in
subsequent aerial photographs with the exception of what appears to be soil piles on the
southeast corner in 2013 and a disturbed area in the same location as the current parking area
which is when the construction of the currently parking area began. Mr. Johnson stated that the
Grantsville Soil Conservation District has owned the subject property since at least the 1980s.
6.1.2 Adjoining Properties (to the extent identified)
Based on the totality of historical information, historical uses of adjoining properties have included
the following:
North/East: UT-112 is depicted adjoining northeast of the subject property boundary and as early
as 1938. Land across UT-112 and adjoining east of the subject property was vacant land
between at least 1938 and 2006 when the Deseret Peak Complex was constructed. Construction
of the adjoining north parking area began in 2017.
South: Land adjoining south was vacant land until TEAD (formerly Tooele Ordnance Depot) was
constructed in 1942. The Depot was a storage center for supplies, ammunition, and combat
vehicles during World War II. The northern portion of the Depot, adjoining the subject property,
was developed with munitions and chemical weapon storage bunkers. In 1993, the Depot was
Wasatch Environmental, Inc. 6
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Grantsville Soil Conservation Property
placed on the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) list and some of the land was deeded to
the Tooele Redevelopment Agency. The Depot buildings are now owned and occupied by
various private companies and munitions continue to be stored on the northern portion.
West: Land adjoining west has been vacant and grazing land since at least 1938.
6.2 Physical Setting Source(s}
We reviewed the 1955, Grantsville/Tooele, Utah, 7.5-minute topographic map that depicts the area that
includes the subject property (Figure 4 in Appendix A). The subject property is situated at an elevation of
approximately 4,430 feet above mean sea level. The subject property and nearby area generally slope to
the north.
Based on information obtained from the regulatory documentation for the adjoining south TEAD site
(discussed in Section 6.3.2), groundwater at the subject property is between 119 and 182 feet below
ground surface and flows to the northeast.
6.3 Standard and Supplemental Environmental Record Sources, Federal and State
Environmental Risk Information Services (ERIS) has conducted government database research for the
subject property (see Appendix E). A listing of the ASTM-specified standard databases and any
additional federal, state, tribal and local environmental record sources obtained by ERIS and the results
of the database search are summarized in Appendix E, Map Findings Summary.
6.3.1 Subject Property
The subject property was not identified on any of the standard or supplemental government
record sources.
6.3.2 Adjoining Properties
TEAD, adjoining south, was identified on the National Priority List (NPL) database. As discussed
in Section 6.1.2, TEAD was constructed in 1942 and was a major munitions storage and
equipment maintenance facility for the United States Army. Agency files document that activities
at TEAD consisted of repair and maintenance of tactical-wheeled vehicles and power generation
equipment, and the storage, maintenance, issuance, and disposal of conventional munitions.
Since 1998, the major task at TEAD has been the storage and demilitarization of conventional
ammunition.
Numerous releases of hazardous substances and petroleum products have been identified at the
TEAD site. A chlorinated solvent groundwater plume (Solid Waste Management Unit [SWMU] 2)
extends beneath the southern portion of the subject property (see Figure 7), its source being
releases from a prior industrial waste lagoon (IWL) on the TEAD property. The IWL was an
unlined evaporation pond into which an average of more than 125,000 gallons of industrial
wastewater and stormwater were discharged daily. The IWL received wastewater generated by
the boiler plant, metals parts cleaning, degreasing, steam cleaning operations, and dynamometer
test cells from 1965 until 1988. In 1983, the Army initiated investigations of elevated VOC
concentrations in groundwater in the area of the IWL. In 1985, TEAD entered into a Consent
Decree with the State of Utah which mandated, among other things, an expansion of the
groundwater quality assessment at the IWL. Under the terms of the Consent Decree (1986), the
IWL and associated ditches were closed in November 1988.
Subsequent investigations were performed to evaluate the extent, magnitude, and transport rate
of hazardous constituents present in the groundwater. Several hazardous compounds were
identified, but trichloroethylene (TCE) was identified as the primary contaminant of concern.
Quarterly groundwater monitoring was performed until issuance of a Post-Closure Permit in
January of 1991. In 1994, the Army received a document that reported groundwater
Wasatch Environmental, Inc. 7
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Grantsville Soil Conservation Property
contamination in a production well on a property northeast of TEAD. The Army subsequently
installed and sampled a number of groundwater monitoring wells off-site which were identified as
C-series wells. Three of these wells (C-02, C-03, and C-04) were installed on the subject
property (see Figure 6). Other groundwater monitoring wells located on the subject property are
identified as B-37 through B-40, B-44 through B-50, P-32 through 35, P-37, and P-38 (also
depicted on Figure 6). The B and P-Series wells on the subject property were installed prior to
1994.
The most recent groundwater monitoring data available (2022), documents that groundwater at
the subject property is between 119 and 182 feet deep. Groundwater monitoring wells on the
subject property that are routinely sampled are B-37, B-40, B-42, C-03, and C-04. TCE
concentrations on the subject in 2022 ranged between 0.120 micrograms per liter (µg/L) in C-04
and 14 µg/L in B-40. The TEAD Post-Closure Permit groundwater concentration limits for TCE is
5 µg/L. In 2004, TEAD developed an interim Groundwater Management Area (GWMA) Plan for
the plume. After additional investigation activities, the GWMA was finalized in 2010, and in 2022
the plan was updated. The majority of the subject property lies within the GWMA (see Figure 8).
The GWMA sets forth water development restrictions and various restrictions for domestic well
use. The subject property stock water well (2367) is located within the GWMA but is outside the
plume. The Army states in the 2022 GWMA Update report that the subject property stock water
well is approximately 0.4 miles downgradient of the main plume; therefore, "the likelihood of
contamination reaching this wells in the near term is low." Well records document that water from
the stock water well is only used in the winter and at other times municipal water is used on the
subject property. Given that the TCE plume is monitored and managed by the Army with
regulatory oversite, and GWMA restrictions, the presence of the plum on the subject property
would be considered a controlled recognized environmental condition. Copies of relevant
groundwater data and maps from the 2022 groundwater monitoring report and a copy of the
GWMA Update document are presented in Appendix F.
6.3.3 Other Government Database Listings
No other hazardous substance or petroleum product storage and/or release sites were identified
within ASTM-specified approximate minimum search distances from the subject property.
6.4 Interviews with State and/or Local Government Officials
ASTM E1527-21 requires that a reasonable attempt be made to interview at least one staff member of the
local fire department, health agency, state environmental agency having jurisdiction over hazardous
waste disposal or other environmental matters, or an agency responsible for the issuance of building
permits or groundwater permits that document the presence of activity and use limitations.
On July 20, 2023, we contacted Bryan Slade, the Environmental Health Director with the Tooele County
Health Department. Mr. Slade stated that the Health Department has no record of underground storage
tanks, hazardous materials incidents or violations, or any other environmental issues on the land itself.
He also stated that there is a plume of TCE contamination in the groundwater extending north underneath
the property from the army depot site.
On August 1, 2023, we contacted Jason Smith with the Grantsville Fire Department, who stated that the
fire department had no records regarding environmental issues or fire code violations for the subject
property.
7. SITE RECONNAISSANCE
On August 2, 2023, our Staff Geologist Jeffrey Hessburg conducted an unaccompanied site
reconnaissance. Site photographs are presented in Appendix B.
Wasatch Environmental, Inc. 8
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Grantsville Soil Conservation Property
7.1 Methodology and Limiting Conditions
Our reconnaissance included observations of the approximate perimeter of the subject property,
observations of the property interior, readily accessible areas of the building interior, and a cursory
observation of the adjoining properties. Our exterior observations were limited by vegetation. It is our
opinion that these limitations did not affect our ability to form reasonable opinions regarding recognized
environmental conditions on the subject property.
7.2 General Observations
Most of the subject property is relatively flat and covered by vegetation. Several wells, two dilapidated
structures, four stock water ponds, a horse corral, two generator trailers, and two tank trailers were
observed on the subject property. The southeast corner of the subject property contains a portion of a
parking area used for the Deseret Peak Complex.
7.2.1 Underground Storage Tanks
No evidence of underground storage tanks, such as fill ports or vent pipes, was observed on the
subject property.
7.2.2 Aboveground Storage Tanks
Two parked semi-truck tank trailers were observed on the south subject property boundary. One
appeared to be for water, and one was unlabeled.
7.2.3 Drums or Containers
One plastic drum was observed on the southwest corner of the subject property. The drum was
sealed and unlabeled. Shallow oily staining was observed on the soil surrounding the drum.
Give that the staining was shallow, it is our opinion that the staining represents a de minimis
condition.
7.2.4 Odors
No strong, pungent, or noxious odors were noted on the subject property.
7.2.5 Pools of Liquid
No pools of liquids were observed on the subject property.
7.2.6 Polychlorinated Biphenyls {PCBs)
Although no longer commercially produced in the United States, PCBs may be present in
products and materials produced before the 1979 PCB ban. Products that may contain PCBs
include but are not limited to transformers, capacitors and other electrical equipment, oil used in
motors and hydraulic systems, old electrical devices or appliances containing PCB capacitors.
Newer electrical equipment would not be expected to contain PCBs.
No electrical or hydraulic equipment known or likely to contain PCBs was observed on the subject
property.
7 .2. 7 Pits, Ponds, or Lagoons
Four former stock water ponds were observed on the subject property. No water was present in
the ponds.
Wasatch Environmental, Inc. 9
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Grantsville Soil Conservation Property
7 .2.8 Stained Soil or Pavement
No stained soil or pavement was observed on the subject property.
7 .2.9 Stressed Vegetation
No stressed vegetation was observed on the subject property.
7.2.10 Solid Waste
Some typical household trash was observed on the southwest corner of the subject property.
7 .2.11 Wastewater
No wastewater or other liquid was observed discharging into a drain, ditch, or stream on or
adjacent to the subject property.
7.2.12 Wells
Several wells were observed throughout the subject property and are discussed in Section 6.3.2.
There is a groundwater well located on the subject property that is owned and used by the
Grantsville Soil Conservation District. Utah Division of Water Rights records document that the
well was installed in 1986 and is 260 feet deep. The well is only used between November and
April for stock watering. The well is connected to a series of stock water troughs on the subject
property. Applicable well records are presented in Appendix G.
8. INTERVIEWS
ASTM E1527-21 requires that interviews with a key site manager and a reasonable number of occupants
should be made in an attempt to obtain information indicating recognized environmental conditions at the
subject property.
8.1 Key Site Manager
As stipulated in ASTM E1527-21, it is the responsibility of the subject property owner to identify the key
site manager. For the purposes of this report, Mr. Neil Johnson, Board Chair for the Grantsville Soil
Conservation District was interviewed as the key site manager. On August 1, 2023, Mr. Johnson stated
that he has been familiar with the subject property for decades. Mr. Johnson stated that the subject
property has always been used for cattle grazing. He stated that there have been no cattle dipping vats,
fence post treatment, or known dumps on the subject property. He was aware of the groundwater
contamination originating from TEAD, but was not aware of any environmental concerns originating from
the subject property.
8.2 Occupant Interview
There are no occupants of the subject property.
9. SCOPE LIMITING CONDITIONS/DEVIATIONS
During the completion of this Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, no significant scope limiting
conditions or deviations were encountered that resulted in significant data gaps affecting our ability to
form reasonable opinions regarding recognized environmental conditions.
Wasatch Environmental, Inc. 10
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Grantsville Soil Conservation Property
10. FINDINGS AND OPINIONS
The following sections present our findings and opinions related to known or suspect recognized
environmental conditions, controlled recognized environmental conditions, historical recognized
environmental conditions, and de minimis conditions identified through the course of this assessment.
10.1 De Minimis Conditions
A de minimis condition, as defined by ASTM E1527-21, is a release of hazardous substances or
petroleum products that generally does not present a threat to human health or the environment, and
generally would not be the subject of an enforcement action if brought to the attention of appropriate
governmental agencies. Conditions determined to be de minimis are not recognized environmental
conditions.
• Shallow oily staining was observed on the soil surrounding the drum. Give that the staining was
shallow, it is our opinion that the staining represents a de minimis condition.
10.2 Historical Recognized Environmental Conditions
A historical recognized environmental condition, as defined by ASTM E1527-21, is a past release of
hazardous substances or petroleum products affecting the subject property that has occurred in
connection with the subject property and has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable
regulatory authority or meeting unrestricted use criteria established by a regulatory authority. Historical
recognized environmental conditions, by definition, are past releases that are no longer considered
recognized environmental conditions.
• Wasatch identified no historical recognized environmental conditions in connection with the
subject property.
10.3 Controlled Recognized Environmental Conditions
A controlled recognized environmental condition, as defined by ASTM E 1527-21, is a recognized
environmental condition resulting from a past release of hazardous substances or petroleum products
affecting the subject property that has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory
authority with hazardous substances or petroleum products allowed to remain in place.
• The groundwater beneath the southern portion of the subject property is impacted with TCE
originating from releases at the adjoining south TEAD. Numerous groundwater monitoring wells
associated with the release are present on the subject property and five are routinely sampled by
the Army. The most recent groundwater sampling data showed concentrations of TCE as high as
14 µg/L on the subject property, exceeding the TEAD Post-Closure Permit Groundwater Analyte
Concentration for TCE of 5 µg/L. The majority of the subject property lies within a GWMA
associated with the TCE contamination that sets forth water development restrictions and various
restrictions for domestic well use. The subject property stock water well is located within the
GWMA but is outside the plume. The plume is monitored and managed by the Army with
regulatory oversite. Given that the TCE plume is being managed with regulatory oversite, and the
GWMA restrictions, the presence of the plume on the subject property would be considered a
controlled recognized environmental condition.
10.4 Recognized Environmental Conditions
A recognized environmental condition, as defined by ASTM E1527-21, is (1) the presence of hazardous
substances or petroleum products in, on, or at the subject property due to a release to the environment;
(2) the likely presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at the subject property
due to a release or likely release to the environment; or (3) the presence of hazardous substances or
Wasatch Environmental, Inc. 11
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Grantsville Soil Conservation Property
petroleum products in, on, or at the subject property under conditions that pose a material threat of a
future release to the environment.
• The subject property has been used for cattle grazing purposes since at least 1938. We have
found no information to suggest recognized environmental conditions associated with past or
current uses of the subject property beyond the controlled recognized environmental condition
discussed in Section 10.3.
10.5 Significant Data Gaps
A significant data gap, as defined by ASTM E1527-21, is a data gap that affects the ability of the
environmental professional to identify recognized environmental conditions.
• Wasatch encountered no significant data gaps through the course of this assessment.
11. CONCLUSIONS
We have performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment in general conformance with the scope
and limitations of ASTM E1527-21 for the Grantsville Soil Conservation property located along UT-112 in
Grantsville, Utah. Any exceptions to, or deletions from, this practice are described in Section 9 of this
report. This assessment has identified no recognized environmental conditions, controlled recognized
environmental conditions , or significant data gaps in connection with the subject property except the
following:
• The known chlorinated solvent impacts to the subject property form releases on the adjoining
south TEAD site that are being managed with regulatory oversight and the GWMA restrictions
represent a controlled recognized environmental condition on the subject property . Current and
future property owners will need to be aware of any changes to the GWMA restrictions and allow
the Army to continue groundwater monitoring associated with the wells on the subject property. It
is our opinion that no further investigation is warranted at this time .
This report is based on our review of available historical and environmental records; visual observations
of the surface of the subject property and adjoining properties; and personal interviews with available
persons having knowledge of the subject property. Sections 10 and 11 of the report, Findings and
Opinions, and Conclusions are considered an Executive Summary and should be reviewed in conjunction
with the entire report.
We declare that, to the best of our professional knowledge and belief, we meet the definition of
Environmental Professional as defined in 312 .10 of 40 CFR 312 and have the specific qualifications
based on education, training, and experience to assess a property of the nature, history, and setting of
the subject property. We have developed and performed the all-appropriate inquiries in conformance with
the standards and practices set forth in 40 CFR Part 312.
Sincerely,
WASATCH ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
Audra Heinzel ulie Kilgore, President
Senior Project Environmental Scientist Principal Environmental Manager
Distribution : 1 Electronic
Wasatch Environmental, Inc. 12
Appendix A
Maps and Figures
GRANTSVILLE SOIL CONSERVATION PROPERTY wE12s49.004
Sky di ve U ah q
A Mavenk Adventure '$ Marshal l
@) Y Firs. stop
nclerson Farms ft
by Richmond .. T ft And e son Ranch
T Grantsvill e, u ah
Approximate
Location of
Subject Property
A.WASATCH ..-= ENVIRONMENTA L
Purpl e Ma r ess
Fa ctory -Gra nt svtll e
Q
(ill)
Des eret ,a k Co mp le x 9 T ·
oo ele Gymnast .N Acad e
I!
Vicinity Map Figure 1
The use or reuse of this information is restricted to the referenced document unless otherwise authorized .
Wasatch Environmental Copyright 2006
A.WASATCH ..-= ENVIRONMENTAL
GRANTSVILLE SOIL CONSERVATION PROPERTY wE12s49.004
1u -11 ao -o~01L2
1-131-0-0003
• I
;:-ei
M
>'":"
F..--
~
,m
OJ e,
,.;,. " I
w ~
'"7'
I :s
01-131-0-0001
Approximate
Location of
Subject Property
Parcel Map Figure 2
The use or reuse of this information is restricted to the referenced document unless otherwise authorized .
Wasatch Environmental Copyright 2006
GRANTSVILLE SOIL CONSERVATION PROPERTY wE12s49.004
ffei[fll[fllIT'@~ollml<IDfr@
IL@@<IDfr □@lnl @ll
. ~ ~ll!llwj@©fr [ll>[1'@~@~
_J.i:loil..._r ~ tr'
ir:!l@IT'l(lftl [Q)@~@U
~@ll!llnl@<ID111f Wl@<ID@
\ Groundwater Flow Direction (Inferred)
A.WASATCH ..-= ENVIRONMENTAL
2022 Aerial Photograph Figure 3
e use or reuse o t 1s m orma 10n 1s restncte tot e re erence ocument un ess ot erw1se aut onze .
Wasatch Environmental Copyright 2006
291
A.WASATCH ..-= ENVIRONMENTAL
GRANTSVILLE SOIL CONSERVATION PROPERTY wE12s49.004
Approximate
Location of
Subject Property \ ~
35
\_
~
\
,.,.,.
\
\ \
\ •. I
··--'-
....,,_
opograp 1c ap, apte rom . . eological Survey Figure 4 Grantsville/Tooele, Utah 7 .5 Minute Quad ran le
The use or reuse of this information is restricted to the referenced document unless otherwise authorized .
Wasatch Environmental Copyright 2006
Monitoring well locations depicted on Figure 6
~[l)J[l)Jli'@X(□IITiil®~®
IL@©@~□@lnl@!i
~llll@j®~ !Plii'@[l)J®lru1f
~
@11-il©l
--WASATCH
.. ENVUI..ONMENTAL
Site Visit Map/Detailed Site Map Figure 5
The use or reuse of this information is restricted to the referenced document unless otherwise authorized .
Wasatch Environmental Copyright 2006
--WASATCH
.. ENVUI..ONMENTAL
GRANTSVILLE SOIL CONSERVATION PROPERTY WEI 2649-00
ffe,~~ll'@lZ □iimicfilU@
IL@@cfilU □@ITTl@lf
~Mibl]@@U iPll'@~@~
Monitoring Well Location Map
♦·i
Figure 6
The use or reuse of this information is restricted to the referenced document unless otherwise authorized .
Wasatch Environmental Copyright 2006
"NS" were scheduled for sampling but could not be sampled
levels.
I1ow unless labelled as ·oeep Well.·
,dary was updated using results from lhe 2021 annual event.
·ells with an asterisk (') were not used for development of lhe
,tourn are from lhe 2021 annual monnoring report and were
results from lhe 2021 semi-annual and 2019 annual events.
,urposes only. All locations are approximate.
ing ESRI ArcMapv . 10.7.
otes
~
result is an estimated value.
;sample result / field duplicate result
: Esri , DignalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographi es,
, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID , IGN , and lhe GIS User Communny
3 National Geographic Society, i-cubed
A-WASATCH
.. ENVUI..ONMENTAL
GRANTSVILLE SOIL CONSERVATION PROPERTY WEI 2649-00
2022 ANNUAL GROUNDWATER MONITORING
REPORT
TOOELE ARMY DEPOT, UTAH
SWMU-58 TCE CONCENTRATIONS IN
GROUNDWATER-2021ANNUALEVENT
oo•I• v
Legend
S Monitoring Well (TCE Concentration in µg/L)
S Monitoring Well (Not Sampled)
c:::J 2021 Shallow TCE lsoconcentration Contour (5 µg/L)
::_ 2021 Shallow TCE lsoconcentration Contour (50 µg /L)
c:::J 2021 Shallow TCE lsoconcentration Contour (100 µg /L)
~ _-_-_"j Previous Shallow TCE lsoconcentration Contour (5 µg/L)
----Previous Shallow TCE lsoconcentration Contour (50 µg /L)
~ _-_-_I Previous Shallow TCE lsoconcentration Contour (100 µg/L)
-Old Industrial Waste Lagoon
~ Former Sanfary Landfill
-Industrial Waste Lagoon
•111111111 Inferred Fault Location r:.:.-:: Tooele Anny Depot North Boundary
c::::J BRAG Pa rcel
WGS8', UTM ZONE 12 N, METE N
HOR/ZONAL DATUM: WGS 19841 VERTICAL •
3,000 1,500 0
SCALE IN FEET
PROJECTNo.: I DATE: I~----
770108 10/11 /202
DRAWN
TEAD TCE Plume Boundary Figure 7
The use or reuse of this information is restricted to the referenced document unless otherwise authorized .
Wasatch Environmental Copyright 2006
ffe,[lll[lllll'@lI□llilil®U@
IL@@®U□@il11 @\r
~Mihlj@@U iPll'@[lll®lruW
ili E~ll>]~
--WASATCH
.. ENVUI..ONMENTAL
GRANTSVILLE SOIL CONSERVATION PROPERTY WEI 2649-00
.... , .. .. ,
\
\
\
\
\
\
~
\
•·
GWMA Boundary Figure 8
The use or reuse of this information is restricted to the referenced document unless otherwise authorized .
Wasatch Environmental Copyright 2006
Appendix B
Site Photographs
Photo 1. Subject property from the southeast corner
facing northwest
Photo 3. Subject property from the west subject
property boundary facing east
Photo 2. Subject property from the southwest corner
facing northeast
Photo 4. Subject property from the northwest corner
facing southeast
Photo 5. Subject property from the northernmost
corner facing south
Photo 7. North subject property boundary from the
northeast corner facing east
Photo 6. Subject property from the easternmost north
corner facing southwest
Photo 8. north subject property boundary from the
northernmost corner facing southeast
Photo 9. North subject property from the northeast
corner facing northwest
Photo 11. South subject property boundary from the
southeast corner facing west
Photo 10. East subject property boundary from the
northeast corner facing south
Photo 12. South subject property boundary from the
central portion of the south subject property boundary
facing east
Photo 13 . South subject property boundary from the
central portion of the south subject property boundary
facing west
Photo 15. West subject property boundary from the
southwest corner facing north
Photo 14. South subject property boundary from the
southwest corner facing east
Photo 16. West subject property boundary from the
northwest corner facing south
Photo 17. Tank trailer on the south subject property
boundary
Photo 19. Water tank trailer on the south subject
property boundary
Photo 18. Fill pile on the south subject property
boundary
Photo 20. Drum and trash stored on southwest corner
of subject property
Photo 21. Pit on subject property Photo 22 . Pit on subject property
.....
Photo 23 . Pit on subject property Photo 24. Pit on subject property
Photo 25. Dilapidated structures on northeast portion
of subject property
,W..a
Photo 27 . Interior of southernmost dilapidated
structure
Photo 26. Interior of northernmost dilapidated
structure
Photo 28. Water trough on subject property
Photo 29. Water trough on subject property
Photo 31. Corral on northeast portion of subject
property
Photo 30. Old culvert on central portion of subject
property
Photo 32. Trailer generators stored on southeast
corner of subject property
Photo 33. Well on subject property Photo 34. Well on subject property
Photo 35. Well on subject property Photo 36. Well on subject property
Photo 37. Well on subject property
Photo 39 . North adjoining property from the northwest
corner
Photo 38. Well on subject property
Photo 40. North adjoining property from the
northernmost corner
Photo 41. North adjoining property from the southeast
corner
Photo 43. south adjoining property from the southeast
corner
Photo 42. east adjoining property from the southeast
corner
Photo 44. South adjoining property from the southwest
corner
Photo 45. West adjoining property from the southwest
corner
Photo 47. West adjoining property from the northwest
corner
Photo 46. West adjoining property from the central
portion of the west subject property boundary
AppendixC
User Questionnaire
USER QUESTIONNAIRE
In order to qualify for one of the Landowner Liability Protections (LLPs )1 offered by the Small Busi ness Liability
Relief and Brown fi elds Revitalization Act of 2001 (the "Brownfields Amendments "),2 the user must prov ide the
following information (if available} to the environmental professional . Failure to provide this information could
result in a determination that "all appropriate inquiry" is not complete.
Site Name: Date :
M~"" ~ c...r
(1 .) Did a search of recorded land title records identify any environmental liens filed or recorded against the
property under federal, tribal, state or local law?
~ i /&o [\) Y es (Discribe or attach i[1formati on) ~
lv' (!J + ) lt. s-e. G\. (' C, V'\. 1: I
(2.) Did a search of recorded land title records identify any activity and use limitations , such as engineering
controls, land use restrictions or institutional controls that are in place at the property and/or have been
filed or recorded against the property under federal, tribal , state or local law?
/ No Yes kescribe or attach information) ~ A f\ Jo +,} s, o,,,cc. \,,. i3~ t
(3 .) Do you have any specialized knowledge or experience related to the property or nearby properties? For
example, are you involved in the same line of business as the current or former occupants of the property
or an adjoining property so that you would have specialized knowledge of the chemicals and processes
used b~pe of business?
~ Yes (Describe or attach information)
(4 .) Does the purchase price being paid for this property reasonably reflect the fair market value of the
property?
No
If you conclude that there is a difference, have you considered whether the lower purchase price is
because contamination is known or believed to be present at the property? l No Yes (Describe or attach information)
NA·
1 Landowner Liability Protections, or LLPs, is the term used to describe the three types of potential defenses to Superfund liability in EPA's Interim
Guidance Regarding Criteria Landowners Must Meet in Order lo Qualify for Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser, Contiguous Property Owner, or Innocent
Landowner Limitations on CERCLA Liability ("Common Elements" Guide) issued on March 6, 2003 .
2P.L. 107-118.
(5.) Are you aware of commonly known or reasonably ascertainable information about the property (such as
any prior Phase I Environmental Site Assessments) that would help the environmental professional to
identify conditions indicative of releases or threatened releases? For example,
(a .) Do you know ~st uses of the property?
No ~escribe or attach information)
(b .) Do ~ow of specific c~em icals that are present or once were present at the property?
~ Yes (Describe or attach information)
(c.) Do you know ills or other chemical releases that have taken place at the property?
Yes escribe or attach information)
I T
(d .) Do ~w of any environmental cleanups that have taken place at the property?
~ Yes (Describe or attach information)
(6.) Based on your knowledge and experience related to the property are there any obvious indicators that
point to ~~ence or likely presence of releases at the property?
~ Yes (Describe or attach information)
(7 .) Are you aware of any pending, threatened , or past litigation relevant to hazardous substances or
petroleum products in connection with the property; or any pending, threatened, or past administrative
procee~~evant to hazardous substances or petroleum products in connection with the property?
~ Yes (Describe or attach information)
(8 .) Are you aware of any notices from any governmental entity regarding any possible violation of
enviro~ws or possible liability relating to hazardous substances or petroleum products?
~ Yes (Describe or attach information)
Appendix D
Historical Aerial Photographs
GRANTSVILLE SOIL CONSERVATION PROPERTY wEI1000-000
1938 Aerial Photograph
A.WASATCH ..-= ENVIRONMENTAL
The use or reuse of this information is restricted to the referenced document unless otherwise authorized .
Wasatch Environmental Copyright 2006
WASATCH ..-= ENVIRONMENTAL
GRANTSVILLE SOIL CONSERVATION PROPERTY wEI1000-000
b\[ll)[ll)ll'@IZ □llml@lfr@
IL@@@lfr □@llil @ii
~llll@]@@fr i)2lIT'@[ll)®iruW
1953 Aerial Photograph
The use or reuse of this information is restricted to the referenced document unless otherwise authorized .
Wasatch Environmental Copyright 2006
GRANTSVILLE SOIL CONSERVATION PROPERTY wEI1000-000
1965 Aerial Photograph
.A.WASATCH ..-= ENVIRONMENTAL
The use or reuse of this information is restricted to the referenced document unless otherwise authorized .
Wasatch Environmental Copyright 2006
GRANTSVILLE SOIL CONSERVATION PROPERTY wEI1000-000
1971 Aerial Photograph
.A.WASATCH ..-= ENVIRONMENTAL
The use or reuse of this information is restricted to the referenced document unless otherwise authorized .
Wasatch Environmental Copyright 2006
.A.WASATCH ..-= ENVIRONMENTAL
GRANTSVILLE SOIL CONSERVATION PROPERTY wEI1000-000
ffei[j2)[]2lll'©LZ □IITiil®~®
l@©®~□@llil @\f
~l\llllll]@©~ iPll'©IJ2l®ITi!V
..,
I
1980 Aerial Photograph
The use or reuse of this information is restricted to the referenced document unless otherwise authorized .
Wasatch Environmental Copyright 2006
a·zs, 'reoer JN
11E"o"'1 '1 q ClllM
WASATCH ..-= ENVIRONMENTAL
GRANTSVILLE SOIL CONSERVATION PROPERTY wEI1000-000
ffi;\[p)[p)ll'@21 □1ffiil®it@
IL@©®it □@ll'il @'lf
~llllibJ]@©\t iFlll'@[p)®iruW
1993 Aerial Photograph
The use or reuse of this information is restricted to the referenced document unless otherwise authorized .
Wasatch Environmental Copyright 2006
GRANTSVILLE SOIL CONSERVATION PROPERTY wE12s49.004
1997 Aerial Photograph
.A.WASATCH ..-= ENVIRONMENTAL
The use or reuse of this information is restricted to the referenced document unless otherwise authorized .
Wasatch Environmental Copyright 2006
GRANTSVILLE SOIL CONSERVATION PROPERTY wE12s49.004
2003 Aerial Photograph
WASATCH ..-= ENVIRONMENTAL
The use or reuse of this information is restricted to the referenced document unless otherwise authorized .
Wasatch Environmental Copyright 2006
lf!l@~Uil @@~~
~@QJ\lfi)(ru~~~
.A.WASATCH ..-= ENVIRONMENTAL
GRANTSVILLE SOIL CONSERVATION PROPERTY wE12s49.004
2006 Aerial Photograph
The use or reuse of this information is restricted to the referenced document unless otherwise authorized .
Wasatch Environmental Copyright 2006
GRANTSVILLE SOIL CONSERVATION PROPERTY wE12s49.004
2013 Aerial Photograph
.A.WASATCH ..-= ENVIRONMENTAL
The use or reuse of this information is restricted to the referenced document unless otherwise authorized .
Wasatch Environmental Copyright 2006
GRANTSVILLE SOIL CONSERVATION PROPERTY wE12s49.004
0 llilil@I~@
lo ITTl@ii'
~IUl@j @[ll)@iruW
2017 Aerial Photograph
.A.WASATCH ..-= ENVIRONMENTAL
The use or reuse of this information is restricted to the referenced document unless otherwise authorized .
Wasatch Environmental Copyright 2006
Appendix E
Government Database Information
Project Property:
Project No:
Report Type:
Order No:
Requested by:
Date Completed:
Grantsville Soil Conservation Property
Sheep Lane
Tooele UT
2649-004
Database Report
23072100687
Wasatch Environmental
July 24, 2023
Environmental Risk Information Services
A division of Glacier Media Inc.
1.866.517.5204 I [e-mail] I erisinfo.com
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ........................................................................................... 2
Executive Summary ........................................................................................ 3
Executive Summary : Report Summary ....................................................................................................................... 4
Executive Summary: Site Report Summary -Project Property ................................................................................... 8
Executive Summary : Site Report Summary -Surrounding Properties ........................................................................ 9
Executive Summary : Summary by Data Source ....................................................................................................... 10
Map ............................................................................................................... 11
Aerial ............................................................................................................. 14
Topographic Map .......................................................................................... 15
Detail Report ................................................................................................. 16
Unplottable Summary ................................................................................... 18
Unplottable Report ........................................................................................ 19
Appendix : Database Descriptions ................................................................. 20
Definitions ..................................................................................................... 33
Notice: IMPORTANT LIMITATIONS and YOUR LIABILITY
Reliance on information in Report: This report DOES NOT replace a full Phase I Environmental Site Assessment but is solely intended to be used as
database review of environmental records .
License for use of information in Report: No page of this report can be used without this cover page, this notice and the project property identifier.
The information in Report(s) may not be modified or re-sold .
Your Liability for misuse : Using this Service and/or its reports in a manner contrary to this Notice or your agreement will be in breach of copyright and
contract and ERIS may obtain damages for such mis-use, including damages caused to third parties, and gives ERIS the right to terminate your account,
rescind your license to any previous reports and to bar you from future use of the Service .
No warranty of Accuracy or Liability for ERIS : The information contained in this report has been produced by ERIS Information Inc. ("ERIS") using
various sources of information, including information provided by Federal and State government departments . The report applies only to the address and
up to the date specified on the cover of this report, and any alterations or deviation from this description will require a new report. This report and the
data contained herein does not purport to be and does not constitute a guarantee of the accuracy of the information contained herein and does not
constitute a legal opinion nor medical advice . Although ERIS has endeavored to present you with information that is accurate, ERIS disclaims, any and
all liability for any errors, omissions, or inaccuracies in such information and data, whether attributable to inadvertence, negligence or otherwise, and for
any consequences arising therefrom . Liability on the part of ERIS is limited to the monetary value paid for this report.
Trademark and Copyright: You may not use the ERIS trademarks or attribute any work to ERIS other than as outlined above . This Service and Report
(s) are protected by copyright owned by ERIS Information Inc. Copyright in data used in the Service or Report(s) (the "Data") is owned by ERIS or its
licensors. The Service, Report(s) and Data may not be copied or reproduced in whole or in any substantial part without prior written consent of ERIS .
eris info .com I Environmental Risk Information Services Order No : 23072100687
Property Information:
Project Property:
Project No:
Coordinates:
Elevation:
Order Information:
Order No:
Date Requested:
Requested by:
Report Type:
Historicals/Products:
ERIS Xplorer
Excel Add-On
Latitude:
Longitude:
UTM Northing:
UTM Easting:
UTMZone:
-
Executive Summary
Grantsville Soil Conservation Property
Sheep Lane Tooele UT
2649-004
40.57092585
-112.39693516
4,492,065.15
381,755.22
12T
4,425 FT
23072100687
July 21, 2023
Wasatch Environmental
Database Report
ERIS Xplorer
Excel Add-On
erisinfo .com I Environmental Risk Information Services Order No : 23072100687
Executive Su-mmary: Report Su-mmary
Database Searched Search Project Within 0.125mi 0.25mito 0.50mito Total
Radius Property 0.12mi to0.25mi 0.50mi 1.00mi
Standard Environmental Records
Federal
NPL
y 0 1 0 0 0 1
PROPOSED NPL
y 0 0 0 0 0 0
DELETED NPL
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
SEMS
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
OD!
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
SEMS ARCHIVE
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
CERCLIS
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
IODI
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
CERCLIS NFRAP
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
CERCLIS LIENS
y PO 0 0
RCRA CORRACTS
y 0 0 0 0 0 0
RCRA TSD
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
RCRALQG
y 0.25 0 0 0 0
RCRASQG
y 0.25 0 0 0 0
RCRA VSQG
y 0.25 0 0 0 0
RCRANON GEN
y 0.25 0 0 0 0
RCRA CONTROLS
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
FED ENG
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
FED INST
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
LUCIS
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
NPLIC
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
ERNS 1982 TO 1986
y PO 0 0
ERNS 1987 TO 1989
y PO 0 0
ERNS
y PO 0 0
FED BROWNFIELDS
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
FEMAUST
y 0.25 0 0 0 0
FRP
y 0.25 0 0 0 0
erisinfo .com I Environmental Risk Information Services Order No : 23072100687
Database Searched Search Project Within 0.125mi 0.25mi to 0.50mito Total
Radius Property 0.12mi to0.25mi 0.50mi 1.00mi
DELISTED FRP
y 0.25 0 0 0 0
HIST GAS STATIONS
y 0.25 0 0 0 0
REFN
y 0.25 0 0 0 0
BULK TERMINAL
y 0.25 0 0 0 0
SEMS LIEN
y PO 0 0
SUPERFUND ROD
y 0 0 0 0 0 0
DOE FUSRAP
y 0 0 0 0 0 0
State
NPLUT
y 0 0 0 0 0 0
CONTAM POTENTIAL
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
SWF/LF
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
HSWF
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
LUST
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
LAST
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
DELISTED LST
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
UST
y 0.25 0 0 0 0
AST
y 0.25 0 0 0 0
UST LAPSE
y 0.25 0 0 0 0
DTNK
y 0.25 0 0 0 0
BROWN FIELDS
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
VCP
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
RESPONSE
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
INST
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
Tribal
INDIAN LUST
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
INDIAN UST
y 0.25 0 0 0 0
DELISTED INDIAN LST
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
DELISTED INDIAN UST
y 0.25 0 0 0 0
County No County standard environmental record sources available for this State.
Additional Environmental Record§
Federal
FINDS/FRS
y PO 0 0
TRIS
y PO 0 0
erisinfo .com I Environmental Risk Information Services Order No : 23072100687
Database Searched Search Project Within 0.125mi 0.25mi to 0.50mito Total
Radius Property 0.12mi to0.25mi 0.S0mi 1.00mi
PFAS NPL
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
PFAS FED SITES
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
PFASSSEHRI
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
ERNS PFAS
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
PFAS NPDES
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
PFASTRI
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
PFASWATER
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
PFASTSCA
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
PFAS E-MANIFEST
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
PFAS IND
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
HMIRS
y 0.125 0 0 0
NCDL
y 0.125 0 0 0
TSCA
y 0.125 0 0 0
HISTTSCA
y 0.125 0 0 0
FTTSADMIN
y PO 0 0
FTTSINSP
y PO 0 0
PRP
y PO 0 0
SCRD DRYCLEANER
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
ICIS
y PO 0 0
FED DRYCLEANERS
y 0.25 0 0 0 0
DELISTED FED DRY
y 0.25 0 0 0 0
FUDS
y 0 0 0 0 0 0
FUDS MRS
y 0 0 0 0 0 0
FORMER NIKE
y 0 0 0 0 0 0
PIPELINE INCIDENT
y PO 0 0
MLTS
y PO 0 0
HISTMLTS
y PO 0 0
MINES
y 0.25 0 0 0 0
SMCRA
y 0 0 0 0 0 0
MRDS
y 0 0 0 0 0 0
LM SITES
y 0 0 0 0 0 0
ALT FUELS
y 0.25 0 0 0 0
CONSENT DECREES
y 0.25 0 0 0 0
AFS
y PO 0 0
SSTS
y 0.25 0 0 0 0
erisinfo .com I Environmental Risk Information Services Order No : 23072100687
Database Searched Search Project With in 0.125mi 0.25m i to 0.50m i to Total
Radius Property 0.12mi to0.25m i 0.S0mi 1.00mi
PCBT
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
PCB
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
State
SPILLS
y 0.125 0 0 0
CDL
y PO 0 0
DRY CLEANERS
y 0.25 0 0 0 0
DELISTED DRYCLEANERS
y 0.25 0 0 0 0
TIER2
y 0.125 0 0 0
Tribal No Tribal additional environmental record sources available for this State.
County No County additional environmental record sources available for this State.
Total : 0 1 0 0 0 1
* PO -Property Only
* 'Property and adjoining properties' database search radii are set at 0.25 miles.
erisinfo .com I Environmental Risk Information Services Order No : 23072100687
Executive Su-mmary: Site Report Su-mmary -Project Property
Map
Key
DB Company/Site Name Address
No records found in the selected databases for the project property .
erisinfo .com I Environmental Risk Information Services
Direction Distance
(mi/ft)
Elev Diff
(ft)
Page
Number
Order No : 23072100687
Executive Su-mmary: Site Report Su-mmary-Su-rrounding Properties
Map DB Company/Site Name Address Direction Distance Elev Diff Page
Key (mi/ft) (ft) Number
1 NPL TOOELE ARMY DEPOT 3 Ml S OF TOOELE ON HWY WSW 0 .00 / 25.08 9 16 -(NORTH AREA) 36
TOOELE UT 84074
EPA ID: UT3213820894
erisinfo .com I Environmental Risk Information Services Order No : 23072100687
Standard
Federal
NPL -National Priority List
A search of the NPL database, dated May 25, 2023 has found that there are 1 NPL site(s) within approximately 1.00 miles of the project
property .
Equal/Higher Elevation Address
TOOELE ARMY DEPOT (NORTH 3 Ml S OF TOOELE ON HWY 36
AREA) TOOELE UT 84074
EPA ID: UT3213820894
erisinfo .com I Environmental Risk Information Services
Direction
WSW
Distance (mi/ft)
0.00 I 25 .08
Map Key
Order No : 23072100687
112°26'W
I
I
I
0.55
112°25'30"W
0 ,275
112°25'W
I
I
I
#
112°24'30"W
# ------
112°24'W 112"23'30"W 112°23'W
Marshall
.... .... .. ............
........
_.-----.... .. .. ---....
........ .. .... ..
112"22'30"W 112°22'W
.... .. .. .. j
I .. f ' '\. ... -. ----------------------\ -------,
0
\ .... __ j~~~-------------------~------~ .. I
.. #
.. #
.. #
~---------~--------------------------
Miles
0.55
Map: 1.0 Mile Radius
Order Number: 23072100687
Address : Sheep Lane, Tooele, UT
112°21'30"W
I
I
I
1:35500
D Project Property ,_-~ Buffer Outline
,6 Sites with Higher Elevation Freeways ; Highways
Traffic Circle ; Ramp
Major & Minor Arterial
Traffic Circle ; Ramp
State ~ FWS Special Designation Areas
□ Sites with Same Elevation
T Sites with Lower Elevation
0 Sites with Unknown Elevation
II II Areas with Higher Elevation
II II Areas with Same Elevation
D Areas with Lower Elevation
D Areas with Unknown Elevation
C--Local Road
-+--Rail
Source: © 2021 ESRI StreetMap Premium
-Country
-National Wetland
~ Indian Reserve Land
C:J Plume
~ 100 Year Flood Zone
~ 500 Year Flood Zone
-National Priorities List (Active , Delisted ,
Proposed, Institutional Control)
© ERIS Information Inc.
z r,,
M
~
z ..
M
~
z
0
M
M
M
0 "
112'25'W
(
I
I
I
'
,
' I
I
' ' ~
#
112'24'30"W
---------,
I
'
112'24'W 112'23'30"W
J
.. .. ..
112'23'W
.... ............
Utah Mo
.. ..
~
'
-----------------------------
112'22'30"W
rsports Campus
112'22'W
•
( I
' '
.... -------------------------------------------
__ .,,,l
~
~ .. .. .... .... ---------------------------------------------
\
~ \
~ I o.4 0.2 0
Map: 0.5 Mile Radius
Order Number: 23072100687
Address : Sheep Lane, Tooele, UT
Miles
0.4
D Project Property ,_-~ Buffer Outline
,6 Sites with Higher Elevation Freeways ; Highways
Traffic Circle ; Ramp
Major & Minor Arterial
Traffic Circle ; Ramp
□ Sites with Same Elevation
T Sites with Lower Elevation
0 Sites with Unknown Elevation
II II Areas with Higher Elevation
II II Areas with Same Elevation
D Areas with Lower Elevation
D Areas with Unknown Elevation
C--Local Road
-+--Rail
Source: © 2021 ESRI StreetMap Premium
State
-Country
-National Wetland
~ Indian Reserve Land
C:J Plume
~ 100 Year Flood Zone
~ 500 Year Flood Zone
1:26300
~ FWS Special Designation Areas
-National Priorities List (Active, Delisted,
Proposed, Institutional Control)
© ERIS Information Inc.
112·2sw
I
' ' ~
~ ..
# ,
•
I
112•24•3o•w 112•24w 112°23'30"W
--...... .. .,,------------.... ..........
•
Grantsville
--------------------------------
112•23w 112°22'30"W
----------,
# .... ---------------------------------------------------
0.35 0.175 0
Map: 0.25 Mile Radius
Order Number: 23072100687
Address : Sheep Lane, Tooele, UT
D Project Property ,_-~ Buffer Outline
,6 Sites with Higher Elevation Freeways ; Highways
Traffic Circle ; Ramp
Major & Minor Arterial
Traffic Circle ; Ramp
□ Sites with Same Elevation
T Sites with Lower Elevation
0 Sites with Unknown Elevation
II II Areas with Higher Elevation
II II Areas with Same Elevation
D Areas with Lower Elevation
D Areas with Unknown Elevation
C--Local Road
-+--Rail
Source: © 2021 ESRI StreetMap Premium
State
-Country
-National Wetland
~ Indian Reserve Land
C:J Plume
~ 100 Year Flood Zone
~ 500 Year Flood Zone
1:21700
~ FWS Special Designation Areas
-National Priorities List (Active, Delisted,
Proposed, Institutional Control)
© ERIS Information Inc.
Aerial Year: 2019
Address: Sheep Lane, Tooele, UT
Source: ESRI World Imagery
Order Number: 23072100687
ER I S ~ ....__...
© ERIS Information Inc.
112'25'W 112'24'30"W 112'24'W
W TC03692
✓
i [
t --I t
I
I
I
I
I
I
4
t
\
+--
Topographic Map Year:2017
Address: Sheep Lane, UT
Quadrangle(s): Grantsville , UT ; Tooele , UT
Source: USGS Topograph ic Map
112'23'30"W 112'23'W 112'22'30"W 112'22'W
~ ,;, .,,..
"' 2
" I
~ .:;; ---
~
4)50
j
Q
0:
:j 2 ...
3;
0:
!
... ,.
2
---7
~
Order Number: 23072100687
© ERIS Information Inc.
Map Key Number of
Records
f 1 of1
EPA ID:
Site ID:
Street Addr Txt (SEMS):
City Name (SEMS):
State Code (SEMS):
Zip Code (SEMS):
County (SEMS):
Data Source:
NPL fSEMS FOIA 004/
Federal Facility: Yes
NPL Status Dt: 08/30/90
NA/: No
NA Entity (NA/ Status):
SAA (Superfund Alt):
NPL rsuperfund Sites Listi
SEMSID:
Status:
Site Score:
SITS ID:
Constr Complete No:
Constr Complete Dt:
Partial Deletion:
Proposed Fr Notice:
Final Fr Notice:
NOID Fr Notice:
Deletion Fr Notice:
Restoration Fr Notice:
800755
NPL Site
53.95
888
0
Notice of Data Availability:
Site Listing Narrative:
Site Progress Profile:
Detail Report
Direction
WSW
UT3213820894
Distance
(mi/ft)
0.00/
25.08
3 Ml S OF TOOELE ON HWY 36
TOOELE
UT
84074
TOOELE
Elev/Diff
(ft)
4,434.041
9
Site
TOOELE ARMY DEPOT (NORTH
AREA)
3 Ml S OF TOOELE ON HWY 36
TOOELE UT 84074
DB
NPL
U.S . EPA Site Boundaries Shapefile Download; U.S. EPA SUPERFUND PROGRAM . Source: SEMS Superfund
Public User Database . FOIA4 All Final NPL Sites. Retrieved on 25-MAY-2023.
County:
Latitude:
Longitude:
Proposed Date:
Listing Date:
NOIDDate:
Deletion Date:
Latitude:
Longitude:
No
TOOELE
+40 .526461
-112.410368
10/15/1984
08/30/1990
40.541669
-112 .375
<a href="https ://semspub.epa.gov/src/document/11/189641" target="_blank">10/15/1984 (PDF)</a>
<a href="https://semspub.epa.gov/src/document/11/189637" target="_blank">08/30/1990 (PDF)</a>
<a href="https ://semspub .epa .gov/src/document/08/100000229" target="_ blank">UT3213820894 (PDF)</a>
<a href="https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0800755" target="_ blank"> Tooele Army Depot
(North Area)</a>
NPL (EPA Boundaries/
EPA Program:
NPL Status:
Superfund Remedial
F
Feature 1:
Primary Telephone:
Fourth FYR
[phone]
Yes Fed Facility:
GISArea:
G/S Area Unit:
Last Changed:
Site Contact:
Site Contact 1:
Feature In:
Site Feature:
Site Feature 1:
Site Feature 2:
Yes Public Release:
23333.566251 Original C:
Acres Region Code:
26-AUG-22 12.00.00.000000 AM TierAccur:
Douglas Bacon
bacon .douglas@epa .gov
https://semspub.epa.gov/work/08/1893734 .pdf
Site Boundary
Comprehensive Site Area
1
erisinfo .com I Environmental Risk Information Services
8
3
Order No : 23072100687
Map Key
Site Feature 3:
Site Feature 4:
Site Feature 5:
Site Feature 6:
Uri Alias:
Number of
Records
Direction
2
Distance
(mi/ft)
Tooele Army Depot Site Map
Elev/Diff
(ft)
Site DB
Tooele Army Depot (TEAD) was originally established in 1942 as the Tooele Ordnance Depot by the U.S.Army
Ordnance Department. It was designated as TEAD-N in August 1962. In 1996, TEAD-Nwas designated as TEAD .
TEAD has functioned as a major ammunition sto
U.S . Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) -Region 8
www .epa .gov/superfund/tooele-army-depot
eris info.com I Environmental Risk Information Services Order No : 23072100687
-
Unplottable Summary
Total: 0 Unplottable sites
DB Company Name/Site
Name
Address
No unplottable records were found that may be relevant for the search criteria .
erisinfo .com I Environmental Risk Information Services
City Zip ERISID
Order No : 23072100687
Unplottable Report
No unplottable records were found that may be relevant for the search criteria .
erisinfo.com I Environmental Risk Information Services Order No : 23072100687
Appendix: Database Descriptions
Environmental Risk Information Services (ERIS) can search the following databases. The extent of historical information varies with
each database and current information is determined by what is publicly available to ERIS at the time of update . ERIS updates
databases as set out in ASTM Standard E1527-13 and E1527-21, Section 8.1.8 Sources of Standard Source Information :
"Government information from nongovernmental sources may be considered current if the source updates the information at least every
90 days, or, for information that is updated less frequently than quarterly by the government agency, within 90 days of the date the
government agency makes the information available to the public."
Standard Environmental Record Sources
Federal
National Priority List: NPL
Sites on the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s National Priorities List of the most serious uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous
waste sites identified for possible long-term remedial action under the Superfund program . The NPL, which EPA is required to update at least once a
year, is based primarily on the score a site receives from EPA's Hazard Ranking System. A site must be on the NPL to receive money from the
Superfund Trust Fund for remedial action . Sites are represented by boundaries where available in the EPA Superfund Site Boundaries maintained by
the Shared Enterprise Geodata and Services (SEGS). Site boundaries represent the footprint of a whole site , the sum of all of the Operable Units and
the current understanding of the full extent of contamination ; for Federal Facility sites, the total site polygon may be the Facility boundary. Where there is
no polygon boundary data available for a given site, the site is represented as a point.
Government Publication Date: May 25, 2023
National Priority List -Proposed: PROPOSED NPL
Sites proposed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the state agency, or concerned citizens for addition to the National
Priorities List (NPL) due to contamination by hazardous waste and identified by the EPA as a candidate for cleanup because it poses a risk to human
health and/or the environment. Sites are represented by boundaries where available in the EPA Superfund Site Boundaries maintained by the Shared
Enterprise Geodata and Services (SEGS). Site boundaries represent the footprint of a whole site , the sum of all of the Operable Units and the current
understanding of the full extent of contamination; for Federal Facility sites, the total site polygon may be the Facility boundary. Where there is no
polygon boundary data available for a given site , the site is represented as a point.
Government Publication Date: May 25, 2023
Deleted NPL: DELETED NPL
Sites deleted from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s National Priorities List. The National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) establishes the criteria that the EPA uses to delete sites from the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425.(e), sites
may be deleted from the NPL where no further response is appropriate . Sites are represented by boundaries where available in the EPA Superfund Site
Boundaries maintained by the Shared Enterprise Geodata and Services (SEGS). Site boundaries represent the footprint of a whole site, the sum of all of
the Operable Units and the current understanding of the full extent of contamination ; for Federal Facility sites, the total site polygon may be the Facility
boundary . Where there is no polygon boundary data available for a given site , the site is represented as a point.
Government Publication Date: May 25, 2023
SEMS List BR Active Site Inventory: SEMS
The U.S . Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Superfund Program has deployed the Superfund Enterprise Management System (SEMS), which
integrates multiple legacy systems into a comprehensive tracking and reporting tool. This inventory contains active sites evaluated by the Superfund
program that are either proposed to be or are on the National Priorities List (NPL) as well as sites that are in the screening and assessment phase for
possible inclusion on the NPL. The Active Site Inventory Report displays site and location information at active SEMS sites . An active site is one at
which site assessment, removal, remedial, enforcement, cost recovery , or oversight activities are being planned or conducted . This data includes SEMS
sites from the List SR Active file as well as applicable sites from the SEMS GIS/REST file layer obtained from EPA's Facility Registry Service.
Government Publication Date: Mar 23, 2023
erisinfo .com I Environmental Risk Information Services Order No : 23072100687
Inventory of Open Dumps. June 1985: ODI
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) provides for publication of an inventory of open dumps. The Act defines "open dumps" as
facilities which do not comply with EPA's "Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices" (40 CFR 257).
Government Publication Date: Jun 1985
SEMS List BR Archive Sites: SEMS ARCHIVE
The U.S . Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Superfund Enterprise Management System (SEMS) Archived Site Inventory displays site and
location information at sites archived from SEMS. An archived site is one at which EPA has determined that assessment has been completed and no
further remedial action is planned under the Superfund program at this time. This data includes sites from the List SR Archived site file .
Government Publication Date: Mar 23, 2023
Comprehensive Environmental Response. Compensation and Liability Information System -CERCLIS
CERCLIS:
Superfund is a program administered by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to locate, investigate, and clean up the worst
hazardous waste sites throughout the United States. CERCLIS is a database of potential and confirmed hazardous waste sites at which the EPA
Superfund program has some involvement. It contains sites that are either proposed to be or are on the National Priorities List (NPL) as well as sites
that are in the screening and assessment phase for possible inclusion on the NPL. The EPA administers the Superfund program in cooperation with
individual states and tribal governments; this database is made available by the EPA.
Government Publication Date: Oct 25, 2013
EPA Report on the Status of Open Dumps on Indian Lands: 1001
Public Law 103-399, The Indian Lands Open Dump Cleanup Act of 1994, enacted October 22, 1994, identified congressional concerns that solid waste
open dump sites located on American Indian or Alaska Native (Al/AN) lands threaten the health and safety of residents of those lands and contiguous
areas. The purpose of the Act is to identify the location of open dumps on Indian lands, assess the relative health and environment hazards posed by
those sites, and provide financial and technical assistance to Indian tribal governments to close such dumps in compliance with Federal standards and
regulations or standards promulgated by Indian Tribal governments or Alaska Native entities.
Government Publication Date: Dec 31, 1998
CERCLIS -No Further Remedial Action Planned: CERCLIS NFRAP
An archived site is one at which EPA has determined that assessment has been completed and no further remedial action is planned under the
Superfund program at this time. The Archive designation means that, to the best of EPA's knowledge, assessment at a site has been completed and
that EPA has determined no further steps will be taken to list this site on the National Priorities List (NPL). This decision does not necessarily mean that
there is no hazard associated with a given site ; it only means that, based upon available information , the location is not judged to be a potential NPL
site .
Government Publication Date: Oct 25, 2013
CERCLIS Liens: CERCLIS LIENS
A Federal Superfund lien exists at any property where EPA has incurred Superfund costs to address contamination ("Superfund site") and has provided
notice of liability to the property owner. A Federal CERCLA ("Superfund") lien can exist by operation of law at any site or property at which EPA has
spent Superfund monies. This database is made available by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This database was provided by
the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Refer to SEMS LIEN as the current data source for Superfund Liens.
Government Publication Date: Jan 30, 2014
RCRA CORRACTS-Corrective Action: RCRA CORRACTS
RCRA Info is the U .S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. At these sites, the Corrective
Action Program ensures that cleanups occur. EPA and state regulators work with facilities and communities to design remedies based on the
contamination, geology, and anticipated use unique to each site .
Government Publication Date: Apr 24, 2023
RCRA non-CORRACTS TSD Facilities: RCRA TSO
RCRA Info is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) comprehensive information system , providing access to data supporting the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. This database includes Non-
Corrective Action sites listed as treatment , storage and/or disposal facilities of hazardous waste as defined by RCRA.
Government Publication Date: Apr 24, 2023
erisinfo .com I Environmental Risk Information Services Order No : 23072100687
RCRA Generator List: RCRALQG
RCRA Info is the U .S . Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. RCRA Info replaces the data
recording and reporting abilities of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS) and the Biennial Reporting System (BRS). A
hazardous waste generator is any person or site whose processes and actions create hazardous waste (see 40 CFR 260.10). Large Quantity
Generators (LQGs) generate 1,000 kilograms per month or more of hazardous waste or more than one kilogram per month of acutely hazardous waste .
Government Publication Date: Apr 24, 2023
RCRA Small Quantity Generators List: RCRASQG
RCRA Info is the U .S . Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. RCRA Info replaces the data
recording and reporting abilities of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS) and the Biennial Reporting System (BRS). A
hazardous waste generator is any person or site whose processes and actions create hazardous waste (see 40 CFR 260.10). Small Quantity
Generators (SQGs) generate more than 100 kilograms , but less than 1,000 kilograms, of hazardous waste per month .
Government Publication Date: Apr 24, 2023
RCRA Very Small Quantity Generators List: RCRA VSQG
RCRA Info is the U .S . Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. A hazardous waste generator is
any person or site whose processes and actions create hazardous waste (see 40 CFR 260.10). Very Small Quantity Generators (VSQG) generate 100
kilograms or less per month of hazardous waste, or one kilogram or less per month of acutely hazardous waste . Additionally, VSQG may not
accumulate more than 1,000 kilograms of hazardous waste at any time .
Government Publication Date: Apr 24, 2023
RCRA Non-Generators: RCRANON GEN
RCRA Info is the U .S . Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. RCRA Info replaces the data
recording and reporting abilities of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS) and the Biennial Reporting System (BRS). A
hazardous waste generator is any person or site whose processes and actions create hazardous waste (see 40 CFR 260.10). Non-Generators do not
presently generate hazardous waste .
Government Publication Date: Apr 24, 2023
RCRA Sites with Controls: RCRA CONTROLS
List of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) facilities with institutional controls in place. RCRA gives the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) the authority to control hazardous waste from the "cradle-to-grave." This includes the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and
disposal of hazardous waste . RCRA also set forth a framework for the management of non-hazardous solid wastes. The 1986 amendments to RCRA
enabled EPA to address environmental problems that could result from underground tanks storing petroleum and other hazardous substances.
Government Publication Date: Apr 24, 2023
Federal Engineering Controls-ECs: FED ENG
This list of Engineering controls (ECs) is provided by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ECs encompass a variety of
engineered and constructed physical barriers (e.g., soil capping, sub-surface venting systems, mitigation barriers, fences) to contain and/or prevent
exposure to contamination on a property. The EC listing includes remedy component data from Superfund decision documents issued in fiscal years
1982-2021 for applicable sites on the final or deleted on the National Priorities List (NPL); and sites with a Superfund Alternative Approach (SAA)
Agreement in place . The only sites included that are not on the NPL; proposed for NPL; or removed from proposed NPL, are those with an SAA
Agreement in place .
Government Publication Date: Apr 26, 2023
Federal Institutional Controls-/Cs: FED INST
This list of Institutional controls (ICs) is provided by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ICs are non-engineered instruments,
such as administrative and legal controls, that help minimize the potential for human exposure to contamination and/or protect the integrity of the
remedy. Although it is EPA's expectation that treatment or engineering controls will be used to address principal threat wastes and that groundwater will
be returned to its beneficial use whenever practicable, ICs play an important role in site remedies because they reduce exposure to contamination by
limiting land or resource use and guide human behavior at a site. The IC listing includes remedy component data from Superfund decision documents
issued in fiscal years 1982-2021 for applicable sites on the final or deleted on the National Priorities List (NPL); and sites with a Superfund Alternative
Approach (SAA) Agreement in place . The only sites included that are not on the NPL; proposed for NPL; or removed from proposed NPL, are those with
an SAA Agreement in place .
Government Publication Date: Apr 26, 2023
erisinfo .com I Environmental Risk Information Services Order No : 23072100687
Land Use Control Information System: LUCIS
The LUCIS database is maintained by the U.S . Department of the Navy and contains information for former Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)
properties across the United States.
Government Publication Date: Sep 1, 2006
Institutional Control Boundaries at NPL sites: NPLIC
Boundaries of Institutional Control areas at sites on the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s National Priorities List, or Proposed or
Deleted , made available by the EPA's Shared Enterprise Geodata and Services (SEGS). United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s
National Priorities List of the most serious uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites identified for possible long-term remedial action under the
Superfund program . Institutional controls are non-engineered instruments such as administrative and legal controls that help minimize the potential for
human exposure to contamination and/or protect the integrity of the remedy.
Government Publication Date: May 25, 2023
Emergency Response Notification System: ERNS 1982 TO 1986
Database of oil and hazardous substances spill reports controlled by the National Response Center. The primary function of the National Response
Center is to serve as the sole national point of contact for reporting oil , chemical, radiological, biological, and etiological discharges into the environment
anywhere in the United States and its territories .
Government Publication Date: 1982-1986
Emergency Response Notification System: ERNS 1987 TO 1989
Database of oil and hazardous substances spill reports controlled by the National Response Center. The primary function of the National Response
Center is to serve as the sole national point of contact for reporting oil , chemical, radiological, biological, and etiological discharges into the environment
anywhere in the United States and its territories.
Government Publication Date: 1987-1989
Emergency Response Notification System: ERNS
Database of oil and hazardous substances spill reports made available by the United States Coast Guard National Response Center (NRC). The NRC
fields initial reports for pollution and railroad incidents and forwards that information to appropriate federal/state agencies for response . These data
contain initial incident data that has not been validated or investigated by a federal/state response agency.
Government Publication Date: Jan 16, 2023
The Assessment. Cleanup and Redevelopment Exchange System fACRESI Brownfield Database: FED BROWNFIELDS
Brownfields are real property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a
hazardous substance , pollutant, or contaminant. Cleaning up and reinvesting in these properties protects the environment, reduces blight, and takes
development pressures off greenspaces and working lands. This data is provided by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and
includes Brownfield sites from the Cleanups in My Community (CIMC) web application .
Government Publication Date: Sep 13, 2022
FEMA Underground Storage Tank Listing: FEMA UST
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) of the Department of Homeland Security maintains a list of FEMA owned underground storage
tanks.
Government Publication Date: Dec 31, 2017
Facility Response Plan: FRP
This listing contains facilities that have submitted Facility Response Plans (FRPs) to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Facilities that
could reasonably be expected to cause "substantial harm" to the environment by discharging oil into or on navigable waters are required to prepare and
submit FRPs. Harm is determined based on total oil storage capacity, secondary containment and age of tanks, oil transfer activities , history of
discharges, proximity to a public drinking water intake or sensitive environments. This listing includes FRP facilities from an applicable EPA FOIA file
and Homeland Infrastructure Foundation-Level Data (HIFLD) data file .
Government Publication Date: Aug 8, 2022
Delisted Facility Response Plans: DELISTED FRP
Facilities that once appeared in -and have since been removed from -the list of facilities that have submitted Facility Response Plans (FRP) to EPA.
Facilities that could reasonably be expected to cause "substantial harm" to the environment by discharging oil into or on navigable waters are required to
prepare and submit Facility Response Plans (FRPs). Harm is determined based on total oil storage capacity , secondary containment and age of tanks,
oil transfer activities, history of discharges, proximity to a public drinking water intake or sensitive environments.
Government Publication Date: Aug 8, 2022
eris info.com I Environmental Risk Information Services Order No : 23072100687
Historical Gas Stations: HIST GAS STATIONS
This historic directory of service stations is provided by the Cities Service Company. The directory includes Cities Service filling stations that were
located throughout the United States in 1930.
Government Publication Date: Jul 1, 1930
Petroleum Refineries: REFN
List of petroleum refineries from the U.S . Energy Information Administration (EIA) Refinery Capacity Report . Includes operating and idle petroleum
refineries (including new refineries under construction) and refineries shut down during the previous year located in the 50 States, the District of
Columbia, Puerto Rico , the Virgin Islands, Guam, and other U.S. possessions. Survey locations adjusted using public data.
Government Publication Date: Aug 30, 2022
Petroleum Product and Crude Oil Rail Terminals: BULK TERMINAL
List of petroleum product and crude oil rail terminals made available by the U.S . Energy Information Administration (EIA). Includes operable bulk
petroleum product terminals located in the 50 States and the District of Columbia with a total bulk shell storage capacity of 50,000 barrels or more,
and/or the ability to receive volumes from tanker, barge, or pipeline ; also rail terminals handling the loading and unloading of crude oil that were active
between 2017 and 2018. Petroleum product terminals comes from the EIA-815 Bulk Terminal and Blender Report, which includes working, shell in
operation, and shell idle for several major product groupings. Survey locations adjusted using public data.
Government Publication Date: Jun 29, 2022
LIEN on Property: SEMS LIEN
The U.S . Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Superfund Enterprise Management System (SEMS) provides Lien details on applicable properties,
such as the Superfund lien on property activity, the lien property information, and the parties associated with the lien .
Government Publication Date: Mar 23, 2023
Superfund Decision Documents: SUPERFUND ROD
This database contains a list of decision documents for Superfund sites. Decision documents serve to provide the reasoning for the choice of (or)
changes to a Superfund Site cleanup plan . The decision documents include completed Records of Decision (ROD), ROD Amendments, Explanations of
Significant Differences (ESD) for active and archived sites stored in the Superfund Enterprise Management System (SEMS), along with other associated
memos and files. This information is maintained and made available by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Government Publication Date: Mar 23, 2023
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program: DOE FUSRAP
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) established the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) in 1974 to remediate sites where
radioactive contamination remained from the Manhattan Project and early U.S . Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) operations . The DOE Office of
Legacy Management (LM) established long-term surveillance and maintenance (L TS&M) requirements for remediated FUSRAP sites. DOE evaluates
the final site conditions of a remediated site on the basis of risk for different future uses. DOE then confirms that L TS&M requirements will maintain
protectiveness .
Government Publication Date: Mar 4, 2017
Utah National Priorities List: NPLUT
The National Priorities List (NPL) is maintained by the Utah Department of Environmental Quality's Division of Environmental Response and
Remediation (DERR). Before a cleanup of a hazardous waste site can take place under Superfund, it must be included on the National Priority List. The
NPL is a published list of hazardous waste sites that are eligible for extensive, long-term cleanup action under the Superfund program . When no
responsible party can be found, listing on the NPL allows EPA and the State to access the Superfund Trust fund to pay for site cleanup . The DERR
assumes no responsibility or liability for the accuracy of the location of these properties.
Government Publication Date: May 15, 2023
Potential Contaminated Sites: CONTAM POTENTIAL
This database of Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability System sites is maintained by the Utah Department of
Environmental Quality's Division of Environmental Response and Remediation (DERR). The CERCLA Branch of the DERR performs site investigations
of potentially contaminated sites within the State of Utah to determine whether or not they pose a threat to human health and the environment and
should be included on the Federal Superfund National Priorities List. Sites are extracted from the Utah Environmental Interactive Map . The DERR
assumes no responsibility or liability for the accuracy of the location of these properties .
Government Publication Date: May 17, 2023
erisinfo .com I Environmental Risk Information Services Order No : 23072100687
Solid Waste Facilities and Landfills:
A list of solid waste facilities provided by the Utah Department of Environmental Quality Interactive Map.
Government Publication Date: Apr 26, 2023
SWF/LF
Historical Solid Waste and Landfill Facilities: HSWF
The Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste of the Department of Enviromental Quality (DEQ) maintains a list of historically closed landfills. Public Land
Survey System (PLSS) locations provided by the source are subject to accuracy limitations inherent to the PLSS system .
Government Publication Date: Sep 22, 2014
Sites With Leaking Underground Storage Tanks fLUSTI: LUST
A list of Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) sites made available by the Underground Storage Tank Branch of the Department of Environmental
Quality (DEQ), Division of Environmental Response and Remediation (DERR). The listing Includes sites from the DEQ's LUST Sites List as well as
LUST sites from the DEQ's Environmental Interactive Map, and the Facility UST sites data layer (applicable release sites) from the Utah Open Data
Portal.
Government Publication Date: Mar 20, 2023
Sites With Leaking Aboveground Storage Tanks fLASn:
A list of state regulated aboveground petroleum storage tank releases from the Utah Department of Environmental Quality.
Government Publication Date: Jun 8, 2023
Delisted Leaking Storage Tank:
LAST
DELISTED LST
This database contains a list of closed leaking storage tank sites that were removed from the Utah State Underground Storage Tank program of the
Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ).
Government Publication Date: Jun 8, 2023
Sites With Underground Storage Tanks (USTI: UST
A list of Underground Storage Tank (UST) sites made available by the Underground Storage Tank Branch of the Department of Environmental Quality
(DEQ), Division of Environmental Response and Remediation (DERR). The listing Includes sites from the DEQ's UST Sites list as well as UST sites
from the DEQ's Environmental Interactive Map, and the Facility UST sites data layer from the Utah Open Data Portal.
Government Publication Date: Mar 20, 2023
Sites With Aboveground Storage Tanks (ASTI:
A list of state regulated aboveground petroleum storage tanks from the Utah Department of Environmental Quality.
Government Publication Date: Jun 8, 2023
Tanks Lapse List:
AST
UST LAPSE
A list of tank facilities that do not have an active Certificate of Compliance due to lapsing, revocation , or installation in process . The listed USTs at these
facilities are ineligible to receive deliveries of fuel. Made available by the Underground Storage Tanks Compliance Branch of the Utah Department of
Environmental Quality .
Government Publication Date: Apr 13, 2023
Delisted Storage Tanks: DTNK
This database contains a list of closed storage tank sites that were removed from the Utah State Underground Storage Tank program of the Department
of Environmental Quality (DEQ).
Government Publication Date: Jun 8, 2023
List of Targeted and Non-targeted Brownfields: BROWNFIELDS
List of Brownfields Projects, either targeted or not targeted for cleanup, made available by the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Division of
Environmental Response and Remediation (DERR). The DERR conducts Brownfields activities under authorities of the Voluntary Release Cleanup Act,
Hazardous Substances Mitigation Act and the Small Business Liability Relief Brownfields Revitalization Act. These statutes provide mechanisms by
which the DERR oversees the assessment and cleanup of Brownfields.
Government Publication Date: Oct 11, 2022
Voluntary Cleanup Site List: VCP
The Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP) of the Utah Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) was created to promote the voluntary cleanup of
contaminated sites . The VCP is intended to encourage redevelopment of Brownfields and other impacted sites by providing a streamlined cleanup
program . This data is compiled from the DEQ's Division of Environmental Response & Remediation (DERR) VCP/Brownfields Section Site List and the
DERR VCP Map Data from the Utah Environmental Interactive Map tool.
erisinfo .com I Environmental Risk Information Services Order No : 23072100687
Government Publication Date: Oct 10, 2022
Response Action Sites: RESPONSE
The Voluntary Cleanup Program/Brownfields Section of the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) maintains a list of sites at which Response
Actions are planned or have been completed .
Government Publication Date: Mar 9, 2023
Sites with Institutional Controls: INST
Sites included in the Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP), Superfund and Underground Storage Tank Facilities list that have environmental convenants
and institutional controls in place .
Government Publication Date: Jun 20, 2023
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Tribal/Indian Lands: INDIAN LUST
This list of leaking underground storage tanks (LUSTs) on Tribal/Indian Lands in Region 8, which includes Utah, is made available by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Government Publication Date: Apr 20, 2023
Underground Storage Tanks on Tribal/Indian Lands: INDIAN UST
This list of underground storage tanks (USTs) on Tribal/Indian Lands in Region 8 , which includes Utah, is made available by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Government Publication Date: Apr 20, 2023
Delisted Tribal Leaking Storage Tanks: DELISTED INDIAN LST
Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) facilities which once appeared on -and have since been removed from -the Regional Tribal/Indian LUST
lists made available by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Government Publication Date: Apr 26, 2023
Delisted Tribal Underground Storage Tanks: DELISTED INDIAN UST
Underground Storage Tank (UST) facilities which once appeared on -and have since been removed from -the Regional Tribal/Indian UST lists made
available by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Government Publication Date: Apr 26, 2023
County
No County standard environmental record sources available for this State.
Additional Environmental Record Sources
Federal
Facility Registry Service/Facility Index: FINDS/FRS
The Facility Registry Service (FRS) is a centrally managed database that identifies facilities, sites, or places subject to environmental regulations or of
environmental interest. FRS creates high-quality, accurate, and authoritative facility identification records through rigorous verification and management
procedures that incorporate information from program national systems , state master facility records, and data collected from EPA's Central Data
Exchange registrations and data management personnel. This list is made available by the Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA).
Government Publication Date: Aug 18, 2022
Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) Program: TRIS
erisinfo .com I Environmental Risk Information Services Order No : 23072100687
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) is a database containing data on disposal or other releases of toxic
chemicals from U.S . facilities and information about how facilities manage those chemicals through recycling, energy recovery, and treatment. There are
currently 770 individually listed chemicals and 33 chemical categories covered by the TRI Program . Facilities that manufacture, process or otherwise
use these chemicals in amounts above established levels must submit annual reporting forms for each chemical. Note that the TRI chemical list does
not include all toxic chemicals used in the U.S . One of TRl's primary purposes is to inform communities about toxic chemical releases to the
environment.
Government Publication Date: Oct 19, 2022
PFOAIPFOS Contaminated Sites: PFAS NPL
List of National Priorities List (NPL) and related Superfund Alternative Agreement (SAA) sites where PFOA or PFOS contaminants have been found in
water and/or soil. The site listing is provided by the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Government Publication Date: Mar 28, 2023
Federal Agency Locations with Known or Suspected PFAS Detections: PFAS FED SITES
List of Federal agency locations with known or suspected detections of Per-and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS), made available by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in their PFAS Analytic Tools data. EPA outlines that these data are gathered from several federal entities, such
as the Federal Superfund program, Department of Defense (DOD), National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Department of Transportation, and
Department of Energy. The dates this data was extracted for the PFAS Analytic Tools range from March 2022 to April 2023. Sites on this list do not
necessarily reflect the source/s of PFAS contamination and detections do not indicate level of risk or human exposure at the site . Agricultural
notifications in this data are limited to DOD sites only. At this time, the EPA is aware that this list is not comprehensive of all Federal agencies.
Government Publication Date: Apr 24, 2023
SSEHRI PFAS Contamination Sites: PFAS SSEHRI
This PFAS Contamination Site Tracker database is compiled by the Social Science Environmental Health Research Institute (SSEHRI) at Northeastern
University. According to the SSEHRI, the database records qualitative and quantitative data from each known site of PFAS contamination, including
timeline of discovery, sources, levels, health impacts, community response, and government response . The goal of this database is to compile
information and support public understanding of the rapidly unfolding issue of PFAS contamination. All data presented was extracted from government
websites, news articles, or publicly available documents, and this is cited in the tracker. Locations for the Known PFAS Contamination Sites are sourced
from the PFAS Sites and Community Resources Map, credited to the Northeastern University's PFAS Project Lab, Silent Spring Institute, and the PFAS-
REACH team . Disclaimer: The source conveys the data undergoes regular updates as new information becomes available, some sites may be missing
and/or contain information that is incorrect or outdated, as well as their information represents all contamination sites SSEHRI is aware of, not all
possible contamination sites . This data is not intended to be used for legal purposes . Access the following source link for the most current information :
https ://pfasproject.com/pfas-sites-and-community-resources/
Government Publication Date: Oct 9, 2022
National Response Center PFAS Spills: ERNS PFAS
This Per-and Poly-Fluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Spills dataset is made available via the U.S . Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) PFAS
Analytic Tools. The National Response Center (NRC), operated by the U.S. Coast Guard, serves as an emergency call center that fields initial reports
for pollution and railroad incidents and forwards that information to appropriate federal/state agencies for response . Response center calls from 1990 to
the most recent complete calendar year where there was indication of Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) usage are included in this dataset. NRC
calls may reference AFFF usage in the "Material Involved" or "Incident Description" fields . Limitations : The data from the NRC website contain initial
incident data that has not been validated or investigated by a federal/state response agency. Keyword searches may misidentify some incident reports
that do not contain PFAS. This dataset should also not be considered to be exhaustive of all PFAS spills/release incidents.
Government Publication Date: Apr 15, 2023
PFAS NPDES Discharge Monitoring: PFAS NPDES
This list of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitted facilities with required monitoring for Per-and Polyfluoroalkyl (PFAS)
Substances is made available via the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s PFAS Analytic Tools . Any point-source wastewater discharger to
waters of the United States must have a NPDES permit, which defines a set of parameters for pollutants and monitoring to ensure that the discharge
does not degrade water quality or impair human health. This list includes NPDES permitted facilities associated with permits that monitor for Per-and
Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS), limited to the years 2007 -present. EPA further advises the following regarding these data: currently, fewer than half
of states have required PFAS monitoring for at least one of their permittees, and fewer states have established PFAS effluent limits for permittees. For
states that may have required monitoring, some reporting and data transfer issues may exist on a state-by-state basis.
Government Publication Date: Feb 19, 2023
Perfluorinated Alkyl Substances (PFAS) from Toxic Release Inventory: PFAS TRI
erisinfo .com I Environmental Risk Information Services Order No : 23072100687
List of Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) facilities at which the reported chemical is a per-or polyfluoroalkyl (PFAS) substance included in the U.S .
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) consolidated PFAS Master List of PFAS Substances. Encompasses Toxics Release Inventory records
included in the EPA PFAS Analytic Tools . The EPA's TRI database currently tracks information on disposal or releases of 770 individually listed toxic
chemicals and 33 chemical categories from thousands of U.S. facilities and details about how facilities manage those chemicals through recycling,
energy recovery, and treatment.
Government Publication Date: Oct 19, 2022
Perfluorinated Alkyl Substances fPFAS) Water Quality: PFAS WATER
The Water Quality Portal (WQP) is a cooperative service sponsored by the United States Geological Survey (USGS), the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), and the National Water Quality Monitoring Council (NWQMC). This listing includes records from the Water Quality Portal where the
characteristic (environmental measurement) is in the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s consolidated Master List of PFAS Substances.
Government Publication Date: Jul 20, 2020
PFAS TSCA Manufacture and Import Facilities: PFAS TSCA
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued the Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) Rule under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and
requires chemical manufacturers and facilities that manufacture or import chemical substances to report data to EPA. This list is specific only to TSCA
Manufacture and Import Facilities with reported per-and poly-fluoroalkyl (PFAS) substances. Data file is sourced from EPA's PFAS Analytic Tools TSCA
dataset which includes CDR/lnventory Update Reporting data from 1998 up to 2020. Disclaimer: This data file includes production and importation data
for chemicals identified in EPA's CompTox Chemicals Dashboard list of PFAS without explicit structures and list of PFAS structures in DSSTox. Note
that some regulations have specific chemical structure requirements that define PFAS differently than the lists in EPA's CompTox Chemicals
Dashboard . Reporting information on manufactured or imported chemical substance amounts should not be compared between facilities , as some
companies claim Chemical Data Reporting Rule data fields for PFAS information as Confidential Business Information .
Government Publication Date: Jan 5, 2023
PFAS Waste Transfers from RCRA e-Manifest : PFAS E-MANIFEST
This Per-and Poly-Fluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Waste Transfers dataset is made available via the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
PFAS Analytic Tools. Every shipment of hazardous waste in the U.S . must be accompanied by a shipment manifest, which is a critical component of the
cradle-to-grave tracking of wastes mandated by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). According to the EPA, currently no Federal
Waste Code exists for any PFAS compounds. To work around the lack of PFAS waste codes in the RCRA database, EPA developed the PFAS
Transfers dataset by mining a-Manifest records containing at least one of these common PFAS keywords : • PFAS • PFOA • PFOS • PERFL • AFFF •
GENX • GEN-X (plus the Vermont state-specific waste codes). Limitations : Amount or concentration of PFAS being transferred cannot be determined
from the manifest information. Keyword searches may misidentify some manifest records that do not contain PFAS. This dataset should also not be
considered to be exhaustive of all PFAS waste transfers .
Government Publication Date: Apr 9, 2023
PFAS Industry Sectors: PFAS IND
This Per-and Poly-Fluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Industry Sectors dataset is made available via the U .S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
PFAS Analytic Tools. The EPA developed the dataset from various sources that show which industries may be handling PFAS including: EPA's
Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) records restricted to potential PFAS-handling industry sectors ; ECHO records for Fire Training
Sites identified where fire-fighting foam may have been used in training exercises; and 14 CFR Part 139 Airports compiled from historic and current
records from the FAA Airport Data and Information Portal. Since July 2006, all certificated Part 139 Airports are required to have fire-fighting foam onsite
that meet certain military specifications , which to date have been fluorinated (Aqueous Film Forming Foam). Limitations : Inclusion in this dataset does
not indicate that PFAS are being manufactured , processed, used, or released by the facility. Listed facilities potentially handle PFAS based on their
industrial profile, but are unconfirmed by the EPA. Keyword searches in ECHO for Fire Training sites may misidentify some facilities and should not be
considered to be an exhaustive list of fire training facilities in the U .S .
Government Publication Date: Apr 16, 2023
Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System: HMIRS
US DOT -Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) Incidents Reports Database taken from
Hazmat Intelligence Portal, U.S . Department of Transportation .
Government Publication Date: Sep 1, 2020
National Clandestine Drug Labs: NCDL
The U.S. Department of Justice ("the Department"), Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), provides this data as a public service . It contains
addresses of some locations where law enforcement agencies reported they found chemicals or other items that indicated the presence of either
clandestine drug laboratories or dumpsites. In most cases, the source of the entries is not the Department, and the Department has not verified the entry
and does not guarantee its accuracy.
Government Publication Date: Feb 8, 2023
erisinfo .com I Environmental Risk Information Services Order No : 23072100687
Toxic Substances Control Act: TSCA
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is amending the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) section 8(a) Inventory Update Reporting (IUR) rule
and changing its name to the Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule .
The CDR enables EPA to collect and publish information on the manufacturing, processing, and use of commercial chemical substances and mixtures
(referred to hereafter as chemical substances) on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory (TSCA Inventory). This includes current information on
chemical substance production volumes, manufacturing sites, and how the chemical substances are used . This information helps the Agency determine
whether people or the environment are potentially exposed to reported chemical substances . EPA publishes submitted CDR data that is not Confidential
Business Information (CBI).
Government Publication Date: Apr 11, 2019
Hist TSCA: HISTTSCA
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is amending the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) section 8(a) Inventory Update Reporting (IUR) rule
and changing its name to the Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule .
The 2006 IUR data summary report includes information about chemicals manufactured or imported in quantities of 25,000 pounds or more at a single
site during calendar year 2005. In addition to the basic manufacturing information collected in previous reporting cycles, the 2006 cycle is the first time
EPA collected information to characterize exposure during manufacturing, processing and use of organic chemicals . The 2006 cycle also is the first time
manufacturers of inorganic chemicals were required to report basic manufacturing information .
Government Publication Date: Dec 31, 2006
FTTS Administrative Case Listing: FTTS ADMIN
An administrative case listing from the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, & Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), together
known as FTTS. This database was obtained from the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) National Compliance Database (NCDB). The FTTS
and NCDB was shut down in 2006.
Government Publication Date: Jan 19, 2007
FTTS Inspection Case Listing: FTTS INSP
An inspection case listing from the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, & Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), together
known as FTTS. This database was obtained from the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) National Compliance Database (NCDB). The FTTS
and NCDB was shut down in 2006.
Government Publication Date: Jan 19, 2007
Potentially Responsible Parties List: PRP
Early in the site cleanup process, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducts a search to find the Potentially Responsible Parties
(PRPs). The EPA looks for evidence to determine liability by matching wastes found at the site with parties that may have contributed wastes to the site .
This listing contains PRPs, Noticed Parties, at sites in the EPA's Superfund Enterprise Management System (SEMS).
Government Publication Date: Jan 25, 2023
State Coalition for Remediation of Drvcleaners Listing: SCRD DRYCLEANER
The State Coalition for Remediation of Drycleaners (SCRD) was established in 1998, with support from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation . Coalition members are states with mandated programs and funding for drycleaner
site remediation . Current members are Alabama, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin . Since 2017, the SCRD no longer maintains this data, refer to applicable state source data where available.
Government Publication Date: Nov 08, 2017
Integrated Compliance Information System llCIS/: ICIS
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Enforcement and Compliance History Online system incorporates data from the Integrated Compliance
Information System -National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (ICIS-NPDES). ICIS-NPDES is an information management system maintained
by the Office of Compliance to track permit compliance and enforcement status of facilities regulated by the NPDES under the Clean Water Act. This
data includes permit, inspection, violation and enforcement action information for applicable ICIS records .
Government Publication Date: Oct 15, 2022
Drvcleaner Facilities: FED DRYCLEANERS
A list of drycleaner facilities from Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) data as made available by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), sourced from the ECHO Exporter file . The EPA tracks facilities that possess NAIC and SIC codes that classify businesses as drycleaner
establishments.
Government Publication Date: Apr 15, 2023
Delisted Drvcleaner Facilities: DELISTED FED DRY
erisinfo .com I Environmental Risk Information Services Order No : 23072100687
List of sites removed from the list of Drycleaner Facilities (sites in the EPA's Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS) with NAIC or SIC codes
identifying the business as a drycleaner establishment).
Government Publication Date: Apr 15, 2023
Formerly Used Defense Sites: FUDS
Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS) are properties that were formerly owned by, leased to, or otherwise possessed by and under the jurisdiction of the
Secretary of Defense prior to October 1986, where the Department of Defense (DOD) is responsible for an environmental restoration. The FUDS Annual
Report to Congress (ARC) is published by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE). This data is compiled from the USACE's Geospatial FUDS data
layers and Homeland Infrastructure Foundation-Level Data (HIFLD) FUDS dataset.
Government Publication Date: Jul 12, 2022
FUDS Munitions Response Sites: FUDS MRS
Boundaries of Munitions Response Sites (MRS), published with the Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS) Annual Report to Congress (ARC) by the U.S .
Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE). An MRS is a discrete location within a Munitions response area (MRA) that is known to require a munitions
response . An MRA means any area on a defense site that is known or suspected to contain unexploded ordnance (UXO), discarded military munitions
(DMM), or munitions constituents (MC). This data is compiled from the USACE's Geospatial MRS data layers and Homeland Infrastructure Foundation-
Level Data (HIFLD) MRS dataset.
Government Publication Date: Jul 12, 2022
Former Military Nike Missile Sites: FORMER NIKE
This information was taken from report DRXTH-AS-IA-83A016 (Historical Overview of the Nike Missile System, 12/1984) which was performed by
Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc. for the U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency Assessment Division . The Nike system was
deployed between 1954 and the mid-1970's. Among the substances used or stored on Nike sites were liquid missile fuel (JP-4); starter fluids (UDKH,
aniline, and furfuryl alcohol); oxidizer (IRFNA); hydrocarbons (motor oil, hydraulic fluid, diesel fuel , gasoline, heating oil); solvents (carbon tetrachloride,
trichloroethylene, trichloroethane, stoddard solvent); and battery electrolyte. The quantities of material a disposed of and procedures for disposal are not
documented in published reports . Virtually all information concerning the potential for contamination at Nike sites is confined to personnel who were
assigned to Nike sites . During deactivation most hardware was shipped to depot-level supply points. There were reportedly instances where excess
materials were disposed of on or near the site itself at closure . There was reportedly no routine site decontamination .
Government Publication Date: Dec 2, 1984
PHMSA Pipeline Safety Flagged Incidents: PIPELINE INCIDENT
A list of flagged pipeline incidents made available by the U.S. Department of Transportation (US DOT) Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA). PHMSA regulations require incident and accident reports for five different pipeline system types .
Government Publication Date: Mar 31, 2021
Material Licensing Tracking System (ML TSJ: MLTS
A list of sites that store radioactive material subject to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licensing requirements. This list is maintained by the
NRC. As of September 2016, the NRC no longer releases location information for sites . Site locations were last received in July 2016 .
Government Publication Date: May 11, 2021
Historic Material Licensing Tracking System (ML TSJ sites: HISTMLTS
A historic list of sites that have inactive licenses and/or removed from the Material Licensing Tracking System (ML TS). In some cases, a site is removed
from the ML TS when the state becomes an "Agreement State". An Agreement State is a State that has signed an agreement with the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) authorizing the State to regulate certain uses of radioactive materials within the State .
Government Publication Date: Jan 31, 2010
Mines Master Index File: MINES
The Master Index File (MIF) is provided by the United State Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA). This file, which was
originally created in the 1970's, contained many Mine-IDs that were invalid. MSHA removes invalid IDs from the MIF upon discovery. MSHA applicable
data includes the following : all Coal and Metal/Non-Metal mines under MSHA's jurisdiction since 1/1/1970; mine addresses for all mines in the database
except for Abandoned mines prior to 1998 from MSHA's legacy system (addresses may or may not correspond with the physical location of the mine
itself); violations that have been assessed penalties as a result of MSHA inspections beginning on 1/1/2000; and violations issued as a result of MSHA
inspections conducted beginning on 1/1/2000.
Government Publication Date: Nov 7, 2022
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act Sites: SMCRA
erisinfo .com I Environmental Risk Information Services Order No : 23072100687
An inventory of land and water impacted by past mining (primarily coal mining) is maintained by the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
Enforcement (OSMRE) to provide information needed to implement the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA). The inventory
contains information on the location, type, and extent of Abandoned Mine Land (AML) impacts, as well as information on the cost associated with the
reclamation of those problems. The inventory is based upon field surveys by State, Tribal, and OSMRE program officials. It is dynamic to the extent that
it is modified as new problems are identified and existing problems are reclaimed .
Government Publication Date: Aug 18, 2022
Mineral Resource Data System: MRDS
The Mineral Resource Data System (MRDS) is a collection of reports describing metallic and nonmetallic mineral resources throughout the world .
Included are deposit name, location, commodity , deposit description, geologic characteristics , production, reserves , resources , and references . This
database contains the records previously provided in the Mineral Resource Data System (MRDS) of USGS and the Mineral Availability System/Mineral
Industry Locator System (MAS/MILS) originated in the U.S . Bureau of Mines, which is now part of USGS . The USGS has ceased systematic updates of
the MRDS database with their focus more recently on deposits of critical minerals while providing a well-documented baseline of historical mine
locations from USGS topographic maps.
Government Publication Date: Mar 15, 2016
DOE Legacy Management Sites: LM SITES
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Legacy Management (LM) currently manages radioactive and chemical waste, environmental
contamination , and hazardous material at over 100 sites across the U .S. The LM manages sites with diverse regulatory drivers (statutes or programs
that direct cleanup and management requirements at DOE sites) or as part of internal DOE or congressionally-recognized programs, such as but not
limited to: Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP), Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA Title I, Tile II),
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),
Decontamination and Decommissioning (D&D), Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA). This site listing includes data exported from the DOE Office of LM'
s Geospatial Environmental Mapping System (GEMS). GEMS Data disclaimer: The DOE Office of LM makes no representation or warranty, expressed
or implied , regarding the use, accuracy, availability, or completeness of the data presented herein.
Government Publication Date: Dec 1, 2022
Alternative Fueling Stations: ALT FUELS
This list of alternative fueling stations is sourced from the Alternative Fuels Data Center (AFDC). The U.S . Department of Energy's Office of Energy
Efficiency & Renewable Energy launched the AFDC in 1991 as a repository for alternative fuel vehicle performance data, which provides a wealth of
information and data on alternative and renewable fuels, advanced vehicles , fuel-saving strategies, and emerging transportation technologies. The data
includes Biodiesel (B20 and above), Compressed Natural Gas (CNG), Electric, Ethanol (E85), Hydrogen, Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG), Propane (LPG),
and Renewable Diesel (R20 and above) fuel type locations.
Government Publication Date: Jun 5, 2023
Superfunds Consent Decrees: CONSENT DECREES
This list of Superfund consent decrees is provided by the Department of Justice , Environment & Natural Resources Division (ENRD) through a Freedom
of Information Act (FOIA) applicable file . This listing includes Consent Decrees for CERCLA or Superfund Sites filed and/or as proposed within the
ENRD's Case Management System (CMS) since 2010. CMS may not reflect the latest developments in a case nor can the agency guarantee the
accuracy of the data. ENRD Disclaimer: Congress excluded three discrete categories of law enforcement and national security records from the
requirements of the FOIA; response is limited to those records that are subject to the requirements of the FOIA; however, this should not be taken as an
indication that excluded records do, or do not, exist.
Government Publication Date: Apr 19, 2023
Air Facility System: AFS
This EPA retired Air Facility System (AFS) dataset contains emissions, compliance, and enforcement data on stationary sources of air pollution .
Regulated sources cover a wide spectrum ; from large industrial facilities to relatively small operations such as dry cleaners. AFS does not contain data
on facilities that are solely asbestos demolition and/or renovation contractors, or landfills. ECHO Clean Air Act data from AFS are frozen and reflect
data as of October 17 , 2014 ; the EPA retired this system for Clean Air Act stationary sources and transitioned to ICIS-Air.
Government Publication Date: Oct 17, 2014
Registered Pesticide Establishments: SSTS
This national list of active EPA-registered foreign and domestic pesticide and/or device-producing establishments is based on data from the Section
Seven Tracking System (SSTS). The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Section 7 requires that each producing establishment
must place its EPA establishment number on the label or immediate container of each pesticide, active ingredient or device produced . An EPA
establishment number on a pesticide product label identifies the EPA registered location where the product was produced. The list of establishments is
made available by the U.S . Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Government Publication Date: Mar 1, 2023
erisinfo .com I Environmental Risk Information Services Order No : 23072100687
Polychlorinated Biphenyl fPCBI Transformers: PCBT
Locations of Transformers Containing Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) registered with the United States Environmental Protection Agency. PCB
transformer owners must register their transformer(s) with EPA. Although not required, PCB transformer owners who have removed and properly
disposed of a registered PCB transformer may notify EPA to have their PCB transformer de-registered . Data made available by EPA.
Government Publication Date: Oct 15, 2019
Polychlorinated Biphenyl fPCBI Notifiers: PCB
Facilities included in the national list of facilities that have notified the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of Polychlorinated Biphenyl
(PCB) activities. Any company or person storing, transporting or disposing of PCBs or conducting PCB research and development must notify the EPA
and receive an identification number.
Government Publication Date: Nov 3, 2022
Spill Reports 1988 current through February 7, 2013: SPILLS
Regulated industry, permitted facilities, waste transporters and others are required by state laws to report chemical spills and other environmental
incidents within certain time frames, depending on the type of incident. These incidents are reported to The Division of Environmental Response &
Remediation (DERR) of the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ).
Government Publication Date: Jul 10, 2023
Methamphetamine Contaminated Properties: CDL
Utah Administrative Rule 19-6-901 Illegal Drug Operations Site Reporting and Decontamination Act requires local health departments to maintain a list
of properties believed to be contaminated by the illegal manufacture of drugs. These properties were reported to the Salt Lake Valley Health Department
by a complaint or report from a law enforcement agency and the Department has determined that reasonable evidence exists that the property is
contaminated . Once a property is decontaminated, it is removed from this list.
Government Publication Date: Nov 15, 2022
Dry Cleaning Facilities: DRYCLEANERS
The Division of Air Quality of the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) maintains a list of regulated dry cleaners that use perchlorethylene (PCE).
This site data is compiled from applicable FOIA files received from the DEQ's Division of Air Quality, the DEQ's Environmental Interactive Map layer of
Dry Cleaner Facilities , and also the Utah OpenData Catalog Dry Cleaners dataset.
Government Publication Date: Apr 27, 2023
Delisted Drycleaners: DELISTED DRYCLEANERS
A list of sites which once appeared on -and have since been removed from -the list of regulated dry cleaners that use perchlorethylene (PCE) made
available by the Division of Air Quality of the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ).
Government Publication Date: Apr 27, 2023
Tier 2 Chemical Inventory Program : TIER2
A list of Tier 2 facilities managed by the Division of Environmental Response and Remediation (DERR) of the the Utah Department of Environmental
Quality (DEQ).
Government Publication Date: Nov 9, 2022
Tribal
No Tribal additional environmental record sources available for this State.
County
No County additional environmental record sources available for this State.
erisinfo .com I Environmental Risk Information Services Order No : 23072100687
Definitions
Database Descriptions: This section provides a detailed explanation for each database including : source , information available , time coverage, and
acronyms used. They are listed in alphabetic order.
Detail Report This is the section of the report which provides the most detail for each individual record . Records are summarized by location, starting
with the project property followed by records in closest proximity.
Distance: The distance value is the distance between plotted points, not necessarily the distance between the sites' boundaries . All values are an
approximation .
Direction: The direction value is the compass direction of the site in respect to the project property and/or center point of the report.
Elevation: The elevation value is taken from the location at which the records for the site address have been plotted . All values are an approximation .
Source : Google Elevation API.
Executive Summary: This portion of the report is divided into 3 sections :
'Report Summary'-Displays a chart indicating how many records fall on the project property and, within the report search radii.
'Site Report Summary'-Project Property'-This section lists all the records which fall on the project property. For more details, see the 'Detail Report'
section .
'Site Report Summary-Surrounding Properties'-This section summarizes all records on adjacent properties, listing them in order of proximity from the
project property. For more details, see the 'Detail Report' section .
Map Key: The map key number is assigned according to closest proximity from the project property . Map Key numbers always start at #1 . The project
property will always have a map key of '1' if records are available . If there is a number in brackets beside the main number, this will indicate the number
of records on that specific property . If there is no number in brackets , there is only one record for that property.
The symbol and colour used indicates 'elevation': the red inverted triangle will dictate 'ERIS Sites with Lower Elevation', the yellow triangle will dictate
'ERIS Sites with Higher Elevation' and the orange square will dictate 'ERIS Sites with Same Elevation.'
Unplottables: These are records that could not be mapped due to various reasons, including limited geographic information . These records may or
may not be in your study area , and are included as reference .
erisinfo .com I Environmental Risk Information Services Order No : 23072100687
Appendix F
TEAD Regulatory Documentation
DSHW-2022-025978
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
TOOELE ARMY DEPOT/HEADQUARTERS
1 TOOELE ARMY DEPOT, BUILDING 1
TOOELE, UT 84074-5001.>--"------------------
RECEIVED
October 27' 20 2 By Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control at 4:09 pm, Oct 31, 2022
SUBJECT: Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report, Tooele Army Depot North Area
(TEAD-N), State/EPA I.D. Number UT3213820894
Mr. Doug Hansen
Director, Division Waste Management and Radiation Control
195 North 1950 West
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4880
Dear Mr. Hansen:
TEAD is please to submit the Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report dated October
2022 for your review and comment.
As required in Module V, Table V-3 of the TEAD-N Post Closure Permit (PCP)
(TEAD 2018), groundwater monitoring reports are submitted annually for TEAD-N and
discuss results from the annual monitoring event completed during the fall of the
previous calendar year and semi-annual monitoring event completed in the spring of the
current calendar year. This Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report presents an
evaluation of the analytical groundwater data collected at TEAD-N during the (larger)
annual groundwater monitoring event in October and November 2021 and the (smaller)
semi-annual groundwater monitoring event in April 2022.
If you have any questions regarding this request, please contact Troy Johnson at
[phone].
Attachments
Sincerely,
BENTLEY KRIST Digitallysignedby
• BENTLEY.KRISTYL.1396144308
YL. l 3 96144308 ~~~~~~022.10.2706:48:46
Kristyl Bentley
Chief, Environmental Management Division
*CERTIFICATION STATEMENT
•1 certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that
qualified personnel property gathered and evaluated the information submitted . Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons
directly responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are
significant penalties for submitting false information , including the possibility of fines and imprisonment for knowing violations.
DRAFT FINAL
Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report
Tooele Army Depot North
October 2022
Environmental Remediation
Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah
Contract No. W9124J-21-D-0006
U.S. Army Environmental Command Tooele Army Depot
DRAFT FINAL
Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report
Tooele Army Depot North
October 2022
Environmental Remediation
Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah
Contract No. W9124J-21-D-0006
Prepared For:
U.S. Army Mission and Installation Contracting Command
Fort Sam Houston (MICC-FSH), U.S. Army Environmental Command (USAEC), and Tooele Army Depot (TEAD)
Prepared By :
Brice Engineering, LLC
362 Pierpont Avenue
Salt Lake City, Utah 84101
801-948-9319 PH
www.BriceEng.com
This page intentionally blank
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................................................... 111
1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Project Background ............................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Report Organization ............................................................................................................ 3
Z.O FIELD ACTIVITIES AND SAMPLE ANALYSIS ................................................................................ 5
2.1 Well Gauging ....................................................................................................................... 5
2.1.1 GaugingOverview .................................................................................................. 5
2.1.2 Field Activities ........................................................................................................ 5
2.2 Well Inspections and Maintenance .................................................................................... 5
2.3 Well Abandonment ............................................................................................................. 6
2.4 Groundwater Sampling ....................................................................................................... 6
2.4.1 Sampling Overview ................................................................................................ 6
2.4.2 Field Activities ........................................................................................................ 7
2.5 Sample Analysis and Data Quality ...................................................................................... 8
3.0 SWMU-58 MONITORING RESULTS ........................................................................................... 9
3.1 Groundwater Elevations ..................................................................................................... 9
3.2 Analytical Results .............................................................................................................. 10
3.2.1 TCE and Breakdown Products .............................................................................. 10
3.2.2 CTC and Degradation Byproducts ........................................................................ 11
3.2.3 Other Organic Compounds Detected .................................................................. 11
3.2.4 Sentinel Well Assessment .................................................................................... 12
4.0 SWMU-10 MONITORING RESULTS ......................................................................................... 13
4.1 Groundwater Elevations ................................................................................................... 13
4.2 Analytical Results .............................................................................................................. 13
5.0 CONCENTRATION TREND ANALYSIS ....................................................................................... 15
5.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 15
5.2 Statistical Methods ........................................................................................................... 15
5.3 Summary of Trend Results ................................................................................................ 16
5.3.1 Former Sanitary Landfill Source Area .................................................................. 17
5.3.2 BRAC Parcel Source Areas .................................................................................... 17
5.3.3 Main Plume Mid-Plume Area ............................................................................... 17
5.3.4 Main Plume Toe Area .......................................................................................... 17
5.3.5 NEB Plume Mid-Plume Area ................................................................................ 17
5.3.6 NEB Plume Toe Area ............................................................................................ 17
5.3.7 Trend Results for Other Compounds ................................................................... 18
6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................. 19
7 .0 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................... 21
Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report, Tooele Army Depot North
Environmental Remediation Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
TABLES
Table la
Table lb
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Table Sa
Table Sb
Table 6a
Table 6b
Table 7
Table 8
FIGURES
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure Sa
Figure Sb
Figure 6a
Figure 6b
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
APPENDICES
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Wells and Results -2021 Annual Event
Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Wells and Results-2022 Semi-Annual
Event
Well Inspection and Maintenance Summary
Corrective Measures Implementation Plan Wells Monitored, Frequency, and
Objective
Required Post-Closure Permit Groundwater Analytes and Concentration Limits
Wells Sampled During 2021 Annual Monitoring Event
Wells Sampled During 2022 Semi-Annual Monitoring Event
SWMU-S8 Analytical Results -2021 Annual Monitoring Event
SWMU-S8 Analytical Results-2022 Semi-Annual Monitoring Event
Summary of TCE Statistical Trend Results
Summary of Statistical Trend Results for Other Compounds
Project Location Map
Monitoring Well Locations
SWMU-S8 Shallow Groundwater Elevations
SWMU-S8 Deep Groundwater Elevations
SWMU-S8 TCE Concentrations in Groundwater-2021 Annual Event
SWMU-S8 TCE Concentrations in Groundwater-2022 Semi-Annual Event
SWMU-S8 CTC Concentarations in Grouindwater-2021 Annual Event
SWMU-S8 CTC Concentarations in Grouindwater-2022 Semi-Annual Event
SWMU-S8 Screening Level Exceedances in Groundwater for Other Analytes-
2021 Annual and 2022 Semi-Annual Events
SWMU-10 Groundwater Elevations and Analytical Results
SWMU-S8 TCE Concentration Trends in Groundwater Through 2022
Semi-Annual Event
Groundwater Hydrographs and Concentration Trend Graphs
Field Sampling Forms
Quality Control Summary Reports
Laboratory Analytical Data Reports
Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report, Tooele Army Depot North
Environmental Remediation Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah
ii
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
µg/L
µg/L/yr
%
amsl
AS
BRAC
Brice
CDQMP
CMIP
CTC
DCA
DCE
DoD
DWMRC
ELAP
EMAX
EPA
ft/ft
GWMA
HS
ISO/IEC
MICC
NEB
NELAC
PCE
PCP
QCSR
QSM
RCRA
RDX
SVE
SWMU
Synectics
TCE
TEAD-N
TNT
UDEQ
micrograms per liter
micrograms per liter per year
percent
above mean sea level
air sparging
Base Realignment and Closure
Brice Engineering, LLC
Chemical Data Quality Management Plan
Corrective Measures Implementation Plan
carbon tetrachloride
dichloroethane
dichloroethene
U.S. Department of Defense
Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control
Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program
EMAX Laboratories, Inc.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
feet per foot
Groundwater Management Area
HydraSleeve
International Organization for Standardization/International Electrotechnical
Commission
U.S. Army Mission and Installation Contracting Command
Northeast Boundary
National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Conference
tetrachloroethene
Post Closure Permit
Quality Control Summary Report
Quality Systems Manual
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
hexahydro-l,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine
soil vapor extraction
Solid Waste Management Unit
Environmental Synectics, Inc.
trichloroethene
Tooele Army Depot North
trinitrotoluene
Utah Department of Environmental Quality
Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report, Tooele Army Depot North
Environmental Remediation Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah
iii
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (CONTINUED)
UFP-QAPP
USACE
voe
Uniform Federal Policy-Quality Assurance Project Plan
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
volatile organic compound
Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report, Tooele Army Depot North
Environmental Remediation Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah
iv
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Brice Engineering, LLC (Brice) has been contracted under U.S. Army Mission and Installation Contracting
Command (MICC) Contract Number W9124J21D0006 to conduct periodic groundwater sampling and
analysis at Tooele Army Depot North (TEAD-N). As required in Module V, Table V-3 of the TEAD-N Post
Closure Permit (PCP) (TEAD 2018), groundwater monitoring reports are submitted annually for TEAD-N
and discuss results from the annual monitoring event completed during the fall of the previous calendar
year and semi-annual monitoring event completed in the spring of the current calendar year. This Annual
Groundwater Monitoring Report presents an evaluation of the analytical groundwater data collected at
TEAD-N during the (larger) annual groundwater monitoring event in October and November 2021 and the
(smaller) semi-annual groundwater monitoring event in April 2022.
Monitoring was performed in accordance with the requirements of the PCP, the Corrective Measures
Implementation Plan (CMIP) for Groundwater (Parsons 2014a), and the Uniform Federal Policy-Quality
Assurance Project Plan (UFP-QAPP) (Brice 2022a). The PCP was initially issued to TEAD-N by the State of
Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ) in January 1991. The PCP has since been reissued,
most recently in September 2018, and the current version incorporates provisions for monitoring
specified in the approved CMIP. The CMIP is a framework for implementing the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) corrective action process at Solid Waste Management Units (SWMUs) 58 and 10
that is based on conclusions from the SWMU-58 Corrective Measures Study Report (Parsons 2012), the
Natural Attenuation Evaluation Report (Parsons 2014b), other past investigations, and the past
performance of the groundwater treatment plant at TEAD-N. The finalized UFP-QAPP was approved by
UDEQ and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) prior to the 2022 semi-annual event and
incorporates requirements and recommendations presented in the PCP, CMIP, Chemical Data Quality
Management Plan (CDQMP) (Attachment 1 of the PCP), and the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) Quality
Systems Manual for Environmental Laboratories (QSM) (DoD 2019a). The UFP-QAPP outlines the current
data quality objectives, monitoring rationale, sampling and gauging locations and procedures, and
analytical and data quality requirements.
1.1 Project Background
TEAD-N is located 35 miles southwest of Salt Lake City, Utah, in eastern Tooele County and covers
approximately 25,000 acres of the Tooele Valley (Figure 1). From 1942 until the mid-1990s, one of
TEAD-N's missions included servicing, rebuilding, and storing wheeled vehicles and power generation
equipment used by the U.S. Army. These activities were carried out in the former industrial/vehicle
maintenance area, which is situated along the eastern margin of the facility just south of State Route 112.
The former industrial/vehicle maintenance area includes over 50 buildings within a rectangular-shaped
parcel that is approximately 1 mile long and 0.5 miles wide. In 1993, Congress included most of the
industrial/vehicle maintenance area in the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Program. Under BRAC,
this parcel was formally transferred to the Tooele City Redevelopment Agency in December 1998. After a
series of ownership changes, the BRAC property was acquired by the Ninigret Group in 2012 and is
currently operated as a commercial business/industrial park consisting of warehouses, machine shops,
manufacturing facilities, and related buildings.
Groundwater beneath TEAD-N and the BRAC parcel has been impacted by past practices with volatile
organic compound (VOC) contamination being by far the most widespread. Historical operations at the
TEAD-N industrial/vehicle maintenance area resulted in VOCs impacting soil and groundwater at several
known and suspected source areas (Figure 2). The primary contaminant of concern is the solvent
Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report, Tooele Army Depot North 1
Environmental Remediation Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah
trichloroethene (TCE), which was used in the service and repair of military vehicles and equipment. Past
investigations have also identified tetrachloroethene (PCE) and carbon tetrachloride (CTC) in soil and
groundwater. On the BRAC parcel, several separate source areas have been identified: Building 679,
Building 615, Building 620, and two former industrial waste lagoons and associated ditches (including the
former C Avenue Outfall). Within the installation, the Former Sanitary Landfill has also been identified as
a source area. Historically, these sources were managed under multiple SWMUs, which facilitated
management and remediation of soil contamination. However, groundwater contamination originating
from these source areas has formed a single comingled plume that extends beyond the original sources.
The comingled voe plume is now managed under a single SWMU, SWMU-58, which includes: the
Northeast Boundary (NEB) groundwater TCE plume (formerly SWMU-58), the main TCE plume (formerly
SMWU-2), impacted groundwater beneath the Former Sanitary Landfill (formerly SWMU-12/15), and
vadose zone VOC sources within the footprint of the plume that continue to impact groundwater. The
primary source of the NEB plume is the Building 679 source area, while the remaining identified sources
contribute to the main plume. In total, the entire comingled TCE plume encompasses approximately
5.5 square miles and is approximately 4 miles long at its longest point. The main TCE plume area is largely
contained within the installation and extends a maximum of approximately 0.15 miles beyond the
installation boundary. The NEB portion of the plume, however, extends approximately 1.4 miles beyond
the installation boundary.
Corrective measures consisting of soil vapor extraction (SVE) and air sparging (AS) have been implemented
at each VOC source area to remediate ongoing sources of contamination in the vadose zone and
groundwater and prevent further degradation of groundwater. Installation of the SVE and AS systems
occurred between 2010 and 2015 and their operation is ongoing. Away from the plume source areas,
corrective action in the diffuse portion of the plume consists of monitored natural attenuation. In concert
with these corrective actions, a Groundwater Management Area (GWMA) Plan was initially developed in
2004 and most recently updated in 2022 (Brice 2022b) to protect human health from risks related to the
possible use of the impacted groundwater on-or offsite.
In addition to VOCs associated with SWMU-58, groundwater at TEAD-N has been impacted by historical
explosives decommissioning activities at SWMU-10 (Figure 2). SWMU-10 is a former trinitrotoluene (TNT)
washout facility where munitions were decommissioned. The facility consisted of the former bomb
washout building (Building 1245), a former storage facility (Building 1246), and former TNT washout
ponds. The facility was constructed in 1948 and operated until 1986. Various munitions (e.g., projectiles,
bombs, and rockets) filled with TNT, hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-l,3,5-triazine (RDX), Composition B
(a mixture of TNT and RDX), and Tritonal were decommissioned at the facility. The munition casings were
cut open, autoclaved, then rinsed with water to remove any residual explosives. The rinse water
generated from the washout process was filtered to capture explosives before leaving the washout
building. After it was filtered, rinse water was routed outside the building into settling tanks and/or the
TNT Washout Ponds, which were a series of ponds connected by overflow pipes located directly north of
the washout building. In 2008, the explosives-contaminated soil in the TNT Washout Ponds was
remediated using organic and inorganic soil amendments to facilitate degradation of the nitroaromatic
compounds. With the removal of the contaminated soil source, aerobic microbial activity is expected to
continue to degrade the residual explosives in groundwater at SWMU-10 (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
[USACE] 2012). Current groundwater impacts at SWMU-10 are limited in magnitude and spatial extent.
Impacted groundwater associated with SWMU-10 is comingled with groundwater from SWMU-11, which
contains the Laundry Effluent Pond and Waste Pile Areas. However, ongoing sampling is only required for
RDX associated with SWMU-10; therefore, there is no discussion of SWMU-11 in this Annual Groundwater
Monitoring Report.
Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report, Tooele Army Depot North 2
Environmental Remediation Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah
1.2 Report Organization
Field activities and analytical data quality are discussed in Section 2. Section 3 presents the groundwater
elevation information and analytical results for SWMU-58, while Section 4 presents results for SWMU-10.
Section 5 presents the statistical trend analysis for groundwater concentrations at SWMU-58. Section 6
presents conclusions and recommendations, and Section 7 presents the references cited in the report.
The report is supported by four appendices: Appendix A contains hydrographs and concentration trend
graphs, Appendix B contains field forms, Appendix C contains Quality Control Summary Reports, and
Appendix D contains laboratory analytical data reports.
Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report, Tooele Army Depot North 3
Environmental Remediation Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah
This page intentionally blank
Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report, Tooele Army Depot North 4
Environmental Remediation Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah
2.0 FIELD ACTIVITIES AND SAMPLE ANALYSIS
2.1 Well Gauging
2.1.1 Gauging Overview
Extensive well gauging is conducted semi-annually at approximately 269 wells at TEAD-N to monitor
groundwater flow directions and support development of the TEAD-N groundwater flow model. Most
wells gauged during the events are associated with SWMU-58 and SWMU-10; however, additional wells
are also gauged to determine regional groundwater flow characteristics. At SWMU-58, two separate
hydrostratigraphic intervals are monitored: a shallow zone and a deep zone. In most cases, shallow zone
monitoring wells are defined as wells with less than 150 feet of groundwater above their screened interval
midpoints. Conversely, deep zone wells are defined as having more than 150 feet of groundwater above
their screen interval midpoints. This "150-foot rule" may conflict with shallow (S) or deep (D) designations
assigned to some wells at the time they were installed. Exceptions to the 150-foot rule include wells B-56,
C-37, C-38, C-39, C-46, C-55, and D-24. Water thicknesses in these wells are less than 150 feet, but they
are considered deep wells due to the lithology and hydrogeological characteristics of their screened
intervals. Wells included in the monitoring program are listed in the groundwater elevation results tables
(Tables la and lb) along with their associated SWMUs and depth zones.
Several wells in the vicinity ofTEAD-N's former Industrial Area are not plumb, and raw field measurements
yield erroneous groundwater elevations. Following geophysical surveys, correction factors were
developed for these wells to convert raw depth to water measurements to true depth to water. Raw field
measurements collected during the annual and semi-annual monitoring events are corrected for the out
of plumb wells to determine corrected water elevations that are compatible with elevations in
surrounding wells. Wells requiring correction are noted in the groundwater elevation data tables, and
their correction factors and corrected depth to water values are also reported.
2.1.2 Field Activities
Gauging for the 2021 annual event was conducted between 14 to 26 October 2021, and gauging for the
2022 semi-annual event was conducted between 12 to 24 April 2022. Depth to water measurements were
collected by Brice field personnel using an electronic water level meter accurate to the nearest 0.01 foot
following procedures specified in the UFP-QAPP. To eliminate the potential for cross-contamination
between wells, a strict regimen of equipment decontamination was followed, and water level meters
were decontaminated before use at each well. In addition to water level measurements, total well depth
measurements are collected once per year at all gauged wells to monitor whether wells have become
obstructed or impacted by siltation. Total depth measurements were collected during the Spring 2022
semi-annual event, and the measurements are included in the associated groundwater elevation results
table (Table lb).
2.2 Well Inspections and Maintenance
To verify well integrity, well inspections for all gauged wells are completed once per year during the
opposite event from which total depth measurements are collected. Well inspections for this reporting
period were conducted during the Fall 2021 annual event. At each well, the condition of the well lock, lid,
plug/cap, stenciled ID, and bollards were assessed and recorded on field forms along with any other
observed condition issues. Maintenance was performed to remedy identified deficiencies in February,
Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report, Tooele Army Depot North 5
Environmental Remediation Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah
April, June, and July 2022. Results of the well inspections and a summary of maintenance that was
performed are presented in Table 2.
2.3 Well Abandonment
In a letter dated 17 August 2021, TEAD-N submitted a request to the Division of Waste Management and
Radiation Control (DWMRC) to abandon well C-18 because it fell within the footprint of a new industrial
warehouse that is under construction (TEAD 2021). The DWMRC granted the request to abandon C-18 in
a letter dated 12 October 2021, with the requirement that a well abandonment work plan be submitted
to and approved by the DWMRC (DWMRC 2021). A work plan was submitted to DWMRC on 30 November
2021 and approved on 9 December 2021 (Brice 2021). Monitoring well C-18 was abandoned on
21 December 2021 with work being overseen by Brice personnel. Full details of the well abandonment
are provided in a technical memorandum (Brice 2022c). Due to its abandonment, C-18 was not gauged
during the 2022 semi-annual event, and it has been removed from the list of wells designated for sitewide
semi-annual gauging.
2.4 Groundwater Sampling
2.4.1 Sampling Overview
Groundwater sampling for compliance monitoring purposes is conducted semi-annually at SWMU-58 and
biennially at SWMU-10 in accordance with the PCP, CMIP, and UFP-QAPP. Sampling at SWMU-58 consists
of a larger annual monitoring event conducted in the fall in which 113 wells are designated for sampling
and a smaller semi-annual monitoring event conducted in the spring in which 43 wells are designated for
sampling. Table 3 provides a comprehensive list of wells that are monitored, their sampling frequency,
and their sampling objectives. Sampling during the annual event is designed to provide coverage of the
entire solvent plume, while sampling during the semi-annual event provides additional information on
conditions in the Sanitary Landfill source area, near the downgradient plume boundary, and in sentinel
wells downgradient ofthe plume. Sentinel well sample results are also tied to requirements in the GWMA
Plan (Brice 2022b), which specifies procedures to be taken if TCE concentrations exceed trigger values of
1 microgram per liter (µg/L) (for the first time) and 5 µg/L in any sentinel wells.
In addition to sampling for compliance monitoring purposes, groundwater sampling is also conducted
three times annually near the SVE and AS remediation systems for remedy monitoring purposes. Some
wells are sampled for both compliance monitoring and remedy monitoring, and monitoring events are
combined when possible for efficiency. This report only covers results from the annual and semi-annual
events for wells listed in Table 3. Remedy monitoring sample results are discussed separately from this
report in annual Performance Evaluation Reports for the BRAC parcel remediation systems and the landfill
remediation systems.
Samples collected during the SWMU-58 annual and semi-annual events are analyzed for the compounds
listed in Table V-2 of Module V of the TEAD-N PCP except for 1,4-dioxane. Analysis of 1,4-dioxane is only
required by the PCP near Buildings 619 and 609 on the BRAC parcel, and a subset of samples from this
area are analyzed for 1,4-dioxane during the annual event to meet this requirement. Wells designated for
1,4-dioxane are shown in Table 3. A summary of analyzed compounds is presented in Table 4 along with
their applicable permit concentration limits. The concentration limit for 1,4-dioxane in the current PCP
(35 µg/L) is considered out of date. For the purposes of this report, a more conservative screening limit
value of 0.46 µg/L is being used, which corresponds to the EPA Regional Screening Level for tapwater. This
updated level was incorporated in the UFP-QAPP at the request of UDEQ and is expected to be
Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report, Tooele Army Depot North 6
Environmental Remediation Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah
incorporated into the PCP when it is next updated. However, the project laboratory, EMAX Laboratories,
Inc. (EMAX), cannot currently achieve a limit of quantitation less than 0.46 µg/L for 1,4-dioxane in
groundwater using conventional analytical methods, although the limit of detection for the project
analytical lab is as low as 0.4 µg/L. Based on this limitation, non-detect results for 1,4-dioxane are flagged
as exceeding the EPA Regional Screening Level.
Sampling at SWMU-10 is conducted every other year in conjunction with the SWMU-S8 annual monitoring
event. Samples are collected from two wells (N-03A and N-03H) and analyzed for RDX.
2.4.2 Field Activities
Sampling for the 2021 annual event was completed at SWMU-S8 between 27 October and 9 November
2021, and sampling for the 2022 semi-annual event was completed between 6 and 11 April 2022. A total
of 107 wells were sampled during the annual event, and 42 were sampled during the semi-annual event.
Six wells designated for sampling during the annual event (B-04, B-12, B-30, Cl 7, D-01, and N-116-88) and
one well designated for sampling during the semi-annual event (B-30) could not be sampled due to low
water levels. Seventeen additional wells were sampled during the 2022 semi-annual event for remedy
monitoring purposes only.
SWMU-10 is sampled biennially and was last sampled in 2019. Therefore, wells N-03A and N-03H were
sampled during the 2021 annual event on 8 November 2021.
Designated wells were sampled using HydraSleeve (HS) samplers following procedures specified in the
CMIP and UFP-QAPP. For the 2021 annual event, new HS samplers were deployed several weeks prior to
sampling, while new samplers for the 2022 semi-annual event were deployed following sample collection
during the 2021 annual event. During each monitoring event, quality assurance/quality control samples
were collected as necessary to meet quality objectives specified in the UFP-QAPP. Field duplicate samples
were collected at a minimum frequency of one per 10 samples, and matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate
samples were collected at a minimum frequency of one per 20 samples. Samples were collected in new,
laboratory-provided containers labeled with indelible ink. Following collection, samples were placed in a
resealable plastic bag and stored in iced coolers. The coolers were sealed with shipping tape and custody
seals and transported to the project laboratory by overnight courier under chain-of-custody procedures.
Trip blanks accompanied coolers throughout sampling and transport to the analytical lab, and samples
were maintained within EPA SW-846 sample preservation requirement of less than 6 degrees Celsius (0 C)
during handling, storage, and transport to the lab. Copies of the chain-of-custody and cooler receipt
records for this event are included with the analytical data reports in Appendix D. Comprehensive
summaries of wells sampled, field sample IDs, and the date and time of sampling are presented in Tables
Sa and Sb for the 2021 annual and 2022 semi-annual events, respectively.
Following sample collection at each well, field parameters were collected with a field water quality meter
using excess water from the HS samplers. The meter was calibrated daily prior to use. Field parameters
collected include temperature, pH, conductivity, turbidity, dissolved oxygen, and oxidation-reduction
potential.
During field activities, Brice recorded field measurements and pertinent sampling information on field
forms, which are included in Appendix B.
Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report, Tooele Army Depot North
Environmental Remediation Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah
7
2.5 Sample Analysis and Data Quality
Groundwater samples from the annual and semi-annual events were submitted to EMAX in Torrance,
California, for analysis. The lab holds current certification by the State of Utah under the requirements of
the National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Conference (NELAC) for the analytical methods used
to support this monitoring event. EMAX has also been independently accredited under the DoD
Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (ELAP) to be compliant with the requirements of the
QSM for the methods used at TEAD-N. The QSM is based on the NELAC Institute Standard, Volume 1,
(September 2009), and incorporates the requirements of International Organization for
Standardization/International Electrotechnical Commission (ISO/IEC) Standard 17025:200S(E).
Comprehensive reviews of data quality are presented in Quality Control Summary Reports (QCSRs) for the
2021 annual and 2022 semi-annual events provided in Appendix C. As part of the quality control
assessments, Environmental Synectics, Inc. (Synectics) performed a Stage 2B validation on all data and a
Stage 4 validation on 10 percent (%) of the data (DoD 2019b). Additionally, Synectics performed a senior
review of the validation to confirm compliance with the CDQMP, UFP-QAPP, and QSM. Based on the
review of the laboratory data, the analytical data are deemed acceptable and usable with any
qualifications noted in the QCSRs (Appendix C) documenting the results of the data validations. Because
compliance monitoring and remedy monitoring were conducted concurrently in Spring 2022, the QCSR
for the 2022 semi-annual event includes data for the additional remedy monitoring wells that were
sampled. However, only results from the compliance monitoring program are discussed in this report, as
noted in Section 2.2.2.
Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report, Tooele Army Depot North 8
Environmental Remediation Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah
3.0 SWMU-58 MONITORING RESULTS
3.1 Groundwater Elevations
Groundwater elevations are presented in Table la for the 2021 annual monitoring event and Table lb for
the 2022 semi-annual monitoring event. Groundwater elevations and potentiometric contours for 2021
annual event are presented on Figures 3 and 4 for the shallow and deep groundwater zones, respectively.
Hydrographs of groundwater elevations for sampled wells are included in Appendix A.
The annual monitoring event was not conducted in 2020; therefore, year over year comparison of water
levels is not possible for the 2021 annual event. Year over year comparison is possible for the 2022
semi-annual event, although there is uncertainty inherent in the comparison because the 2021 and 2022
semi-annual events were completed during different months due to the delayed timing of the 2021 event.
However, the 2022 semi-annual event groundwater elevations are similar to those observed during the
2021 semi-annual event. On average, water levels decreased approximately 0.6 feet from June 2021 to
April 2022, and the maximum decrease was 2.78 feet in N-114-88. Water levels increased in some wells,
and five wells had an increase of 5 feet or more. Four of these wells (D-20, D-23, D-25, and M-03} are
located north of the NEB plume near agricultural land. The increases in these wells are likely attributable
to the different timing of the two gauging events (April vs. June) and seasonal variations in the amount of
drawdown caused by agricultural pumping north of the NEB plume (i.e., pumping causes more drawdown
in June than April). The largest observed water level increase was 12.38 feet at P-03D, which is a deep well
located along an inferred fault zone northwest of the Former Sanitary Landfill. The cause of this increase
is unknown but may be related to the fault.
As shown on Figures 3 and 4, the observed groundwater flow direction in both the shallow and deep zones
was generally to the north-northwest during the 2021 annual event, which is consistent with the regional
groundwater flow direction (Kleinfelder 2002). On a smaller scale, the presence of faults and a shallow,
uplifted bedrock block at TEAD-N exert a strong influence on local groundwater flow directions and
gradients. The location of these features is shown on Figures 3 and 4. The location of the bedrock block
has been interpreted from borehole data (Kleinfelder 2002}; however, the locations of the faults and
bedrock block are approximate, and their characteristics are not fully understood. The fault zones tend to
act as barriers to groundwater flow, resulting in abrupt changes in groundwater levels by as much as
100 feet across.
Groundwater gradients across TEAD-N vary by several orders of magnitude and are strongly influenced by
the faults and bedrock block. Near the plume source areas and BRAC parcel, the gradient within the
shallow zone was relatively shallow during the 2021 annual event with a value of approximately
0.0004 feet per foot (ft/ft). Gradients were somewhat steeper in the shallow zone near the toe of the
plume, with values of approximately 0.001 ft/ft at the toe of the main plume and 0.007 ft/ft at the toe of
the NEB plume. In contrast, gradients across the faults were very steep in the shallow zone with values of
approximately 0.05 ft/ft west of the bedrock block and 0.06 ft/ft east of the bedrock block. The shallow
groundwater gradients across the site are relatively consistent from year to year, and the values observed
during the 2021 annual event are consistent with previous events.
Spatial variations in hydraulic gradient were consistent between the shallow and deep zones, although
the specific gradient values differed. Near the plume source areas and BRAC parcel, the gradient within
the deep zone was approximately 0.002 ft/ft during 2021 annual event, which is steeper than the gradient
in the shallow zone. Conversely, the gradient within the deep zone near the toe of the main plume was
Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report, Tooele Army Depot North 9
Environmental Remediation Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah
approximately 0.0002 ft/ft, which is shallower than in the shallow zone. The gradient across the fault west
of the bedrock block was approximately 0.07 ft/ft, which is similar to the gradient within the shallow zone.
Due to site geology and the distribution of monitoring wells, gradients could not be calculated near the
toe of the NEB plume or across the fault east of the bedrock block.
3.2 Analytical Results
Analytical results for samples collected at SWMU-58 during the 2021 annual event are summarized in
Table 6a, and results for the 2022 semi-annual event are summarized in 6b. TCE results for the two events
are shown on Figures Sa and Sb along with an updated plume boundary based on results from the 2021
annual event. CTC results are shown on Figures 6a and 6b, and results for additional other compounds
with screening level exceedances are shown on Figure 7. Updated concentration trend graphs and
hydrographs for individual wells are presented in Appendix A.
3.2.1 TCE and Breakdown Products
2021 Annual Event
TCE was detected at 90 of the 99 shallow wells sampled at SWMU-58 during the 2021 annual monitoring
event. Of these, 65 exceeded the permit concentration limit of 5 µg/L. The highest detected
concentrations were in D-04 (140 µg/L) and M-04 (98 µg/L) along the centerline ofthe NEB plume and in
C-66 (140 µg/L) in the Former Sanitary Landfill. TCE was detected in all eight deep wells that were sampled
and exceeded the permit limit in three wells. The highest concentration detected in the deep zone was
26 µg/L in C-46, which is located along the NEB plume centerline. One well, D-24, had a concentration
(5.0 µg/L) that met or exceeded that permit limit for the first time. D-24 is a deep well located along the
centerline of the NEB plume downgradient of C-46.
The updated plume boundary and isoconcentration contours for the 2021 annual event are mostly
unchanged from the 2021 semi-annual event and 2019 annual event. Locally, the AS and SVE remediation
systems at Building 679 and the Former Sanitary Landfill have created small zones where TCE
concentrations are now less than 5 µg/L (Figure Sa). The western extent of the main plume has also shrunk
within the mid-plume area. During the previous site-wide monitoring event in 2019, the SWMU-58 plume
boundary extended west of well B-06; it is now located east of well T-06, which is a shift of approximately
1,500 feet. Concentration trend analysis (Section 5.0) indicates both B-06 and T-06 have decreasing TCE
concentration trends, which suggests the reduction in plume extent may be permanent in this area.
The TCE breakdown products monitored at SWMU-58 include 1,2-dichloroethene (DCE). 1,2-DCE was
detected in 25 of the 99 shallow groundwater wells sampled at SWMU-58 during the 2021 annual
monitoring event, with four locations exceeding the permit concentration limit of 1 µg/L. The highest
concentration detected was 5.3 µg/L at well C-66. The four wells with exceedances are all within or
immediately downgradient from the Former Sanitary Landfill, and the elevated 1,2-DCE concentrations
likely result from TCE degradation caused by active remediation in the area. 1,2-DCE was detected in only
one of the eight deep wells sampled, C-46, with a concentration of 0.1 µg/L.
2022 Semi-Annual Event
TCE was detected at 32 of the 40 shallow groundwater wells sampled at SWMU-58 during the 2022
semi-annual monitoring. Of these, 19 exceeded the permit concentration limit of 5 µg/L. The highest
detected concentrations were in M-04 (110 µg/L) along the centerline of the NEB plume and in C-66
Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report, Tooele Army Depot North 10
Environmental Remediation Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah
(120 µg/L) in the Former Sanitary Landfill. TCE was detected in both of the deep wells that were sampled
and exceeded the permit concentration limit in one well, D-24, with a concentration of 5.4 µg/L.
The TCE breakdown product 1,2-DCE was detected in 7 of the 40 shallow groundwater wells sampled at
SWMU-58 during the 2022 semi-annual monitoring event, with two locations exceeding the permit
concentration limit of 1 µg/L. The highest concentration detected was 4.3 µg/L at well C-66 in the Former
Sanitary Landfill. 1,2-DCE was detected in one of the two deep wells sampled, C-56, with a concentration
of 0.39 µg/L.
3.2.2 CTC and Degradation Byproducts
2021 Annual Event
CTC was detected in 69 of the 99 wells sampled during the 2021 annual event. Of these, 11 exceeded the
permit concentration limit of 5 µg/L. The highest detected concentration was 20 µg/L in well B-03. All
wells with CTC exceedances are within the BRAC parcel or in the area immediately to the northwest. CTC
was detected in four of the eight deep wells sampled and exceeded the permit concentration limit in one
well, C-46, with a concentration of 7 .3 µg/L.
Chloroform, a degradation product of CTC, was detected in 51 of the 99 shallow wells sampled during
2021 annual event. All detected concentrations were less than the permit concentration limit of 100 µg/L,
and the highest detected concentration was 2.1 µg/L in C-34. Chloroform was detected in two of the eight
deep wells sampled with a maximum concentration of 0.73 µg/L in C-46.
2022 Semi-Annual Event
CTC was detected in 15 of the 40 shallow wells sampled during the 2022 semi-annual event. All detected
concentrations were less than the permit concentration limit of 5 µg/L, and the highest detected
concentration was 2.5 µg/L at M-05. CTC was detected in one of the two deep wells sampled, D-24, with
a concentration of 0.18 µg/L.
Chloroform was detected in 12 of the 40 shallow wells sampled during 2022 semi-annual event. All
detected concentrations were less than the permit concentration limit of 100 µg/L, and the highest
detected concentration was 0.7 µg/L at M-01. Chloroform was not detected in either of the deep wells
that were sampled.
3.2.3 Other Organic Compounds Detected
2021 Annual Event
PCE and 1,4-dioxane were the only other compounds besides TCE, 1,2-DCE, and CTC to exceed their
screening levels during the 2021 annual event. PCE was detected in 25 of the 99 shallow wells sampled
during the 2021 annual event and exceeded the permit concentration limit (5 µg/L) in one well, B-26, with
a concentration of 11 µg/L. 1,4-Dioxane was detected and exceeded its screening level (0.46 µg/L) in all
four of the shallow wells for which it was analyzed (C-19, C-21, C-26, and C-35) with a maximum
concentration of 5.3 µg/L in C-35. 1,4-Dioxane concentrations in all four wells were comparable to results
from previous sampling events and were less than historical maximum concentrations. Other compounds
detected in shallow wells include 1,1-DCE (18 wells), 1,2-dichloroethane (DCA) (15 wells), 1,1-DCA
(13 wells), and 1,1,1-trichloroethane (2 wells). Detected concentrations for these compounds were less
than the permit concentration limits.
Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report, Tooele Army Depot North 11
Environmental Remediation Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah
PCE was not detected in any deep wells during the 2021 annual event, and 1,4-dioxane was not analyzed
in any deep wells. Other organic compounds detected in deep wells include 1,2-DCA (2 wells), 1,1-DCE
(1 well), and 1,1-DCA (1 well). Detected concentrations for these compounds were also less than the
permit concentration limits.
2022 Semi-Annual Event
No additional compounds besides TCE and 1,2-DCE exceeded their permit concentration limits during the
2022 semi-annual event. PCE was detected in 8 of the 40 shallow wells sampled with a maximum
concentration of 1.9 µg/L in C-66. Other compounds detected in shallow wells include 1,1-DCA (5 wells)
and 1,1-DCE (1 well). No additional compounds were detected in the two deep wells that were sampled
during the semi-annual event.
3.2.4 Sentinel Well Assessment
Contingency actions are required by the GWMA Plan (Brice 2022b) if the TCE concentration in a sentinel
well exceeds 1 µg/L for the first time or if it exceeds 5 µg/L at any time. As listed in Table 3, sentinel wells
for SWMU-58 include B-42, C-03, C-04, D-11 through 13, D-16, D-20 through 23, D-25, and M-01, and
M-02. TCE was detected in seven of the sentinel wells (B-42, C-03, C-04, D-20, D-22, D-23, and D-25) during
both the 2021 annual and 2022 semi-annual events. D-25 had a concentration of 1.2 µg/L during both
events and was the only well with a concentration greater than 1 µg/L. D-25 has had TCE concentrations
greater than or equal to 1 µg/L since at least 2013, and the highest concentration detected in the well was
1.4 µg/L during the 2017 annual event. Because TCE concentrations in D-25 have previously exceeded
1 µg/L, no additional action is required by the GWMA Plan.
Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report, Tooele Army Depot North 12
Environmental Remediation Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah
4.0 SWMU-10 MONITORING RESULTS
4.1 Groundwater Elevations
Groundwater elevations and potentiometric contours for the 2021 annual monitoring event are shown
on Figure 8. Depth-to-water measurement and groundwater elevations for the 2021 annual and 2022
semi-annual events are included in Tables la and lb, respectively. Groundwater elevations at SWMU-10
during the 2021 annual event ranged from 4,466.61 to 4,469.00 feet above mean sea level (amsl) in wells
N-133-90 and N-110-88, respectively. During the 2022 semi-annual event, groundwater elevations ranged
from to in 4,465.54 feet ams I in N-133-90 to 4,467.69 feet amsl in N-03A. Consistent with previous events,
the observed groundwater flow direction during the 2021 annual event across SWMU-10 was toward the
west with localized flow to the northwest and southwest.
4.2 Analytical Results
ROX was detected in both SWMU-10 wells that were sampled during the 2021 biennial event. N-03A had
a concentration of 23 µg/L, while N-03H had estimated concentrations of 0.97 µg/L in the primary sample
and 0.80 µg/L in the field duplicate. The result for N-03A is comparable to the concentration during the
2019 biennial event (20 µg/L). The concentration in N-03H decreased slightly compared to 2019, when
ROX was detected at 2.3 µg/L (primary) to 3.4 µg/L (field duplicate).
Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report, Tooele Army Depot North 13
Environmental Remediation Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah
This page intentionally blank
Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report, Tooele Army Depot North 14
Environmental Remediation Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah
5.0 CONCENTRATION TREND ANALYSIS
5.1 Introduction
Statistical trend analysis procedures have been developed for SWMU-58 to assess concentration changes
across the site. In previous annual reports, individual concentration trends were assessed only for a subset
of sampled wells, and the wells that were assessed were also grouped by location and evaluated together
using Regional Kendall tests to assess overall trends in different areas of SWMU-58. This approach has
been modified for the current report to include trend assessments for all wells designated for sampling in
Table 3, and the Regional Kendall assessment has been eliminated. The modified approach allows for a
more detailed evaluation of plume conditions and eliminates the potential for overgeneralization or
biases resulting from well selection inherent to Regional Kendall tests. To facilitate interpretation of
results for different areas of the plume, individual wells were assigned to one of six areas based on their
location. These areas, which largely correspond to the areas previously used in the Regional Kendall tests,
are shown on Figure 9 and include the Former Sanitary Landfill source area, BRAC parcel source areas,
main plume mid-plume area, main plume toe area, NEB plume mid-plume area, and NEB plume toe area.
These areas were selected based on site history, the distribution of contamination, groundwater flow
directions, and the regions formerly used for the Regional Kendall tests. However, specific boundary
locations do not imply a change in conditions due to the continuous and comingled nature of the plume.
The primary focus of the trend analysis is TCE because it is the most widespread contaminant at
SWMU-58; therefore, TCE concentration trends were assessed in all wells designated for sampling in
Table 3. As discussed in Section 3.2, 1,2-DCE, PCE, CTC, and 1,4-dioxane were also detected at levels
exceeding their corresponding screening levels in addition to TCE. Due to the limited number and spatial
extent of exceedances for these additional compounds, and CTC, trend assessment was only completed
for these compounds at locations with exceedances during the 2021 annual and 2022 semi-annual events.
The installation of SVE and AS systems in contaminant source areas has influenced or is expected to
influence contamination trends across SWMU-58. To assess trends associated with current site conditions
in which the SVE and AS systems are online, the period of analysis has been limited to the last sampling
event before the SVE and AS systems became substantially operational onward. The SVE and AS systems
outside of the Former Sanitary Landfill became fully operational in Summer 2013; consequently, data from
Spring 2013 onward were used for analysis except for wells in the Sanitary Landfill source area. Within the
landfill, the SVE and AS systems became substantially operational in Winter 2014, and data from Fall 2014
onward were used for the analysis.
5.2 Statistical Methods
Statistical trend analysis was performed using the Mann-Kendall test (Gilbert 1987; Helsel and Hirsch
2002; EPA 2009) to identify possible increasing or decreasing concentration trends in individual wells. The
Mann-Kendall test is a non-parametric test for linear trends based on the idea that a lack of trend should
correspond to a time-series plot fluctuating randomly about a constant mean level with no visually
apparent upward or downward pattern (EPA 2009). The Mann-Kendall statistic, S, is computed by
examining all possible pairs of measurements in the data set, scoring each pair as -1, 0, or 1, and adding
the scores. An earlier measurement lower in magnitude than a later one is assigned a value of 1, while an
earlier value greater in magnitude than a later sample is assigned a value of -1. Two identical
measurement values are assigned 0. Positive values of S indicate an increase in concentrations over time,
whereas negative values indicate a decrease in concentrations over time. The magnitude of Sis related to
Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report, Tooele Army Depot North 15
Environmental Remediation Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah
the strength of the trend with larger absolute values of S indicating stronger evidence for a real increasing
or decreasing trend. To assess statistical significance, a standard deviation of S is calculated based on the
number of samples in the data set and number of identical measurements. S and the standard deviation
of Sare then used to calculate a Z-statistic from which a one-tailed p-value can be determined from the
standard normal distribution. To assess whether a statistically significant concentration trend is present,
the p-value is compared to a selected significance level, a. For p-values less than a, the null hypothesis
that there is no trend in the data is rejected, and the alternative hypothesis that a monotonic (upward or
downward) trend exists in the data is accepted. For this analysis, a value of 0.05 was selected for a (i.e., a
trend is considered to be statistically significant for p-values of less than 0.05), which corresponds to 95%
confidence, or a 1-in-20 chance that a statistically significant trend is falsely identified. Note that a
non-significant Mann-Kendall test result does not necessarily demonstrate that there is no trend-only
that the evidence available is insufficient to conclude a statistically significant trend is present at the
selected level of a.
Mann-Kendall tests were performed using the statistical software package R. For the purposes of the
analysis, non-detect results were assigned a common value of 0.1 µg/L to avoid errors resulting from small
variations in the method detection limit from year to year, which would result in paired non-detect results
being scored as -1 or 1 without evidence that the results are actually different. A value of 0.1 µg/L was
selected because it is approximately one-half of the method detection limit for most samples analyzed
and is lower than all detected TCE concentrations. For the purposes of the Mann-Kendall test, the specific
value used for non-detect values does not matter as long it is less than the lowest detected concentration,
because sample pairs with different concentrations are scored as -1 or 1 regardless of the magnitude of
the difference. The Mann-Kendall test also requires that sample results are not serially correlated
(e.g., collected closely together in time), which is the case for paired normal and field duplicate results.
Where both normal and field duplicate samples were collected at a given location, the highest sample
result was used.
Mann-Kendall tests indicate whether a statistically significant trend is present, but they do not indicate
the magnitude of the trend. The magnitude of the trend can be assessed using the Theil-Sen slope, which
is a non-parametric method that is relatively insensitive to outliers. For a given data set, the Theil-Sen
slope is the median of slopes computed for every pair of distinct measurements in the data set and
corresponds to the change in concentration per year. Unlike the Mann-Kendall test, the value used to
substitute for non-detect results affects the calculated Theil-Sen slope values. Calculation of the Theil-Sen
slope is generally not recommended when more than half of sample results in a well are non-detect
(Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council 2013). Therefore, Theil-Sen slopes were not calculated in
wells with more than 50% non-detects.
5.3 Summary of Trend Results
TCE trend analysis results including S values, p-values, and Theil-Sen slopes are presented in Table 7. Plots
showing TCE concentrations over time are presented in Appendix A. The plots include Theil-Sen linear
regressions where statistically significant trends were identified. Note that slopes for wells without
significant trends are reported in Table 7 for reference but do not indicate that an increasing or decreasing
trend is present. TCE trend results are discussed by area in the following sections, followed by a discussion
of the results for other compounds. Trend results for other compounds are presented in Table 8.
Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report, Tooele Army Depot North 16
Environmental Remediation Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah
5.3.1 Former Sanitary Landfill Source Area
Among the wells in the Former Sanitary Landfill source area, 20 have decreasing trends, none have an
increasing trend, and three have no trend. Theil-Sen slopes range from -87 to 2.1 µg/L per year (µg/L/yr)
with a median value of -6.25 µg/L/yr. These results indicate there is widespread and rapid decline in TCE
concentrations in the area, and the SVE and AS remediation systems are working as intended.
5.3.2 BRAC Parcel Source Areas
Among the wells in the BRAC parcel Former Sanitary Landfill source area, 15 have decreasing trends, four
have increasing trends, and six have no trend. Theil-Sen slopes range from -29 to 1.1 µg/L/yr with a median
value of-1.6 µg/L/yr. Overall these results indicate that TCE concentrations in the area are decreasing and
the SVE and AS remediation systems are working as intended.
5.3.3 Main Plume Mid-Plume Area
Within the mid-plume portion of the Main Plume, nine wells have decreasing trends, none have increasing
trends, and four have no trend. Theil-Sen slopes range from -6.5 to 0.25 µg/L/yr with a median value
of -0.95 µg/L/yr. These results indicate TCE concentrations in the area are generally decreasing,
particularly in the south and west.
5.3.4 Main Plume Toe Area
Among the wells near the toe of the Main Plume, none have decreasing trends, eight have increasing
trends, and five have no trend. Theil-Sen slopes range from -0.39 to 0.74 µg/L/yr with a median value of
0.25 µg/L/yr. These results suggest TCE concentrations near the toe of the Main Plume are increasing at
a slow rate and future migration of the plume boundary could occur. However, concentrations in the
sentinel wells beyond the Main Plume are unlikely to exceed 5 µg/L within the next 10 years based on
current concentrations and Theil-Sen slopes. This timeframe is consistent with the probabilistic
predictions made by the 2022 TEAD-N Groundwater Flow and Contaminant Transport Model (USACE and
Tetra Tech/Brice 2022). Three sentinel wells beyond the main plume have increasing concentration
trends: B-42, C-03, and C-04. Of these, C-03 is the only well with a calculated Theil-Sen slope because the
other two wells have more than 50% non-detect results. Based on the Theil-Sen slope, the concentration
at C-03 is expected to reach 1 µg/L by approximately 2030 but will not reach 5 µg/L for more than
100 years. Although slopes were not calculated for B-42 and C-04, the rate of TCE concentration increase
in B-24 is qualitatively similar to C-03, while the rate in C-04 is slower. At present, the highest TCE
concentration observed among the Main Plume sentinel wells 0.470 µg/L in B-42 during the 2022
semi-annual event.
5.3.5 NEB Plume Mid-Plume Area
Within the mid-plume portion of the NEB Plume, 11 wells have decreasing trends, five have increasing
trends, and eight have no trend. Theil-Sen slopes range from -13 to 2.5 µg/L/yr with a median value of
-1.09 µg/L/yr. TCE concentrations within the southern half of the area are decreasing at low to moderate
rates. Further north, concentrations are generally increasing at a slow rate.
5.3.6 NEB Plume Toe Area
Among the wells near the toe of the NEB Plume, two have decreasing trends, six have increasing
trends, and seven have no trend. Theil-Sen slopes range from Oto 0.89 µg/L/yr with a median value of
Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report, Tooele Army Depot North 17
Environmental Remediation Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah
0.12 µg/L/yr. These results suggest TCE concentrations near the toe of the NEB plume are increasing in
some areas, though the trend is not spatially uniform. Concentrations in the sentinel wells beyond the
Main Plume are unlikely to exceed 5 µg/L within the next 10 years based on current concentrations and
Theil-Sen slopes. This timeframe is consistent with the probabilistic predictions made by the 2022 TEAD-N
Groundwater Flow and Contaminant Transport Model (USACE and Tetra Tech/Brice 2022). Two sentinel
wells beyond the NEB plume have increasing concentration trends: D-20 and D-22. Of these, D-20 is the
only well with a calculated Theil-Sen slope because D-22 has more than 50% non-detect results. Based on
the Theil-Sen slope, the concentration at D-20 is expected to reach 1 µg/L by approximately 2043 but will
not reach 5 µg/L for approximately 100 years. Qualitatively, the rate of concentration increase in D-22 is
slower than in D-20. Among the NEB plume sentinel wells with increasing trends, D-20 has the highest
observed concentration (0.67 µg/L during the 2021 annual event).
5.3.7 Trend Results for Other Compounds
1,2-DCE
Of the four wells with exceedances for 1,2-DCE during the 2021 annual event and/or 2022 semi-annual
event, two have decreasing trends, one has an increasing trend, and one has no trend. Concentrations in
the well with an increasing trend, A-02A, declined significantly from 2019 to 2021 and may have peaked.
CTC
Of the 12 wells with exceedances for CTC during the 2021 annual event, four have decreasing trends,
three have increasing trends, and five have no trend. The three wells with increasing trends (B-10, C-44,
and C-45) are at the northern end of the CTC plume boundary, suggesting the boundary may continue to
expand to the north.
PCE
B-26 was the only well with an exceedance for PCE during the 2021 annual and 2022 semi-annual events.
PCE concentrations in the well have a decreasing trend and will decrease less than the permit
concentration limit within the next several years if the current rate of decrease (-4.0 µg/L/yr) remains
relatively stable.
1,4-Dioxane
None of the four wells with 1,4-dioxane exceedances during the 2021 annual event have a statistically
significant trend. As shown on the trend graphs for 1,4-dioxane in Appendix A, concentrations in all four
wells are comparable to previous sampling events and are less than historical maximum concentrations.
Qualitatively, the trends in C-19, C-21, and C-26 appear stable, while C-35 has a general decreasing trend
that may become statistically significant in the future.
Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report, Tooele Army Depot North 18
Environmental Remediation Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah
6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Following disruption in 2020 and the start of 2021, groundwater monitoring at TEAD-N returned to its
typical schedule for the 2021 annual and 2022 semi-annual events. Results from these two events were
mostly consistent with recent monitoring at SWMU-58 and SWMU-10. Groundwater flow directions and
gradients are comparable to previous events and are strongly influenced by site faulting and the uplifted
bedrock block near the middle of the plume. At SWMU-58, statistical trend analysis indicates TCE
concentrations in the plume source areas and mid-plume areas are decreasing, although increasing trends
are present in some wells. Notably, the vast majority of wells in the Former Sanitary Landfill source area
have decreasing trends and no wells have increasing trends. These results suggest the SVE and AS
remediation systems have been effective at reducing TCE mass in the plume source areas. In the distal
portion of the plume, TCE concentrations are increasing in some wells, most notably near the toe of the
Main Plume. However, the observed rates of concentration increase (Theil-Sen slopes) in these wells are
low, and estimates of plume breakthrough suggest the plume will not migrate beyond existing sentinel
wells for multiple decades at current rates of concentration increase. These timeframes are generally
consistent with the probabilistic predictions made by the TEAD-N Groundwater Flow and Contaminant
Transport Model (USACE and Tetra Tech/Brice 2022). The highest TCE concentration detected among
sentinel wells was 1.2 µg/L at D-25 during both the 2021 annual and 2022 semi-annual events. The TCE
concentration in D-25 is stable and has been greater than or equal to 1 µg/L since at least 2013.
Besides TCE, the only other compounds with screening level exceedances during the 2021 annual event
and/or 2022 semi-annual event are 1,2-DCE, CTC, PCE, and 1,4-dioxane. 1,2-DCE has an increasing trend
in one well with a screening level exceedance, A-02A, near the Former Sanitary Landfill source area. This
increasing trend likely results from TCE degradation caused by active remediation in the area; however,
1,2-DCE concentrations in the well declined significantly from 2019 to 2021 and may have peaked. Three
wells with screening level exceedances for CTC have increasing concentration trends. These wells are
located near the northern end of the CTC plume boundary, suggesting the boundary may continue to
expand to the north, but will remain within the larger TCE plume boundary. PCE only exceeded the
screening level in one well, B-26, which has a decreasing concentration trend, and concentrations in the
well are likely to decrease below the screening level within the next few years. The four wells
monitored for 1,4-dioxane near Buildings 619 and 609 had concentrations exceeding the screening level
during the 2021 annual event. None of the wells have a statistically significant concentration trend for
1,4-dioxane, and concentrations in the wells appear to be stable or decreasing.
RDX was detected in both SWMU-10 wells sampled during the 2021 biennial event. The observed
concentrations were comparable or lower than those observed in 2019, suggesting conditions at
SWMU-10 are stable.
Based on current site conditions, potential exists for the monitoring program to be optimized in the
Former Sanitary Landfill area. For historical reasons, 13 compliance monitoring wells within the landfill
are currently designated for semi-annual sampling. These wells (C-56 through C-68) were installed in 2014
to delineate potential additional source areas and to support the design and monitoring of the landfill SVE
and AS systems (TEAD 2015). The wells were added to the compliance monitoring program with an initial
semi-annual sampling frequency that has remained unchanged. Seven of the wells were also subsequently
designated for remedy monitoring purposes and are sampled three times annually with compliance
monitoring and remedy monitoring events being combined when possible for efficiency. Conditions in
wells C-56 through C-68 are well understood, and they all have decreasing TCE concentration trends.
Therefore, it is recommended that the frequency of compliance monitoring for these 13 wells be changed
Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report, Tooele Army Depot North 19
Environmental Remediation Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah
to annual. With this change, wells C-58, C-62, C-63, C-64, C-65, and C-67 would be sampled during the
annual event only. The remaining wells in the Former Sanitary Landfill area would continue to be sampled
three times annually for remedy monitoring purposes.
Groundwater monitoring at SWMU-58 will continue on a semi-annual basis in accordance with the
UPF-QAPP (Brice 2022a). The larger annual monitoring event is scheduled to occur in October 2022, and
the smaller semi-annual monitoring event is scheduled to occur in April 2023. Monitoring at SWMU-10
will continue on a biennial basis with the next event scheduled for October 2023 during the annual
monitoring event.
Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report, Tooele Army Depot North 20
Environmental Remediation Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah
7 .0 REFERENCES
Brice Engineering, LLC (Brice). 2021. C-18 Well Abandonment Work Plan. November.
Brice. 2022a. Final Uniform Federal Policy-Quality Assurance Project Plan, Tooele Army Depot North,
Utah. February.
Brice. 2022b. Final Groundwater Management Plan Update, Tooele Army Depot North, Utah. July.
Brice. 2022c. C-18 Well Abandonment Technical Memorandum -January 2022. Prepared for Bryan
Lynch, U.S. Army Environmental Command.
Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control (DWMRC). 2021. RE: Request to Abandon
Monitoring Well C-18. Letter dated October 12, 2021, from Deborah Ng, Program Manager,
DWMRC, to Lonnie Brown, Acting Chief, Environmental Management Division, Tooele Army
Depot.
Gilbert. 1987. Statistical Methods for Environmental Pollution Monitoring, Gilbert, R.O., Van Nostrand
Reinhold, New York, NY.
Helsel. D.R., and R.M. Hirsch. 2002. Statistical methods in water resources: U.S. Geological Survey
Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 4, chap. A3, 524 p.
Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council. 2013. Groundwater Statistics and Monitoring Compliance:
Statistical Tools for the Project Life Cycle. GSMC-1. December.
Kleinfelder. 2002. RCRA Facility Investigation Report, Tooele Army Depot Utah. March.
Parsons. 2012. Final Corrective Measures Study Report, Tooele Army Depot, Tooele, Utah. June 2012.
Parsons. 2014a. Corrective Measures Implementation Program Plan for Groundwater, Tooele Army
Depot, Tooele, Utah. April.
Parsons. 2014b. SWMU 58 Natural Attenuation Evaluation Report, Tooele Army Depot, Tooele, Utah.
June.
Tooele Army Depot (TEAD). 2015. Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report. Tooele Army Depot, Tooele,
Utah. October.
TEAD. 2018. Utah Hazardous Waste Post-Closure Permit for Post-Closure Monitoring and Corrective
Action of Solid Waste Management Units for Tooele Army Depot, Tooele, Utah. EPA ID
UT3213820894. November.
TEAD. 2021. Request to Abandon Monitoring Well C-18. Letter dated August 17, 2021, from Lonnie
Brown, Acting Chief, Environmental Management Division, Tooele Army Depot, to Doug Hansen,
Director, DWMRC.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2012. Semi-Annual Groundwater Quality Report and Voluntary
SWMU Sampling, Spring 2012, Tooele Army Depot, Utah, October.
USACE and Tetra Tech/Brice. 2022. Tooele Army Depot Groundwater Flow and Contaminant Transport
Model (2021). October.
Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report, Tooele Army Depot North
Environmental Remediation Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah
21
U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). 2019a. Quality Systems Manual for Environmental Laboratories,
Version 5.3. May.
DoD. 2019b. General Data Validation Guidelines. November.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009. Statistical Analysis of Groundwater Monitoring Data
at RCRA Facilities, Unified Guidance. EPA 530/R-09-007. March.
Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report, Tooele Army Depot North 22
Environmental Remediation Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah
TABLES
This page intentionally blank
Table la
Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Wells and Results -2021 Annual Event
Well
Ground Measuring Measured Depth Corrected Depth
Corrected Water
Shallow(S)
WellDry(D) Measurement Surface Point to Water to Water
Elevation We11Corre4 Location SWMU orWet(W) Date Elevation Elevation (feet below (feet below
or Deep(D) (feetamsl) (feetamsl) measuring point) measuring point)
(feetamsl)
A-02A 2 s w 10/14/2021 4757 .98 4757.98 289.51 289.51 4468.47
A-03 2 s D 10/21/2021 4702 .10 4704.58 Dry Dry Dry
A-04 2 s D 10/21/2021 4716.82 4719.75 Dry Dry Dry
A-05 2 s w 10/21/2021 4687.60 4690 .06 224.67 224 .67 4465 .39
A-07A 2 s w 10/20/2021 4669.27 4671.16 316.11 316.11 4355 .05
B-01 2 s w 10/19/2021 4677.89 4680.06 212.43 212.43 4467 .63
B-02 2/58 s D 10/14/2021 4813 .30 4815 .14 Dry Dry Dry
B-03 (") 2/58 s w 10/21/2021 4718.45 4721.12 255 .71 255 .55 4465 .57 y=0.9976
B-04 2 s w 10/19/2021 4642 .56 4645 .58 180.75 180.75 4464.83
B-05 2 s w 10/21/2021 4689.40 4692 .08 332.74 332 .74 4359 .34
B-06 2 s w 10/20/2021 4585.68 4587 .63 287.82 287 .82 4299 .81 -
B-07 2 s w 10/20/2021 4605 .42 4607.65 253.50 253.50 4354.15
B-08 2 s D 10/20/2021 4603 .18 4605.27 Dry Dry Dry
B-09 2/58 s w 10/21/2021 4652.00 4654 .76 300.53 300.53 4354 .23
B-10 2/58 s w 10/20/2021 4680.15 4681.42 224.58 224 .58 4456 .84
B-11 58 s w 10/22/2021 4587.10 4589 .29 235 .18 235.18 4354 .11
B-12 2 s D 10/20/2021 4567.54 4569 .42 Dry Dry Dry
B-13 2 D w 10/20/2021 4565 .52 4566.75 268.47 268.47 4298.28
B-14A 2 s D 10/20/2021 4536 .84 4536.87 Dry Dry Dry
B-15 2 s w 10/21/2021 4531.56 4534 .81 236 .72 236.72 4298 .09 -
B-16 2/58 s w 10/22/2021 4532 .74 4534.86 239 .39 239.39 4295 .47
B-17A 2 D w 10/22/2021 4492 .68 4493 .47 198.94 198.94 4294.53
B-18(") 2 s w 10/22/2021 4502 .75 4504 .13 211 .03 211.02 4293 .11 y=x -
B-19 2 s w 10/22/2021 4483 .90 4484 .74 189.39 189.39 4295 .35
B-20 2 s w 10/21/2021 4642 .61 4644 .63 290.32 290.32 4354 .31
B-21 2 s w 10/21/2021 4680.17 4682 .12 239.22 239.22 4442 .90
B-22 2 s w 10/21/2021 4692 .94 4694.68 228.55 228.55 4466.13
B-23 2,12/15 s w 10/19/2021 4622.27 4623 .32 159.44 159.44 4463 .88 -
B-24 2/58 s w 10/22/2021 4679.71 4681.50 327.24 327.24 4354.26
B-25 2 D w 10/25/2021 4476 .36 4478.75 182.96 182.96 4295.79
B-26 2/58 s w 10/19/2021 4776.76 4779.12 314.55 314.55 4464 .57
B-27 2 s w 10/21/2021 4702.88 4706 .08 239.58 239 .58 4466 .50
B-28 2 s w 10/19/2021 4605.22 4608 .34 291.02 291.02 4317 .32
B-29 2 D w 10/21/2021 4539.09 4542 .16 246.09 246.09 4296 .07
B-30 2 s D 10/20/2021 4532.73 4535 .64 Dry Dry Dry
B-31 2 D w 10/22/2021 4511.39 4514.17 219.47 219.47 4294.70
B-32 2 s w 10/18/2021 4499 .44 4502.46 207 .61 207.61 4294 .85
B-33 2 D w 10/25/2021 4477 .65 4480.35 184.94 184.94 4295 .41 -
B-34 2 s w 10/25/2021 4475 .17 4477 .79 182 .87 182.87 4294.92
B-35 (") 2 s w 10/25/2021 4466.51 4469.53 180.66 179.62 4289 .91 y=0 .9938
B-36 2, 12/15 s w 10/19/2021 4621.04 4623 .85 160.75 160.75 4463 .10
B-37 2 s w 10/18/2021 4442 .60 4445 .09 15 6 .9 3 15 6.93 4288.16 (-
B-38 2 D w 10/18/2021 4442.60 4445 .08 150.29 150.29 4294 .79 (_
B-3 9 2 D w 10/18/2021 4457 .90 4460.17 165 .28 165.28 4294 .8 9 (-
B-40 2 s w 10/15/2021 4459 .50 4461.72 170.55 170.55 42 91.17 ~
B-41 2 s w 10/15/2021 4476 .00 4478 .35 183.94 183.94 4294.41
B-42 2 s w 10/15/2021 4421.00 4423 .31 135.26 135.26 4288 .05
B-43 2 D w 10/15/2021 4421.00 4423.75 129.54 129.54 4294.21
B-44 2 s w 10/15/2021 4432.40 4434 .92 147 .86 147 .86 42 87.06 ~
B-45 2 D w 10/15/2021 4432.40 44 35.10 140.57 140.57 4294 .53 (-
B-46 2 s w 10/15/2021 441 6.70 4417 .8 0 130.58 130.58 42 87.22 ~-
B-47 2 s w 10/18/2021 4412.00 4414 .52 127.62 127.62 42 86.90 (_
B-4 8 2 D w 10/18/2021 4412.00 4414 .24 119.99 119.99 4294 .25 ~-
B-4 9 2 s w 10/15/2021 44 32.80 4435.17 141.60 141.60 429 3.57 [-
~ e ~ --... ...... , ...... , .............. .. ----.. ----.. ,.,,..,..,. .. ,.,,..,..,. .. .................
Well
Location SWMU Shallow(S)
or Deep(D)
P-28D 2
P-28S 2
P-29 2
P-30 2
P-31 2
P-32 2
P-33 2
P-34 2
P-35 2
P-36 2
P-37 2
P-38 2
P-39 2
P-40 2
P-41 2
P-42 2
P-43 2
P-44 58
T-02 2
T-03 2
T-04 2
T-05 2
T-06 2
T-07 2
WW-07 2
WW-08 2
Notes:
ams I-above mean sea level
bgs -below ground surface
ft-feet
D
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
D
s
D
D
s
s
s
s
s
s
D
s
WellDry(D)
orWet(W)
w
D
w
D
D
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
SWMU -Solid Waste Management Unit
(A) -Measured depth to water requires correction
Table la
Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Wells and Results -2021 Annual Event
Ground Measuring Measured Depth Corrected Depth
Corrected Water Measurement Surface Point to Water to Water
Elevation Well Corre• Date Elevation Elevation (feet below (feet below
(feetamsl) (feetamsl) measuring point) measuring point) (feetamsl)
10/25/2021 4452 .37 4454.46 160.75 160.75 4293 .71
10/25/2021 4452 .37 4454.28 Dry Dry Dry
10/19/2021 4654.18 4655 .61 189.30 189.30 4466 .31
10/20/2021 4598.73 4600.59 Obstruction Obstruction Obstruction
10/20/2021 4598 .73 4600.47 Obstruction Obstruction Obstruction
10/18/2021 4443.68 4446.12 158.07 158.07 4288.05 ~-
10/18/2021 4427.20 4429.40 141.96 141.96 4287.44 (-
10/18/2021 4429.47 4431.83 144.20 144.20 4287.63 t-
10/18/2021 4417.97 4418.14 131.06 131.06 4287.08 (-
10/25/2021 4487.92 4490.25 200 .92 200.92 4289 .33
10/18/2021 4428.46 4430.80 141.94 141.94 4288.86 (-
10/15/2021 4438 .79 4441.28 147 .20 147.20 4294.08 ~-
10/15/2021 4444.74 4446 .90 153.57 153.57 4293 .33
10/19/2021 4603 .80 4605 .31 161.86 161.86 4443.45
10/19/2021 4603 .61 4605 .24 150.28 150.28 4454 .96
10/20/2021 4577.74 4580.03 279.22 279 .22 4300.81 -
10/20/2021 4578.17 4580.01 279.65 279.65 4300.36
10/15/2021 4617.35 4619.20 264.99 264.99 4354.21 -
10/22/2021 4688.71 4690.25 247.54 247 .54 4442.71 -
10/22/2021 4680 .00 4683.31 217.38 217.38 4465.93
10/19/2021 4617 .00 4619.89 171.03 171.03 4448.86
10/21/2021 4609 .46 4611 .87 257 .52 257 .52 4354 .35
10/20/2021 4596.94 4599 .45 257 .13 257 .13 4342 .32
10/19/2021 4793 .20 4795 .47 325 .23 325.23 4470 .24
10/20/2021 --4552 .50 253 .83 253 .83 4298 .67
10/20/2021 --4598 .52 244.20 244.20 4354 .32
This page intentionally blank
Table Ga
SWMU-58 Analytical Results -2021 Annual Monitoring Event
Location: B-34 B-35 B-37 B-40 B-42 B-54 B-56 B-62
Zone Monitored: Shallow Shallow Shallow Shallow Shallow Shallow Deep Shallow
TEAD-11-21-TEAD-11-21-
Sample ID:
TEAD-11-21-TEAD-11-21-TEAD-11-21-TEAD-11-21-S-B40-01-HY-TEAD-11-21-TEAD-11-21-TEAD-11-21-
S-B56-01-HY-
TEAD-11-2
B34-HY-236 B35-HY-224 B37-HY-201 B40-HY-182 192
B42-HY-197 B54-HY-362 B56-HY-662
672
B62-HY-27
Sample Date: 11/2/2021 11/2/2021 10/27/2021 10/27/2021 10/27/2021 10/27/2021 11/1/2021 11/4/2021 11/4/2021 11/3/202:
Sample Type: N N N N FD N N N FD N
voe (µg/L) Permit Limit
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 200 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 5 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U
1,1-Dichloroethane 170 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.230J 0.200 U 0.400J 0.480J 0.220J
1,1-Dichloroethene 7 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.130J 0 .120J 0.200 U
1,2-Dichloroethane 5 0 .200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.480J 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 1 0.260J 0.200 U 0.l00J 0.200J 0.220J 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.290J
trans-1 ,2-Dichloroethene 1 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U
1,2-Dichloroethene (total) 1 0.260J 0.200 U 0.l00J 0.200J 0.220J 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.290J
Carbon Tetrachloride 5 0.250J 0.150J 0.260J 0.430J 0.460J 0.450J 4.2 0.200 U 0.200 U 1.7
Chloroform 100 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.740 J 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.180J
Methylene chloride 5 1.00U 1.00U l.00U l.00U l.00U l.00U l.00U l.00U l.00U l.00U
Tetrachloroethene (PCE) 5 0 .300 U 0.300 U 0.300 U 0.300 U 0.300 U 0.300 U 0.300 U 0.300 U 0.300 U 0.300 U
Trichloroethene (TCE) 5 13 5 5.5 12 13 0.460J 6 1.9 2.1 26
SVOC (~g/L)
1,4-Dioxane 0.46 --------------------
Table6b
SWMU-58 Analytical Results -2022 Semi-Annual Monitoring Event
Location: 8-16 8-40 8-42 C-03 C-04 C-56 C-57 C-58
Zone Monitored: Shallow Shallow Shallow Shallow Shallow Deep Shallow Shallow s
Sample ID:
TEAD-04-22-TEAD-04-22-S TEAD-04-22-TEAD-04-22-S TEAD-04-22-TEAD-04-22-TEAD-04-22-TEAD-04-22-TEAD-04-22-TEAD-04-22-TEt
B16-HY-290 B16-HY-300 B40-HY-179 B40-HY-189 B42-HY-195 C03-HY-263 C04-HY-240 C56-HY-290 C57-HY-298 C58-HY-292 CS'
Sample Date: 4/7/2022 4/7/2022 4/7/2022 4/7/2022 4/7/2022 4/7/2022 4/7/2022 4/6/2022 4/6/2022 4/6/2022 41
Sample Type: N FD N FD N N N N N N
VOC(µg/L) Permit Limit
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 200 0.200 U 0.200 U 0 .200 U 0 .200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0 .200 U 0 .200 U 0 .200 U 0.200 U C
1, 1,2-Trich loroetha ne 5 0 .200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0 .200 U 0.200 U C
1,1-Dichloroethane 170 0.160J 0.160J 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200J 0 .200 U 0.200 U 0 .200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U C
1,1-Dichloroethene 7 0 .200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0 .200 U 0.200 U 0 .200 U 0 .200 U C
1,2-Dichloroethane 5 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0 .200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U C
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 1 0.200 U 0 .200 U 0.230J 0.220J 0.200 U 0 .200 U 0.200 U 0.390J 0.200 U 0.200 U I
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 1 0 .200 U 0 .200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0 .200 U 0 .200 U 0 .200 U 0 .200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U C
1,2-Dichloroethene (total) 1 0.200 U 0 .200 U 0.230J 0.220J 0 .200 U 0 .200 U 0.200 U 0.390J 0.200 U 0.200 U I
Carbon Tetrachloride 5 1.6 1.6 0.410J 0.380J 0.340J 0 .200 U 0 .200 U 0 .200 U 0.200 U 0 .200 U C
Chloroform 100 0.160J 0.170J 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0 .200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U C
Methylene chloride 5 l.00U l.00U 1.00 U 1.00 U l.00U l.00U l.00U l.00U l.00U l.00U
Tetrachloroethene (PCE) 5 0.300 U 0.300 U 0.300 U 0.300 U 0.300 U 0.300 U 0.300 U 0.300 U 0.300 U 0.300 U I
Trichloroethene (TCE) 5 16 16 14 13 0.470 J 0.380J 0.140 J 4 .8 1.1 1.1
!
~ ~
~ ;:,
I,
fi5 a
~I
~
;:'
~I
~
~,
j'
Abbreviations
µg/L micrograms per liter
BRAG Base Real ignment and Closure
MSL mean sea level
SWMU Solid Waste Management Unit
TCE trichloroethene
Notes
1. TCE plume boundary is based on results from 2021 annual monitoring event.
2. For conceptual purposes only. All locations are approximate .
3. Map produced using ESRI ArcMap v. 10.7.
References
1. Basemap source : Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographies ,
CNES/Airbus DS, USDA , USGS , AeroGRID , IGN, and the GIS User Community
Copyrigh t:© 2013 National Geographic Society , i-cubed
NEBJBl!l!J.MEr~RE ~
-$-
:$-
:$-:$-:$-$
:$-:$-,$-,
:$-:$-:$-:$-:$-:$-:$-
:$-
:$-
:$-
:$-
:$-
~
:$-:$-:$-:$--$-:$-:$-
##------------------~----------------,-~-------,--v~----♦-"'$---"'"'$'----~-........ :$-
#/ II :$-:$-:$-.... ~-""-
,;# ' -""-~'","" , ~.:-• =,'!..---=----...c..:::=;c......--:$-:$-"" 1 ► -...... .i-..' :$-
## ~✓ .. ....-.., _,h _J -$-_,h :$--1·1 V° ' ~ --qll'" ' -:$---qll'" :$-I ,,
:$-I
~
:$-~,
-$-,$ '\ -.Jil::,,. ... : t ,$-.-.... , -$-~· ..... -""-
-, ... ,' "" :$-
=-•--•-m ., .••• _._, __ ,_', -$--$--$-
:$-~
-:$-:$-~:$-
:$-:$-:$-:$-~
-$-C -$-i•
:$-.J, -""--$--""-_...-J:-""
"" -~ -""-... :$-• '<. "" :$-♦ --♦ ..... ♦
♦ • --♦
:$-
,:$-
~(llB.MER{S~Nl iF~RiYA~Nlll F.11!1!:
B~l!ll 1!81 NGI 6"2'Q
g
i
~ ::;
0 a.,
ill :::, ::;
i
~
" ~I
0
NI ;: ~,
~
§
<,
i'
~)l
Abbreviations
µg/L micrograms per liter
BRAC Base Realignment and Closure
MSL mean sea level
SWMU Solid Waste Management Unit
TCE trichloroethene
Notes
1. Groundwater elevation and contours based on measurements collected during s_::
g
ci.
~
~
~
~I
:,
~I
X
:;,
~
" ~I
0
NI ;: ~,
~
§
<,
i'
8~81
~29it7.t9)\_
8~9'
~29~~89:
s
--------------.....-~---~-~~-·----~--------s
81'6~1
~'s
Abbreviations
µg/L micrograms per liter
BRAG Base Realignment and Closure
MSL mean sea level
SWMU Solid Waste Management Unit
TCE trichloroethene
Notes
1. Groundwater elevation and contours based on measurements collected during
JL-l'\IV'\,t ---••-1 -•·-•-'
i
UJ u
ii
le ;,
:::,
::; !,
~
X ::.,
iii ; ;,
e>,
1 .. ,
i'
Abbreviations
µg/L micrograms per liter
BRAG Base Realignment and Closure
NS not sampled
SWMU Solid Waste Management Unit
TCE trichloroethene
Notes
1. Wells labeled as "NS" were scheduled for sampling but could not be sampled
due to low water levels.
2. All wells are shallow unless labelled as "Deep Well ."
3. TCE plume boundary was updated using results from the 2021 annual event.
Deep wells and wells with an asterisk (*) were not used for development of the
isocontours .
B!'fa' ~~
~
B!O"& ~ s
B~g•:
K
~ i1.a s
~ §,§. s
D"!2~1 mf s
~ ~:s: &II ~ s s
~
D!(f5· r s
o-r13·
N0'""
s""""'
g
uj
~I
~ !,
:::,
::; ;,
~
X ::.,
iii ; ;,
e>,
1 .. ,
i'
Abbreviations
µg/L micrograms per liter
BRAG Base Realignment and Closure
NS not sampled
SWMU Solid Waste Management Unit
TCE trichloroethene
Notes
1. Wells labeled as "NS" were scheduled for sampling but could not be sampled
due to low water levels.
~
M;Q;1 M.t .... s
M!0.3' Nii>• ' ~ s
0~9
£Q
s
~71 3
s
~7l
s ~.9.
~
0 ?06 ~ s
0 ?02 §w) s
~
~
9;~~
~ s
0 ?:16 N0~
""""" s
0 ?:13 N0~ ;;=
il
E
~
u' u,
~
le ;,
:::,
::; !,
~
X ::.,
iii ; ;,
e>,
1 .. ,
i'
Abbreviations
µg/L micrograms per liter
BRAG Base Realignment and Closure
CTC carbon tetrachloride
NS not sampled
SWMU Solid Waste Management Unit
Notes
~" ~ s
1. Wells labeled as "NS" were scheduled for sampling but could not be sampled
due to low water levels.
...... ,
er1s
§"'
B!62
"s
s
0!09 M s
..... fi~~ ,,
-s ' '\
B:09 ~ s
or19 ~ s
0!06 ~ s
Pl!! ND s
~ ~ s
g
d o,
,;
~ !,
:::,
::; ;,
~
X ::.,
iii ; ;,
e>,
1 .. ,
i'
Abbreviations
µg/L micrograms per liter
BRAG Base Realignment and Closure
CTC carbon tetrachloride
NS not sampled
SWMU Solid Waste Management Unit
Notes
1. Wells labeled as "NS" were scheduled for sampling but could not be sampled
due to low water levels.
......
' .. ...
M!03
t:.10· s
0?'09
t!.10" = s
,-. .. r:r
' \
\
\ .. ..
~ \. ...
\ ......
\.
0 ?:19
~(
s
Ii>;~~
NID s
ij7l lj6 ~-2 NID,
s s
0 ?06
~]
s
0 ?:13
t!.10" "-"= s
g
.~ ;,
~
~
~ o,
:g
::,
:;
~I
~
X :.,
iii ; ;,
e>,
1 .. ,
i'
s
s
s
--------~-ior s-
Abbreviations
µg/L micrograms per liter
BRAC Base Realignment and Closure
DCE Dichloroethene
PCE Tetrachloroethene
SWMU Solid Waste Management Unit
TCE Trichloroethene
Notes
1. TCE plume boundary was updated using results from the 2021 annual event.
2. For conceptual purposes only. All locations are approximate .
s s
s
s
s s
:CIS.1
·1r?!n ·r.i::fl?n•nr.~:;:;;;;;;.;11 i::;;;;;:;t\':'l •::1:i:-,
s ,
.. .,
'
s
....
s
s
s
s
s
s
s r
9 s
9
~ s
~s
' -
' \ r, s
:\
\
" ~ \
' ~ ,,
~ ,0•,(l;;i.,)
s
s
s
s
I .. s
s s$'
~ -.....,§_ ~ ·r, "s-_____
~--
' s
@
s
s
(<ll
;t.J
C:
0
Iii!
'5
0
!G
<ll
~
al
!11
0
l!I!
;!
E
-ci
~ -, :g
::, :.
i
[ii
" _,
~
-.:.'
i' ", i' ~
Main Plume Toe Area
Main Plume Mid-Plume Area
Abbreviations
µg/L micrograms per liter
D □ A f' D,..,..,.. □ ...... 1:,.. ............... ,...,.,J f'I,..,..., , .. ,.
1:>!1:E[ NEB Plun
:!J!
Polf011:
1:>lOJI:
1:110]1
DSHW-2022-022711
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
TOOELE ARMY DEPOT/HEADQUARTERS
1 TOOELE ARMY DEPOT, BUILDING 1
TOOELE, UT 84074-5003
RECEIVED
August 11, 2022 By Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control at 4:20 pm, Aug 11, 2022
SUBJECT: Final Groundwater Management Area Plan Update, Tooele Army Depot
North Area {TEAD-N), State/EPA I.D. Number UT3213820894
Mr. Doug Hansen
Director, Division Waste Management and Radiation Control
195 North 1950 West
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4880
Dear Mr. Hansen:
TEAD is pleased to submit the July 2022 Final Groundwater Management Area Plan
Update along with the redlined version and the comment resolution package.
This Groundwater Management Area Plan Update (GWMA Plan Update)
incorporates the changes that have occurred at SWMU-58 since the GWMA Plan was
prepared in 2010. This update documents the current condition within the GWMA,
including land use, implemented remedial actions, TCE concentration trends,
groundwater model predictions, and plume extent.
If you have any questions regarding this request, please contact the undersigned at
[phone].
Sincerely,
rogram Manager
E;RTI . N STATEMENT
•1 certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that
qualified personnel properly gathered and evaluated the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system , or those persons
direcUy responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are
significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fines and imprisonment for knowing violations.
QRAl=T FINAL
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North
JulyApril 2022
Environmental Remediation
Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah
Contract No. W9124J-21-D-0006
U.S. Army Environmental Command Tooele Army Depot
DRAFT FINAL
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North
April July 2022
Environmental Remediation
Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah
Contract No. W9124J-21-D-0006
Prepared For :
U.S. Army Mission and Installation Contracting Command
Fort Sam Houston (MICC-FSH), U.S . Army Environmental Command (USAEC), and Tooele Army Depot (TEAD)
Prepared By :
B ee
ENGINEERING
Brice Engineering, LLC
362 Pierpont Avenue
Salt Lake City, Utah 84101
801-948-9319 PH
www.BriceEng.com
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................................................... IV
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................ VI
1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background ......................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Purpose of the GWMA Plan and Plan Update .................................................................... 1
1.3 Regulatory Requirements ................................................................................................... 2
1.4 Document Organization ...................................................................................................... 2
2.0 CURRENT SITE CONDITIONS ..................................................................................................... 3
2.1 Land Use .............................................................................................................................. 3
2.1.1 Land Use on TEAD-N .............................................................................................. 3
2.1.2 Land Use on BRAC Parcel and North of TEAD-N .................................................... 3
2.2 Corrective Measures Implementation ................................................................................ 3
2.3 Current Plume Extent and Concentration Trends .............................................................. 4
2.3.1 Plume Extent .......................................................................................................... 4
2.3.2 Concentration Trend Assessment .......................................................................... 4
2.3.3 Groundwater Model Assessment .......................................................................... 6
3.0 UPDATED GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT AREA PLAN ........................................................... 9
3.1 Identification of Potential Receptors .................................................................................. 9
3.1.1 Water Well Survey ................................................................................................. 9
3.1.2 Risk Assessment Summary and Groundwater Risk-Based Concentrations ......... 11
3.2 Groundwater Monitoring Approach ................................................................................. 12
3.2.1 Compliance Monitoring Program ........................................................................ 13
3.3 Groundwater Modeling Approach .................................................................................... 14
3.4 SWMU-58 Groundwater Management Area and Institutional Controls .......................... 14
3.4.1 GWMA Boundary Delineation ............................................................................. 14
3.4.2 Institutional Controls ........................................................................................... 15
3.5 Actions Based on Detections and Exceedances at Sentinel Wells .................................... 16
3.6 Contingency Plan for Wells Impacted by TCE ................................................................... 17
3.7 Community Involvement Program .................................................................................... 17
4.0 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................... 19
ACRONYMS AND ADDRE'JIATIONS "''"''"''''"''"''"''"''"''"''''"''"''"''"''"''"'''''"''"''"''"''"''''"''"''"''' Ill
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY "''''"''"''"''"''"''"''''"''"''"''"''"''"''''"''"'''"''"''"''''''''"''"''"''"''"''""''"''"''"'J
1.0
;a,g
INTRODUCTION ''''"''"''"''"''"''"''""''"''"''"''"''"''""''"''"'''"''"''''''''"''"''"''"''"''""''"''"''" 1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
BaclEgro1::1Rel ......................................................................................................................... 1
P1::1rpose of the GWM/\ PlaR a Rel PlaR Upelate .................................................................... 1
Reg1::1lator,· Reei1::1iremeRts ................................................................................................... 2
Doc1::1meRt OrgaRi2:atioR ...................................................................................................... 2
CURRENT SITE CONDITIONS''"''"''''"''"''"''"''"''"''''"''"''"''"''"''"''''"'''"''"''"''"''''"''"''"''" 3
2.1 LaRel Use .............................................................................................................................. 3
2.1.1 La Rel Use OR TE/\D N .............................................................................................. 3
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
4,g
2.1.2 Land Use on BR/\C Parcel and North of HAD N .................................................... 3
2.2 Corrective Meas1::1res Implementation ................................................................................ 3
C1::1rrent Pl1::1me Extent and Concentration Trends .............................................................. 4
2.3.1 Pl1::1me Extent .......................................................................................................... 4
2.3.2 Concentration Trend Assessment .......................................................................... 4
2.3.3 Gro1::1ndwater Model Assessment .......................................................................... 6
YPDATl!:D GROYND)J/A.Tl!:R MANAGl!:Ml!:NT ARl!:A PlAN hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhiii g
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
lelentification of Potential Receptors .................................................................................. 9
3.1.1 \A/ater\A/ell S1::1rvey ................................................................................................. 9
3.1.2 Risk Assessment S1::1mmary and Gro1::1ndwater Risk Based Concentrations ......... 11
Gro1::1ndi.•.1ater Monitoring Approach ................................................................................. 12
3.2.1 Compliance Monitoring Program ........................................................................ 13
Gro1::1neli.•,ater Modeling Approach .................................................................................... 14
SWMU 58 Gro1::1ndwater Management Area and lnstit1::1tional Controls .......................... 14
3.4.1 G\A/M/\ Bo1::1ndary Delineation ............................................................................. 14
3.4.2 lnstit1::1tional Controls ........................................................................................... 14
Actions Based on Detections and E>Eceedances at Sentinel Wells .................................... 15
Contingency Plan for Wells Impacted by TCE ................................................................... 16
Comm1::1nity Involvement Program .................................................................................... 17
Rl!:Fl!:Rl!:NCl!:S lllhllllhllhllhllhllhllhllllhllhllhllhllhllhllhhlllhllhllhllhllllllllhllhllhllhllhllhhllhllhll :1:9
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
TABLES
Table 3-1
Table 3 2
Table 3 3
FIGURES
Figure 1-1
Figure 1-2
Figure 2-1
Figure 2-2
Figure 2-3
Figure 3-1
Figure 3-2
Figure 3-3
Figure 3-4
Figure 3-5
Figure 3-6
Figure 3-7
Figure 3-8
Water Wells Within 2 Miles of SWMU-58 Plume Boundary
Risk Based Concentration equations and Parameters for Groundwater
Ingestion by Industrial 1.\/orkers
Risk Based Concentrations f:or Groundwater Ingestion b•1 Industrial Worl~ers
TEAD-N Location Map
SWMU-58 Site Location Map
SWMU-58 Plume Extent and TCE Concentration Trends
Cumulative Distribution Curves for the Maximum Predicted TCE
Concentrations Along the NEB Plume GWMA Boundary
Cumulative Distribution Curves for the Maximum Predicted TCE
Concentrations Along the Main Plume GWMA Boundary
Water Wells Within 2 Miles of Plume Boundary-All Uses
Water Wells Within 2 Miles of Plume Boundary-Domestic and Municipal
Uses
Water Wells Within 2 Miles of Plume Boundary-Irrigation Use
Water Wells Within 2 Miles of Plume Boundary-Stock Use
Water Wells Within 2 Miles of Plume Boundary-Commercial and Industrial
Uses
SWMU-58 Compliance Monitoring Groundwater Sampling Locations
SWMU-58 Compliance Monitoring Groundwater Gauging Locations
Proposed GWMA Boundary
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
iii
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
µg/L
AS
BRAC
Brice
CCR
CMF
CMIP
CMS
coc
CTC
days/yr
DSHW
DWR
EPA
GWMA
HRA
kg
L/day
MCL
mg/kg-day
NA
NEB
PCE
PCP
RBC
RCRA
RFI
SVE
SWMU
TCE
TEAD
TEAD-N
UDEQ
UFP-QAPP
USACE
voe
WIN
yr
micrograms per liter
air sparging
Base Realignment and Closure
Brice Engineering, LLC
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions
Consolidated Maintenance Facility
Corrective Measures Implementation Plan
Corrective Measures Study
contaminant of concern
carbon tetrachloride
days per year
Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste
Utah Department of Natural Resources Division of Water Rights
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Groundwater Management Area
Human Risk Assessment
kilograms
liters per day
Maximum Contaminant Level
milligrams per kilograms per day
not applicable
Northeast Boundary
tetrachloroethene
Post Closure Permit
risk-based concentration
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RCRA Facility Investigation
soil vapor extraction
Solid Waste Management Unit
trichloroethene
Tooele Army Depot
Tooele Army Depot North
Utah Department of Environmental Quality
Uniform Federal Policy-Quality Assurance Project Plan
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
volatile organic compound
well identification number
year(s)
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
iv
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
This page intentionally blank
V
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In 2004, TEAD developed an Interim Groundwater Management Area (GWMA) Plan for the Northeast
Boundary (NEB) plume to protect human health from risks related to the possible use of the impacted
groundwater until further investigation and remedial action could be implemented. In 2010, a Final
GWMA Plan superseding the Interim Plan was prepared to serve as a long-term institutional control to
protect potable well users from health risks associated with the entire comingled trichloroethene (TCE)
plume at TEAD-N now designated as SWMU-58. Because the plume extent and possible receptors are
subject to change and corrective measures had not yet been implemented when the GWMA Plan was
prepared in 2010, it recommended the GWMA Plan be formally reviewed at regular intervals and updated
as needed. This Groundwater Management Area Plan Update (GWMA Plan Update) incorporates the
changes that have occurred at SWMU-58 since the GWMA Plan was prepared in 2010. This update
documents current conditions within the GWMA, including land use, implemented remedial actions, TCE
concentration trends, groundwater model predictions, and plume extent. Since 2010, the SWMU-58
plume has expanded slightly but remains within the previously established GWMA boundary except for a
small area on the western edge of the plume that lies inside the TEAD-N installation. Current groundwater
modeling results indicate it is unlikely the plume will reach the downgradient GWMA boundary within the
next 10 years. Therefore, the GWMA boundary was expanded slightly to encompass the western edge of
the current plume boundary but otherwise remains unchanged. Due to the potential installation or
abandonment of water wells since the GWMA Plan was prepared, an updated water well search was
conducted to identify possible receptors. No new water wells installed within the GWMA boundary were
identified, and current management practices remain protective of human health.
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
vi
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
This page intentionally blank
vii
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Tooele Army Depot North (TEAD-N) encompasses almost 25,000 acres in eastern Tooele County at the
southern end of Tooele Valley (Figure 1-1). Historical site operations at TEAD-N have created a large,
comingled volatile organic compound (VOC) plume that originates from multiple identified source areas
and consists predominantly of trichloroethene (TCE) with minor amounts of tetrachloroethene (PCE) and
carbon tetrachloride (CTC). Historically, the plume has been divided into several subareas including: the
Northeast Boundary (NEB) groundwater plume, the main TCE plume, and the impacted groundwater
beneath the TEAD-N landfill (Figure 1-2). In the past, these subareas were managed under separate Solid
Waste Management Units (SWMUs) but are now managed under a single SWMU designated as SMWU-58.
The plume currently encompasses approximately 5.5 square miles and is approximately 4 miles long at its
longest point. The main portion of the plume is contained largely within the TEAD-N boundary and extends
a maximum of approximately 0.15 miles beyond the installation boundary. The NEB portion of the plume,
however, extends approximately 1.4 miles beyond the installation boundary.
In 2003, the Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ) Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste
(DSHW) requested that the Toole Army Depot (TEAD) implement an interim remedial action to prevent the
NEB plume from impacting any offsite receptors (DSHW 2003). In response, TEAD developed an interim
Groundwater Management Area (GWMA) Plan for the NEB plume (Interim Plan; Parsons 2004). The Interim
Plan was submitted to municipal and county stakeholders for review and approved by DSHW prior to
publication. Its primary purpose was to protect human health from risks related to the possible use of the
impacted groundwater while a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Facility Investigation (RFI)
and Corrective Measures Study (CMS) for the NEB plume were being conducted. The Interim Plan defined
a GWMA and presented a management strategy for the NEB plume based on risk-based concentrations
(RBCs) for groundwater. The Interim Plan also recommended amending the State of Utah's Tooele Valley
Ground-Water Management Plan (Utah Department of Natural Resources Division of Water Rights [DWR]
1996) to restrict water resource development within the GWMA boundary. The Tooele Valley Ground-
Water Management Plan was subsequently amended to prohibit installation of culinary water wells within
the 2004 GWMA boundary unless it was demonstrated that the water could be used without adverse
impacts to human health or the plume containment and cleanup program (Utah DWR 2004).
Upon completion of the TCE plume RFI, a Final GWMA Plan (GWMA Plan) was prepared to supersede the
Interim Plan and serve as a long-term institutional control to protect potable well users from health risks
associated with the SWMU-58 groundwater plume (Parsons 2010). The GWMA Plan was expanded to
include the entire TCE plume, in addition to the NEB plume, and was updated based on results from the RFI.
Because the plume extent and possible receptors are subject to change and the corrective measures had
not yet been implemented, the GWMA Plan recommended the document be formally reviewed at regular
intervals and updated as needed. This GWMA Plan Update documents and incorporates the changes that
have occurred at SWMU-58 since the GWMA Plan was prepared.
1.2 Purpose of the GWMA Plan and Plan Update
The purpose of the GWMA Plan is to protect Tooele Valley groundwater users from downgradient
SWMU-58 plume movement. To achieve this objective, the plan includes the following key elements:
1. Identification of potential receptors
2. A groundwater monitoring program
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
1
3. A groundwater modeling program
4. Delineation of a GWMA boundary with defined groundwater development restrictions
5. Actions to be taken based on detections and exceedances at sentinel wells
6. A contingency plan for supply wells impacted by contamination
7. A community involvement program
These elements were developed and presented in the GWMA Plan; however, Elements 1 through 4 require
updating due to changes at the SWMU-58 since the GWMA Plan was prepared.
1.3 Regulatory Requirements
Requirements for SWMU-58 are encompassed by the TEAD-N RCRA Post Closure Permit (PCP) (TEAD 2017),
the Corrective Measures Implementation Program (CMIP) Plan for Groundwater (Parsons 2014), and the
current Uniform Federal Policy-Quality Assurance Project Plan (UFP-QAPP) forTEAD-N groundwater (Brice
Engineering, LLC [Brice] 2022a). The PCP is the overarching regulatory document and includes provisions
requiring groundwater monitoring and modeling at SWMU-58. The CMIP, developed in accordance with
the PCP, represents a framework for the implementation of the RCRA corrective action process for the
protection of human health and the environment from chemical releases at SWMU-58. It specifies the
required corrective actions in the source and downgradient areas of SWMU-58 and provides an update to
the groundwater monitoring program. Finally, the Uniform Federal Policy-Quality Assurance Project Plan
(UFP-QAPP), which was developed in accordance with the PCP and CMIP, provides an additional update to
the sampling program included in the CMIP and presents the current groundwater sampling locations,
analytes, and sampling frequencies at SWMU-58 along with associated quality assurance/quality control
requirements.
1.4 Document Organization
In general, the provisions of the GWMA Plan remain protective of health for Tooele Valley groundwater
users and only minor updates are required. Therefore, this document does not duplicate the background
facility and original risk evaluation information, which can be found in the GWMA Plan (Parsons 2010).
Instead, this GWMA Plan Update focuses on changes that have occurred since the GWMA Plan was
prepared and an includes assessment of current plume conditions.
This document is organized into the following sections:
• Section 1-Introduction: Presents the GWMA Plan history and background, purpose of the
GWMA Plan and current GWMA Plan Update, and applicable regulatory requirements for
SWMU-58.
• Section 2 -Current Site Conditions: Section 2 presents an assessment of current site conditions
at SWMU-58 with a focus on changes to the site since the GWMA Plan was prepared. This section
also includes an updated concentration trend assessment and groundwater model trend
assessment, which demonstrate that the risk of plume migration beyond the GWMA boundary
remains limited.
• Section 3 -Updated Groundwater Management Area Plan: This section presents the key
elements of the GWMA Plan as listed in Section 1.2. Where applicable, elements have been
updated based on current site conditions. Elements that have not changed are also presented for
the purpose of completeness.
• Section 4 -References: Cited references are presented.
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
2
2.0 CURRENT SITE CONDITIONS
2.1 Land Use
2.1.1 Land Use on TEAD-N
Prior to 1993, TEAD-N had two missions; the first was to provide storage, maintenance, and demilitarization
of conventional weapons. The second mission was to provide storage, maintenance, and demilitarization
of equipment, troop support items, construction equipment, power generators, and wheeled vehicles. The
mission of maintaining and repairing equipment was discontinued in 1993; and the industrial portion of the
facility located on the eastern side of the installation was closed and eventually sold to a commercial
developer as part of the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process. The munitions storage mission
remains active at TEAD-N, which is a Tier I ammunition storage site, responsible for storing training
ammunition and war reserve conventional munitions. Developed features at TEAD-N include igloos,
magazines, administrative buildings, a maintenance area, military housing, roads, and other allied
infrastructure. No substantial changes to the munitions storage mission or installation infrastructure have
occurred since the GWMA Plan was prepared.
2.1.2 Land Use on BRAC Parcel and North of TEAD-N
Areas where the SWMU-58 plume has the potential to impact offsite receptors include the industrial area
transferred under the BRAC process (the BRAC parcel) and the off-installation area to the north and
northeast of the installation. Since its transfer to private ownership, the BRAC parcel has been redeveloped
as an industrial park under a series of owners and names. Portions of the BRAC parcel are currently known
as the Peterson Industrial Depot and the Ninigret Depot. The BRAC parcel currently contains warehouses,
manufacturing facilities, office space, a wholesale automotive storage lot, a sporting goods distribution
center, and a gymnastics center. The residential areas of Tooele City lie east of the BRAC Parcel,
approximately 0.75 miles cross-gradient from the SWMU-58 plume boundary.
State Route 112 runs along the northeastern boundaries ofTEAD-N and the BRAC parcel. Land use northeast
of the highway includes open undeveloped grazing land, a gravel pit and ready-mix operation, and a closed
Tooele County landfill. Most off-installation groundwater impacts are located in this area due to past
migration of the NEB plume. Historically, the land immediately north of TEAD-N has been used chiefly for
livestock grazing and cultivation. That remains the predominant land use, but several other land uses are
now occurring in the area. The Deseret Sports Complex, a County-owned multiple use facility used as
fairgrounds, rodeo ground, and for other events, was constructed in the 1990s approximately 0.5 miles
north of the TEAD-N northern boundary, at the intersection of Sheep Lane and State Route 112. A
motorsports park used for amateur and professional auto racing was constructed immediately north of the
Deseret Sports Complex in 2006. Ground was subsequently broken east of Sheep Lane in 2009 for a
development named the Miller Industrial Park; however, the only building that has been constructed on
the property is a mattress factory northeast of the motorsports park. The property has since been sold and
renamed the Lakeview Business Park, and further development is expected.
2.2 Corrective Measures Implementation
When the GWMA Plan was prepared, the RFI for SWMU-58 had been completed, but the CMS was still in
progress and corrective measures had not been established or implemented. The CMS Report (Parsons
2012) was finalized in 2012 and included separate corrective measures for the source and diffuse (i.e.,
downgradient) areas of the plume. For each individual source area, the CMS recommended maintaining
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
3
institutional controls, continuing or implementing vadose zone remediation through soil vapor extraction
(SVE), and implementing air sparging (AS) for direct treatment of source area groundwater. For the diffuse
area, the CMS recommended maintaining institutional controls and implementing monitored natural
attenuation. These recommendations have since been implemented and are detailed in the CMIP (Parsons
2014).
On the BRAC parcel, individual SVE and AS systems were installed at four separate source areas:
Building 615, Building 620, Building 679, and C Avenue. Installation of the SVE systems preceded installation
of the AS systems, and the systems became fully operational in 2013. Within the TEAD-N installation, three
SVE and two AS systems were installed within the former sanitary landfill. These systems became
substantially operational in 2014. Operation and maintenance of all SVE and AS systems are ongoing. The
systems have been effective at reducing source TCE concentrations in the vadose zone and groundwater,
which has been demonstrated by required performance monitoring associated with the systems.
In the diffuse portion of the plume, MNA is ongoing and is completed in accordance with the requirements
in the CMIP and UFP-QAPP. Sampling at SWMU-58 consists of a larger annual sampling event typically
conducted in October in which approximately 113 wells are sampled, and a smaller semi-annual sampling
event typically conducted in April in which approximately 43 wells are sampled. Sampling during the annual
event is designed to provide coverage of the entire plume, whereas the subset of wells sampled during the
semi-annual event is limited to the area near and beyond the distal plume boundary and in the Sanitary
Landfill source area. Wells are sampled semi-annually near the distal plume boundary to monitor plume
movement and ensure contamination does not reach offsite receptors. Water levels are gauged in
approximately 269 wells during both monitoring events. The sample results and water levels are used to
update the groundwater model annually as required by the PCP.
2.3 Current Plume Extent and Concentration Trends
2.3.1 Plume Extent
The most recent plume boundary for SWMU-58, defined as the 5-microgram-per-liter (µg/L) concentration
contour for TCE, is shown on Figure 2-1 along with the plume boundary from the GWMA Plan (Parsons
2010). The current boundary is presented in the 2021 Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report (Brice 2022b)
and was updated based on results from the June 2021 semi-annual groundwater monitoring event. The
plume boundary included in the GWMA Plan was developed based on results from the annual groundwater
sampling event in Fall 2008. A comparison of the plume boundaries indicates that the downgradient extent
ofthe plume has expanded somewhat since 2008. Expansion along the downgradient main plume boundary
was variable with a maximum length of expansion of approximately 0.25 miles. Expansion along the
downgradient NEB plume boundary was similarly variable with a maximum expansion of approximately
0.31 miles. Despite these changes, the downgradient extent of the SWMU-58 plume remains approximately
0.5 miles or more from the GWMA boundary established in the GWMA Plan, and TCE has not been detected
at a concentration greater than 1 µg/L in any sentinel wells.
2.3.2 Concentration Trend Assessment
A Mann-Kendall concentration trend assessment of individual wells in the main and NEB plumes was
previously presented in the GWMA Plan. The assessment found that most analyzed wells within the main
and NEB plumes exhibited either increasing or stable trends, which suggested that the plumes were still
expanding as of 2010 but were possibly approaching a state of equilibrium. An updated and expanded trend
analysis based on recent monitoring results is presented in this section.
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
4
As recommended by the GWMA Plan, concentration trends at SWMU-58 are evaluated regularly to monitor
and quantify plume dynamics. Statistical trend analysis procedures have been developed for SWMU-58 that
assess concentration changes in both individual wells and plume regions. Select individual wells are
assessed using the Mann-Kendall test to assess whether statistically significant trends are present, while
trends in different regions of SWMU-58 are assessed with the Regional Kendall test, a variation of the
Mann-Kendall test that utilizes data from multiple wells. The Regional Kendall test analyzes a subset of wells
that have been grouped into the following regions: sanitary landfill source area, industrial source area
(BRAC parcel sources), main plume toe, NEB plume centerline, and NEB plume toe. To assess the rate of
concentration change, the Sen-Theil slope is calculated for concentrations in individual wells, while its
equivalent, the Regional Kendall slope, is calculated for different regions of the plume. To assess trends
associated with current site conditions where the SVE and AS systems are operational, the range of data
used in the analysis was limited from the latest sampling event before the SVE and AS systems became
substantially operational to June 2021. Trend results from the most recent annual groundwater monitoring
report (Brice 2022b) are summarized below, and trends in individual wells are shown on Figure 2-1.
Additional information on the statistical methods and results is presented in the Annual Groundwater
Monitoring Report (Brice 2022b).
Sanitary Landfill TCE Trend Results
Trend results for the Sanitary Landfill provide a strong indication that TCE concentrations in the region are
decreasing. The Regional Kendall test result indicates there is a statistically significant decreasing trend. Five
of the seven individual wells in the region also had statistically significant decreasing concentration trends
for TCE, while one had a statistically significant increasing trend, and one had no significant trend. The
calculated Regional Kendall Slope suggests TCE concentrations in the region are decreasing at a rate of
approximately 1.9 µg/L per year (Brice 2022b). These results suggest the SVE and AS remediation systems
are working as intended and effectively reducing the mass of TCE in the Sanitary Landfill source area.
Industrial Source Area TCE Trend Results
Trend results for the Industrial Source Area provide a strong indication that TCE concentrations in the region
are decreasing. The Regional Kendall test result indicates there is a statistically significant decreasing trend.
Six of the eight individual wells in the region also had statistically significant decreasing concentration trends
for TCE, while two had no significant trends. The calculated Regional Kendall Slope suggests TCE
concentrations in the region are decreasing at a rate of approximately 6.2 µg/L per year (Brice 2022b). These
results suggest the SVE and AS remediation systems are working as intended and are effectively reducing
the mass of TCE in the Industrial Source Area.
Main Plume Toe TCE Trend Results
Trend results for the main plume toe indicate that TCE concentrations in the area are increasing slightly.
The Regional Kendall test result indicates there is a statistically significant increasing trend. Three of the five
individual wells in the region also had statistically significant increasing concentration trends for TCE, while
two had no significant trends. The calculated Regional Kendall Slope suggests TCE concentrations in the
region are increasing at a rate of approximately 0.5 µg/L per year (Brice 2022b). These results suggest that
TCE concentrations are increasing slightly at the toe of the main plume due to advective and diffusive
transport. It also suggests that the reduction in source zone strength due to SVE and AS operation has not
yet influenced concentrations in the distal portion of the main plume.
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
5
NEB Plume Centerline TCE Trend Results
Trend results for the NEB Plume Centerline provide a strong indication that TCE concentrations in the region
are decreasing. The Regional Kendall test result indicates there is a statistically significant decreasing trend.
Six of the nine individual wells in the region also had statistically significant decreasing concentration trends
for TCE, one had an increasing trend, and two had no significant trends. The calculated Regional Kendall
Slope suggests TCE concentrations in the region are decreasing at a rate of approximately 6.3 µg/L per year
(Brice 2022b). These results suggest the SVE and AS remediation systems are working as intended and
effectively reducing the mass of TCE in the NEB plume source area. The reduction in source zone strength
augmented by natural attenuation has also caused downgradient TCE concentrations to decrease along the
NEB plume centerline into the mid-plume area.
NEB Plume Toe TCE Trend Results
Trend results for the NEB plume toe indicate that TCE concentrations in the area are increasing slightly. The
Regional Kendall test result indicates there is a statistically significant increasing trend. Three of the five
individual wells in the region also had statistically significant increasing concentration trends for TCE, while
two had no significant trends. The calculated Regional Kendall Slope suggests TCE concentrations in the
region are increasing at a rate of approximately 0.2 µg/L per year (Brice 2022b). These results suggest TCE
concentrations are increasing slightly at the toe of the NEB Plume due to advective and diffusive transport.
It also suggests that the reduction in source zone strength due to SVE and AS operation has not yet
influenced concentrations in the distal portion of the NEB plume.
2.3.3 Groundwater Model Assessment
As required by the PCP, the TEAD-N groundwater model is updated annually and has been refined
significantly since the GWMA Plan was prepared. The most recent model was updated based on water level
and analytical data collected in 2019 {Hydrologic Engineering Center [HEC] et al. 2021). A detailed history
of the model's development is included in Appendix A of the most recent groundwater modeling report
(HEC et al. 2021). Notable changes to the model since the GWMA Plan was prepared include an increased
focus on matching conditions at the leading edge of the plume, incorporation of TCE decay to better match
observed conditions, use of transient water levels from data loggers for model calibration, and
development of probabilistic predictive analysis to assess future plume migration.
For long-term management purposes, the model outputs a probabilistic predictive analysis, which provides
the likelihood that the plume will expand beyond the GWMA boundary over a given period of time. The
analysis is performed by varying the model parameters within plus or minus 20 percent (%) of their mean
values to create parameter probability distributions. Uncertainty in model parameters is propagated to
model predictions via Monte Carlo analysis, wherein a set of parameter values (a realization) is randomly
selected from the parameter probability distributions. The groundwater model is then run for the
realization, and the process is repeated multiple times to determine the distribution of possible outcomes
given the established uncertainty. For the 2021 groundwater model, 400 model parameter realizations
were sampled, which was demonstrated to provide a statistically robust analysis. The TEAD-N groundwater
flow and transport model was run into the future from a January 2020 starting condition for each of the
400 unique realizations of calibrated model input parameter values. For each run, the maximum
concentrations along the GWMA in the main plume and NEB plume areas was recorded at various
timepoints. The distribution of maximum concentrations was then assessed to determine the likelihood
that the TCE concentration exceeded 5 µg/L along the GWMA boundary after 6 years (December 2025),
8 years (December 2027), 10 years (December 2029), 12 years (December 2031), and 15 years (December
2034) of prediction.
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
6
Cumulative probability distributions resulting from the probabilistic analysis are presented on Figures 2-2
and 2-3 for the GWMA boundary beyond the NEB and main plumes, respectively. The cumulative likelihood
curves suggest there is 100% likelihood that concentrations remain below 5 µg/L at the GWMA boundary
downgradient of the NEB plume through at least 2034. Downgradient of the main plume, there is 100%
likelihood that concentrations remain below 5 µg/L at the GWMA boundary through 2027. This likelihood
decreases to 98% through 2029, 90% through 2031, and 60% through 2034. Collectively, these results
suggest there is minimal likelihood of concentrations exceeding 5 µg/L at the downgradient GWMA
boundary in the next 10 years or more.
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
7
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
This page intentionally blank
8
3.0 UPDATED GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT AREA PLAN
This section presents the elements that constitute the Updated GWMA Plan for SMWU-58. These elements
include:
1. Identification of potential receptors (Section 3.1)
2. A groundwater monitoring program (Section 3.2)
3. A groundwater modeling program (Section 3.3)
4. Delineation of GWMA boundary and groundwater development restrictions (Section 3.4)
5. Actions to be taken based on detections and exceedances at sentinel wells (Section 3.5)
6. A contingency plan for supply wells impacted by contamination (Section 3.6)
7. A community involvement program (Section 3.7)
Where applicable, these elements have been updated from the GWMA Plan. Each element is discussed
individually in the following subsections.
3.1 Identification of Potential Receptors
3.1.1 Water Well Survey
To assess current and future exposure risks to potential well users, a water well and water rights survey
was conducted previously in the GWMA Plan. The water well and water rights survey identified wells within
a 2-mile radius ofthe 5-µg/L TCE plume boundary. This analysis used the 2008 TCE plume boundary (shown
on Figure 2-1) to develop a 2-mile buffer surrounding the plume. As discussed in Section 2.3.1, the plume
boundary has expanded somewhat since this analysis was performed. Additionally, water wells have been
installed and abandoned since the original analysis was performed. Due to these changes, an updated water
well survey was performed in February 2022 using the Utah DWR on line Water Rights database (Utah DWR
2022). The database was used to identify water wells with active underground water rights within 2 miles
of the current plume boundary. Identified wells are summarized in Table 3-1 along with their associated
water right number(s), well identification number (WIN), coordinates, depth, use, and other relevant
information. In a few instances, a well has been approved for a certain location, but it is unclear from
available information whether the well has been installed. These wells were conservatively retained in the
search and their unclear statuses are noted in Table 3-1. Additionally, some wells (particularly older wells)
have not been assigned WINs but exist and are active according to available records.
In addition to a well's position relative to the current plume, the well depths included in Table 3-1 provide
a general indication of how susceptible a given well is to future contamination. Contaminated groundwater
near the downgradient portions of the SWMU-58 plume is typically present under unconfined conditions
at depths of 250 feet or less. A review of well driller logs downgradient of the plume indicates wells greater
than 250 feet are generally screened within one or more confined water-bearing units with artesian
conditions. The artesian conditions observed in these wells make them unlikely to be impacted by the
shallower contamination. This is because they are separated from the contamination by one or more
low-permeability confining units, and there is an upward vertical hydraulic gradient between the
unconfined and confined units that prevents downward groundwater flow. As a general guideline, wells
deeper than approximately 250 feet will be at a lower risk of contamination, although the depth of
contamination and confining units is variable, and well construction in deeper wells may allow for
communication with the shallower unconfined unit. For interpretive purposes, water wells have been
categorized as being shallower or deeper than 250 feet in the figures presented in the following sections.
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
9
In total, 12 water wells were identified within 1 mile of the current plume boundary, and 195 water wells
were identified within 2 miles of the plume boundary (Figure 3-1). No new wells within the GWMA boundary
were identified; however, the GWMA Plan had previously identified 7 water wells within 1 mile of the 2008
plume boundary and 119 water wells within 2 miles. The increase in identified wells results from a slight
expansion of the 1-and 2-mile buffer zone boundaries, installation of new wells since 2010, and most
significantly, inclusion of wells without WINs in the updated survey. The previous survey methodology did
not include water wells without WINs ; however, the updated survey includes 62 wells within 2 miles of the
plume that do not have WINs but do have an active water right.
As reported in the DWR database, each identified well has one or more approved use categories including
domestic, municipal, irrigation, stock, and commercial/industrial. Wells are discussed in the sections below
and shown on Figures 3-2 through 3-5 based on use category . Note that a single well may have multiple
approved uses.
3.1.1.1 Domestic and Municipal Use Wells
As defined by the DWR, domestic use includes water used for inside household purposes only such as
drinking, preparing food, bathing, laundry, and brushing teeth. These wells are not connected to a municipal
supply system and are generally privately owned . Municipal use includes water used by a municipality
within its municipal limits and/or service area. Municipal water is distributed through a public water
conveyance system to residential, industrial, and commercial users for drinking and various other uses.
Thus, both types of wells provide potable water that is suitable for consumption, making them a potentially
significant exposure pathway. TEAD-N is supplied with two wells that have a domestic use designation.
These wells are essentially municipal wells but are categorized by the Utah DWR as having a domestic use
because they do not serve a public water supply .
Wells approved for domestic and municipal uses located within 2 miles of the current plume boundary are
shown on Figure 3-2 . There are 115 domestic use wells and 12 municipal use wells within 2 miles of the
current plume boundary. However, only three domestic use wells and five municipal use wells are located
within 1 mile of the plume boundary, and none are located within the GWMA boundary. Because all wells
used for drinking water are located outside of the GWMA boundary, no domestic or municipal users have
the potential to be exposed to contaminant concentrations greater than residentia hfornestic RBCs,
discussed in Section 3.1.2.
3.1.1.2 Irrigation Use Wells
The irrigation use category includes both wells used to irrigate agricultural crops and to water lawns and
gardens. Many wells supplying a single household are approved for both domestic and irrigation use. Wells
approved for irrigation use located within 2 miles of the current plume boundary are shown on Figure 3-3.
There are 155 wells approved for irrigation use within 2 miles of the current plume boundary, but only four
are within 1 mile of the plume . No irrigation wells are within the GWMA boundary. Because all irrigation
wells are outside of the GWMA boundary, the potential for contamination to reach these wells is low.
3.1.1.3 Stock Use Wells
The stock use category includes wells used for watering cattle and other stock animals . The number of
animals served by a given well ranges from less than 10 to several hundred or more . Wells approved for
stock use located within 2 miles of the current plume boundary are shown on Figure 3-4. There are 122 wells
approved for stock use within 2 miles of the current plume boundary, but only four are within 1 mile of the
plume . Two stock wells are located within the GWMA boundary but are outside of the plume . These include
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
10
well (WIN) 20819 (Cassidy Well), which is 117 feet deep and located approximately 0.5 miles downgradient
of the NEB plume, and well 2367, which is 260 feet deep and located approximately 0.4 miles downgradient
of the main plume . Both wells are used for stock watering only and were previously identified in the GWMA
Plan . Given their distance from the plume, the likelihood of contamination reaching these wells in the near
term is low.
3.1.1.4 Commercial and Industrial Use Wells
In addition to the categories discussed above, a few wells in the vicinity of TEAD-N have uses related to
commercial and industrial activities that are categorized as "other" in the DWR database. In most cases,
these wells are not used for drinking or are also approved for domestic use. Six wells with
commercial/industrial use are within 2 miles of the current plume boundary, and three are within 1 mile of
the plume (Figure 3-5). One well (WIN 9549) is located within the plume itself at a gravel mining pit and was
previously identified in the GWMA Plan. Based on an interview of a gravel facility representative by the
DWR in 2007 and water-use records submitted by the facility to the DWR in 2019, Well 9549 is screeRed
froRl 243 to 263 foet laelow groblRd sblrface the wellaM is used as a non::-potable water supply for restrooms
and other general uses associated with the gravel pit operation (e .g., dust control and gravel washing) (DWR
2022). According to the well log provided in the DWR database, well 9549 is screened from 243 to 263 feet
below ground surface, and multiple clay intervals were observed during drilling. Despite the presence of
clay layers ; however, the static water level at the time of well installation was 221 feet below ground surface
(D\AJR 2022), which-:--+A-is suggests the well is not artesian and has the potential to be impacted by the TCE
plume . Based on the location of the well within the plume, contaminant concentrations in the well likely
€9¼::He-exceed Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) iRdblstrial RBCs (Section 3.1.2); however, it is not used
as a drinking water sourcc water iR the well is Rot blsed for coRSblRlptioR . As discussed in Section 3.1.2, other
possible exposure pathways including dermal contact and inhalation are considered insignificant.
The remaining two wells within 1 mile of the plume are WW-1 (WIN 2603) and WW3 (WIN 2618), which are
owned and operated by TEAD and are located upgradient of the plume. Both WW-1 and WW3 are also
approved for domestic and irrigation uses.
3.1.2 Risk Assessment Summary and Groundwater Risk-Based Concentrations
The designated well uses summarized in Section 3.1.1 are fundamental for evaluating risk to potential
receptors because exposure risk varies based on use. Detailed assessments of potential exposure pathways
at TEAD-N were presented in the SWMU-58 Risk Assumptions Document (Parsons 2005) and the Human
Risk Assessment (HRA) in the Phase II RFI (Parsons 2008). For groundwater, ingestion by future residents
and ingestion by future industrial workers were determined to be the only potentially significant exposure
pathways; therefore, wells with domestic and municipal uses are of primary concern for identifying
potential receptors. Conversely, the following exposure pathways were assessed and determined to be
incomplete or insignificant:
• Dermal contact and inhalation of contaminants of concern (COCs) during domestic use of
groundwater
• Inhalation of COCs volatilized from groundwater into outdoor or indoor air
• Ingestion of fruits and vegetables irrigated with groundwater
• Ingestion of meat and dairy products from cattle ingesting groundwater
• Ingestion of meat and dairy products from cattle exposed to COCs volatilized from groundwater
into outdoor air
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
11
• Inhalation of COCs volatilized from groundwater used as stock water
• Inhalation of COCs volatilized from impacted groundwater used for industrial processes
Because these potential exposure pathways are insignificant or incomplete, irrigation, stock, and
non-consumptive commercial/industrial groundwater uses are not considered a significant exposure
concern.
As a management tool for evaluating risk from groundwater ingestion to future residents and industrial
workers, the GWMA Plan developed RBCs for groundwater ingestion using standard U.S . Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) methods and input assumptions from the Human Risk Assessment (Parsons 2008).
If ingested, groundwater concentrations greater than RBCs pose unacceptable cancer risks and/or non-
cancer hazards to residential and industrial users. For residential groundwater ingestion, RBCs are
equivalent to EPA MaxiR'H::Jm CoRtamiRaRt bevels (MCLs}. Drinking water MCLs for TCE, PCE, and CTC are all
equal to 5 µg/L and have not changed since the GWMA Plan was prepared . The GWMA Plan also includes
less restrictive industrial RBCs calculated in accordance with Utah Administrative Code R315-101-5.2(b) and
R315-101-6(d) that are applicable for determining whether corrective action is required in non-residential
land-use areas (DSHW 2013). The industrial RBCs in the GWMA Plan are now out of date; however. TEAD
has previously noted that unrestricted exposure to groundwater with concentrations above MCLs poses an
unacceptable risk, and that it intends to control use of all groundwater with concentrations above MCLs
(Parsons 2005). Consequently, the potential actions to be taken if contamination reaches sentinel wells are
based on residential RBCs, discussed further in Section 3.6.
However, tl:le RBCs fer grouRswater iRgestioR b•t iRsustrial worl~ers 13reseRtes iR tl:le GWMA PlaR are
outsates because tl:ley were calculates usiRg cl:lroRic oral reforeRce soses aRs cl:lroRic oral slo13e factors
tl:lat l:la•.ie siRce beeR u13sates by EPA . Due to tl:lese cl:laRges, u13sates iRsustrial RBCs were calculates usiRg
tl:le curreRt refereRce soses aRs slo13e factors wl:lile leaviRg all otl:ler 13arameters aRs assum13ti0Rs
URCRaRges froR'l tl:le GWMA PlaR . EquatioRs aRs iR13ut 13arameters fer tl:lese calculatioRs are 13reseRtes iR
Table 3 2, aRs tl:le u13sates RBCs are 13reseAtes iA Table 3 3. RBCs were calculates fer botl:l carciAogeAic
aAs ROA carciAogeAic sceAarios, aAs tl:le lowest coAceAtratioAs from tl:le two sceAarios were selectes as
tl:le fiAal RBCs . Bases oA tl:le u13sates calculatioAs, tl:le curreAt RBCs fer grouAswater iAgestioA by iAsustrial
workers are listes below followes by tl:le 13re1.iious iAsustrial RBC fer reforeAce:
• SO j::!g/b fer TCE (13re\1iously 600 µg/b)
• 600 µg/b fer PCE (13re 1.iiously SO µg/b)
• 400 µg/b fer CTC (13re 1.iiously 70 µg/b)
l=or assitioAal iAfermatioA oA tl:le se 1.ielo13R'leAt of tl:le RBCs, refer to tl:le IAterim a As GWMA Pia As (ParsoAs
2004, 2010).
3.2 Groundwater Monitoring Approach
As established in the GWMA Plan, the objectives of groundwater monitoring for the GWMA are to:
• Evaluate movement of TCE at the toe and downgradient of the margins of the main and NEB
plumes
• Identify areas where contamination may impact drinking water wells
An extensive compliance groundwater monitoring program has been established at TEAD-N that fulfills
these objectives in addition to monitoring natural attenuation in the diffuse portion of the plume .
Compliance monitoring is conducted to fulfill monitoring requirements specified in Module V of the PCP
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
12
(TEAD 2017) and implemented through the CMIP Plan for Groundwater (Parsons 2014) and the current
UFP-QAPP (Brice 2022a). Additional remedy monitoring unrelated to permit compliance and the GWMA is
also conducted to evaluate progress at individual AS and SVE systems.
The compliance monitoring portion of the current monitoring program is summarized in the following
sections. Full details of the program are presented in the UFP-QAPP (Brice 2022a).
3.2.1 Compliance Monitoring Program
3.2.1.1 Program Overview
Compliance groundwater monitoring at SWMU-58 is conducted semi-annually at the locations shown on
Figure 3-6. Forty-three wells are sampled semi-annually in the spring and fall, and an additional 75 wells are
sampled annually during the fall only. Spring sampling typically occurs in April and fall sampling typically
occurs in October. Wells are sampled using HydraSleeve samplers, and water quality field parameters
including pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen, specific conductance, and oxidation-reduction potential are
also collected. Samples are analyzed for a limited list of VOCs that includes TCE, PCE, and CTC.
Sampling locations at SWMU-58 were selected to provide full delineation of the voe plume and fulfill the
GWMA monitoring objectives. Fourteen sentinel wells at or beyond the GWMA boundary are sampled
semi-annually to identify contamination and ensure it does not impact drinking water wells. These wells
include D-11, D-21, and D-22, which were proposed in the GWMA Plan to define the GWMA boundary and
have now been installed. A total of 17 wells located near or beyond the downgradient margins of the main
and NEB plumes are also sampled semi-annually (10 wells) or annually (7 wells) to evaluate downgradient
plume movement. Additional wells are sampled throughout the source and distal areas of the plume to
provide full plume delineation.
In addition to groundwater sampling, extensive water level gauging is conducted in conjunction with the
groundwater sampling events to determine groundwater flow directions and support development and
calibration of the TEAD-N groundwater model (Section 3.3). Approximately 274 wells are gauged annually
in the spring and fall using an electronic water level meter (Figure 3-7).
Compliance monitoring results are reported annually in groundwater monitoring reports. These reports
include data evaluation and trend analysis, discussed in the following sections. No substantial changes to
the compliance monitoring program are anticipated at this time, and monitoring results will continue to be
reported annually.
3.2.1.2 Data Analysis
Evaluation and Mitigation of Risk to Downgradient Receptors
Following each sampling event, analytical results from the sentinel wells are reviewed for TCE detections.
If TCE is detected in a sentinel well at concentrations above 1 µg/L or 5 µg/L, additional actions (outlined in
Section 3.6) will occur, which are designed to mitigate risk to downgradient receptors.
Evaluation of Plume Movement
An evaluation of plume movement at TEAD-N is included in the annual groundwater monitoring reports.
The evaluation includes generation of TCE concentration time-series plots and statistical analysis.
Concentration trends are assessed using Mann-Kendall and Regional Kendall tests to identify statistically
significant trends in individual wells and in different plume regions, including the toes of the main and NEB
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
13
plumes. Statistically significant trends are evaluated using the Sen-Theil non-parametric slope estimator to
quantify the rates of concentration change. The results of the statistical data are used to assess whether
the diffuse portion of the plume is expanding and if downgradient groundwater users may be impacted in
the future.
3.3 Groundwater Modeling Approach
Groundwater modeling predictions are used to inform the groundwater management strategy at TEAD-N
and assess the likelihood of future plume migration beyond the GWMA boundary. As discussed in
Section 2.3.3, the TEAD-N groundwater model is currently updated annually and has been refined
significantly since the GWMA Plan was prepared. Following each update, mM odel results are presented
annually in £...groundwater modeling reports. Notable changes to the model since the GWMA Plan was
prepared include an increased focus on matching conditions at the leading edge of the plume, incorporation
of TCE decay to better match observed conditions, use of transient water levels from data loggers for model
calibration, and development of probabilistic predictive analysis to assess future plume migration. The
probabilistic predictive analysis is a very powerful tool for assessing future risk to groundwater users outside
of the GWMA boundary because it provides the likelihood that the plume will expand beyond the GWMA
boundary over givens periods of time. Recent modeling results suggest plume migration beyond the GWMA
boundary is unlikely for the next 10 or more years.
+Re-g,§roundwater model updates and reports will continue to be prepared as necessary to meet
requirements updated specified in the PCP.annually to incorporate new analytical results and water levels
and irnpro1•1e rnodel accuracy. Modeling results will continue to be reported annually. If future monitoring
results suggest that plume migration beyond the GWMA boundary is likely, changes to GWMA or
groundwater management strategy may be necessary.
3.4 SWMU-58 Groundwater Management Area and Institutional Controls
3.4.1 GWMA Boundary Delineation
The GWMA was initially defined in the Interim Plan and consisted of the off-Depot portion of the NEB plume
and a surrounding buffer zone between the plume boundary and several sentinel monitoring wells
(Figure 3-8). In the GWMA Plan, the GWMA was expanded to include the NEB and main plumes in their
entirety, the entire BRAC parcel, and an expanded buffer zone downgradient of the plume boundary
defined by additional sentinel wells. In general, minimal modification of the GWMA boundary is required
based on the current extent of the SWMU-58 plume. Although the plume has expanded somewhat since
the GWMA boundary in the GWMA Plan was adopted, the downgradient plume boundary remains well
within the buffer zone and remains protective of downgradient water users. The only portion of the GWMA
requiring updating is the western border in the vicinity of monitoring well B-30. This portion of the GWMA
boundary was defined by the 2008 plume boundary in the GWMA Plan; however, the plume has since
expanded slightly to the west . To encompass the entire plume, it is proposed that the GWMA boundary be
expanded westward to pass through well B-18 but otherwise remain unchanged. The proposed update to
the GWMA boundary is shown on Figure 3-8. The new area included in the GWMA would be located entirely
within the TEAD-N boundary and is occupied by munitions igloos .
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
14
3.4.2 Institutional Controls
A variety of institutional controls are in place within the GWMA boundary to prevent exposure to
contaminated groundwater. Applicable restrictions vary depending on the location within the GWMA.
These restrictions are summarized by area in the following sections.
3.4.2.1 BRAC Parcel
Existing groundwater use and development restrictions for the BRAC parcel are contained within the
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CCRs) dated 18 December 1998 (included in Appendix B of the
GWMA Plan). Section 6.3 of Article VI of that document prohibits access to or extraction of any
groundwater, or the injection of materials into the aquifer for the purpose of economic development, with
the following exception: water may be accessed from any existing potable water well located within the
BRAC parcel. The aforementioned CCRs apply to the entire BRAC parcel with the exception of the
Consolidated Maintenance Facility (CMF), which was transferred separately and prior to the remainder of
the BRAC parcel.
Groundwater use restrictions for the CMF are contained within Enclosure 11 (Deed Restrictions -
Environmental Protection) of "the Findings of Suitability to Transfer" document dated July 1996 (included
in Appendix C of the GWMA Plan). Language in that document states that there shall be no disturbance of
the subsurface or groundwater without prior written approval of the government. This language is not as
strong as that contained in the CCRs for the BRAC parcel. However, the effect is the same: to prohibit any
development and use of groundwater within the CMF property, as the Army will not consent to any
proposals to that would disturb the aquifer. Language from the CMF conveyance document and the BRAC
CCRs that pertains solely to groundwater management is included in Appendix D of the GWMA Plan.
Businesses within the BRAC parcel, including the CMF, currently obtain their water from Tooele City. The
nearest municipal wells are situated directly east of the BRAC parcel and upgradient of the plumes
(Figure 3-2).
3.4.2.2 2004 and 2010 GWMA Boundaries
The Interim Plan recommended amending the State of Utah's Tooele Valley Ground-Water Management
Plan (Utah DWR 1996) to restrict water resource development within the 2004 GWMA boundary (shown
on Figure 3-8). The Tooele Valley Ground-Water Management Plan was subsequently amended to prohibit
installation of culinary water wells within the 2004 GWMA boundary unless it was demonstrated that the
water could be used without adverse impacts to human health or the plume containment and cleanup
program (Utah DWR 2004). The GWMA Plan recommended petitioning the Utah Water Rights Engineer to
expand the area with water development restrictions to match the expanded GWMA boundary. However,
it appears that this petition was not completed, and the area with water development restrictions remains
the same as the 2004 GWMA boundary, shown on Figure 3-8. Upon acceptance ofthis GWMA Plan Update,
it is recommended that the Utah Water Rights Engineer be petitioned to expand water development
restrictions to the proposed GWMA boundary.
3.4.2.3 TEAD-N
There are currently no specific provisions within the TEAD-N Master Plan that address groundwater
management on the installation (Johnson, pers. Comm., 2022). The currently established TEAD-N dig
(excavation) permit system serves as the de facto mechanism to prevent future groundwater development
and use within the facility. Requests for permits must be approved by all TEAD departments before issuance
for any activities that would result in subsurface disturbance. Portions of TEAD-N included in the GWMA
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
15
could have additional groundwater use restrictions in the future if a petition is approved by the Utah Water
Rights Engineer to update the restricted area from the 2004 GWMA boundary to the proposed GWMA
boundary. It is also recommended that groundwater development and use restrictions be established for
the TEAD-N Environmental Management System. The latter is an integral component of the TEAD-N Master
Plan .
3.5 Actions Based on Detections and Exceedances at Sentinel Wells
This GWMA Plan Update specifies actions that will be taken ifTCE detections or residential RBC exceedances
are identified in the sentinel wells located downgradient of the SWMU-58 plume. A specific corrective
action has not been designated if an exceedance is identified as this will be based on risk, which will vary
depending on where the detection has occurred. However, general AEctions to be taken if TCE is detected
above a concentration of 1 µg/L or the TCE RBC for residential groundwater ingestion of 5 µg/L have been
established . The initial trigger value for action is set at 1 µg/L to provide sufficient time to develop an
appropriate response prior to concentrations reaching the residential RBC of 5 µg/L.
If TCE is detected above 1 µg/L in a sentinel well for the first time, TEAD will take the following actions:
1. Notify DSHW within 7 days of receiving validated data confirming the presence of TCE.
2. Continue monitoring the sentinel well having the detectable TCE .
3. Evaluate whether additional action is required .
If TCE is detected above 5 µg/L, TEAD will take the following actions:
1. Submit to the DSHW a variance to this GWMA Plan Update within 90 days of receiving validated
data. The variance will include a reevaluation of the pertinent monitoring data to determine if
there has been a change in the current conceptual groundwater and contaminant transport
model, reevaluate human health and environmental risks, and provide specific changes to the
GWMA Plan.
2. If there is not an existing downgradient well, install a new downgradient sentinel well (if feasible).
3. Evaluate the closest water wells downgradient from the impacted sentinel well. Preliminary
information for these wells will be obtained from the Utah DWR well database and will be
confirmed by interviews with the well owners. Information to be evaluated include :
a. Use(s) of the groundwater (i.e., potable, stock irrigation, etc.)
b. Construction and operation parameters, including screened interval(s), pumping rate,
pumping schedule, and pump depths
c. Groundwater sampling results, if available
4. Use evaluation criteria in Item 3 to identify the downgradient wells that are at highest risk for
contamination and determine if monitoring for any of those wells is warranted. Wells with
domestic or municipal uses would be considered the highest risk because they are used for
drinking.
5. Develop a contingency plan for downgradient users whose groundwater is at high risk of being
impacted by the migrating TCE contamination.
The approach described above will focus on wells with the highest risk of being impacted in the future.
This plan provides ample time for TEAD to develop appropriate responses in conjunction with the DSHW
to mitigate any impacts to potential receptors.
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
16
3.6 Contingency Plan for Wells Impacted by TCE
If a downgradient domestic well user is determined to be impacted by the SWMU-58 TCE Plume, a
contingency plan will be developed for the well user. The plan will outline the actions needed to provide
the user with long-term clean water for domestic use should the TCE concentration in a user's well(s) exceed
the MCL of 5 µg/L for TCE. Possible actions to meet this objective could include wellhead treatment,
installation of a filtration/treatment system at the tap, installation of a new water supply well, conveyance
via pipeline of clean water from a nearby non-impacted well, or periodic delivery combined with onsite
storage of potable water. In the short-term, TEAD will supply drinking water (such as bottled water) to
replace the impacted well water. For wells characterized by mixed use, such as irrigation and domestic,
treatment at the tap might be most cost-effective. A specific plan would be developed for each user and
domestic use well.
3.7 Community Involvement Program
After the GWMA Plan Update has been approved by DSHW, TEAD will meet with the state, county, and
municipal stakeholders to present the GWMA Plan update. Stakeholders include the Utah DWR, Tooele
City, Tooele County, and the Tooele County Health Department, as well as residents of the Erda area that
may potentially be affected.
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
17
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
This page intentionall•r blank
18
4.0 REFERENCES
Brice Engineering, LLC (Brice). 2022a. Uniform Federal Policy-Quality Assurance Project Plan, Tooele
Army Depot North, Utah. February.
Brice. 2022b. Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report, Tooele Army Depot North. Final. March.
Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste (DSHW). 2003 . Re: Interim Remedial Action, SWMU 58, Tooele
Army Depot, Utah. Letter from Dennis Downs, DSHW, to Tom Turner, TEAD, dated 28 July 2003.
DSHW. 2013 . Administrative Rules for Cleanup Action and Risk-Based Closure Standards. Utah
Department of Environmental Quality. R315-101. Utah Administrative Code . Effective 25 April
2013.
Johnson, Troy. 2022. Personal communication regarding existing restrictions on groundwater
development and use within TEAD. 8 March.
Parsons. 2004. Groundwater Management Area Plan -Northeast Boundary Plume. Tooele Army Depot,
Tooele, Utah. March.
Parsons. 2005 . SWMU-58 Risk Assumptions Document, Revision 1, Tooele Army Depot, Tooele, Utah .
July.
Parsons. 2008. Phase II RCRA Facility Investigation Report, SWMU-58, Tooele Army Depot, Tooele, Utah.
December.
Parsons . 2010. Groundwater Management Area Plan, SWMU-58 Plume. August.
Parsons . 2012 . Corrective Measures Study Report, Tooele Army Depot, Tooele, Utah. June .
Parsons . 2014. Corrective Measures Implementation Program Plan for Groundwater. April.
Tooele Army Depot (TEAD). 2017. Utah Hazardous Waste Post-Closure Permit for Post-Closure
Monitoring and Corrective Action of Solid Waste Management Units for Tooele Army Depot,
Tooele, Utah. November.
USACE Hydrologic Engineering Center, Tetra Tech, and Brice. 2021. Tooele Army Depot Groundwater
Flow and Contaminant Transport Model Report {2021). December.
Utah Department of Natural Resources Division of Water Rights (DWR). 1996. Tooele Valley Ground-
Water Management Plan. 27 February 1996.
Utah DWR. 2004. Amendment to Tooele Valley Ground-Water Management Plan. Letter to Water Users
from Jerry D. Olds, State Engineer. 21 September 2004.
Utah DWR. 2022. Water Rights Database . Available online at
https://waterrights.utah.gov/wrinfo/query.asp. Accessed 17 February 2022.
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
19
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
This page intentionally blank
20
Division Comments
1. Section 3.1.1.4 Commercial and Industrial Use Wells
How is it determined that water from Well 9549 isn't used for consumption? How
frequently is it reconfirmed that it isn't used for consumption?
Response: The use ofWell 9549 is based on digital records associated with water rights
15-4826, 15-3037, 15-4825, and 15-4824 as presented on the Utah Division of Water
Rights online well database
(https ://waterrights .utah.gov/wrdb/WINlookup.asp?WIN=9549&Key=Submit+Ouery).
These records include a field review sheet from 3/16/2007 that documents an interview
with gravel pit personnel. Uses were described as non-potable and included dust
suppression, batch mixing, and restrooms . More recent documents include a record of
water usage from 1/22/2019 provided by the pit operator that includes estimates of water
usage for dust suppression and batch mixing. Water uses from Well 9549 have not been
independently verified by TEAD. Additional text has been added to Section 3 .1.1.4
clarifying the source of information on Well 9549 .
2. Section 3.1.2 Risk Assessment Summary and Groundwater Risk-Based
Concentrations
The Section talks about groundwater ingestion by industrial worker as a complete
exposure pathway and the need to update the industrial risk-based concentration (RBC)
using the updated toxicity values.
The TEAD-N risk assumptions document indicates this pathway needs to be evaluated.
However, the Division on hindsight would want more clarification on the significance of
assessing this pathway for the industrial/commercial receptor.
Please explain why RBCs for the Industrial worker ingestion of groundwater should be
different from the residential RBCs for ingestion of groundwater given that the
industrial/commercial receptor should be as protected as the residential receptor when
ingesting contaminated groundwater.
Response : The difference between the residential and industrial RBCs are based on Utah
Administrative Code (UAC) R315-101. UAC R315-101-5.2(b)(2) allows risk
assessments to be completed for actual or potential land use conditions where land use is
not residential. UAC R315-101-6(d) indicates a TR of lx10·4 is applicable for
determining whether corrective actions are required for risk assessments completed under
UAC R315-101-5 .2(b)(2) (i.e., non-residential sites). This differs from residential sites,
for which TR of lx10·6 is applicable. (A hazard index of 1 is applicable regardless ofland
use.) Due to land use around TEAD-N, the SWMU-58 Risk Assumptions Document
(Parsons 2005), the risk assessment included in the Phase II RCRA Facility Investigation
Report (Parsons 2008), and the previous GWMA Plan (Parsons 2010) developed
industrial RBs using TR of 1x10-4 .
Discussion of industrial RBCs was included in the Draft GWMA Plan Update for
consistency with the previous plan. However, it has been determined that derivation of
industrial RBCs is not necessary for the plan update because they are not being used to
manage the GWMA. TEAD has previously acknowledged that unrestricted exposure to
groundwater with concentrations above MCLs poses an unacceptable risk and that it
intends to control use of all groundwater with concentrations above MCLs (Parsons
2005). Consequently, actions to be taken if the plume migrates are all based on MCLs not
industrial RBCs (Section 3.6). For clarity, Section 3.1.2 has been revised to remove the
discussion of updated industrial RBCs and Tables 3-2 and 3-3 have been eliminated.
3. Table 3-2 Risk-Based Concentration Equation and Parameters for Groundwater
Ingestion by Industrial Worker.
OSWER Directive 9200 .1-120, Feb 6, 2014 publication, reported an updated standard
default exposure factors. Please revise Table 3-2 and any other relevant Section of the
for consistency with the directive .
Response: See response to Comment #2. Table 3-2 has been removed.
Table 3-2 also reported a target risk (TR) of lx10-4 as excess individual lifetime cancer
risk. Please note that the State of Utah evaluates all RBCs using a TR of lxI0-6 . This is
the default point of departure (POD) in the state of Utah.
Please revise all RB Cs, if any, based on TR of 1x104 to a TR of 1 x 1 o-6 .
Response: See response to Comment #2 . Table 3-2 has been removed. Note that a TR of
lxl04 appears to be applicable in some cases based on UAC R315-101-6(d).
4. Table 3-3 Risk-Based Concentration for Groundwater Ingestion by Industrial
Workers Groundwater Management Area Plan Update.
Based on comment #1 above, Table 3-3 may be eliminated or deleted.
Response: Table 3-3 has been removed.
5. As a general comment, the risk assumptions document for SWMU 58 may need to
be updated to reflect current accepted EPA standard exposure parameters.
Response : Comment noted.
6. Section 3.3 Groundwater Modeling Approach
The Section states that the groundwater model will be updated annually. It would be
better to say that the model will be updated in accordance with the PCP so that if it
changes in the PCP this document won't need to be changed.
Response: Concur. The language in Section 3.3 has been revised to reference PCP
requirements and no longer specifies annual updates.
FINAL
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North
July 2022
Environmental Remediation
Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah
Contract No. W9124J-21-D-0006
U.S. Army Environmental Command Tooele Army Depot
FINAL
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North
July 2022
Environmental Remediation
Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah
Contract No. W9124J-21-D-0006
Prepared For :
U.S. Army Mission and Installation Contracting Command
Fort Sam Houston (MICC-FSH), U.S . Army Environmental Command (USAEC), and Tooele Army Depot (TEAD)
Prepared By :
B ee
ENGINEERING
Brice Engineering, LLC
362 Pierpont Avenue
Salt Lake City, Utah 84101
801-948-9319 PH
www.BriceEng.com
This page intentionally blank
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................................................... 111
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... V
1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background ......................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Purpose of the GWMA Plan and Plan Update .................................................................... 1
1.3 Regulatory Requirements ................................................................................................... 2
1.4 Document Organization ...................................................................................................... 2
2.0 CURRENT SITE CONDITIONS ..................................................................................................... 3
2.1 Land Use .............................................................................................................................. 3
2.1.1 Land Use on TEAD-N .............................................................................................. 3
2.1.2 Land Use on BRAC Parcel and North of TEAD-N .................................................... 3
2.2 Corrective Measures Implementation ................................................................................ 3
2.3 Current Plume Extent and Concentration Trends .............................................................. 4
2.3.1 Plume Extent .......................................................................................................... 4
2.3.2 Concentration Trend Assessment .......................................................................... 4
2.3.3 Groundwater Model Assessment .......................................................................... 6
3.0 UPDATED GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT AREA PLAN ........................................................... 9
3.1 Identification of Potential Receptors .................................................................................. 9
3.1.1 Water Well Survey ................................................................................................. 9
3.1.2 Risk Assessment Summary and Groundwater Risk-Based Concentrations ......... 11
3.2 Groundwater Monitoring Approach ................................................................................. 12
3.2.1 Compliance Monitoring Program ........................................................................ 12
3.3 Groundwater Modeling Approach .................................................................................... 13
3.4 SWMU-58 Groundwater Management Area and Institutional Controls .......................... 14
3.4.1 GWMA Boundary Delineation ............................................................................. 14
3.4.2 Institutional Controls ........................................................................................... 14
3.5 Actions Based on Detections and Exceedances at Sentinel Wells .................................... 15
3.6 Contingency Plan for Wells Impacted by TCE ................................................................... 16
3.7 Community Involvement Program .................................................................................... 16
4.0 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................... 17
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
TABLES
Table 3-1
FIGURES
Figure 1-1
Figure 1-2
Figure 2-1
Figure 2-2
Figure 2-3
Figure 3-1
Figure 3-2
Figure 3-3
Figure 3-4
Figure 3-5
Figure 3-6
Figure 3-7
Figure 3-8
Water Wells Within 2 Miles of SWMU-58 Plume Boundary
TEAD-N Location Map
SWMU-58 Site Location Map
SWMU-58 Plume Extent and TCE Concentration Trends
Cumulative Distribution Curves for the Maximum Predicted TCE
Concentrations Along the NEB Plume GWMA Boundary
Cumulative Distribution Curves for the Maximum Predicted TCE
Concentrations Along the Main Plume GWMA Boundary
Water Wells Within 2 Miles of Plume Boundary-All Uses
Water Wells Within 2 Miles of Plume Boundary-Domestic and Municipal
Uses
Water Wells Within 2 Miles of Plume Boundary-Irrigation Use
Water Wells Within 2 Miles of Plume Boundary-Stock Use
Water Wells Within 2 Miles of Plume Boundary-Commercial and Industrial
Uses
SWMU-58 Compliance Monitoring Groundwater Sampling Locations
SWMU-58 Compliance Monitoring Groundwater Gauging Locations
Proposed GWMA Boundary
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
ii
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
µg/L
AS
BRAC
Brice
CCR
CMF
CMIP
CMS
coc
CTC
days/yr
DSHW
DWR
EPA
GWMA
HRA
kg
L/day
MCL
mg/kg-day
NA
NEB
PCE
PCP
RBC
RCRA
RFI
SVE
SWMU
TCE
TEAD
TEAD-N
UDEQ
UFP-QAPP
USACE
voe
WIN
yr
micrograms per liter
air sparging
Base Realignment and Closure
Brice Engineering, LLC
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions
Consolidated Maintenance Facility
Corrective Measures Implementation Plan
Corrective Measures Study
contaminant of concern
carbon tetrachloride
days per year
Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste
Utah Department of Natural Resources Division of Water Rights
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Groundwater Management Area
Human Risk Assessment
kilograms
liters per day
Maximum Contaminant Level
milligrams per kilograms per day
not applicable
Northeast Boundary
tetrachloroethene
Post Closure Permit
risk-based concentration
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RCRA Facility Investigation
soil vapor extraction
Solid Waste Management Unit
trichloroethene
Tooele Army Depot
Tooele Army Depot North
Utah Department of Environmental Quality
Uniform Federal Policy-Quality Assurance Project Plan
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
volatile organic compound
well identification number
year(s)
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
iii
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
This page intentionally blank
iv
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In 2004, TEAD developed an Interim Groundwater Management Area (GWMA) Plan for the Northeast
Boundary (NEB) plume to protect human health from risks related to the possible use of the impacted
groundwater until further investigation and remedial action could be implemented. In 2010, a Final
GWMA Plan superseding the Interim Plan was prepared to serve as a long-term institutional control to
protect potable well users from health risks associated with the entire comingled trichloroethene (TCE)
plume at TEAD-N now designated as SWMU-58. Because the plume extent and possible receptors are
subject to change and corrective measures had not yet been implemented when the GWMA Plan was
prepared in 2010, it recommended the GWMA Plan be formally reviewed at regular intervals and updated
as needed. This Groundwater Management Area Plan Update (GWMA Plan Update) incorporates the
changes that have occurred at SWMU-58 since the GWMA Plan was prepared in 2010. This update
documents current conditions within the GWMA, including land use, implemented remedial actions, TCE
concentration trends, groundwater model predictions, and plume extent. Since 2010, the SWMU-58
plume has expanded slightly but remains within the previously established GWMA boundary except for a
small area on the western edge of the plume that lies inside the TEAD-N installation. Current groundwater
modeling results indicate it is unlikely the plume will reach the downgradient GWMA boundary within the
next 10 years. Therefore, the GWMA boundary was expanded slightly to encompass the western edge of
the current plume boundary but otherwise remains unchanged. Due to the potential installation or
abandonment of water wells since the GWMA Plan was prepared, an updated water well search was
conducted to identify possible receptors. No new water wells installed within the GWMA boundary were
identified, and current management practices remain protective of human health.
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
V
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
This page intentionally blank
vi
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Tooele Army Depot North (TEAD-N) encompasses almost 25,000 acres in eastern Tooele County at the
southern end of Tooele Valley (Figure 1-1). Historical site operations at TEAD-N have created a large,
comingled volatile organic compound (VOC) plume that originates from multiple identified source areas
and consists predominantly of trichloroethene (TCE) with minor amounts of tetrachloroethene (PCE) and
carbon tetrachloride (CTC). Historically, the plume has been divided into several subareas including: the
Northeast Boundary (NEB) groundwater plume, the main TCE plume, and the impacted groundwater
beneath the TEAD-N landfill (Figure 1-2). In the past, these subareas were managed under separate Solid
Waste Management Units (SWMUs) but are now managed under a single SWMU designated as SMWU-58.
The plume currently encompasses approximately 5.5 square miles and is approximately 4 miles long at its
longest point. The main portion of the plume is contained largely within the TEAD-N boundary and extends
a maximum of approximately 0.15 miles beyond the installation boundary. The NEB portion of the plume,
however, extends approximately 1.4 miles beyond the installation boundary.
In 2003, the Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ) Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste
(DSHW) requested that the Toole Army Depot (TEAD) implement an interim remedial action to prevent the
NEB plume from impacting any offsite receptors (DSHW 2003). In response, TEAD developed an interim
Groundwater Management Area (GWMA) Plan for the NEB plume (Interim Plan; Parsons 2004). The Interim
Plan was submitted to municipal and county stakeholders for review and approved by DSHW prior to
publication. Its primary purpose was to protect human health from risks related to the possible use of the
impacted groundwater while a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Facility Investigation (RFI)
and Corrective Measures Study (CMS) for the NEB plume were being conducted. The Interim Plan defined
a GWMA and presented a management strategy for the NEB plume based on risk-based concentrations
(RBCs) for groundwater. The Interim Plan also recommended amending the State of Utah's Tooele Valley
Ground-Water Management Plan (Utah Department of Natural Resources Division of Water Rights [DWR]
1996) to restrict water resource development within the GWMA boundary. The Tooele Valley Ground-
Water Management Plan was subsequently amended to prohibit installation of culinary water wells within
the 2004 GWMA boundary unless it was demonstrated that the water could be used without adverse
impacts to human health or the plume containment and cleanup program (Utah DWR 2004).
Upon completion of the TCE plume RFI, a Final GWMA Plan (GWMA Plan) was prepared to supersede the
Interim Plan and serve as a long-term institutional control to protect potable well users from health risks
associated with the SWMU-58 groundwater plume (Parsons 2010). The GWMA Plan was expanded to
include the entire TCE plume, in addition to the NEB plume, and was updated based on results from the RFI.
Because the plume extent and possible receptors are subject to change and the corrective measures had
not yet been implemented, the GWMA Plan recommended the document be formally reviewed at regular
intervals and updated as needed. This GWMA Plan Update documents and incorporates the changes that
have occurred at SWMU-58 since the GWMA Plan was prepared.
1.2 Purpose of the GWMA Plan and Plan Update
The purpose of the GWMA Plan is to protect Tooele Valley groundwater users from downgradient
SWMU-58 plume movement. To achieve this objective, the plan includes the following key elements:
1. Identification of potential receptors
2. A groundwater monitoring program
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
1
3. A groundwater modeling program
4. Delineation of a GWMA boundary with defined groundwater development restrictions
5. Actions to be taken based on detections and exceedances at sentinel wells
6. A contingency plan for supply wells impacted by contamination
7. A community involvement program
These elements were developed and presented in the GWMA Plan; however, Elements 1 through 4 require
updating due to changes at the SWMU-58 since the GWMA Plan was prepared.
1.3 Regulatory Requirements
Requirements for SWMU-58 are encompassed by the TEAD-N RCRA Post Closure Permit (PCP) (TEAD 2017),
the Corrective Measures Implementation Program (CMIP) Plan for Groundwater (Parsons 2014), and the
current Uniform Federal Policy-Quality Assurance Project Plan (UFP-QAPP) forTEAD-N groundwater (Brice
Engineering, LLC [Brice] 2022a). The PCP is the overarching regulatory document and includes provisions
requiring groundwater monitoring and modeling at SWMU-58. The CMIP, developed in accordance with
the PCP, represents a framework for the implementation of the RCRA corrective action process for the
protection of human health and the environment from chemical releases at SWMU-58. It specifies the
required corrective actions in the source and downgradient areas of SWMU-58 and provides an update to
the groundwater monitoring program. Finally, the Uniform Federal Policy-Quality Assurance Project Plan
(UFP-QAPP), which was developed in accordance with the PCP and CMIP, provides an additional update to
the sampling program included in the CMIP and presents the current groundwater sampling locations,
analytes, and sampling frequencies at SWMU-58 along with associated quality assurance/quality control
requirements.
1.4 Document Organization
In general, the provisions of the GWMA Plan remain protective of health for Tooele Valley groundwater
users and only minor updates are required. Therefore, this document does not duplicate the background
facility and original risk evaluation information, which can be found in the GWMA Plan (Parsons 2010).
Instead, this GWMA Plan Update focuses on changes that have occurred since the GWMA Plan was
prepared and an includes assessment of current plume conditions.
This document is organized into the following sections:
• Section 1-Introduction: Presents the GWMA Plan history and background, purpose of the
GWMA Plan and current GWMA Plan Update, and applicable regulatory requirements for
SWMU-58.
• Section 2 -Current Site Conditions: Section 2 presents an assessment of current site conditions
at SWMU-58 with a focus on changes to the site since the GWMA Plan was prepared. This section
also includes an updated concentration trend assessment and groundwater model trend
assessment, which demonstrate that the risk of plume migration beyond the GWMA boundary
remains limited.
• Section 3 -Updated Groundwater Management Area Plan: This section presents the key
elements of the GWMA Plan as listed in Section 1.2. Where applicable, elements have been
updated based on current site conditions. Elements that have not changed are also presented for
the purpose of completeness.
• Section 4 -References: Cited references are presented.
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
2
2.0 CURRENT SITE CONDITIONS
2.1 Land Use
2.1.1 Land Use on TEAD-N
Prior to 1993, TEAD-N had two missions; the first was to provide storage, maintenance, and demilitarization
of conventional weapons. The second mission was to provide storage, maintenance, and demilitarization
of equipment, troop support items, construction equipment, power generators, and wheeled vehicles. The
mission of maintaining and repairing equipment was discontinued in 1993; and the industrial portion of the
facility located on the eastern side of the installation was closed and eventually sold to a commercial
developer as part of the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process. The munitions storage mission
remains active at TEAD-N, which is a Tier I ammunition storage site, responsible for storing training
ammunition and war reserve conventional munitions. Developed features at TEAD-N include igloos,
magazines, administrative buildings, a maintenance area, military housing, roads, and other allied
infrastructure. No substantial changes to the munitions storage mission or installation infrastructure have
occurred since the GWMA Plan was prepared.
2.1.2 Land Use on BRAC Parcel and North of TEAD-N
Areas where the SWMU-58 plume has the potential to impact offsite receptors include the industrial area
transferred under the BRAC process (the BRAC parcel) and the off-installation area to the north and
northeast of the installation. Since its transfer to private ownership, the BRAC parcel has been redeveloped
as an industrial park under a series of owners and names. Portions of the BRAC parcel are currently known
as the Peterson Industrial Depot and the Ninigret Depot. The BRAC parcel currently contains warehouses,
manufacturing facilities, office space, a wholesale automotive storage lot, a sporting goods distribution
center, and a gymnastics center. The residential areas of Tooele City lie east of the BRAC Parcel,
approximately 0.75 miles cross-gradient from the SWMU-58 plume boundary.
State Route 112 runs along the northeastern boundaries ofTEAD-N and the BRAC parcel. Land use northeast
of the highway includes open undeveloped grazing land, a gravel pit and ready-mix operation, and a closed
Tooele County landfill. Most off-installation groundwater impacts are located in this area due to past
migration of the NEB plume. Historically, the land immediately north of TEAD-N has been used chiefly for
livestock grazing and cultivation. That remains the predominant land use, but several other land uses are
now occurring in the area. The Deseret Sports Complex, a County-owned multiple use facility used as
fairgrounds, rodeo ground, and for other events, was constructed in the 1990s approximately 0.5 miles
north of the TEAD-N northern boundary, at the intersection of Sheep Lane and State Route 112. A
motorsports park used for amateur and professional auto racing was constructed immediately north of the
Deseret Sports Complex in 2006. Ground was subsequently broken east of Sheep Lane in 2009 for a
development named the Miller Industrial Park; however, the only building that has been constructed on
the property is a mattress factory northeast of the motorsports park. The property has since been sold and
renamed the Lakeview Business Park, and further development is expected.
2.2 Corrective Measures Implementation
When the GWMA Plan was prepared, the RFI for SWMU-58 had been completed, but the CMS was still in
progress and corrective measures had not been established or implemented. The CMS Report (Parsons
2012) was finalized in 2012 and included separate corrective measures for the source and diffuse (i.e.,
downgradient) areas of the plume. For each individual source area, the CMS recommended maintaining
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
3
institutional controls, continuing or implementing vadose zone remediation through soil vapor extraction
(SVE), and implementing air sparging (AS) for direct treatment of source area groundwater. For the diffuse
area, the CMS recommended maintaining institutional controls and implementing monitored natural
attenuation. These recommendations have since been implemented and are detailed in the CMIP (Parsons
2014).
On the BRAC parcel, individual SVE and AS systems were installed at four separate source areas:
Building 615, Building 620, Building 679, and C Avenue. Installation of the SVE systems preceded installation
of the AS systems, and the systems became fully operational in 2013. Within the TEAD-N installation, three
SVE and two AS systems were installed within the former sanitary landfill. These systems became
substantially operational in 2014. Operation and maintenance of all SVE and AS systems are ongoing. The
systems have been effective at reducing source TCE concentrations in the vadose zone and groundwater,
which has been demonstrated by required performance monitoring associated with the systems.
In the diffuse portion of the plume, MNA is ongoing and is completed in accordance with the requirements
in the CMIP and UFP-QAPP. Sampling at SWMU-58 consists of a larger annual sampling event typically
conducted in October in which approximately 113 wells are sampled, and a smaller semi-annual sampling
event typically conducted in April in which approximately 43 wells are sampled. Sampling during the annual
event is designed to provide coverage of the entire plume, whereas the subset of wells sampled during the
semi-annual event is limited to the area near and beyond the distal plume boundary and in the Sanitary
Landfill source area. Wells are sampled semi-annually near the distal plume boundary to monitor plume
movement and ensure contamination does not reach offsite receptors. Water levels are gauged in
approximately 269 wells during both monitoring events. The sample results and water levels are used to
update the groundwater model annually as required by the PCP.
2.3 Current Plume Extent and Concentration Trends
2.3.1 Plume Extent
The most recent plume boundary for SWMU-58, defined as the 5-microgram-per-liter (µg/L) concentration
contour for TCE, is shown on Figure 2-1 along with the plume boundary from the GWMA Plan (Parsons
2010). The current boundary is presented in the 2021 Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report (Brice 2022b)
and was updated based on results from the June 2021 semi-annual groundwater monitoring event. The
plume boundary included in the GWMA Plan was developed based on results from the annual groundwater
sampling event in Fall 2008. A comparison of the plume boundaries indicates that the downgradient extent
of the plume has expanded somewhat since 2008. Expansion along the downgradient main plume boundary
was variable with a maximum length of expansion of approximately 0.25 miles. Expansion along the
downgradient NEB plume boundary was similarly variable with a maximum expansion of approximately
0.31 miles. Despite these changes, the downgradient extent of the SWMU-58 plume remains approximately
0.5 miles or more from the GWMA boundary established in the GWMA Plan, and TCE has not been detected
at a concentration greater than 1 µg/L in any sentinel wells.
2.3.2 Concentration Trend Assessment
A Mann-Kendall concentration trend assessment of individual wells in the main and NEB plumes was
previously presented in the GWMA Plan. The assessment found that most analyzed wells within the main
and NEB plumes exhibited either increasing or stable trends, which suggested that the plumes were still
expanding as of 2010 but were possibly approaching a state of equilibrium. An updated and expanded trend
analysis based on recent monitoring results is presented in this section.
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
4
As recommended by the GWMA Plan, concentration trends at SWMU-58 are evaluated regularly to monitor
and quantify plume dynamics. Statistical trend analysis procedures have been developed for SWMU-58 that
assess concentration changes in both individual wells and plume regions. Select individual wells are
assessed using the Mann-Kendall test to assess whether statistically significant trends are present, while
trends in different regions of SWMU-58 are assessed with the Regional Kendall test, a variation of the
Mann-Kendall test that utilizes data from multiple wells. The Regional Kendall test analyzes a subset of wells
that have been grouped into the following regions: sanitary landfill source area, industrial source area
(BRAC parcel sources), main plume toe, NEB plume centerline, and NEB plume toe. To assess the rate of
concentration change, the Sen-Theil slope is calculated for concentrations in individual wells, while its
equivalent, the Regional Kendall slope, is calculated for different regions of the plume. To assess trends
associated with current site conditions where the SVE and AS systems are operational, the range of data
used in the analysis was limited from the latest sampling event before the SVE and AS systems became
substantially operational to June 2021. Trend results from the most recent annual groundwater monitoring
report (Brice 2022b) are summarized below, and trends in individual wells are shown on Figure 2-1.
Additional information on the statistical methods and results is presented in the Annual Groundwater
Monitoring Report (Brice 2022b).
Sanitary Landfill TCE Trend Results
Trend results for the Sanitary Landfill provide a strong indication that TCE concentrations in the region are
decreasing. The Regional Kendall test result indicates there is a statistically significant decreasing trend. Five
of the seven individual wells in the region also had statistically significant decreasing concentration trends
for TCE, while one had a statistically significant increasing trend, and one had no significant trend. The
calculated Regional Kendall Slope suggests TCE concentrations in the region are decreasing at a rate of
approximately 1.9 µg/L per year (Brice 2022b). These results suggest the SVE and AS remediation systems
are working as intended and effectively reducing the mass of TCE in the Sanitary Landfill source area.
Industrial Source Area TCE Trend Results
Trend results for the Industrial Source Area provide a strong indication that TCE concentrations in the region
are decreasing. The Regional Kendall test result indicates there is a statistically significant decreasing trend.
Six of the eight individual wells in the region also had statistically significant decreasing concentration trends
for TCE, while two had no significant trends. The calculated Regional Kendall Slope suggests TCE
concentrations in the region are decreasing at a rate of approximately 6.2 µg/L per year (Brice 2022b). These
results suggest the SVE and AS remediation systems are working as intended and are effectively reducing
the mass of TCE in the Industrial Source Area.
Main Plume Toe TCE Trend Results
Trend results for the main plume toe indicate that TCE concentrations in the area are increasing slightly.
The Regional Kendall test result indicates there is a statistically significant increasing trend. Three of the five
individual wells in the region also had statistically significant increasing concentration trends for TCE, while
two had no significant trends. The calculated Regional Kendall Slope suggests TCE concentrations in the
region are increasing at a rate of approximately 0.5 µg/L per year (Brice 2022b). These results suggest that
TCE concentrations are increasing slightly at the toe of the main plume due to advective and diffusive
transport. It also suggests that the reduction in source zone strength due to SVE and AS operation has not
yet influenced concentrations in the distal portion of the main plume.
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
5
NEB Plume Centerline TCE Trend Results
Trend results for the NEB Plume Centerline provide a strong indication that TCE concentrations in the region
are decreasing. The Regional Kendall test result indicates there is a statistically significant decreasing trend.
Six of the nine individual wells in the region also had statistically significant decreasing concentration trends
for TCE, one had an increasing trend, and two had no significant trends. The calculated Regional Kendall
Slope suggests TCE concentrations in the region are decreasing at a rate of approximately 6.3 µg/L per year
(Brice 2022b). These results suggest the SVE and AS remediation systems are working as intended and
effectively reducing the mass of TCE in the NEB plume source area. The reduction in source zone strength
augmented by natural attenuation has also caused downgradient TCE concentrations to decrease along the
NEB plume centerline into the mid-plume area.
NEB Plume Toe TCE Trend Results
Trend results for the NEB plume toe indicate that TCE concentrations in the area are increasing slightly. The
Regional Kendall test result indicates there is a statistically significant increasing trend. Three of the five
individual wells in the region also had statistically significant increasing concentration trends for TCE, while
two had no significant trends. The calculated Regional Kendall Slope suggests TCE concentrations in the
region are increasing at a rate of approximately 0.2 µg/L per year (Brice 2022b). These results suggest TCE
concentrations are increasing slightly at the toe of the NEB Plume due to advective and diffusive transport.
It also suggests that the reduction in source zone strength due to SVE and AS operation has not yet
influenced concentrations in the distal portion of the NEB plume.
2.3.3 Groundwater Model Assessment
As required by the PCP, the TEAD-N groundwater model is updated annually and has been refined
significantly since the GWMA Plan was prepared. The most recent model was updated based on water level
and analytical data collected in 2019 {Hydrologic Engineering Center [HEC] et al. 2021). A detailed history
of the model's development is included in Appendix A of the most recent groundwater modeling report
(HEC et al. 2021). Notable changes to the model since the GWMA Plan was prepared include an increased
focus on matching conditions at the leading edge of the plume, incorporation of TCE decay to better match
observed conditions, use of transient water levels from data loggers for model calibration, and
development of probabilistic predictive analysis to assess future plume migration.
For long-term management purposes, the model outputs a probabilistic predictive analysis, which provides
the likelihood that the plume will expand beyond the GWMA boundary over a given period of time. The
analysis is performed by varying the model parameters within plus or minus 20 percent{%) of their mean
values to create parameter probability distributions. Uncertainty in model parameters is propagated to
model predictions via Monte Carlo analysis, wherein a set of parameter values (a realization) is randomly
selected from the parameter probability distributions. The groundwater model is then run for the
realization, and the process is repeated multiple times to determine the distribution of possible outcomes
given the established uncertainty. For the 2021 groundwater model, 400 model parameter realizations
were sampled, which was demonstrated to provide a statistically robust analysis. The TEAD-N groundwater
flow and transport model was run into the future from a January 2020 starting condition for each of the
400 unique realizations of calibrated model input parameter values. For each run, the maximum
concentrations along the GWMA in the main plume and NEB plume areas was recorded at various
timepoints. The distribution of maximum concentrations was then assessed to determine the likelihood
that the TCE concentration exceeded 5 µg/L along the GWMA boundary after 6 years (December 2025),
8 years (December 2027), 10 years (December 2029), 12 years (December 2031), and 15 years (December
2034) of prediction.
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
6
Cumulative probability distributions resulting from the probabilistic analysis are presented on Figures 2-2
and 2-3 for the GWMA boundary beyond the NEB and main plumes, respectively. The cumulative likelihood
curves suggest there is 100% likelihood that concentrations remain below 5 µg/L at the GWMA boundary
downgradient of the NEB plume through at least 2034. Downgradient of the main plume, there is 100%
likelihood that concentrations remain below 5 µg/L at the GWMA boundary through 2027. This likelihood
decreases to 98% through 2029, 90% through 2031, and 60% through 2034. Collectively, these results
suggest there is minimal likelihood of concentrations exceeding 5 µg/L at the downgradient GWMA
boundary in the next 10 years or more.
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
7
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
This page intentionally blank
8
3.0 UPDATED GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT AREA PLAN
This section presents the elements that constitute the Updated GWMA Plan for SMWU-58. These elements
include:
1. Identification of potential receptors (Section 3.1)
2. A groundwater monitoring program (Section 3.2)
3. A groundwater modeling program (Section 3.3)
4. Delineation of GWMA boundary and groundwater development restrictions (Section 3.4)
5. Actions to be taken based on detections and exceedances at sentinel wells (Section 3.5)
6. A contingency plan for supply wells impacted by contamination (Section 3.6)
7. A community involvement program (Section 3.7)
Where applicable, these elements have been updated from the GWMA Plan. Each element is discussed
individually in the following subsections.
3.1 Identification of Potential Receptors
3.1.1 Water Well Survey
To assess current and future exposure risks to potential well users, a water well and water rights survey
was conducted previously in the GWMA Plan. The water well and water rights survey identified wells within
a 2-mile radius ofthe 5-µg/L TCE plume boundary. This analysis used the 2008 TCE plume boundary (shown
on Figure 2-1) to develop a 2-mile buffer surrounding the plume. As discussed in Section 2.3.1, the plume
boundary has expanded somewhat since this analysis was performed. Additionally, water wells have been
installed and abandoned since the original analysis was performed. Due to these changes, an updated water
well survey was performed in February 2022 using the Utah DWR on line Water Rights database (Utah DWR
2022). The database was used to identify water wells with active underground water rights within 2 miles
of the current plume boundary. Identified wells are summarized in Table 3-1 along with their associated
water right number(s), well identification number (WIN), coordinates, depth, use, and other relevant
information. In a few instances, a well has been approved for a certain location, but it is unclear from
available information whether the well has been installed. These wells were conservatively retained in the
search and their unclear statuses are noted in Table 3-1. Additionally, some wells (particularly older wells)
have not been assigned WINs but exist and are active according to available records.
In addition to a well's position relative to the current plume, the well depths included in Table 3-1 provide
a general indication of how susceptible a given well is to future contamination. Contaminated groundwater
near the downgradient portions of the SWMU-58 plume is typically present under unconfined conditions
at depths of 250 feet or less. A review of well driller logs downgradient of the plume indicates wells greater
than 250 feet are generally screened within one or more confined water-bearing units with artesian
conditions. The artesian conditions observed in these wells make them unlikely to be impacted by the
shallower contamination. This is because they are separated from the contamination by one or more
low-permeability confining units, and there is an upward vertical hydraulic gradient between the
unconfined and confined units that prevents downward groundwater flow. As a general guideline, wells
deeper than approximately 250 feet will be at a lower risk of contamination, although the depth of
contamination and confining units is variable, and well construction in deeper wells may allow for
communication with the shallower unconfined unit. For interpretive purposes, water wells have been
categorized as being shallower or deeper than 250 feet in the figures presented in the following sections.
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
9
In total, 12 water wells were identified within 1 mile of the current plume boundary, and 195 water wells
were identified within 2 miles of the plume boundary (Figure 3-1). No new wells within the GWMA boundary
were identified; however, the GWMA Plan had previously identified 7 water wells within 1 mile of the 2008
plume boundary and 119 water wells within 2 miles. The increase in identified wells results from a slight
expansion of the 1-and 2-mile buffer zone boundaries, installation of new wells since 2010, and most
significantly, inclusion of wells without WINs in the updated survey. The previous survey methodology did
not include water wells without WINs; however, the updated survey includes 62 wells within 2 miles of the
plume that do not have WINs but do have an active water right.
As reported in the DWR database, each identified well has one or more approved use categories including
domestic, municipal, irrigation, stock, and commercial/industrial. Wells are discussed in the sections below
and shown on Figures 3-2 through 3-5 based on use category. Note that a single well may have multiple
approved uses.
3.1.1.1 Domestic and Municipal Use Wells
As defined by the DWR, domestic use includes water used for inside household purposes only such as
drinking, preparing food, bathing, laundry, and brushing teeth. These wells are not connected to a municipal
supply system and are generally privately owned. Municipal use includes water used by a municipality
within its municipal limits and/or service area. Municipal water is distributed through a public water
conveyance system to residential, industrial, and commercial users for drinking and various other uses.
Thus, both types of wells provide potable water that is suitable for consumption, making them a potentially
significant exposure pathway. TEAD-N is supplied with two wells that have a domestic use designation.
These wells are essentially municipal wells but are categorized by the Utah DWR as having a domestic use
because they do not serve a public water supply.
Wells approved for domestic and municipal uses located within 2 miles of the current plume boundary are
shown on Figure 3-2. There are 115 domestic use wells and 12 municipal use wells within 2 miles of the
current plume boundary. However, only three domestic use wells and five municipal use wells are located
within 1 mile of the plume boundary, and none are located within the GWMA boundary. Because all wells
used for drinking water are located outside of the GWMA boundary, no domestic or municipal users have
the potential to be exposed to contaminant concentrations greater than residential RBCs, discussed in
Section 3.1.2.
3.1.1.2 Irrigation Use Wells
The irrigation use category includes both wells used to irrigate agricultural crops and to water lawns and
gardens. Many wells supplying a single household are approved for both domestic and irrigation use. Wells
approved for irrigation use located within 2 miles of the current plume boundary are shown on Figure 3-3.
There are 155 wells approved for irrigation use within 2 miles of the current plume boundary, but only four
are within 1 mile of the plume. No irrigation wells are within the GWMA boundary. Because all irrigation
wells are outside of the GWMA boundary, the potential for contamination to reach these wells is low.
3.1.1.3 Stock Use Wells
The stock use category includes wells used for watering cattle and other stock animals. The number of
animals served by a given well ranges from less than 10 to several hundred or more. Wells approved for
stock use located within 2 miles of the current plume boundary are shown on Figure 3-4. There are 122 wells
approved for stock use within 2 miles of the current plume boundary, but only four are within 1 mile of the
plume. Two stock wells are located within the GWMA boundary but are outside of the plume. These include
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
10
well (WIN) 20819 (Cassidy Well), which is 117 feet deep and located approximately 0.5 miles downgradient
of the NEB plume, and well 2367, which is 260 feet deep and located approximately 0.4 miles downgradient
of the main plume. Both wells are used for stock watering only and were previously identified in the GWMA
Plan. Given their distance from the plume, the likelihood of contamination reaching these wells in the near
term is low.
3.1.1.4 Commercial and Industrial Use Wells
In addition to the categories discussed above, a few wells in the vicinity of TEAD-N have uses related to
commercial and industrial activities that are categorized as "other" in the DWR database. In most cases,
these wells are not used for drinking or are also approved for domestic use. Six wells with
commercial/industrial use are within 2 miles of the current plume boundary, and three are within 1 mile of
the plume (Figure 3-5). One well (WIN 9549) is located within the plume itself at a gravel mining pit and was
previously identified in the GWMA Plan. Based on an interview of a gravel facility representative by the
DWR in 2007 and water-use records submitted by the facility to the DWR in 2019, the well is used as a
non-potable water supply for restrooms and other general uses associated with the gravel pit operation
(e.g., dust control and gravel washing) (DWR 2022). According to the well log provided in the DWR database,
well 9549 is screened from 243 to 263 feet below ground surface, and multiple clay intervals were observed
during drilling. Despite the presence of clay layers, the static water level at the time of well installation was
221 feet below ground surface, which suggests the well is not artesian and has the potential to be impacted
by the TCE plume. Based on the location of the well within the plume, contaminant concentrations in the
well likely exceed Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) (Section 3.1.2); however, it is not used as a drinking
water source. As discussed in Section 3.1.2, other possible exposure pathways including dermal contact and
inhalation are considered insignificant.
The remaining two wells within 1 mile of the plume are WW-1 (WIN 2603) and WW3 (WIN 2618), which are
owned and operated by TEAD and are located upgradient of the plume. Both WW-1 and WW3 are also
approved for domestic and irrigation uses.
3.1.2 Risk Assessment Summary and Groundwater Risk-Based Concentrations
The designated well uses summarized in Section 3.1.1 are fundamental for evaluating risk to potential
receptors because exposure risk varies based on use. Detailed assessments of potential exposure pathways
at TEAD-N were presented in the SWMU-58 Risk Assumptions Document (Parsons 2005) and the Human
Risk Assessment (HRA) in the Phase II RFI (Parsons 2008). For groundwater, ingestion by future residents
and ingestion by future industrial workers were determined to be the only potentially significant exposure
pathways; therefore, wells with domestic and municipal uses are of primary concern for identifying
potential receptors. Conversely, the following exposure pathways were assessed and determined to be
incomplete or insignificant:
• Dermal contact and inhalation of contaminants of concern (COCs) during domestic use of
groundwater
• Inhalation of COCs volatilized from groundwater into outdoor or indoor air
• Ingestion of fruits and vegetables irrigated with groundwater
• Ingestion of meat and dairy products from cattle ingesting groundwater
• Ingestion of meat and dairy products from cattle exposed to COCs volatilized from groundwater
into outdoor air
• Inhalation of COCs volatilized from groundwater used as stock water
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
11
• Inhalation of COCs volatilized from impacted groundwater used for industrial processes
Because these potential exposure pathways are insignificant or incomplete, irrigation, stock, and
non-consumptive commercial/industrial groundwater uses are not considered a significant exposure
concern.
As a management tool for evaluating risk from groundwater ingestion to future residents and industrial
workers, the GWMA Plan developed RBCs for groundwater ingestion using standard U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) methods and input assumptions from the Human Risk Assessment (Parsons 2008).
If ingested, groundwater concentrations greater than RBCs pose unacceptable cancer risks and/or non-
cancer hazards to residential and industrial users. For residential groundwater ingestion, RBCs are
equivalent to EPA MCLs. Drinking water MCLs for TCE, PCE, and CTC are all equal to 5 µg/L and have not
changed since the GWMA Plan was prepared. The GWMA Plan also includes less restrictive industrial RBCs
calculated in accordance with Utah Administrative Code R315-101-5.2(b) and R315-101-6(d) that are
applicable for determining whether corrective action is required in non-residential land-use areas (DSHW
2013). The industrial RBCs in the GWMA Plan are now out of date; however, TEAD has previously noted
that unrestricted exposure to groundwater with concentrations above MCLs poses an unacceptable risk,
and that it intends to control use of all groundwater with concentrations above MCLs (Parsons 2005).
Consequently, the potential actions to be taken if contamination reaches sentinel wells are based on
residential RBCs, discussed further in Section 3.6.
3.2 Groundwater Monitoring Approach
As established in the GWMA Plan, the objectives of groundwater monitoring for the GWMA are to:
• Evaluate movement of TCE at the toe and downgradient of the margins ofthe main and NEB
plumes
• Identify areas where contamination may impact drinking water wells
An extensive compliance groundwater monitoring program has been established at TEAD-N that fulfills
these objectives in addition to monitoring natural attenuation in the diffuse portion of the plume.
Compliance monitoring is conducted to fulfill monitoring requirements specified in Module V of the PCP
(TEAD 2017) and implemented through the CMIP Plan for Groundwater (Parsons 2014) and the current
UFP-QAPP (Brice 2022a). Additional remedy monitoring unrelated to permit compliance and the GWMA is
also conducted to evaluate progress at individual AS and SVE systems.
The compliance monitoring portion of the current monitoring program is summarized in the following
sections. Full details of the program are presented in the UFP-QAPP (Brice 2022a).
3.2.1 Compliance Monitoring Program
3.2.1.1 Program Overview
Compliance groundwater monitoring at SWMU-58 is conducted semi-annually at the locations shown on
Figure 3-6. Forty-three wells are sampled semi-annually in the spring and fall, and an additional 75 wells are
sampled annually during the fall only. Spring sampling typically occurs in April and fall sampling typically
occurs in October. Wells are sampled using HydraSleeve samplers, and water quality field parameters
including pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen, specific conductance, and oxidation-reduction potential are
also collected. Samples are analyzed for a limited list of VOCs that includes TCE, PCE, and CTC.
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
12
Sampling locations at SWMU-58 were selected to provide full delineation of the voe plume and fulfill the
GWMA monitoring objectives. Fourteen sentinel wells at or beyond the GWMA boundary are sampled
semi-annually to identify contamination and ensure it does not impact drinking water wells. These wells
include D-11, D-21, and D-22, which were proposed in the GWMA Plan to define the GWMA boundary and
have now been installed. A total of 17 wells located near or beyond the downgradient margins of the main
and NEB plumes are also sampled semi-annually (10 wells) or annually (7 wells) to evaluate downgradient
plume movement. Additional wells are sampled throughout the source and distal areas of the plume to
provide full plume delineation.
In addition to groundwater sampling, extensive water level gauging is conducted in conjunction with the
groundwater sampling events to determine groundwater flow directions and support development and
calibration of the TEAD-N groundwater model (Section 3.3). Approximately 274 wells are gauged annually
in the spring and fall using an electronic water level meter (Figure 3-7).
Compliance monitoring results are reported annually in groundwater monitoring reports. These reports
include data evaluation and trend analysis, discussed in the following sections. No substantial changes to
the compliance monitoring program are anticipated at this time, and monitoring results will continue to be
reported annually.
3.2.1.2 Data Analysis
Evaluation and Mitigation of Risk to Downgradient Receptors
Following each sampling event, analytical results from the sentinel wells are reviewed for TCE detections.
If TCE is detected in a sentinel well at concentrations above 1 µg/L or 5 µg/L, additional actions (outlined in
Section 3.6) will occur, which are designed to mitigate risk to downgradient receptors.
Evaluation of Plume Movement
An evaluation of plume movement at TEAD-N is included in the annual groundwater monitoring reports.
The evaluation includes generation of TCE concentration time-series plots and statistical analysis.
Concentration trends are assessed using Mann-Kendall and Regional Kendall tests to identify statistically
significant trends in individual wells and in different plume regions, including the toes of the main and NEB
plumes. Statistically significant trends are evaluated using the Sen-Theil non-parametric slope estimator to
quantify the rates of concentration change. The results of the statistical data are used to assess whether
the diffuse portion of the plume is expanding and if downgradient groundwater users may be impacted in
the future.
3.3 Groundwater Modeling Approach
Groundwater modeling predictions are used to inform the groundwater management strategy at TEAD-N
and assess the likelihood of future plume migration beyond the GWMA boundary. As discussed in
Section 2.3.3, the TEAD-N groundwater model is currently updated annually and has been refined
significantly since the GWMA Plan was prepared. Following each update, model results are presented in a
groundwater modeling report. Notable changes to the model since the GWMA Plan was prepared include
an increased focus on matching conditions at the leading edge of the plume, incorporation of TCE decay to
better match observed conditions, use of transient water levels from data loggers for model calibration,
and development of probabilistic predictive analysis to assess future plume migration. The probabilistic
predictive analysis is a very powerful tool for assessing future risk to groundwater users outside of the
GWMA boundary because it provides the likelihood that the plume will expand beyond the GWMA
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
13
boundary over givens periods of time. Recent modeling results suggest plume migration beyond the GWMA
boundary is unlikely for the next 10 or more years.
Groundwater model updates and reports will continue to be prepared as necessary to meet requirements
specified in the PCP. lffuture monitoring results suggest that plume migration beyond the GWMA boundary
is likely, changes to GWMA or groundwater management strategy may be necessary.
3.4 SWMU-58 Groundwater Management Area and Institutional Controls
3.4.1 GWMA Boundary Delineation
The GWMA was initially defined in the Interim Plan and consisted of the off-Depot portion of the NEB plume
and a surrounding buffer zone between the plume boundary and several sentinel monitoring wells
(Figure 3-8). In the GWMA Plan, the GWMA was expanded to include the NEB and main plumes in their
entirety, the entire BRAC parcel, and an expanded buffer zone downgradient of the plume boundary
defined by additional sentinel wells. In general, minimal modification of the GWMA boundary is required
based on the current extent of the SWMU-58 plume. Although the plume has expanded somewhat since
the GWMA boundary in the GWMA Plan was adopted, the downgradient plume boundary remains well
within the buffer zone and remains protective of downgradient water users. The only portion of the GWMA
requiring updating is the western border in the vicinity of monitoring well B-30. This portion of the GWMA
boundary was defined by the 2008 plume boundary in the GWMA Plan; however, the plume has since
expanded slightly to the west. To encompass the entire plume, it is proposed that the GWMA boundary be
expanded westward to pass through well B-18 but otherwise remain unchanged. The proposed update to
the GWMA boundary is shown on Figure 3-8. The new area included in the GWMA would be located entirely
within the TEAD-N boundary and is occupied by munitions igloos.
3.4.2 Institutional Controls
A variety of institutional controls are in place within the GWMA boundary to prevent exposure to
contaminated groundwater. Applicable restrictions vary depending on the location within the GWMA.
These restrictions are summarized by area in the following sections.
3.4.2.1 BRAC Parcel
Existing groundwater use and development restrictions for the BRAC parcel are contained within the
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions {CCRs) dated 18 December 1998 (included in Appendix B of the
GWMA Plan). Section 6.3 of Article VI of that document prohibits access to or extraction of any
groundwater, or the injection of materials into the aquifer for the purpose of economic development, with
the following exception: water may be accessed from any existing potable water well located within the
BRAC parcel. The aforementioned CCRs apply to the entire BRAC parcel with the exception of the
Consolidated Maintenance Facility (CMF), which was transferred separately and prior to the remainder of
the BRAC parcel.
Groundwater use restrictions for the CMF are contained within Enclosure 11 (Deed Restrictions -
Environmental Protection) of "the Findings of Suitability to Transfer" document dated July 1996 (included
in Appendix C of the GWMA Plan). Language in that document states that there shall be no disturbance of
the subsurface or groundwater without prior written approval of the government. This language is not as
strong as that contained in the CCRs for the BRAC parcel. However, the effect is the same: to prohibit any
development and use of groundwater within the CMF property, as the Army will not consent to any
proposals to that would disturb the aquifer. Language from the CMF conveyance document and the BRAC
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
14
CCRs that pertains solely to groundwater management is included in Appendix D of the GWMA Plan.
Businesses within the BRAC parcel, including the CMF, currently obtain their water from Tooele City. The
nearest municipal wells are situated directly east of the BRAC parcel and upgradient of the plumes
(Figure 3-2).
3.4.2.2 2004 and 2010 GWMA Boundaries
The Interim Plan recommended amending the State of Utah's Tooele Valley Ground-Water Management
Plan (Utah DWR 1996) to restrict water resource development within the 2004 GWMA boundary (shown
on Figure 3-8). The Tooele Valley Ground-Water Management Plan was subsequently amended to prohibit
installation of culinary water wells within the 2004 GWMA boundary unless it was demonstrated that the
water could be used without adverse impacts to human health or the plume containment and cleanup
program (Utah DWR 2004). The GWMA Plan recommended petitioning the Utah Water Rights Engineer to
expand the area with water development restrictions to match the expanded GWMA boundary. However,
it appears that this petition was not completed, and the area with water development restrictions remains
the same as the 2004 GWMA boundary, shown on Figure 3-8. Upon acceptance ofthis GWMA Plan Update,
it is recommended that the Utah Water Rights Engineer be petitioned to expand water development
restrictions to the proposed GWMA boundary.
3.4.2.3 TEAD-N
There are currently no specific provisions within the TEAD-N Master Plan that address groundwater
management on the installation (Johnson, pers. Comm., 2022). The currently established TEAD-N dig
(excavation) permit system serves as the de facto mechanism to prevent future groundwater development
and use within the facility. Requests for permits must be approved by all TEAD departments before issuance
for any activities that would result in subsurface disturbance. Portions of TEAD-N included in the GWMA
could have additional groundwater use restrictions in the future if a petition is approved by the Utah Water
Rights Engineer to update the restricted area from the 2004 GWMA boundary to the proposed GWMA
boundary. It is also recommended that groundwater development and use restrictions be established for
the TEAD-N Environmental Management System. The latter is an integral component ofthe TEAD-N Master
Plan.
3.5 Actions Based on Detections and Exceedances at Sentinel Wells
This GWMA Plan Update specifies actions that will be taken ifTCE detections or residential RBC exceedances
are identified in the sentinel wells located downgradient of the SWMU-58 plume. A specific corrective
action has not been designated if an exceedance is identified as this will be based on risk, which will vary
depending on where the detection has occurred. However, general actions to be taken if TCE is detected
above a concentration of 1 µg/L or the TCE RBC for residential groundwater ingestion of 5 µg/L have been
established. The initial trigger value for action is set at 1 µg/L to provide sufficient time to develop an
appropriate response prior to concentrations reaching the residential RBC of 5 µg/L.
If TCE is detected above 1 µg/L in a sentinel well for the first time, TEAD will take the following actions:
1. Notify DSHW within 7 days of receiving validated data confirming the presence of TCE.
2. Continue monitoring the sentinel well having the detectable TCE.
3. Evaluate whether additional action is required.
If TCE is detected above 5 µg/L, TEAD will take the following actions:
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
15
1. Submit to the DSHW a variance to this GWMA Plan Update within 90 days of receiving validated
data. The variance will include a reevaluation of the pertinent monitoring data to determine if
there has been a change in the current conceptual groundwater and contaminant transport
model, reevaluate human health and environmental risks, and provide specific changes to the
GWMAPlan.
2. If there is not an existing downgradient well, install a new downgradient sentinel well (if feasible).
3. Evaluate the closest water wells downgradient from the impacted sentinel well. Preliminary
information for these wells will be obtained from the Utah DWR well database and will be
confirmed by interviews with the well owners. Information to be evaluated include:
a. Use(s) of the groundwater (i.e., potable, stock irrigation, etc.)
b. Construction and operation parameters, including screened interval(s), pumping rate,
pumping schedule, and pump depths
c. Groundwater sampling results, if available
4. Use evaluation criteria in Item 3 to identify the downgradient wells that are at highest risk for
contamination and determine if monitoring for any of those wells is warranted. Wells with
domestic or municipal uses would be considered the highest risk because they are used for
drinking.
5. Develop a contingency plan for downgradient users whose groundwater is at high risk of being
impacted by the migrating TCE contamination.
The approach described above will focus on wells with the highest risk of being impacted in the future.
This plan provides ample time for TEAD to develop appropriate responses in conjunction with the DSHW
to mitigate any impacts to potential receptors.
3.6 Contingency Plan for Wells Impacted by TCE
If a downgradient domestic well user is determined to be impacted by the SWMU-58 TCE Plume, a
contingency plan will be developed for the well user. The plan will outline the actions needed to provide
the user with long-term clean water for domestic use should the TCE concentration in a user's well(s) exceed
the MCL of 5 µg/L for TCE. Possible actions to meet this objective could include wellhead treatment,
installation of a filtration/treatment system at the tap, installation of a new water supply well, conveyance
via pipeline of clean water from a nearby non-impacted well, or periodic delivery combined with onsite
storage of potable water. In the short-term, TEAD will supply drinking water (such as bottled water) to
replace the impacted well water. For wells characterized by mixed use, such as irrigation and domestic,
treatment at the tap might be most cost-effective. A specific plan would be developed for each user and
domestic use well.
3.7 Community Involvement Program
After the GWMA Plan Update has been approved by DSHW, TEAD will meet with the state, county, and
municipal stakeholders to present the GWMA Plan update. Stakeholders include the Utah DWR, Tooele
City, Tooele County, and the Tooele County Health Department, as well as residents of the Erda area that
may potentially be affected.
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
16
4.0 REFERENCES
Brice Engineering, LLC (Brice). 2022a. Uniform Federal Policy-Quality Assurance Project Plan, Tooele
Army Depot North, Utah. February.
Brice. 2022b. Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report, Tooele Army Depot North . Final. March.
Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste (DSHW). 2003. Re: Interim Remedial Action, SWMU 58, Tooele
Army Depot, Utah. Letter from Dennis Downs, DSHW, to Tom Turner, TEAD, dated 28 July 2003 .
DSHW. 2013 . Administrative Rules for Cleanup Action and Risk-Based Closure Standards . Utah
Department of Environmental Quality. R315-101, Utah Administrative Code. Effective 25 April
2013.
Johnson , Troy. 2022. Personal communication regarding existing restrictions on groundwater
development and use within TEAD. 8 March.
Parsons. 2004. Groundwater Management Area Plan -Northeast Boundary Plume. Tooele Army Depot,
Tooele, Utah. March.
Parsons. 2005. SWMU-58 Risk Assumptions Document, Revision 1, Tooele Army Depot, Tooele, Utah.
July.
Parsons. 2008. Phase II RCRA Facility Investigation Report, SWMU-58, Tooele Army Depot, Tooele, Utah .
December.
Parsons. 2010. Groundwater Management Area Plan, SWMU-58 Plume. August.
Parsons . 2012. Corrective Measures Study Report, Tooele Army Depot, Tooele, Utah . June .
Parsons . 2014. Corrective Measures Implementation Program Plan for Groundwater. April.
Tooele Army Depot (TEAD). 2017. Utah Hazardous Waste Post-Closure Permit for Post-Closure
Monitoring and Corrective Action of Solid Waste Management Units for Tooele Army Depot,
Tooele, Utah . November.
USACE Hydrologic Engineering Center, Tetra Tech, and Brice. 2021. Tooele Army Depot Groundwater
Flow and Contaminant Transport Model Report (2021). December.
Utah Department of Natural Resources Division of Water Rights (DWR). 1996. Tooele Valley Ground-
Water Management Plan. 27 February 1996.
Utah DWR. 2004. Amendment to Tooele Valley Ground-Water Management Plan. Letter to Water Users
from Jerry D. Olds, State Engineer. 21 September 2004.
Utah DWR. 2022. Water Rights Database . Available online at
https://waterrights.utah.gov/wrinfo/guery.asp . Accessed 17 February 2022 .
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
17
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
Tooele Army Depot North, Utah
This page intentionally blank
18
TABLES
This page intentionally blank
WIN 1
WATER
LATITUDE3
RIGHT{s)2
19 15-3314 40 .602558
74 15-3097 40.602601
728 15-3339 40.584657
1333 15-3113 40.601707
1513 15-3038 40.603498
1514 15-3361 40.595719
2039 15-799 40 .601037
2367 15-3148 40.572588
2603 15-310 40.508403
2618 15-377 40.520230
2672 15-2646 40 .542955
2801 15-321 40.522980
2864 15-321 40.519498
4882 15-3380 40.594765
5922 15-413 40.594008
6038 15-3141 40.588487
6301 15-2974 40.595896
7232 15-383 40 .600865
7518 15-3484 40.596289
7618 15-3469 40.593091
8233 15-2178 40.524082
8474 15-3499 40.593047
8558
15-3483, 15-40.596420
4171
8579 15-3350 40 .604107
8849 15-3130 40.592933
9137 15-3519 40 .604581
9290 15-729 40.601550
9537 15-3019 40.595849
9541 15-1704 40.589886
9549 15-3037 40.552767
9621
15-3564, 15-
40.592268 3837
10337
15-3840, 15-
4810
40.592138
10571 15-3622 40.592822
11015 15-3420 40.597738
11274 15-3189, 15-
3916 40.593208
Table3-1
Water Wells Within 2 Miles of SWMU-58 Plume Boundary
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
LONGITUDE 3 DEPTH (feet) USE
-112.355742 235 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112 .356265 474 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.411764 177 Irrigation and Domestic
-112.320391 218 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.355931 414 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.393669 170 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.332590 250 Irrigation and Stock
-112 .386908 260 Stock
-112.351129 763 Irrigation, Domestic, and
Industrial
-112.346321 700 Irrigation, Domestic, and
Industrial
-112 .392751 430 Stock
-112 .306861 589 Municipal
-112 .330558 1025 Municipal
-112 .391315 365 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112 .357318 325 Irrigation
-112.417621 188 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112 .354827 140 Irrigation and Domestic
-112 .366164 650 Irrigation and Domestic
-112 .393533 100 Irrigation and Domestic
-112 .304524 125 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.329047 1000 Municipal
-112.308420 217 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.391105 400 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.355743 315 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112 .310758 260 Irrigation and Stock
-112 .356304 374 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.352689 379 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.390661 123 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.418394 131 Irrigation
-112.345555 264 Other
-112 .307604 191 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.306216 207 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.312287 190 Irrigation and Domestic
-112 .341683 600 Stock
-112.322330 240 Irrigation
NOTES
Within GWMA boundary.
Depot supply well WW-1. Within 1 mile of plume
boundarv.
Depot supply well WW3 . Within 1 mile of plume
boundarv.
Depot stock well. Within 1 mile of plume
boundarv.
Well No.5
Well No. 8. Within 1 mile of plume boundary.
Within 1 mile of plume boundary.
Well No. 7. Within 1 mile of plume boundary.
Used for restrooms and gravel pit operations.
Within plume and GWMA boundaries.
Page 1 of6
WIN 1
WATER
LATITUDE3
RIGHT{s)2
11503 15-3579 40 .604990
11763 15-3516 40.606487
12187 15-618 40 .603112
12568 15-3658 40.607623
12619 15-2833 40.564179
12715 15-418 40.597954
12716 15-885 40.599418
12717 15-1229 40.600559
12730 15-750 40 .602012
12731 15-1931 40 .595057
12732 15-1927 40 .600970
12733 15-441 40 .600757
12819 15-507 40.594128
12820 15-1954 40.595513
12823 15-2347 40.597023
12843 15-3024 40 .601740
12844 15-1683 40 .604212
12845 15-2488, 15-40 .608129 3707
12847 15-1771 40.599794
13100 15-3657, 15-40 .606031 3717
13956 15-3649, 15-40 .606680
3651
14546 15-3623 40.592852
14556 15-3585 40 .604844
14575 15-3640 40.591768
14702 15-3566 40 .602564
15763 15-3727 40.592033
17202 15-3588 40.593403
17212 15-3902 40.592034
17247 15-3625 40.593165
18697
15-3636, 15-
40.592327
4054
19017 15-3328 40.601717
20819 15-3664 40.587147
21264 15-4097 40.597540
21801 15-383 40 .601285
21902 15-3635 40.592114
Table3-1
Water Wells Within 2 Miles of SWMU-58 Plume Boundary
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
LONGITUDE 3 DEPTH (feet) USE
-112.358349 273 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112 .359299 439 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112 .317648 250 Stock and Domestic
-112.356124 385 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.425815 210 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.343232 500 Irrigation and Stock
-112.338750 Domestic
-112 .342003 265 Stock and Domestic
-112.320217 316 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.315226 193 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.314040 320 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112 .323765 189 Stock
-112.390643 452 Irrigation and Stock
-112 .392293 251 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112 .391516 127 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112 .357858 323 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112 .358488 535 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112 .358622 495 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112 .378880 307 Irrigation and Stock
-112 .356741 370 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.355983 400 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.309870 280 Irrigation and Domestic
-112.355405 400 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.312039 240 Irrigation and Domestic
-112 .357356 390 Irrigation and Domestic
-112 .310931 139 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.307264 160 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.310161 156 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.304021 180 Irrigation and Domestic
-112.304999 201 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.334412 198 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.333276 117 Stock
-112.338646 459 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.362754 445 Irrigation and Domestic
-112.303993 180 Irrigation and Domestic
NOTES
Same as WIN 31310.
Cassity Well. Within GWMA boundary.
Page 2 of6
WIN 1
WATER
LATITUDE3
RIGHT{s)2
22516
15-3849, 15-
40.591965
5298
23326 15-321 40.528559
23625 15-4228 40.600691
23917 15-2349 40.597087
24411 15-390 40.603411
26343 15-4349 40 .600748
26952 15-1721 40.599964
27868 15-3883 40.601803
28152 15-4002 40.522592
28547 15-2178 40 .513926
28643 15-4348 40 .601721
29486 15-4347 40 .603866
29604 15-4345 40 .603018
29962 15-4346 40 .603392
29981 15-412 40 .600730
30139 15-360 40 .601182
30142 15-334, 15-40 .600757 3213
31037 15-4424 40 .601761
31208 15-372, 15-690, 40.594559 15-691
31209 15-372, 15-690 40.598303
31387 15-2465 40 .602025
31402 15-2496 40 .603516
31886 15-643 40.607149
31887 15-822 40.599477
33028 15-2382 40.601486
33134 15-1721 40.600199
33531 15-2178 40.531118
33536 15-2383 40.601896
33540 15-986 40 .602083
33974 15-1679 40 .603203
33990 15-2381 40.601911
34060 15-4521 40.601710
34829 15-4510 40 .600245
35200 15-3841 40.593063
35575 15-4600 40.594037
Table3-1
Water Wells Within 2 Miles of SWMU-58 Plume Boundary
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
LONGITUDE 3 DEPTH (feet) USE
-112.308664 182 Irrigation and Stock
-112 .327228 586 Municipal
-112 .377407 210 Domestic
-112.392758 385 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.350488 343 Irrigation and Stock
-112.355299 300 Irrigation and Other
-112.379602 220 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.317324 196 Domestic
-112.313449 580 Irrigation
-112.306955 920 Municipal
-112.337621 236 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.313888 301 Irrigation and Domestic
-112.313795 260 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112 .313810 333 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.371356 648 Irrigation and Stock
-112 .370933 650 Irrigation and Stock
-112.371331 645 Irrigation and Stock
-112 .324866 84 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.316042 225 Municipal
-112 .316477 400 Municipal
-112.342640 273 Irrigation and Stock
-112.357474 535 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.328087 452 Irrigation and Stock
-112.327613 437 Irrigation
-112 .343375 283 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112 .379700 223 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.304879 1120 Municipal
-112.343088 263 Irrigation and Stock
-112.327171 281 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.358367 533 Irrigation and Domestic
-112.343935 282 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.338298 238 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.356486 352 Irrigation
-112.305964 230 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.392442 380 Irrigation and Domestic
NOTES
Same as WIN 22515
Well No. 6. Within 1 mile of plume boundary.
Owned by Salt Lake City Corporation . Associated
with airstrip.
Used for fire station by employees and for truck
washinR/fillinR.
Well No. 14 (Anderson Well)
Same as WIN 30138
Same as WIN 11329
Owned by Salt Lake City Corporation. Associated
with airstrio.
Well No . 15 (England Acres Well)
Owned by Salt Lake City Corporation. Associated
with airstrio.
Page 3 of 6
WIN 1
WATER
LATITUDE3
RIGHT{s)2
427209 15-2811 40 .602275
427230 15-2214 40.594935
427261 15-554 40.601171
427262 15-459 40.601247
427648 15-1478 40.601540
427791 15-4327 40.597573 a29682
427796 15-959, 15-40 .601659 2412
428584 15-542 40.596954
428588 15-550 40 .601761
429395 15-4247 40 .600431
430714 15-728 40.597784
430727 15-420 40 .601435
431343 15-3399 40 .600263
433539 15-3298 40 .601247
435067 15-2566 40 .601713
435144 15-566, 15-649 40.599659
435565 15-3508, 15-40 .601652 3509
436568 15-2178 40.542033
436579 15-3045 40.595262
438284 15-1761 40 .601787
439818 15-3301 40.595048
440130 15-574, 15-40.597423 2568
440950 15-705, 15-40.601646
1140
441120 15-4153 40.602165
441782 15-3610 40.601837
443466 15-2178 40.557708
443673 15-719 40.600779
NA 15-1001 40.597972
NA 15-1062 40 .600469
NA 15-1093 40.597638
NA 15-1094 40.601575
NA 15-1094 40.601926
NA 15-1100 40.597758
NA 15-1102 40.597650
NA 15-2178 40.523904
Table3-1
Water Wells Within 2 Miles of SWMU-58 Plume Boundary
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
LONGITUDE 3 DEPTH (feet) USE
-112.313990 300 Irrigation and Stock
-112 .314302 180 Stock and Domestic
-112 .325971 220 Stock
-112.371013 100 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.353301 389 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.354652 346 Irrigation
-112.375615 620 Irrigation, Domestic, and Other
-112 .393547 143 Irrigation and Domestic
-112.324866 310 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.365701 225 Irrigation and Domestic
-112.340583 200 Irrigation
-112.323779 257 Irrigation
-112.342810 260 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112 .337468 46 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.333763 200 Irrigation and Domestic
-112.328499 300 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.332364 Unknown Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.305129 1000 Municipal
-112.392691 210 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.336899 300 Irrigation and Domestic
-112.393789 135 Irrigation and Domestic
-112.390624 525 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.332447 271 Irrigation and Stock
-112.314704 211 Irrigation
-112 .318650 185 Irrigation and Domestic
-112 .302531 850 Municipal
-112.340877 241 Irrigation and Domestic
-112.322834 150 Irrigation
-112.362514 145 Stock and Domestic
-112.338006 Unknown Stock
-112.341866 Unknown Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112 .341459 227 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.337162 204 Stock
-112.342165 200 Stock
-112.329209 1000 Municipal
NOTES
Used for egg farm operations.
Same coordinates as WIN 31037, but different
well dimensions.
Well No. 17 (Rodeo grounds well)
Well No. 19 (Berra Well)
Within 1 mile of plume boundary .
Page 4 of 6
WIN 1
WATER
LATITUDE3
RIGHT{s)2
NA 15-2183 40 .601199
NA 15-2526 40.601795
NA 15-2540 40.601177
NA 15-2569 40.599958
NA 15-2570 40.603703
NA 15-2570 40 .604755
NA 15-2571 40 .607514
NA 15-2631 40.606551
NA 15-2735 40 .600785
NA 15-2818 40 .601728
NA 15-2820 40 .603243
NA 15-308 40.599032
NA 15-3093 40 .602040
NA 15-3093 40 .604112
NA 15-3158 40 .600928
NA 15-3212 40 .607991
NA 15-3355 40 .601583
NA 15-3382 40 .604369
NA 15-3386 40 .606533
NA 15-3445 40 .600851
NA 15-3932 40 .601596
NA 15-4092 40 .603534
NA 15-4097 40 .600930
NA 15-420 40.599559
NA 15-420 40.600894
NA 15-420 40.601446
NA 15-4226 40.601660
NA 15-4782 40 .601414
NA 15-497 40.601523
NA 15-5150 40 .605344
NA 15-536 40.601848
NA 15-536 40.602454
NA 15-550 40.601797
NA 15-555 40.600340
Table3-1
Water Wells Within 2 Miles of SWMU-58 Plume Boundary
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
LONGITUDE 3 DEPTH (feet) USE
-112 .337860 285 Stock and Domestic
-112 .340898 230 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112 .339732 210 Irrigation and Stock
-112.342984 232 Stock
-112.334973 Unknown Irrigation and Stock
-112.334292 Unknown Irrigation and Stock
-112.342055 Unknown Irrigation and Stock
-112 .333265 206 Stock
-112.340409 Unknown Irrigation and Stock
-112.322956 213 Irrigation
-112 .334406 Unknown Stock
-112.332389 450 Irrigation
-112.356391 474 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112 .356433 571 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.314615 433 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.355912 18 Irrigation
-112.330075 201 Irrigation and Domestic
-112 .355446 400 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112 .356365 29 Irrigation
-112 .327103 300 Irrigation and Domestic
-112.330093 201 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.334671 230 Stock
-112 .314172 320 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112 .325291 500 Irrigation
-112.323840 Unknown Irrigation
-112.323793 Unknown Irrigation
-112.333103 265 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.353795 442 Irrigation
-112.339487 221 Irrigation and Domestic
-112.316609 286 Irrigation and Stock
-112 .339641 228 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.339488 Unknown Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.325245 212 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112 .327306 150 Stock
NOTES
Underground water drain
Underground water drain
Underground water drain
Well recently approved for replacement. Depth is
from proposed new well near this location .
Page 5 of 6
WIN 1
WATER
LATITUDE3
RIGHT{s)2
NA 15-563 40.579772
NA 15-581 40.601724
NA 15-602 40 .601216
NA 15-649 40.599477
NA 15-705 40.599957
NA 15-705 40 .603024
NA 15-720 40 .601417
NA 15-723 40 .604046
NA 15-727 40.597922
NA 15-750 40 .602206
NA 15-758 40 .603363
NA 15-797 40.597168
NA 15-823 40 .601464
NA 15-876 40 .608777
NA 15-877 40 .608797
NA 15-879 40 .607546
NA 15-881 40 .608614
NA 15-902 40 .601546
NA 15-959 40 .601086
NA 15-994 40 .601481
Notes:
Table3-1
Water Wells Within 2 Miles of SWMU-58 Plume Boundary
Groundwater Management Area Plan Update
LONGITUDE 3 DEPTH (feet) USE
-112.387975 100-500 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112 .329988 201 Stock
-112.339892 241 Domestic
-112.327613 216 Irrigation and Domestic
-112.343146 185 Irrigation
-112 .335554 225 Irrigation
-112 .360554 300 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.356297 571 Municipal
-112.340586 200 Irrigation
-112.320041 254 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
-112.334289 200 Stock
-112 .389214 400 Stock
-112.345770 352 Irrigation and Stock
-112.342080 200 Irrigation and Stock
-112 .342495 200 Irrigation and Stock
-112.339282 Unknown Irrigation
-112 .349317 200 Irrigation
-112 .335399 197 Irrigation and Domestic
-112.375581 Unknown Irrigation, Domestic, and Other
-112 .344492 240 Irrigation, Stock, and Domestic
For definitions, refer to the Acronyms and Abbreviations section.
NOTES
Status is ambiguous . Installation of well was
planned in 2007 but no record that it was
completed . Within 1 mile of plume boundary.
Owned by Stansbury Park Improvement District.
Use in database is categorized as irrigation and
domestic, but appears to better fit within
municioal cateRorv .
Underground water drain .
Used for egg farm operations.
1. Some wells (particularly older wells) have not been assigned WINs but exist and are active according to available records. Wells are sorted by WIN then by water right
number for wells without WINs.
2. There is not a one-to-one relationship between wells and water rights. A single well may be associated with multiple water rights, or multiple wells may have the same water
right.
3. Coordinates are based on World Geodetic System 1984 ellipsoid.
Page 6 of 6
FIGURES
This page intentionally blank
~ ,,;
Q)
·~
-g
_g
Q)
E
~
~I
X
::;;,
iii
c3
~ u a ::,
a..' ::;;
~,
z,
~
~
~
:E a,
::,
Cl)
"
,-------------------------------------------... ~---
//
Mai nlP.lumeU o:~
,·
' ' ,' ,,
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ~
' '
-._
'6!'1 ~~ ~ ·p
!NEB]P,lumeffi@
~
~
~
' ·~
#
# ,
·,._ --,
\
\
' '
~I
~ fill P. \.~ ~<::,:.t
\
pxw·s11aMJa1eM11e (-£ ::IIOXV>J nsm 1a1ep n dV>JMEI N 0\131\Sl\llilV>JBns
• .. ,
• I --....
pxw·1e p1unwnnsawop z-£ ::IIOXVII l\SIE> 1a1ep n dl'IIME> N O\f31\Sl\fil11'11Bns
--....
pxw·uo!)e !JJ! £-£ ::IIOXV\I l\SIE) 1e1ep n dV\IMEI N OV31\SlVillVIIBns
--....
pxw-~001s I>-£ :1\0XVII l\SIE> 1a1ep n dVIIME> N 0'<131\Sl'o'lilVIIBnS
--....
pxw·pu1wwoo g-£ ::1\0XVII l\SIE> 1a1ep n dl'IIME> N 0'<131\Sl'o'illl'IIBnS
'<::?O<JI s--·
<::;()3'
~--"
,-------------------------------------------~~-~
8 ~2 s -
,/ 1; ' ~ ™~o
# I .......... S
11 llif!mkl / 'Cl { . -v; J ] ,,'_:...__ . ~
C:
~
C:
0
i'
ILi
~ ::;;
[ii
c3
§
"' "' ::::,
ll.l
::;;
~
(!)
I z,
I ~
~
"' ::::,
Cl) m
-'"-~--6\
'(::?'f9
'<::1521~--
B!18 s
e!62 s
B!f2 s
B107l s
M~O~1
~
0J25J& _.
~10]22t I M~3.
s
0!1.5. s
0?03' s __ ,
,, [0!1~! ,~s ~,
\
\
Mro<J1 r
\t!fO'
·1,"= B?:09 ~s )s;
'
0!1 s
I
~
B?:'fO -·s ,~
9<::!1~!
s
Ss
s
s a.
~,a
~
,
0
/'"' 0
,,
0 0 ,< 0 0
0 ,/ ,
~ 0 0 ,/ 0 0 0 /' 0
/0 0 I , 0 0 0 "' ,
0 0 0 0 ~0 0
0 ' 0
0 0 0
0 0
" 0 0
0 0 0 0
0
0 0 ✓ 0
" 0 0 0
0
0
0
0 0 0 0
0 0
pxw·suo11e:io1 U! ne L-£ ::I IOXl/>J l\SIE> 1a1ep n dl/>JME> N O\f31\Sl\filll/>JBns
z
I
Q
~ w
I=
pxw ·seµepunos ::JI 8·£ .:11axv,i (IS1£l 1e1ep n dv.JM£l N O\f31\Sl\fl.llv.JBns
AppendixG
Well Records
-PJoposed Determination Book for Tooele Valley Division . Tooele City Subdivision. Area: 15 Book Number: 4 Page: 75 -1------Northwest Quarter ------•------Northeas t Quar ter------•------Southwest Quarter------•------Southeast Qu arter ------1
as TOWN RANG sci NW I NE I sw I SE • NW I NE I sw I SE • NW I NE I sw I SE • NW I NE I sw I SE I
SL 3s 4W 16 l ___ l ___ l ___ l ___ •x Ix Ix Ix • I I I • I I I I
LIMITATION{s) --Water Right 15-3130 is limited to:
an annual diversion for Irrigation of 1.0000 acre-feet
EXPLANATORY:
The originally authorized use of water is described herein , however, the
owner has amended the use of water under this right. A change application
[a36614] for this amendment has been filed and is being processed by the State
Engineer. As part of the change application process , required proof of
beneficial use documents will evidence and define the amendment.
The described place of use for this water right has not been mapped on the
hydrographic survey maps. The exact location of the historic irrigation cannot
be determined because the water use is no longer occurring at the heretofore
location of t he change application .
Group Total:
Sectio n!
Total s ]
56 .27 00 1
160 .8 2 00
--~-------------------~--------------~
58 15-3148 NAME: Grantsville Soil Conservation District
TYPE OF RIGHT: A61910
FLOW: 0.015 cfs OR 5.404 acft
POINT OF DIVERSION --UNDERGROUND:
INTEREST: 100%
PRIORITY: Jul 16 , 1986
SOURCE: Underground Water Well(s)
[1] N 3013 feet E 610 feet from the SW corner, Section 11 T 3S R 5W SLB&M
We ll Diameter: 6 inches Well Depth: 260 feet
DECREED
03 O 1
Date of Publication: November 02. 2010
-Proposed Determination Book for Tooele Vallev Division. Tooele Citv Subdivision . Area: 15 Book Number: 4 Page: 76 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------· -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------·
BENEFICIAL USE:
Water Use Group No. 9824.
STOCKWATER:from Nov 01 to Apr 30 SOLE SUPPLY: 500 .0000 ELUs of the Group Total of 500 .0000 .
This right is used for winter grazing only now that the water user connected to Grantsville City's
Municipal Water System .
PLACE OF USE (Stockwatering): [which includes all or part of the following legal subdivisions:]
NORTH-WEST 0 NORTH-EAST 0 SOUTH-WEST 0 SOUTH-EAST 0
BASE TOWN RANG SEC NW NE SW SE NW NE SW SE NW NE SW SE NW NE SW SE
SL 3S SW 03 X X X X *** X X X X *** X X X X *** X X X X
SL 3S SW 04 X X X *** X X X X *** X X X X *** X X X X
SL 3S SW 09 X X X X *** X X X X *** X X X X *** X X X X
SL 3S SW 10 X X X X *** X X X X *** X X X X *** X X X X
SL 3S SW 11 X X X *** X X *** X X X X *** X X X X
LIMITATION(s) --Water Right 15-3148 is limited to:
an annual diversion for Stockwatering of 5.4040 acre-feet
F
03
AJ= D
1
---------------------------------------------------------::J
59 15-3171 NAME: Cyrus Land Investments LLC % Mathew R. Arbshay INTEREST: 100%
TYPE OF RIGHT: A62238 PRIORITY: Jan 13, 1987
FLOW: 0 .015 cfs OR 7 acft SOURCE: Honerine Mine Tunnel
POINT OF DIVERSION --UNDERGROUND:
[1] S 2855 feet W 3270 feet from the NE corner, Section 13 T 4S R 5W SLB&M
Date of Publication: November 02, 2010
F°Rf'Ce1'ffi' 1 t JUL 161986
-J6 63 -46
Application No/1ielg_,_Q _____ _
APPLICATION TO APPROPRIATE WATER J5-3J'-IH
STATE OF UTAH
Wl(f(ft:-Rt8+tliionnation given in the following blanks should be free from explanatory matter, but when necessary, a complete
supp)ementary statement should be made on the following page under the heading "Explanatory."
For the purpose of acquiring the right to use a portion of the unappropriated water of the State of
Utah, for uses indicated by (X) in the proper box or boxes, application is hereby made to the State
Engineer, based upon the following showing of facts, submitted in accordance with the requirements of
the Laws of Utah. /-8(0-~""2--4 :::2 , -"1
1. Irrigation C Domestic~ Stockwateringl]) Municipal □ Power D Mining □ Other UsesO
2. The name of the applicant is ___ Gr.an_t.sJiille __ .S.oil __ £.n.n.s.e..r_1La-t.i.o..n--ll.is-t.i:.i..c..t---·--······--···-··
3. The Post Office address of the applicant is ... 4 5 0 .. Sou th·-2nd_. West __ Too e 1 e, .. UT ..... 84 0 7 4 ·---• 4. The quantity of water to be appropriated ... !._QJ . .2 ___ ··-··· second.feet and/or ..... ]:.~.~···---·acre•feet
5. The water is to be used for ··-~~~.~-~-::_:.~,-----·--·---···-·-from_Q.,$:f __ J. ______ ._to ·-~~-3_1. .. _ ..
(Major Purpose) (Month) ( Day) (\fonth) (Day)
other use period..._ ___ ·----_i:.,. •• _ _______ __ ·-········-···from·--------······to···-~----------·-····
(Minor Purpose) (Month) (Day) (Month) (Day)
and stored each year (if stored) from ·····--···-------·---------··---------·------· to -----·------------------------
( Month) (Day) (Month) (Day)
6. The drainage area to which the direct source of supply belongs is ______ ···---···-··-----··-·-·-----------·----------·-----
(Leave Blank)
7. The dire ct source of supply is* --·----·----un..d.er_g.:c.o..urui. ____ . ____ . ____ .. ________ . ______ . ___ ._ .. __ . __ . ___ . __ .. ____ ···--·-·--··-·
(Name of stream or other source)
which is tributary to-------·-------------·---------·------------------------------------, tributary to ··----········-····-·················
*Note.-Where water is to be diverted from a well, a tunnel, or drain, the source should be designated as "Underground Water" in the
first space and the remaining spaces should be left blank. If the s,>urce is a sti'eam, a spring, a spring area, or a drain, so indicate in the first
space, giving its name, if named, and in the remaining spaces, designate the stream channels to which it is tributary, even though the water
may sink, evaporate, or be diverted before reaching said channels. If water from a spring flows in a natural surface channel before being
diverted, the direct source should be designated as a stream and not a spring.
8. The point of diversion from the source is in._ .. I.o.o-e.l~···--··········-··-·····-···County, situated at a point*
·-·····E.a.s..t. .. 3..0.0 •• ..£.e.e..t. .. .&..~u-t-h.-·3.0.Q.-.£~-t ... £~--0111-••t:h-e-••-N-W•-.Co~.Jl..e~ .. -o.f ... S_e_c..t..i.n.n. .. .2. ... _ ..... .
·-····-T 3 South •• R 5 ~·West~~ SL B&M·-=r• ~J e: l-e s ~~~~~4 ~ {~a[~G ro.-=As 0 ~I{~)-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*Note.-The point of diversion must be located definitely by course and distance or by giving the distances north or south, and east or
west with reference to a United States land survey corner or United States mineral monument, if within a distance of six miles of either, or if
at a greater distance, to some prominent and permanent natural object. No application will be received for filing in which the point of
diversion is not defined definitely. 1
9. The diverting and carrying works will consist of .B ... .6 .. in.c_h ... ~.i'LS.in_g .. J.~Q ....... f.e.e.t ... d.e.e.p ..... .
·····--·A--.L-.l•L4.!_._.c.o.n.v..e.y.a.n.c.e ___ p.i.f>-e._.t.o ... p.l.a:::..e.. .. .n_f_ .. lLS.e ....................... -....... _ ..... -.... _._ ...... _ .......... .
10. If water is to be stored, give capacity of reservoir in acre.feet -·················-········"--height of dam-········-·
area inundated in acres ··-·······-·-·-········.legal subdivision of area inundated······-····-··················-·············
11. If application is for irrigation purposes, the legal subdivisions of the area irrigated are as follows: •
, .... +i.~
-···-····---·······--···--·-···--··--····-····--··---·······-·-·-··· ·-··-··-·-··--·······-····-·········-·-········· Tot al .. ~z:? . .£!.:" ..... _ .... Acres
12. Is the land owned by the applicant? Yes ..... ..I.-.. -. No_ ......... If "No," explain on page 2.
13. Is this water to be used supplementally with other water rights? Yes -········-····No _.X_ ........ .
If "yes," identify other water rights on page 2.
14. If application is for power purposes, describe type of plant, size and rated capacity.··········-····--····-···--·
15. If application is for mining, the water will be used in················-····-····················-·····Mining District at
the···-···--····-·····-··---···--······-···--···· mine, where the following ores are mined······-·-··-····-··········-··--··-·-···-
16. If application is for stockw~ri~ .f~r~~s~syn!:~b_:,r a_:11_kind_;>f.,stocf,,;vateird ._5.QO_ .. c.a.t.tl.e.._ ..... .
-.
I
I
I
I
~------------~
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
0)
~
14. EXPLANATORY -(Water right 15-3148, Application a 17255
The system consists of a six inch well pumped into two
concrete storage -tanks each having di-mansions of 20. 68 feet by
20.68 feet by 3.0 feet deep. The storage capacity of each tank is
approximately 9,600 gallons. The floor of the tanks is set
approximately 1 foot below the grade of the surrounding ground.
Each tank is -covered with a pitched, wood frame and asphalt shingle
roof. Both tanks are enclosed within a 6 foot -chain link fence.
Piping from the well to the storage tanks and connecting the tanks
is 2 inch schedule 40 PVC.
Water is distributed from the storage tanks by gravity flow
through 1-1/2 inch schedule 40 PVC pi-pe to 12 troughs. The troughs
are 12 foot diameter galvanized, c-orrugated steel with a depth of
1~8 feet placed on 18 foot diameter concrete pads. One line runs in
a westerly direction from the storage tanks through approximately
10,235 feet of pipe feeding 4 troughs. A gate valve at each trough
location diverts water from the main line into the troughs. A
second line runs northerly through approximately 5,190 feet of pipe
to feed the remaining two troughs.
: . ' .. ' , ..
'I' .. -. ·,,:
k ,.
t •·,:
f
. / • .. •. "'.'"::,' • .
FORM '9
IN THE OFflCE OF THE STATE f.N<llNHA OF THf. STATE 0, UTAH
AEOUfST FOA REINSTATEMENT ANO E.ICTENSION OF TIME
111!0,1 Fourtwn Yur1t
A .. llCATION NO 374-43 (l~-1446)
.STATE OF UTAH
COUNTY OF __ T_ooe_,_l_e _____ _
,.., i ~ ••
H. JAMES CLEQG .ho 1119 first duly _,,n that he,, the 1..-,,t of thel _,.,
of the at>ow numberwd appl.c.11011, that hi knowi of hll 011,., knowl«tgt of the conttruct,on of WOtkt compwred
to date .
Oetcribe briefly the type and tllttnt ol oonstructoon complttad to date; cost of mil cx,nstruct,on, and the
est,mated oost of any remaining comtruct,on to be done lo, co,,.,i.tion of pro,act Mid to tubmit Proof of
App,opr..Wion. Give n, .. .ont why the work oould not bl comf)let9d llld wat., put to ~icial ""'wimin twne
hffetofore all<Med. Clegg Live ■tock ccap;any u,q\Jired the re.,l e■tate and "·ater
permit from Terracor. A -11 had been drilled and enca,ed to a reported
Jepth of 300 feet. There i ■ insufficient pr~■•'Jre for -£rte ■ian flow and
there i ■ no electrical or ga ■ power clo ■e to the well. we plan to bring
V .P. & L. power to the ■ite, if at all poa ■ible. Otherwi ■e, we will in ■tall
a submergible pump which will be operated ~y battery and provide a tank for
storage between pumping ■.
Request ,s made for re1nst11tement and extPn!ion of lime for filing proof
fro~ctober 31 , 19 E, to ___ o_c_t_o_b_e_r_l_l ________ , 19 i
Aff,ant understands . he will be. notified of • rearing date, at which time he or his rapretentati~ must attend, be
able 10 defend data !liven;. and affiant upon oath Stites that the information given above is to the best of his
knowledge true and correct . CLEnG LIVESTOCK COMPANY, INC.
BY:
, I . -1
/ . ; / (; ·,_ •1 r;'Vice President
.-~ -% >
APP(ICANT
(If I corporation , giw totle . of officer s,gningl
Subscrolled and sworn 10 before,.,.. tnis __ l_O_t_h __ dav of ___ o_c_t_o_b_e_r ________ _ 19.21
NOTARY .
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
PROOF DUE DATE __ .1,,..._:.,c.:..'---'~'------14 YEAR PERIOD ENDS L. / '-• ''. c
HEARING ______________________________ _
APPLICANT DID APPEAR ________ APPLICANT DID NOT APPEAR _____ _
APPLICANT REPRESE~TED BY _____________________ _
... , .
Appendix H
Environmental Professional Qualifications
WASATCH
• ENVIRONMENTAL
Jeffrey Hessburg
Staff Geologist
Education
B.S. Geology, 2019
University of Wisconsin -Eau Claire
Registration / Certification / Accreditation
Utah Soil and Groundwater Sampler (GS 1874)
Related Experience
Environmental Assessment Services
Mr. Hessburg professional experience includes, conducting Phase I Environmental Site
Assessments (Phase I ESA), Subsurface Investigation field work, and geotechnical field work.
Mr. Hessburg has experience in groundwater sampling, sub-slab, and sub-surface soil sampling.
Mr . Hessburg's field experience varies from physical research of agriculture lands, vacant lots,
and commercial uses . Mr. Hessburg has assisted in drilling activities, soil sampling, and
groundwater sampling.
Wasatch Environmental
WASATCH
• ENVIRONMENTAL
Related Experience
Environmental Assessment Services
Audra Heinze!
Senior Project Environmental Scientist
Education
B.A. Environmental Studies, with a minor in Biology, 2003
Registration / Certification I Accreditation
OSHA 40-Hour Hazardous Materials Operation
Utah Certified Asbestos Inspector
Utah Certified Asbestos Contractor Supervisor
Utah Certified Asbestos Project Designer
Utah Certified Lead Inspector
Salt Lake County Pre-Demolition Inspector
Utah Soil and Groundwater Sampler
Utah Certified UST Remover
Ms. Heinzel has been a practicing environmental scientist for more than 18 years in the areas of
industrial hygiene, environmental due diligence, subsurface investigations, remediation,
ecological toxicology, and ecological risk assessments. Ms. Heinzel is also a Geographic
Information System (GIS) Specialist. Responsibilities have included asbestos inspections, lead-
based paint inspections, hazardous materials inspections, hazardous materials abatement and
remediation oversight and management, RFP creation, indoor and outdoor air quality
investigations and monitoring, field sampling and analysis plans, producing field investigation
reports, project management of personnel and budgets, supervising drilling and sampling
activities, core logging, remediation, sample processing, contamination control, equipment and
personnel decontamination, waste management, ensuring compliance with OSHA health and
safety requirements, mapping and drafting.
Additional Site Assessment and Remediation Experience
Ms. Heinzel is experienced in environmental assessments (including HUD, Freddie MAC and
Fannie May compliant reports and environmental checklists), asbestos, lead-based paint, mold
and hazardous materials surveys; pre-demolition surveys; asbestos abatement project design
and Operation and Maintenance plans; and responding to small and large scale situations in
which hazardous materials releases have impacted the soil and/or groundwater creating
various potential hazards. The following are examples of this experience;
• Numerous Asbestos Sampling and Demolition Oversight, Utah, Idaho, Arizona: Certified
asbestos inspector that has participated in asbestos sampling for demolition and
remodeling purposes.
• Demolition Sampling and Oversight, Utah: Certified asbestos contractor supervisor that has
performed various alternative work practice sampling and oversight as the OSHA
"competent person".
• Asbestos in Soil Abatement, Utah: Designed the project cleanup, interfaced with agency,
and oversaw abatement of over 4,000 cubic yards of asbestos-contaminated soil and debris
for British Petroleum.
• Radon Sampling, Utah: Residential radon sampling.
• Lead Paint: Lead-based and lead-containing paint investigations and surveys for private
companies and Federal agencies.
• Mold Sampling, Utah: Various mold sampling prior to and after mold abatement.
• Air Quality Monitoring and Investigations, Utah: Numerous indoor and outdoor air quality
investigations and monitoring for hazardous materials during abatement and remediation.
• Numerous Phase I and II Environmental Site Assessments projects, Utah, Arizona, Nevada:
Wasatch Environmental
WASATCH
• ENVIRONMENTAL
Environmental Assessment Services
Various soil investigative activities to determine impact of petroleum products and solvents
at the sites. Various remediation activities including impacted soil removal and disposal.
• Historical dry cleaning properties, Salt Lake City, Utah: Site investigations at former dry
cleaning properties where soil and groundwater contamination have occurred.
• Underground Storage Tank Closures, Utah: Removal and disposal of USTs per Utah
Department of Environmental Response and Remediation UST closure rules and remediation
of releases from the USTs.
• Remedial Investigation, Afton, Wyoming: remediation of dioxin contaminated soil resulting
from historical pole dipping operations.
• Various Brownfields projects, Arizona: Various soil and groundwater investigations of
potential Brownfields sites.
• City of Phoenix Light Rail, Phoenix, Arizona: Soil and groundwater investigation activities,
as well as, removal and disposal of contaminated soil due to the release of PCE at a site.
• 98-acres of squatter land, Buckeye, Arizona: Soil and asbestos investigation and
remediation activities due to numerous contaminant releases.
• Various Circle-K gas stations, Arizona: Soil and groundwater investigative activities and
supervision of soil removal for abatement due to various releases of petroleum substances
at the site. Supervision of monitoring well installation and sampling.
• Luke Air Force Base, Surprise, Arizona: 500 base housing asbestos sampling and
remediation for renovation and demolition activities.
• Numerous agricultural Phase I and II projects, Arizona: Various soil investigative activities
to determine impact of pesticides and herbicides at the sites. Various remediation
activities including impacted soil removal and disposal and AULs.
• ArcView GIS drafting: Ms. Heinze! has developed and been involved with the creation of
various GIS programs and mapping projects.
Ms. Heinze! has been involved with projects where soil and groundwater have been impacted
with gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel, waste oil, heating oil and halogenated hydrocarbons,
dioxins and furans, pentachlorophenol, and various solvents. Soil remedial technologies
utilized include soil vapor extraction, landfill disposal, and hazardous waste disposal in Canada.
Wasatch Environmental
WASATCH
• ENVIRONMENTAL
Julie H. Kilgore, President
Environmental Manager
Environmental Assessment Services
Julie H. Kilgore is President of Wasatch Environmental, an
environmental science and engineering firm based out of Salt
Lake City, Utah. She has over 25 years experience in
environmental assessment, investigation, remediation, and
regulatory agency coordination.
Since 2000, Ms. Kilgore has chaired the national task force
responsible for developing the revisions to the ASTM 1527 Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment Standard, and was appointed by
EPA to serve on the regulatory negotiation Federal Advisory
Committee to assist EPA in developing the federal All Appropriate
Inquiry regulation. In addition to ASTM International, Julie has
been involved in the Environmental Affairs Committee of the Salt
Lake Chamber of Commerce, the Envision Utah Brownfields Task Force, and was recently elected
to the Environmental Bankers Association Board of Governors.
Experience
Ms. Kilgore conducts or oversees professional services related to property transactions and
redevelopment projects including All Appropriate Inquiries (Phase I), site
investigations/delineations, and remedial implementation and oversight.
Ms. Kilgore has been directly involved in various phases of hundreds of environmental site
assessments for lenders, buyers, home builders, large retail developers, ski resorts, tribes,
municipalities, and federal agencies. Ms. Kilgore provides and/or oversees turn-key
environmental consulting ranging from Phase I Environmental Site Assessments, through
investigation/site characterization and remediation. Redevelopment projects have included
multi-parcel big-box store acquisitions in historical industrialized areas, and major
renovation/change-of-use projects for transitional low-income housing. Ms. Kilgore has also
provided environmental due diligence for conservation acquisition projects.
Standards Development and Rulemaking
As the current chair of the national ASTM E1527 Phase I ESA task force and as chair of the past
chair of ASTM Committee E50, Ms. Kilgore directly participates in the on-going development of
the various standard practice and guidance documents related to environmental assessments
and commercial property transactions. Standard documents currently under consideration
within ASTM include revisions to the D6008 Standard Practice for Conducting Environmental
Baseline Surveys, and the E2790 Standard Guide Identifying and Complying with Continuing
Obligations, to address "continuing obligations" associated with CERCLA landowner liability
protections.
As a result of Ms. Kilgore's role with ASTM, Wasatch Environmental was appointed by EPA to
represent the Environmental Professional category of stakeholders for the EPA regulatory
negotiation rulemaking process for developing the "All Appropriate Inquiry" regulation as
commissioned by Congress in the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization
Act of 2002. Ms . Kilgore's direct involvement in developing the ASTM E1527 standard provided
EPA with unique insight into the process designed to satisfy specific elements related to
innocent landowner, bona fide prospective purchaser, or contiguous property owner liability
protections to CERCLA liability.
Wasatch Environmental, Inc.
WASATCH
• ENVIRONMENTAL
Environmental Assessment Services
This EPA regulation for All Appropriate Inquiries was promulgated in October 2005 and became
effective November 2006. As the ASTM E1527 Task Force chair, Ms. Kilgore facilitated direct
EPA participation as ASTM worked to modify the E1527 to comply with the EPA All Appropriate
Inquiry regulation. Ms. Kilgore continues to facilitate EPA participation with each E1527
standard practice revision process to ensure an EPA reference to the most current ASTM E1527
standard practice as being compliant with the EPA All Appropriate Inquiry regulation.
Training and Industry Outreach
As a result of Ms. Kilgore's involvement in development of industry standards, federal
regulation, and local policies, she assisted in the development of numerous Phase I ESA,
Transaction Screen, and Phase II Environmental Site Assessment training courses, and conducts
industry training courses throughout the country. These training courses include the following:
• ASTM International CELI-Accredited Phase I/Phase II ESA Training Classes, 2004-2021
• Understanding Environmental Due Diligence Reports, Salt Lake Board of Realtors,
1994 -2021
• CLE-Accredited Current State of Environmental Due Diligence, Bloomberg BNA, 2014
• Bureau of Land Management ASTM E1527 and AAI Training, 2014 -2016
• EPA Region VII, Region IX, and Region X ASTM 1527 and AAI Training;
• Environmental Issues in Property Development, National Business Institute, 2011
• National Guard National Environmental Training Conference, 2007, 2008, 2009, and
2015
Ms. Kilgore has conducted industry outreach for professional organizations and participated in
national conference panel presentations regarding Phase I Environmental Assessments, All
Appropriate Inquiry, and 2002 Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act.
Recent events include:
• Environmental Due Diligence, Current State of the Practice Webinars, 2013 -2021
• Pennsylvania Association of Environmental Professionals -Communities, Corridors &
Connections Conference, 2021
• Environmental Bankers Association, Risk Management Series, 2020 -2021
• Bridging Environmental and Appraisal, Environmental Bankers Association, 2015
• Strategies for Implementing ASTM E1527-13, GeoSearch Four-Part Training Series, 2015
• Identifying and Managing Impacted Waters of the State, NAIOP 2014
• ASTM E1527-13 and Vapor Intrusion" American Bar Association, 2014
• Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management, 2014
• EPA Brownfields Conferences, 2003 -2011;
• RTM Communications National Conferences, 2003-2011;
Publications and Awards
SES/ ASTM Robert J. Painter Award, 2013
"Brownfields, A Comprehensive Guide to Redevelopment Contaminated Property, Third
Edition," Chapter 6 "Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments," American Bar
Association, 2010
ASTM Award of Merit, 2009
"Working Together; The Recent History of the Practice for Phase I Environmental Site
Assessments," ASTM International Standardization News, June 2006
"All Appropriate Inquiry and Brownfields Redevelopment," Air & Waste Management
Association, EM Magazine, December 2005
Kilgore, J., "All Appropriate Standards," Brownfields News, Vol. 1, March 2004.
Wasatch Environmental, Inc.
Appendix D
User Questionnaire
PROSPECTIVE PURCHASER
USER QUESTIONNAIRE
In order to qualify for one of the Landowner Liability Protections (LLPs)1 offered by the Small Business Liability
Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act of 2001 (the "Brownfields Amendments ''),2 the user must provide the
following information (if available) to the environmental professional. Failure to provide this information could
result in a determination that "all appropriate inquiry" is not complete.
Site Name: 'Pro po: t½. Nei'"H,a~ TAD Date : __ -s ........ } _~_5"1--j-~_'--/ __
1=nc.. rJ()..iVV'-?co-tt..1 l\,\,.,~lk !Y--S 1T~A
Name and Title of Person Complet ing Question i re
L? ( (A \'\1S V , \ k. 5 o d C. on st r v lA. +; o ~
Current Property Owner Name
Tod cl A-r bo r'\ +~r b~n iY@.. f', b(.r .. V\e... +
Current Property Owner Contact Information (telephone and/or email address)
(1 .) Have you rece lve~itl e report?
No ~(Describe or attach information)
IIWPre..v,.,11~\l Yrov,d-e.d
(2 .) If So, did the search of recorded land title records identify any environmental liens filed or recorded
against ~~perty under federal, tribal , state or local law?
~ Yes (Describe or attach information)
(3 .) Did the search of recorded land title records identify any activity and use limitations, such as engineering
controls, land use restrictions or institutional controls that are in place at the property and/or have been
filed or r~ed against the property under federal, tribal, state or local law?
~ Yes (Describe or attach information)
(4.) Do you have any specialized knowledge or experience related to the property or nearby properties? For
example, are you involved in the same line of business as the current or former occupants of the property
or an adjoining property so that you would have specialized knowledge of the chemicals and processes
used by ~pe of business?
~ Yes (Describe or attach information)
(5 .) Does the purchase pri ce being paid for this property reasonably reflect the fair market value of the
property? ~
No ~
1Landowner Liability Protections, or LLPs, is the term used to describe the three types of potential defenses to Superfund liability in EPA's Interim
Guidance Regarding Criteria Landowners Musi Meet in Order to Qualify for Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser, Contiguous Property Owner, or Innocent
Landowner Limilalions on CERCLA Liability ("Common Elements" Guide) issued on March 6, 2003 .
2P.L.107-118.
If you conclude that there is a difference, have you considered whether the lower purchase price is
because contamination is known or believed to be present at the property?
I\) }Pr No Yes (Describe or attach information)
(6 .) Are you aware of commonly known or reasonably ascertainable information about the property (such as
anv prior Phase I Environmental Site Assessments) that would help the environmental professional to
identify conditions indicative of releases or threatened releases? For example,
(a .) Do you know _tNast uses of-the property?
C, No J ~Describe or attach information)
r..._:t-'"~ r A,.,.,.."j", yo+
(b.) Do you know ecifi c chemicals that are present or once were present at the property?
' . .
e.s+1t1t,n~ i rt
(d.) Do you know _~Y env ironmental cleanups that have taken place at the property?
No ~(Describe or attach information)
tY11n 1t r: tt:°'-1 a,.. arno ve.. I
(7.) Based on your knowledge and experience related to the property are there any obvious indicators that
point to t~resence or likely presence of releases at the property?
~ Yes (Describe or attach information)
(8.) Are you aware of any pending, threatened, or past litigation relevant to hazardous substances or
petroleum products in connection with the property; or any pending, threatened, or past administrative
proceed~elevant to hazardous substances or petroleum products in connection with the property?
~ Yes (Describe or attach information)
(9.) Are you aware of any notices from any governmental ent ity regarding any possible violation of
environm~laws or possible liability relating to hazardous substances or petroleum products? (:V Yes (Describe or attach information)
Appendix E
Government Database Information
Project Property:
Project No:
Report Type:
Order No:
Requested by:
Date Completed:
Grantsville Soil Conservation Property
R Avenue and UT-112
Grantsville UT 84029
2649-004A
Database Report
24031500569
Wasatch Environmental
March 20, 2024
Environmental Risk Information Services
A division of Glacier Media Inc.
1.866.517.5204 I [e-mail] I erisinfo.com
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ........................................................................................... 2
Executive Summary ........................................................................................ 3
Executive Summary : Report Summary ....................................................................................................................... 4
Executive Summary: Site Report Summary - Project Property ................................................................................... 8
Executive Summary : Site Report Summary -Surrounding Properties ........................................................................ 9
Executive Summary : Summary by Data Source ....................................................................................................... 10
Map ............................................................................................................... 11
Aerial ............................................................................................................. 14
Topographic Map .......................................................................................... 15
Detail Report ................................................................................................. 16
Unplottable Summary ................................................................................... 18
Unplottable Report ........................................................................................ 19
Appendix : Database Descriptions ................................................................. 20
Definitions ..................................................................................................... 34
IMPORTANT NOTICE
This report is compiled by ERIS Information Inc . ("ERIS") using, among other resources, third-party environmental records as of a certain date . It does
not replace a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment or other real property assessment, but is intended to be used only as a review of such records.
No page of this report can be used for any purpose without its cover page, this notice and the project property identifier. The information in this report
may not be modified or transferred to a third party , except that, in using the Xplorer application, you may be able to modify the report by moving the
location of records on the map , adding 'unplottable' records to the map , and/or excluding records from being included in the final report . Any such
modification will be at your sole risk, and ERIS will have no liability or responsibility therefor.
Use of this report in a manner contrary to this notice or your agreement with ERIS may be a breach of copyright and contract, and ERIS and third parties
may obtain damages for such misuse . In addition, upon the occurrence of such a breach, ERIS may terminate your account, rescind your license to any
prior reports generated by you, and bar you from future use of the Service .
The information contained in this report has been produced by ERIS using various sources, including information provided by government agencies .
This report applies only to the real property address as of the date specified on the cover of this report, and any deviation from such address will require
an additional report. This report and the information contained herein do not purport to be, and do not constitute, (1) a guarantee of the accuracy of such
information or (2) a legal opinion or medical advice. Although ERIS has endeavored to present you with information that is accurate, ERIS disclaims all
liability for any errors or omissions in such information, whether attributable to negligence or other cause, or for any other consequences arising
therefrom , to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law . ERIS's liability for any such error or omission shall , in any case , be limited to the fee paid
to ERIS for this report.
You may not use any ERIS trademark or attribute any information generated in this report to ERIS , except as expressly set forth in this notice or your
agreement with ERIS . This report is protected by copyright owned by ERIS, except that any copyright in such information may be owned by third
parties, including government agencies . This report may not be copied or reproduced in whole, or in part, without the prior written consent of ERIS .
If there is any inconsistency or contradiction between any provision of this notice and any provision of your agreement with ERIS, the latter shall control.
eris info.com I Environmental Risk Information Services Order No : 24031500569
Property Information:
Project Property:
Project No:
Coordinates:
Elevation:
Order Information:
Order No:
Date Requested:
Requested by:
Report Type:
Note:
Historicals/Products:
ERIS Xplorer
Excel Add-On
Latitude:
Longitude:
UTM Northing:
UTM Easting:
UTMZone:
-
Executive Summary
Grantsville Soil Conservation Property
R Avenue and UT-112 Grantsville UT 84029
2649-004A
40.57085816
-112.39664729
4,492,057.25
381,779.47
12T
4,427 FT
24031500569
March 15, 2024
Wasatch Environmental
Database Report
Modified Report
ERIS Xplorer
Excel Add-On
erisinfo .com I Environmental Risk Information Services Order No : 24031500569
Executive Su-mmary: Report Su-mmary
Database Searched Search Project Within 0.125mi 0.25mito 0.50mito Total
Radius Property 0.12mi to0.25mi 0.50mi 1.00mi
Standard Environmental Records
Federal
NPL
y 1 0 0 0 0 1
PROPOSED NPL
y 0 0 0 0 0 0
DELETED NPL
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
SEMS
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
SEMS ARCHIVE
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
ODI
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
JODI
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
CERCLIS
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
CERCLIS NFRAP
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
CERCLIS LIENS
y PO 0 0
RCRA CORRACTS
y 0 0 0 0 0 0
RCRA TSD
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
RCRALQG
y 0.25 0 0 0 0
RCRASQG
y 0.25 0 0 0 0
RCRA VSQG
y 0.25 0 0 0 0
RCRANON GEN
y 0.25 0 0 0 0
RCRA CONTROLS
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
FED ENG
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
FED INST
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
LUCIS
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
NPLIC
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
ERNS 1982 TO 1986
y PO 0 0
ERNS 1987 TO 1989
y PO 0 0
ERNS
y PO 0 0
FED BROWNFIELDS
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
FEMAUST
y 0.25 0 0 0 0
FRP
y 0.25 0 0 0 0
erisinfo .com I Environmental Risk Information Services Order No : 24031500569
Database Searched Search Project Within 0.125mi 0.25mi to 0.50mito Total
Radius Property 0.12mi to0.25mi 0.50mi 1.00mi
DELISTED FRP
y 0.25 0 0 0 0
HIST GAS STATIONS
y 0.25 0 0 0 0
REFN
y 0.25 0 0 0 0
BULK TERMINAL
y 0.25 0 0 0 0
SEMS LIEN
y PO 0 0
SUPERFUND ROD
y 0 0 0 0 0 0
DOE FUSRAP
y 0 0 0 0 0 0
State
NPLUT
y 0 0 0 0 0 0
CONTAM POTENTIAL
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
SWF/LF
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
HSWF
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
LUST
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
LAST
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
DELISTED LST
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
UST
y 0.25 0 0 0 0
AST
y 0.25 0 0 0 0
UST LAPSE
y 0.25 0 0 0 0
DTNK
y 0.25 0 0 0 0
BROWN FIELDS
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
VCP
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
RESPONSE
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
INST
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
Tribal
INDIAN LUST
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
INDIAN UST
y 0.25 0 0 0 0
DELISTED INDIAN LST
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
DELISTED INDIAN UST
y 0.25 0 0 0 0
County No County standard environmental record sources available for this State.
Additional Environmental Record§
Federal
PFASGHG
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
FINDS/FRS
y PO 0 0
erisinfo .com I Environmental Risk Information Services Order No : 24031500569
Database Searched Search Project Within 0.125mi 0.25mi to 0.50mito Total
Radius Property 0.12mi to0.25mi 0.S0mi 1.00mi
TRIS
y PO 0 0
PFAS NPL
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
PFAS FED SITES
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
PFASSSEHRI
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
ERNS PFAS
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
PFAS NPDES
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
PFAS TRI
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
PFASWATER
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
PFASTSCA
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
PFAS E-MANIFEST
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
PFAS IND
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
HMIRS
y 0.125 0 0 0
NCDL
y 0.125 0 0 0
TSCA
y 0.125 0 0 0
HISTTSCA
y 0.125 0 0 0
FTTSADMIN
y PO 0 0
FTTSINSP
y PO 0 0
PRP
y PO 0 0
SCRD DRYCLEANER
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
ICIS
y PO 0 0
FED DRYCLEANERS
y 0.25 0 0 0 0
DELISTED FED DRY
y 0.25 0 0 0 0
FUDS
y 0 0 0 0 0 0
FUDS MRS
y 0 0 0 0 0 0
FORMER NIKE
y 0 0 0 0 0 0
PIPELINE INCIDENT
y PO 0 0
MLTS
y PO 0 0
HISTMLTS
y PO 0 0
MINES
y 0.25 0 0 0 0
SMCRA
y 0 0 0 0 0 0
MRDS
y 0 0 0 0 0 0
LM SITES
y 0 0 0 0 0 0
ALT FUELS
y 0.25 0 0 0 0
CONSENT DECREES
y 0.25 0 0 0 0
AFS
y PO 0 0
erisinfo .com I Environmental Risk Information Services Order No : 24031500569
Database Searched Search Project With in 0.125mi 0.25mi to 0.50mi to Total
Radius Property 0.12mi to0.25mi 0.S0mi 1.00mi
SSTS
y 0.25 0 0 0 0
PCBT
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
PCB
y 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
State
SPILLS
y 0.125 0 0 0
CDL
y PO 0 0
DRYCLEANERS
y 0.25 0 0 0 0
DELISTED DRYCLEANERS
y 0.25 0 0 0 0
TIER2
y 0.125 0 0 0
Tribal No Tribal additional environmental record sources available for this State.
County No County additional environmental record sources available for this State.
Total: 0 0 0 0 1
* PO -Property Only
* 'Property and adjoining properties' database search radii are set at 0.25 miles.
erisinfo .com I Environmental Risk Information Services Order No : 24031500569
Executive Su-mmary: Site Report Su-mmary -Project Property
Map DB Company/Site Name Address Direction Distance Elev Diff Page
Key (mi/ft) (ft) Number
1 NPL TOOELE ARMY DEPOT 3 Ml S OF TOOELE ON SE 0 .00 I 0 .00 0 16 -(NORTH AREA) HWY36
TOOELE UT 8407 4
EPA ID: UT3213820894
erisinfo .com I Environmental Risk Information Services Order No : 24031500569
Executive Su-mmary: Site Report Su-mmary-Su-rrounding Properties
Map
Key
DB Company/Site Name Address
No records found in the selected databases for the surrounding properties .
erisinfo.com I Environmental Risk Information Services
Direction Distance
(mi/ft)
Elev Diff
(ft)
Page
Number
Order No : 24031500569
Standard
Federal
NPL -National Priority List
A search of the NPL database, dated Oct 26, 2023 has found that there are 1 NPL site(s) within approximately 1.00 miles of the project
property .
Equal/Higher Elevation Address
TOOELE ARMY DEPOT (NORTH 3 Ml S OF TOOELE ON HWY 36
AREA) TOOELE UT 84074
EPA ID: UT3213820894
erisinfo .com I Environmental Risk Information Services
Direction
SE
Distance (mi/ft)
0 .00 I 0.00
Map Key
Order No : 24031500569
z ,.,.
"' ~
z
6 "' M "' ~
112·2sw 112·2s•3o•w 112·2sw 112°24'30"W 112•24w 112°23'30"W 112•23w 112·22·3o•w 112·22w 112°21'30"W
Marshall
...J \ .... .. .. .. ........ .. .. ........ .. .. .. ..
.. ........ .. .. .. ..
I I
I I
I I
I ' I
.. ..
I \ , # '" .., -., ---------------------\ -------,,,,, .. \ ,v ---~-~--------------------.. -------
I
I
'
.. #
.. #
.. / #
.. #
.. #
.. .. Tooele Army D epot North , '
,__ ---~--------------------------------------
0.55 0.275 0
Map: 1.0 Mile Radius
Order Number: 24031500569
Miles
0.55
Address : R Avenue and UT-112, Grantsville, UT
D Project Property
; _-~Buffer Outline
\
\
\
1:36750
,6 Sites with Higher Elevation Freeways ; Highways State ~ FWS Special Designation Areas
□ Sites with Same Elevation
T Sites with Lower Elevation
0 Sites with Unknown Elevation
II II Areas with Higher Elevation
II II Areas with Same Elevation
D Areas with Lower Elevation
D Areas with Unknown Elevation
Traffic Circle ; Ramp
Major & Minor Arterial
Traffic Circle ; Ramp
c= Local Road
-+--Rail
-Country
-National Wetland
~ Indian Reserve Land
~ 100 Year Flood Zone
~ 500 Year Flood Zone
-National Priorities List (Active , Delisted ,
Proposed, Institutional Control)
112·21w
Source: © 2021 ESRI StreetMap Premium © ERIS Information Inc.
z
6 "' "' "' ~ I
\
i
~.45
112'25'W
0.225
I
I
I
I
#
#
#
0
112'24'30"W 112'24'W
--------
I -----------
Miles
0.45
Map: 0.5 Mile Radius
Order Number: 24031500569
Address : R Avenue and UT-112, Grantsville, UT
D Project Property
; _-~Buffer Outline
,6 Sites with Higher Elevation Freeways ; Highways
□ Sites with Same Elevation
T Sites with Lower Elevation
0 Sites with Unknown Elevation
II II Areas with Higher Elevation
II II Areas with Same Elevation
D Areas with Lower Elevation
D Areas with Unknown Elevation
Traffic Circle ; Ramp
Major & Minor Arterial
Traffic Circle ; Ramp
c= Local Road
-+--Rail
Source: © 2021 ESRI StreetMap Premium
112'23'30"W
J
..
112'23'W
.. .. ...... ........
Utah Mo .. .. .. .... ..
' '
State
-Country
-National Wetland
~ Indian Reserve Land
~ 100 Year Flood Zone
~ 500 Year Flood Zone
112'22'30"W
sports Campus
' ' ' ' ' '
112'22'W
7
1:27750
~ FWS Special Designation Areas
-National Priorities List (Active, Delisted,
Proposed, Institutional Control)
© ERIS Information Inc.
112·2sw
I
I
' I
#
....
#
#
I
112•24•3o•w 112•24w 112°23'30"W 112•23w 112°22'30"W 112·22w
---------
.,,,-----------
Grantsville
-----------------------------------------------
Tooeie A1111y V e!Jul North
0.35 0.175
Mi o US Govern ri,_951 t
Map: 0.25 Mile Radius
Order Number: 24031500569
Address : R Avenue and UT-112, Grantsville, UT
D Project Property
; _-~Buffer Outline
,6 Sites with Higher Elevation Freeways ; Highways
□ Sites with Same Elevation
T Sites with Lower Elevation
0 Sites with Unknown Elevation
II II Areas with Higher Elevation
II II Areas with Same Elevation
D Areas with Lower Elevation
D Areas with Unknown Elevation
Traffic Circle ; Ramp
Major & Minor Arterial
Traffic Circle ; Ramp
c= Local Road
-+--Rail
Source: © 2021 ESRI StreetMap Premium
State
-Country
-National Wetland
~ Indian Reserve Land
~ 100 Year Flood Zone
~ 500 Year Flood Zone
1:22750
~ FWS Special Designation Areas
-National Priorities List (Active , Delisted ,
Proposed, Institutional Control)
© ERIS Information Inc.
Aerial Year: 2019
Address : R Avenue and UT-112, Grantsville, UT
Source: ESRI World Imagery
Order Number: 24031500569
ER I S ~ -----© ERIS Information Inc.
112·2sw 112•24•3o•w
4
112•24w
w rcoJ 92
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------~35 ~ I
__.,.-3 I ,
I
I
I
I
\
1
I
\
112°23'30"W 112•23w 112°22'30"W 112·22w
z
,_
--~-------t----;--,-_---:.___-..,...,-=-L-t.~...c:::::.=----k---/----~::===r~=-1 -=-111---~+-------''---+------+------,--+-j__ __ .J
i /_., 0 ,,.
9
~ _;:---
1 0 .,, ,.,,,.,-r
'O .., I
~
~
16
Topographic Map Year:2020
Address: RAvenue and UT-112, UT
Quadrangle(s): Tooele UT, Grantsville UT
Source: USGS Topographic Map
11
Order Number: 24031500569
© ERIS Information Inc.
Map Key Number of
Records
1 1 of1
EPA ID:
Site ID:
Street Addr Txt (SEMS):
City Name (SEMS):
State Code (SEMS):
Zip Code (SEMS):
County (SEMS):
County (Export):
Data Source:
NPL (SEMS FOIA 004)
Federal Facility: Yes
NPL Status Dt: 08/30/90
NAI: No
NA Entity (NAI Status):
SAA (Superfund Alt):
NPL (Superfund Sites List)
SEMSID:
Status:
Site Score:
SITS ID:
Constr Complete No:
Constr Complete Dt:
Partial Deletion:
Proposed Fr Notice:
Final Fr Notice:
NOID Fr Notice:
Deletion Fr Notice:
Restoration Fr Notice:
800755
NPL Site
53 .95
888
0
Notice of Data Availability:
Site Listing Narrative:
Site Progress Profile:
Detail Report
Direction
SE
UT3213820894
Distance
(mi/ft)
0.00/
0.00
3 Ml S OF TOOELE ON HWY 36
TOOELE
UT
84074
TOOELE
Tooele
Elev/Diff
(ft)
4,426.77 I
0
Site
TOOELE ARMY DEPOT (NORTH
AREA)
3 Ml S OF TOOELE ON HWY 36
TOOELE UT 84074
DB
NPL
U.S . EPA Site Boundaries Shapefile Download; U .S . EPA SUPERFUND PROGRAM . Source : SEMS Superiund
Public User Database. FOIA4 All Final NPL Sites. Retrieved on 26-OCT-2023.
County:
Latitude:
Longitude:
Proposed Date:
Listing Date:
NOIDDate:
Deletion Date:
Latitude:
Longitude:
No
TOOELE
+40 .526461
-112.410368
10/15/1984
08/30/1990
40.541669
-112 .375
<a href="https://semspub.epa.gov/src/document/11/189641" target="_blank">10/15/1984 (PDF)</a>
<a href="https ://semspub .epa .gov/src/document/11/189637" target="_blank">08/30/1990 (PDF)</a>
<a href="https://semspub .epa .gov/src/document/08/100000229" target="_ blank">UT3213820894 (PDF)</a>
<a href="https:/ /cumulis .epa .gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0800755" target="_blank"> Tooele Army Depot
(North Area)</a>
NPL (EPA Boundaries)
EPA Program:
NPL Status:
Superiund Remedial
F
Primary Telephone: [phone]
Public Release:
Fed Facility:
GISArea:
GIS Area Unit:
Last Changed:
Site Contact:
Site Contact 1:
Feature In:
Feature 1:
Site Feature:
Yes Original C:
23333.566251 Region Code:
Acres TierAccur:
26-AUG-22 12.00.00 .000000 AM
Douglas Bacon
[e-mail]
https://semspub .epa .gov/work/08/1893734 .pdf
Fourth FYR
5
erisinfo .com I Environmental Risk Information Services
8
Order No : 24031500569
Map Key
Site Feature 1:
Site Feature 2:
Site Feature 3:
Site Feature 4:
Site Feature 5:
Site Feature 6:
Projection:
SFGeospat:
Uri Alias:
Number of
Records
Direction Distance
(mi/ft)
Comprehensive Site Area
Tooele Army Depot Site Map
Elev/Diff
(ft)
Site DB
Tooele Army Depot (TEAD) was originally established in 1942 as the Tooele Ordnance Depot by the U.S.Army
Ordnance Department. It was designated as TEAD-N in August 1962. In 1996, TEAD-Nwas designated as TEAD .
TEAD has functioned as a major ammunition sto
U.S . Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) -Region 8
The Agency is providing this geospatial information as a public service and does not vouch for the accuracy,
completeness , or currency of data. Data provided by external parties is not independently verified by EPA. This
data is made available to the pub
www .epa.gov/superfund/tooele-army-depot
erisinfo .com I Environmental Risk Information Services Order No : 24031500569
Total: 1 Unplottable sites
DB
SPILLS
-
Unplottable Summary
Company Name/Site
Name
U.S . Army-Tooele Army
Depot
Address City
Tooele County Landfill -2130 West TOOELE UT
Hwy 112
DERR ID I Date Discovered: 2557 I 10/20/1997 16:30
erisinfo .com I Environmental Risk Information Services
Zip ERISID
822564867
Order No : 24031500569
Unplottable Report
Site: U.S. Army-Tooele Army Depot
Tooele County Landfill-2130 West Hwy 112 TOOELE UT
DERR ID:
Site Desc:
Date Discovered:
Date Time Rptd:
TBL Start Date:
TBL End Date:
TBL Imp Media:
TBL Chemical:
Rpt Taken By:
Rpt Pty Name:
Title Event Name:
Incident Summary:
2557
10/20/1997 16:30
10/21/1997 8:20
10/20/1997
live bomb
Elizabeth Yeomans
Harry Shinton
U .S. Army-Tooele Army Depot
Rpt Pty Title:
RptPtyPh:
RespPtyPh:
Inc Hwy:
Inc Mile Maker:
Inc Indian Land:
County:
Northing:
Easting:
Haz. Mat. Manager
830-2642/882-5600
833-3211
TOOELE
SPILLS
Yesterday afternoon (10-20-97)@ 16:30, an Ace Disposal truck was unloading load of garbage from Army Depot@ Tooele County Landfill. A county
worker noticed some cannisters in the load & managed to grab one as it fell , while yelling at truck driver to stop. He saw five more cannisters fall when
truck stopped its load , then a pile of garbage fell on them . The army came out and sampled the one and it's a live \"bomb detonating ignitiator.\" The
army is at landfill this morning searching through garbage for remaining canisters . When found, the Sheritrs office will take them to an empty field and
detonate them with 2 sticks of C-4 dynamite. They need a disposal permit. Don Verbica said DSHW will supply one . UPDATE***09 : 15: Army was unable
to locate remaining canisters. They have secured garbage in same load & will take back and put back into their system and reprocess it. Sheriff Shinton
says as long as the pin isn't pulled it's not a threat. No longer need permit to dispose.
erisinfo .com I Environmental Risk Information Services Order No : 24031500569
Appendix: Database Descriptions
Environmental Risk Information Services (ERIS) can search the following databases. The extent of historical information varies with
each database and current information is determined by what is publicly available to ERIS at the time of update . ERIS updates
databases as set out in ASTM Standard E1527-13 and E1527-21, Section 8.1.8 Sources of Standard Source Information :
"Government information from nongovernmental sources may be considered current if the source updates the information at least every
90 days, or, for information that is updated less frequently than quarterly by the government agency, within 90 days of the date the
government agency makes the information available to the public."
Standard Environmental Record Sources
Federal
National Priority List: NPL
Sites on the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s National Priorities List of the most serious uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous
waste sites identified for possible long-term remedial action under the Superfund program . The NPL, which EPA is required to update at least once a
year, is based primarily on the score a site receives from EPA's Hazard Ranking System. A site must be on the NPL to receive money from the
Superfund Trust Fund for remedial action . Sites are represented by boundaries where available in the EPA Superfund Site Boundaries maintained by
the Shared Enterprise Geodata and Services (SEGS). Site boundaries represent the footprint of a whole site , the sum of all of the Operable Units and
the current understanding of the full extent of contamination ; for Federal Facility sites, the total site polygon may be the Facility boundary. Where there is
no polygon boundary data available for a given site, the site is represented as a point.
Government Publication Date: Oct 26, 2023
National Priority List -Proposed: PROPOSED NPL
Sites proposed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the state agency, or concerned citizens for addition to the National
Priorities List (NPL) due to contamination by hazardous waste and identified by the EPA as a candidate for cleanup because it poses a risk to human
health and/or the environment. Sites are represented by boundaries where available in the EPA Superfund Site Boundaries maintained by the Shared
Enterprise Geodata and Services (SEGS). Site boundaries represent the footprint of a whole site , the sum of all of the Operable Units and the current
understanding of the full extent of contamination; for Federal Facility sites, the total site polygon may be the Facility boundary. Where there is no
polygon boundary data available for a given site , the site is represented as a point.
Government Publication Date: Oct 26, 2023
Deleted NPL: DELETED NPL
Sites deleted from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s National Priorities List. The National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) establishes the criteria that the EPA uses to delete sites from the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425.(e), sites
may be deleted from the NPL where no further response is appropriate . Sites are represented by boundaries where available in the EPA Superfund Site
Boundaries maintained by the Shared Enterprise Geodata and Services (SEGS). Site boundaries represent the footprint of a whole site, the sum of all of
the Operable Units and the current understanding of the full extent of contamination ; for Federal Facility sites, the total site polygon may be the Facility
boundary . Where there is no polygon boundary data available for a given site , the site is represented as a point.
Government Publication Date: Oct 26, 2023
SEMS List BR Active Site Inventory: SEMS
The U.S . Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Superfund Program has deployed the Superfund Enterprise Management System (SEMS), which
integrates multiple legacy systems into a comprehensive tracking and reporting tool. This inventory contains active sites evaluated by the Superfund
program that are either proposed to be or are on the National Priorities List (NPL) as well as sites that are in the screening and assessment phase for
possible inclusion on the NPL. The Active Site Inventory Report displays site and location information at active SEMS sites . An active site is one at
which site assessment, removal , remedial, enforcement, cost recovery , or oversight activities are being planned or conducted . This data includes SEMS
sites from the List SR Active file as well as applicable sites from the SEMS GIS/REST file layer obtained from EPA's Facility Registry Service.
Government Publication Date: Nov 14, 2023
eris info.com I Environmental Risk Information Services Order No : 24031500569
$EMS List BR Archive Sites : SEMS ARCHIVE
The U.S . Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Superfund Enterprise Management System (SEMS) Archived Site Inventory displays site and
location information at sites archived from SEMS. An archived site is one at which EPA has determined that assessment has been completed and no
further remedial action is planned under the Superfund program at this time . This data includes sites from the List SR Archived site file .
Government Publication Date: Nov 14, 2023
Inventory of Open Dumps. June 1985: ODI
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) provides for publication of an inventory of open dumps. The Act defines "open dumps" as
facilities which do not comply with EPA's "Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices" (40 CFR 257).
Government Publication Date: Jun 1985
EPA Report on the Status of Open Dumps on Indian Lands: IODI
Public Law 103-399, The Indian Lands Open Dump Cleanup Act of 1994, enacted October 22, 1994, identified congressional concerns that solid waste
open dump sites located on American Indian or Alaska Native (Al/AN) lands threaten the health and safety of residents of those lands and contiguous
areas. The purpose of the Act is to identify the location of open dumps on Indian lands, assess the relative health and environment hazards posed by
those sites, and provide financial and technical assistance to Indian tribal governments to close such dumps in compliance with Federal standards and
regulations or standards promulgated by Indian Tribal governments or Alaska Native entities.
Government Publication Date: Dec 31, 1998
Comprehensive Environmental Response. Compensation and Liability Information System -CERCLIS
CERCLIS:
Superfund is a program administered by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to locate, investigate, and clean up the worst
hazardous waste sites throughout the United States. CERCLIS is a database of potential and confirmed hazardous waste sites at which the EPA
Superfund program has some involvement. It contains sites that are either proposed to be or are on the National Priorities List (NPL) as well as sites
that are in the screening and assessment phase for possible inclusion on the NPL. The EPA administers the Superfund program in cooperation with
individual states and tribal governments; this database is made available by the EPA.
Government Publication Date: Oct 25, 2013
CERCLIS -No Further Remedial Action Planned: CERCLIS NFRAP
An archived site is one at which EPA has determined that assessment has been completed and no further remedial action is planned under the
Superfund program at this time. The Archive designation means that, to the best of EPA's knowledge, assessment at a site has been completed and
that EPA has determined no further steps will be taken to list this site on the National Priorities List (NPL). This decision does not necessarily mean that
there is no hazard associated with a given site ; it only means that, based upon available information , the location is not judged to be a potential NPL
site .
Government Publication Date: Oct 25, 2013
CERCLIS Liens: CERCLIS LIENS
A Federal Superfund lien exists at any property where EPA has incurred Superfund costs to address contamination ("Superfund site") and has provided
notice of liability to the property owner. A Federal CERCLA ("Superfund") lien can exist by operation of law at any site or property at which EPA has
spent Superfund monies. This database is made available by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This database was provided by
the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Refer to SEMS LIEN as the current data source for Superfund Liens.
Government Publication Date: Jan 30, 2014
RCRA CORRACTS-Corrective Action: RCRA CORRACTS
RCRA Info is the U .S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. At these sites, the Corrective
Action Program ensures that cleanups occur. EPA and state regulators work with facilities and communities to design remedies based on the
contamination, geology, and anticipated use unique to each site .
Government Publication Date: Oct 2, 2023
RCRA non-CORRACTS TSD Facilities: RCRA TSO
RCRA Info is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) comprehensive information system , providing access to data supporting the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. This database includes Non-
Corrective Action sites that have indicated engagement in the treatment, storage , or disposal of hazardous waste which requires a RCRA hazardous
waste permit.
Government Publication Date: Oct 2, 2023
erisinfo .com I Environmental Risk Information Services Order No : 24031500569
RCRA Generator List: RCRALQG
RCRA Info is the U .S . Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. RCRA Info replaces the data
recording and reporting abilities of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS) and the Biennial Reporting System (BRS). A
hazardous waste generator is any person or site whose processes and actions create hazardous waste (see 40 CFR 260.10). Large Quantity
Generators (LQGs) generate 1,000 kilograms per month or more of hazardous waste or more than one kilogram per month of acutely hazardous waste .
Government Publication Date: Oct 2, 2023
RCRA Small Quantity Generators List: RCRASQG
RCRA Info is the U .S . Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. RCRA Info replaces the data
recording and reporting abilities of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS) and the Biennial Reporting System (BRS). A
hazardous waste generator is any person or site whose processes and actions create hazardous waste (see 40 CFR 260.10). Small Quantity
Generators (SQGs) generate more than 100 kilograms , but less than 1,000 kilograms, of hazardous waste per month .
Government Publication Date: Oct 2, 2023
RCRA Very Small Quantity Generators List: RCRA VSQG
RCRA Info is the U .S . Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. A hazardous waste generator is
any person or site whose processes and actions create hazardous waste (see 40 CFR 260.10). Very Small Quantity Generators (VSQG) generate 100
kilograms or less per month of hazardous waste, or one kilogram or less per month of acutely hazardous waste . Additionally, VSQG may not
accumulate more than 1,000 kilograms of hazardous waste at any time .
Government Publication Date: Oct 2, 2023
RCRA Non-Generators: RCRANON GEN
RCRA Info is the U .S . Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. RCRA Info replaces the data
recording and reporting abilities of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS) and the Biennial Reporting System (BRS). A
hazardous waste generator is any person or site whose processes and actions create hazardous waste (see 40 CFR 260.10). Non-Generators do not
presently generate hazardous waste .
Government Publication Date: Oct 2, 2023
RCRA Sites with Controls: RCRA CONTROLS
List of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) facilities with institutional controls in place. RCRA gives the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) the authority to control hazardous waste from the "cradle-to-grave." This includes the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and
disposal of hazardous waste . RCRA also set forth a framework for the management of non-hazardous solid wastes. The 1986 amendments to RCRA
enabled EPA to address environmental problems that could result from underground tanks storing petroleum and other hazardous substances.
Government Publication Date: Oct 2, 2023
Federal Engineering Controls-ECs: FED ENG
List of Engineering controls (ECs) made availabe by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ECs encompass a variety of engineered
and constructed physical barriers (e.g ., soil capping, sub-surface venting systems, mitigation barriers, fences) to contain and/or prevent exposure to
contamination on a property. The EC listing includes remedy component data from Superfund decision documents for applicable sites on the final or
deleted on the National Priorities List (NPL); and sites with a Superfund Alternative Approach (SAA) Agreement in place . The only sites included that are
not on the NPL; proposed for NPL; or removed from proposed NPL, are those with an SAA Agreement in place .
Government Publication Date: Dec 26, 2023
Federal Institutional Controls-/Cs: FED INST
List of Institutional controls (ICs) made available by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ICs are non-engineered instruments,
such as administrative and legal controls, that help minimize the potential for human exposure to contamination and/or protect the integrity of the
remedy. Although it is EPA's expectation that treatment or engineering controls will be used to address principal threat wastes and that groundwater will
be returned to its beneficial use whenever practicable, ICs play an important role in site remedies because they reduce exposure to contamination by
limiting land or resource use and guide human behavior at a site . The IC listing includes remedy component data from Superfund decision documents
for applicable sites on the final or deleted on the National Priorities List (NPL); and sites with a Superfund Alternative Approach (SAA) Agreement in
place . The only sites included that are not on the NPL; proposed for NPL ; or removed from proposed NPL, are those with an SAA Agreement in place .
Government Publication Date: Dec 26, 2023
erisinfo .com I Environmental Risk Information Services Order No : 24031500569
Land Use Control Information System: LUCIS
The LUCIS database is maintained by the U.S . Department of the Navy and contains information for former Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)
properties across the United States.
Government Publication Date: Sep 1, 2006
Institutional Control Boundaries at NPL sites: NPLIC
Boundaries of Institutional Control areas at sites on the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s National Priorities List, or Proposed or
Deleted , made available by the EPA's Shared Enterprise Geodata and Services (SEGS). United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s
National Priorities List of the most serious uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites identified for possible long-term remedial action under the
Superfund program . Institutional controls are non-engineered instruments such as administrative and legal controls that help minimize the potential for
human exposure to contamination and/or protect the integrity of the remedy.
Government Publication Date: Oct 26, 2023
Emergency Response Notification System: ERNS 1982 TO 1986
Database of oil and hazardous substances spill reports controlled by the National Response Center. The primary function of the National Response
Center is to serve as the sole national point of contact for reporting oil , chemical, radiological, biological, and etiological discharges into the environment
anywhere in the United States and its territories .
Government Publication Date: 1982-1986
Emergency Response Notification System: ERNS 1987 TO 1989
Database of oil and hazardous substances spill reports controlled by the National Response Center. The primary function of the National Response
Center is to serve as the sole national point of contact for reporting oil , chemical, radiological, biological, and etiological discharges into the environment
anywhere in the United States and its territories.
Government Publication Date: 1987-1989
Emergency Response Notification System: ERNS
Database of oil and hazardous substances spill reports made available by the United States Coast Guard National Response Center (NRC). The NRC
fields initial reports for pollution and railroad incidents and forwards that information to appropriate federal/state agencies for response . These data
contain initial incident data that has not been validated or investigated by a federal/state response agency.
Government Publication Date: Feb 20, 2024
The Assessment. Cleanup and Redevelopment Exchange System fACRESI Brownfield Database: FED BROWNFIELDS
Brownfields are real property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a
hazardous substance , pollutant, or contaminant. Cleaning up and reinvesting in these properties protects the environment, reduces blight, and takes
development pressures off greenspaces and working lands. This data is provided by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and
includes Brownfield sites from the Cleanups in My Community (CIMC) web application .
Government Publication Date: Feb 7, 2024
FEMA Underground Storage Tank Listing: FEMA UST
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) of the Department of Homeland Security maintains a list of FEMA owned underground storage
tanks.
Government Publication Date: Dec 31, 2017
Facility Response Plan: FRP
This listing contains facilities that have submitted Facility Response Plans (FRPs) to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Facilities that
could reasonably be expected to cause "substantial harm" to the environment by discharging oil into or on navigable waters are required to prepare and
submit FRPs. Harm is determined based on total oil storage capacity, secondary containment and age of tanks, oil transfer activities , history of
discharges, proximity to a public drinking water intake or sensitive environments. This listing includes FRP facilities from an applicable EPA FOIA file
and Homeland Infrastructure Foundation-Level Data (HIFLD) data file .
Government Publication Date: May 2, 2023
Delisted Facility Response Plans: DELISTED FRP
Facilities that once appeared in -and have since been removed from -the list of facilities that have submitted Facility Response Plans (FRP) to EPA.
Facilities that could reasonably be expected to cause "substantial harm" to the environment by discharging oil into or on navigable waters are required to
prepare and submit Facility Response Plans (FRPs). Harm is determined based on total oil storage capacity , secondary containment and age of tanks,
oil transfer activities, history of discharges, proximity to a public drinking water intake or sensitive environments.
Government Publication Date: May 2, 2023
erisinfo .com I Environmental Risk Information Services Order No : 24031500569
Historical Gas Stations: HIST GAS STATIONS
This historic directory of service stations is provided by the Cities Service Company. The directory includes Cities Service filling stations that were
located throughout the United States in 1930.
Government Publication Date: Jul 1, 1930
Petroleum Refineries: REFN
List of petroleum refineries from the U.S . Energy Information Administration (EIA) Refinery Capacity Report . Includes operating and idle petroleum
refineries (including new refineries under construction) and refineries shut down during the previous year located in the 50 States, the District of
Columbia, Puerto Rico , the Virgin Islands, Guam , and other U.S. possessions. Survey locations adjusted using public data.
Government Publication Date: Sep 20, 2023
Petroleum Product and Crude Oil Rail Terminals: BULK TERMINAL
A list of petroleum product and crude oil rail terminals from the U.S . Energy Information Administration (EIA), as well as petroleum terminals sourced
from the Federal Communications Commission Data hosted by the Homeland Infrastructure Foundation-Level Database. Data includes operable bulk
petroleum product terminals with a total bulk shell storage capacity of 50,000 barrels or more, and/or the ability to receive volumes from tanker, barge, or
pipeline ; also rail terminals handling the loading and unloading of crude oil with activity between 2017 and 2018 . EIA petroleum product terminal data
comes from the EIA-815 Bulk Terminal and Blender Report, which includes working, shell in operation, and shell idle for several major product
groupings .
Government Publication Date: Sep 22, 2023
LIEN on Property: SEMS LIEN
The U.S . Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Superfund Enterprise Management System (SEMS) provides Lien details on applicable properties,
such as the Superfund lien on property activity, the lien property information, and the parties associated with the lien .
Government Publication Date: Nov 14, 2023
Superfund Decision Documents: SUPERFUND ROD
This database contains a list of decision documents for Superfund sites . Decision documents serve to provide the reasoning for the choice of (or)
changes to a Superfund Site cleanup plan . The decision documents include completed Records of Decision (ROD), ROD Amendments, Explanations of
Significant Differences (ESD) for active and archived sites stored in the Superfund Enterprise Management System (SEMS), along with other associated
memos and files . This information is maintained and made available by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency .
Government Publication Date: Dec 26, 2023
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program: DOE FUSRAP
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) established the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) in 1974 to remediate sites where
radioactive contamination remained from the Manhattan Project and early U.S . Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) operations . The DOE Office of
Legacy Management (LM) established long-term surveillance and maintenance (L TS&M) requirements for remediated FUSRAP sites . DOE evaluates
the final site conditions of a remediated site on the basis of risk for different future uses. DOE then confirms that L TS&M requirements will maintain
protectiveness.
Government Publication Date: Mar 4, 2017
Utah National Priorities List: NPL UT
The National Priorities List (NPL) is maintained by the Utah Department of Environmental Quality's Division of Environmental Response and
Remediation (DERR). Before a cleanup of a hazardous waste site can take place under Superfund, it must be included on the National Priority List. The
NPL is a published list of hazardous waste sites that are eligible for extensive , long-term cleanup action under the Superfund program . When no
responsible party can be found, listing on the NPL allows EPA and the State to access the Superfund Trust fund to pay for site cleanup . The DERR
assumes no responsibility or liability for the accuracy of the location of these properties .
Government Publication Date: Aug 15, 2023
Potential Contaminated Sites: CONTAM POTENTIAL
This database of Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation , and Liability System sites is maintained by the Utah Department of
Environmental Quality's Division of Environmental Response and Remediation (DERR). The CERCLA Branch of the DERR performs site investigations
of potentially contaminated sites within the State of Utah to determine whether or not they pose a threat to human health and the environment and
should be included on the Federal Superfund National Priorities List. Sites are extracted from the Utah Environmental Interactive Map . The DERR
assumes no responsibility or liability for the accuracy of the location of these properties.
Government Publication Date: Dec 13, 2023
eris info.com I Environmental Risk Information Services Order No : 24031500569
Solid Waste Facilities and Landfills:
A list of solid waste facilities provided by the Utah Department of Environmental Quality Interactive Map.
Government Publication Date: Oct 25, 2023
SWF/LF
Historical Solid Waste and Landfill Facilities: HSWF
The Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste of the Department of Enviromental Quality (DEQ) maintains a list of historically closed landfills. Public Land
Survey System (PLSS) locations provided by the source are subject to accuracy limitations inherent to the PLSS system .
Government Publication Date: Sep 22, 2014
Sites With Leaking Underground Storage Tanks fLUSTI: LUST
A list of Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) sites made available by the Underground Storage Tank Branch of the Department of Environmental
Quality (DEQ), Division of Environmental Response and Remediation (DERR). The listing Includes sites from the DEQ's LUST Sites List as well as
LUST sites from the DEQ's Environmental Interactive Map, and the Facility UST sites data layer (applicable release sites) from the Utah Open Data
Portal.
Government Publication Date: Dec 18, 2023
Sites With Leaking Aboveground Storage Tanks fLASn:
A list of state regulated aboveground petroleum storage tank releases from the Utah Department of Environmental Quality.
Government Publication Date: Jan 10, 2024
Delisted Leaking Storage Tank:
LAST
DELISTED LST
This database contains a list of closed leaking storage tank sites that were removed from the Utah State Underground Storage Tank program of the
Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ).
Government Publication Date: Dec 18, 2023
Sites With Underground Storage Tanks fUSTI: UST
A list of Underground Storage Tank (UST) sites made available by the Underground Storage Tank Branch of the Department of Environmental Quality
(DEQ), Division of Environmental Response and Remediation (DERR). The listing Includes sites from the DEQ's UST Sites list as well as UST sites
from the DEQ's Environmental Interactive Map, and the Facility UST sites data layer from the Utah Open Data Portal.
Government Publication Date: Dec 18, 2023
Sites With Aboveground Storage Tanks (ASTI:
A list of state regulated aboveground petroleum storage tanks from the Utah Department of Environmental Quality.
Government Publication Date: Jan 10, 2024
Tanks Lapse List:
AST
UST LAPSE
A list of tank facilities that do not have an active Certificate of Compliance due to lapsing, revocation , or installation in process . The listed USTs at these
facilities are ineligible to receive deliveries of fuel. Made available by the Underground Storage Tanks Compliance Branch of the Utah Department of
Environmental Quality .
Government Publication Date: Mar 1, 2024
Delisted Storage Tanks: DTNK
This database contains a list of closed storage tank sites that were removed from the Utah State Underground Storage Tank program of the Department
of Environmental Quality (DEQ).
Government Publication Date: Mar 1, 2024
List of Targeted and Non-targeted Brownfields: BROWNFIELDS
List of Brownfields Projects, either targeted or not targeted for cleanup, made available by the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Division of
Environmental Response and Remediation (DERR). The DERR conducts Brownfields activities under authorities of the Voluntary Release Cleanup Act,
Hazardous Substances Mitigation Act and the Small Business Liability Relief Brownfields Revitalization Act. These statutes provide mechanisms by
which the DERR oversees the assessment and cleanup of Brownfields.
Government Publication Date: Oct 11, 2022
Voluntary Cleanup Site List: VCP
The Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP) of the Utah Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) was created to promote the voluntary cleanup of
contaminated sites . The VCP is intended to encourage redevelopment of Brownfields and other impacted sites by providing a streamlined cleanup
program . This data is compiled from the DEQ's Division of Environmental Response & Remediation (DERR) VCP/Brownfields Section Site List and the
DERR VCP Map Data from the Utah Environmental Interactive Map tool.
erisinfo .com I Environmental Risk Information Services Order No : 24031500569
Government Publication Date: Jan 24, 2024
Response Action Sites: RESPONSE
The Voluntary Cleanup Program/Brownfields Section of the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) maintains a list of sites at which Response
Actions are planned or have been completed .
Government Publication Date: Mar 9, 2023
Sites with Institutional Controls : INST
Sites included in the Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP), Superfund and Underground Storage Tank Facilities list that have environmental convenants
and institutional controls in place .
Government Publication Date: Sep 20, 2023
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Tribal/Indian Lands: INDIAN LUST
This list of leaking underground storage tanks (LUSTs) on Tribal/Indian Lands in Region 8 , which includes Utah , is made available by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Government Publication Date: Oct 25, 2023
Underground Storage Tanks on Tribal/Indian Lands: INDIAN UST
This list of underground storage tanks (USTs) on Tribal/Indian Lands in Region 8 , which includes Utah , is made available by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Government Publication Date: Oct 25, 2023
Delisted Tribal Leaking Storage Tanks: DELISTED INDIAN LST
Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) facilities which once appeared on -and have since been removed from -the Regional Tribal/Indian LUST
lists made available by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Government Publication Date: Oct 25, 2023
Delisted Tribal Underground Storage Tanks : DELISTED INDIAN UST
Underground Storage Tank (UST) facilities which once appeared on -and have since been removed from -the Regional Tribal/Indian UST lists made
available by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Government Publication Date: Oct 25, 2023
County
No County standard environmental record sources available for this State.
Additional Environmental Record Sources
Federal
PFAS Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data: PFAS GHG
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) collects Greenhouse Gas (GHG) data from large emitting
facilities (25 ,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) per year), and suppliers of fossil fuels and industrial gases that results in GHG
emissions when used . Includes GHG emissions data for facilities that emit or have emitted since 2010 chemicals identified in EPA's CompTox
Chemicals Dashboard list of PFAS without explicit structures and list of PFAS structures by DSSTox. PFAS emissions data has been identified for
facilities engaged in the following industrial processes : Aluminum Production (GHGRP Subpart F), HCFC-22 Production and HFC-23 Destruction
(Subpart 0), Electronics Manufacturing (Subpart I), Fluorinated Gas Production (Subpart L), Magnesium Production (Subpart T), Electrical Transmission
and Distribution Equipment Use (Subpart DD), and Manufacture of Electric Transmission and Distribution Equipment (Subpart SS). Over t ime, other
industrial processes with required GHGRP reporting may include PFAS emissions data and the list of reportable gases may change over time .
Government Publication Date: Nov 15, 2023
Facility Registry Service/Facility Index: FINDS/FRS
erisinfo .com I Environmental Risk Information Services Order No : 24031500569
The Facility Registry Service (FRS) is a centrally managed database that identifies facilities, sites, or places subject to environmental regulations or of
environmental interest. FRS creates high-quality, accurate, and authoritative facility identification records through rigorous verification and management
procedures that incorporate information from program national systems, state master facility records , and data collected from EPA's Central Data
Exchange registrations and data management personnel. This list is made available by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Government Publication Date: Sep 8, 2023
Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) Program: TRIS
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) is a database containing data on disposal or other releases of toxic
chemicals from U .S . facilities and information about how facilities manage those chemicals through recycling , energy recovery , and treatment. The re are
currently 770 individually listed chemicals and 33 chemical categories covered by the TRI Program . Facilities that manufacture, process or otherwise
use these chemicals in amounts above established levels must submit annual reporting forms for each chemical. Note that the TRI chemical list does
not include all toxic chemicals used in the U.S . One of TRl's primary purposes is to inform communities about toxic chemical releases to the
environment. This database includes TRI Reporting Data for calendar years 1987 through 2021 and Preliminary Data for 2022 .
Government Publication Date: Sep 20, 2023
PFOAIPFOS Contaminated Sites: PFAS NPL
This list of Superfund Sites with Per-and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) detections is made available by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) in their PFAS Analytic Tools data , previously the list was obtained by EPA FOIA requests. EPA's Office of Land and Emergency Management and
EPA Regional Offices maintain what is known about site investigations, contamination , and remedial actions under the Comprehensive Environmental
Response , Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) where PFAS is present in the environment. Limitations : Detections of PFAS at National Priorities
List (NPL) sites do not mean that people are at risk from PFAS, are exposed to PFAS, or that the site is the source of the PFAS. The information in the
Superfund NPL and Superfund Alternative Agreement (SM) PFAS detection site list is years old and may not be accurate today. Site information such
as site name, site ID , and location has been confirmed for accuracy; however, PFAS-related information such as media sampled , drinking water being
above the health advisory, or mitigation efforts has not been verified . For Federal Facilities data, the other Federal agencies (OFA) are the lead agency
for their data and provided them to EPA.
Government Publication Date: Dec 18, 2023
Federal Agency Locations with Known or Suspected PFAS Detections: PFAS FED SITES
List of Federal agency locations with known or suspected detections of Per-and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS), made available by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in their PFAS Analytic Tools data. EPA outlines that these data are gathered from several federal entities, such
as the Federal Superfund program , Department of Defense (DOD), National Aeronautics and Space Administration , Department of Transportation , and
Department of Energy. The dates this data was extracted for the PFAS Analytic Tools range from March 2022 to September 2023. Sites on this list do
not necessarily reflect the source/s of PFAS contamination and detections do not indicate level of risk or human exposure at the site . Agricultural
notifications in this data are limited to DOD sites only. At this time , the EPA is aware that this list is not comprehensive of all Federal agencies.
Government Publication Date: Sep 5, 2023
SSEHRI PFAS Contamination Sites: PFAS SSEHRI
This PFAS Contamination Site Tracker database is compiled by the Social Science Environmental Health Research Institute (SSEHRI) at Northeastern
University. According to the SSEHRI, the database records qualitative and quantitative data from each known site of PFAS contamination, including
timeline of discovery, sources, levels, health impacts, community response , and government response . The goal of this database is to compile
information and support public understanding of the rapidly unfolding issue of PFAS contamination . All data presented was extracted from government
websites, news articles, or publ icly available documents, and this is cited in the tracker. Locations for the Known PFAS Contam ination Sites are sourced
from the PFAS Sites and Community Resources Map, credited to the Northeastern University's PFAS Project Lab , Silent Spring Institute, and the PFAS-
REACH team . Disclaimer: The source conveys the data undergoes regular updates as new information becomes available, some sites may be missing
and/or contain information that is incorrect or outdated, as well as their information represents all contamination sites SSEHRI is aware of, not all
possible contamination sites . This data is not intended to be used for legal purposes . Access the following source link for the most current information :
https ://pfasproject.com/pfas-sites-and-community-resources/
Government Publication Date: May 19, 2023
National Response Center PFAS Spills: ERNS PFAS
This Per-and Poly-Fluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Spills dataset is made available via the U.S . Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) PFAS
Analytic Tools. The National Response Center (NRC), operated by the U.S. Coast Guard , is the designated federal point of contact for reporting all oil,
chemical, and other discharges into the environment, for the United States and its territories. This dataset contains NRC spill information from 1990 to
the present that is restricted to records associated with PFAS and PFAS-containing materials. Incidents are filtered to include only records with a
"Material Involved" or "Incident Description" related to Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF). The keywords used to filter the data included "AFFF ," "Fire
Fighting Foam ," "Aqueous Film Forming Foam ," "Fire Suppressant Foam , "PFAS," "PERFL," "PFOA," "PFOS," and "Genx." Limitations : The data from
the NRC website contains initial incident data that has not been validated or investigated by a federal/state response agency. Keyword searches may
misidentify some incident reports that do not contain PFAS. This dataset should also not be considered to be exhaustive of all PFAS spills/release
incidents.
Government Publication Date: Jan 24, 2024
erisinfo .com I Environmental Risk Information Services Order No : 24031500569
PFAS NPDES Discharge Monitoring: PFAS NPDES
This list of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitted facilities with required monitoring for Per-and Polyfluoroalkyl (PFAS)
Substances is made available via the U.S . Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s PFAS Analytic Tools . Any point-source wastewater discharger to
waters of the United States must have a NPDES permit, which defines a set of parameters for pollutants and monitoring to ensure that the discharge
does not degrade water quality or impair human health. This list includes NPDES permitted facilities associated with permits that monitor for Per-and
Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS), limited to the years 2007 -present. EPA further advises the following regarding these data : currently, fewer than half
of states have required PFAS monitoring for at least one of their permittees, and fewer states have established PFAS effluent limits for permittees. For
states that may have required monitoring, some reporting and data transfer issues may exist on a state-by-state basis.
Government Publication Date: Feb 19, 2024
PerfluorinatedAlkyl Substances fPFAS/ from Toxic Release Inventory: PFAS TRI
List of Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) facilities at which the reported chemical is a per-or polyfluoroalkyl (PFAS) substance included in the U.S .
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) consolidated PFAS Master List of PFAS Substances. Encompasses Toxics Release Inventory records
included in the EPA PFAS Analytic Tools . The EPA's TRI database currently tracks information on disposal or releases of 770 individually listed toxic
chemicals and 33 chemical categories from thousands of U.S. facilities and details about how facilities manage those chemicals through recycling ,
energy recovery , and t reatment. This listing includes TRI Reporting Data for calendar years 1987 through 2021 and Preliminary Data for 2022.
Government Publication Date: Sep 20, 2023
Perfluorinated Alkyl Substances (PFASI Water Quality: PFASWATER
The Water Quality Portal (WOP) is a cooperative service sponsored by the United States Geological Survey (USGS), the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), and the National Water Quality Monitoring Council (NWQMC). This listing includes records from the Water Quality Portal where the
characteristic (environmental measurement) is in the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s consolidated Master List of PFAS Substances.
Government Publication Date: Jul 20, 2020
PFAS TSCA Manufacture and Import Facilities: PFAS TSCA
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued the Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) Rule under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and
requires chemical manufacturers and facilities that manufacture or import chemical substances to report data to EPA. This list is specific only to TSCA
Manufacture and Import Facilities with reported per-and poly-fluoroalkyl (PFAS) substances. Data file is sourced from EPA's PFAS Analytic Tools TSCA
dataset which includes CDR/lnventory Update Reporting data from 1998 up to 2020. Disclaimer: This data file includes production and importation data
for chemicals identified in EPA's CompTox Chemicals Dashboard list of PFAS without explicit structures and list of PFAS structures in DSSTox. Note
that some regulations have specific chemical structure requirements that define PFAS differently than the lists in EPA's CompTox Chemicals
Dashboard . Reporting information on manufactured or imported chemical substance amounts should not be compared between facilities , as some
companies claim Chemical Data Reporting Rule data fields for PFAS information as Confidential Business Information.
Government Publication Date: Jan 5, 2023
PFAS Waste Transfers from RCRA e-Manifest: PFAS E-MANIFEST
This Per-and Poly-Fluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Waste Transfers dataset is made available via the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
PFAS Analytic Tools. Every shipment of hazardous waste in the U.S . must be accompanied by a shipment manifest, which is a critical component of the
cradle-to-grave tracking of wastes mandated by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). According to the EPA, currently no Federal
Waste Code exists for any PFAS compounds . To work around the lack of PFAS waste codes in the RCRA database, EPA developed the PFAS
Transfers dataset by mining a-Manifest records containing at least one of these common PFAS keywords : • PFAS • PFOA • PFOS • PERFL • AFFF •
GENX • GEN-X (plus the Vermont state-specific waste codes). Limitations: Amount or concentration of PFAS being transferred cannot be determined
from the manifest information. Keyword searches may misidentify some manifest records that do not contain PFAS. This dataset should also not be
considered to be exhaustive of all PFAS waste transfers .
Government Publication Date: Feb 25, 2024
PFAS Industry Sectors: PFAS IND
This Per-and Poly-Fluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Industry Sectors dataset is made available via the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
PFAS Analytic Tools. The EPA developed the dataset from various sources that show which industries may be handling PFAS including: EPA's
Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) records restricted to potential PFAS-handling industry sectors ; ECHO records for Fire Training
Sites identified where fire-fighting foam may have been used in training exercises; and 14 CFR Part 139 Airports compiled from historic and current
records from the FAA Airport Data and Information Portal. Since July 2006, all certificated Part 139 Airports are required to have fire-fighting foam onsite
that meet certain military specifications , which to date have been fluorinated (Aqueous Film Forming Foam). Limitations : Inclusion in this dataset does
not indicate that PFAS are being manufactured, processed , used, or released by the facility. Listed facilities potentially handle PFAS based on their
industrial profile , but are unconfirmed by the EPA. Keyword searches in ECHO for Fire Training sites may misidentify some facilities and should not be
considered to be an exhaustive list of fire training facilities in the U.S.
Government Publication Date: Dec 4, 2023
erisinfo .com I Environmental Risk Information Services Order No : 24031500569
Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System: HMIRS
The Hazardous Materials Incident Reporting System (HMIRS) database contains unintentional hazardous materials release information reported to the
U.S . Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration .
Government Publication Date: Nov 26, 2023
National Clandestine Drug Labs: NCDL
The U.S. Department of Justice ("the Department"), Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), provides this data as a public service . It contains
addresses of some locations where law enforcement agencies reported they found chemicals or other items that indicated the presence of either
clandestine drug laboratories or dumpsites. In most cases, the source of the entries is not the Department, and the Department has not verified the entry
and does not guarantee its accuracy.
Government Publication Date: Jul 26, 2023
Toxic Substances Control Act: TSCA
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is amending the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) section 8(a) Inventory Update Reporting (IUR) rule
and changing its name to the Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule .
The CDR enables EPA to collect and publish information on the manufacturing, processing, and use of commercial chemical substances and mixtures
(referred to hereafter as chemical substances) on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory (TSCA Inventory). This includes current information on
chemical substance production volumes, manufacturing sites, and how the chemical substances are used . This information helps the Agency determine
whether people or the environment are potentially exposed to reported chemical substances. EPA publishes submitted CDR data that is not Confidential
Business Information (CBI).
Government Publication Date: Apr 11, 2019
Hist TSCA: HISTTSCA
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is amending the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) section 8(a) Inventory Update Reporting (IUR) rule
and changing its name to the Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule .
The 2006 IUR data summary report includes information about chemicals manufactured or imported in quantities of 25,000 pounds or more at a single
site during calendar year 2005. In addition to the basic manufacturing information collected in previous reporting cycles, the 2006 cycle is the first time
EPA collected information to characterize exposure during manufacturing, processing and use of organic chemicals . The 2006 cycle also is the first time
manufacturers of inorganic chemicals were required to report basic manufacturing information .
Government Publication Date: Dec 31, 2006
FTTS Administrative Case Listing: FTTSADMIN
An administrative case listing from the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, & Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), together
known as FTTS. This database was obtained from the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) National Compliance Database (NCDB). The FTTS
and NCDB was shut down in 2006.
Government Publication Date: Jan 19, 2007
FTTS Inspection Case Listing: FTTSINSP
An inspection case listing from the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, & Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), together
known as FTTS . This database was obtained from the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) National Compliance Database (NCDB). The FTTS
and NCDB was shut down in 2006.
Government Publication Date: Jan 19, 2007
Potentially Responsible Parties List: PRP
Early in the site cleanup process, the U .S . Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducts a search to find the Potentially Responsible Parties
(PRPs). The EPA looks for evidence to determine liability by matching wastes found at the site with parties that may have contributed wastes to the site .
This listing contains PRPs, Noticed Parties, at sites in the EPA's Superfund Enterprise Management System (SEMS).
Government Publication Date: Jan 26, 2024
State Coalition for Remediation of Drycleaners Listing: SCRD DRYCLEANER
The State Coalition for Remediation of Drycleaners (SCRD) was established in 1998, with support from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation . Coalition members are states with mandated programs and funding for drycleaner
site remediation . Current members are Alabama, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin . Since 2017, the SCRD no longer maintains this data, refer to applicable state source data where available.
Government Publication Date: Nov 08, 2017
Integrated Compliance Information System (IC/SI: ICIS
erisinfo .com I Environmental Risk Information Services Order No : 24031500569
The Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS) database contains integrated enforcement and compliance information across most of U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) programs. The vision for ICIS is to replace EPA's independent databases that contain enforcement data with
a single repository for that information . Currently , ICIS contains all Federal Administrative and Judicial enforcement actions and a subset of the Permit
Compliance System (PCS), which supports the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). This information is maintained by the EPA
Headquarters and at the Regional offices . A future release of ICIS will completely replace PCS and will integrate that information with Federal actions
already in the system . ICIS also has the capability to track other activities that support compliance and enforcement programs, including incident
tracking, compliance assistance, and compliance monitoring.
Government Publication Date: Aug 26, 2023
Drycleaner Facilities: FED DRYCLEANERS
A list of drycleaner facilities from Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) data as made available by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), sourced from the ECHO Exporter file . The EPA tracks facilities that possess NAIC and SIC codes that classify businesses as drycleaner
establishments.
Government Publication Date: Jan 20, 2024
Delisted Drycleaner Facilities: DELISTED FED DRY
List of sites removed from the list of Drycleaner Facilities (sites in the EPA's Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS) with NAIC or SIC codes
identifying the business as a drycleaner establishment).
Government Publication Date: Jan 20, 2024
Formerly Used Defense Sites : FUDS
Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS) are properties that were formerly owned by , leased to, or otherwise possessed by and under the jurisdiction of the
Secretary of Defense prior to October 1986, where the Department of Defense (DOD) is responsible for an environmental restoration . The FUDS Annual
Report to Congress (ARC) is published by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE). This data is compiled from the USACE's Geospatial FUDS data
layers and Homeland Infrastructure Foundation-Level Data (HIFLD) FUDS dataset which applies to the Fiscal Year 2021 FUDS Inventory.
Government Publication Date: May 15, 2023
FUDS Munitions Response Sites: FUDS MRS
Boundaries of Munitions Response Sites (MRS), published with the Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS) Annual Report to Congress (ARC) by the U .S .
Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE). An MRS is a discrete location within a Munitions response area (MRA) that is known to require a munitions
response . An MRA means any area on a defense site that is known or suspected to contain unexploded ordnance (UXO), discarded military munitions
(DMM), or munitions constituents (MC). This data is compiled from the USACE's Geospatial MRS data layers and Homeland Infrastructure Foundation-
Level Data (HIFLD) MRS dataset.
Government Publication Date: May 15, 2023
Former Military Nike Missile Sites: FORMER NIKE
This information was taken from report DRXTH-AS-IA-83A016 (Historical Overview of the Nike Missile System, 12/1984) which was performed by
Environmental Science and Engineering , Inc. for the U.S . Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency Assessment Division . The Nike system was
deployed between 1954 and the mid-1970's. Among the substances used or stored on Nike sites were liquid missile fuel (JP-4); starter fluids (UDKH,
aniline, and furfuryl alcohol); oxidizer (IRFNA); hydrocarbons (motor oil, hydraulic fluid, diesel fuel, gasoline, heating oil); solvents (carbon tetrachloride,
trichloroethylene, trichloroethane, stoddard solvent); and battery electrolyte . The quantities of material a disposed of and procedures for disposal are not
documented in published reports . Virtually all information concerning the potential for contamination at Nike sites is confined to personnel who were
assigned to Nike sites . During deactivation most hardware was shipped to depot-level supply points. There were reportedly instances where excess
materials were disposed of on or near the site itself at closure . There was reportedly no routine site decontamination .
Government Publication Date: Dec 2, 1984
PHMSA Pipeline Safety Flagged Incidents: PIPELINE INCIDENT
This list of flagged pipeline incidents is made available by the U.S . Department of Transportation (US DOT) Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA). PHMSA regulations require incident and accident reports for five different pipeline system types . Accidents reported on
hazardous liquid gravity lines (§ 195.13) and reporting-regulated-only hazardous liquid gathering lines (§ 195 .15) and incidents reported on Type R gas
gathering (§192 .8(c)) are not included in the flagged incident file data.
Government Publication Date: Nov 6, 2023
Material Licensing Tracking System (ML TS): MLTS
A list of sites that store radioactive material subject to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licensing requirements . This list is maintained by the
NRC. As of September 2016, the NRC no longer releases location information for sites . Site locations were last received in July 2016 .
Government Publication Date: May 11, 2021
erisinfo .com I Environmental Risk Information Services Order No : 24031500569
Historic Material Licensing Tracking System (ML TS! sites: HISTMLTS
A historic list of sites that have inactive licenses and/or removed from the Material Licensing Tracking System (ML TS). In some cases, a site is removed
from the ML TS when the state becomes an "Agreement State". An Agreement State is a State that has signed an agreement with the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) authorizing the State to regulate certain uses of radioactive materials within the State .
Government Publication Date: Jan 31, 2010
Mines Master Index File: MINES
The Master Index File (MIF) is provided by the United States Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA). This file, which was
originally created in the 1970's, contained many Mine-IDs that were invalid. MSHA removes invalid IDs from the MIF upon discovery. MSHA applicable
data includes the following: all Coal and Metal/Non-Metal mines under MSHA's jurisdiction since 1/1/1970; mine addresses for all mines in the database
except for Abandoned mines prior to 1998 from MSHA's legacy system (addresses may or may not correspond with the physical location of the mine
itself); violations that have been assessed penalties as a result of MSHA inspections beginning on 1/1/2000; and violations issued as a result of MSHA
inspections conducted beginning on 1/1/2000.
Government Publication Date: May 1, 2023
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act Sites: SMCRA
An inventory of land and water impacted by past mining (primarily coal mining) is maintained by the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
Enforcement (OSMRE) to provide information needed to implement the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA). This inventory
contains information on the type and extent of Abandoned Mine Land (AML) impacts, as well as information on the cost associated with the reclamation
of those problems . The data is based upon field surveys by State, Tribal, and OSMRE program officials . It is dynamic to the extent that it is modified as
new problems are identified and existing problems are reclaimed . Disclaimer: Per the OSMRE, States and tribes who enter their data into eAMLIS (AML
Inventory System) may truncate their latitude and longitude so the precise location of usually dangerous AMLs is not revealed in an effort to protect the
public from searching for these AMLs, most of which are on private property. If more precise location information is needed, please contact the
applicable state/tribe of interest.
Government Publication Date: Jun 13, 2023
Mineral Resource Data System: MRDS
The Mineral Resource Data System (MRDS) is a collection of reports describing metallic and nonmetallic mineral resources throughout the world.
Included are deposit name, location , commodity , deposit description, geologic characteristics, production, reserves, resources, and references . This
database contains the records previously provided in the Mineral Resource Data System (MRDS) of USGS and the Mineral Availability System/Mineral
Industry Locator System (MAS/MILS) originated in the U.S. Bureau of Mines, which is now part of USGS. The USGS has ceased systematic updates of
the MRDS database with their focus more recently on deposits of critical minerals while providing a well-documented baseline of historical mine
locations from USGS topographic maps.
Government Publication Date: Mar 15, 2016
DOE Legacy Management Sites: LM SITES
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Legacy Management (LM) currently manages radioactive and chemical waste, environmental
contamination, and hazardous material at over 100 sites across the U .S. The LM manages sites with diverse regulatory drivers (statutes or programs
that direct cleanup and management requirements at DOE sites) or as part of internal DOE or congressionally-recognized programs, such as but not
limited to: Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP), Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA Title I, Tile II),
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),
Decontamination and Decommissioning (D&D), Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA). This site listing includes data exported from the DOE Office of LM'
s Geospatial Environmental Mapping System (GEMS). GEMS Data disclaimer: The DOE Office of LM makes no representation or warranty, expressed
or implied, regarding the use, accuracy, availability, or completeness of the data presented herein .
Government Publication Date: Dec 12, 2023
Alternative Fueling Stations: ALT FUELS
This list of alternative fueling stations is sourced from the Alternative Fuels Data Center (AFDC). The U .S. Department of Energy's Office of Energy
Efficiency & Renewable Energy launched the AFDC in 1991 as a repository for alternative fuel vehicle performance data, which provides a wealth of
information and data on alternative and renewable fuels, advanced vehicles, fuel-saving strategies, and emerging transportation technologies. The data
includes Biodiesel (B20 and above), Compressed Natural Gas (CNG), Electric, Ethanol (E85), Hydrogen, Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG), Propane (LPG),
and Renewable Diesel (R20 and above) fuel type locations.
Government Publication Date: Aug 30, 2023
Superfunds Consent Decrees: CONSENT DECREES
erisinfo .com I Environmental Risk Information Services Order No : 24031500569
This list of Superfund consent decrees is provided by the Department of Justice, Environment & Natural Resources Division (ENRD) through a Freedom
of Information Act (FOIA) applicable file . This listing includes Consent Decrees for CERCLA or Superfund Sites filed and/or as proposed within the
ENRD's Case Management System (CMS) s ince 2010 . CMS may not reflect the latest developments in a case nor can the agency guarantee the
accuracy of the data. ENRD Disclaimer: Congress excluded three discrete categories of law enforcement and national security records from the
requirements of the FOIA; response is limited to those records that are subject to the requirements of the FOIA; however, this should not be taken as an
indication that excluded records do, or do not, exist.
Government Publication Date: Apr 19, 2023
Air Facility System: AFS
This EPA retired Air Facility System (AFS) dataset contains emissions, compliance, and enforcement data on stationary sources of air pollution .
Regulated sources cover a wide spectrum ; from large industrial facilities to relatively small operations such as dry cleaners. AFS does not contain data
on facilities that are solely asbestos demolition and/or renovation contractors, or landfills . ECHO Clean Air Act data from AFS are frozen and reflect
data as of October 17 , 2014; the EPA retired this system for Clean Air Act stationary sources and transitioned to ICIS-Air.
Government Publication Date: Oct 17, 2014
Registered Pesticide Establishments: SSTS
This national list of active EPA-registered foreign and domestic pesticide and/or device-producing establ ishments is based on data from the Section
Seven Tracking System (SSTS). The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide , and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Section 7 requ ires that each producing establishment
must place its EPA establishment number on the label or immediate container of each pesticide, active ingredient or device produced . An EPA
establishment number on a pesticide product label identifies the EPA registered location where the product was produced . The list of establishments is
made available by the U.S . Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Government Publication Date: Mar 1, 2023
Polvchlorinated Biphenvl fPCBI Transformers: PCBT
Locations of Transformers Containing Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) reg istered with the United States Environmental Protection Agency. PCB
transformer owners must register their transformer(s) with EPA. Although not required , PCB transformer owners who have removed and properly
disposed of a registered PCB transformer may notify EPA to have their PCB transformer de-registered . Data made available by EPA.
Government Publication Date: Oct 15, 2019
Polvchlorinated Biphenvl (PCB! Notifiers: PCB
Facilities included in the national list of facilities that have notified the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of Polychlorinated Biphenyl
(PCB) activities. Any company or person storing, transporting or disposing of PCBs or conducting PCB research and development must notify the EPA
and receive an identification number.
Government Publication Date: Oct 30, 2023
Spill Reports 1988 current through February 7. 2013: SPILLS
Regulated industry, permitted facilities, waste transporters and others are required by state laws to report chemical spills and other environmental
incidents within certain time frames , depending on the type of incident. These incidents are reported to The Division of Environmental Response &
Remediation (DERR) of the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ).
Government Publication Date: Jan 2, 2024
Methamphetamine Contaminated Properties: CDL
Utah Admin istrative Rule 19-6-901 Illegal Drug Operations Site Reporting and Decontamination Act requires local health departments to maintain a list
of properties believed to be contaminated by the illegal manufacture of drugs. These properties were reported to the Salt Lake Valley Health Department
by a complaint or report from a law enforcement agency and the Department has determined that reasonable evidence exists that the property is
contaminated . Once a property is decontaminated, it is removed from this list.
Government Publication Date: Jan 18, 2024
Dry Cleaning Facilities: DRYCLEANERS
The Division of Air Quality of the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) maintains a list of regulated dry cleaners that use perchlorethylene (PCE).
This site data is compiled from applicable FOIA files received from the DEQ's Division of Air Quality, the DEQ's Environmental Interactive Map layer of
Dry Cleaner Facilities , and also the Utah OpenData Catalog Dry Cleaners dataset.
Government Publication Date: Oct 16, 2023
Delisted Drvcleaners; DELISTED DRYCLEANERS
erisinfo .com I Environmental Risk Information Services Order No : 24031500569
A list of sites which once appeared on -and have since been removed from -the list of regulated dry cleaners that use perchlorethylene (PCE) made
available by the Division of Air Quality of the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ).
Government Publication Date: Oct 16, 2023
Tier 2 Chemical Inventory Program: TIER 2
A list of Tier 2 facilities managed by the Division of Environmental Response and Remediation (DERR) of the the Utah Department of Environmental
Quality (DEQ).
Government Publication Date: Nov 7, 2023
Tribal
No Tribal additional environmental record sources available for this State.
County
No County additional environmental record sources available for this State.
erisinfo .com I Environmental Risk Information Services Order No : 24031500569
Definitions
Database Descriptions: This section provides a detailed explanation for each database including : source , information available, time coverage, and
acronyms used. They are listed in alphabetic order.
Detail Report This is the section of the report which provides the most detail for each individual record . Records are summarized by location, starting
with the project property followed by records in closest proximity.
Distance: The distance value is the distance between plotted points, not necessarily the distance between the sites' boundaries . All values are an
approximation .
Direction: The direction value is the compass direction of the site in respect to the project property and/or center point of the report.
Elevation: The elevation value is taken from the location at which the records for the site address have been plotted . All values are an approximation .
Source : Google Elevation API.
Executive Summary: This portion of the report is divided into 3 sections :
'Report Summary'-Displays a chart indicating how many records fall on the project property and, within the report search radii.
'Site Report Summary'-Project Property'-This section lists all the records which fall on the project property. For more details, see the 'Detail Report'
section .
'Site Report Summary-Surrounding Properties'-This section summarizes all records on adjacent properties, listing them in order of proximity from the
project property. For more details, see the 'Detail Report' section .
Map Key: The map key number is assigned according to closest proximity from the project property . Map Key numbers always start at #1 . The project
property will always have a map key of '1' if records are available . If there is a number in brackets beside the main number, this will indicate the number
of records on that specific property . If there is no number in brackets , there is only one record for that property.
The symbol and colour used indicates 'elevation': the red inverted triangle will dictate 'ERIS Sites with Lower Elevation', the yellow triangle will dictate
'ERIS Sites with Higher Elevation' and the orange square will dictate 'ERIS Sites with Same Elevation.'
Unplottables: These are records that could not be mapped due to various reasons, including limited geographic information . These records may or
may not be in your study area , and are included as reference .
erisinfo .com I Environmental Risk Information Services Order No : 24031500569
Appendix F
November 28, 2023, TEAD Semi-Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
TOOELE ARMY DEPOT/HEADQUARTERS
1 TOOELE ARMY DEPOT, BUILDING 1
TOOELE, UT 84074-5003
November 28, 2023
SUBJECT: Tooele Army Depot April 2023 Final Semi-Annual Monitoring Event Results
and Quality Control Summary Report, Tooele Army Depot North Area (TEAD-N),
State/EPA I.D. Number UT3213820894
RECEIVED
By Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control at 5:20 pm, Nov 28, 2023
Mr. Doug Hansen DSHW-2023-212224
Director, Division Waste Management and Radiation Control
195 North 1950 West
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4880
Dear Mr. Hansen,
TEAD is submitting the April Final 2023 Semi-Annual Monitoring Event Results
and Quality Control Summary Report October 30, 2023.
If you have any questions regarding this request, please contact Tyson Erickson at
[phone].
Enclosure
Sincerely,
BENTLEY KRIST Digitallysignedby
• BENTLEY.KRISTYL.1396144308
YL.1396144308 ~;~~~~02rn .2s 1s,23:43
Kristyl Bentley
Chief, Environmental Division
*CERTIFICATION STATEMENT
•1 certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that
qualified personnel properly gathered and evaluated the infonnation submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system , or those persons
directly responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are
significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fines and imprisonment for knowing violations.
FINAL
April 2023 Semi-Annual Monitoring Event Results and
Quality Control Summary Report
Tooele Army Depot North
November 2023
Contract No. W9124J-21-D-0006
•••
TOOELE
ARMY DEPOT .. "
U.S. Army Environmental Command Tooele Army Depot
FINAL
April 2023 Semi-Annual Monitoring Event Results and
Quality Control Summary Report
Tooele Army Depot North
November 2023
Contract No. W9124J-21-D-0006
Prepared For:
U.S . Army Mission and Installation Contracting Command
Fort Sam Houston (MICC-FSH), U.S . Army Environmental Command (USAEC), and Tooele Army Depot (TEAD)
Prepared By :
i ce
ENGINEERING
Brice Engineering, LLC
3700 Centerpoint Drive, Suite 8223
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
907 .275 .2896 PH
www.BriceEng .com
This page intentionally blank
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1
2.0 ACTIVITIES PERFORMED DURING APRIL 2023 ......................................................................... 1
2.1 Monitoring Well Gauging .................................................................................................... l
2.2 Monitoring Well Sampling .................................................................................................. 1
3.0 ACTIVITIES ANTICIPATED FOR REMAINDER OF 2023 ............................................................... 1
TABLES
Table 1
Table 2
APPENDICES
Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Wells and Results -2023 Semi-Annual Event
Analytical Results -2023 Semi-Annual Monitoring Event
Appendix A Quality Control Summary Report
Appendix B Field Forms
April 2023 Semi-Annual Monitoring Event Results Summary Report
Tooele Army Depot North
iv
This page intentionally blank
April 2023 Semi-Annual Monitoring Event Results Summary Report
Tooele Army Depot North
V
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report documents activities conducted at Tooele Army Depot North (TEAD-N) during the semi-annual
monitoring event in April 2023. Monitoring at Solid Waste Management Unit (SWMU)-58 consists of a
smaller semi-annual monitoring event conducted in the spring in which 54 wells are designated for
sampling, and a larger semi-annual monitoring event conducted in the fall in which 113 wells are
designated for sampling. Well gauging is conducted at 267 wells during both events. Of the 54 wells
designated for sampling during the semi-annual event, 30 are sampled for long-term monitoring purposes
in fulfillment of TEAD-N Post Closure Permit requirements, and 24 are sampled for remedy monitoring
purposes as specified in the work plans for the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC} parcel and former
sanitary landfill remediation systems. The 24 remedy monitoring wells are also sampled a third time
following the annual event. Although sampling is driven by different requirements, sampling for post-
closure and remedy monitoring purposes is combined when possible for efficiency, as was the case during
the April 2023 semi-annual event.
This report documents activities conducted during the April 2023 semi-annual monitoring event and
presents the water level data and analytical results. Full evaluation of the results from the post-closure
monitoring wells will be included in an annual monitoring report encompassing both the April 2023 semi-
annual and October 2023 semi-annual monitoring events to be prepared following the October 2023 semi-
annual event. Full evaluation of results from the remedy monitoring wells will be presented in annual
Performance Evaluation Reports for the BRAC parcel and landfill remediation systems.
2.0 ACTIVITIES PERFORMED DURING APRIL 2023
2.1 Monitoring Well Gauging
Measurement of water levels and total depths in wells designated for gauging was conducted between
4 April and 24 April 2023. A summary of measured water levels and well depths is included in Table 1. In
total, 267 wells were gauged. Of these, 28 wells were either dry or obstructed.
2.2 Monitoring Well Sampling
Fifty-three of the fifty-four wells designated for monitoring during the semi-annual event were sampled
between 4 April and 11 April 2023. One well designated for sampling, B-30, could not be sampled due to
low water levels. Eight field duplicate samples were collected for quality control purposes. Samples
collected during the April 2023 monitoring event were shipped to EMAX Laboratories, Inc. in Torrance,
California, for analysis. Analytical results for the samples are presented in Table 2. A quality control
summary report (QCSR) discussing data quality is included as Appendix A. Analytical laboratory reports
are included as an attachment to the QCSR. Field forms are included in Appendix B.
3.0 ACTIVITIES ANTICIPATED FOR REMAINDER OF 2023
The larger semi-annual groundwater monitoring event is scheduled for October 2023, while the final
remedy monitoring event is scheduled for December 2023. An annual monitoring well inventory will be
conducted in conjunction with the October 2023 semi-annual event. An annual monitoring report and
Performance Evaluation Reports for the BRAC parcel and landfill remediation systems will be prepared
once all data necessary for those reports have been collected.
April 2023 Semi-Annual Monitoring Event Results Summary Report
Tooele Army Depot North
1
This page intentionally blank
April 2023 Semi-Annual Monitoring Event Results Summary Report
Tooele Army Depot North
2
TABLES
This page intentionally blank
Table 1
Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Wells and Results -2023 Semi-Annual Event
Well Ground Measuring Measured Total Measured Depth Corrected Depth to Corrected
Location SWMU Shallow(S) WellDry(D) Measurement Surface Point Depth (feet below to Water Water Water wen,
or Deep (DI orWet(W) Date Elevation Elevation measuring point) (feet below (feet below Elevation
(feet amsl) (feetamsl) measuring point) measuring point) (feet amsl)
A-02A 2 s w 04/13/2023 4757.98 4757.98 300.03 290.91 4467.07 4467.07
A-03 2 s D 04/13/2023 4702.10 4704.58 239.46 Dry Dry 4466.04
A-04 2 s w 04/13/2023 4716.82 4719.75 254.46 252 .90 4466 .85 4466.85
A-OS 2 s w 04/13/2023 4687.60 4690.06 231.82 226.24 4463 .82 4463 .82
A-07A 2 s w 04/14/2023 4669.27 4671.16 325.68 317.19 4353.97 4353 .97
B-01 2 s w 04/14/2023 4677.89 4680.06 304.00 214.04 4466 .02 4466.02
B-02 2/58 s w 04/12/2023 4813.30 4815 .14 354.00 350.68 4464 .46 4464.46
B-03 (A) 2/58 s w 04/13/2023 4718.45 4721.12 279.15 256.99 4464.13 4464.29 y=C
B-04 2 s w 04/14/2023 4642.56 4645 .58 188.75 182.14 4463 .44 4463 .44
B-05 2 s w 04/13/2023 4689.40 4692.08 438.00 334.06 4358 .02 4358.02
B-06 2 s w 04/17/2023 4585 .68 4587 .63 303 .30 288.76 4298 .87 4298.87
B-07 2 s w 04/14/2023 4605.42 4607 .65 296.56 254.56 4353 .09 4353 .09
B-08 2 s w 04/21/2023 4603 .18 4605 .27 239.47 238.62 4366 .65 4366.65
B-09 2/58 s w 04/17/2023 4652.00 4654.76 386.80 301 .47 4353 .29 4353 .29
B-10 2/58 s w 04/17/2023 4680.15 4681.42 300.13 226.23 4455 .19 4455 .19
B-11 58 s w 04/17/2023 4587.10 4589 .29 292 .89 236.62 4352 .67 4352.67
B-12 2 s D 04/18/2023 4567.54 4569.42 270.50 Dry Dry Dry
B-13 2 D w 04/17/2023 4565 .52 4566 .75 457.57 269.09 4297 .66 4297.66
B-14A 2 s w 04/17/2023 4536.84 4536 .87 282.80 242 .12 4294 .75 4297.11
B-15 2 s w 04/18/2023 4531.56 4534 .81 300.10 236.98 4297 .83 4297.83
B-16 2/58 s w 04/11/2023 4532 .74 4534.86 301.60 239.68 4295 .18 4295.18
B-17A 2 D w 04/17/2023 4492 .68 4493.47 453 .25 199.31 4294 .16 4294.16
B-18 (A) 2 s w 04/18/2023 4502.75 4504.13 225.89 211.44 4292.69 4292 .70
B-19 2 s w 04/17/2023 4483.90 4484.74 271.10 189.82 4294.92 4294.92
B-20 2 s w 04/14/2023 4642.61 4644.63 412.79 291.36 4353 .27 4353 .27
B-21 2 s w 04/13/2023 4680.17 4682 .12 262.20 240.49 4441.63 4441 .63
B-22 2 s w 04/13/2023 4692.94 4694.68 370.78 230.09 4464 .59 4464.59
B-23 2, 12/15 s w 04/14/2023 4622.27 4623.32 283.50 160.76 4462.56 4462 .56
B-24 2/58 s w 04/14/2023 4679.71 4681.50 392.80 328.40 4353 .10 4353 .10
B-25 2 D w 04/18/2023 4476.36 4478.75 573.86 183.40 4295 .35 4295 .35
B-26 2/58 s w 04/05/2023 4776.76 4779 .12 331.70 313.48 4465.64 4465.64
B-27 2 s w 04/13/2023 4702.88 4706.08 272.34 240.99 4465 .09 4465 .09
B-28 2 s w 04/14/2023 4605.22 4608.34 399.50 291.01 4317 .33 4317.33
B-29 2 D w 04/18/2023 4539.09 4542 .16 486.00 246.36 4295 .80 4295 .80
B-30 2 s D 04/11/2023 4532.73 4535 .64 244.19 Dry Dry 4294.67
B-31 2 D w 04/17/2023 4511.39 4514 .17 441.15 219.79 4294 .38 4294.38
B-32 2 s w 04/17/2023 4499.44 4502.46 242 .54 207.87 4294 .59 4294.59
B-33 2 D w 04/17/2023 4477.65 4480.35 386.27 185 .42 4294 .93 4294.93
B-34 2 s w 04/17/2023 4475 .17 4477 .79 242.30 183 .39 4294.40 4294.40
B-35 (A) 2 s w 04/17/2023 4466.51 4469.53 230.54 180.80 4288 .73 4289.77 y=C
B-36 2, 12/15 s w 04/14/2023 4621.04 4623 .85 244.40 162 .07 4461.78 4461 .78
B-37 2 s w 04/18/2023 4442.60 4445 .09 205.10 156.98 4288 .11 4288.11
B-38 2 D w 04/18/2023 4442 .60 4445 .08 493 .64 150.77 4294 .31 4294.31
B-39 2 D w 04/18/2023 4457.90 4460.17 314.40 165 .78 4294 .39 4294.39
B-40 2 s w 04/06/2023 4459 .50 4461.72 188.35 170.67 4291.05 4291 .05
B-41 2 s w 04/18/2023 4476.00 4478.35 194.00 183.78 4294 .57 4294.57
B-42 2 s w 04/06/2023 4421.00 4423.31 204.40 132.80 4290.51 4290.51
B-43 2 D w 04/18/2023 4421.00 4423 .75 494.55 129.44 4294 .31 4294.31
B-44 2 s w 04/18/2023 4432.40 4434.92 180.58 147.24 4287 .68 4287.68
B-45 2 D w 04/19/2023 4432.40 4435 .10 504.50 140.60 4294 .50 4294.50
B-46 2 s w 04/18/2023 4416.70 4417 .80 220.60 129.90 4287 .90 4287.90
B-47 2 s w 04/18/2023 4412 .00 4414 .52 210.90 127.54 4286 .98 4286.98
B-48 2 D w 04/18/2023 4412.00 4414 .24 481 .83 120.33 4293 .91 4293 .91
B-49 2 s w 04/18/2023 4432 .80 4435 .17 275 .48 141 .55 4293 .62 4293.62
B-50 2 s w 04/18/2023 4460.79 4463 .29 248.20 169.02 4294 .27 4294.27
B-51 2 s w 04/18/2023 4460.44 4462 .71 273 .83 169.94 4292 .77 4292 .77
B-52 2 s w 04/18/2023 4476.54 4478.95 272.28 184.58 4294 .37 4294.37
B-53 2 s w 04/18/2023 4493.42 4495.85 269.90 200.99 4294.86 4294.86
B-54 2 s w 04/12/2023 4786.05 4788.43 361.60 317.70 4470.73 4470.73
B-55 2 D w 04/14/2023 4681.90 4683.95 659.96 269.41 4414 .54 4414.54
B-56 2 D w 04/14/2023 4663.98 4666.30 668.20 313 .11 4353 .19 4353 .19
B-57 2 D w 04/18/2023 4597.45 4599.55 518.70 246.54 4353.01 4353 .01
B-58 2 D w 04/14/2023 4584.50 4586.47 435.17 233 .29 4353 .18 4353 .18
B-59 2 D w 04/17/2023 4531.40 4533 .53 695.40 237.26 4296 .27 4296.27
B-60 2 s w 04/17/2023 4507.37 4509.80 285.30 213 .99 4295.81 4295 .81
B-61 2 D w 04/17/2023 4516.39 4518.37 461.00 222 .50 4295 .87 4295 .87
B-62 2 s w 04/18/2023 4519.85 4521.91 282.44 226.20 4295 .71 4295 .71
r n'I /A \ " e .., l'\Af,.-,J-.n -. ... A Arn,...., AA-,◄ ...... """'"' nr ,in.., nA A..,nn An A"'\nn An •·-"
Table 1
Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Wells and Results -2023 Semi-Annual Event
Well Ground Measuring Measured Total Measured Depth Corrected Depth to Corrected
Location SWMU Shallow(S) WellDry(D) Measurement Surface Point Depth (feet below to Water Water Water wen,
or Deep (DI orWet(W) Date Elevation Elevation measuring point) (feet below (feet below Elevation
(feet amsl) (feetamsl) measuring point) measuring point) (feet amsl)
C-42F 2/58 s w 04/12/2023 4785.27 4785.09 359.40 323 .20 4461.89 4461 .89
C-43F (") 2/58 s w 04/12/2023 4755.21 4754.87 338.85 298.13 4456.74 4460.43 y=(
C-44 2/58 s w 04/13/2023 4719.82 4722.81 303.00 266.21 4456 .60 4456.60
C-45 (") 58 s w 04/17/2023 4687.20 4689.99 272.03 235 .50 4454.49 4454.50 v=
C-46 (") 58 D w 04/17/2023 4687.16 4689.57 352.02 235 .61 4453 .96 4454.29 y=(
C-47F (") 58 s w 04/04/2023 4825.03 4824.00 376.10 359.39 4464.61 4466.01 y=(
C-48F (") 58 s w 04/04/2023 4824.03 4825.00 377.40 357.15 4467 .85 4467.93 y=(
C-49 (") 58 s w 04/13/2023 4706.90 4710 .02 282.62 244.78 4465 .24 4465 .45 y=(
C-50F (") 2/58 s w 04/04/2023 4796.41 4796.10 357.03 341.47 4454.63 4466.02 y=(
C-51F 2/58 s w 04/07/2023 4792.29 4792.05 342.90 326.12 4465 .93 4465 .93
C-52 2/58 s w 04/04/2023 4815.94 4818 .46 459.50 353 .32 4465 .14 4465 .14
C-53F 2/58 s w 04/07/2023 4786.46 4786 .11 337.12 321.32 4464 .79 4464.79
C-54F 58 s w 04/04/2023 4819 .61 4819 .08 365.30 354.53 4464.55 4464.55
C-56 12/15 D w 04/05/2023 4754.92 4754.92 304.58 287.19 4467 .73 4467.73
C-57 12/15 s w 04/05/2023 4763 .80 4763 .80 313.35 295 .91 4467 .89 4467.89
C-58 12/15 s w 04/13/2023 4764.18 4760.53 308.78 292 .41 4468 .12 4468.12
C-59 12/15 s w 04/05/2023 4740.95 4740.20 288.16 272.58 4467 .62 4467.62
C-60 12/15 s w 04/05/2023 4772.07 4772 .07 319.55 304.44 4467 .63 4467.63
C-61 12/15 s w 04/05/2023 4771.74 4771.74 321.70 303 .87 4467 .87 4467.87
C-62 12/15 s w 04/13/2023 4775.92 4775 .92 323.10 307.51 4468.41 4468.41
C-63 12/15 s w 04/13/2023 4767.00 4767 .00 317.94 298.44 4468 .56 4468.56
C-64 12/15 s w 04/13/2023 4773 .92 4773 .92 321.64 305 .62 4468 .30 4468.30
C-65 12/15 s w 04/13/2023 4777.58 4777 .58 327.17 309.09 4468.49 4468.49
C-66 12/15 s w 04/05/2023 4776.16 4776.16 325.40 308.50 4467 .66 4467.66
C-67 12/15 s w 04/13/2023 4785.55 4785.55 334.90 317.39 4468.16 4468.16
C-68 12/15 s w 04/05/2023 4756.14 4756.14 304.20 288.67 4467 .47 4467.47
D-01 58 s w 04/11/2023 4633.70 4636.86 288.09 280.74 4356 .12 4356.12
D-02 58 s w 04/06/2023 4723.44 4726.34 378.65 368.14 4358 .20 4358.20
D-03 58 s w 04/07/2023 4542.94 4546.08 228.52 205 .74 4340.34 4340.34
D-04(") 58 s w 04/11/2023 4631.77 4635.35 298.13 278.29 4357 .06 4357.15 y=(
D-05 58 s w 04/10/2023 4553.61 4556 .67 218.41 205 .20 4351.47 4351 .47
D-06 58 s w 04/10/2023 4645 .22 4648.47 303.85 292 .85 4355.62 4355 .62
D-07 58 s w 04/10/2023 4553.30 4556.54 218.45 203 .00 4353 .54 4353 .54
D-09 (") 58 s w 04/07/2023 4446.57 4449 .62 150.94 127.35 4322 .27 4322 .29 y=(
D-10 58 s w 04/10/2023 4474.44 4477 .52 209 .23 183 .71 4293 .81 4293 .81
D-11 58 s w 04/07/2023 4418.76 4422 .01 144.50 125.42 4296 .59 4296.59
D-12 58 s w 04/06/2023 4800.25 4803 .05 365.13 345 .22 4457 .83 4457.83
D-13 (") 58 s w 04/10/2023 4717 .32 4720 .05 385.20 371.14 4348 .91 4355 .25 y=C
D-14 58 s w 04/11/2023 4590.39 4592 .80 276.72 247.52 4345 .28 4345 .28
D-15 58 s w 04/11/2023 4491.69 4494 .12 203.14 172.28 4321.84 4321.84
D-16(") 58 s w 04/11/2023 4577.20 4580.11 252.70 227.03 4353 .08 4353.13
D-17 58 s w 04/10/2023 4473 .24 4476 .25 152.56 123.80 4352.45 4352.45
D-18 58 s w 04/07/2023 4473.20 4476 .07 207.70 151.12 4324 .95 4324.95
D-19 58 s w 04/10/2023 4494.99 4497 .75 170.76 144.85 4352 .90 4352.90
D-20 58 s w 04/11/2023 4395 .99 4398 .57 91.75 66.70 4331 .87 4331.87
D-21 58 s w 04/06/2023 4457.91 4460 .83 124.65 107.77 4353 .06 4353 .06
D-22 58 s w 04/06/2023 4389.43 4392.72 104.60 93 .13 4299 .59 4299.59
D-23 58 s w 04/11/2023 4395 .70 4398 .35 212 .68 63 .81 4334.54 4334.54
D-24 58 D w 04/10/2023 4552.74 4555 .40 377.37 213.44 4341.96 4341 .96
D-25 58 s w 04/06/2023 4384.89 4387 .74 199.00 83 .89 4303 .85 4303 .85
M-01 58 s w 04/06/2023 4372.40 4372.40 157.73 76.51 4295 .89 4295.89
M-02 58 s w 04/07/2023 4429 .28 4429 .28 247.30 124.33 4304 .95 4304.95
M-03 58 s w 04/06/2023 4424.74 4424 .74 247.50 92 .77 4331.97 4331.97
M-04 58 s w 04/10/2023 4590.95 4590 .95 266.60 226.83 4364 .12 4364.12
M-05 58 s w 04/11/2023 4520.42 4520.42 258.40 218.30 4302 .12 4302.12
MW-01 1 s w 04/24/2023 5033 .00 5036 .24 744.50 635 .61 4400.63 4400.63
N-03A 10/11 s w 04/19/2023 4724.63 4726 .23 339.61 260.52 4465 .71 4465 .71
N-03H 10/11 s w 04/19/2023 4714.30 4716.36 265.27 250.66 4465 .70 4465 .70
N-08B 2 s w 04/17/2023 4471.90 4473.55 278.09 179.22 4294.33 4294.33
N-111-88 12/15 s w 04/13/2023 4783.20 4805.09 338.90 335 .75 4469 .34 4469.34
N-112-88 12/15 s D 04/13/2023 4799.32 4801.07 331.88 Dry Dry Dry
N-114-88 12/15 s w 04/13/2023 4795.81 4797 .74 337.84 329.28 4468 .46 4468.46
N-115-88 12/15 s w 04/13/2023 4749.92 4751.83 296.54 283 .77 4468.06 4468.06
N-116-88 12/15 s w 04/20/2023 4754.21 4756 .09 290.32 287.80 4468 .29 4468.29
N-117-88 12/15 s w 04/13/2023 4702.48 4704 .46 237.78 235 .72 4468 .74 4468.74
N-118-88 12/15 s w 04/14/2023 4711.16 4713.46 262.70 244.88 4468.58 4468.58
N-119-88 12/15 s D 04/12/2023 4749 .37 4751.66 277.89 Dry Dry Dry .. ., __ --.. -, ..... -... -. , ...... , ____ ·-----·---...... ........ --............ . ·--,. ... .. .............
Well
Location SWMU Shallow(S)
or Deep (DI
P-115 2/58 s
P-120 2 s
P-125 2 s
P-13D 2 D
P-135 2 s
P-14D 2 D
P-145 2 s
P-15D 2 D
P-155 2 s
P-16D 2 D
P-165 2 s
P-17D 2 D
P-175 2 s
P-18D 2 s
P-185 2 s
P-19D 2 D
P-195 2 s
P-20D 2 D
P-205 2 s
P-21D 2 D
P-215 2 s
P-220 2 D
P-225 2 s
P-23D 2 D
P-235 2 s
P-24D 2 D
P-245 2 s
P-25D 2 D
P-255 2 s
P-26D 2 D
P-265 2 s
P-27D 2 D
P-275 2 s
P-28D 2 D
P-285 2 s
P-29 2 s
P-30 2 s
P-31 2 s
P-32 2 s
P-33 2 s
P-34 2 s
P-35 2 s
P-36 2 s
P-37 2 s
P-38 2 s
P-39 2 s
P-40 2 s
P-41 2 D
P-42 2 s
P-43 2 D
P-44 58 D
T-02 2 s
T-03 2 s
T-04 2 s
T-05 2 s
T-06 2 s
T-07 2 s
Notes :
*Questionable Measurement
**Perched Water Table
WellDry(D)
orWet(W)
w
w
D
w
D
w
D
w
D
w
w
w
D
D
D
w
w
w
D
w
D
w
w
w
D
D
D
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
D
w
D
D
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
(A) -Measured depth to water requires correction
amsl -above mean sea level
bgs -below ground surface
ft-feet
SWMU -Solid Waste Management Unit
Table 1
Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Wells and Results -2023 Semi-Annual Event
Ground Measuring Measured Total Measured Depth Corrected Depth to Corrected
Measurement Surface Point Depth (feet below to Water Water Water wen,
Date Elevation Elevation measuring point) (feet below (feet below Elevation
(feet amsl) (feetamsl) measuring point) measuring point) (feet amsl)
04/17/2023 4585.00 4587 .71 250.52 234.23 4353.48 4353 .48
04/14/2023 4601.29 4603.99 299.05 251.21 4352.78 4352 .78
04/14/2023 4601.29 4603.95 245.96 Dry Dry Dry
04/14/2023 4596.00 4598.86 592.90 299.38 4299 .48 4299.48
04/14/2023 4596.00 4598.85 288.50 Dry Dry Dry
04/14/2023 4641.00 4644.18 349.52 290.46 4353.72 4353 .72
04/14/2023 4641.00 4644.41 261.80 Dry Dry Dry
04/18/2023 4536.00 4539 .61 504.30 243 .88 4295 .73 4295 .73
04/18/2023 4536.00 4539 .41 228.59 Dry Dry Dry
04/17/2023 4556.67 4558.59 627.90 262 .19 4296 .40 4296.40
04/17/2023 4556.79 4558 .59 261.85 260.97 4297 .62 4297.62
04/17/2023 4535 .00 4537 .90 565 .90 240.45 4297.45 4297.45
04/17/2023 4535.00 4538 .03 230.14 Dry Dry Dry
04/14/2023 4670.00 4672 .53 203.15 Obstruction Obstruction Obstruction
04/14/2023 4670.00 4672.43 194.36 Obstruction Obstruction Obstruction
04/18/2023 4502.00 4504.85 548.08 208.74 4296 .11 4296.11
04/18/2023 4502 .00 4504 .59 227.30 212 .09 4292 .50 4292.50
04/18/2023 4491.00 4493 .14 597.00 198.38 4294 .76 4294.76
04/17/2023 4491.00 4492 .93 183.51 Dry Dry Dry
04/17/2023 4550.35 4552.40 335.10 254.27 4298 .13 4298.13
04/17/2023 4550.35 4552 .23 242 .50 Dry Dry Dry
04/17/2023 4549 .91 4552 .01 474.30 254.06 4297 .95 4297.95
04/17/2023 4549.91 4552 .12 375.90 254.07 4298 .05 4298.05
04/17/2023 4549.59 4552.00 473.47 254.81 4297 .19 4297.19
04/17/2023 4549.59 4552.16 26.38 Obstruction Obstruction Obstruction
04/17/2023 4549.79 4550.68 21.65 Obstruction Obstruction Obstruction
04/17/2023 4549.79 4550.63 27.00 Obstruction Obstruction Obstruction
04/14/2023 4638.47 4640.83 399.40 177.81 4463.02 4463 .02
04/14/2023 4638.47 4641.00 227.40 177.79 4463 .21 4463 .21
04/14/2023 4583.40 4585 .59 482 .18 232 .53 4353 .06 4353 .06
04/14/2023 4583.40 4585.05 314.42 286.05 4299 .00 4299.00
04/18/2023 4596.93 4600 .66 684.00 248.09 4352 .57 4352 .57
04/14/2023 4596.93 4600 .50 246.68 244.12 4356 .38 4356.38
04/18/2023 4452.37 4454.46 485 .06 161.62 4292 .84 4292 .84
04/18/2023 4452.37 4454 .28 147.52 Obstruction Obstruction Obstruction
04/14/2023 4654.18 4655 .61 246.12 190.83 4464 .78 4464.78
04/14/2023 4598.73 4600 .59 69 .50 Obstruction Obstruction Obstruction
04/14/2023 4598.73 4600.47 108.37 Obstruction Obstruction Obstruction
04/18/2023 4443.68 4446 .12 266.10 158.16 4287 .96 4287.96
04/18/2023 4427.20 4429 .40 262.49 142 .04 4287.36 4287.36
04/18/2023 4429.47 4431 .83 251.50 144.19 4287 .64 4287.64
04/18/2023 4417.97 4418 .14 251.52 131.03 4287 .11 4287.11
04/19/2023 4487.92 4490.25 306.50 201.46 4288.79 4288.79
04/18/2023 4428.46 4430.80 263.15 142.04 4288.76 4288.76
04/18/2023 4438.79 4441.28 279.00 147.20 4294 .08 4294.08
04/18/2023 4444.74 4446.90 269.50 163.22 4283 .68 4283 .68
04/14/2023 4603.80 4605.31 299.10 163.03 4442 .28 4442.28
04/14/2023 4603 .61 4605 .24 475 .50 151.94 4453.30 4453.30
04/17/2023 4577.74 4580.03 302.10 280.16 4299 .87 4299.87
04/17/2023 4578.17 4580.01 552 .70 280.57 4299 .44 4299.44
04/18/2023 4617.35 4619 .20 502.30 265 .83 4353 .37 4353 .37
04/13/2023 4688.71 4690.25 264.37 248.85 4441.40 4441.40
04/13/2023 4680.00 4683.31 268.99 218.92 4464 .39 4464.39
04/14/2023 4617.00 4619.89 195.90 171 .68 4448.21 4448.21
04/14/2023 4609.46 4611.87 332.39 258.57 4353.30 4353 .30
04/17/2023 4596.94 4599.45 272.65 260.06 4339 .39 4339.39
04/13/2023 4793.20 4795.47 332.95 327.03 4468 .44 4468.44
This page intentionally blank
Table 2
Analytical Results -2023 Semi-Annual Monitoring Event
Location : B-16 B-26 B-40
Zone Monitored: Shallow Shallow Shallow
Monitoring Purpose : PCM RM PCM
Field Sample ID : TEAD-04-23-TEAD-04-23-S-TEAD-04-Z3- TEAD-04-Z3-TEAD-04-23-S-
B16-HY-290 B16-HY-300 B26-HY-319 B40-HY-179
Sample Date : 4/11/2023
Sample Type : N
VOC(µg/L) Permit limit
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 200 0.200 U
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 5 0 .200 U
1,1-Dichloroethane 170 0 .120J
1,1-Dichloroethene 7 0.200 U
1,2-Dichloroethane 5 0 .200 U
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 1 0.200 U
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 1 0.200 U
1,2-Dichloroethene (Total) 1 0 .200 U
Carbon Tetrachloride 5 1.50
Chloroform 100 0.160J
Methylene chloride 5 l.00U
Tetrachloroethene (PCE) 5 0.300 U
Trichloroethene (TCE) 5 19.0
Notes:
Permit limits are from the TEAD Post-Closure Permit.
Detected results appear in bold font.
4/11/2023
FD
0.200 U
0.200 U
0.170J
0 .200 U
0.200 U
0.200 U
0.200 U
0.200 U
1.70
0.210J
l.00U
0 .300 U
20.0
Blue highlighted cells indicate detections that exceed the permit limit.
µg/L -micrograms per liter
FD -field duplicate sample
ID -identification
4/5/2023
N
0.200 U
0 .200 U
0 .200 U
0.920J
0 .200 U
0.ll0J
0.200 U
0.ll0J
1.70
0.280J
1.00 U
5.90J+
26.0J+
J/J-/J+ -the result is an estimated value based on a QA/QC issue and/or is less than the LOQ. Where
possible, direction of bias is indicated.
N -normal sample
4/6/2023
N
0.200 U
0 .200 U
0.200 U
0.200 U
0 .200 U
0.170J
0.200 U
0.170J
0.390J
0.200 U
l.00U
0.300 U
15.0
PCM -post-closure monitoring: monitoring is conducted in fullfillment of the TEAD-N Post Closure Permit.
RM -remedy monitoring: monitoring is conducted in accordance with remedy work plans to monitor
progress of the air sparge and soil-vapor extraction remediation systems.
U -Not detected; the compound/analyte was analyzed for, but not detected above the limit of detection
unless otherwise noted.
voe-volatile organic compound
B40-HY-189
4/6/2023
FD
0.200 U
0.200 U
0 .200 U
0.200 U
0.200 U
0.230J
0.200 U
0.230J
0.470J
0.100J
l.00U
0.300 U
15.0
B-42 C-03 C-04
Shallow Shallow Shallow
PCM PCM PCM
TEAD-04-23-TEAD-04-23-TEAD-04-23-
B42-HY-195 C03-HY-263 C04-HY-240
4/6/2023 4/6/2023 4/6/2023
N N N
0 .200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U
0 .200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U
0 .170J 0 .200 U 0 .200 U
0.200 U 0.200 U 0 .200 U
0 .200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U
0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U
0.200 U 0.200 U 0 .200 U
0 .200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U
0.330J 0.200 U 0.200 U
0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U
l.00U l.00U 1.00U
0.300 U 0.300 U 0 .300 U
0.740J 0.340J 0.110J
C-19
Shallow
RM
TEAD-04-23-TEI
C19-HY-358 C:
4/4/2023 '
N
0 .200 U
0 .200 U
0.200 U
0.200 U
0.200 U
0.200 U
0.200 U
0.200 U
0.190J
0.290J
l.OOU
0.300 U
11.0
Table 2
Analytical Results -2023 Semi-Annual Monitoring Event
Location : C-3S
Zone Monitored: Shallow
Monitoring Purpose : RM
Field Sample ID : TEAD-04-23-
C35-HY-320
Sample Date: 4/7/2023
Sample Type : N
VOC(µg/L) Permit limit
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 200 0.200 U
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 5 0.200 U
1,1-Dichloroethane 170 0.130J
1,1-Dichloroethene 7 0.280J
1,2-Dichloroethane 5 0.200 U
cis -1,2-Dichloroethene 1 0.360J
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 1 0.200 U
1,2-Dichloroethene (Total) 1 0.360J
Carbon Tetrachloride 5 0.200 U
Chloroform 100 0.200 U
Methylene chloride 5 1.00 U
Tetrachloroethene (PCE) 5 3.70
Trichloroethene (TCE) 5 13.0
Notes:
Permit limits are from the TEAD Post-Closure Permit.
Detected results appear in bold font.
C-37
Deep
RM
TEAD-04-23-
C37-HY-437
4/7/2023
N
0.200 U
0.200 U
0.200 U
0 .200 U
0 .200 U
0.200 U
0.200 U
0.200 U
0.200 U
0.200 U
1.00 U
0 .300 U
2.90
Blue highlighted cells indicate detections that exceed the permit limit.
µg/L -micrograms per liter
FD -field duplicate sample
ID -identification
C-40 C-41
Shallow Shallow
RM RM
TEAD-04-23-TEAD-04-23-
C40-HY-279 C41-HY-366
4/5/2023 4/7/2023
N N
0.200 U 0 .200 U
0.200 U 0 .200 U
0 .200 U 0.200 U
0.200 U 0.200 U
0.200 U 0.200 U
0 .200 U 0 .200 U
0 .200 U 0.200 U
0.200 U 0.200 U
0 .200 U 1.60
0.200 U 0.300J
1.00U 1.00U
0.300 U 0.300 U
1.30 18.0
J/J-/J+ -the result is an estimated value based on a QA/QC issue and/or is less than the LOQ. Where
possible, direction of bias is indicated .
N -normal sample
PCM -post-closure monitoring: monitoring is conducted in fullfillment of the TEAD-N Post Closure Permit.
RM -remedy monitoring: monitoring is conducted in accordance with remedy work plans to monitor
progress of the air sparge and soil-vapor extraction remediation systems.
U -Not detected; the compound/analyte was analyzed for, but not detected above the limit of detection
unless otherwise noted.
voe-volatile organic compound
C-47F C-48F C-S0F C-SlF
Shallow Shallow Shallow Shallow
RM RM RM RM
TEAD-04-23-TEAD-04-23-TEAD-04-23-TEAD-04-23-
C47F-HY-364 C48F-HY-364 CS0F-HY-345 CSlf-HY-328
4/4/2023 4/4/2023 4/4/2023 4/7/2023
N N N N
0.200 U 0 .200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U
0.200 U 0 .200 U 0.200 U 0 .200 U
0.200 U 0.200 U 0 .200 U 0.200 U
0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200J 0.250J-
0 .200 U 0 .200 U 0 .200 U 0.200 U
0.200 U 0.200J 0.280J 0.200 U
0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U
0.200 U 0.200J 0.280J 0.200 U
0.200 U 0 .200 U 0.540J 0.200 U
0.200 U 0.240J 0.250J 0.110J
1.00 U 1.00 U 1.00 U 1.00U
0.300 U 0.300 U 0.300 U 2.90
2.40 31.0 22.0 16.0
C-52
Shallow
RM
TEAD-04-2
C52-HY-41
4/4/202:
N
0 .200 U
0 .200 U
0.200 U
0.200 U
0.200 U
0 .200 U
0.200 U
0.200 U
0.130J
0 .200 U
1.00U
0.300 U
7.40
Table2
Analytical Results -2023 Semi-Annual Monitoring Event
Location: C-60 C-61 C-66 C-68 D-02 D-03 D-06 D-07
Zone Monitored: Shallow Shallow Shallow Shallow Shallow Shallow Shallow Shallow
Monitoring Purpose : RM RM RM RM PCM PCM PCM PCM
Field Sample ID : TEAD-04-23-TEAD-04-23- TEAD-04-23-TEAD-04-23-S-TEAD-04-23-TEAD-04-23-TEAD-04-23-TEAD-04-23-TEAD-04-23-
C60-HY-304 C61-HY-307 C66-HY-310 C66-HY-320
Sample Date: 4/5/2023
Sample Type: N
VOC(µg/L) Permit limit
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 200 0.200 U
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 5 0 .200 U
1,1-Dichloroethane 170 0.200 U
1,1-Dichloroethene 7 0.200 U
1,2-Dichloroethane 5 0 .200 U
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 1 0.200 U
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 1 0.200 U
1,2-Dichloroethene (Total) 1 0 .200 U
Carbon Tetrachloride 5 0 .200 U
Chloroform 100 0.200 U
Methylene chloride 5 1.00U
Tetrachloroethene (PCE) 5 0.300 U
Trichloroethene (TCE) 5 2.30
Notes:
Permit limits are from the TEAD Post-Closure Permit.
Detected results appear in bold font.
4/5/2023
N
0.200 U
0.200 U
0 .200 U
0 .200 U
0.200 U
2.20
0.200 U
2.20
0.200 U
0.200 U
1.00U
0.570J
27.0
Blue highlighted cells indicate detections that exceed the permit limit.
µg/L -micrograms per liter
FD -field duplicate sample
ID -identification
4/5/2023
N
0 .200 U
0 .200 U
0.310J
0.200 U
0 .200 U
4.90
0.200 U
4.90
0.200 U
0.200 U
1.00 U
1.90
110
J/J-/J+-the result is an estimated value based on a QA/QC issue and/or is less than the LOQ. Where
possible, direction of bias is indicated.
N -normal sample
4/5/2023
FD
0.200 U
0 .200 U
0 .350J
0.100J
0 .200 U
4.50
0.200 U
4.50
0.200 U
0.130J
1.00U
1.70
110
PCM -post-closure monitoring: monitoring is conducted in fullfillment of the TEAD-N Post Closure Permit.
RM -remedy monitoring: monitoring is conducted in accordance with remedy work plans to monitor
progress of the air sparge and soil-vapor extraction remediation systems.
U -Not detected; the compound/analyte was analyzed for, but not detected above the limit of detection
unless otherwise noted .
voe -volatile organic compound
C68-HY-289 D02-HY-36S D03-HY-21S D06-HY-290 D07-HY-205
4/5/2023 4/6/2023 4/7/2023 4/10/2023 4/10/2023
N N N N N
0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0 .200 U
0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0 .200 U 0.200 U
0.200 U 0 .200 U 0.200 U 0 .200 U 0.200 U
0 .200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U
0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0 .200 U 0.200 U
0.150J 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U
0.200 U 0 .200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U
0.150J 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U
0.200 U 1.10 0.410J 1.40J+ 1.10
0.200 U 0.l00J 0.180J 0.200 U 0.110J
1.00U 1.00U 1.00U 1.00U 1.00U
0.300 U 0.300 U 0.690J 0 .300 U 0.300 U
3.60 10.0 24.0 11.0J+ 19.0
D-09
Shallow
PCM
TEAD-04-2
D09-HY-1,
4/7/202,
N
0 .200 U
0.200 U
0.200 U
0 .200 U
0.200 U
0.200 U
0 .200 U
0 .200 U
0.200 U
0 .200 U
1.00U
0.300 U
0.200 U
Table 2
Analytical Results -2023 Semi-Annual Monitoring Event
Location: D-16
Zone Monitored: Shallow
Monitoring Purpose: PCM
Field Sample ID : TEAD-04-23-
D16-HY-242
Sample Date: 4/11/2023
Sample Type: N
VOC{µg/L) Permit limit
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 200 0.200 U
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 5 0.200 U
1,1-Dichloroethane 170 0.200 U
1,1-Dichloroethene 7 0.200 U
1,2-Dichloroethane 5 0 .200 U
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 1 0.200 U
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 1 0.200 U
1,2-Dichloroethene (Total) 1 0.200 U
Carbon Tetrachloride 5 0.200 U
Chloroform 100 0.200 U
Methylene chloride 5 1.00U
Tetrachloroethene (PCE) 5 0.300 U
Trichloroethene (TCE) 5 0.200 U
Notes:
Permit limits are from the TEAD Post-Closure Permit.
Detected results appear in bold font.
D-17
Shallow
PCM
TEAD-04-23-
D17-HY-139
4/10/2023
N
0.200 U
0.200 U
0.200 U
0.200 U
0 .200 U
0.200 U
0.200 U
0.200 U
0.720J
0.140J
1.00U
0 .300 U
8.10
Blue highlighted cells indicate detections that exceed the permit limit.
µg/l -micrograms per liter
FD -field duplicate sample
ID -identification
D-18 D-19
Shallow Shallow
PCM PCM
TEAD-04-23-TEAD-04-23-
DlS-HY-180 D19-HY-158
4/7/2023 4/10/2023
N N
0.200 U 0 .200 U
0.200 U 0 .200 U
0 .200 U 0 .200 U
0 .200 U 0.200 U
0.200 U 0.200 U
0.200 U 0.200 U
0.200 U 0 .200 U
0.200 U 0.200 U
0.130J 1.10
0.200 U 0.140J
1.00U 1.00U
0.300 U 0.300 U
6.50 20.0
J/J-/J+ -the result is an estimated value based on a QA/QC issue and/or is less than the LOQ. Where
possible, direction of bias is indicated .
N -normal sample
PCM -post-closure monitoring: monitoring is conducted in fullfillment of the TEAD-N Post Closure Permit.
RM -remedy monitoring : monitoring is conducted in accordance with remedy work plans to monitor
progress of the air sparge and soil-vapor extraction remediation systems .
U -Not detected; the compound/analyte was analyzed for, but not detected above the limit of detection
unless otherwise noted .
voe -volatile organic compound
D-20 D-21 D-22
Shallow Shallow Shallow
PCM PCM PCM
TEAD-04-23-TEAD-04-23-TEAD-04-23-
D20-HY-78 D21-HY-110 D22-HY-87
4/11/2023 4/6/2023 4/6/2023
N N N
0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U
0 .200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U
0 .200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U
0.200 U 0 .200 U 0 .200 U
0.200 U 0 .200 U 0 .200 U
0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U
0 .200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U
0.200 U 0.200 U 0.200 U
0.140J 0.200 U 0.200 U
0.670J 0.330J 0 .200 U
1.00U 1.00U 1.00U
0.300 U 0.300 U 0 .300 U
0 .710J 0.200 U 0.220J
D-23
Shallow
PCM
TEAD-04-23-TE
D23-HY-202 D:
4/11/2023 4
N
0 .200 U
0 .200 U
0 .200 U
0.200 U
0.200 U
0.200 U
0.200 U
0.200 U
0.200 U
0.200 U
1.00U
0.300 U
0.200J
Table 2
Analytical Results -2023 Semi-Annual Monitoring Event
Location: M-03
Zone Monitored: Shallow
Monitoring Purpose: PCM
TEAD-04-23-Field Sample ID:
M03-HY-235
Sample Date: 4/6/2023
Sample Type: N
VOC(µg/L) Permit limit
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 200 0.200 U
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 5 0.200 U
1,1-Dichloroethane 170 0.200 U
1,1-Dichloroethene 7 0.200 U
1,2-Dichloroethane 5 0.200 U
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 1 0.200 U
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 1 0.200 U
1,2-Dichloroethene (Total) 1 0.200 U
Carbon Tetrachloride 5 0.200 U
Chloroform 100 0.200 U
Methylene chloride 5 1.00U
Tetrachloroethene (PCE) 5 0.300 U
Trichloroethene (TCE) 5 0.200 U
Notes:
Permit limits are from the TEAD Post-Closure Permit.
Detected results appear in bold font.
M-04
Shallow
PCM
TEAD-04-23-TEAD-04-23-S-
M04-HY-255 M04-HY-265
4/10/2023 4/10/2023
N FD
0 .200 U 0.200 U
0 .200 U 0.200 U
0 .200 U 0 .200 U
0 .200 U 0 .200 U
0 .200 U 0 .200 U
0.200 U 0.200 U
0.200 U 0.200 U
0.200 U 0.200 U
1.50 1.50
0.270J 0.290J
1.00U 1.00U
0.170J 0.170J
99.0 97.0
Blue highlighted cells indicate detections that exceed the permit limit.
µg/L -micrograms per liter
FD -field duplicate sample
ID -identification
M-0S
Shallow
PCM
TEAD-04-23-
M0S-HY-246
4/11/2023
N
0.200 U
0.200 U
0.210J
0.200 U
0.200 U
0.200 U
0.200 U
0.200 U
2.40
0.190J
1.00U
0.300 U
31.0
J/J-/J+-the result is an estimated value based on a QA/QC issue and/or is less than the LOQ. Where
possible, direction of bias is indicated.
N -normal sample
PCM -post-closure monitoring: monitoring is conducted in fullfillment of the TEAD-N Post Closure Permit.
RM -remedy monitoring: monitoring is conducted in accordance with remedy work plans to monitor
progress of the air sparge and soil-vapor extraction remediation systems.
U -Not detected; the compound/analyte was analyzed for, but not detected above the limit of detection
unless otherwise noted.
voe -volatile organic compound
N-120-88
Shallow
RM
TEAD-04-23-TEAD-04-2,
N12088-HY-S-N12088-1,
310 320
4/5/2023 4/5/2023
N FD
0.200 U 0 .200 U
0.200 U 0 .200 U
0.200 U 0.150J
0.200 U 0 .200 U
0.200 U 0 .200 U
0.640J 0.620J
0.200 U 0.200 U
0.640J 0.620J
0.200 U 0 .200 U
0.200 U 0 .200 U
1.00U 1.00U
0.790J 0.730J
30.0 32.0
This page intentionally blank
APPENDIX A
QUALITY CONTROL SUMMARY REPORT
This page intentionally blank
QUALITY CONTROL SUMMARY REPORT
APRIL 2023 SEMI-ANNUAL GROUNDWATER
MONITORING
TOOELE ARMY DEPOT NORTH
This page intentionally blank
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................. A-Ill
1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. A-1
2.0 DATA VERIFICATION, DATA QUALITY REVIEW, AND QUALIFICATION ................................... A-1
3.0 CHEMICAL DATA QUALITY REVIEW ..................................................................................... A-3
3.1 Analytical Sample and Field Quality Control Sample Summary ..................................... A-3
3.2 Sample Handling and Chain-of-Custody ......................................................................... A-4
3.3 Sample Preservation and Holding Time Compliance ...................................................... A-4
3.4 Sample Limits of Detection and Limits of Quantitation .................................................. A-4
3.5 Blanks .............................................................................................................................. A-4
3.5.1 Method Blanks ................................................................................................... A-4
3.5.2 Trip Blanks .......................................................................................................... A-5
3.6 Laboratory Control Samples ........................................................................................... A-5
3.7 Matrix Spike Samples and Duplicates ............................................................................. A-5
3.8 Surrogates ....................................................................................................................... A-5
3.9 Field Duplicate Precision ................................................................................................. A-6
3.10 Additional Quality Control Discrepancies ....................................................................... A-6
4.0 COMPLETENESS ................................................................................................................. A-6
5.0 OVERALL DATA QUALITY AND USABILITY ASSESSMENT ....................................................... A-6
6.0 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... A-9
TABLES
Table 1
Table 2
Data Qualifiers ............................................................................................................. A-3
Qualified Results Summary .......................................................................................... A-7
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A-1 Sample Summary
Attachment A-2 Data Summary Table
Attachment A-3 Field Duplicate Precision Report
Attachment A-4 Data Validation Reports
Appendix A-Quality Control Summary Report
April 2023 Semi-Annual Monitoring Event Results Summary Report
Tooele Army Depot North
A-i
This page intentionally blank
Appendix A-Quality Control Summary Report
April 2023 Semi-Annual Monitoring Event Results Summary Report
Tooele Army Depot North
A-ii
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
oc
%
%R
Brice
CCV
Coe
DL
DoD
DQO
EB
EMAX
EPA
FD
GC/MS
LCL
LCS
LCSD
LOD
LOQ
MB
MCL
MPC
MS
MSD
ND
NELAC
PAL
PCE
QA
QAPP
QC
QCSR
QSM
RPD
RSD
SDG
SOP
TB
TCE
degrees Celsius
percent
percent recovery
Brice Engineering, LLC
continuing calibration verification
chain-of-custody
detection limit
Department of Defense
data quality objective
equipment blank
EMAX Laboratories, Inc.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
field duplicate
gas chromatography/mass spectrometry
lower control limit
laboratory control sample
laboratory control sample duplicate
limit of detection
limit of quantitation
method blank
maximum contaminant level
measurement performance criteria
matrix spike
matrix spike duplicate
not detected
National Environmental Laboratories Accreditation Conference
project action level
tetrachloroethene
quality assurance
Quality Assurance Project Plan
quality control
quality control summary report
Quality Systems Manual
relative percent difference
relative standard deviation
sample delivery group
standard operating procedure
trip blank
trichloroethene
Appendix A-Quality Control Summary Report
April 2023 Semi-Annual Monitoring Event Results Summary Report
Tooele Army Depot North
A-iii
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (CONTINUED)
TEAD
UCL
UFP-QAPP
Tooele Army Depot
upper control limit
Uniform Federal Policy-Quality Assurance Project Plan
Appendix A-Quality Control Summary Report
April 2023 Semi-Annual Monitoring Event Results Summary Report
Tooele Army Depot North
A-iv
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This quality control summary report (QCSR) report summarizes the evaluation of laboratory data collected
during the April 2023 Semi-Annual Groundwater Monitoring sampling event. These data have been
reviewed to evaluate compliance with quality assurance (QA)/ quality control (QC) criteria based on data
quality objectives (DQOs) specified in the approved Final Uniform Federal Policy-Quality Assurance Project
Plan (UFP-QAPP), Tooele Army Depot (TEAD) North, Utah (Brice Engineering, LLC [Brice] 2022), hereafter
referred to as the QAPP.
This QCSR includes the report narrative; a sample summary, including all samples collected and submitted
to the laboratory for the associated sample delivery group (SDG) in Attachment A-1; complete analytical
results presented in crosstab format in Attachment A-2; and an evaluation of field duplicates (FD) relative
percent differences (RPDs) in Attachment A-3.
2.0 DATA VERIFICATION, DATA QUALITY REVIEW,
AND QUALIFICATION
EMAX Laboratories, Inc. (EMAX) in Torrance, California was the primary laboratory for this project. EMAX
holds current State of Utah certification under the National Environmental Laboratories Accreditation
Conference (NELAC) and U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) Environmental Laboratory Accreditation
Program certifications for all requested analyses, and chemical analyses for all parameters were
performed in accordance with the DoD Quality Systems Manual (QSM) for Environmental Laboratories,
Version 5.4 (DoD 2021). Samples were prepared and analyzed in accordance with analytical methods
specified in Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste SW-846 (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]
2022) and laboratory standard operating procedures (SOPs).
The data quality review and assessment were performed by an experienced QA chemist at Synectics in
Sacramento, California who is independent of the analytical laboratory. This evaluation included a review
of the analytical data including lab and field QC sample results, field and laboratory documentation, and
Stage 4 data submittals. At a minimum, the level of review is at Stage 2B, with a minimum of 10 percent
(%) of the samples for the project reviewed at Stage 4. Groundwater analytical results were compared to
project action levels (PALs), which were defined as either the values shown in Table V-2 of the TEAD Post-
Closure Permit (TEAD 2017) or the EPA maximum contaminant level (MCL).
All project data were reviewed on an analytical-batch basis by assessing QC samples and associated field
sample results. Data quality review and usability assessment were performed using the QC criteria defined
in the QAPP (Brice 2022); DoD QSM (DoD 2021); DoD General Data Validation Guidelines (DoD 2019); DoD
Data Validation Guidelines Module 1: Data Validation Procedure for Organic Analysis by gas
chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) (DoD 2020); Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste
SW-846 (EPA 2022); and the laboratory SOPs, in that order.
The following information was reviewed as part ofthe data quality review and assessment:
• Sample handling and chain-of-custody (Coe)
• Sample preservation and holding time compliance
• Field QC samples, including trip blanks (TBs), equipment blanks (EBs), and FDs
• Laboratory reporting limits, including limits of detection (LODs) and limits of quantitation (LOQs)
• Method blanks (MBs)
Appendix A-Quality Control Summary Report
April 2023 Semi-Annual Monitoring Event Results Summary Report
Tooele Army Depot North
A-1
• Laboratory control sample (LCS) and laboratory control sample duplicate (LCSD) recoveries
• Surrogate spike recoveries
• Matrix spike (MS) and matrix spike duplicate (MSD) recoveries
• Initial and continuing calibration summary information
• Internal standards performance (GC/MS)
• Precision, including RPD values for duplicate analyses
• Case narrative review, laboratory flagging review, and other analytical method-specific criteria
The data quality review and assessment identified results requiring qualification and potential effects on
data usability based on the measurement performance criteria (MPC) defined in the QAPP. The following
MPC were used for this data quality review and assessment:
• Precision is a measure of the reproducibility of measurements, which can be used to verify
laboratory procedures, determine matrix effect, or sample homogeneity. Precision was
measured by the RPD between LCS and LCSDs, MS and MSDs, or primary and FD results.
• Accuracy is a measure of the correctness or closeness to the true value. Accuracy was evaluated
by reviewing the following elements: calibrations, surrogates, LCS, LCSD, MS, MSD, MBs, relative
response factors and relative standard deviations (RSDs), tune criteria, second column
confirmations, and internal standards.
• Representativeness is a measure of the degree to which the samples reflect the site
characteristics. Representativeness was measured by reviewing sampling design, sampling
procedures, sample documentation, holding times, and preservations.
• Completeness is a measure of the amount of valid data obtained compared to the amount that
was expected to be obtained under correct, normal conditions. For completeness requirements,
valid results were all results not rejected and determined to be usable in the context of the
DQOs. Completeness was evaluated for each analytical method for a particular sampling event
with respect to each DQO or end data use. The completeness goal is 90% for this project.
• Comparability is a measure of the confidence with which one data set can be compared to
another. The following were reviewed to ensure comparability: use of standard methods for
sampling and analysis, reporting in standard units, operating instruments within calibrated
ranges, and using standard and comprehensive reporting formats.
• Sensitivity is a measure of the ability of a method or instrument to detect the target analyte at
the level of interest. The laboratory-specific limits were evaluated against the project PALs to
determine whether the analytical methods and/or laboratory procedures were able to meet the
project DQOs.
The qualifiers listed in Table 1 were applied to the analytical data set, as appropriate.
Appendix A-Quality Control Summary Report
April 2023 Semi-Annual Monitoring Event Results Summary Report
Tooele Army Depot North
A-2
Table 1 Data Qualifiers
QUALIFIER DESCRIPTION
u The analyte was analyzed for, but not detected, or the analyte was detected in the sample at a concentration
less than or equal to 5 times (10 times for common laboratory contaminants) the blank concentration .
The analyte was positively identified, and the quantitation is an estimation because of discrepancies in
J meeting certain analyte-specific QC criteria . Or the analyte was positively identified, but the associated
concentration is estimated above the DL and below the LOQ .
J+ The analyte is considered an estimated value with a possible high-bias due to a QC deviation.
J-The analyte is considered an estimated value with a possible low-bias due to a QC deviation.
UJ The analyte was not detected; however, the result is estimated because of discrepancies in meeting certain
analyte-specific QC criteria.
The sample results were affected by serious deficiencies in the ability to analyze the sample and to meet
X published method and project QC criteria. The presence or absence of the analyte cannot be substantiated by
the data provided . Acceptance or rejection of the data should be decided by the project team, but exclusion
of the data is recommended.
Notes:
For definitions, refer to the Acronyms and Abbreviations section.
Qualification was not required in the following circumstances:
• Surrogate or MS recoveries were outside QC limits, and dilution of the sample resulted in
surrogate or spike dilution to a level beyond quantitation .
• MS recoveries were outside QC limits, and the spiked concentration was less than four times
that of the parent sample.
• An analyte was detected in the associated blank, but there was no detection in the associated
sample.
• MS/MSD or LCS/LCSD recoveries exceeded upper control limits (UCLs) and there was no
detection in the sample(s).
Data quality exceptions that do not result in qualifications are not discussed in this report.
3.0 CHEMICAL DATA QUALITY REVIEW
The data verification and QCSR were performed to assess the overall quality and usability of the
data collected to support sampling activities for April 2023 Semi-Annual Groundwater Monitoring
sampling event.
Complete details for the review and evaluation of field samples and associated QC samples are included
in this QCSR. During the data quality review, analytical results or recoveries that fell outside acceptance
criteria were identified and qualifiers were applied to the results, where appropriate, in accordance with
the project QAPP. Qualified results are considered estimated, and whenever possible, direction of
potential bias was assigned and effects on usability are discussed.
3.1 Analytical Sample and Field Quality Control Sample Summary
A total of 53 primary groundwater samples, 8 FD groundwater samples, and 2 TBs were collected and
analyzed in support of project activities. The sample summary table in Attachment A-1 includes all field
samples submitted to the analytical laboratory.
Appendix A-Quality Control Summary Report
April 2023 Semi-Annual Monitoring Event Results Summary Report
Tooele Army Depot North
A-3
The overall project-required frequency of one FD for every 10 or fewer primary samples, per analyte, per
matrix, was met.
MS/MSDs were collected and submitted to the laboratory at the project-required frequency of one set
for every 20 or fewer project samples (5%). Designated MS/MSD samples were included with each
shipment of samples; however, the laboratory did not always perform an MS/MSD on a project sample in
every preparatory batch.
EBs were not collected as all samples were collected with disposable sampling equipment.
TBs were included in each cooler containing samples for volatile organic analysis (i.e., SW8260C).
3.2 Sample Handling and Chain-of-Custody
Coe forms and laboratory case narratives were reviewed to assess sample handling procedures that may
affect the integrity of the samples and quality of the resulting data. Copies of CoCs and cooler receipt
forms are included in the final laboratory report. Samples were required to be maintained at O to
6 degrees Celsius (0 C) following collection, during storage, and upon receipt at the laboratory.
Samples were packed with frozen gel packs in accordance with the Brice packaging and shipping SOP
(BE-SOP-03 Labeling, Packaging, and Shipping Samples). Samples were shipped to EMAX in Torrance,
California, via FedEx. All sample coolers containing groundwater samples were received with temperature
blank and ambient cooler temperatures between O and 6°C.
3.3 Sample Preservation and Holding Time Compliance
All samples were extracted and/or analyzed within the recommended holding times and were properly
preserved for the analytical procedures used for this project.
3.4 Sample Limits of Detection and Limits of Quantitation
Sample LOQs and LODs for non-detects were compared to PALs to determine whether the laboratory data
met the MPC for sensitivity. PALs for groundwater analytical results were compared to limits listed in
Table V-2 of the TEAD Post-Closure Permit (TEAD 2017), or where no post-closure permit value exists the
results were compared to EPA MCLs, if available.
3.5 Blanks
The following sections describe the results of the review and assessment of data for each analytical
method. QC parameters met project MPCs and DoD QSM v.5.4 criteria except where noted.
3.5.1 Method Blanks
An MB was included with each preparatory batch of 20 or fewer samples, as required. MB detections are
indicative of laboratory cross-contamination.
No target analytes were detected in the MBs.
Appendix A-Quality Control Summary Report
April 2023 Semi-Annual Monitoring Event Results Summary Report
Tooele Army Depot North
A-4
3.5.2 Trip Blanks
A TB was included with each cooler containing volatile samples, as required. TB detections are indicative
of shipment and storage cross-contamination.
No target analytes were detected in the TBs.
3.6 Laboratory Control Samples
An LCS or LCS/LCSD pair was included with each preparatory batch, as required. LCS and LCSD percent
recovery (%R) and LCS/LCSD RPD were compared to the project MPC. LCS/LCSD recoveries were within
control limits and LCS/LCSD precision was within the RPD limit.
3.7 Matrix Spike Samples and Duplicates
Project-specific MS/MSD samples were collected and submitted at the project-required frequency of one
for each preparatory batch and one MS/MSD per 20 or fewer samples. MS and MSD samples were
prepared and analyzed for each laboratory batch.
MS/MSD recoveries and MS/MSD RPD were compared to project MPCs and met acceptance criteria, with
the following exceptions:
Trichloroethene (TCE) and tetrachloroethene (PCE) recovered greater than the UCL in the MS and/or MSD
performed on parent sample TEAD-04-23-B26-HY-319. The associated detected TCE and PCE results were
qualified J+ for estimated potential high bias.
TCE had a high RPD between the MS and MSD performed on parent sample TEAD-04-23-B26-HY-319. The
associated detected TCE result was recovered greater than the UCL in the MS and MSD so the final data
qualifier of J+ for estimated potential high bias remains as the final flag applied to the result.
1,1-Dichloroethene recovered less than the lower control limit (LCL) in the MS performed on parent
sample TEAD-04-23-C51F-HY-32B. The associated detected 1,1-dichloroethene result was qualified J-for
estimated potential low bias.
3.8 Surrogates
Surrogates were included with all laboratory QC and field samples, as required. Surrogate recoveries were
reviewed and compared to project MPC. All surrogate recoveries were within control limits for laboratory
QC and field samples, with the following exceptions:
The surrogates 4-bromofluorobenzene and toluene-dB were recovered greater than the UCL in sample
TEAD-04-23-C54F-HY-353. The detected TCE result was qualified as estimated and flagged J.
The surrogates 4-bromofluorobenzene and toluene-dB were recovered greater than the UCL in sample
TEAD-04-23-D06-HY-290. The detected carbon tetrachloride and TCE results were qualified as estimated
and flagged J+.
Appendix A-Quality Control Summary Report
April 2023 Semi-Annual Monitoring Event Results Summary Report
Tooele Army Depot North
A-5
3.9 Field Duplicate Precision
FD precision was evaluated by calculating the RPD between the parent sample result and the FD result
when both results were above the LOQ, and when one result fell between the LOD and the LOQ.
Acceptance criteria were less than 30% for water results.
A total of 8 FD samples were submitted and analyzed for 53 primary groundwater samples. FD pairs were
analyzed by method SW8260C.
Attachment A-3 summarizes the FD detections that were included in precision evaluations.
3.10 Additional Quality Control Discrepancies
Additional discrepancies not noted in the previous sections of this report that resulted in data qualification
are discussed here.
SW8260C analyte dichlorodifluoromethane recovered greater than the UCL in the continuing calibration
verification (CCV) standard associated with SDG 23D104. The associated non-detected results in samples
TEAD-04-23-Nl5097-HY-279, TEAD-04-23-S-C19-HY-368, TEAD-04-23-S-C33-HY-373, TEAD-04-23-S-C66-
HY-320, and TEAD-04-23-S-Nl2088-HY-320 were qualified UJ for possible estimated high bias.
4.0 COMPLETENESS
Completeness is a measure of the amount of valid data obtained compared with the amount that was
expected to be obtained under correct, normal conditions. For completeness requirements, valid results
are all results not rejected and determined to be usable in the context of project DQOs.
Completeness was evaluated using the formula below. The goal for completeness was 90% for all
methods and matrices.
% Completeness
Where:
V = number of measurements judged valid
n = total number of measurements
V
100x(-) n
No results were rejected and all results were considered usable. The overall project completeness for this
event is 100%.
5.0 OVERALL DATA QUALITY AND USABILITY ASSESSMENT
In general, the overall quality of the project data was acceptable and completeness goals were met.
Qualified data are considered acceptable for use, with the limitations discussed within this QA/QC report
regarding the qualifiers applied to the results.
Table 2 includes all qualified results and reasons for qualification.
The following QC issues required qualification:
• CCV recovery failures
• MS/MSD recovery and RPD exceedances
• Surrogate recovery exceedances
Appendix A-Quality Control Summary Report
April 2023 Semi-Annual Monitoring Event Results Summary Report
Tooele Army Depot North
A-6
Table 2 Qualified Results Summary
SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION SDG MATRIX
TEAD-04-23-B26-HY-319 23D103 Groundwater
TEAD-04-23-B26-HY-319 23D103 Groundwater
TEAD-04-23-C51F-HY-328 23D103 Groundwater
TEAD-04-23-C54F-HY-353 23D103 Groundwater
TEAD-04-23 -N 15097-HY-279 23D104 Groundwater
TEAD-04-23 -S-C19-HY -368 23D104 Groundwater
TEAD-04-23-S-C33-HY-373 23D104 Groundwater
TEAD-04-23 -S-C66-HT-320 23D104 Groundwater
TEAD-04 -23-S-N12088-HY-320 23D104 Groundwater
TEAD-04-23-D06-HY-290 23D114 Groundwater
TEAD-04-23-D06-HY-290 23D114 Groundwater
Notes:
For definitions, refer to the Acronyms and Abbreviations section.
Reason for Qualification :
METHOD ANALYTE
SW8260C TCE
SW8260C PCE
SW8260C 1,1-Dichloroethene
SW8260C TCE
SW8260C Dichlorodifluoromethane
SW8260C Dichlorodifluoromethane
SW8260C Dichlorodifluoromethane
SW8260C Dichlorodifluoromethane
SW8260C Dichlorodifluoromethane
SW8260C Carbon Tetrachloride
SW8260C TCE
CCV>UCL-continuing calibration verification standard recovery greater than the upper control limit
MS<LCL-matrix spike recovery less than the lower control limit
MS>UCL-matrix spike recovery greater than the upper control limit
MSD>UCL-matrix spike duplicate recovery greater than the upper control limit
MSRPD -matrix spike relative percent difference criteria exceeded
SUR>UCL-surrogate recovery greater than the upper control limit
Appendix A-Quality Control Summary Report
April 2023 Semi-Annual Monitoring Event Results Summary Report
Tooele Army Depot North
FINAL DATA REASON FOR UNITS
RESULT
REVIEW QUALIFICATION QUALIFIER
µg/L 26 J+ MS>UCL/MSD>UCL/MSRPD
µg/L 5.9 J+ MSD>UCL
µg/L 0.25 J-MS<LCL
µg/L 1.6 J SUR>UCL
µg/L ND UJ CCV>UCL
µg/L ND UJ CCV>UCL
µg/L ND UJ CCV>UCL
µg/L ND UJ CCV>UCL
µg/L ND UJ CCV>UCL
µg/L 1.4 J+ SUR>UCL
µg/L 11 J+ SUR>UCL
A-7
Appendix A-Quality Control Summary Report
April 2023 Semi-Annual Monitoring Event Results Summary Report
Tooele Army Depot North
This page intentionally blank
A-8
6.0 REFERENCES
Brice Engineering, LLC (Brice). 2022. Final Uniform Federal Policy Quality Assurance Project Plan Tooele
Army Depot North, Utah. February.
Department of Defense (DoD). 2019. General Data Validation Guidelines. November.
DoD. 2020. Data Validation Guidelines Module 1: Data Validation Procedure for Organic Analysis by
GC/MS. May.
DoD. 2021. Quality Systems Manual for Environmental Laboratories, Version 5.4. October.
Tooele Army Depot. 2017. Tooele Army Depot, Post-Closure Permit for Post Closure Monitoring and
Corrective Action at Solid Waste Management Units, UT3213820894. November.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2022. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste:
Physical/Chemical Methods Compendium (SW-846), through Revision 7. July.
Appendix A-Quality Control Summary Report
April 2023 Semi-Annual Monitoring Event Results Summary Report
Tooele Army Depot North
A-9
This page intentionally blank
Appendix A-Quality Control Summary Report
April 2023 Semi-Annual Monitoring Event Results Summary Report
Tooele Army Depot North
A-10
Attachment A-1
Sample Summary
This page intentionally blank
Attachment A-1 Sample Summary
April 2023 Semi-Annual Monitoring Event Results Summary Report
Toole Army Depot North
Field Sample ID Location Begin
End Depth Matrix Depth
TEAD-04-23-B16-HY-290 B-16 290 290 WG
TEAD-04-23-S-B16-HY-300 B-16 290 290 WG
TEAD-04-23-B26-HY-319 B-26 319 319 WG
TEAD-04-23-B40-HY-179 B-40 179 179 WG
TEAD-04-23-S-B40-HY-189 B-40 179 179 WG
TEAD-04-23-B42-HY-195 B-42 195 195 WG
TEAD-04-23-e03-HY-263 e-03 263 263 WG
TEAD-04-23-e04-HY-240 e-04 240 240 WG
TEAD-04-23-e19-HY-358 e-19 358 358 WG
TEAD-04-23-S-e19-HY-368 e-19 358 358 WG
TEAD-04-23-e24-HY-375 e-24 375 375 WG
TEAD-04-23-e26-HY-368 e-26 368 368 WG
TEAD-04-23-e33-HY-363 e-33 363 363 WG
TEAD-04-23-S-e33-HY-3 73 e-33 363 363 WG
TEAD-04-23-e35-HY-320 e-35 320 320 WG
TEAD-04-23-e37-HY-437 e-37 437 437 WG
TEAD-04-23-e40-HY-279 e-40 279 279 WG
TEAD-04-23-e41-HY-366 e-41 366 366 WG
TEAD-04-23-e47F-HY-364 e-47F 364 364 WG
TEAD-04-23-e48F-HY-364 e-48F 364 364 WG
TEAD-04-23-e50F-HY-345 e-50F 345 345 WG
TEAD-04-23-e51F-HY-328 e-51F 328 328 WG
TEAD-04-23-e52-HY-442 e-52 442 442 WG
TEAD-04-23-e54F-HY-353 e-54F 353 353 WG
TEAD-04-23-e56-HY-290 e-56 290 290 WG
TEAD-04-23-e57-HY-298 e-57 298 298 WG
TEAD-04-23-e59-HY-273 e-59 273 273 WG
TEAD-04-23-e60-HY-304 e-60 304 304 WG
TEAD-04-23-e61-HY-307 e-61 307 307 WG
TEAD-04-23-e66-HY-310 e-66 310 310 WG
TEAD-04-23-S-e66-HY-320 e-66 310 310 WG
TEAD-04-23-e68-HY-289 e-68 289 289 WG
TEAD-04-23-D02-HY-365 D-02 365 365 WG
Sample Type Sample Method Sampling Date Lab SDG Analyses
N HY 4/11/2023 EMXT 23D114 voes by SW8260e
FD HY 4/11/2023 EMXT 23D115 voes by SW8260e
N/MS/MSD HY 4/5/2023 EMXT 23D103 voes by SW8260e
N HY 4/6/2023 EMXT 23D114 voes by SW8260e
FD HY 4/6/2023 EMXT 23D115 voes by SW8260e
N/MS/MSD HY 4/6/2023 EMXT 23D114 voes by SW8260e
N/MS/MSD HY 4/6/2023 EMXT 23D114 voes by SW8260e
N HY 4/6/2023 EMXT 23D114 voes by SW8260e
N HY 4/4/2023 EMXT 23D103 voes by SW8260e
FD HY 4/4/2023 EMXT 23D104 voes by SW8260e
N HY 4/4/2023 EMXT 23D103 voes by SW8260e
N HY 4/4/2023 EMXT 23D103 voes by SW8260e
N HY 4/4/2023 EMXT 23D103 voes by SW8260e
FD HY 4/4/2023 EMXT 23D104 voes by SW8260e
N/MS/MSD HY 4/7/2023 EMXT 23D103 voes by SW8260e
N HY 4/7/2023 EMXT 23D103 voes by SW8260e
N HY 4/5/2023 EMXT 23D103 voes by SW8260e
N HY 4/7/2023 EMXT 23D103 voes by SW8260e
N HY 4/4/2023 EMXT 23D103 voes by SW8260e
N HY 4/4/2023 EMXT 23D103 voes by SW8260e
N HY 4/4/2023 EMXT 23D103 voes by SW8260e
N/MS/MSD HY 4/7/2023 EMXT 23D103 voes by SW8260e
N HY 4/4/2023 EMXT 23D103 voes by SW8260e
N HY 4/4/2023 EMXT 23D103 voes by SW8260e
N HY 4/5/2023 EMXT 23D103 voes by SW8260e
N HY 4/5/2023 EMXT 23D104 voes by SW8260e
N HY 4/5/2023 EMXT 23D104 voes by SW8260e
N HY 4/5/2023 EMXT 23D104 voes by SW8260e
N HY 4/5/2023 EMXT 23D104 voes by SW8260e
N HY 4/5/2023 EMXT 23D104 voes by SW8260e
FD HY 4/5/2023 EMXT 23D104 voes by SW8260e
N HY 4/5/2023 EMXT 23D104 voes by SW8260e
N HY 4/6/2023 EMXT 23D114 voes by SW8260e
Page 1 of 2
Attachment A-1 Sample Summary
April 2023 Semi-Annual Monitoring Event Results Summary Report
Toole Army Depot North
Field Sample ID
TEAD-04-23-D03-HY-215
TEAD-04-23-D06-HY-290
TEAD-04-23-D07-HY-205
TEAD-04-23-D09-HY-138
TEAD-04-23-Dl0-HY-196
TEAD-04-23-Dll-HY-130
TEAD-04-23-D12-HY-355
TEAD-04-23-S-D12-HY-365
TEAD-04-23-D13-HY-372
TEAD-04-23-D16-HY-242
TEAD-04-23-Dl 7-HY-139
TEAD-04-23-D18-HY-180
TEAD-04-23-D19-HY-158
TEAD-04-23-D20-HY-78
TEAD-04-23-D21-HY-110
TEAD-04-23-D22-HY-87
TEAD-04-23-D23-HY-202
TEAD-04-23-D24-HY-368
TEAD-04-23-D25-HY-188
TEAD-04-23-M0l-HY-145
TEAD-04-23-M02-HY-235
TEAD-04-23-M03-HY-235
TEAD-04-23-M04-HY-255
TEAD-04-23-S-M04-HY-265
TEAD-04-23-M05-HY-246
TEAD-04-23-N 12088-HY-310
TEAD-04-23-S-N12088-HY-320
TEAD-04-23-N15097-HY-279
TB20230404
TB20230406
Notes:
EMXT-EMAX Laboratories, Inc.
FD -field duplicate
GW -groundwater
HY -HydraSleeve•
ID -identification
MS -matrix spike
MSD -matrix spike duplicate
N -normal sample
SDG -sample delivery group
TB-trip blank
voes -volatile organic compounds
Location Begin
End Depth Matrix Depth
D-03 215 215 WG
D-06 290 290 WG
D-07 205 205 WG
D-09 138 138 WG
D-10 196 196 WG
D-11 130 130 WG
D-12 355 355 WG
D-12 355 355 WG
D-13 372 372 WG
D-16 242 242 WG
D-17 139 139 WG
D-18 180 180 WG
D-19 158 158 WG
D-20 78 78 WG
D-21 110 110 WG
D-22 87 87 WG
D-23 202 202 WG
D-24 368 368 WG
D-25 188 188 WG
M-01 145 145 WG
M-02 235 235 WG
M-03 235 235 WG
M-04 255 255 WG
M-04 255 255 WG
M-05 246 246 WG
N-120-88 310 310 WG
N-120-88 310 310 WG
N-150-97 279 279 WG
Trip Blank ----GW
Trip Blank -- --GW
Sample Type Sample Method Sampling Date Lab SDG Analyses
N HY 4/7/2023 EMXT 23D114 voes by SW8260e
N HY 4/10/2023 EMXT 23D114 voes by SW8260e
N HY 4/10/2023 EMXT 23D114 voes by SW8260e
N HY 4/7/2023 EMXT 23D114 voes by SW8260e
N HY 4/10/2023 EMXT 23D114 voes by SW8260e
N HY 4/7/2023 EMXT 23D114 voes by SW8260e
N HY 4/6/2023 EMXT 23D114 voes by SW8260e
FD HY 4/6/2023 EMXT 23D115 voes by SW8260e
N/MS/MSD HY 4/10/2023 EMXT 23D114 voes by SW8260e
N HY 4/11/2023 EMXT 23D114 voes by SW8260e
N HY 4/10/2023 EMXT 23D114 voes by SW8260e
N HY 4/7/2023 EMXT 23D114 voes by SW8260e
N HY 4/10/2023 EMXT 23D115 voes by SW8260e
N HY 4/11/2023 EMXT 23D115 voes by SW8260e
N HY 4/6/2023 EMXT 23D115 voes by SW8260e
N HY 4/6/2023 EMXT 23D115 voes by SW8260e
N HY 4/11/2023 EMXT 23D115 voes by SW8260e
N HY 4/10/2023 EMXT 23D115 voes by SW8260e
N HY 4/6/2023 EMXT 23D115 voes by SW8260e
N/MS/MSD HY 4/6/2023 EMXT 23D115 voes by SW8260e
N HY 4/7/2023 EMXT 23D115 voes by SW8260e
N HY 4/6/2023 EMXT 23D115 voes by SW8260e
N HY 4/10/2023 EMXT 23D115 voes by SW826oe
FD HY 4/10/2023 EMXT 23D115 voes by SW8260e
N HY 4/11/2023 EMXT 23D115 voes by SW8260e
N HY 4/5/2023 EMXT 23D104 voes by SW8260e
FD HY 4/5/2023 EMXT 23D104 voes by SW8260e
N HY 4/5/2023 EMXT 23D104 voes by SW8260e
TB --4/4/2023 EMXT 23D104 voes by SW8260e
TB --4/6/2023 EMXT 23D115 voes by SW8260e
Page 2 of 2
Attachment A-2
Data Summary Table
This page intentionally blank
Attachment A-2 Sample Summary
April 2023 Semi-Annual Monitoring Event Results Summary Report
Tooele Army Depot North
g L Matrix Screening limit Type
1,1,1-Tric loroet ane GW Table V-2 of PCP
1,1,2,2-Tetrac loroet ane GW NS
1,1,2-Tric loroet ane GW Table V-2 of PCP
1,1-Dic loroet ane GW Table V-2 of PCP
1,1-0ic loroet ene GW Table V-2 of PCP
1,2-Dic loroben ene GW EPA MCL
1,2-0ic loroet ane GW Table V-2 of PCP
1,2-0ic loroet ene GW Table V-2 of PCP
1,2-Dic loropropane GW EPA MCL
1,3-0ic loroben ene GW NS
1,4-Dic loroben ene GW EPA MCL
Ben ene GW EPA MCL
Bromodic loromet ane GW EPA MCL
Bromoform GW EPA MCL
Bromomet ane GW NS
Carbon Tetrac loride GW Table V-2 of PCP
C loroben ene GW EPA MCL
C loroet ane GW NS
C loroform GW Table V-2 of PCP
C loromet ane GW NS
cis-1 ,2-0ic loroet ene GW Table V-2 of PCP
cis-1,3-Dic loropropene GW NS
Dibromoc loromet ane GW EPA MCL
Die lorodifluoromet ane GW NS
Et ylben ene GW EPA MCL
Met ylene c loride GW Table V-2 of PCP
Tetrac loroet ene GW Table V-2 of PCP
Toluene GW EPA MCL
trans-1,2-Dic loroet ene GW Table V-2 of PCP
trans-1,3-Dic loropropene GW NS
Tric loroet ene TCE GW Table V-2 of PCP
Tric lorofluoromet ane GW NS
Vinyl C loride GW EPA MCL
Total Xylene GW EPA MCL
Notes:
Detected results appear in bold font
Hig lig ted cells indicate detections t at exceed t e selected screening level.
g/L-micrograms per liter
FD -field duplicate
GW -groundwater
- t e result is an estimated value based on an C issue and/or is less t ant e LO
MCL-maximum contaminant level
N -normal sample
NA -not applicable sample not analy ed fort at analyte
NS -not specified
PCP -post closure permit
TB -trip blank
Location ID:
Field Sample ID:
Sample Date:
Sample Type :
AL
200
NS
5
170
7
600
5
1
5
NS
75
5
80
80
NS
5
100
NS
80
NS
1
NS
80
NS
700
5
5
1000
1
NS
5
NS
2
1000
TEAD-0 -23-B1 •
11 231:2
N
0.200
NA
0.200
0120
0.200
NA
0.200
0.200
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1 0
NA
NA
01 0
NA
0.200
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.00
0.300
NA
0.200
NA
1 0
NA
NA
NA
8-1 B-2 8-0
-2 0 TEAD-0 -23-5-B1 • -300 TEAD-0 -23-B2 • -31 TEAD-0 -23-B 0--1 TEAD-0 -23-S-B
M 11 231:30 M 233:1 M 231:00 M 231:0
FD N N FD
0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200
NA 0.200 NA NA
0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200
01 0 0.200 0.200 0.200
0.200 0 20 0.200 0.200
NA 0.200 NA NA
0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200
0.200 0110 01 0 0230
NA 0.200 NA NA
NA 0.200 NA NA
NA 0.200 NA NA
NA 0.200 NA NA
NA 0.200 NA NA
NA 0.300 NA NA
NA 0.500 NA NA
1 0 1 0 03 0 0 0
NA 0.200 NA NA
NA 1.00 NA NA
0210 02 0 0.200 0100
NA 0.500 NA NA
0.200 0110 01 0 0230
NA 0.200 NA NA
NA 0.200 NA NA
NA 0.500 NA NA
NA 0.200 NA NA
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
0.300 0 0.300 0.300
NA 0.200 NA NA
0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200
NA 0.500 NA NA
200 2 0 1 0 1 0
NA 0.500 NA NA
NA 0.300 NA NA
NA 0.500 NA NA
Attachment A-2 Sample Summary
April 2023 Semi-Annual Monitoring Event Results Summary Report
Tooele Army Depot North
IL Matrix Screening Limit Type
1,1,1-Tric loroet ane GW Table V-2 of PCP
1,1,2,2-Tetrac loroet ane GW NS
1,1,2-Tric loroet ane GW Tabl e V-2 of PCP
1,1-Dic loroet ane GW Table V-2 of PCP
1,1-0ic loroet ene GW Tabl e V-2 of PCP
1,2-Dic loroben ene GW EPAMCL
1,2-0ic loroet ane GW Tabl e V-2 of PCP
1,2-0ic loroet ene GW Tabl e V-2 of PCP
1,2-Dic loropropane GW EPAMCL
1,3-0ic loroben ene GW NS
1,4-Dic loroben ene GW EPAMCL
Ben ene GW EPAM CL
Bromodic loromet ane GW EPAMCL
Bromoform GW EPAMCL
Bromomet ane GW NS
Carbon Tetrac loride GW Tabl e V-2 of PCP
C loroben ene GW EPAMCL
C loroet ane GW NS
C loroform GW Tabl e V-2 of PCP
C loromet ane GW NS
cis-1 ,2-Dic loroet ene GW Tabl e V-2 of PCP
cis-1,3-Dic loropropene GW NS
Dibromoc loromet ane GW EPAM CL
Die lorodifluoromet ane GW NS
Et ylben ene GW EPAM CL
Met ylene c loride GW Tabl e V-2 of PCP
Tetrac loroet ene GW Table V-2 of PCP
Toluene GW EPA MCL
trans-1,2-Dic loroet ene GW Table V-2 of PCP
trans-1 ,3-Dic loropropene GW NS
Tric loroet ene TCE GW Table V-2 of PCP
Tric lorofluoromet ane GW NS
Vinyl C loride GW EPA MCL
Total Xylene GW EPAMCL
Notes :
Detected results appe ar in bold font
Hig lig ted cells indicate detections t at exceed t e selected screening level.
g/L-mic rograms pe r liter
FD -field duplicate
GW -groundwate r
- t e result is an estimated value based on an C issue and/or is less t ant e LO
MCL-maximum contaminant level
N -normal sample
NA -not applicable sample not analy ed fort at analyte
NS -not specified
PCP - post closure permit
TB -trip blank
Location ID:
Field Sample ID:
Sample Date:
Sample Type :
AL
200
NS
s
170
7
600
s
1
s
NS
7S
s
80
80
NS
s
100
NS
80
NS
1
NS
80
NS
700
s
s
1000
1
NS
s
NS
2
1000
TEAD-0 -23-1 --3
2310: OAM
N
0 .200
0.200
0 .200
0.200
0 .200
0.200
0 .200
0.200
0.200
0 .200
0.200
0 .200
0.200
0 .300
0.500
01 0
0 .200
1.00
oz 0
0.500
0 .200
0.200
0 .200
0 .500
0.200
1.00
0.300
0 .200
0.200
0.500
110
0.500
0 .300
0.500
-1 -2 -2 -33
TEAD-0 -23-S-1 --3 TEAD-0 -23-Z --3 TEAD-0 -23-Z --3 TEAD-0 -23-33--3 3
2310: AM 23 : OAM 231:20 M 232: 0 M
FD N N N
0 .200 0.200 0 .200 0.200
0.200 0.200 0 .200 0.200
0 .200 0.200 0 .200 0.200
0.200 0.200 0 .200 0.200
0 .200 0.200 0.200 0.200
0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200
0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200
0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200
0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200
0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200
0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200
0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200
0110 0.200 01 0 0.200
0 .300 0.300 0 .300 0.300
0.500 0.500 0 .500 0.500
01 0 0 30 1 0 0.200
0 .200 0.200 0 .200 0.200
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
0300 01 0 0300 0 .200
0.500 0.500 0 .500 0.500
0 .200 0.200 0 .200 0.200
0.200 0.200 0 .200 0.200
0 .200 0.200 0 .200 0.200
0.500 0.500 0.500 0.500
0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
0.300 0.300 0.300 0.300
0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200
0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200
0.500 0.500 0.500 0.500
110 1 0 330 1 0
0.500 0.500 0 .500 0.500
0 .300 0.300 0 .300 0.300
0.500 0.500 0 .500 0.500
Attachment A-2 Sample Summary
April 2023 Semi-Annual Monitoring Event Results Summary Report
Tooele Army Depot North
IL Matrix Screening Limit Type
1,1,1-Tric loroet ane GW Table V-2 of PCP
1,1,2,2-Tetrac loroet ane GW NS
1,1,2-Tric loroet ane GW Tabl e V-2 of PCP
1,1-Dic loroet ane GW Table V-2 of PCP
1,1-0ic loroet ene GW Tabl e V-2 of PCP
1,2-Dic loroben ene GW EPAMCL
1,2-0ic loroet ane GW Tabl e V-2 of PCP
1,2-0ic loroet ene GW Tabl e V-2 of PCP
1,2-Dic loropropane GW EPAMCL
1,3-0ic loroben ene GW NS
1,4-Dic loroben ene GW EPAMCL
Ben ene GW EPA MCL
Bromodic loromet ane GW EPAMCL
Bromoform GW EPAMCL
Bromomet ane GW NS
Carbon Tetrac loride GW Tabl e V-2 of PCP
C loroben ene GW EPAMCL
C loroet ane GW NS
C loroform GW Tabl e V-2 of PCP
C loromet ane GW NS
cis-1 ,2-Dic loroet ene GW Tabl e V-2 of PCP
cis-1,3-Dic loropropene GW NS
Dibromoc loromet ane GW EPAM CL
Die lorodifluoromet ane GW NS
Et ylben ene GW EPAM CL
Met ylene c loride GW Tabl e V-2 of PCP
Tetrac loroet ene GW Table V-2 of PCP
Toluene GW EPA MCL
trans-1,2-Dic loroet ene GW Table V-2 of PCP
trans-1 ,3-Dic loropropene GW NS
Tric loroet ene TCE GW Table V-2 of PCP
Tric lorofluoromet ane GW NS
Vinyl C loride GW EPA MCL
Total Xylene GW EPAMCL
Notes :
Detected results appe ar in bold font
Hig lig ted cells indicate detections t at exceed t e selected screening level.
g/L-mic rograms pe r liter
FD -field duplicate
GW -groundwate r
- t e result is an estimated value based on an C issue and/or is less t ant e LO
MCL-maximum contaminant level
N -normal sample
NA -not applicable sample not analy ed fort at analyte
NS -not specified
PCP - post closure permit
TB -trip blank
Location ID:
Field Sample ID:
Sample Date:
Sample Type :
AL
200
NS
s
170
7
600
s
1
s
NS
7S
s
80
80
NS
s
100
NS
80
NS
1
NS
80
NS
700
s
s
1000
1
NS
s
NS
2
1000
-1
TEAD-0 -23-1--3
231:10 M
N
0 .200
0.200
0 .200
0.200
0 .200
0.200
0 .200
0.200
0.200
0 .200
0.200
0 .200
01 0
0 .300
0.500
1 0
0 .200
1.00
0300
0.500
0 .200
0.200
0 .200
0 .500
0.200
1.00
0.300
0 .200
0.200
0.500
1 0
0.500
0 .300
0.500
F F -OF -lF
TEAD-0 -23-F--3 TEAD-0 -23-F· -3 TEAD-0 -23-OF--3 TEAD-0 -23-lF· -32
2312:20 M 2312: 0 M 2310:2 AM 2310:30AM
N N N N
0 .200 0.200 0 .200 0.200
0.200 0.200 0 .200 0.200
0 .200 0.200 0 .200 0.200
0.200 0.200 0 .200 0.200
0 .200 0.200 0200 02 0 -
0.200 0.200 0 .200 0.200
0 .200 0.200 0 .200 0.200
0.200 0200 02 0 0.200
0.200 0.200 0 .200 0.200
0 .200 0.200 0 .200 0.200
0.200 0.200 0 .200 0.200
0 .200 0.200 0 .200 0.200
0.200 0230 0220 0110
0 .300 0.300 0 .300 0.300
0.500 0.500 0 .500 0.500
0.200 0.200 0 0 0.200
0 .200 0.200 0 .200 0.200
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
0 .200 02 0 02 0 0110
0.500 0.500 0 .500 0.500
0 .200 0200 02 0 0 .200
0.200 0.200 0 .200 0.200
0 .200 0.200 0 .200 0.200
0.500 0.500 0 .500 0.500
0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
0.300 0.300 0.300 2 0
0 .200 0.200 0 .200 0.200
0.200 0.200 0 .200 0.200
0 .500 0.500 0 .500 0.500
2 0 310 220 1 0
0.500 0.500 0 .500 0.500
0 .300 0.300 0 .300 0.300
0.500 0.500 0 .500 0.500
Attachment A-2 Sample Summary
April 2023 Semi-Annual Monitoring Event Results Summary Report
Tooele Army Depot North
IL Matrix Screening Limit Type
1,1,1-Tric loroet ane GW Table V-2 of PCP
1,1,2,2-Tetrac loroet ane GW NS
1,1,2-Tric loroet ane GW Tabl e V-2 of PCP
1,1-Dic loroet ane GW Table V-2 of PCP
1,1-0ic loroet ene GW Tabl e V-2 of PCP
1,2-Dic loroben ene GW EPAMCL
1,2-0ic loroet ane GW Tabl e V-2 of PCP
1,2-0ic loroet ene GW Tabl e V-2 of PCP
1,2-Dic loropropane GW EPAMCL
1,3-0ic loroben ene GW NS
1,4-Dic loroben ene GW EPAMCL
Ben ene GW EPA MCL
Bromodic loromet ane GW EPAMCL
Bromoform GW EPAMCL
Bromomet ane GW NS
Carbon Tetrac loride GW Tabl e V-2 of PCP
C loroben ene GW EPAMCL
C loroet ane GW NS
C loroform GW Tabl e V-2 of PCP
C loromet ane GW NS
cis-1 ,2-Dic loroet ene GW Tabl e V-2 of PCP
cis-1,3-Dic loropropene GW NS
Dibromoc loromet ane GW EPAM CL
Die lorodifluoromet ane GW NS
Et ylben ene GW EPAM CL
Met ylene c loride GW Tabl e V-2 of PCP
Tetrac loroet ene GW Table V-2 of PCP
Toluene GW EPA MCL
trans-1,2-Dic loroet ene GW Table V-2 of PCP
trans-1 ,3-Dic loropropene GW NS
Tric loroet ene TCE GW Table V-2 of PCP
Tric lorofluoromet ane GW NS
Vinyl C loride GW EPA MCL
Total Xylene GW EPAMCL
Notes :
Detected results appe ar in bold font
Hig lig ted cells indicate detections t at exceed t e selected screening level.
g/L-mic rograms pe r liter
FD -field duplicate
GW -groundwate r
- t e result is an estimated value based on an C issue and/or is less t ant e LO
MCL-maximum contaminant level
N -normal sample
NA -not applicable sample not analy ed fort at analyte
NS -not specified
PCP - post closure permit
TB -trip blank
Location ID:
Field Sample ID :
Sample Date:
Sample Type :
AL
200
NS
s
170
7
600
s
1
s
NS
7S
s
80
80
NS
s
100
NS
80
NS
1
NS
80
NS
700
s
s
1000
1
NS
s
NS
2
1000
TEAD-0 -23--2 3
231: 0 M
N
0 .200
0.200
0 .200
0.200
0 .200
0.200
0 .200
0 20
0.200
0 .200
0.200
0 .200
0.200
0 .300
0.500
0.200
0 .200
1.00
0 .200
0.500
0 20
0.200
0 .200
0 .500
0.200
1.00
0.300
0 .200
0.200
0.500
0
0.500
0 .300
0.500
-0 - 1
TEAD-0 -23-0--30 TEAD-0 -23-1--30 TEAD-0 -23--310 TEAD-0 -23-5--320
2311:00AM 2310: 0AM 2311:2 AM 2311:30AM
N N N FD
0 .200 0.200 0 .200 0.200
0.200 0.200 0 .200 0.200
0 .200 0.200 0 .200 0.200
0.200 0.200 0310 03 0
0 .200 0.200 0 .200 0100
0.200 0.200 0 .200 0.200
0 .200 0.200 0 .200 0.200
0.200 2 20 0 0
0.200 0.200 0 .200 0.200
0 .200 0.200 0 .200 0.200
0.200 0.200 0 .200 0.200
0 .200 0.200 0 .200 0.200
0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200
0.300 0.300 0.300 0.300
0.500 0.500 0.500 0.500
0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200
0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
0.200 0.200 0.200 0130
0.500 0.500 0 .500 0.500
0 .200 2 20 0 0
0.200 0.200 0 .200 0.200
0 .200 0.200 0 .200 0.200
0.500 0.500 0 .500 0.500
0.200 0.200 0 .200 0.200
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
0.300 0 0 1 0 1 0
0 .200 0.200 0 .200 0.200
0.200 0.200 0 .200 0.200
0 .500 0.500 0 .500 0.500
230 2 0 110 110
0.500 0.500 0 .500 0.500
0 .300 0.300 0 .300 0.300
0.500 0.500 0 .500 0.500
Attachment A-2 Sample Summary
April 2023 Semi-Annual Monitoring Event Results Summary Report
Tooele Army Depot North
IL Matrix Screening Limit Type
1,1,1-Tric loroet ane GW Table V-2 of PCP
1,1,2,2-Tetrac loroet ane GW NS
1,1,2-Tric loroet ane GW Table V-2 of PCP
1,1-Dic loroet ane GW Table V-2 of PCP
1,1-0ic loroet ene GW Table V-2 of PCP
1,2-Dic loroben ene GW EPAMCL
1,2-0ic loroet ane GW Table V-2 of PCP
1,2-0ic loroet ene GW Table V-2 of PCP
1,2-Dic loropropane GW EPAMCL
1,3-0ic loroben ene GW NS
1,4-Dic loroben ene GW EPAMCL
Ben ene GW EPAMCL
Bromodic loromet ane GW EPAMCL
Bromoform GW EPAMCL
Bromomet ane GW NS
Carbon Tetrac loride GW Table V-2 of PCP
C loro ben ene GW EPAMCL
C loroet ane GW NS
C loroform GW Table V-2 of PCP
C loromet ane GW NS
cis-1 ,2-Dic loroet ene GW Table V-2 of PCP
cis-1,3-Dic loropropene GW NS
Dibromoc loromet ane GW EPAMCL
Die lorodifluoromet ane GW NS
Et ylben ene GW EPAMCL
Met ylene c loride GW Table V-2 of PCP
Tetrac loroet ene GW Table V-2 of PCP
Toluene GW EPAMCL
trans-1,2-Dic loroet ene GW Table V-2 of PCP
trans-1,3-Dic loropropene GW NS
Tric loroet ene TCE GW Table V-2 of PCP
Tric lorofluoromet ane GW NS
Vinyl C loride GW EPAMCL
Total Xylene GW EPAMCL
Notes:
Detected results appear in bold font
Hig lig ted cells indicate detections t at exceed t e selected screening level.
g/L-micrograms per liter
FD -field duplicate
GW -groundwater
- t e result is an estimated value based on an C issue and/or is less t ant e LO
MCL-maximum contaminant level
N -normal sample
NA -not applicable sample not analy ed fort at analyte
NS -not specified
PCP -post closure permit
TB -trip blank
Location ID:
Field Sample ID :
Sample Date:
Sample Type :
AL
200
NS
s
170
7
600
s
1
s
NS
7S
s
80
80
NS
s
100
NS
80
NS
1
NS
80
NS
700
s
s
1000
1
NS
s
NS
2
1000
1H) D-0 D-10 D-11 D-12
TEAD-0 -23-00 --20 TEAD-0 -23-00 --13 TEAD-0 -23-010--1 TEAD-0 -23-011--130 TEAD-0 -23-012--3
10 2312:00 M 23 :0 AM 10 23 : OAM 231: 0 M 231: 0 M
N N N N N
0.200 0.200 0.200 0 .200 0.200
NA NA NA NA NA
0 .200 0.200 0.200 0 .200 0.200
0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200
0 .2 00 0.200 0.200 0 .200 0.200
NA NA NA NA NA
0 .200 0.200 0.200 0 .200 0.200
0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200
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
NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA
110 0.200 0130 0.200 0.200
NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA
0110 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200
NA NA NA NA NA
0 .200 0.200 0.200 0 .200 0.200
NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
0.300 0.300 0.300 0.300 0.300
NA NA NA NA NA
0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200
NA NA NA NA NA
1 0 0.200 30 0.200 0.200
NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA
Attachment A-2 Sample Summary
April 2023 Semi-Annual Monitoring Event Results Summary Report
Tooele Army Depot North
IL Matrix Screening Limit Type
1,1,1-Tric loroet ane GW Table V-2 of PCP
1,1,2,2-Tetrac loroet ane GW NS
1,1,2-Tric loroet ane GW Table V-2 of PCP
1,1-Dic loroet ane GW Table V-2 of PCP
1,1-0ic loroet ene GW Table V-2 of PCP
1,2-Dic loroben ene GW EPAMCL
1,2-0ic loroet ane GW Table V-2 of PCP
1,2-0ic loroet ene GW Table V-2 of PCP
1,2-Dic loropropane GW EPAMCL
1,3-0ic loroben ene GW NS
1,4-Dic loroben ene GW EPAMCL
Ben ene GW EPAMCL
Bromodic loromet ane GW EPAMCL
Bromoform GW EPAMCL
Bromomet ane GW NS
Carbon Tetrac loride GW Table V-2 of PCP
C loroben ene GW EPAMCL
C loroet ane GW NS
C loroform GW Table V-2 of PCP
C loromet ane GW NS
cis-1 ,2-Dic loroet ene GW Table V-2 of PCP
cis-1,3-Dic loropropene GW NS
Dibromoc loromet ane GW EPAMCL
Die lorodifluoromet ane GW NS
Et ylben ene GW EPAMCL
Met ylene c loride GW Table V-2 of PCP
Tetrac loroet ene GW Table V-2 of PCP
Toluene GW EPAMCL
trans-1,2-Dic loroet ene GW Table V-2 of PCP
trans-1,3-Dic loropropene GW NS
Tric loroet ene TCE GW Table V-2 of PCP
Tric lorofluoromet ane GW NS
Vinyl C loride GW EPAMCL
Total Xylene GW EPAMCL
Notes:
Detected results appear in bold font
Hig lig ted cells indicate detections t at exceed t e selected screening level.
g/L-micrograms per liter
FD -field duplicate
GW -groundwater
- t e result is an estimated value based on an C issue and/or is less t ant e LO
MCL-maximum contaminant level
N -normal sample
NA -not applicable sample not analy ed fort at analyte
NS -not specified
PCP -post closure permit
TB -trip blank
Location ID:
Field Sample ID:
Sample Date:
Sample Type :
AL
200
NS
s
170
7
600
s
1
s
NS
7S
s
80
80
NS
s
100
NS
80
NS
1
NS
80
NS
700
s
s
1000
1
NS
s
NS
2
1000
D-1
TEAD-0 -23-01 • -1 0
23 :30AM
N
0 .200
NA
0 .200
0.200
0 .200
NA
0 .200
0.200
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0130
NA
NA
0 .200
NA
0 .200
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.00
0.300
NA
0.200
NA
0
NA
NA
NA
D-1 D-20 D-21 D-22
TEAD-0 -23-01 --1 TEAD-0 -23-020-TEAD-0 -23-021--110 TEAD-0 -23-022-
10 231:00 M 11 23 : OAM 232: M 23 :3 AM
N N N N
0.200 0.200 0 .200 0.200
NA NA NA NA
0.200 0.200 0 .200 0.200
0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200
0.200 0.200 0 .200 0.200
NA NA NA NA
0.200 0.200 0 .200 0.200
0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200
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 NA NA NA
110 01 0 0.200 0.200
NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA
01 0 0 0 0330 0.200
NA NA NA NA
0.200 0.200 0 .200 0.200
NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
0.300 0.300 0.300 0.300
NA NA NA NA
0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200
NA NA NA NA
200 0 10 0.200 0220
NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA
Attachment A-2 Sample Summary
April 2023 Semi-Annual Monitoring Event Results Summary Report
Tooele Army Depot North
g L Matrix Screening Limit Type
1,1,1-Tric loroet ane GW Table V-2 of PCP
1,1,2,2-Tetrac loroet ane GW NS
1,1,2-Tric loroet ane GW Table V-2 of PCP
1,1-Dic loroet ane GW Table V-2 of PCP
1,1-0ic loroet ene GW Table V-2 of PCP
1,2-0ic loroben ene GW EPAMCL
1,2-0ic loroet ane GW Table V-2 of PCP
1,2-0ic loroet ene GW Table V-2 of PCP
1,2-Dic loropropane GW EPAMCL
1,3-0ic loroben ene GW NS
1,4-Dic loroben ene GW EPAMCL
Ben ene GW EPAMCL
Bromodic loromet ane GW EPAMCL
Bromoform GW EPAMCL
Bromomet ane GW NS
Carbon Tetrac loride GW Table V-2 of PCP
C loroben ene GW EPAMCL
C loroet ane GW NS
C loroform GW Table V-2 of PCP
C loromet ane GW NS
cis-1 ,2-0ic loroet ene GW Table V-2 of PCP
cis-1,3-Dic loropropene GW NS
Dibromoc loromet ane GW EPAMCL
Die lorodifluoromet ane GW NS
Et ylben ene GW EPAMCL
Met ylene c loride GW Table V-2 of PCP
Tetrac loroet ene GW Table V-2 of PCP
Toluene GW EPAMCL
trans-1,2-Dic loroet ene GW Table V-2 of PCP
trans-1,3-Dic loropropene GW NS
Tric loroet ene TCE GW Table V-2 of PCP
Tric lorofluoromet ane GW NS
Vinyl C loride GW EPAMCL
Total Xylene GW EPAMCL
Notes:
Detected results appear in bold font
Hig lig ted cells indicate detections t at exceed t e selected screening level .
g/L -micrograms per liter
FD -field duplicate
GW -groundwater
-t e result is an estimated value based on an C issue and/or is less t ant e LO
MCL-maximum contaminant level
N -normal sample
NA -not applicable sample not analy ed fort at analyte
NS -not specified
PCP -post closure permit
TB -trip blank
Location ID:
Field Sample ID:
Sample Date:
Sample Type:
AL
200
NS
s
170
7
600
s
1
s
NS
7S
s
80
80
NS
s
100
NS
80
NS
1
NS
80
NS
700
s
s
1000
1
NS
s
NS
2
1000
M-02
TEA0-0 ·23-M02·
232:0
N
0.200
NA
0.200
0.200
0.200
NA
0.200
0.200
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.200
NA
NA
0.200
NA
0.200
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.00
0.300
NA
0.200
NA
0.200
NA
NA
NA
M-03 M-0 M-0
-23 TEAD-0 ·23-M03--23 TEAD·0 ·23-M0 • -2 TEAO-O ·23-S-M0 • -2 TEAD-0 ·23-M0 • -2 TEAD-0 ·23
M 2310:0 AM 10 23 :1 AM 10 23 :20AM 112312:0 M 2
N N FD N
0.200 0.200 0 .200 0.200 0 .
NA NA NA NA 0.
0.200 0.200 0 .200 0.200 0.
0.200 0.200 0.200 0210 0.
0.200 0.200 0 .200 0.200 0 .
NA NA NA NA 0.
0.200 0.200 0 .200 0.200 0 .
0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200 0
NA NA NA NA 0.
NA NA NA NA 0 .
NA NA NA NA 0.
NA NA NA NA 0 .
NA NA NA NA 0.
NA NA NA NA 0 .
NA NA NA NA 0.
0.200 1 0 1 0 2 0 0.
NA NA NA NA 0 .
NA NA NA NA l
0.200 02 0 02 0 01 0 0 .
NA NA NA NA 0.
0.200 0.200 0 .200 0.200 0
NA NA NA NA 0.
NA NA NA NA 0 .
NA NA NA NA 0 .
NA NA NA NA 0.
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 l
0.300 01 0 01 0 0.300 0
NA NA NA NA 0 .
0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.
NA NA NA NA 0 .
0.200 0 0 310
NA NA NA NA 0.
NA NA NA NA 0 .
NA NA NA NA 0.
This page intentionally blank
Attachment A-3
Field Duplicate Precision Report
This page intentionally blank
Attachment A-3 Field Duplicate recision Report
April 2023 Semi-Annual Monitoring Event Results Summary Report
Tooele Army Depot North
Location:
Field Sample ID :
Lab Sample ID:
Sample Date:
Field :
s byS 2 0 nits
1,1,1-Tric loroet ane g/L
1,1,2,2-Tetrac loroet ane g/L
1,1,2-Tric loroet ane g/L
1,1-Dic loroet ane g/L
1,1-Dic loroet ene g/L
1,2-Dic loroben ene g/L
1,2-Dic loroet ane g/L
1,2-Dic loroet ene g/L
1,2-Dic loropropane g/L
1,3-Dic loroben ene g/L
1,4-Dic loroben ene g/L
Ben ene g/L
Bromod ic loromet ane g/L
Bromoform g/L
Bromomet ane g/L
Carbon Tetrac loride g/L
C loroben ene g/L
C loroet ane g/L
C loroform g/L
C loromet ane g/L
cis-1,2-Dic loroet ene g/L
ci s-1,3-Dic loropropene g/L
Dibromoc loromet ane g/L
Die lorod ifluoromet ane g/L
Et ylben ene g/L
Met ylene c loride g/L
Tetrac loroet ene g/L
Toluene g/L
trans-1,2-Dic loroet ene g/L
trans-1,3-Dic loropropene g/L
Tric loroet ene g/L
Tric lorofluoromet ane g/L
Vinyl c loride g/L
Xylenes, Total g/L
Notes:
Bold -detected results appear in bold font
-bot re sults were detected less t ant e LO and relative percent difference was not calculated
--- analyte not analy ed for
... 11 ._· .................................... ..
-1
TEAD-0 -23-1 • -3
230103-02
2023
N
Result
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.30
0.50
01
0.20
1.0
02
0.50
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.50
0.20
1.0
0.30
0.20
0.20
0.50
11
0.50
0.30
0.50
-33
TEAD-0 -23-S-1 • -3 TEAD-0 -23-33--3 3 TEAD-0 -23-S-33--3 3 TEAD-0 -2
23010 -0 230103-0 23010 -10 230
2023 2023 2023
FD N FD
Result R D Result Result R D R
0.20 NC 0.20 0.20 NC 0.
0.20 NC 0.20 0.20 NC 0.
0.20 NC 0.20 0.20 NC 0.
0.20 NC 0.20 0.20 NC 0
0.20 NC 0.20 0.20 NC o.
0.20 NC 0.20 0.20 NC o.
0.20 NC 0.20 0.20 NC o.
0.20 NC 0.20 0.20 NC
0.20 NC 0.20 0.20 NC o.
0.20 NC 0.20 0.20 NC o.
0.20 NC 0.20 0.20 NC o.
0.20 NC 0.20 0.20 NC 0
011 NC 0.20 0.20 NC 0
0.30 NC 0.30 0.30 NC 0
0.50 NC 0.50 0.50 NC 0
01 N 0.20 0.20 NC 0
0.20 NC 0.20 0.20 NC 0
1.0 NC 1.0 1.0 NC ]
030 33 0.20 0.20 NC 0
0.50 NC 0.50 0.50 NC o.
0.20 NC 0.20 0.20 NC
0.20 NC 0.20 0.20 NC o.
0.20 NC 0.20 0.20 NC o.
0.50 NC 0.50 0.50 NC o.
0.20 NC 0.20 0.20 NC o.
1.0 NC 1.0 1.0 NC ]
0.30 NC 0.30 0.30 NC
0.20 NC 0.20 0.20 NC 0
0.20 NC 0.20 0.20 NC 0.
0.50 NC 0.50 0.50 NC 0.
11 000 1 1 0 00
0.50 NC 0.50 0.50 NC 0.
0.30 NC 0.30 0.30 NC 0
0.50 NC 0.50 0.50 NC 0
Attachment A-3 Field Duplicate recision Report
April 2023 Semi-Annual Monitoring Event Results Summary Report
Tooele Army Depot North
Location:
Field Sample ID :
Lab Sample ID:
Sample Date:
Field :
s byS 2 0 nits
1,1,1-Tric loroet ane g/L
1,1,2,2-Tetrac loroet ane g/L
1,1,2-Tric loroet ane g/L
1,1-Dic loroet ane g/L
1,1-Dic loroet ene g/L
1,2-Dic loroben ene g/L
1,2-Dic loroet ane g/L
1,2-Dic loroet ene g/L
1,2-Dic loropropane g/L
1,3-Dic loroben ene g/L
1,4-Dic loroben ene g/L
Ben ene g/L
Bromodic loromet ane g/L
Bromoform g/L
Bromomet ane g/L
Carbon Tetrac loride g/L
C loroben ene g/L
C loroet ane g/L
C loroform g/L
C loromet ane g/L
cis-1,2-Dic loroet ene g/L
cis-1,3-Dic loropropene g/L
Dibromoc loromet ane g/L
Die lorodifluoromet ane g/L
Et ylben ene g/L
Met ylene c loride g/L
Tetrac loroet ene g/L
Toluene g/L
trans-1,2-Dic loroet ene g/L
trans-1,3-Dic loropropene g/L
Tric loroet ene g/L
Tric lorofluoromet ane g/L
Vinyl c loride g/L
Xylenes, Total g/L
Notes:
Bold -detected results appear in bold font
-bot results were detected less t ant e LO and relative percent difference was not calculated
•· -analyte not analy ed for
... ,, ._· ..................................... ..
B-1
TEAD-0 -23-B1 • -2 0
23Dll -01
11 2023
N
Result
0.20
..
0.20
012
0.20
..
0.20
0.20
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
1
..
..
01
..
0.20
..
..
..
..
1.0
0.30
..
0.20
..
1
..
..
..
B-0
TEAD-0 -23-S-B1 • -300 TEAD-0 -23-B 0--1 TEAD-0 -23-S-B 0--1 TEA
23Dll -13 23Dll -02 23Dll -1
11 2023 2023 2023
FD N FD
Result RD Result Result RD
0.20 NC 0.20 0.20 NC
--·--..
0.20 NC 0.20 0.20 NC
01 N 0.20 0.20 NC
0.20 NC 0.20 0.20 NC
- -
.. -..
0.20 NC 0.20 0.20 NC
0.20 NC 01 0 23 N
- -
.. -..
- -
.. -..
- -
.. -..
--·-.. ..
--·--..
--.. -..
--.. -..
1 12 03 0 N
--.. -..
--.. -..
0 21 N 0.20 010 N
--.. -..
0.20 NC 01 0 23 N
--.. -..
--.. -..
--.. -..
--.. -..
1.0 NC 1.0 1.0 NC
0.30 NC 0.30 0.30 NC
--.. -..
0.20 NC 0.20 0.20 NC
--.. -..
20 13 1 1 000
--.. -..
--.. -..
--.. -..
Attachment A-4
Data Validation Reports
This page intentionally blank
Data Validation Report for 23D103 (I synectics
Facility: USAEC , TEAD-N
Event: 2023 Spring Semi-Annual GW Sampling
SDG: 23D103
Guidance Document: FINAL Uniform Federal Policy Quality Assurance Project Plan Tooele Army
Depot North , Utah, February 2022
Prime Contractor: Brice Environmental Services Corporation , Salt Lake City , UT
Project Manager: Andrew Castor
Contract Laboratory(ies): EMAX Laboratories, Inc., Torrance, CA
Data Review Contractor: Synectics , Sacramento , CA
Data Review Level : S4VEM
Primary Data Reviewer: Leslie Tanaka , Data Review Chemist
Second Reviewer: Evin McKinney, Senior Scientist
Date Submitted : June 06 , 2023
()
0 co
C\I co
Field Sample ID Lab Sample ID Matrix Type/Type Code 3::
Cl)
TEAD-04-23-B26-HY-319 23D103-01 Water Field Sample/N X
TEAD-04-23-C 19-HY-358 23D103-02 Water Field Sample/N X
TEAD-04-23-C24-HY-375 23D103-03 Water Field Sample/N X
TEAD-04-23-C26-HY-368 23D103-04 Water Field Sample/N X
TEAD-04-23-C33-HY-363 23D103-05 Water Field Sample/N X
TEAD-04-23-C35-HY-320 23D103-06 Water Field Sample/N X
TEAD-04-23-C37-HY-437 23D103-07 Water Field Sample/N X
TEAD-04-23-C40-HY-279 23D103-08 Water Field Sample/N X
TEAD-04-23-C41-HY-366 23D103-09 Water Field Sample/N X
TEAD-04-23-C4 ?F-HY-364 23D103-10 Water Field Sample/N X
TEAD-04-23-C48F-HY-364 23D103-11 Water Field Sample/N X
TEAD-04-23-C50F-HY-345 23D103-12 Water Field Sample/N X
TEAD-04-23-C51 F-HY-328 23D103-13 Water Field Sample/N X
TEAD-04-23-C52-HY-442 23D103-14 Water Field Sample/N X
TEAD-04-23-C54F-HY-353 23D103-15 Water Field Sample/N X
TEAD-04-23-C56-HY-290 23D103-16 Water Field Sample/N X
eQAPP Version : eQAPP TEAD-TEAD-TEAD-.000000
ENV .ADR -
June 06 , 2023 Page 1 of 10
Data Validation Report for 23D103
This report assesses the analytical data quality associated with the analyses listed on the preceding cover
page at S4VEM data validation level. This assessment has been made through a combination of automated
data review (ADR) and supplemental manual review, the details of which are described below. The approach
taken in the review of this data set is consistent with the requirements contained in the Fl NAL Uniform Federal
Policy Quality Assurance Project Plan Tooele Army Depot North, Utah, February 2022 and the additional
guidance documents incorporated by reference to the extent possible. Where definitive guidance is not
provided, results have been evaluated in a conservative manner using professional judgment.
Sample collection was managed and directed by Brice Environmental Services Corporation, Salt Lake City,
UT; analyses were performed by EMAX Laboratories, Inc., Torrance, CA and were reported under sample
delivery group (SDG) 23D103. Data have been evaluated electronically based on electronic data deliverables
(EDDs) provided by the laboratory, and hard copy data summary forms have also been reviewed during this
effort and compared to the automated review output by the reviewers whose signatures appear on the
following page. Findings based on the automated data submission and manual data verification processes are
detailed in the ADR narrative and throughout this report.
All quality control (QC) elements associated with this SDG have been reviewed by a project chemist in
accordance with the requirements defined for the project. This review is documented in the attached Data
Review Checklists. The QC elements listed below were supported by the electronic deliverable and were
evaluated using ADR processes.
Continuing Calibration Verification
Lab Blank
LCS Recovery
LCS RPO
MS Recovery
MSRPD
Prep Hold Time
Surrogate
Test Hold Time
Results of the ADR process were subsequently reviewed and updated as applicable by the data review
chemists identified on the signature page. Quality control elements that were not included in the electronic
deliverable were reviewed manually and findings are documented within this report. Summaries of findings
and associated qualified results are documented throughout this report.
A total of 4 results (0.74%) out of the 544 results (sample and field QC samples) reported are qualified based
on review and 0 results (0.00%) have been rejected or deemed a serious deficiency (X qualifier). Trace
values, defined as results that are qualified as estimated because they fall between the detection limit and the
reporting limit/limit of quantitation, are not counted as qualified results in the above count. The qualified
results are detailed throughout this report and discussed in the narrative below, where appropriate.
eQAPP Version: eQAPP TEAD-TEAD-TEAD-.000000
ENV.ADR -
June 06, 2023 Page 2 of 10
Data Validation Report for 23D103
Narrative Comments
Samples 23D103-01 and 02 underwent S4VEM and the remaining samples S2BVEM .
The laboratory noted that there were sample time discrepancies between the COC and sample labels, and
the COC was used to process the samples.
Corrections on the sample labels were not dated.
Analytical Method Data Reviewer Comment
SW8260C The laboratory noted MS/MSDs and surrogates out of control.
Reviewed by Leslie Tanaka, Data Review Chemist, Synectics,
Sacramento, CA
May 26, 2023
As the First Reviewer, I certify that I have performed a data review process in accordance with the
requirements of the project guidance document, and have compared the electronic data to the laboratory's
hard copy report and have verified the consistency of the reported sample results and method quality control
data between the two deliverables.
Reviewed by Evin McKinney, Senior Scientist, Synectics,
Sacramento, CA
June 06, 2023
As the Second Reviewer, I certify that I have performed a quality assurance review of the report generated
by the First Reviewer.
eQAPP Version: eQAPP TEAD-TEAD-TEAD-.000000
ENV.ADR -
June 06, 2023 Page 3of 10
Data Validation Report for 23D103
Quality Control Outliers for test method SW8260C, MS Recovery
Data for matrix spikes/matrix spike duplicates (MS/MSD) are generated to determine long-term precision and accuracy of the analytical
method on various matrices and to demonstrate acceptable compound recovery by the laboratory at the time of sample analysis. These
data alone cannot be used to evaluate the precision and accuracy of individual samples. However, when exercising professional judgment,
MS/MSD data can be used in conjunction with other available QC information. Reported results were evaluated to determine compliance
with the required acceptance criteria, and summary forms were evaluated and compared to electronic data deliverables. Findings of this
review, and any associated qualified results, are listed below.
Sample ID/ Warning Control Reason
Lab Sample ID Analyte Result Limits Limits Units Qualifier Code
TEAD-04-23-B26-HY-319 (SD) Tetrachloroethene 154 74 -129 10 -129 percent J/None M (PCE)
TEAD 04 23 B26 HY 319 (MS) Trichloroeth8 ne -----(TCE) 179 79 -123 10 -123 percent J/None M
TEAD-04-23-B26-HY-319 (SD) Trichloroethane 340 79 -123 10 -123 percent J/None M (TCE)
TEAD-04-23-C51 F-HY-328 1, 1-Dichloroethene 64.0 71 -131 10-131 percent J/UJ M (MS)
Where two qualifiers are listed, such as 'J/UJ', the first applies to positive results, and the second to non-detect results.
Upper and Lower Warning and Control Limits are abbreviated UWL, LWL, UCL, and LCL in the Comment field.
Qualified Results associated with the MS Recovery for SW8260C
FieldSample ID Type Analyte LOQ Lab Result Qualified Bias Units Result
TEAD-04-23-B26-HY-319 N Tetrachloroethene (PCE) 1.0 5.9 5.9 J + ug/I 23D103-01
TEAD-04-23-B26-HY-319 N Trichloroethane (TCE) 1.0 26 26J + ug/I 23D103-01
TEAD-04-23-C51 F-HY-328
23D103-13 N 1, 1-Dichloroethene 1.0 0.25 J 0.25J ug/I
Comment
Reason
M
D/M
M/TR
Analytes not found in project samples are reported as not detected at the limit of detection (LOD) unless blank contamination occurs and
then the sample may be reported as not detected at the (LOD) or (LOQ) based on the sample concentration and the validation guidance.
In instances where no LOD is provided, results are reported down to the LOQ.
eQAPP Version: eQAPP TEAD-TEAD-TEAD-.000000
ENV.ADR -
June 06, 2023 Page4 of 10
Data Validation Report for 23D103
Quality Control Outliers for test method SW8260C, MS RPD
The objective of matrix spikes/matrix spike duplicates (MS/MSD) RPD analysis is to demonstrate acceptable method precision by the
laboratory at the time of analysis. MS/MSD analyses are also performed to generate data that determines the long-term precision of the
analytical method on various matrices. Non-homogenous samples can impact the apparent method precision. Summary forms were
evaluated and compared to electronic data deliverables. Matrix spikes/matrix spike duplicates results that were outside of the acceptance
criteria are listed below.
Warning Control Reason Sample ID/
Lab Sample ID Analyte Result Limits Limits Units Qualifier Code Comment
Trichloroethene TEAD-04-23-B26-HY-319 (SD) (TCE) 31.7 < 20 < 20 rpd J/None D
Where two qualifiers are listed, such as 'J/UJ', the first applies to positive results, and the second to non-detect results.
Upper and Lower Warning and Control Limits are abbreviated UWL, LWL, UCL, and LCL in the Comment field.
Qualified Results associated with the MS RPD for SW8260C
FieldSample ID
TEAD-04-23-B26-HY-319
23D103-01
Type Analyte
N Trichloroethene (TCE)
LOQ
1.0
Lab Result
26
Qualified
Result
26J
Bias Units
+ ug/I
Reason
D/M
Analytes not found in project samples are reported as not detected at the limit of detection (LOD) unless blank contamination occurs and
then the sample may be reported as not detected at the (LOD) or (LOQ) based on the sample concentration and the validation guidance.
In instances where no LOD is provided, results are reported down to the LOQ.
eQAPP Version: eQAPP TEAD-TEAD-TEAD-.000000
ENV.ADR -
June 06, 2023 Page 5of 10
Data Validation Report for 23D103
Quality Control Outliers for test method SW8260C, Surrogate
Method performance for individual samples is demonstrated through spiking activities. All samples are spiked with surrogate compounds
prior to sample preparation. The sample itself may produce effects due to such factors as interferences and high concentrations of analytes.
Summary forms were evaluated and compared to electronic data deliverables. Surrogate results that were outside of the acceptance
criteria are listed below.
Sample ID/ Warning Control Reason
Lab Sample ID Analyte Result Limits Limits Units Qualifier Code
1-Bromo-4-
TEAD-04-23-C54F-HY-353 (N) fluorobenzene (4-153 85 -114 10 -114 percent J/None Bromofluorobenze
ne)
TEAD-04-23-C54F-HY-353 (N) Toluene-dB 124 89 -112 10-112 percent J/None
Where two qualifiers are listed, such as 'J/UJ', the first applies to positive results, and the second to non-detect results.
Upper and Lower Warning and Control Limits are abbreviated UWL, LWL, UCL, and LCL in the Comment field.
Qualified Results associated with the Surrogate for SW8260C
FieldSample ID Type Analyte LOQ
TEAD-04-23-C54F-HY-353
23D103-15 N Trichloroethene (TCE) 1.0
Lab Result
1.6
Qualified
Result
1.6 J
Bias Units
ug/I
Comment
Reason
Analytes not found in project samples are reported as not detected at the limit of detection (LOD) unless blank contamination occurs and
then the sample may be reported as not detected at the (LOD) or (LOQ) based on the sample concentration and the validation guidance.
In instances where no LOD is provided, results are reported down to the LOQ.
eQAPP Version: eQAPP TEAD-TEAD-TEAD-.000000
ENV.ADR -
June 06, 2023 Page 6of 10
Data Validation Report for 23D103
Table of All Qualified Results
Test Method: SW8260C Extraction Method: SW5030C
FieldSample ID / Type Analyte LOQ Lab Result Qualified Result Bias Units Reason LabSample ID
TEAD-04-23-B26-HY-319 N Tetrachloroethene (PCE) 1.0 5.9 5.9 J + ug/I M 23D103-01
TEAD-04-23-B26-HY-319 N Trichloroethane (TCE) 1.0 26 26 J + ug/I D/M 23D103-01
TEAD-04-23-C51 F-HY-328 N 1, 1-Dichloroethene 1.0 0.25J 0.25 J ug/I M/TR 23D103-13
TEAD-04-23-C54F-HY-353 N Trichloroethane (TCE) 1.0 1.6 1.6 J ug/I 23D103-15
Analytes not found in project samples are reported as not detected at the limit of detection (LOO) unless blank contamination occurs and
then the sample may be reported as not detected at the (LOQ) based on the sample concentration.
In instances where no LOO is provided, results are reported down to the LOQ.
Trace values are not included in the qualified results table unless additional reason codes are associated.
eQAPP Version: eQAPP TEAD-TEAD-TEAD-.000000
ENV.ADR -
June 06, 2023 Page 7of 10
Data Validation Report for 23D103
Reason Code Definitions
Code Definition
D MSRPD
Surrogate recovery outside project limits.
M MS Recovery
TR Trace Level Detect
Flag Code and Definitions
Flag Definition
J Estimated Value
N The analysis indicates the presence of an analyte for which there was presumptive evidence to make a tentative identification.
NJ
R
u
The analyte has been tentatively identified or presumptively as present
and the associated numerical value was the estimated concentration in
the sample.
The data are rejected due to deficiencies in meeting QC criteria and may not be used for decision making.
Undetected: The analyte was analyzed for, but not detected.
UJ The analyte was not detected; however, the result is estimated due to discrepancies in meeting certain analyte-specific quality
control criteria.
X Result may require rejection; PDT attention required
Bias
The result may be biased low
+ The result may be biased high
Note -The bias field is a separate field; however, it is an integral part of the final flag (qualifier) on the sample result
eQAPP Version: eQAPP TEAD-TEAD-TEAD-.000000
ENV.ADR -
June 06, 2023 Page Bof 10
Data Validation Report for 23D103
Review Questions
Method: SW8260C (Volatile Organic Compounds by GC/MS)
Review Questions
Were there discrepancies between the COC and the
samples received?
Were there discrepancies between the COC and the
sample labels?
Were samples relinquished properly on the COC?
Were all samples properly preserved?
Were sampling dates/times, date and time of laboratory
receipt of samples, and sample conditions upon receipt
at the laboratory {including preservation, pH, and
temperature) documented?
Were sample results reported with percent moisture
correction if required?
Were analytical methods performed and analysis dates
present?
Were all requested target analytes reported?
Were QAPP specified Project Quantitation Limit Goals
achieved? (The laboratory LOQ is compared to the
QAPP Project Quantitation Goal)
Were holding times met?
Were trip blanks analyzed at the proper frequency and in
control?
Were field blanks analyzed at the proper frequency and
in control?
Were equipment blanks analyzed at the proper frequency
and in control?
Was a method blank prepared and analyzed with each
batch?
Were target analytes in the method blank less than OL?
Was an LCS/LCSO pair prepared and analyzed with each
batch?
Were LCS/LCSO recoveries within project acceptance
limits?
Was the LCS/LCSO RPO within project acceptance
limits?
Was a MS/MSO pair prepared with each batch?
Were MS/MSO recoveries within project acceptance
limits?
Was the MS/MSO RPO within project acceptance limits?
If ISM was used for sample collection, were laboratory
triplicates analyzed and within project acceptance limits?
Were surrogate recoveries within project acceptance
limits?
Were field replicates (duplicates, triplicates, etc.)
analyzed at the proper frequency and in control?
Were reported sample concentrations within calibration
range?
Was the GC/MS system properly tuned based on method
criteria?
Was instrument tuning completed every 12 hours during
sample analysis?
Was the Calibration within project acceptance criteria?
eQAPP Version: eQAPP TEAD-TEAD-TEAD-.000000
ENV.ADR -
June 06, 2023
Yes No NA Comment
See SOG details.
Various compounds are reported with non-
detects at levels {LOQs) greater than the project
PQGs.
See QC outliers.
See QC outliers.
See QC outliers.
Page 9of 10
Data Validation Report for 23D103
Review Questions
Method: SW8260C (Volatile Organic Compounds by GC/MS)
Review Questions
Was a ICV performed after each ICAL prior to sample
analysis and within project acceptance criteria?
Were CCVs run at the required frequency and within
project acceptance criteria?
Were internal standard retention times and area criteria
within project acceptance criteria?
Were internal standards spiked for every sample,
standard, and QC sample?
Were instrument run logs present and filled out
appropriately?
Were sample preparation sheets present and filled out
appropriately?
Were certificates of standard traceability and
documentation of standard solution preparation provided?
Were recalculation of QC Elements and Sample Results
performed?
Were Relative Retention Times (RRTs) within ± 0.06
RRT units and updated with the latest daily CCV?
Were chromatograms checked for peak integration?
(10% of automated integration and 100% of manual
integrations)
Were chromatograms checked for correct baseline/peak
integration and possible interferences?
Were qualitative ion mass present?
Have all Laboratory Case Narrative comments/findings
been addressed in the data review process?
Were DoD QSM corrective actions followed if deviations
were noted?
Were any data recommended for exclusion in the data
validation process?
eQAPP Version: eQAPP TEAD-TEAD-TEAD-.000000
ENV.ADR -
June 06, 2023
Yes No NA Comment
It was noted that surrogates were out of control
and samples were not re-analyzed.
Page 10 of 10
SDG#:
Lab:
Client:
Matrix:
S4VEM
INSTRUMENT PERFORMANCE CHECK/ TUNE
voes -sws2&0B
23D103
Emax Laboratories, Inc
Brice Engineering, LLC
Water
CALCULATIONS
Tune ID: RDY388.D
Recalculated Ion Ratio: 175:174 -------Reported Ratio: 7.84% p.179 -------
Date: 5/30/2023
Page: 1 of 1
Validated by: LT
Second Review by: EM
Relative Abundance (Ion Ratio)= Response of Target Mass x 100%
Response of Reference Mass
Target Mass Response= 5721
Reference Mass Response = 72989
Calculated Ratio= 7.84%
Comments:
Inst Perf
p.181
p.181
Match
SDG#:
Lab:
Client:
Matrix:
Comments:
ICAL
23D103
S4VEM
INITIAL CALIBRATION
voes -SW8260B
Emax Laboratories, Inc
Brice Engineering, LLC
Water
RRF Standard ID:
Analyte:
Calibration Level:
Reported Calibration RRF:
CALCULATIONS
RCY064
Dichlorodifluoromethane
5
0.698 p.130
RRF = Analyte Resp. x ISTD Cone.
ISTD Resp. x Analyte Cone.
Analyte Response = 318217 p.147
ISTD Response = 911261 p.147
Analyte Cone. = 5.00 p.147
ISTD Cone.= 10.0 p.147
Calculated RRF = 0.698 Match
Calibration ID: ICAL 03/03/2023
Analyte: Vinyl Chloride
Reported Average RRF: 0.934 p.130
Reported %RSD: 9.29% p.130
Date: 5/30/2023
Page: 1 of 1
Validated by: LT
Second Review by: EM
ISTD: 1,4-Difluorobenzene
%RSD= Standard Deviation X 100%
Average RRF
RF Lvl 1: 0.860 RF Lvl 6: 0.9860
RF Lvl 2: 0.787 RF Lvl 7: 1.0190
RF Lvl 3: 0.922 RF Lvl 8: 1.0480
RF Lvl 4: 0.962 RF Lvl 9: 0.9970
RF Lvl 5: 0.939 RF Lvl 10: 0.821
Standard Deviation = 0.087
Calculated Average RRF = 0.934 Match
Calculated %RSD = 9.29% Match
SDG#:
Lab:
Client:
Matrix:
S4VEM
INITIAL/ CONTINUING CALIBRATION VERIFICATION
voes -SW8260B
23D103
Emax Laboratories, Inc
Brice Engineering, LLC
Water
CALCULATIONS
Date: 5/30/2023
Page: 1 of 1
Validated by: LT
Second Review by: EM
%D = 100% x ( CV RRF -Avg RRF) / Avg RRF RRF = Analyte Resp. x ISTD Cone.
Comments:
ICV-CCV
ICVID: RCY074.D
Analyte: Toluene
ISTD: Chlorobenzene-d5
Reported ICV RRF: 1.827
Reported %D: -10.2%
Analyte Response = 2113159
ISTD Response = 1156600
Analyte Cone. = 10.0
ISTD Cone.= 10.0
Mean RRF (ICAL) = 1.6580
Calculated ICV RRF = 1.827
Calculated %D = ....,,1-=-o-=.2-=-%:---
CCV ID: RDY389.D
p.167
p.170
p.176
p.175
p.170
p.169
p.167
Match
Match
Analyte: Chloromethane
ISTD: 1,4-Difluorobenzene
Reported CCV RRF: 0.870 p.185
Reported %D: 9.5% p.182
Analyte Response = 1112980 p. 188
ISTD Response= 1279222 p.188
Analyte Cone.= 10.0 p.182
ISTD Cone.= 10.0 p.188
Mean RRF (ICAL) = 0.9610 p.185
Calculated CCV RRF = 0.870 Match
Calculated %D = -_9,..._=5°,,..,.¼--Match
ISTD Resp. x Analyte Cone.
SDG#:
Lab:
Client:
Matrix:
Comments:
Surr
S4VEM
SURROGATE SPIKES/SYSTEM MONITORING COMPOUNDS
voes -sws2soe
23D103 Date:
Emax Laboratories, Inc Page:
Brice Engineering, LLC Validated by:
Water Second Review by:
CALCULATIONS
Sample ID: 23D103-01
Compound ID: 4-Bromofluorobenzene
Reported %Recovery: 106% p.9
% Recovery= Cone. Surr. In Sam12le X 100%
Cone. Surr. Spiked
Cone. In Sample= 10.6 p.9
Surr. Spike Cone. = 10.0 p.9
Calculated %Recovery = 106% Match
Sample ID: 23D103-02
Compound ID: 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4
Reported %Recovery: 93% p.16
% Recovery= Cone. Surr. In Sam12le X 100%
Cone. Surr. Spiked
Cone. In Sample= 9.3 p.16
Surr. Spike Cone. = 10.0 p.16
Calculated %Recovery = 93% Match
5/30/2023
1 of 1
LT
EM
SDG#:
Lab:
Client:
Matrix:
Comments:
LCS
23D103
S4VEM
LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLES
voes -sws2&0B
Emax Laboratories, Inc
Brice Engineering, LLC
Water
CALCULATIONS
Sample ID: VOF5D16L
Analyte: Benzene -------Reported %Recovery: 110% p.96
%Recovery= Cone. LCS x 100%
LCS Spike Cone.
Cone. LCS = 11.0 p.96
LCS Spike Cone. = 10.0 p.96
Calculated %Recovery= 110% Match
Sample ID: VOF5D16L/VOC5D16C
Analyte: Trichloroethane
Reported RPO: 1 % p.96
Date: 5/30/2023
Page: 1 of 1
Validated by: LT
Second Review by: EM
RPO = I LCS Cone. -LCSD Cone-I x 100%
(LCS Cone. + LCSD Conc.)/2
LCS Cone. = 9.83
LCSD Cone.= 9.71
Calculated RPO = 1 %
p.96
p.96
Match
SDG#:
Lab:
Client:
Matrix:
Comments:
Rslt Ver
S4VEM
SAMPLE RESULT VERIFICATION
voes -sws2soe
23D103
Emax Laboratories, Inc
Brice Engineering, LLC
Water
CALCULATIONS
Sample ID: 23D103-01
Date: 5/30/2023
Page: 1 of 1
Validated by: LT
Second Review by: EM
-----------Compound ID: Carbon Tetrachloride
Reported Result: 1.7 p.9
Cone. In Sample= Analyte Resp. x Cone. of IS x Final Volume x Dilution Factor
IS Resp. Average RRF Initial Amount
Analyte Response = 98566 p.10
IS Response = 1101229 p.10 IS: 1,4-Difluorobenzene
IS Cone.= 10.0 p.10
Average RRF = 0.5210 p.130
Final Volume (ml) = 25.0 p.9
Initial Amount (ml) = 25.0 p.9
Dilution Factor= 1 p.9
Cone. In Sample= 1.7 Match
Sample ID: 23D103-02 -=----,----------Compound ID: Trichloroethane
Reported Result: 11 p.16
Cone. In Sample= Analyte Resp. x Cone. of IS x Final Volume x Dilution Factor
IS Resp. Average RRF Initial Amount
Analyte Response = 438424 p.17
IS Response = 1128814 p.17 IS: 1,4-Difluorobenzene
IS Cone.= 10.0 p.17
Average RRF = 0.339 p.130
Final Volume (ml) = 25 p.16
Initial Amount (ml) = 25 p.16
Dilution Factor= 1 p.16
Cone. In Sample= 11 Match
Data Validation Report for 23D104 (I synectics
Facility: USAEC , TEAD-N
Event: 2023 Spring Semi-Annual GW Sampling
SDG: 23D104
Guidance Document: FINAL Uniform Federal Policy Quality Assurance Project Plan Tooele Army
Depot North , Utah, February 2022
Prime Contractor: Brice Environmental Services Corporation , Salt Lake City , UT
Project Manager: Andrew Castor
Contract Laboratory(ies): EMAX Laboratories, Inc., Torrance, CA
Data Review Contractor: Synectics , Sacramento , CA
Data Review Level : S4VEM
Primary Data Reviewer: Leslie Tanaka , Data Review Chemist
Second Reviewer: Evin McKinney, Senior Scientist
Date Submitted : June 06 , 2023
()
0 co
C\I co
Field Sample ID Lab Sample ID Matrix Type/Type Code 3::
Cl)
TB20230404 23D104-13 Water Trip Blank/TB X
TEAD-04-23-C57-HY-298 23D104-01 Water Field Sample/N X
TEAD-04-23-C59-HY-273 23D104-02 Water Field Sample/N X
TEAD-04-23-C60-HY-304 23D104-03 Water Field Sample/N X
TEAD-04-23-C61-HY-307 23D104-04 Water Field Sample/N X
TEAD-04-23-C66-HY-310 23D104-05 Water Field Sample/N X
TEAD-04-23-C66-HY-310 23D104-05I Water Field Sample/N X
TEAD-04-23-C68-HY-289 23D104-06 Water Field Sample/N X
TEAD-04-23-N 12088-HY-310 23D104-07 Water Field Sample/N X
TEAD-04-23-N 15097-HY-279 23D104-08 Water Field Sample/N X
TEAD-04-23-S-C19-HY-368 23D104-09 Water Field Duplicate/FD X
TEAD-04-23-S-C33-HY-373 23D104-10 Water Field Duplicate/FD X
TEAD-04-23-S-C66-HY-320 23D104-11 Water Field Duplicate/FD X
TEAD-04-23-S-C66-HY-320 23D104-11 I Water Field Duplicate/FD X
TEAD-04-23-S-N 12088-HY-23D104-12 Water Field Duplicate/FD X
320
eQAPP Version : eQAPP TEAD-TEAD-TEAD-.000000
ENV .ADR -
June 06 , 2023 Page 1 of 8
Data Validation Report for 23D104
This report assesses the analytical data quality associated with the analyses listed on the preceding cover
page at S4VEM data validation level. This assessment has been made through a combination of automated
data review (ADR) and supplemental manual review, the details of which are described below. The approach
taken in the review of this data set is consistent with the requirements contained in the Fl NAL Uniform Federal
Policy Quality Assurance Project Plan Tooele Army Depot North, Utah, February 2022 and the additional
guidance documents incorporated by reference to the extent possible. Where definitive guidance is not
provided, results have been evaluated in a conservative manner using professional judgment.
Sample collection was managed and directed by Brice Environmental Services Corporation, Salt Lake City,
UT; analyses were performed by EMAX Laboratories, Inc., Torrance, CA and were reported under sample
delivery group (SDG) 23D104. Data have been evaluated electronically based on electronic data deliverables
(EDDs) provided by the laboratory, and hard copy data summary forms have also been reviewed during this
effort and compared to the automated review output by the reviewers whose signatures appear on the
following page. Findings based on the automated data submission and manual data verification processes are
detailed in the ADR narrative and throughout this report.
All quality control (QC) elements associated with this SDG have been reviewed by a project chemist in
accordance with the requirements defined for the project. This review is documented in the attached Data
Review Checklists. The QC elements listed below were supported by the electronic deliverable and were
evaluated using ADR processes.
Continuing Calibration Verification
Field Duplicate RPO
Lab Blank
LCS Recovery
LCS RPO
Prep Hold Time
Surrogate
Test Hold Time
Trip Blank
Results of the ADR process were subsequently reviewed and updated as applicable by the data review
chemists identified on the signature page. Quality control elements that were not included in the electronic
deliverable were reviewed manually and findings are documented within this report. Summaries of findings
and associated qualified results are documented throughout this report.
A total of 5 results (1.13%) out of the 442 results (sample and field QC samples) reported are qualified based
on review and 0 results (0.00%) have been rejected or deemed a serious deficiency (X qualifier). Trace
values, defined as results that are qualified as estimated because they fall between the detection limit and the
reporting limit/limit of quantitation, are not counted as qualified results in the above count. The qualified
results are detailed throughout this report and discussed in the narrative below, where appropriate.
eQAPP Version: eQAPP TEAD-TEAD-TEAD-.000000
ENV.ADR -
June 06, 2023 Page 2 of 8
Data Validation Report for 23D104
Narrative Comments
Samples 23D104-01 and 02 underwent S4VEM and the remaining samples S2BVEM.
Analytical Method Data Reviewer Comment
SW8260C The laboratory noted a CCV out of control.
Reviewed by Leslie Tanaka, Data Review Chemist, Synectics,
Sacramento, CA
May 30, 2023
As the First Reviewer, I certify that I have performed a data review process in accordance with the
requirements of the project guidance document, and have compared the electronic data to the laboratory's
hard copy report and have verified the consistency of the reported sample results and method quality control
data between the two deliverables.
Reviewed by Evin McKinney, Senior Scientist, Synectics,
Sacramento, CA
June 06, 2023
As the Second Reviewer, I certify that I have performed a quality assurance review of the report generated
by the First Reviewer.
eQAPP Version: eQAPP TEAD-TEAD-TEAD-.000000
ENV.ADR -
June 06, 2023 Page 3 of 8
Data Validation Report for 23D104
Quality Control Outliers for test method SW8260C, Continuing Calibration Verification
Compliance requirements for satisfactory continuing calibration are established to ensure that the instrument is capable of producing
acceptable qualitative and quantitative data. Continuing calibration is performed to verify and evaluate instrument performance during
sample analysis. Summary forms were evaluated against project acceptance criteria, and any associated qualified results, are listed below.
Sample ID/ Warning Control Reason
Lab Sample ID Analyte Result Limits Limits Units Qualifier Code Comment
CVOF5C0327 (CV) Dichlorodifluorome 126
thane 80 -120 50 -150 percent J/UJ V2
Where two qualifiers are listed, such as 'J/UJ', the first applies to positive results, and the second to non-detect results.
Upper and Lower Warning and Control Limits are abbreviated UWL, LWL, UCL, and LCL in the Comment field.
Qualified Results associated with the Continuing Calibration Verification for SW8260C
FieldSample ID Type Analyte LOQ Lab Result Qualified Bias Units Result
TEAD-04-23-N 15097-
HY-279 N Dichlorodifluoromethane 1.0 0.50U 0.50 UJ ug/I
23D104-08
TEAD-04-23-S-C19-
HY-368 FD Dichlorodifluoromethane 1.0 0.50U 0.50 UJ ug/I
23D104-09
TEAD-04-23-S-C33-
HY-373 FD Dichlorodifluoromethane 1.0 0.50U 0.50 UJ ug/I
23D104-10
TEAD-04-23-S-C66-
HY-320 FD Dichlorodifluoromethane 1.0 0.50U 0.50 UJ ug/I
23D104-11
TEAD-04-23-S-N 12088-
HY-320 FD Dichlorodifluoromethane 1.0 0.50U 0.50 UJ ug/I
23D104-12
Reason
V2
V2
V2
V2
V2
Analytes not found in project samples are reported as not detected at the limit of detection (LOD) unless blank contamination occurs and
then the sample may be reported as not detected at the (LOD) or (LOQ) based on the sample concentration and the validation guidance.
In instances where no LOD is provided, results are reported down to the LOQ.
eQAPP Version: eQAPP TEAD-TEAD-TEAD-.000000
ENV.ADR -
June 06, 2023 Page4 of 8
Data Validation Report for 23D104
Table of All Qualified Results
Test Method: SW8260C Extraction Method: SW5030C
FieldSample ID / Type Analyte LOQ Lab Result Qualified Result Bias Units Reason LabSample ID
TEAD-04-23-N 15097-
HY-279 N Dichlorodifluoromethane 1.0 0.50 U 0.50 UJ ug/I V2
23D104-08
TEAD-04-23-S-C19-HY-368
23D104-09 FD Dichlorodifluoromethane 1.0 0.50 U 0.50 UJ ug/I V2
TEAD-04-23-S-C33-HY-373
23D104-10 FD Dichlorodifluoromethane 1.0 0.50 U 0.50 UJ ug/I V2
TEAD-04-23-S-C66-HY-320 FD
23D104-11 Dichlorodifluoromethane 1.0 0.50 U 0.50 UJ ug/I V2
TEAD-04-23-S-N 12088-
HY-320 FD Dichlorodifluoromethane 1.0 0.50 U 0.50 UJ ug/I V2
23D104-12
Analytes not found in project samples are reported as not detected at the limit of detection (LOO) unless blank contamination occurs and
then the sample may be reported as not detected at the (LOQ) based on the sample concentration.
In instances where no LOO is provided, results are reported down to the LOQ.
Trace values are not included in the qualified results table unless additional reason codes are associated.
eQAPP Version: eQAPP TEAD-TEAD-TEAD-.000000
ENV.ADR -
June 06, 2023 Page 5 of 8
Data Validation Report for 23D104
Reason Code Definitions
Code Definition
TR Trace Level Detect
V2 CCV
Flag Code and Definitions
Flag Definition
J Estimated Value
N The analysis indicates the presence of an analyte for which there was presumptive evidence to make a tentative identification.
NJ
R
u
The analyte has been tentatively identified or presumptively as present
and the associated numerical value was the estimated concentration in
the sample.
The data are rejected due to deficiencies in meeting QC criteria and may not be used for decision making.
Undetected: The analyte was analyzed for, but not detected.
UJ The analyte was not detected; however, the result is estimated due to discrepancies in meeting certain analyte-specific quality
control criteria.
X Result may require rejection; PDT attention required
Bias
The result may be biased low
+ The result may be biased high
Note -The bias field is a separate field; however, it is an integral part of the final flag (qualifier) on the sample result
eQAPP Version: eQAPP TEAD-TEAD-TEAD-.000000
ENV.ADR -
June 06, 2023 Page 6 of 8
Data Validation Report for 23D104
Review Questions
Method: SW8260C (Volatile Organic Compounds by GC/MS)
Review Questions
Were there discrepancies between the COC and the
samples received?
Were there discrepancies between the COC and the
sample labels?
Were samples relinquished properly on the COC?
Were all samples properly preserved?
Were sampling dates/times, date and time of laboratory
receipt of samples, and sample conditions upon receipt
at the laboratory {including preservation, pH, and
temperature) documented?
Were sample results reported with percent moisture
correction if required?
Were analytical methods performed and analysis dates
present?
Were all requested target analytes reported?
Were QAPP specified Project Quantitation Limit Goals
achieved? (The laboratory LOQ is compared to the
QAPP Project Quantitation Goal)
Were holding times met?
Were trip blanks analyzed at the proper frequency and in
control?
Were field blanks analyzed at the proper frequency and
in control?
Were equipment blanks analyzed at the proper frequency
and in control?
Was a method blank prepared and analyzed with each
batch?
Were target analytes in the method blank less than DL?
Was an LCS/LCSD pair prepared and analyzed with each
batch?
Were LCS/LCSD recoveries within project acceptance
limits?
Was the LCS/LCSD RPD within project acceptance
limits?
Was a MS/MSD pair prepared with each batch?
Were MS/MSD recoveries within project acceptance
limits?
Was the MS/MSD RPD within project acceptance limits?
If ISM was used for sample collection, were laboratory
triplicates analyzed and within project acceptance limits?
Were surrogate recoveries within project acceptance
limits?
Were field replicates (duplicates, triplicates, etc.)
analyzed at the proper frequency and in control?
Were reported sample concentrations within calibration
range?
Was the GC/MS system properly tuned based on method
criteria?
Was instrument tuning completed every 12 hours during
sample analysis?
Was the Calibration within project acceptance criteria?
eQAPP Version: eQAPP TEAD-TEAD-TEAD-.000000
ENV.ADR -
June 06, 2023
Yes No NA Comment
Various compounds are reported with detections
and non-detects at levels {LOQs) greater than
the project PQGs.
It was noted that ending CCV EV09401003 was
analyzed four minutes outside of the 12-hour
clock. No action was taken on this basis.
Page 7 of 8
Data Validation Report for 23D104
Review Questions
Method: SW8260C (Volatile Organic Compounds by GC/MS)
Review Questions
Was a ICV performed after each ICAL prior to sample
analysis and within project acceptance criteria?
Were CCVs run at the required frequency and within
project acceptance criteria?
Were internal standard retention times and area criteria
within project acceptance criteria?
Were internal standards spiked for every sample,
standard, and QC sample?
Were instrument run logs present and filled out
appropriately?
Were sample preparation sheets present and filled out
appropriately?
Were certificates of standard traceability and
documentation of standard solution preparation provided?
Were recalculation of QC Elements and Sample Results
performed?
Were Relative Retention Times (RRTs) within ± 0.06
RRT units and updated with the latest daily CCV?
Were chromatograms checked for peak integration?
(10% of automated integration and 100% of manual
integrations)
Were chromatograms checked for correct baseline/peak
integration and possible interferences?
Were qualitative ion mass present?
Have all Laboratory Case Narrative comments/findings
been addressed in the data review process?
Were DoD QSM corrective actions followed if deviations
were noted?
Were any data recommended for exclusion in the data
validation process?
eQAPP Version: eQAPP TEAD-TEAD-TEAD-.000000
ENV.ADR -
June 06, 2023
Yes No NA Comment
See QC outliers. The laboratory noted
Dichlorodifluoromethane out of control for CCV
CVOF5C0327.
It was noted that a CCV was out of control and
associated samples were not re-analyzed.
Page 8 of 8
SDG#:
Lab:
Client:
Matrix:
S4VEM
INSTRUMENT PERFORMANCE CHECK/ TUNE
voes -sws2&0B
23D104
Emax Laboratories, Inc
Brice Engineering, LLC
Water
CALCULATIONS
Tune ID: RDY490
Recalculated Ion Ratio: 176:174 -------Reported Ratio: 97.11% p.253 -------
Date: 5/30/2023
Page: 1 of 1
Validated by: LT
Second Review by: EM
Relative Abundance (Ion Ratio)= Response of Target Mass x 100%
Response of Reference Mass
Target Mass Response = 85328
Reference Mass Response = 87864
Calculated Ratio= 97.11%
Comments:
Inst Perf
p.255
p.255
Match
SDG#:
Lab:
Client:
Matrix:
Comments:
ICAL
23D104
S4VEM
INITIAL CALIBRATION
voes -SW8260B
Emax Laboratories, Inc
Brice Engineering, LLC
Water
RRF Standard ID:
CALCULATIONS
RDD090.D
Analyte: Ethyl benzene
Calibration Level: 8
Reported Calibration RRF: 1.760 p.122
RRF = Analyte Resp. x ISTD Cone.
ISTD Resp. x Analyte Cone.
Analyte Response= 5913812
ISTD Response = 1120300
Analyte Cone. = 30.00
ISTD Cone.= 10.0
Calculated RRF = 1. 760
p.156
p.155
p.156
p.155
Match
Date: 5/30/2023
Page: 1 of 1
Validated by: LT
Second Review by: EM
ISTD: Chlorobenzene-d4
Calibration ID: ICAL Instrument 94 04/10/2023
Analyte: Bromomethane
Reported Average RRF: 0.343 p.122
Reported %RSD: 4.54% p.122
%RSD= Standard Deviation X 100%
Average RRF
RF Lvl 1: RF Lvl 6: 0.3280
RF Lvl 2: 0.373 RF Lvl 7: 0.3280
RF Lvl 3: 0.321 RF Lvl 8: 0.3460
RF Lvl 4: 0.348 RF Lvl 9: 0.3430
RF Lvl 5: 0.353 RF Lvl 10: 0.344
Standard Deviation = 0.016
Calculated Average RRF = 0.343 Match
Calculated %RSD = 4.58% Match
SDG#:
Lab:
Client:
Matrix:
S4VEM
INITIAL/ CONTINUING CALIBRATION VERIFICATION
voes -SW8260B
23D104
Emax Laboratories, Inc
Brice Engineering, LLC
Water
CALCULATIONS
Date: 5/30/2023
Page: 1 of 1
Validated by: LT
Second Review by: EM
%D = 100% x ( CV RRF -Avg RRF) / Avg RRF RRF = Analyte Resp. x ISTD Cone.
Comments:
ICV-CCV
ICV ID: RDD098.D
Analyte: Vinyl Chloride
ISTD: 1,4-Difluorobenzene
Reported ICV RRF: 0.406 p.210
Reported %D: 14.7% p.210
Analyte Response= 505783 p.213
ISTD Response= 1244781 p.213
Analyte Cone.= 10.0 p.207
ISTD Cone.= 10.0 p.207
Mean RRF (ICAL) = 0.4760 p.210
Calculated ICV RRF = 0.406
Calculated %D = -.1-=-4,....,_7=o/c,..,..o--
CCV ID: RDY527.D
Match
Match
Analyte: Carbon Tetrachloride
ISTD: 1,4-Difluorobenzene
Reported CCV RRF: 0.567 p.280
Reported %D: -8.9% p.277
Analyte Response = 685905 p.283
ISTD Response= 1209124 p.283
Analyte Cone. = 10.0 p.277
ISTD Cone.= 10.0 p.277
Mean RRF (ICAL) = 0.5210 p.280
Calculated CCV RRF = 0.567 Match
Calculated %D = ..,.8....,.9,.,,.o/c.,...o --Match
ISTD Resp. x Analyte Cone.
SDG#:
Lab:
Client:
Matrix:
Comments:
Surr
S4VEM
SURROGATE SPIKES/SYSTEM MONITORING COMPOUNDS
voes -sws2soe
23D104
Emax Laboratories, Inc
Brice Engineering, LLC
Water
CALCULATIONS
Sample ID: 23D104-01
Compound ID: Toluene-dB
Reported %Recovery: 108% p.10
% Recovery= Cone. Surr. In Sam12le
Cone. Surr. Spiked
Cone. In Sample= 10.8 p.10
Surr. Spike Cone. = 10.0 p.10
Calculated %Recovery = 108% Match
Sample ID: 23D104-02
Compound ID: Dibromofluoromethane
Reported %Recovery: 102% p.14
% Recovery= Cone. Surr. In Sam12le
Cone. Surr. Spiked
Cone. In Sample= 10.2 p.14
Surr. Spike Cone. = 10.0 p.14
Calculated %Recovery = 102% Match
Date: 5/30/2023
Page: 1 of 1
Validated by: LT
Second Review by: EM
X 100%
X 100%
SDG#:
Lab:
Client:
Matrix:
Comments:
LCS
23D104
S4VEM
LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLES
voes -sws2&0B
Emax Laboratories, Inc
Brice Engineering, LLC
Water
CALCULATIONS
Sample ID: VO94D08L
Analyte: Ethylbenzene
Reported %Recovery: 105% p.85
%Recovery= Cone. LCS x 100%
LCS Spike Cone.
Cone. LCS = 10.5 p.85
LCS Spike Cone. = 10.0 p.85
Calculated %Recovery= 105% Match
Sample ID: VOF5D20L / VOF5D20C
Analyte: Bromomethane
Reported RPO: 8% p.87
Date: 5/30/2023
Page: 1 of 1
Validated by: LT
Second Review by: EM
RPO = I LCS Cone. -LCSD Cone-I x 100%
(LCS Cone. + LCSD Conc.)/2
LCS Cone. = 9.59 p.87
LCSD Cone. = 10.40 p.87
Calculated RPO = 8% Match
SDG#:
Lab:
Client:
Matrix:
Comments:
Rslt Ver
S4VEM
SAMPLE RESULT VERIFICATION
voes -sws2soe
23D104
Emax Laboratories, Inc
Brice Engineering, LLC
Water
CALCULATIONS
Sample ID: 23D104-01
Date: 5/30/2023
Page: 1 of 1
Validated by: LT
Second Review by: EM
-----------Compound ID: Trichloroethane
Reported Result: 0.53 p. 10
Cone. In Sample= Analyte Resp. x Cone. of IS x Final Volume x Dilution Factor
IS Resp. Average RRF Initial Amount
Analyte Response = 24501 p.11
IS Response = 1210962 p.11 IS: 1,4-Difluorobenzene
IS Cone.= 10.0 p.11
Average RRF = 0.3790 p.122
Final Volume (ml) = 25.0 p.10
Initial Amount (ml) = 25.0 p.10
Dilution Factor= 1 p.10
Cone. In Sample= 0.53 Match
Sample ID: 23D104-02 ---,-,,......-,--------
Compound ID: cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
Reported Result: 0.42 p.14
Cone. In Sample= Analyte Resp. x Cone. of IS x Final Volume x Dilution Factor
IS Resp. Average RRF Initial Amount
Analyte Response = 18282 p.15
IS Response = 1192697 p.15 IS: 1,4-Difluorobenzene
IS Cone.= 10.0 p.15
Average RRF = 0.383 p.122
Final Volume (ml) = 25 p.14
Initial Amount (ml) = 25 p.14
Dilution Factor= 1 p.14
Cone. In Sample= 0.40 Match
Data Validation Report for 23D114 (I synectics
Facility: USAEC , TEAD-N
Event: 2023 Spring Semi-Annual GW Sampling
SDG: 23D114
Guidance Document: FINAL Uniform Federal Policy Quality Assurance Project Plan Tooele Army
Depot North , Utah, February 2022
Prime Contractor: Brice Environmental Services Corporation , Salt Lake City , UT
Project Manager: Andrew Castor
Contract Laboratory(ies): EMAX Laboratories, Inc., Torrance, CA
Data Review Contractor: Synectics , Sacramento , CA
Data Review Level : S4VEM
Primary Data Reviewer: Leslie Tanaka , Data Review Chemist
Second Reviewer: Evin McKinney, Senior Scientist
Date Submitted : June 06 , 2023
()
0 co
C\I co
Field Sample ID Lab Sample ID Matrix Type/Type Code 3::
Cl)
TEAD-04-23-B16-HY-290 23D114-01 Water Field Sample/N X
TEAD-04-23-B40-HY-179 23D114-02 Water Field Sample/N X
TEAD-04-23-B42-HY-195 23D114-03 Water Field Sample/N X
TEAD-04-23-C03-HY-263 23D114-04 Water Field Sample/N X
TEAD-04-23-C04-HY-240 23D114-05 Water Field Sample/N X
TEAD-04-23-D02-HY-365 23D114-06 Water Field Sample/N X
TEAD-04-23-D03-HY-215 23D114-07 Water Field Sample/N X
TEAD-04-23-D06-HY-290 23D114-08 Water Field Sample/N X
TEAD-04-23-D07-HY-205 23D114-09 Water Field Sample/N X
TEAD-04-23-D09-HY-138 23D114-10 Water Field Sample/N X
TEAD-04-23-D 1 0-HY-196 23D114-11 Water Field Sample/N X
TEAD-04-23-D 11-HY-130 23D114-12 Water Field Sample/N X
TEAD-04-23-D 12-HY-355 23D114-13 Water Field Sample/N X
TEAD-04-23-D 13-HY-372 23D114-14 Water Field Sample/N X
TEAD-04-23-D 16-HY-242 23D114-15 Water Field Sample/N X
TEAD-04-23-D 17-HY-139 23D114-16 Water Field Sample/N X
TEAD-04-23-D 18-HY-180 23D114-17 Water Field Sample/N X
eQAPP Version : eQAPP TEAD-TEAD-TEAD-.000000
ENV .ADR -
June 06 , 2023 Page 1 of 8
Data Validation Report for 23D114
This report assesses the analytical data quality associated with the analyses listed on the preceding cover
page at S4VEM data validation level. This assessment has been made through a combination of automated
data review (ADR) and supplemental manual review, the details of which are described below. The approach
taken in the review of this data set is consistent with the requirements contained in the Fl NAL Uniform Federal
Policy Quality Assurance Project Plan Tooele Army Depot North, Utah, February 2022 and the additional
guidance documents incorporated by reference to the extent possible. Where definitive guidance is not
provided, results have been evaluated in a conservative manner using professional judgment.
Sample collection was managed and directed by Brice Environmental Services Corporation, Salt Lake City,
UT; analyses were performed by EMAX Laboratories, Inc., Torrance, CA and were reported under sample
delivery group (SDG) 23D114. Data have been evaluated electronically based on electronic data deliverables
(EDDs) provided by the laboratory, and hard copy data summary forms have also been reviewed during this
effort and compared to the automated review output by the reviewers whose signatures appear on the
following page. Findings based on the automated data submission and manual data verification processes are
detailed in the ADR narrative and throughout this report.
All quality control (QC) elements associated with this SDG have been reviewed by a project chemist in
accordance with the requirements defined for the project. This review is documented in the attached Data
Review Checklists. The QC elements listed below were supported by the electronic deliverable and were
evaluated using ADR processes.
Continuing Calibration Verification
Lab Blank
LCS Recovery
LCS RPO
MS Recovery
MSRPD
Prep Hold Time
Surrogate
Test Hold Time
Results of the ADR process were subsequently reviewed and updated as applicable by the data review
chemists identified on the signature page. Quality control elements that were not included in the electronic
deliverable were reviewed manually and findings are documented within this report. Summaries of findings
and associated qualified results are documented throughout this report.
A total of 2 results (0.90%) out of the 221 results (sample and field QC samples) reported are qualified based
on review and O results (0.00%) have been rejected or deemed a serious deficiency (X qualifier). Trace
values, defined as results that are qualified as estimated because they fall between the detection limit and the
reporting limit/limit of quantitation, are not counted as qualified results in the above count. The qualified
results are detailed throughout this report and discussed in the narrative below, where appropriate.
eQAPP Version: eQAPP TEAD-TEAD-TEAD-.000000
ENV.ADR -
June 06, 2023 Page 2 of 8
Data Validation Report for 23D114
Narrative Comments
Samples 23D114-01 and 02 underwent S4VEM and the remaining samples S2BVEM .
The laboratory noted that there were sample date discrepancies between the COC and sample labels, and
the COC was used to process the samples. Additionally, it was noted that there were no initials/dates on
COG/label corrections.
Analytical Method Data Reviewer Comment
SW8260C The laboratory noted surrogates and internal standards out of control.
~ j~
Reviewed by Leslie Tanaka, Data Review Chemist, Synectics,
Sacramento, CA
May 31, 2023
As the First Reviewer, I certify that I have performed a data review process in accordance with the
requirements of the project guidance document, and have compared the electronic data to the laboratory's
hard copy report and have verified the consistency of the reported sample results and method quality control
data between the two deliverables.
Reviewed by Evin McKinney, Senior Scientist, Synectics,
Sacramento, CA
June 06, 2023
As the Second Reviewer, I certify that I have performed a quality assurance review of the report generated
by the First Reviewer.
eQAPP Version: eQAPP TEAD-TEAD-TEAD-.000000
ENV.ADR -
June 06, 2023 Page 3 of 8
Data Validation Report for 23D114
Quality Control Outliers for test method SW8260C, Surrogate
Method performance for individual samples is demonstrated through spiking activities. All samples are spiked with surrogate compounds
prior to sample preparation. The sample itself may produce effects due to such factors as interferences and high concentrations of analytes.
Summary forms were evaluated and compared to electronic data deliverables. Surrogate results that were outside of the acceptance
criteria are listed below.
Sample ID/ Warning Control Reason
Lab Sample ID Analyte Result Limits Limits Units Qualifier Code
1-Bromo-4-
TEAD-04-23-D06-HY-290 (N) fluorobenzene (4-136 85 -114 10 -114 percent J/None Bromofluorobenze
ne)
TEAD-04-23-D06-HY-290 (N) Toluene-dB 116 89 -112 10-112 percent J/None
Where two qualifiers are listed, such as 'J/UJ', the first applies to positive results, and the second to non-detect results.
Upper and Lower Warning and Control Limits are abbreviated UWL, LWL, UCL, and LCL in the Comment field.
Qualified Results associated with the Surrogate for SW8260C
FieldSample ID Type Analyte LOQ Lab Result Qualified Bias Units Result
TEAD-04-23-D06-HY-290 N Carbon Tetrachloride 1.0 1.4 1.4 J + ug/I 23D114-08
TEAD-04-23-D06-HY-290 N Trichloroethane (TCE) 1.0 11 11 J + ug/I 23D114-08
Comment
Reason
Analytes not found in project samples are reported as not detected at the limit of detection (LOD) unless blank contamination occurs and
then the sample may be reported as not detected at the (LOD) or (LOQ) based on the sample concentration and the validation guidance.
In instances where no LOD is provided, results are reported down to the LOQ.
eQAPP Version: eQAPP TEAD-TEAD-TEAD-.000000
ENV.ADR -
June 06, 2023 Page4 of 8
Data Validation Report for 23D114
Table of All Qualified Results
Test Method: SW8260C Extraction Method: SW5030C
FieldSample ID / Type Analyte LOQ Lab Result Qualified Result Bias Units Reason LabSample ID
TEAD-04-23-D06-HY-290 N Carbon Tetrachloride 1.0 1.4 1.4 J + ug/I 23D114-08
TEAD-04-23-D06-HY-290 N Trichloroethane (TCE) 1.0 11 11 J + ug/I 23D114-08
Analytes not found in project samples are reported as not detected at the limit of detection (LOO) unless blank contamination occurs and
then the sample may be reported as not detected at the (LOQ) based on the sample concentration.
In instances where no LOO is provided, results are reported down to the LOQ.
Trace values are not included in the qualified results table unless additional reason codes are associated.
eQAPP Version: eQAPP TEAD-TEAD-TEAD-.000000
ENV.ADR -
June 06, 2023 Page 5 of 8
Data Validation Report for 23D114
Reason Code Definitions
Code Definition
Surrogate recovery outside project limits.
TR Trace Level Detect
Flag Code and Definitions
Flag Definition
J Estimated Value
N The analysis indicates the presence of an analyte for which there was presumptive evidence to make a tentative identification.
NJ
R
u
The analyte has been tentatively identified or presumptively as present
and the associated numerical value was the estimated concentration in
the sample.
The data are rejected due to deficiencies in meeting QC criteria and may not be used for decision making.
Undetected: The analyte was analyzed for, but not detected.
UJ The analyte was not detected; however, the result is estimated due to discrepancies in meeting certain analyte-specific quality
control criteria.
X Result may require rejection; PDT attention required
Bias
The result may be biased low
+ The result may be biased high
Note -The bias field is a separate field; however, it is an integral part of the final flag (qualifier) on the sample result
eQAPP Version: eQAPP TEAD-TEAD-TEAD-.000000
ENV.ADR -
June 06, 2023 Page 6 of 8
Data Validation Report for 23D114
Review Questions
Method: SW8260C (Volatile Organic Compounds by GC/MS)
Review Questions
Were there discrepancies between the COC and the
samples received?
Were there discrepancies between the COC and the
sample labels?
Were samples relinquished properly on the COC?
Were all samples properly preserved?
Were sampling dates/times, date and time of laboratory
receipt of samples, and sample conditions upon receipt
at the laboratory {including preservation, pH, and
temperature) documented?
Were sample results reported with percent moisture
correction if required?
Were analytical methods performed and analysis dates
present?
Were all requested target analytes reported?
Were QAPP specified Project Quantitation Limit Goals
achieved? (The laboratory LOQ is compared to the
QAPP Project Quantitation Goal)
Were holding times met?
Were trip blanks analyzed at the proper frequency and in
control?
Were field blanks analyzed at the proper frequency and
in control?
Were equipment blanks analyzed at the proper frequency
and in control?
Was a method blank prepared and analyzed with each
batch?
Were target analytes in the method blank less than OL?
Was an LCS/LCSO pair prepared and analyzed with each
batch?
Were LCS/LCSO recoveries within project acceptance
limits?
Was the LCS/LCSO RPO within project acceptance
limits?
Was a MS/MSO pair prepared with each batch?
Were MS/MSO recoveries within project acceptance
limits?
Was the MS/MSO RPO within project acceptance limits?
If ISM was used for sample collection, were laboratory
triplicates analyzed and within project acceptance limits?
Were surrogate recoveries within project acceptance
limits?
Were field replicates (duplicates, triplicates, etc.)
analyzed at the proper frequency and in control?
Were reported sample concentrations within calibration
range?
Was the GC/MS system properly tuned based on method
criteria?
Was instrument tuning completed every 12 hours during
sample analysis?
Was the Calibration within project acceptance criteria?
eQAPP Version: eQAPP TEAD-TEAD-TEAD-.000000
ENV.ADR -
June 06, 2023
Yes No NA Comment
See SOG details.
The laboratory noted that sample 3, container 14
contained a bubble greater than 6mm. The
laboratory used the vial with the smallest bubble
first.
It was noted that one of two analytical batches
have a project MS/MSO sample.
See QC outliers.
Page 7 of 8
Data Validation Report for 23D114
Review Questions
Method: SW8260C (Volatile Organic Compounds by GC/MS)
Review Questions
Was a ICV performed after each ICAL prior to sample
analysis and within project acceptance criteria?
Were CCVs run at the required frequency and within
project acceptance criteria?
Were internal standard retention times and area criteria
within project acceptance criteria?
Were internal standards spiked for every sample,
standard, and QC sample?
Were instrument run logs present and filled out
appropriately?
Were sample preparation sheets present and filled out
appropriately?
Were certificates of standard traceability and
documentation of standard solution preparation provided?
Were recalculation of QC Elements and Sample Results
performed?
Were Relative Retention Times (RRTs) within ± 0.06
RRT units and updated with the latest daily CCV?
Were chromatograms checked for peak integration?
(10% of automated integration and 100% of manual
integrations)
Were chromatograms checked for correct baseline/peak
integration and possible interferences?
Were qualitative ion mass present?
Have all Laboratory Case Narrative comments/findings
been addressed in the data review process?
Were DoD QSM corrective actions followed if deviations
were noted?
Were any data recommended for exclusion in the data
validation process?
eQAPP Version: eQAPP TEAD-TEAD-TEAD-.000000
ENV.ADR -
June 06, 2023
Yes No NA Comment
The laboratory noted 1,2-Dichlorobenzene-d4 out
of control for sample 8; however, no reported
target analytes were associated with this internal
standard. No action was taken on this basis.
Internal standards and surrogates were out of
control and samples were not re-analyzed.
Page 8 of 8
SDG#:
Lab:
Client:
Matrix:
S4VEM
INSTRUMENT PERFORMANCE CHECK/ TUNE
voes -sws2&0B
23D114
Emax Laboratories, Inc
Brice Engineering, LLC
Water
CALCULATIONS
Tune ID: RDC407.D
Recalculated Ion Ratio: 174:95 -------Reported Ratio: 75.493% p. 197 -------
Date: 5/31/2023
Page: 1 of 1
Validated by: LT
Second Review by: EM
Relative Abundance (Ion Ratio)= Response of Target Mass x 100%
Response of Reference Mass
Target Mass Response= 25531
Reference Mass Response = 33819
Calculated Ratio = 75.493%
Comments:
Inst Perf
p.199
p.199
Match
SDG#:
Lab:
Client:
Matrix:
Comments:
ICAL
23D114
S4VEM
INITIAL CALIBRATION
voes -SW8260B
Emax Laboratories, Inc
Brice Engineering, LLC
Water
CALCULATIONS
RRF Standard ID: RCC087.D ---------An a I yt e: Carbon Tetrachloride
Calibration Level: 10 ----
Reported Calibration RRF: 0.360 p.139
RRF = Analyte Resp. x ISTD Cone.
ISTD Resp. x Analyte Cone.
Analyte Response = 7679506
ISTD Response= 2134527
Analyte Cone.= 100.00
ISTD Cone.= 10.0
Calculated RRF = 0.360
p.181
p.180
p.181
p.180
Match
Calibration ID: ICAL 03/06/2023
Analyte: 1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane
Reported Average RRF: 0.471 p.139
Reported %RSD: 7.14% p.139
Date: 5/31/2023
Page: 1 of 1
Validated by: LT
Second Review by: EM
ISTD: 1,4-Difluorobenzene
%RSD= Standard Deviation X 100%
Average RRF
RF Lvl 1: 0.420 RF Lvl 6: 0.4710
RF Lvl 2: 0.426 RF Lvl 7: 0.4840
RF Lvl 3: 0.484 RF Lvl 8: 0.5000
RF Lvl 4: 0.510 RF Lvl 9: 0.4780
RF Lvl 5: 0.507 RF Lvl 10: 0.432
Standard Deviation = 0.034
Calculated Average RRF = 0.471 Match
Calculated %RSD = --7....,.1,....,4,.,..%,---Match
SDG#:
Lab:
Client:
Matrix:
S4VEM
INITIAL/ CONTINUING CALIBRATION VERIFICATION
voes -SW8260B
23D114
Emax Laboratories, Inc
Brice Engineering, LLC
Water
CALCULATIONS
Date: 5/31/2023
Page: 1 of 1
Validated by: LT
Second Review by: EM
%D = 100% x ( CV RRF -Avg RRF) / Avg RRF RRF = Analyte Resp. x ISTD Cone.
Comments:
ICV-CCV
ICVID: RCC090.D
Analyte: Chloroform
ISTD: 1,4-Difluorobenzene
Reported ICV RRF: 0.563
Reported %D: 1.4%
Analyte Response = 1189230
ISTD Response = 2113306
Analyte Cone. = 10.0
ISTD Cone.= 10.0
Mean RRF (ICAL) = 0.5710
Calculated ICV RRF = 0.563
Calculated %D = -.1-=-_....,.,4°=-:-¼--
CCV ID: RDC439.D
p.189
p.189
p.192
p.192
p.192
p.192
p.189
Match
Match
Analyte: Methylene Chloride
ISTD: 1,4-Difluorobenzene
Reported CCV RRF: 0.453 p.226
Reported %D: 18.1% p.226
Analyte Response = 944961 p.229
ISTD Response = 2085024 p.229
Analyte Cone. = 10.0 p.223
ISTD Cone.= 10.0 p.223
Mean RRF (ICAL) = 0.553 p.226
Calculated CCV RRF = 0.453 Match
Calculated %D = --1"'"'8,....0.,..,o/c"""o--Match
ISTD Resp. x Analyte Cone.
SDG#:
Lab:
Client:
Matrix:
Comments:
Surr
S4VEM
SURROGATE SPIKES/SYSTEM MONITORING COMPOUNDS
voes -sws2soe
23D114
Emax Laboratories, Inc
Brice Engineering, LLC
Water
CALCULATIONS
Sample ID: 23D114-01
Compound ID: 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4
Reported %Recovery: 92% p.10
% Recovery= Cone. Surr. In Sam12le
Cone. Surr. Spiked
Cone. In Sample= 9.2 p.10
Surr. Spike Cone. = 10.0 p.10
Calculated %Recovery = 92% Match
Sample ID: 23D114-02
Compound ID: Toluene-dB
Reported %Recovery: 110% p.15
% Recovery= Cone. Surr. In Sam12le
Cone. Surr. Spiked
Cone. In Sample= 11.0 p.15
Surr. Spike Cone. = 10.0 p.15
Calculated %Recovery = 110% Match
Date: 5/31/2023
Page: 1 of 1
Validated by: LT
Second Review by: EM
X 100%
X 100%
SDG#:
Lab:
Client:
Matrix:
Comments:
LCS
23D114
S4VEM
LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLES
voes -sws2&0B
Emax Laboratories, Inc
Brice Engineering, LLC
Water
CALCULATIONS
Sample ID: VO67D16L
Analyte: 1, 1,2-Trichloroethane
Reported %Recovery: 100% p.86
%Recovery= Cone. LCS x 100%
LCS Spike Cone.
Cone. LCS = 10.0 p.86
LCS Spike Cone. = 10.0 p.86
Calculated %Recovery= 100% Match
Sample ID: VO67D17L/VO67D17C
Analyte: Trichloroethane
Reported RPO: 1% p.88
Date: 5/31/2023
Page: 1 of 1
Validated by: LT
Second Review by: EM
RPO = I LCS Cone. -LCSD Cone-I x 100%
(LCS Cone. + LCSD Conc.)/2
LCS Cone. = 10.60 p.88
LCSD Cone. = 10.50 p.88
Calculated RPO = 1 % Match
SDG#:
Lab:
Client:
Matrix:
Comments:
Rslt Ver
S4VEM
SAMPLE RESULT VERIFICATION
voes -SW8260B
23D114
Emax Laboratories, Inc
Brice Engineering, LLC
Water
CALCULATIONS
Sample ID: 23D114-01
Date: 5/31/2023
Page: 1 of 1
Validated by: LT
Second Review by: EM
-----------Compound ID: Chloroform
Reported Result: 0.16 p.10
Cone. In Sample= Analyte Resp. x Cone. of IS x Final Volume x Dilution Factor
IS Resp. Average RRF Initial Amount
Analyte Response = 17308 p.11
IS Response = 1908455 p.11 IS: 1,4-Difluorobenzene
IS Cone.= 10.0 p.11
Average RRF = 0.5710 p.139
Final Volume (ml) = 25.0 p.10
Initial Amount (ml) = 25.0 p.10
Dilution Factor= 1 p.10
Cone. In Sample= 0.16 Match
Sample ID: 23D114-02 ...,,...-----------,-------Compound ID: Carbon Tetrachloride
Reported Result: 0.39 p.15
Cone. In Sample= Analyte Resp. x Cone. of IS x Final Volume x Dilution Factor
IS Resp. Average RRF Initial Amount
Analyte Response = 27810 p.16
IS Response = 1938404 p.16 IS: 1,4-Difluorobenzene
IS Cone.= 10.0 p.16
Average RRF = 0.369 p.139
Final Volume (ml) = 25 p.15
Initial Amount (ml) = 25 p.15
Dilution Factor= 1 p.15
Cone. In Sample= 0.39 Match
Data Validation Report for 23D115 (I synectics
Facility: USAEC , TEAD-N
Event: 2023 Spring Semi-Annual GW Sampling
SDG: 23D115
Guidance Document: FINAL Uniform Federal Policy Quality Assurance Project Plan Tooele Army
Depot North , Utah, February 2022
Prime Contractor: Brice Environmental Services Corporation , Salt Lake City , UT
Project Manager: Andrew Castor
Contract Laboratory(ies): EMAX Laboratories, Inc., Torrance, CA
Data Review Contractor: Synectics , Sacramento , CA
Data Review Level : S4VEM
Primary Data Reviewer: Leslie Tanaka , Data Review Chemist
Second Reviewer: Evin McKinney, Senior Scientist
Date Submitted : June 06 , 2023
()
0 co
C\I co
Field Sample ID Lab Sample ID Matrix Type/Type Code 3::
Cl)
TB20230406 23D115-17 Water Trip Blank/TB X
TEAD-04-23-D19-HY-158 23D115-01 Water Field Sample/N X
TEAD-04-23-D20-HY-78 23D115-02 Water Field Sample/N X
TEAD-04-23-D21-HY-110 23D115-03 Water Field Sample/N X
TEAD-04-23-D22-HY-87 23D115-04 Water Field Sample/N X
TEAD-04-23-D23-HY-202 23D115-05 Water Field Sample/N X
TEAD-04-23-D24-HY-368 23D115-06 Water Field Sample/N X
TEAD-04-23-D25-HY-188 23D115-07 Water Field Sample/N X
TEAD-04-23-M01-HY-145 23D115-08 Water Field Sample/N X
TEAD-04-23-M02-HY-235 23D115-09 Water Field Sample/N X
TEAD-04-23-M03-HY-235 23D115-10 Water Field Sample/N X
TEAD-04-23-M04-HY-255 23D115-11 Water Field Sample/N X
TEAD-04-23-M0S-HY-246 23D115-12 Water Field Sample/N X
TEAD-04-23-S-B 16-HY-300 23D115-13 Water Field Duplicate/FD X
TEAD-04-23-S-B40-HY-189 23D115-14 Water Field Duplicate/FD X
TEAD-04-23-S-D12-HY-365 23D115-15 Water Field Duplicate/FD X
TEAD-04-23-S-M04-HY-265 23D115-16 Water Field Duplicate/FD X
eQAPP Version : eQAPP TEAD-TEAD-TEAD-.000000
ENV .ADR -
June 06 , 2023 Page 1 of 7
Data Validation Report for 23D115
This report assesses the analytical data quality associated with the analyses listed on the preceding cover
page at S4VEM data validation level. This assessment has been made through a combination of automated
data review (ADR) and supplemental manual review, the details of which are described below. The approach
taken in the review of this data set is consistent with the requirements contained in the Fl NAL Uniform Federal
Policy Quality Assurance Project Plan Tooele Army Depot North, Utah, February 2022 and the additional
guidance documents incorporated by reference to the extent possible. Where definitive guidance is not
provided, results have been evaluated in a conservative manner using professional judgment.
Sample collection was managed and directed by Brice Environmental Services Corporation, Salt Lake City,
UT; analyses were performed by EMAX Laboratories, Inc., Torrance, CA and were reported under sample
delivery group (SDG) 23D115. Data have been evaluated electronically based on electronic data deliverables
(EDDs) provided by the laboratory, and hard copy data summary forms have also been reviewed during this
effort and compared to the automated review output by the reviewers whose signatures appear on the
following page. Findings based on the automated data submission and manual data verification processes are
detailed in the ADR narrative and throughout this report.
All quality control (QC) elements associated with this SDG have been reviewed by a project chemist in
accordance with the requirements defined for the project. This review is documented in the attached Data
Review Checklists. The QC elements listed below were supported by the electronic deliverable and were
evaluated using ADR processes.
Continuing Calibration Verification
Field Duplicate RPO
Lab Blank
LCS Recovery
LCS RPO
MS Recovery
MSRPD
Prep Hold Time
Surrogate
Test Hold Time
Trip Blank
Results of the ADR process were subsequently reviewed and updated as applicable by the data review
chemists identified on the signature page. Quality control elements that were not included in the electronic
deliverable were reviewed manually and findings are documented within this report. Summaries of findings
and associated qualified results are documented throughout this report.
A total of O results (0.00%) out of the 221 results (sample and field QC samples) reported are qualified based
on review and O results (0.00%) have been rejected or deemed a serious deficiency (X qualifier). Trace
values, defined as results that are qualified as estimated because they fall between the detection limit and the
reporting limit/limit of quantitation, are not counted as qualified results in the above count. The qualified
results are detailed throughout this report and discussed in the narrative below, where appropriate.
eQAPP Version: eQAPP TEAD-TEAD-TEAD-.000000
ENV.ADR -
June 06, 2023 Page 2 of 7
Data Validation Report for 23D115
Narrative Comments
Analytical Method Data Reviewer Comment
SW8260C No additional comments; see Checklist for detail.
Reviewed by Leslie Tanaka, Data Review Chemist, Synectics,
Sacramento, CA
May 31, 2023
As the First Reviewer, I certify that I have performed a data review process in accordance with the
requirements of the project guidance document, and have compared the electronic data to the laboratory's
hard copy report and have verified the consistency of the reported sample results and method quality control
data between the two deliverables.
Reviewed by Evin McKinney, Senior Scientist, Synectics,
Sacramento, CA
June 06, 2023
As the Second Reviewer, I certify that I have performed a quality assurance review of the report generated
by the First Reviewer.
eQAPP Version: eQAPP TEAD-TEAD-TEAD-.000000
ENV.ADR -
June 06, 2023 Page 3 of 7
Data Validation Report for 23D115
No Outliers were associated with this sample delivery group.
Qualified Results
No results associated with this sample delivery group required qualification.
Reason Code Definitions
Code Definition
TR Trace Level Detect
Flag Code and Definitions
Flag Definition
J Estimated Value
N The analysis indicates the presence of an analyte for which there was presumptive evidence to make a tentative identification.
NJ
R
u
UJ
X
Bias
+
The analyte has been tentatively identified or presumptively as present
and the associated numerical value was the estimated concentration in
the sample.
The data are rejected due to deficiencies in meeting QC criteria and may not be used for decision making.
Undetected: The analyte was analyzed for, but not detected.
The analyte was not detected; however, the result is estimated due to discrepancies in meeting certain analyte-specific quality
control criteria.
Result may require rejection; PDT attention required
The result may be biased low
The result may be biased high
eQAPP Version: eQAPP TEAD-TEAD-TEAD-.000000
ENV.ADR -
June 06, 2023 Page4 of 7
Data Validation Report for 23D115
Note -The bias field is a separate field; however, it is an integral part of the final flag (qualifier) on the sample result
eQAPP Version: eQAPP TEAD-TEAD-TEAD-.000000
ENV.ADR -
June 06, 2023 Page 5 of 7
Data Validation Report for 23D115
Review Questions
Method: SW8260C (Volatile Organic Compounds by GC/MS)
Review Questions
Were there discrepancies between the COC and the
samples received?
Were there discrepancies between the COC and the
sample labels?
Were samples relinquished properly on the COC?
Were all samples properly preserved?
Were sampling dates/times, date and time of laboratory
receipt of samples, and sample conditions upon receipt
at the laboratory {including preservation, pH, and
temperature) documented?
Were sample results reported with percent moisture
correction if required?
Were analytical methods performed and analysis dates
present?
Were all requested target analytes reported?
Were QAPP specified Project Quantitation Limit Goals
achieved? (The laboratory LOQ is compared to the
QAPP Project Quantitation Goal)
Were holding times met?
Were trip blanks analyzed at the proper frequency and in
control?
Were field blanks analyzed at the proper frequency and
in control?
Were equipment blanks analyzed at the proper frequency
and in control?
Was a method blank prepared and analyzed with each
batch?
Were target analytes in the method blank less than DL?
Was an LCS/LCSD pair prepared and analyzed with each
batch?
Were LCS/LCSD recoveries within project acceptance
limits?
Was the LCS/LCSD RPD within project acceptance
limits?
Was a MS/MSD pair prepared with each batch?
Were MS/MSD recoveries within project acceptance
limits?
Was the MS/MSD RPD within project acceptance limits?
If ISM was used for sample collection, were laboratory
triplicates analyzed and within project acceptance limits?
Were surrogate recoveries within project acceptance
limits?
Were field replicates (duplicates, triplicates, etc.)
analyzed at the proper frequency and in control?
Were reported sample concentrations within calibration
range?
Was the GC/MS system properly tuned based on method
criteria?
Was instrument tuning completed every 12 hours during
sample analysis?
Was the Calibration within project acceptance criteria?
eQAPP Version: eQAPP TEAD-TEAD-TEAD-.000000
ENV.ADR -
June 06, 2023
Yes No NA Comment
It was noted that one of two analytical batches
have an MS/MSD.
Page 6 of 7
Data Validation Report for 23D115
Review Questions
Method: SW8260C (Volatile Organic Compounds by GC/MS)
Review Questions
Was a ICV performed after each ICAL prior to sample
analysis and within project acceptance criteria?
Were CCVs run at the required frequency and within
project acceptance criteria?
Were internal standard retention times and area criteria
within project acceptance criteria?
Were internal standards spiked for every sample,
standard, and QC sample?
Were instrument run logs present and filled out
appropriately?
Were sample preparation sheets present and filled out
appropriately?
Were certificates of standard traceability and
documentation of standard solution preparation provided?
Were recalculation of QC Elements and Sample Results
performed?
Were Relative Retention Times (RRTs) within ± 0.06
RRT units and updated with the latest daily CCV?
Were chromatograms checked for peak integration?
(10% of automated integration and 100% of manual
integrations)
Were chromatograms checked for correct baseline/peak
integration and possible interferences?
Were qualitative ion mass present?
Have all Laboratory Case Narrative comments/findings
been addressed in the data review process?
Were DoD QSM corrective actions followed if deviations
were noted?
Were any data recommended for exclusion in the data
validation process?
eQAPP Version: eQAPP TEAD-TEAD-TEAD-.000000
ENV.ADR -
June 06, 2023
Yes No NA Comment
Page 7 of 7
SDG#:
Lab:
Client:
Matrix:
S4VEM
INSTRUMENT PERFORMANCE CHECK/ TUNE
voes -sws2&0B
23D115
Emax Laboratories, Inc
Brice Engineering, LLC
Water
CALCULATIONS
Tune ID: RDY490.D
Recalculated Ion Ratio: 177:176 -------Reported Ratio: 7.51% p.165 -------
Date: 5/31/2023
Page: 1 of 1
Validated by: LT
Second Review by: EM
Relative Abundance (Ion Ratio)= Response of Target Mass x 100%
Response of Reference Mass
Target Mass Response= 6412
Reference Mass Response = 85328
Calculated Ratio= 7.51%
Comments:
Inst Perf
p.167
p.167
Match
SDG#:
Lab:
Client:
Matrix:
Comments:
ICAL
23D115
Emax Laboratories, Inc
Brice Engineering, LLC
Water
S4VEM
INITIAL CALIBRATION
voes -SW8260B
CALCULATIONS
RRF Standard ID: RCY063.D
Date: 5/31/2023
Page: 1 of 1
Validated by: LT
Second Review by: EM
---------An a I yt e: Chloroform
Calibration Level: 4 ----
Reported Calibration RRF: 0.657 p.116
RRF = Analyte Resp. x ISTD Cone.
ISTD Resp. x Analyte Cone.
Analyte Response = 111556 p.130
ISTD Response = 849100 p.130
Analyte Cone. = 2.00 p.130
ISTD Cone.= 10.0 p.130
Calculated RRF = 0.657 Match
Calibration ID: ICAL 03/03/2023
Analyte: Trichloroethane
Reported Average RRF: 0.339 p.116
Reported %RSD: 4.20% p.116
%RSD= Standard Deviation
Average RRF
RF Lvl 1: 0.365 RF Lvl 6: 0.3250
RF Lvl 2: 0.334 RF Lvl 7: 0.3250
RF Lvl 3: 0.327 RF Lvl 8: 0.3450
RF Lvl 4: 0.357 RF Lvl 9: 0.3460
RF Lvl 5: 0.327 RF Lvl 10: 0.333
Standard Deviation = 0.014
Calculated Average RRF = 0.338 Match
Calculated %RSD = 4.21% Match
ISTD: 1,4-Difluorobenzene
X 100%
SDG#:
Lab:
Client:
Matrix:
S4VEM
INITIAL/ CONTINUING CALIBRATION VERIFICATION
voes -SW8260B
23D115
Emax Laboratories, Inc
Brice Engineering, LLC
Water
CALCULATIONS
Date: 5/31/2023
Page: 1 of 1
Validated by: LT
Second Review by: EM
%D = 100% x ( CV RRF -Avg RRF) / Avg RRF RRF = Analyte Resp. x ISTD Cone.
Comments:
ICV-CCV
ICV ID: RCY074.D
Analyte: 1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane
ISTD: 1,4-Difluorobenzene
Reported ICV RRF: 0.631 p.158
Reported %D: 0.2% p.158
Analyte Response = 858076 p.161
ISTD Response= 1360234 p.161
Analyte Cone.= 10.0 p.155
ISTD Cone.= 10.0 p.155
Mean RRF (ICAL) = 0.6320 p.158
Calculated ICV RRF = 0.631
Calculated %D = -.o=-.=2°=-:-Yo--
CCV ID: RDY587.D
Match
Match
Analyte: 1,2-Dichloroethane
ISTD: 1,4-Difluorobenzene
Reported CCV RRF: 0.363 p.192
Reported %D: 0.8% p.192
Analyte Response = 427399 p.195
ISTD Response= 1177839 p.195
Analyte Cone.= 10.0 p.189
ISTD Cone.= 10.0 p.189
Mean RRF (ICAL) = 0.366 p.192
Calculated CCV RRF = 0.363 Match
Calculated %D = -.o=-.=9°=-:-Yo--Match
ISTD Resp. x Analyte Cone.
SDG#:
Lab:
Client:
Matrix:
Comments:
Surr
S4VEM
SURROGATE SPIKES/SYSTEM MONITORING COMPOUNDS
voes -sws2soe
23D115 Date:
Emax Laboratories, Inc Page:
Brice Engineering, LLC Validated by:
Water Second Review by:
CALCULATIONS
Sample ID: 23D115-01
Compound ID: 4-Bromofluorobenzene
Reported %Recovery: 100% p.9
% Recovery= Cone. Surr. In Sam12le X 100%
Cone. Surr. Spiked
Cone. In Sample= 10.0 p.9
Surr. Spike Cone. = 10.0 p.9
Calculated %Recovery = 100% Match
Sample ID: 23D115-02
Compound ID: Dibromofluoromethane
Reported %Recovery: 103% p.14
% Recovery= Cone. Surr. In Sam12le X 100%
Cone. Surr. Spiked
Cone. In Sample= 10.3 p.14
Surr. Spike Cone. = 10.0 p.14
Calculated %Recovery = 103% Match
5/31/2023
1 of 1
LT
EM
SDG#:
Lab:
Client:
Matrix:
Comments:
LCS
23D115
S4VEM
LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLES
voes -sws2&0B
Emax Laboratories, Inc
Brice Engineering, LLC
Water
CALCULATIONS
Sample ID: VOF5D20L
Analyte: cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
Reported %Recovery: 105% p.85
%Recovery= Cone. LCS x 100%
LCS Spike Cone.
Cone. LCS = 10.5 p.85
LCS Spike Cone. = 10.0 p.85
Calculated %Recovery= 105% Match
Sample ID: VOF5D23L / VOF5D23C
Analyte: Methylene Chloride
Reported RPO: 6% p.87
Date: 5/31/2023
Page: 1 of 1
Validated by: LT
Second Review by: EM
RPO = I LCS Cone. -LCSD Cone-I x 100%
(LCS Cone. + LCSD Conc.)/2
LCS Cone. = 11.20 p.87
LCSD Cone. = 10.60 p.87
Calculated RPO = 6% Match
SDG#:
Lab:
Client:
Matrix:
Comments:
Rslt Ver
S4VEM
SAMPLE RESULT VERIFICATION
voes -sws2soe
23D115
Emax Laboratories, Inc
Brice Engineering, LLC
Water
CALCULATIONS
Sample ID: 23D115-01
Date: 5/31/2023
Page: 1 of 1
Validated by: LT
Second Review by: EM
-----------Compound ID: Carbon Tetrachloride
Reported Result: 1.1 p.9
Cone. In Sample= Analyte Resp. x Cone. of IS x Final Volume x Dilution Factor
IS Resp. Average RRF Initial Amount
Analyte Response = 57619 p.10
IS Response = 1011028 p.10 IS: 1,4-Difluorobenzene
IS Cone.= 10.0 p.10
Average RRF = 0.5210 p.116
Final Volume (ml) = 25.0 p.9
Initial Amount (ml) = 25.0 p.9
Dilution Factor= 1 p.9
Cone. In Sample= 1.1 Match
Sample ID: 23D115-02 -=----,----------Compound ID: Trichloroethane
Reported Result: 0.71 p.14
Cone. In Sample= Analyte Resp. x Cone. of IS x Final Volume x Dilution Factor
IS Resp. Average RRF Initial Amount
Analyte Response = 24099 p.15
IS Response = 997473 p.15 IS: 1,4-Difluorobenzene
IS Cone.= 10.0 p.15
Average RRF = 0.339 p.116
Final Volume (ml) = 25 p.14
Initial Amount (ml) = 25 p.14
Dilution Factor= 1 p.14
Cone. In Sample= 0.71 Match
This page intentionally blank
APPENDIX B
FIELD FORMS
This page intentionally blank
TEAD-N HydraSleeve Sampling Form
Project Info
-Brice Engineering
-Project Name: TEAD-N
-Client: Army
-Sample Type: Groundwater
-Sampling Method: HydraSleeve
-AquaTROLL SN: 844514, AquaTroll calibrated/cal checked at the start of each day, see calibration log for details
-HydraSleeve was deployed in well at least 2 weeks prior to sampling.
-Equipment Decon Procedure: Alconox and DI water
Well ID
B-16
Date
04/11/2023
Depth to Water (ft BTOC)
239.68
Primary Sample Date and Time
04/11/202313:25
Analysis/Preservative
voes-Short List SW8260C/ HCL
QC Samples
Duplicate
Duplicate Date/Time (if applicable)
04/11/202313:30
Total Number of Sample Containers Collected
6
Water Quality Parameters
Time pH Temperature
13:33 7.47
Sampling Notes
Deployed new HydraSleeve
(°C)
24.30
Specific Conductivity
(µS/cm)
3496.33
Sampling Personnel Initials
CMH,SC
Weather Conditions
75f, clear
Primary Sample ID
TEAD-04-23-B16-HY-290
Duplicate Sample ID (if applicable)
TEAD-04-23-S-B16-HY-300
ORP D.O Turbidity
Color/Odor (mV) (mg/L) (NTU)
219.22 4.48 430.72 Orange, cloudy, no odor
TEAD-N HydraSleeve Sampling Form
Project Info
-Brice Engineering
-Project Name: TEAD-N
-Client: Army
-Sample Type: Groundwater
-Sampling Method: HydraSleeve
-AquaTROLL SN: 844514, AquaTroll calibrated/cal checked at the start of each day, see calibration log for details
-HydraSleeve was deployed in well at least 2 weeks prior to sampling.
-Equipment Decon Procedure: Alconox and DI water
Well ID
B-26
Date
04/05/2023
Depth to Water (ft BTOC)
313.48
Primary Sample Date and Time
04/05/202315:15
Analysis/Preservative
voes-Long List SW8260C/ HCL
QC Samples
MS/MSD
Duplicate Date/Time (if applicable)
Total Number of Sample Containers Collected
9
Water Quality Parameters
Time pH Temperature
15:25 7.45
Sampling Notes
Removed and stored tether
(°C)
14.77
Specific Conductivity
(µS/cm)
1516.15
Sampling Personnel Initials
CMH,SC
Weather Conditions
33f, clear
Primary Sample ID
TEAD-04-23-B26-HY-319
Duplicate Sample ID (if applicable)
9
ORP D.O Turbidity
Color/Odor (mV) (mg/L) (NTU)
Clear, orange-brown floating
276.22 7.36 13.52 sediment, odorless
TEAD-N HydraSleeve Sampling Form
Project Info
-Brice Engineering
-Project Name: TEAD-N
-Client: Army
-Sample Type: Groundwater
-Sampling Method: HydraSleeve
-AquaTROLL SN: 844514, AquaTroll calibrated/cal checked at the start of each day, see calibration log for details
-HydraSleeve was deployed in well at least 2 weeks prior to sampling.
-Equipment Decon Procedure: Alconox and DI water
Well ID
B-30
Date
04/11/2023
Depth to Water (ft BTOC)
240.97
Primary Sample Date and Time
04/11/202312:10
Analysis/Preservative
voes-Short List SW8260C/ HCL
QC Samples
None
Sampling Personnel Initials
CMH,SC
Weather Conditions
68f, clear
Primary Sample ID
No sample collected
Duplicate Date/Time (if applicable) Duplicate Sample ID (if applicable)
Total Number of Sample Containers Collected
0
Water Quality Parameters
Time pH Temperature Specific Conductivity
(°C) (µS/cm)
12:10 0.00 0.00 0.00
Sampling Notes
No sample collected, water level is below the screened interval
ORP D.O Turbidity
Color/Odor (mV) (mg/L) (NTU)
0.00 0.00 0.00 NA
TEAD-N HydraSleeve Sampling Form
Project Info
-Brice Engineering
-Project Name: TEAD-N
-Client: Army
-Sample Type: Groundwater
-Sampling Method: HydraSleeve
-AquaTROLL SN: 844514, AquaTroll calibrated/cal checked at the start of each day, see calibration log for details
-HydraSleeve was deployed in well at least 2 weeks prior to sampling.
-Equipment Decon Procedure: Alconox and DI water
Well ID
B-40
Date
04/06/2023
Depth to Water (ft BTOC)
170.67
Primary Sample Date and Time
04/06/202313:00
Analysis/Preservative
voes-Short List SW8260C/ HCL
QC Samples
Duplicate
Duplicate Date/Time (if applicable)
04/06/202313:05
Total Number of Sample Containers Collected
6
Water Quality Parameters
Time pH Temperature
13:05 7.35
Sampling Notes
Deployed new HydraSleeve
(°C)
16.72
Specific Conductivity
(µS/cm)
2901.23
Sampling Personnel Initials
CMH,SC
Weather Conditions
Clear
Primary Sample ID
TEAD-04-23-B40-HY-179
Duplicate Sample ID (if applicable)
TEAD-04-23-S-B40-HY-189
ORP D.O Turbidity
Color/Odor (mV) (mg/L) (NTU)
79.54 6.98 276.73 Yellow-brown, cloudy
TEAD-N HydraSleeve Sampling Form
Project Info
-Brice Engineering
-Project Name: TEAD-N
-Client: Army
-Sample Type: Groundwater
-Sampling Method: HydraSleeve
-AquaTROLL SN: 844514, AquaTroll calibrated/cal checked at the start of each day, see calibration log for details
-HydraSleeve was deployed in well at least 2 weeks prior to sampling.
-Equipment Decon Procedure: Alconox and DI water
Well ID
B-42
Date
04/06/2023
Depth to Water (ft BTOC)
132.80
Primary Sample Date and Time
04/06/2023 10:45
Analysis/Preservative
voes-Short List SW8260C/ HCL
QC Samples
MS/MSD
Duplicate Date/Time (if applicable)
Total Number of Sample Containers Collected
9
Water Quality Parameters
Time pH Temperature Specific Conductivity
(°C) (µS/cm)
10:56 7.00 10.56 3511.87
Sampling Notes
Sampling Personnel Initials
CMH,SC
Weather Conditions
32f, clear
Primary Sample ID
TEAD-04-23-B42-HY-195
Duplicate Sample ID (if applicable)
ORP D.O Turbidity Color/Odor (mV) (mg/L) (NTU)
-26.47 5.60 579.38 Cloudy, orange
With msmsd most of the water was used for the sample. Only sample water left contained sediment at the
HydraSleeve bottom. Measured in aquatroll, deployed new HydraSleeve
TEAD-N HydraSleeve Sampling Form
Project Info
-Brice Engineering
-Project Name: TEAD-N
-Client: Army
-Sample Type: Groundwater
-Sampling Method: HydraSleeve
-AquaTROLL SN: 844514, AquaTroll calibrated/cal checked at the start of each day, see calibration log for details
-HydraSleeve was deployed in well at least 2 weeks prior to sampling.
-Equipment Decon Procedure: Alconox and DI water
Well ID
C-03
Date
04/06/2023
Depth to Water (ft BTOC)
141.55
Primary Sample Date and Time
04/06/2023 11:45
Analysis/Preservative
voes-Short List SW8260C/ HCL
QC Samples
MS/MSD
Sampling Personnel Initials
CMH,SC
Weather Conditions
32f, clear
Primary Sample ID
TEAD-04-23-C03-HY-263
Duplicate Date/Time (if applicable) Duplicate Sample ID (if applicable)
Total Number of Sample Containers Collected
9
Water Quality Parameters
Time pH Temperature Specific Conductivity
(°C) (µS/cm)
11:56 7.50 11.95 1951.18
Sampling Notes
ORP D.O Turbidity
(mV) (mg/L) (NTU)
153.84 6.47 802.58
Bottom of HydraSleeve had very turbid water with sediment. Deployed new HydraSleeve
Color/Odor
Turbid, orange-brown, no
odor
TEAD-N HydraSleeve Sampling Form
Project Info
-Brice Engineering
-Project Name: TEAD-N
-Client: Army
-Sample Type: Groundwater
-Sampling Method: HydraSleeve
-AquaTROLL SN: 844514, AquaTroll calibrated/cal checked at the start of each day, see calibration log for details
-HydraSleeve was deployed in well at least 2 weeks prior to sampling.
-Equipment Decon Procedure: Alconox and DI water
Well ID
C-04
Date
04/06/2023
Depth to Water (ft BTOC)
126.98
Primary Sample Date and Time
04/06/2023 11:20
Analysis/Preservative
voes-Short List SW8260C/ HCL
QC Samples
None
Duplicate Date/Time (if applicable)
Total Number of Sample Containers Collected
3
Water Quality Parameters
Time pH Temperature
11:25 7.52
Sampling Notes
Deployed new HydraSleeve
(°C)
12.42
Specific Conductivity
(µS/cm)
2054.19
Sampling Personnel Initials
CMH,SC
Weather Conditions
32f, clear
Primary Sample ID
TEAD-04-23-C04-HY-240
Duplicate Sample ID (if applicable)
ORP D.O Turbidity
Color/Odor (mV) (mg/L) (NTU)
52.53 5.87 334.88 Orangish, no odor
TEAD-N HydraSleeve Sampling Form
Project Info
-Brice Engineering
-Project Name: TEAD-N
-Client: Army
-Sample Type: Groundwater
-Sampling Method: HydraSleeve
-AquaTROLL SN: 844514, AquaTroll calibrated/cal checked at the start of each day, see calibration log for details
-HydraSleeve was deployed in well at least 2 weeks prior to sampling.
-Equipment Decon Procedure: Alconox and DI water
Well ID
C-19
Date
04/04/2023
Depth to Water (ft BTOC)
352.30
Primary Sample Date and Time
04/04/202310:50
Analysis/Preservative
voes-Long List SW8260C/ HCL
QC Samples
Duplicate
Duplicate Date/Time (if applicable)
04/04/202310:55
Total Number of Sample Containers Collected
6
Water Quality Parameters
Time pH Temperature
10:58 7.70
Sampling Notes
Removed and stored tether
(°C)
8.23
Specific Conductivity
(µS/cm)
1237.85
Sampling Personnel Initials
CMH,SC
Weather Conditions
28f, cloudy
Primary Sample ID
TEAD-04-23-C19-HY-358
Duplicate Sample ID (if applicable)
TEAD-04-23-S-C19-HY-368
ORP D.O Turbidity Color/Odor (mV) (mg/L) (NTU)
219.71 8.40 8.23 Light tan, very cloudy
TEAD-N HydraSleeve Sampling Form
Project Info
-Brice Engineering
-Project Name: TEAD-N
-Client: Army
-Sample Type: Groundwater
-Sampling Method: HydraSleeve
-AquaTROLL SN: 844514, AquaTroll calibrated/cal checked at the start of each day, see calibration log for details
-HydraSleeve was deployed in well at least 2 weeks prior to sampling.
-Equipment Decon Procedure: Alconox and DI water
Well ID
C-24
Date
04/04/2023
Depth to Water (ft BTOC)
356.04
Primary Sample Date and Time
04/04/2023 09:40
Analysis/Preservative
voes-Long List SW8260C/ HCL
QC Samples
None
Duplicate Date/Time (if applicable)
Total Number of Sample Containers Collected
3
Water Quality Parameters
Time pH Temperature
09:39 7.42
Sampling Notes
Removed and stored tether
(°C)
11.30
Specific Conductivity
(µS/cm)
40.03
Sampling Personnel Initials
CMH,SC
Weather Conditions
25f, cloudy
Primary Sample ID
TEAD-04-23-C24-HY-375
Duplicate Sample ID (if applicable)
ORP D.O Turbidity Color/Odor (mV) (mg/L) (NTU)
203.35 8.51 1.16 Clear, no odor
TEAD-N HydraSleeve Sampling Form
Project Info
-Brice Engineering
-Project Name: TEAD-N
-Client: Army
-Sample Type: Groundwater
-Sampling Method: HydraSleeve
-AquaTROLL SN: 844514, AquaTroll calibrated/cal checked at the start of each day, see calibration log for details
-HydraSleeve was deployed in well at least 2 weeks prior to sampling.
-Equipment Decon Procedure: Alconox and DI water
Well ID
C-26
Date
04/04/2023
Depth to Water (ft BTOC)
360.44
Primary Sample Date and Time
04/04/202313:20
Analysis/Preservative
voes-Long List SW8260C/ HCL
QC Samples
None
Sampling Personnel Initials
CMH,SC
Weather Conditions
Flurries, 28f, cloudy
Primary Sample ID
TEAD-04-23-C26-HY-368
Duplicate Date/Time (if applicable) Duplicate Sample ID (if applicable)
Total Number of Sample Containers Collected
3
Water Quality Parameters
Time pH Temperature Specific Conductivity
(°C) (µS/cm)
13:26 7.81 12.79 820.49
Sampling Notes
ORP D.O Turbidity
(mV) (mg/L) (NTU)
199.07 9.16 0.30
Lowered HydraSleeve to middle of the water column in screened interval. Removed and stored tether
Color/Odor
Clear, no odor
TEAD-N HydraSleeve Sampling Form
Project Info
-Brice Engineering
-Project Name: TEAD-N
-Client: Army
-Sample Type: Groundwater
-Sampling Method: HydraSleeve
-AquaTROLL SN: 844514, AquaTroll calibrated/cal checked at the start of each day, see calibration log for details
-HydraSleeve was deployed in well at least 2 weeks prior to sampling.
-Equipment Decon Procedure: Alconox and DI water
Well ID
C-33
Date
04/04/2023
Depth to Water (ft BTOC)
358.54
Primary Sample Date and Time
04/04/2023 14:40
Analysis/Preservative
voes-Long List SW8260C/ HCL
QC Samples
Duplicate
Sampling Personnel Initials
CMH,SC
Weather Conditions
Snowy, 28f
Primary Sample ID
TEAD-04-23-C33-HY-363
Duplicate Date/Time (if applicable) Duplicate Sample ID (if applicable)
04/04/2023 14:45
Total Number of Sample Containers Collected
6
Water Quality Parameters
Time pH Temperature Specific Conductivity
(°C) (µS/cm)
14:45 8.43 10.25 618.50
Sampling Notes
TEAD-04-23-S-C33-HY-373
ORP D.O Turbidity
(mV) (mg/L) (NTU)
210.40 11.16 0.36
Lowered HydraSleeve to middle of the water column in screened interval. Remove and store tether
Color/Odor
Clear, no odor
TEAD-N HydraSleeve Sampling Form
Project Info
-Brice Engineering
-Project Name: TEAD-N
-Client: Army
-Sample Type: Groundwater
-Sampling Method: HydraSleeve
-AquaTROLL SN: 844514, AquaTroll calibrated/cal checked at the start of each day, see calibration log for details
-HydraSleeve was deployed in well at least 2 weeks prior to sampling.
-Equipment Decon Procedure: Alconox and DI water
Well ID
C-35
Date
04/07/2023
Depth to Water (ft BTOC)
318.34
Primary Sample Date and Time
04/07/2023 10:50
Analysis/Preservative
voes-Long List SW8260C/ HCL
QC Samples
MS/MSD
Sampling Personnel Initials
CMH,SC
Weather Conditions
46f, clear
Primary Sample ID
TEAD-04-23-C35-HY-320
Duplicate Date/Time (if applicable) Duplicate Sample ID (if applicable)
Total Number of Sample Containers Collected
9
Water Quality Parameters
Time pH Temperature Specific Conductivity
(°C) (µS/cm)
10:59 7.57 14.32 1731.52
Sampling Notes
ORP D.O Turbidity
(mV) (mg/L) (NTU)
261.36 8.43 12.85
Lowered HydraSleeve to middle of the water column in screened interval. Remove and store tether
Color/Odor
Clear, no odor
TEAD-N HydraSleeve Sampling Form
Project Info
-Brice Engineering
-Project Name: TEAD-N
-Client: Army
-Sample Type: Groundwater
-Sampling Method: HydraSleeve
-AquaTROLL SN: 844514, AquaTroll calibrated/cal checked at the start of each day, see calibration log for details
-HydraSleeve was deployed in well at least 2 weeks prior to sampling.
-Equipment Decon Procedure: Alconox and DI water
Well ID
C-37
Date
04/07/2023
Depth to Water (ft BTOC)
317.33
Primary Sample Date and Time
04/07/202311:10
Analysis/Preservative
voes-Long List SW8260C/ HCL
QC Samples
None
Duplicate Date/Time (if applicable)
Total Number of Sample Containers Collected
3
Water Quality Parameters
Time pH Temperature Specific Conductivity
(°C) (µS/cm)
11:15 7.36 15.19 1734.69
Sampling Notes
Remove HydraSleeve tether and stored
Sampling Personnel Initials
CMH,SC
Weather Conditions
41f, clear
Primary Sample ID
TEAD-04-23-C37-HY-437
Duplicate Sample ID (if applicable)
ORP D.O Turbidity
Color/Odor (mV) (mg/L) (NTU)
299.09 5.48 92.61 Light tan, cloudy, no odor
TEAD-N HydraSleeve Sampling Form
Project Info
-Brice Engineering
-Project Name: TEAD-N
-Client: Army
-Sample Type: Groundwater
-Sampling Method: HydraSleeve
-AquaTROLL SN: 844514, AquaTroll calibrated/cal checked at the start of each day, see calibration log for details
-HydraSleeve was deployed in well at least 2 weeks prior to sampling.
-Equipment Decon Procedure: Alconox and DI water
Well ID
C-40
Date
04/05/2023
Depth to Water (ft BTOC)
279.53
Primary Sample Date and Time
04/05/2023 11:50
Analysis/Preservative
voes-Long List SW8260C/ HCL
QC Samples
None
Duplicate Date/Time (if applicable)
Total Number of Sample Containers Collected
3
Water Quality Parameters
Time pH Temperature Specific Conductivity
(°C) (µS/cm)
11:54 7.48 11.98 1798.43
Sampling Notes
Sampling Personnel Initials
CMH,SC
Weather Conditions
31f, clear
Primary Sample ID
TEAD-04-23-C40-HY-279
Duplicate Sample ID (if applicable)
ORP D.O Turbidity Color/Odor (mV) (mg/L) (NTU)
279.23 6.78 46.73 slightly cloudy, no odor
Lowered HydraSleeve to middle of the water column in screened interval. Deployed new HydraSleeve. Air coming
out of well, all AS/SVE systems are off.
TEAD-N HydraSleeve Sampling Form
Project Info
-Brice Engineering
-Project Name: TEAD-N
-Client: Army
-Sample Type: Groundwater
-Sampling Method: HydraSleeve
-AquaTROLL SN: 844514, AquaTroll calibrated/cal checked at the start of each day, see calibration log for details
-HydraSleeve was deployed in well at least 2 weeks prior to sampling.
-Equipment Decon Procedure: Alconox and DI water
Well ID
C-41
Date
04/07/2023
Depth to Water (ft BTOC)
335.19
Primary Sample Date and Time
04/07/2023 13: 10
Analysis/Preservative
voes-Long List SW8260C/ HCL
QC Samples
None
Duplicate Date/Time (if applicable)
Total Number of Sample Containers Collected
3
Water Quality Parameters
Time pH Temperature Specific Conductivity
(°C) (µS/cm)
13:16 7.46 15.27 1159.72
Sampling Notes
Removed HydraSleeve tether and stored
Sampling Personnel Initials
CMH,SC
Weather Conditions
46f, partly cloudy
Primary Sample ID
TEAD-04-23-C41-HY-366
Duplicate Sample ID (if applicable)
ORP D.O Turbidity
Color/Odor (mV) (mg/L) (NTU)
247.92 6.84 7.43 Clear, no odor
TEAD-N HydraSleeve Sampling Form
Project Info
-Brice Engineering
-Project Name: TEAD-N
-Client: Army
-Sample Type: Groundwater
-Sampling Method: HydraSleeve
-AquaTROLL SN: 844514, AquaTroll calibrated/cal checked at the start of each day, see calibration log for details
-HydraSleeve was deployed in well at least 2 weeks prior to sampling.
-Equipment Decon Procedure: Alconox and DI water
Well ID
C-47F
Date
04/04/2023
Depth to Water (ft BTOC)
359.39
Primary Sample Date and Time
04/04/202312:20
Analysis/Preservative
voes-Long List SW8260C/ HCL
QC Samples
None
Sampling Personnel Initials
CMH,SC
Weather Conditions
28f, cloudy
Primary Sample ID
TEAD-04-23-C4 7F-HY-364
Duplicate Date/Time (if applicable) Duplicate Sample ID (if applicable)
Total Number of Sample Containers Collected
3
Water Quality Parameters
Time pH Temperature Specific Conductivity
(°C) (µS/cm)
12:28 8.09 13.60 964.49
Sampling Notes
ORP D.O Turbidity
(mV) (mg/L) (NTU)
190.20 9.07 2.37
Lowered HydraSleeve to middle of the water column in screeded interval. Removed and stored tether
Color/Odor
Clear, no odor
TEAD-N HydraSleeve Sampling Form
Project Info
-Brice Engineering
-Project Name: TEAD-N
-Client: Army
-Sample Type: Groundwater
-Sampling Method: HydraSleeve
-AquaTROLL SN: 844514, AquaTroll calibrated/cal checked at the start of each day, see calibration log for details
-HydraSleeve was deployed in well at least 2 weeks prior to sampling.
-Equipment Decon Procedure: Alconox and DI water
Well ID
C-48F
Date
04/04/2023
Depth to Water (ft BTOC)
357.15
Primary Sample Date and Time
04/04/202312:50
Analysis/Preservative
voes-Long List SW8260C/ HCL
QC Samples
None
Sampling Personnel Initials
CMH,SC
Weather Conditions
28f, cloudy
Primary Sample ID
TEAD-04-23-C48F-HY-364
Duplicate Date/Time (if applicable) Duplicate Sample ID (if applicable)
Total Number of Sample Containers Collected
3
Water Quality Parameters
Time pH Temperature Specific Conductivity
(°C) (µS/cm)
12:53 7.63 13.34 1463.02
Sampling Notes
ORP D.O Turbidity
(mV) (mg/L) (NTU)
206.54 8.12 3.47
Lowered HydraSleeve to middle of the water column in screened interval. Removed and stored tether
Color/Odor
Clear, no odor
TEAD-N HydraSleeve Sampling Form
Project Info
-Brice Engineering
-Project Name: TEAD-N
-Client: Army
-Sample Type: Groundwater
-Sampling Method: HydraSleeve
-AquaTROLL SN: 844514, AquaTroll calibrated/cal checked at the start of each day, see calibration log for details
-HydraSleeve was deployed in well at least 2 weeks prior to sampling.
-Equipment Decon Procedure: Alconox and DI water
Well ID
C-50F
Date
04/04/2023
Depth to Water (ft BTOC)
341.47
Primary Sample Date and Time
04/04/202310:25
Analysis/Preservative
voes-Long List SW8260C/ HCL
QC Samples
None
Duplicate Date/Time (if applicable)
Total Number of Sample Containers Collected
3
Water Quality Parameters
Time pH Temperature Specific Conductivity
(°C) (µS/cm)
10:31 7.69 10.06 1209.50
Sampling Notes
Sampling Personnel Initials
CMH,SC
Weather Conditions
28f, cloudy
Primary Sample ID
TEAD-04-23-C50F-HY-345
Duplicate Sample ID (if applicable)
ORP D.O Turbidity Color/Odor (mV) (mg/L) (NTU)
206.56 9.22 0.81 Clear, no odor
Could not collect water level before sampling due to HydraSleeve tether preventing the water level tape going
down without tangling. Water level collected after sample collection. Removed tether and stored.
TEAD-N HydraSleeve Sampling Form
Project Info
-Brice Engineering
-Project Name: TEAD-N
-Client: Army
-Sample Type: Groundwater
-Sampling Method: HydraSleeve
-AquaTROLL SN: 844514, AquaTroll calibrated/cal checked at the start of each day, see calibration log for details
-HydraSleeve was deployed in well at least 2 weeks prior to sampling.
-Equipment Decon Procedure: Alconox and DI water
Well ID
C-SlF
Date
04/07/2023
Depth to Water (ft BTOC)
326.12
Primary Sample Date and Time
04/07/2023 10:30
Analysis/Preservative
voes-Long List SW8260C/ HCL
QC Samples
MS/MSD
Sampling Personnel Initials
CMH,SC
Weather Conditions
40f, clear
Primary Sample ID
TEAD-04-23-CSlF-HY-328
Duplicate Date/Time (if applicable) Duplicate Sample ID (if applicable)
Total Number of Sample Containers Collected
9
Water Quality Parameters
Time pH Temperature Specific Conductivity
(°C) (µS/cm)
10:36 7.75 14.78 1203.42
Sampling Notes
ORP D.O Turbidity
(mV) (mg/L) (NTU)
259.17 8.81 55.08
Lowered HydraSleeve to middle of the water column in screened interval. Remove and store tether
Color/Odor
slightly cloudy
TEAD-N HydraSleeve Sampling Form
Project Info
-Brice Engineering
-Project Name: TEAD-N
-Client: Army
-Sample Type: Groundwater
-Sampling Method: HydraSleeve
-AquaTROLL SN: 844514, AquaTroll calibrated/cal checked at the start of each day, see calibration log for details
-HydraSleeve was deployed in well at least 2 weeks prior to sampling.
-Equipment Decon Procedure: Alconox and DI water
Well ID
C-52
Date
04/04/2023
Depth to Water (ft BTOC)
353.32
Primary Sample Date and Time
04/04/202311:15
Analysis/Preservative
voes-Long List SW8260C/ HCL
QC Samples
None
Duplicate Date/Time (if applicable)
Total Number of Sample Containers Collected
3
Water Quality Parameters
Time pH Temperature
11:25 7.41
Sampling Notes
Removed and stored tether
(°C)
11.21
Specific Conductivity
(µS/cm)
1627.73
Sampling Personnel Initials
CMH,SC
Weather Conditions
28f, cloudy
Primary Sample ID
TEAD-04-23-C5 2-HY-442
Duplicate Sample ID (if applicable)
ORP D.O Turbidity Color/Odor (mV) (mg/L) (NTU)
219.24 6.84 0.30 Clear, no odor
TEAD-N HydraSleeve Sampling Form
Project Info
-Brice Engineering
-Project Name: TEAD-N
-Client: Army
-Sample Type: Groundwater
-Sampling Method: HydraSleeve
-AquaTROLL SN: 844514, AquaTroll calibrated/cal checked at the start of each day, see calibration log for details
-HydraSleeve was deployed in well at least 2 weeks prior to sampling.
-Equipment Decon Procedure: Alconox and DI water
Well ID
C-54F
Date
04/04/2023
Depth to Water (ft BTOC)
354.53
Primary Sample Date and Time
04/04/202313:50
Analysis/Preservative
voes-Long List SW8260C/ HCL
QC Samples
None
Duplicate Date/Time (if applicable)
Total Number of Sample Containers Collected
3
Water Quality Parameters
Time pH Temperature Specific Conductivity
(°C) (µS/cm)
13:58 8.21 10.97 280.54
Sampling Notes
Sampling Personnel Initials
CMH,SC
Weather Conditions
Snowy, 28f
Primary Sample ID
TEAD-04-23-C54F-HY-353
Duplicate Sample ID (if applicable)
ORP D.O Turbidity
Color/Odor (mV) (mg/L) (NTU)
Dark purple blue/black with
192.57 8.93 266.38 white floaties, no odor
Lowered HydraSleeve to middle of the water column in screen. Lots of resistance on HydraSleeve, difficult to lower
and raise smoothly. Remove and store tether
TEAD-N HydraSleeve Sampling Form
Project Info
-Brice Engineering
-Project Name: TEAD-N
-Client: Army
-Sample Type: Groundwater
-Sampling Method: HydraSleeve
-AquaTROLL SN: 844514, AquaTroll calibrated/cal checked at the start of each day, see calibration log for details
-HydraSleeve was deployed in well at least 2 weeks prior to sampling.
-Equipment Decon Procedure: Alconox and DI water
Well ID
C-56
Date
04/05/2023
Depth to Water (ft BTOC)
287.19
Primary Sample Date and Time
04/05/2023 12:40
Analysis/Preservative
voes-Long List SW8260C/ HCL
QC Samples
None
Sampling Personnel Initials
CMH,SC
Weather Conditions
32f, clear
Primary Sample ID
TEAD-04-23-C56-HY-290
Duplicate Date/Time (if applicable) Duplicate Sample ID (if applicable)
Total Number of Sample Containers Collected
3
Water Quality Parameters
Time pH Temperature Specific Conductivity
(°C) (µS/cm)
12:48 7.81 13.13 1534.59
Sampling Notes
ORP D.O Turbidity
(mV) (mg/L) (NTU)
266.02 9.68 3.65
Lowered HydraSleeve to middle of the water column in screened interval. Deployed new HydraSleeve
Color/Odor
No odor, clear
TEAD-N HydraSleeve Sampling Form
Project Info
-Brice Engineering
-Project Name: TEAD-N
-Client: Army
-Sample Type: Groundwater
-Sampling Method: HydraSleeve
-AquaTROLL SN: 844514, AquaTroll calibrated/cal checked at the start of each day, see calibration log for details
-HydraSleeve was deployed in well at least 2 weeks prior to sampling.
-Equipment Decon Procedure: Alconox and DI water
Well ID
C-57
Date
04/05/2023
Depth to Water (ft BTOC)
295.91
Primary Sample Date and Time
04/05/202314:15
Analysis/Preservative
voes-Long List SW8260C/ HCL
QC Samples
None
Sampling Personnel Initials
CMH,SC
Weather Conditions
31f, clear
Primary Sample ID
TEAD-04-23-C57-HY-298
Duplicate Date/Time (if applicable) Duplicate Sample ID (if applicable)
Total Number of Sample Containers Collected
3
Water Quality Parameters
Time pH Temperature Specific Conductivity
(°C) (µS/cm)
14:17 7.73 12.44 1077.87
Sampling Notes
ORP D.O Turbidity
(mV) (mg/L) (NTU)
263.99 9.31 2.33
Lowered HydraSleeve to middle of the water column in screened interval. Deployed new HydraSleeve
Color/Odor
Clear, no odor
TEAD-N HydraSleeve Sampling Form
Project Info
-Brice Engineering
-Project Name: TEAD-N
-Client: Army
-Sample Type: Groundwater
-Sampling Method: HydraSleeve
-AquaTROLL SN: 844514, AquaTroll calibrated/cal checked at the start of each day, see calibration log for details
-HydraSleeve was deployed in well at least 2 weeks prior to sampling.
-Equipment Decon Procedure: Alconox and DI water
Well ID
C-59
Date
04/05/2023
Depth to Water (ft BTOC)
272.58
Primary Sample Date and Time
04/05/202313:40
Analysis/Preservative
voes-Long List SW8260C/ HCL
QC Samples
None
Sampling Personnel Initials
CMH,SC
Weather Conditions
34f, clear
Primary Sample ID
TEAD-04-23-C59-HY-273
Duplicate Date/Time (if applicable) Duplicate Sample ID (if applicable)
Total Number of Sample Containers Collected
3
Water Quality Parameters
Time pH Temperature Specific Conductivity
(°C) (µS/cm)
13:49 7.95 12.06 1248.25
Sampling Notes
ORP D.O Turbidity
(mV) (mg/L) (NTU)
254.81 9.31 7.59
Lowered HydraSleeve to center of the water column in screened interval. Deployed new HydraSleeve
Color/Odor
Clear, no odor
TEAD-N HydraSleeve Sampling Form
Project Info
-Brice Engineering
-Project Name: TEAD-N
-Client: Army
-Sample Type: Groundwater
-Sampling Method: HydraSleeve
-AquaTROLL SN: 844514, AquaTroll calibrated/cal checked at the start of each day, see calibration log for details
-HydraSleeve was deployed in well at least 2 weeks prior to sampling.
-Equipment Decon Procedure: Alconox and DI water
Well ID
C-60
Date
04/05/2023
Depth to Water (ft BTOC)
304.44
Primary Sample Date and Time
04/05/2023 11:00
Analysis/Preservative
voes-Long List SW8260C/ HCL
QC Samples
None
Duplicate Date/Time (if applicable)
Total Number of Sample Containers Collected
3
Water Quality Parameters
Time pH Temperature Specific Conductivity
(°C) (µS/cm)
11:08 7.93 14.12 1646.48
Sampling Notes
Sampling Personnel Initials
CMH,SC
Weather Conditions
31f, clear
Primary Sample ID
TEAD-04-23-CG0-HY-304
Duplicate Sample ID (if applicable)
ORP D.O Turbidity
Color/Odor (mV) (mg/L) (NTU)
272.17 10.21 111.53 Slighyly cloudy, tan, no odor
Lowered HydraSleeve to middle of the water column in screened interval. Deployed new HydraSleeve
TEAD-N HydraSleeve Sampling Form
Project Info
-Brice Engineering
-Project Name: TEAD-N
-Client: Army
-Sample Type: Groundwater
-Sampling Method: HydraSleeve
-AquaTROLL SN: 844514, AquaTroll calibrated/cal checked at the start of each day, see calibration log for details
-HydraSleeve was deployed in well at least 2 weeks prior to sampling.
-Equipment Decon Procedure: Alconox and DI water
Well ID
C-61
Date
04/05/2023
Depth to Water (ft BTOC)
303.87
Primary Sample Date and Time
04/05/2023 10:40
Analysis/Preservative
voes-Long List SW8260C/ HCL
QC Samples
None
Sampling Personnel Initials
CMH,SC
Weather Conditions
31f, clear
Primary Sample ID
TEAD-04-23-C61-HY-307
Duplicate Date/Time (if applicable) Duplicate Sample ID (if applicable)
Total Number of Sample Containers Collected
3
Water Quality Parameters
Time pH Temperature Specific Conductivity
(°C) (µS/cm)
10:43 7.47 13.50 1775.45
Sampling Notes
ORP D.O Turbidity
(mV) (mg/L) (NTU)
287.82 8.21 3.76
Lowered HydraSleeve to middle of the water column in screened interval. Deployed new HydraSleeve
Color/Odor
Clear, no odor
TEAD-N HydraSleeve Sampling Form
Project Info
-Brice Engineering
-Project Name: TEAD-N
-Client: Army
-Sample Type: Groundwater
-Sampling Method: HydraSleeve
-AquaTROLL SN: 844514, AquaTroll calibrated/cal checked at the start of each day, see calibration log for details
-HydraSleeve was deployed in well at least 2 weeks prior to sampling.
-Equipment Decon Procedure: Alconox and DI water
Well ID
C-66
Date
04/05/2023
Depth to Water (ft BTOC)
308.50
Primary Sample Date and Time
04/05/2023 11:25
Analysis/Preservative
voes-Long List SW8260C/ HCL
QC Samples
Duplicate
Duplicate Date/Time (if applicable)
04/05/2023 11:30
Total Number of Sample Containers Collected
6
Water Quality Parameters
Time pH Temperature Specific Conductivity
(°C) (µS/cm)
11:32 7.61 14.26 2211.70
Sampling Notes
Sampling Personnel Initials
CMH,SC
Weather Conditions
31f, clear
Primary Sample ID
TEAD-04-23-C66-HY-310
Duplicate Sample ID (if applicable)
TEAD-04-23-S-C66-HY-320
ORP D.O Turbidity Color/Odor (mV) (mg/L) (NTU)
279.46 8.60 0.93 Clear, no odor
Lowered HydraSleeve to middle of the water column in screened interval. Deployed new HydraSleeve. Air coming
out of well casing, all AS/SVE systems are off.
TEAD-N HydraSleeve Sampling Form
Project Info
-Brice Engineering
-Project Name: TEAD-N
-Client: Army
-Sample Type: Groundwater
-Sampling Method: HydraSleeve
-AquaTROLL SN: 844514, AquaTroll calibrated/cal checked at the start of each day, see calibration log for details
-HydraSleeve was deployed in well at least 2 weeks prior to sampling.
-Equipment Decon Procedure: Alconox and DI water
Well ID
C-68
Date
04/05/2023
Depth to Water (ft BTOC)
288.67
Primary Sample Date and Time
04/05/202313:15
Analysis/Preservative
voes-Long List SW8260C/ HCL
QC Samples
None
Sampling Personnel Initials
CMH,SC
Weather Conditions
33f, clear
Primary Sample ID
TEAD-04-23-C68-HY-289
Duplicate Date/Time (if applicable) Duplicate Sample ID (if applicable)
Total Number of Sample Containers Collected
3
Water Quality Parameters
Time pH Temperature Specific Conductivity
(°C) (µS/cm)
13:18 7.56 12.91 1952.47
Sampling Notes
ORP D.O Turbidity
(mV) (mg/L) (NTU)
270.14 9.17 14.69
Lowered HydraSleeve to center of the water column in screened interval. Deployed new HydraSleeve
Color/Odor
Very cloudy, no odor
TEAD-N HydraSleeve Sampling Form
Project Info
-Brice Engineering
-Project Name: TEAD-N
-Client: Army
-Sample Type: Groundwater
-Sampling Method: HydraSleeve
-AquaTROLL SN: 844514, AquaTroll calibrated/cal checked at the start of each day, see calibration log for details
-HydraSleeve was deployed in well at least 2 weeks prior to sampling.
-Equipment Decon Procedure: Alconox and DI water
Well ID
D-02
Date
04/06/2023
Depth to Water (ft BTOC)
368.14
Primary Sample Date and Time
04/06/202314:10
Analysis/Preservative
voes-Short List SW8260C/ HCL
QC Samples
None
Sampling Personnel Initials
CMH,SC
Weather Conditions
35f, clear
Primary Sample ID
TEAD-04-23-D02-HY-365
Duplicate Date/Time (if applicable) Duplicate Sample ID (if applicable)
Total Number of Sample Containers Collected
3
Water Quality Parameters
Time pH Temperature Specific Conductivity
(°C) (µS/cm)
14:16 7.53 12.67 900.02
Sampling Notes
ORP D.O Turbidity
(mV) (mg/L) (NTU)
141.66 8.29 9.66
Lowered HydraSleeve to middle of the water column in screened interval. Deployed new HydraSleeve
Color/Odor
Clear, no odor
TEAD-N HydraSleeve Sampling Form
Project Info
-Brice Engineering
-Project Name: TEAD-N
-Client: Army
-Sample Type: Groundwater
-Sampling Method: HydraSleeve
-AquaTROLL SN: 844514, AquaTroll calibrated/cal checked at the start of each day, see calibration log for details
-HydraSleeve was deployed in well at least 2 weeks prior to sampling.
-Equipment Decon Procedure: Alconox and DI water
Well ID
D-03
Date
04/07/2023
Depth to Water (ft BTOC)
205.74
Primary Sample Date and Time
04/07/2023 08:50
Analysis/Preservative
voes-Short List SW8260C/ HCL
QC Samples
None
Duplicate Date/Time (if applicable)
Total Number of Sample Containers Collected
3
Water Quality Parameters
Time pH Temperature Specific Conductivity
(°C) (µS/cm)
08:55 7.62 11.09 1541.11
Sampling Notes
Did not deploy new HydraSleeve, removed tether.
Sampling Personnel Initials
CMH,SC
Weather Conditions
31f, clear
Primary Sample ID
TEAD-04-23-D03-HY-215
Duplicate Sample ID (if applicable)
ORP D.O Turbidity
Color/Odor (mV) (mg/L) (NTU)
283.65 8.47 1.25 Clear, no odor
TEAD-N HydraSleeve Sampling Form
Project Info
-Brice Engineering
-Project Name: TEAD-N
-Client: Army
-Sample Type: Groundwater
-Sampling Method: HydraSleeve
-AquaTROLL SN: 844514, AquaTroll calibrated/cal checked at the start of each day, see calibration log for details
-HydraSleeve was deployed in well at least 2 weeks prior to sampling.
-Equipment Decon Procedure: Alconox and DI water
Well ID
D-06
Date
04/10/2023
Depth to Water (ft BTOC)
292.85
Primary Sample Date and Time
04/10/2023 09:45
Analysis/Preservative
voes-Short List SW8260C/ HCL
QC Samples
None
Sampling Personnel Initials
CMH,SC
Weather Conditions
52f, clear
Primary Sample ID
TEAD-04-23-D0G-HY-290
Duplicate Date/Time (if applicable) Duplicate Sample ID (if applicable)
Total Number of Sample Containers Collected
3
Water Quality Parameters
Time pH Temperature Specific Conductivity
(°C) (µS/cm)
09:50 7.42 14.99 879.15
Sampling Notes
ORP D.O Turbidity
(mV) (mg/L) (NTU)
236.34 4.27 122.21
Lowered HydraSleeve to middle of water column in screened interval. Deployed new HydraSleeve
Color/Odor
Gray, cloudy, no odor
TEAD-N HydraSleeve Sampling Form
Project Info
-Brice Engineering
-Project Name: TEAD-N
-Client: Army
-Sample Type: Groundwater
-Sampling Method: HydraSleeve
-AquaTROLL SN: 844514, AquaTroll calibrated/cal checked at the start of each day, see calibration log for details
-HydraSleeve was deployed in well at least 2 weeks prior to sampling.
-Equipment Decon Procedure: Alconox and DI water
Well ID
D-07
Date
04/10/2023
Depth to Water (ft BTOC)
203.00
Primary Sample Date and Time
04/10/2023 12:00
Analysis/Preservative
voes-Short List SW8260C/ HCL
QC Samples
None
Duplicate Date/Time (if applicable)
Total Number of Sample Containers Collected
3
Water Quality Parameters
Time pH Temperature Specific Conductivity
(°C) (µS/cm)
12:07 7.48 21.08 32.38
Sampling Notes
Sampling Personnel Initials
CMH,SC
Weather Conditions
60f, clear
Primary Sample ID
TEAD-04-23-D07-HY-205
Duplicate Sample ID (if applicable)
ORP D.O Turbidity
Color/Odor (mV) (mg/L) (NTU)
170.42 7.03 1.37 Clear, no odor
Lowered HydraSleeve to middle of water column within the screened interval. Deployed new HydraSleeve
TEAD-N HydraSleeve Sampling Form
Project Info
-Brice Engineering
-Project Name: TEAD-N
-Client: Army
-Sample Type: Groundwater
-Sampling Method: HydraSleeve
-AquaTROLL SN: 844514, AquaTroll calibrated/cal checked at the start of each day, see calibration log for details
-HydraSleeve was deployed in well at least 2 weeks prior to sampling.
-Equipment Decon Procedure: Alconox and DI water
Well ID
D-09
Date
04/07/2023
Depth to Water (ft BTOC)
127.35
Primary Sample Date and Time
04/07/2023 08:05
Analysis/Preservative
voes-Short List SW8260C/ HCL
QC Samples
None
Duplicate Date/Time (if applicable)
Total Number of Sample Containers Collected
3
Water Quality Parameters
Time pH Temperature Specific Conductivity
(°C) (µS/cm)
08:13 6.74 16.27 29244.86
Sampling Notes
Did not deploy new HydraSleeve but replaced transducer.
Sampling Personnel Initials
CMH,SC
Weather Conditions
28f, clear
Primary Sample ID
TEAD-04-23-D09-HY-138
Duplicate Sample ID (if applicable)
ORP D.O Turbidity
Color/Odor (mV) (mg/L) (NTU)
350.98 2.01 0.27 Clear, no odor
TEAD-N HydraSleeve Sampling Form
Project Info
-Brice Engineering
-Project Name: TEAD-N
-Client: Army
-Sample Type: Groundwater
-Sampling Method: HydraSleeve
-AquaTROLL SN: 844514, AquaTroll calibrated/cal checked at the start of each day, see calibration log for details
-HydraSleeve was deployed in well at least 2 weeks prior to sampling.
-Equipment Decon Procedure: Alconox and DI water
Well ID
D-10
Date
04/10/2023
Depth to Water (ft BTOC)
183.71
Primary Sample Date and Time
04/10/2023 08:50
Analysis/Preservative
voes-Short List SW8260C/ HCL
QC Samples
None
Duplicate Date/Time (if applicable)
Total Number of Sample Containers Collected
3
Water Quality Parameters
Time pH Temperature Specific Conductivity
(°C) (µS/cm)
08:57 7.73 15.04 2159.26
Sampling Notes
Did not deploy new HydaSleeve, removed tether.
Sampling Personnel Initials
CMH,SC
Weather Conditions
48f, clear
Primary Sample ID
TEAD-04-23-DlO-HY-196
Duplicate Sample ID (if applicable)
ORP D.O Turbidity
Color/Odor (mV) (mg/L) (NTU)
225.81 7.74 10.49 Very cloudy, no odor
TEAD-N HydraSleeve Sampling Form
Project Info
-Brice Engineering
-Project Name: TEAD-N
-Client: Army
-Sample Type: Groundwater
-Sampling Method: HydraSleeve
-AquaTROLL SN: 844514, AquaTroll calibrated/cal checked at the start of each day, see calibration log for details
-HydraSleeve was deployed in well at least 2 weeks prior to sampling.
-Equipment Decon Procedure: Alconox and DI water
Well ID
D-11
Date
04/07/2023
Depth to Water (ft BTOC)
125.42
Primary Sample Date and Time
04/07/202313:40
Analysis/Preservative
voes-Short List SW8260C/ HCL
QC Samples
None
Duplicate Date/Time (if applicable)
Total Number of Sample Containers Collected
3
Water Quality Parameters
Time pH Temperature Specific Conductivity
(°C) (µS/cm)
13:50 7.34 20.30 5124.05
Sampling Notes
Sampling Personnel Initials
CMH,SC
Weather Conditions
46f, partly cloudy
Primary Sample ID
TEAD-04-23-Dll-HY-130
Duplicate Sample ID (if applicable)
ORP D.O Turbidity Color/Odor (mV) (mg/L) (NTU)
251.90 5.84 1.59 Clear, no odor
Lowered HydraSleeve to middle of the water column in screened interval. Did not deploy new HydraSleeve, kept
tether in well
TEAD-N HydraSleeve Sampling Form
Project Info
-Brice Engineering
-Project Name: TEAD-N
-Client: Army
-Sample Type: Groundwater
-Sampling Method: HydraSleeve
-AquaTROLL SN: 844514, AquaTroll calibrated/cal checked at the start of each day, see calibration log for details
-HydraSleeve was deployed in well at least 2 weeks prior to sampling.
-Equipment Decon Procedure: Alconox and DI water
Well ID
D-12
Date
04/06/2023
Depth to Water (ft BTOC)
345.22
Primary Sample Date and Time
04/06/202313:40
Analysis/Preservative
voes-Short List SW8260C/ HCL
QC Samples
Duplicate
Duplicate Date/Time (if applicable)
04/06/202313:45
Total Number of Sample Containers Collected
6
Water Quality Parameters
Time pH Temperature
13:45 7.58
Sampling Notes
Deployed new HydraSleeve
(°C)
12.07
Specific Conductivity
(µS/cm)
694.02
Sampling Personnel Initials
CMH,SC
Weather Conditions
35f, clear
Primary Sample ID
TEAD-04-23-D12-HY-355
Duplicate Sample ID (if applicable)
TEAD-04-23-S-D12-HY-365
ORP D.O Turbidity
Color/Odor (mV) (mg/L) (NTU)
135.98 7.95 7.30 Clear, no odor
TEAD-N HydraSleeve Sampling Form
Project Info
-Brice Engineering
-Project Name: TEAD-N
-Client: Army
-Sample Type: Groundwater
-Sampling Method: HydraSleeve
-AquaTROLL SN: 844514, AquaTroll calibrated/cal checked at the start of each day, see calibration log for details
-HydraSleeve was deployed in well at least 2 weeks prior to sampling.
-Equipment Decon Procedure: Alconox and DI water
Well ID
D-13
Date
04/10/2023
Depth to Water (ft BTOC)
371.14
Primary Sample Date and Time
04/10/202310:15
Analysis/Preservative
voes-Short List SW8260C/ HCL
QC Samples
MS/MSD
Duplicate Date/Time (if applicable)
Total Number of Sample Containers Collected
9
Water Quality Parameters
Time pH Temperature Specific Conductivity
(°C) (µS/cm)
10:25 7.24 18.83 997.48
Sampling Notes
Sampling Personnel Initials
CMH,SC
Weather Conditions
52f, clear
Primary Sample ID
TEAD-04-23-D13-HY-372
Duplicate Sample ID (if applicable)
ORP D.O Turbidity
Color/Odor (mV) (mg/L) (NTU)
-161.52 1.98 125.37 Gray, cloudy, sulphur odor
Lowered HydraSleeve to middle of the water column in screened interval. Deployed new HydraSleeve
TEAD-N HydraSleeve Sampling Form
Project Info
-Brice Engineering
-Project Name: TEAD-N
-Client: Army
-Sample Type: Groundwater
-Sampling Method: HydraSleeve
-AquaTROLL SN: 844514, AquaTroll calibrated/cal checked at the start of each day, see calibration log for details
-HydraSleeve was deployed in well at least 2 weeks prior to sampling.
-Equipment Decon Procedure: Alconox and DI water
Well ID
D-16
Date
04/11/2023
Depth to Water (ft BTOC)
227.03
Primary Sample Date and Time
04/11/2023 10:00
Analysis/Preservative
voes-Short List SW8260C/ HCL
QC Samples
None
Sampling Personnel Initials
CMH,SC
Weather Conditions
64f, clear
Primary Sample ID
TEAD-04-23-DlG-HY-242
Duplicate Date/Time (if applicable) Duplicate Sample ID (if applicable)
Total Number of Sample Containers Collected
3
Water Quality Parameters
Time pH Temperature Specific Conductivity
(°C) (µS/cm)
10:05 7.67 19.25 2317.79
Sampling Notes
ORP D.O Turbidity
(mV) (mg/L) (NTU)
233.04 7.93 0.90
Did not deploy new HydraSleeve, it will be deployed when transducer data is downloaded.
Color/Odor
Clear, no odor
TEAD-N HydraSleeve Sampling Form
Project Info
-Brice Engineering
-Project Name: TEAD-N
-Client: Army
-Sample Type: Groundwater
-Sampling Method: HydraSleeve
-AquaTROLL SN: 844514, AquaTroll calibrated/cal checked at the start of each day, see calibration log for details
-HydraSleeve was deployed in well at least 2 weeks prior to sampling.
-Equipment Decon Procedure: Alconox and DI water
Well ID
D-17
Date
04/10/2023
Depth to Water (ft BTOC)
123.80
Primary Sample Date and Time
04/10/2023 13:25
Analysis/Preservative
voes-Short List SW8260C/ HCL
QC Samples
None
Sampling Personnel Initials
CMH,SC
Weather Conditions
64f, clear
Primary Sample ID
TEAD-04-23-D17-HY-139
Duplicate Date/Time (if applicable) Duplicate Sample ID (if applicable)
Total Number of Sample Containers Collected
3
Water Quality Parameters
Time pH Temperature Specific Conductivity
(°C) (µS/cm)
13:27 7.44 20.93 980.50
Sampling Notes
ORP D.O Turbidity
(mV) (mg/L) (NTU)
186.45 7.03 0.99
Did not deploy a new HydraSleeve at this time, it will be deployed after transducer data download
Color/Odor
Clear no odor
TEAD-N HydraSleeve Sampling Form
Project Info
-Brice Engineering
-Project Name: TEAD-N
-Client: Army
-Sample Type: Groundwater
-Sampling Method: HydraSleeve
-AquaTROLL SN: 844514, AquaTroll calibrated/cal checked at the start of each day, see calibration log for details
-HydraSleeve was deployed in well at least 2 weeks prior to sampling.
-Equipment Decon Procedure: Alconox and DI water
Well ID
D-18
Date
04/07/2023
Depth to Water (ft BTOC)
15112.00
Primary Sample Date and Time
04/07/2023 08:30
Analysis/Preservative
voes-Short List SW8260C/ HCL
QC Samples
None
Duplicate Date/Time (if applicable)
Total Number of Sample Containers Collected
3
Water Quality Parameters
Time pH Temperature
08:34 7.74
Sampling Notes
Deployed new HydraSleeve
(°C)
12.38
Specific Conductivity
(µS/cm)
1231.66
Sampling Personnel Initials
CMH,SC
Weather Conditions
31f, clear
Primary Sample ID
TEAD-04-23-DlB-HY-180
Duplicate Sample ID (if applicable)
ORP D.O Turbidity
Color/Odor (mV) (mg/L) (NTU)
286.60 8.97 0.14 Clear, no odor
TEAD-N HydraSleeve Sampling Form
Project Info
-Brice Engineering
-Project Name: TEAD-N
-Client: Army
-Sample Type: Groundwater
-Sampling Method: HydraSleeve
-AquaTROLL SN: 844514, AquaTroll calibrated/cal checked at the start of each day, see calibration log for details
-HydraSleeve was deployed in well at least 2 weeks prior to sampling.
-Equipment Decon Procedure: Alconox and DI water
Well ID
D-19
Date
04/10/2023
Depth to Water (ft BTOC)
144.85
Primary Sample Date and Time
04/10/202313:00
Analysis/Preservative
voes-Short List SW8260C/ HCL
QC Samples
None
Sampling Personnel Initials
CMH,SC
Weather Conditions
64f clear
Primary Sample ID
TEAD-04-23-D19-HY-158
Duplicate Date/Time (if applicable) Duplicate Sample ID (if applicable)
Total Number of Sample Containers Collected
3
Water Quality Parameters
Time pH Temperature Specific Conductivity
(°C) (µS/cm)
13:04 7.48 22.09 955.68
Sampling Notes
ORP D.O Turbidity
(mV) (mg/L) (NTU)
182.18 7.02 0.85
Did not deploy a new HydraSleeve at this time, it will be deployed after transducer data download
Color/Odor
Clear no odor
TEAD-N HydraSleeve Sampling Form
Project Info
-Brice Engineering
-Project Name: TEAD-N
-Client: Army
-Sample Type: Groundwater
-Sampling Method: HydraSleeve
-AquaTROLL SN: 844514, AquaTroll calibrated/cal checked at the start of each day, see calibration log for details
-HydraSleeve was deployed in well at least 2 weeks prior to sampling.
-Equipment Decon Procedure: Alconox and DI water
Well ID
D-20
Date
04/11/2023
Depth to Water (ft BTOC)
66.70
Primary Sample Date and Time
04/11/2023 08:40
Analysis/Preservative
voes-Short List SW8260C/ HCL
QC Samples
None
Sampling Personnel Initials
CMH
Weather Conditions
62f, clear
Primary Sample ID
TEAD-04-23-D20-HY-78
Duplicate Date/Time (if applicable) Duplicate Sample ID (if applicable)
Total Number of Sample Containers Collected
3
Water Quality Parameters
Time pH Temperature Specific Conductivity
(°C) (µS/cm)
08:43 7.55 15.90 1403.19
Sampling Notes
ORP D.O Turbidity
(mV) (mg/L) (NTU)
259.18 7.79 5.81
Did not deploy new HydraSleeve, it will be deployed when transducer data is downloaded
Color/Odor
Clear, no odor
TEAD-N HydraSleeve Sampling Form
Project Info
-Brice Engineering
-Project Name: TEAD-N
-Client: Army
-Sample Type: Groundwater
-Sampling Method: HydraSleeve
-AquaTROLL SN: 844514, AquaTroll calibrated/cal checked at the start of each day, see calibration log for details
-HydraSleeve was deployed in well at least 2 weeks prior to sampling.
-Equipment Decon Procedure: Alconox and DI water
Well ID
D-21
Date
04/06/2023
Depth to Water (ft BTOC)
107.77
Primary Sample Date and Time
04/06/2023 14:45
Analysis/Preservative
voes-Short List SW8260C/ HCL
QC Samples
None
Sampling Personnel Initials
CMH,SC
Weather Conditions
37f, clear
Primary Sample ID
TEAD-04-23-D21-HY-110
Duplicate Date/Time (if applicable) Duplicate Sample ID (if applicable)
Total Number of Sample Containers Collected
3
Water Quality Parameters
Time pH Temperature Specific Conductivity
(°C) (µS/cm)
14:51 7.49 11.45 2874.46
Sampling Notes
ORP D.O Turbidity
(mV) (mg/L) (NTU)
167.89 6.66 3.91
Lowered HydraSleeve to middle of the water column in screened interval. Deployed new HydraSleeve
Color/Odor
Clear, no odor
TEAD-N HydraSleeve Sampling Form
Project Info
-Brice Engineering
-Project Name: TEAD-N
-Client: Army
-Sample Type: Groundwater
-Sampling Method: HydraSleeve
-AquaTROLL SN: 844514, AquaTroll calibrated/cal checked at the start of each day, see calibration log for details
-HydraSleeve was deployed in well at least 2 weeks prior to sampling.
-Equipment Decon Procedure: Alconox and DI water
Well ID
D-22
Date
04/06/2023
Depth to Water (ft BTOC)
93.13
Primary Sample Date and Time
04/06/2023 09:35
Analysis/Preservative
voes-Short List SW8260C/ HCL
QC Samples
None
Duplicate Date/Time (if applicable)
Total Number of Sample Containers Collected
3
Water Quality Parameters
Time pH Temperature Specific Conductivity
(°C) (µS/cm)
09:42 7.66 9.29 1842.61
Sampling Notes
Sampling Personnel Initials
CMH,SC
Weather Conditions
29f, clear
Primary Sample ID
TEAD-04-23-D22-HY-87
Duplicate Sample ID (if applicable)
ORP D.O Turbidity Color/Odor (mV) (mg/L) (NTU)
288.30 8.30 10.93 Slightly cloudy, no odor
Lowered HydraSleeve to middle of the water column in screened interval. Did not deploy new HydraSleeve,
removed tether.
TEAD-N HydraSleeve Sampling Form
Project Info
-Brice Engineering
-Project Name: TEAD-N
-Client: Army
-Sample Type: Groundwater
-Sampling Method: HydraSleeve
-AquaTROLL SN: 844514, AquaTroll calibrated/cal checked at the start of each day, see calibration log for details
-HydraSleeve was deployed in well at least 2 weeks prior to sampling.
-Equipment Decon Procedure: Alconox and DI water
Well ID
D-23
Date
04/11/2023
Depth to Water (ft BTOC)
63.81
Primary Sample Date and Time
04/11/2023 09:00
Analysis/Preservative
voes-Short List SW8260C/ HCL
QC Samples
None
Sampling Personnel Initials
CMH,SC
Weather Conditions
62f, clear
Primary Sample ID
TEAD-04-23-D23-HY-202
Duplicate Date/Time (if applicable) Duplicate Sample ID (if applicable)
Total Number of Sample Containers Collected
3
Water Quality Parameters
Time pH Temperature Specific Conductivity
(°C) (µS/cm)
09:04 6.84 18.86 27540.91
Sampling Notes
ORP D.O Turbidity
(mV) (mg/L) (NTU)
283.30 1.55 1.41
Did not deploy new HydraSleeve, it will be deployed when transducer data is downloaded
Color/Odor
Clear, no odor
TEAD-N HydraSleeve Sampling Form
Project Info
-Brice Engineering
-Project Name: TEAD-N
-Client: Army
-Sample Type: Groundwater
-Sampling Method: HydraSleeve
-AquaTROLL SN: 844514, AquaTroll calibrated/cal checked at the start of each day, see calibration log for details
-HydraSleeve was deployed in well at least 2 weeks prior to sampling.
-Equipment Decon Procedure: Alconox and DI water
Well ID
D-24
Date
04/10/2023
Depth to Water (ft BTOC)
213.44
Primary Sample Date and Time
04/10/2023 11:00
Analysis/Preservative
voes-Short List SW8260C/ HCL
QC Samples
None
Duplicate Date/Time (if applicable)
Total Number of Sample Containers Collected
3
Water Quality Parameters
Time pH Temperature
11:04 7.56
Sampling Notes
Deployed new HydraSleeve
(°C)
18.64
Specific Conductivity
(µS/cm)
941.63
Sampling Personnel Initials
CMH,SC
Weather Conditions
SSf, clear
Primary Sample ID
TEAD-04-23-D24-HY-368
Duplicate Sample ID (if applicable)
ORP D.O Turbidity
Color/Odor (mV) (mg/L) (NTU)
175.94 7.45 3.40 Clear, no odor
TEAD-N HydraSleeve Sampling Form
Project Info
-Brice Engineering
-Project Name: TEAD-N
-Client: Army
-Sample Type: Groundwater
-Sampling Method: HydraSleeve
-AquaTROLL SN: 844514, AquaTroll calibrated/cal checked at the start of each day, see calibration log for details
-HydraSleeve was deployed in well at least 2 weeks prior to sampling.
-Equipment Decon Procedure: Alconox and DI water
Well ID
D-25
Date
04/06/2023
Depth to Water (ft BTOC)
83.89
Primary Sample Date and Time
04/06/2023 09:15
Analysis/Preservative
voes-Short List SW8260C/ HCL
QC Samples
None
Sampling Personnel Initials
CMH,SC
Weather Conditions
29f, clear
Primary Sample ID
TEAD-04-23-D25-HY-188
Duplicate Date/Time (if applicable) Duplicate Sample ID (if applicable)
Total Number of Sample Containers Collected
3
Water Quality Parameters
Time pH Temperature Specific Conductivity
(°C) (µS/cm)
09:23 7.15 9.96 5690.18
Sampling Notes
ORP
(mV)
314.56
Did not deploy new HydraSleeve but kept tether with transducer in well
D.O Turbidity
Color/Odor (mg/L) (NTU)
Brown-red floating sediment,
6.26 5.47 no odor
TEAD-N HydraSleeve Sampling Form
Project Info
-Brice Engineering
-Project Name: TEAD-N
-Client: Army
-Sample Type: Groundwater
-Sampling Method: HydraSleeve
-AquaTROLL SN: 844514, AquaTroll calibrated/cal checked at the start of each day, see calibration log for details
-HydraSleeve was deployed in well at least 2 weeks prior to sampling.
-Equipment Decon Procedure: Alconox and DI water
Well ID
M-01
Date
04/06/2023
Depth to Water (ft BTOC)
76.51
Primary Sample Date and Time
04/06/2023 08:50
Analysis/Preservative
voes-Short List SW8260C/ HCL
QC Samples
MS/MSD
Duplicate Date/Time (if applicable)
Total Number of Sample Containers Collected
9
Water Quality Parameters
Time pH Temperature Specific Conductivity
(°C) (µS/cm)
08:59 7.30 7.31 1690.50
Sampling Notes
Removed tether, did not deploy new HydraSleeve.
Sampling Personnel Initials
CMH,SC
Weather Conditions
29f, clear
Primary Sample ID
TEAD-04-23-M0l-HY-145
Duplicate Sample ID (if applicable)
ORP D.O Turbidity
Color/Odor (mV) (mg/L) (NTU)
298.67 7.01 2.66 Clear, no odor
TEAD-N HydraSleeve Sampling Form
Project Info
-Brice Engineering
-Project Name: TEAD-N
-Client: Army
-Sample Type: Groundwater
-Sampling Method: HydraSleeve
-AquaTROLL SN: 844514, AquaTroll calibrated/cal checked at the start of each day, see calibration log for details
-HydraSleeve was deployed in well at least 2 weeks prior to sampling.
-Equipment Decon Procedure: Alconox and DI water
Well ID
M-02
Date
04/07/2023
Depth to Water (ft BTOC)
124.33
Primary Sample Date and Time
04/07/2023 14:05
Analysis/Preservative
voes-Short List SW8260C/ HCL
QC Samples
None
Duplicate Date/Time (if applicable)
Total Number of Sample Containers Collected
3
Water Quality Parameters
Time pH Temperature Specific Conductivity
(°C) (µS/cm)
14:11 7.32 20.89 9012.77
Sampling Notes
Did not deploy new HydraSleeve, placed tether back in well
Sampling Personnel Initials
CMH,SC
Weather Conditions
46f, partly cloudy
Primary Sample ID
TEAD-04-23-M02-HY-235
Duplicate Sample ID (if applicable)
ORP D.O Turbidity
Color/Odor (mV) (mg/L) (NTU)
252.30 4.82 2.67 Clear, no odor
TEAD-N HydraSleeve Sampling Form
Project Info
-Brice Engineering
-Project Name: TEAD-N
-Client: Army
-Sample Type: Groundwater
-Sampling Method: HydraSleeve
-AquaTROLL SN: 844514, AquaTroll calibrated/cal checked at the start of each day, see calibration log for details
-HydraSleeve was deployed in well at least 2 weeks prior to sampling.
-Equipment Decon Procedure: Alconox and DI water
Well ID
M-03
Date
04/06/2023
Depth to Water (ft BTOC)
92.77
Primary Sample Date and Time
04/06/2023 10:05
Analysis/Preservative
voes-Short List SW8260C/ HCL
QC Samples
None
Duplicate Date/Time (if applicable)
Total Number of Sample Containers Collected
3
Water Quality Parameters
Time pH Temperature Specific Conductivity
(°C) (µS/cm)
10:08 6.71 15.11 31454.00
Sampling Notes
Removed tether and did not deploy new HydraSleeve.
Sampling Personnel Initials
CMH,SC
Weather Conditions
29f, clear
Primary Sample ID
TEAD-04-23-M03-HY-235
Duplicate Sample ID (if applicable)
ORP D.O Turbidity
Color/Odor (mV) (mg/L) (NTU)
-25.22 2.23 74.75 Cloudy
TEAD-N HydraSleeve Sampling Form
Project Info
-Brice Engineering
-Project Name: TEAD-N
-Client: Army
-Sample Type: Groundwater
-Sampling Method: HydraSleeve
-AquaTROLL SN: 844514, AquaTroll calibrated/cal checked at the start of each day, see calibration log for details
-HydraSleeve was deployed in well at least 2 weeks prior to sampling.
-Equipment Decon Procedure: Alconox and DI water
Well ID
M-04
Date
04/10/2023
Depth to Water (ft BTOC)
226.83
Primary Sample Date and Time
04/10/2023 09:15
Analysis/Preservative
voes-Short List SW8260C/ HCL
QC Samples
Duplicate
Duplicate Date/Time (if applicable)
04/10/2023 09:20
Total Number of Sample Containers Collected
6
Water Quality Parameters
Time pH Temperature
09:24 7.33
Sampling Notes
Deployed new HydraSleeve
(°C)
15.34
Specific Conductivity
(µS/cm)
1053.34
Sampling Personnel Initials
CMH,SC
Weather Conditions
S0f, clear
Primary Sample ID
TEAD-04-23-M04-HY-255
Duplicate Sample ID (if applicable)
TEAD-04-23-S-M04-HY-265
ORP D.O Turbidity
Color/Odor (mV) (mg/L) (NTU)
231.93 6.03 8.62 Clear, no odor
TEAD-N HydraSleeve Sampling Form
Project Info
-Brice Engineering
-Project Name: TEAD-N
-Client: Army
-Sample Type: Groundwater
-Sampling Method: HydraSleeve
-AquaTROLL SN: 844514, AquaTroll calibrated/cal checked at the start of each day, see calibration log for details
-HydraSleeve was deployed in well at least 2 weeks prior to sampling.
-Equipment Decon Procedure: Alconox and DI water
Well ID
M-05
Date
04/11/2023
Depth to Water (ft BTOC)
218.30
Primary Sample Date and Time
04/11/2023 12:40
Analysis/Preservative
voes-Short List SW8260C/ HCL
QC Samples
None
Duplicate Date/Time (if applicable)
Total Number of Sample Containers Collected
3
Water Quality Parameters
Time pH Temperature
12:43 7.33
Sampling Notes
Deployed new HydraSleeve
(°C)
21.47
Specific Conductivity
(µS/cm)
3013.86
Sampling Personnel Initials
CMH,SC
Weather Conditions
73f, clear
Primary Sample ID
TEAD-04-23-M0S-HY-246
Duplicate Sample ID (if applicable)
ORP D.O Turbidity
Color/Odor (mV) (mg/L) (NTU)
225.39 6.75 21.28 Slightly cloudy, no odor
TEAD-N HydraSleeve Sampling Form
Project Info
-Brice Engineering
-Project Name: TEAD-N
-Client: Army
-Sample Type: Groundwater
-Sampling Method: HydraSleeve
-AquaTROLL SN: 844514, AquaTroll calibrated/cal checked at the start of each day, see calibration log for details
-HydraSleeve was deployed in well at least 2 weeks prior to sampling.
-Equipment Decon Procedure: Alconox and DI water
Well ID
N-120-88
Date
04/05/2023
Depth to Water (ft BTOC)
311.48
Primary Sample Date and Time
04/05/2023 09:05
Analysis/Preservative
voes-Long List SW8260C/ HCL
QC Samples
Duplicate
Duplicate Date/Time (if applicable)
04/05/2023 09:10
Total Number of Sample Containers Collected
6
Water Quality Parameters
Time pH Temperature Specific Conductivity
(°C) (µS/cm)
09:13 7.21 9.17 1819.47
Sampling Notes
Sampling Personnel Initials
CMH,SC
Weather Conditions
27f, partly cloudy
Primary Sample ID
TEAD-04-23-N12088-HY-310
Duplicate Sample ID (if applicable)
TEAD-04-23-S-N12088-HY-320
ORP D.O Turbidity Color/Odor (mV) (mg/L) (NTU)
284.14 7.29 10.24 slightly cloudy, no odor
Levered HydraSleeve to middle of the water column in screened interval. Removed and stored tether. Air
coming out of well casing, all AS/SVE systems are off
TEAD-N HydraSleeve Sampling Form
Project Info
-Brice Engineering
-Project Name: TEAD-N
-Client: Army
-Sample Type: Groundwater
-Sampling Method: HydraSleeve
-AquaTROLL SN: 844514, AquaTroll calibrated/cal checked at the start of each day, see calibration log for details
-HydraSleeve was deployed in well at least 2 weeks prior to sampling.
-Equipment Decon Procedure: Alconox and DI water
Well ID
N-150-97
Date
04/05/2023
Depth to Water (ft BTOC)
282.66
Primary Sample Date and Time
04/05/2023 09:35
Analysis/Preservative
voes-Long List SW8260C/ HCL
QC Samples
None
Sampling Personnel Initials
CMH,SC
Weather Conditions
28f, partly cloudy
Primary Sample ID
TEAD-04-23-N15097-HY-279
Duplicate Date/Time (if applicable) Duplicate Sample ID (if applicable)
Total Number of Sample Containers Collected
3
Water Quality Parameters
Time pH Temperature Specific Conductivity
(°C) (µS/cm)
09:40 7.38 11.23 1785.54
Sampling Notes
ORP D.O Turbidity
(mV) (mg/L) (NTU)
287.04 8.28 0.98
Lowered HydraSleeve to middle of the water column in screened interval. Removed and stored tether
Color/Odor
Clear, no odor
Appendix G
Environmental Professional Qualifications
WASATCH
• ENVIRONMENTAL
Related Experience
Jeffrey Hessburg
Staff Geologist
Education
B.S. Geology, 2019
University of Wisconsin -Eau Claire
Registration / Certification / Accreditation
Utah Soil and Groundwater Sampler (GS 1874)
Environmental Assessment Services
Mr. Hessburg professional experience includes, conducting Phase I Environmental Site
Assessments (Phase I ESA), Subsurface Investigation field work, and geotechnical field work.
Mr . Hessburg has experience in groundwater sampling, sub-slab, and sub-surface soil sampling.
Mr . Hessburg's field experience varies from physical research of agriculture lands, vacant lots,
and commercial uses. Mr . Hessburg has assisted in drilling activities, soil sampling, and
groundwater sampling.
Wasatch Environmental
WASATCH
• ENVIRONMENTAL
Related Experience
Rebecca Studenka
Project Geologist
Education
Environmental Assessment Services
B.S. Geology, with a concentration in Hydrogeology, 1994
Registration / Certification I Accreditation
Utah Underground Storage Tank Certified Consultant, #CC 0194, 2004,
updated 2018
State of Utah UST Ground Water and Soil Sampler Certification, 2003,
updated 2018
40 hour OSHA Basic Health and Safety/Hazardous Wastes, 1993,
updated 1994-2021
8-hour OSHA Supervisor Training, 1995, 2014
Utah Asbestos Inspector, #ASB-3310
Ms. Studenka has been a practicing geologist for 22 years in the areas of hydrogeological and
remedial investigations, as well as, environmental assessments. Ms. Studenka has been involved in
numerous remedial/hydrogeological investigations, site assessments and groundwater monitoring
programs.
Site Assessment and Remediation Experience
Ms. Studenka is experienced in responding to situations in which petroleum hydrocarbon, solvent,
and metal releases have impacted the soil and/or groundwater creating various potential hazards.
The following are examples of this experience;
• 300 West Town Center, Salt Lake City, Utah: Soil and groundwater investigation activities, soil
excavation and disposal of chlorinated solvent and petroleum hydrocarbon impacted soil and
groundwater. Completion of numerous subsurface investigation reports, Corrective Action
Plan, and Site Management Plan . Received a Certificate of Completion from the Utah Division
of Environmental Response and Remediation Voluntary Cleanup Plan.
• Lake Metals, Salt Lake City, Utah: Soil and groundwater investigative activities, soil
excavation and disposal of metal impacted soil. Completion of numerous subsurface
investigation reports and Corrective Action Plan. Received a Certificate of Completion from
the Utah Division of Environmental Response and Remediation Voluntary Cleanup Plan .
• Aerotech Manufacturing, North Salt Lake, Utah: Soil and groundwater investigative activities
and supervision of soil removal for abatement due to releases of chlorinated solvents at the
site . Completion of numerous subsurface investigation reports, Corrective Action Plan, and
Site Management Plan.
• Cinco Equipment, Lehi , Utah: Numerous soil and groundwater investigative activities and the
supervision of soil removal of petroleum hydrocarbon and hexavalent chromium impacted soils.
Completion of numerous subsurface investigation reports and Sampling and Analysis Plans .
Received No Further Action status from the Utah Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste.
• Liberty Boulevard , Salt Lake City, Utah: Soil and groundwater investigative activities involving
chlorinated solvent and petroleum hydrocarbon impacted soil and groundwater. Completion of
numerous subsurface investigation reports, Site Mitigation Plan, and Site Mitigation Plan
lmplemention Report. Received a No Further Corrective Action status from the Utah Division
of Waste Management and Radiation Control.
Ms . Studenka has been involved with projects where soil and groundwater have been impacted
with gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel, waste oil, heating oil and halogenated hydrocarbons,
pentachlorophenol, and solvents . Soil remedial technologies utilized include soil vapor extraction
Wasatch Environmental -Copyright 2003
WASATCH
• ENVIRONMENTAL
Environmental Assessment Services
and proper landfill disposal.
Underground Storage Tank Project Experience
Ms. Studenka is experienced in underground storage tank investigations . She has been involved in
numerous soil and groundwater investigative and remedial activities due to the release of
petroleum substances from underground storage tanks. She has also supervised the removal of
various USTs and collected soil and groundwater closure samples at various sites .
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Experience
Ms . Studenka has also performed numerous Phase I environmental site assessments on properties
ranging from vacant land to industrial facilities. lndentifying potential recognized environmental
conditions and recommending sampling techniques to confirm or deny the presence of
environmental impacts to the site .
Wasatch Environmental -Copyright 2003
WASATCH
• ENVIRONMENTAL
Julie H. Kilgore, President
Environmental Manager
Environmental Assessment Services
Julie H. Kilgore is President of Wasatch Environmental, an
environmental science and engineering firm based out of Salt
Lake City, Utah. She has over 25 years experience in
environmental assessment, investigation, remediation, and
regulatory agency coordination .
Since 2000, Ms . Kilgore has chaired the national task force
responsible for developing the revisions to the ASTM 1527 Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment Standard, and was appointed by
EPA to serve on the regulatory negotiation Federal Advisory
Committee to assist EPA in developing the federal All Appropriate
Inquiry regulation. In addition to ASTM International, Julie has
been involved in the Environmental Affairs Committee of the Salt
Lake Chamber of Commerce, the Envision Utah Brownfields Task Force, and was recently elected
to the Environmental Bankers Association Board of Governors .
Standards Development and Rulemaking
As the current chair of the national ASTM E1527 Phase I ESA task force and as chair of the past
chair of ASTM Committee E50, Ms. Kilgore directly participates in the on-going development of
the various standard practice and guidance documents related to environmental assessments
and commercial property transactions . Standard documents currently under consideration
within ASTM include revisions to the D6008 Standard Practice for Conducting Environmental
Baseline Surveys, and the E2790 Standard Guide Identifying and Complying with Continuing
Obligations, to address "continuing obligations" associated with CERCLA landowner liability
protections.
As a result of Ms. Kilgore's role with ASTM , Wasatch Environmental was appointed by EPA to
represent the Environmental Professional category of stakeholders for the EPA regulatory
negotiation rulemaking process for developing the "All Appropriate Inquiry" regulation as
commissioned by Congress in the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization
Act of 2002. Ms. Kilgore's direct involvement in developing the ASTM E1527 standard provided
EPA with unique insight into the process designed to satisfy specific elements related to
innocent landowner, bona fide prospective purchaser, or contiguous property owner liability
protections to CERCLA liability.
This EPA regulation for All Appropriate Inquiries was promulgated in October 2005 and became
effective November 2006 . As the ASTM E1527 Task Force chair, Ms . Kilgore facilitated direct
EPA participation as ASTM worked to modify the E1527 to comply with the EPA All Appropriate
Inquiry regulation. Ms. Kilgore continues to facilitate EPA participation with each E1527
standard practice revision process to ensure an EPA reference to the most current ASTM E1527
standard practice as being compliant with the EPA All Appropriate Inquiry regulation.
Training and Industry Outreach
As a result of Ms. Kilgore's involvement in development of industry standards , federal
regulation, and local policies, she assisted in the development of numerous Phase I ESA,
Transaction Screen, and Phase II Environmental Site Assessment training courses, and conducts
industry training courses throughout the country. These training courses include the following :
• ASTM International CEU-Accredited Phase I/Phase II ESA Training Classes, 2004-2023
• Understanding Environmental Due Diligence Reports, Salt Lake Board of Realtors,
1994 -2023
• CLE-Accredited Current State of Environmental Due Diligence , Bloomberg BNA, 2014
Wasatch Environmental, Inc.
WASATCH
• ENVIRONMENTAL
Environmental Assessment Services
• Bureau of Land Management ASTM E1527 and AAI Training, 2014 -2023
• EPA Region VII, Region IX, and Region X ASTM 1527 and AAI Training;
• Environmental Issues in Property Development, National Business Institute, 2011
• National Guard National Environmental Training Conference, 2007, 2008, 2009, and
2015
Ms. Kilgore has conducted industry outreach for professional organizations and participated in
national conference panel presentations regarding Phase I Environmental Assessments, All
Appropriate Inquiry, and 2002 Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act.
Recent events include:
• Environmental Due Diligence, Current State of the Practice Webinars, 2013 -2023
• Pennsylvania Association of Environmental Professionals -Communities, Corridors &
Connections Conference, 2021
• Environmental Bankers Association, Risk Management Series, 2020 -20221
• Bridging Environmental and Appraisal, Environmental Bankers Association, 2015
• Strategies for Implementing ASTM E1527-13, GeoSearch Four-Part Training Series, 2015
• Identifying and Managing Impacted Waters of the State, NAIOP 2014
• ASTM E1527-13 and Vapor Intrusion" American Bar Association, 2014
• Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management, 2014
• EPA Brownfields Conferences, 2003 -2011;
• RTM Communications National Conferences, 2003-2011;
Publications and Awards
SES/ ASTM Robert J. Painter Award, 2013
"Brownfields, A Comprehensive Guide to Redevelopment Contaminated Property, Third
Edition," Chapter 6 "Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments," American Bar
Association, 2010
ASTM Award of Merit, 2009
"Working Together; The Recent History of the Practice for Phase I Environmental Site
Assessments," ASTM International Standardization News, June 2006
"All Appropriate Inquiry and Brownfields Redevelopment," Air & Waste Management
Association, EM Magazine, December 2005
Kilgore, J., "All Appropriate Standards," Brownfields News, Vol. 1, March 2004.
Wasatch Environmental, Inc.
Attachment 2
Legal Description
LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS
The Land referred to herein below is situated in the County of Tooele, State of Utah, and is described as
follows:
PARCEL 1:
A PARCEL OF LAND, SITUATE IN THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 3 SOUTH,
RANGE 5 WEST, SALT LAKE BASE AND MERIDIAN, SAID PARCEL ALSO LOCATED IN GRANTSVILLE CITY,
TOOELE COUNTY, UTAH, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE SECTION LINE, SAID POINT BEING SOUTH 89°36'07" WEST 1,555.01
FEET FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 3 SOUTH, RANGE 5 WEST, SALT
LAKE BASE AND MERIDIAN, AND RUNNING:
THENCE SOUTH 89°36'07" WEST 1,122.63 FEET TO QUARTER OF SECTION 3 AND ALONG AN EXISTING
BARBED WIRE FENCE; THENCE NORTH 00°02'14" WEST 673.49 FEET ALONG THE QUARTER SECTION
LINE TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF HIGHWAY 112; THENCE SOUTH 59°20'32" EAST
1,305.51 FEET ALONG THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF HIGHWAY 112, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
PARCEL 2:
THE EAST HALF OF SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 3 SOUTH, RANGE 5 WEST, SALT LAKE BASE AND
MERIDIAN.
LESS AND EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO JOHN RICHARD ANDERTON AND
COLEEN P. ANDERTON, HIS WIFE AS JOINT TENANTS BY THAT CERTAIN WARRANTY DEED RECORDED
AUGUST 10, 1962 AS ENTRY NO. 262677 IN BOOK 35 AT PAGE 34 OFFICIAL RECORDS AND MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP
3 SOUTH, RANGE 5 WEST, SALT LAKE BASE AND MERIDIAN; THENCE RUNNING EAST 493.9 FEET,
THENCE SOUTH 1182.2 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF A STATE
HIGHWAY; THENCE NORTH 59°50' WEST 2314.5 FEET ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE TO A POINT
1495.8 FEET WEST OF THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE EAST 1495.8 FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING.
PARCEL 3:
THE WEST HALF OF SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 3 SOUTH, RANGE 5 WEST, SALT LAKE BASE AND
MERIDIAN.
PARCEL 4:
LOT 5, DESERET PEAK SUBDIVISION PHASE 2, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF ON FILE
AND OF RECORD IN THE TOOELE COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE.
Attachment 3
Recorded Deeds
Entry#: 505853
03/17/2020 04: 12 PM WARRANTY DEED
Page : 1 of 6
FEE : $40.00 BY: SECURITY TITLE INSURANCE AGENCY OF l
Jerry Houghton , Tooele County , Recorder
Recording requested by;
Security Title Insurance Agency of Utah, Inc. -Tooele
After Recording Return To:
Grantsville Soil Conseivation
787 E Erda Way
Erda, UT 84074
File Number: 110513-MH
Parcel JD: 01-130-0-0015
Warranty Deed
Know All Men By These Presents that I, Raceway Real Estate, LLC, a Utah
Limited Liability Company, of, for consideration paid, grant to Grants~ille Soil
Conservation, of Tooele County, with WARRANTY COVENANTS
FOR PROPERTY DESCRIPTION, SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE
A PART HEREOF.
NO WATER OR WATER SHARES ARE BEING CONVEYED.
In Witness Whereof we, the said, Raceway Real Esta~ LLC, a Utah Limited
Liability Company, hereunto set my hands and seals this <20th day of February,
2020.
Raceway Real Estate, LLC, a Utah Limited Liability Company
Davis Family Trust Dated 6/11/07 , Member
By: i-~1~-) -~✓
~ftch, Trust_ee ~ \)
By: ~ .. G~~
Robert Green, Member
B~~~:--··· ---
By: IL .1J ru ~~
Kevin Mon'ds, Member
WARRANTY DEED
File No .: 110S13.MH Pagel of4
Entry: 505853 Page 2 of 6
STATE OF UTAH <" _ { 1_
COUNTY OF ~lir ~ if · £i:, e.
Dt:t
On this J-5-!i_ day of February, 2020, personally appeared Karen Finch, whose
identity is personally kn.own to me or proved on the basis of satisfactory evidence and
who by me duly sworn or affirm, did say she is Trustee of the Davis Family Trust Dated
6/11/07 , Member of Raceway Real Estate, LLC and said docwnent was signed by her
on behalf of said Limited Liability Company by Authority of its Bylaws or Resolution
of its Board of Directors, and said Kara Jo Davis, Trustee of the Davis Family Trust
Dated 6/11/07 , Member acknowledged to me said Limited Liability Company executed
the same.
STATE OF UTAH
COUNTYOF~Yt..tf-lc,,,k..e...
On this ~1<Jay of February, 2020, personally appeared Robert Green, whose identity
is personally known to me or proved on the basis of satisfactory evidence and who by
me duly sworn or affirm, did say he is a Member of Raceway Real Estate, LLC and
said document was signed by him on behalf of said Limited Liability Company by
Authority of its Bylaws or Resolution of its Board of Directors, and said Robert Green,
Member acknowledged to me said Limited Liability Company executed the same.
Witness my ~iu.14 ~d official seal.
-✓-c < / .-,.... .. ,--,·· ./ , . ,
FileNo.: 1-10513-MH
WARRANTY DEED
DEBBIE J. HEMINGWAY
NOTARY PIJBLJC-STATE OF UTAH
COMMISSION# 702596
COMM. EXP. 1()..14-2022
Page 2 of4
Entry: 505853 Page 3 of 6
STATE OF UTAH
COUNTY OF TOOELE @
Mdr4t
On this 1_ day of~fflef)'. 2020, personally appeared Jeff Eaves, whose identity is
personally known to me or proved on the basis of satisfactory evidence and who by me
duly sworn or affirm, did say he is a Member of Raceway Real Estate, LLC and said
document was signed by him on behalf of said Limited Liability Company by Authority
of its Bylaws or ResoJution of its Board of Directors, and said Jeff Eaves, Member
acknowledged to me said Limited Liability Company executed the same.
STATE OF UTAH <~ ;j I
COUNTY OF row,~:r-t.__f)-~e .
On thi~y of February, 2020, personally appeared Kevin Monds, whose identity is
personally known to me or proved on the basis of satisfactory evidence and who by me
duly sworn or affirm, did say he is a Member of Raceway Real Estate, LLC and said
document was signed by him on behalf of said Limited Liability Company by Authority
of its Bylaws or Resolution of its Board of Direct.ors, and said Kevin Monds, Member
aclcnowledged to me said Limited Liability Company executed the same .
File No.: 110513-MH
•
DEBBIE J. HEMINGWAY
NOTARYPUBUC-SrATE OF UTM#
COMMISSIONI 702598
COMM. EXP. 10-14-2022
WARRANTY DEED
Page 3 of4
Entry: 505853 Page 4 of 6
BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION
Parcel 4
A parcel of land, situate in the Southeast Quarter of Section 3, Township 3 South, Range 5 West,
Salt lake Base and Meridian, said parcel also located in Grantsville City, Tooele County, Utah, more
particularly described as follows:
Beginning at a point which is the Center of Section 3, Township 3 South, Range 5 West, Salt lake
Base and Meridian, and running: •
thence North 89"36'57" East 1,334.64 feet along the East Quarter Section line to the 40 Acre line
to an existing barbed wire fence;
thence South 00°07'40" West 326.38 feet along the 40 Acre line and said existing barbed wire
fence;
thence South 89p36'57" West 1,335.15 feet to the Q1,1arter Section line;
thence North 00°02'14" West 326.39 feet along said Quarter Section line, to the Point of
Beginning.
Contains 435,683 square feet or 10.00 acres.
Entry: 505853 Page 5 of 6
BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION
Parcel 6
A parcel of land, situate in the Southeast Quarter of Section 3, Township 3 South, Range 5 West,
Salt Lake Base and Meridian; said parcel also located in Grantsville City, Tooele County, utah, more
particularly described as follows:
Beginning at a point on the Section line, said point being South 89°36'07" West 1,555.01 feet from
the Southeast Comer of Section 3, Township 3 South. Range 5 West, Salt lake Base and Meridian; and
running:
thence South 89°36'07" West 1,122.63 feet to .Quarter of Section 3 and along an existing barbed
wire fence;
thence North 00°02'14" West 673.49 feet along the Quarter Section Line to a point on the
Southwesterly Line of Highway 112;
thence South 59°20'32" East 1,305.51 feet along the SoU1hwesterly Line of Highway 112, to the
Point of Beginning;
Contains 378,030 square feet or 8.68 acres.
,I
i
ft
Entry: 505853 Page 6 of 6
ltitUIIIIIM&IIIMlllfl..,....rl ._ .. .__, .......... , _, ... , .......... -~
-lltfll.lltrl,I..,_.....,,
MUI..UurCff'T --........
,.__IOJI• _...,
"'-.G.Sa.laa =-
=-=u:-c =·--
--
1 OF1
,-,
I
• •
I I
I I
• •
I
•
(NOTARY ;.,F,AL)
ly c~~mission Exn .
Arr . L , 1943
G,L. uff
•~ot1;rv Puh' 1 c
F.c~\ding at Tooele, "t'lh
n4~~2
Fecorded at the request nf Eay Ha,n01nnd , ,hr. 12-194~, at 11:45 ... ~.
COLilTl: ~fCORLER
r . .;. '//!!ITE and
TO Grnnts• ille '-'oil
1ble cnnstderntions
Vtah:
£-.,TF.LLA !. "/HITE gr·intors of Inde, endence, lo . nerc, y ONHY ·; \ I• ,<IT
c-ons,,rva.tlon District gru,itee of Ten ~ollars, lno.n ) and nther ' lu-
Dollnrs tte followini: de~crlted tract of land in Tooele '-'ounty,ctote of
Berinninp ot the Northwest corner of "ecticn ;1.1 , 10W!lshtn
3 Jou th, lhnfP. 5 est, .:,'1] t '"~ake Jer1 di 'ln, running thence
East 0.95 chains; '-'outh /0 chains; Viest 9 ,95 chains; North
40 chains to place of brginnlng.
1,lso, beflnninp, at the Northeast corner of -.,ection 1 5, Tov:nshtp
3 Jouth, Range 5 •;:est, Salt La.t{e ~eridinn, running thence \7est
15,56 chains; South 1,0 chains; E·1~t 15.56 chains; 'lortr 40 chains
to beginnine;.
Al :.;o , berri""ning 1t the Northea.,.,t corner of bec+ion 10, ':ovmshin
1 001 1th, Range 5 ,;pst, valt .uake .I eridl m , then"''"' est 15.56
chai•:s; thence ~outh 80 ch'l\ns; thence East 15. 56 ·llalns ; thence
llorth 'IQ chl,l,i~ to p IJ1ce of bepinninr .
/ilso, berlnn..:ng at the ~~orth·est corner of vect.:on 1 .t., .1ovn;.;.hlp
3 South, "anre 5 , est, Salt Ln.<e !.leric'im, thence East 9.Q5 chntns;
thf>nce ->outh 8::J chalns; thence ·,,r-st 9 .0 5 chains; thence N0rth f!O
ch~ins to nl·ce of oerinning . Containing in all 306 .2/3 ·crf>s of
land, "lore or less. Subject ho,·,evn, to all existing ntg.·w~y• or
rir,ht-of-v,R/S nm•· of ecorct, running HCross the • bove described
tr0 cts of l,mu .
(Ca"lcelled l'.S . r:ocument,i,ry dt·"Tps ·fftxrd in amount of . 55
,;ltn<'ss, tbe hand of said g~-intor, this 11th day of :.larch, n,C. 191,l
Signed in the nresence of
___ .. b._,,hl !;f __ Ls/ ____________ _
___ t£!fl1B-~~-Ell1!~---L~L ____ _
State nf ~1ssou ri
Crrnr.ty of J.1.ckson
On the 11th dsv of Ir.rel , A. J.J . 10/l nerson,i,lly an,:,e red before -nc Y.. "· ~'hi te and
F!;t-clla ·{. V,'hi.te, husb4nd & v-r!.fe the signers of thr.r-"'ithln 1nstruP'!l.tn, who duly -.cknor.ledgP.d
tone that they executed the s~~e.
c·rnT,_n .. SFA'..)
~t co"t"ttsslon ex·ires July 7, l9L/
f2 1 4883
Recnrdcd at the reouest of Ray iln'!lmond , ';,r. 12,A.D., l')/4.2 , ~t 11:/6 ,.,:.r .
C0UNTY UCORDH
CORPORATION DEED
TOOELE COUNTY JTATE BA.'lK DBPOSITORS 1 LI(,!UID,-TIIIG ASSOCIA' ION , " cornoration of Utah,
1nd someti,:ies Knov,n as TOOLLE COUNTY »TA'.IE ll~IK LIQUIDATiilG CORPOR,-TION , Granto~ of Tooele
County, State of Utah, hereby conveys to GRANTSVILLE bOIL CONSERVA1ION IJISTRICT , Grantee
of Grantsville, Uta h, for the sum of Two and sixty five (a265 ,Cl0) dollars, the following
described land in Tooele .,;onnty, .itate of Utah:
Commencing at NW corner of NE4 of Section 10,
To,.nship 3 "outh, Rnngc 5 Wc~t,E. 24 ,45 chnins , b . 80
chains, "· 2L.45 chains ., N.80 chains to beginning ,
containing 195 .60 cicres . Lorantsville Out .
Comme.".lcing 'lt center of ::iection 15, Tov.nship J i>OUth,
Range 5 Sest, L 24 , /,5 ch,i,i"ls, 11. 40 ch,iins, I,. ,1,1, .1,5
chains, s , 40 chai•1s to beylnnlng, containing 97 .80
C\Crcs. uri".lts ville Out.
(Cancelled U, S , Docu-nent~ry stamps affixed in amount of .55¢)
,:ITNF.0ul•TH thf' h,md of SA.id Lormtor this 15 dW of l.hrch, 1141.
rJOhl.E COUN'IY -.,TATE llAl,K DJ:;f>O;.,ITQh-.,1
LI~UID~TI~G Au~CIATION , A Corporation ,
The Tooele vounty State on."lk
Liquidating corpor~tion ,
(•·
'..
\.,
•
"·
irr ::
~18671
h•••••••••••••••••• .. ••••••••h••••• ._.,., .. ,' ·"-.
Xlln J\Il in ~4nm x.TI4tze Jrt~eufz j4ml @nme ~reefing: s 1-:,:-
f n ~ .. · ..
\ ',
i, _, ~. :,,. ·~
WHEREAS ____ GRANTSVILLE SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICT-\ • :;~, ' ············-···············--········· .. ··············································-·· .. ················ .. ·············· ... ·· ................................ ·-::' ~._ ••. ' .... ·::.·· •• ······-··············
-----------.TOOELE
i\ .. " .
of the County of .................... ;I;9.9.;g ........................................ : ................ State of ....... JJ.?;@ .......................... he~etofore purchased from
the State of Utah, the lands hereinafter described, pursuant to the laws of said State in such case made and provided,
AND WHEREAS, the said •.... :.~~~.~?.~.~.~~~ ... ~.?.~~ .. g.~~?.:1?.~:V.~!..~.~.~ .. ~!.~.~~~~·~·················································································
ha .. ~ ... paid for said lands, pursuant to the conditions of said sale, and the laws of the State duly enacted in relation thereto, the
sum of ..... Eight .. Hundred .. Four. and .. 80/100 .. ($804. 80) ............................................................................................................... Dollars,
and all legal interest thereon accrued, as fully appears by the certificate of the proper officer, now on file in the office of the Secretary
of State of the State of Utah;
NOW THEREFORE, I ........................ ~~~.~.~ .. ~.'. ... ~'.l;~.J!'.~2~ .... :-: .. : .............................. , Governor, in consideration of the premises,
and by virtue of the power and authority vested in me by the laws of the State of Utah, in such case made and provided, do issue
this PATENT, in the name and by the authority of the State of Utah, hereby granting and confirming unto the said
.............................................................. RANTSVILLE .. SOIL .. CONSERVATION . DISTRICT ................................................................................... .
.................................................................................................................. and to ................... .:!-.!':~ ............................................ ~ assigns
forever, the following tract or parcel of land, situated in the County of ...................... J::9.Q!?k~ ........................................ State aforesaid ,
to-wit: ....... W~~.~ ... ~?.1t .. m~2 ... 9.L.$.9.1:!!-;h.~.?:~.t; .. .Q1:!?.I.t.~.r. ... (.$.~) ... ~.L?.g.<;J.tRn .. Jhi:;t;.t.Y.::fQµ.r. ... (J4.) ..... '.r.9.~;:;bJ.P. .. '.l).7.o .... C22 ... S.Qµ.t .h._
..... Mng~ .. .ft:-'.g .. J~) .. :W~$.J;.i ... $.,rn .tb. .. R~JJ.. .. rn½) ... Rf ... ij9.nJ:i.~?:§.t; ... Q1,J,?.!'..t.~r. ... CN$..l.i;) ... RJ ... s~.<;.t:.;i,Qn. . .f.9.ur ... (ft). ... s1.ud .. S.o.uth..Ralf ...... .
. .... {$_lj) ... .9J .. SQµJ:.hwg.$.t ... Qµ.s1,r,,t;gx ... rnw~ ... Qf ... $.~~.t.:i-.o.n .. '.f.~.TI ... (tQ)., ... '.J:J?~§ht.P ... Ih,;.~.E;l ... C31 .. S.QJ.1.t.h .... E.ang,, ... f.i')[~L.(5). .. Hest., .... .
. . .
..... Salt .. Lake __ Meridian ..... Subject __ to .. all __ existing . righ~s. of __ record-.. -... -.. -.. -.. -.. -.. -.. -.. -.. -.. -... -.. -.. -.. -.. -.. -.. -.. -.. -... -.. -.. -.. -.. -.. -.. -.. -.. -... -.. -.. -.. -.. -.. -.. -.. -.. -.. -... -...
(Reserving to t he Sk,t c of Ut a h. all coal and otner···--····· .... Rl~l,t, ~! :,;,~y f~ ~.n~i~. ii,hos. t,nn•1;: to le phon• •nd tr•n1• .......
.tlli:w.r.als .... .in. .. the .. aba.v.e .. l~md.s.~ .. ",.1Q ... t.Q ... U.,. or J).Crsons ___ mlu,cn n •• , •~Mfr;dod · by ownorily of the Unlfod S!;i,., or: ha,e!:.y
authorized ·by it, U·,c r ir~ht to r,r-r::;pect f o~:·. ·~i;·~--a;;c.=·~~·;;;~·;;c:·u:·s:·;.:;i:·;.,·c;_-... ji;ii1;:·nF10·"(1n,ioi:"lvlTi ·i;s '~··2··;·3··u1j1i""···----· .. •• .. .
-~f:.!t¢V9-·'t~-0-S-1 ·-!!fi'l---1.J ~◄.i.,~-r---U1-~r,~~'..·J.1~ .. .!~·-•J!!l.0 tb..e. .. 3C.m,~"'··\lPQD ..... _~~---·~~~-~-~-~~-~~~~~~ .. ~?-~~ ............... : ............... H ••••••••••••• .a ................................... .
cmrrplianc:c v:i th t!-1!:? cN.di ~iC!".1:l ur.d zubject tot.he lire-__ ·_··-·..,_.---,,-------~~~--------------
·•1·tati:0111;·oi'·rfr1;hJ·•6 !)·:··G n:1p1'e r ··h···Uto.h··God-e-•.A~~ota.t,ed. ........... : ............ : ............................................................................................ .
1953, and wncnc!rn!:?nts thereto.. •
l J1
~ co
~
0
.·~
(0
I
.... • ••. ,· .. .__ ......................... _ ..... • • ••••. • •• • ................ •• • •• ·····--··~·· • ................ • • ..... • .•... ••. • • ...... • ...... ··•.h ••-~ .............. .• •..• • ..... •
••• .. ••••--•••••• .... ••• .. •••••·•·•• .. ·••no ½•••• .. ••• .. •··•••••••••~••ho•o,0•••·•ho••••h•• • ............ •••••••••-
. . . •••••·•h• ....... , .. ,,,,,,,.H••o o •••••• .. •••••~••••oo•o•••oo uuo -..... ••~•••• .. •••••• .... •••••• .... ••••• .. •••~•·••••••••••••••••••••~••••••u•••••••••••••• .. ••••••• ·• .. ••••••••••••· •••· .. •••••••••••••••••••·•••·••••••u •
----• --• -••• ••• ••• •• .. ••••••-••-••••••••• L ••••~••• .. •• .. • .. •••• .. ••••hooohoO on,,,_ ............ •••••••• • •• .. •••• .. n•••~••••• .... ••U•O• ••••••••••• ½ ••••••• .. -• ........ ,_.,.,,, .. Ooon• .. ••• ......... ,,,,;,_z. ..... •••••••••••o'o•••••
containing ..... 'JM9 ... aYnflx.i:,d .. l/'Q.;:!;:'.( .. AUd .. noJlO.Q .. (24.0.,.00) ................................ : ....................... acres according to the said certificate.
TO. HA VE AND TO HOLD the above described and granted premises unto the said
------------~-----GRANTSVILLE SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICT--------------
......... • ......... •.• .......................................... • .......................... • ................................ and to ...... : ................ .-its ........................................ • ........ •
~ assigns forever, subject t.o any easement or right cf wny of the public, to use all such highways as may have been estab-
lished according to law, over the same or any part thereof, and subject also to all rights of way for ditches, tunnels, and telephone
and transmission lines that may have been constructed by authority of the United States .
IN TESTIMON,Y WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the great seal of the State of Utah to be hereunto af-
~ajt .Lake...Cjty, thls .... ,,··:--,·~.-?.!:~:--· .. : .. '.:·':.::• ... day _ot '. .. ::::: .. ·--·--·::~~~'!!'.~:\·:·~--.... ::·.--.. , .................. m the year of our Lord,
one thousand nine hundred and ............ ~.S~.~-UtY.:-:-J>.~Y.sm.::::::::::; and of the independence of t he
United States of America the two hundred ana"'::'~:1>.~!;5?. 'fJ-... • ... , and in tli.e ......... ?.~.~t ................. .
1ear of the State of Utah.
• . ~
By the /Jver:or:~ ~d ......... ~~ ....... .
·--~~~ .................... • ... ,·
• .• . ~:· £··.4 :. ~ . ~\~ Lieutenant Governor -Secretary of S~tate • . • . • ,. • . • •
. .. ~~1: ,i/~ce,~ ..
Director, Division of State Lands
. ••.. .. 1:. ' •.
...., ..
Recorded Patent Book ......... 37-__ 1_ ........... Page •
Cemfim~~-.!:~ Sale ~o~ ... :-:.~~793 ---· • -··· R~ · ·---~~-.......................... .,\t·'i-"i()\'-:-.• •
: R~9R0EO AT THE RE~Of .~ 32066{} • . Fi ' ,:.. L:D /\.;) TO Fr''='~A.
~.•""'"L.--"-.oo!·'V // -:....::::.:::'..~·· • • ' t::F!T 8 ; •••••• ,.--. ·:· ,!,l. --, r ·. -. ,1 •• ,;... ,, •• , ·.::,-
0.._TE .. D.c.1 .. 1.z .. ~o .. --. . . r-:~:;-~~ .• ~~-';E,,ff'RA~ EN
800" _,, _.-.~ v · ~·-·-· TIM , .LdJ.· .s -fh1 ,1 .....,,_= -"'--OF . ,:; ff"' ..;:, ., ,,e. ... • ;,,;..
Q(llllH ·----·-'· IIECOROS l'AGt.. :5 .Ji' .--.,., • •• -
•U'U\.,S..Akll.EtlO~J.c.~ TOOELE cou;~-;:.~EE...~ •• ';,4...c_.-t ,,l.-.,QF:OL"--0
T ., .... -.... .!...?-" oo..,. e" . ._ -·--· DONN . n., R,~c,rdot
• A S. >.kKH-IO~ls;,t<
...
!,,
•
•
•
•
,-,
I
• •
I I
I I
• •
I
•
(NOTARY ;.,F,AL)
ly c~~mission Exn .
Arr . L , 1943
G,L. uff
•~ot1;rv Puh' 1 c
F.c~\ding at Tooele, "t'lh
n4~~2
Fecorded at the request nf Eay Ha,n01nnd , ,hr. 12-194~, at 11:45 ... ~.
COLilTl: ~fCORLER
r . .;. '//!!ITE and
TO Grnnts• ille '-'oil
1ble cnnstderntions
Vtah:
£-.,TF.LLA !. "/HITE gr·intors of Inde, endence, lo . nerc, y ONHY ·; \ I• ,<IT
c-ons,,rva.tlon District gru,itee of Ten ~ollars, lno.n ) and nther ' lu-
Dollnrs tte followini: de~crlted tract of land in Tooele '-'ounty,ctote of
Berinninp ot the Northwest corner of "ecticn ;1.1 , 10W!lshtn
3 Jou th, lhnfP. 5 est, .:,'1] t '"~ake Jer1 di 'ln, running thence
East 0.95 chains; '-'outh /0 chains; Viest 9 ,95 chains; North
40 chains to place of brginnlng.
1,lso, beflnninp, at the Northeast corner of -.,ection 1 5, Tov:nshtp
3 Jouth, Range 5 •;:est, Salt La.t{e ~eridinn, running thence \7est
15,56 chains; South 1,0 chains; E·1~t 15.56 chains; 'lortr 40 chains
to beginnine;.
Al :.;o , berri""ning 1t the Northea.,.,t corner of bec+ion 10, ':ovmshin
1 001 1th, Range 5 ,;pst, valt .uake .I eridl m , then"''"' est 15.56
chai•:s; thence ~outh 80 ch'l\ns; thence East 15. 56 ·llalns ; thence
llorth 'IQ chl,l,i~ to p IJ1ce of bepinninr .
/ilso, berlnn..:ng at the ~~orth·est corner of vect.:on 1 .t., .1ovn;.;.hlp
3 South, "anre 5 , est, Salt Ln.<e !.leric'im, thence East 9.Q5 chntns;
thf>nce ->outh 8::J chalns; thence ·,,r-st 9 .0 5 chains; thence N0rth f!O
ch~ins to nl·ce of oerinning . Containing in all 306 .2/3 ·crf>s of
land, "lore or less. Subject ho,·,evn, to all existing ntg.·w~y• or
rir,ht-of-v,R/S nm•· of ecorct, running HCross the • bove described
tr0 cts of l,mu .
(Ca"lcelled l'.S . r:ocument,i,ry dt·"Tps ·fftxrd in amount of . 55
,;ltn<'ss, tbe hand of said g~-intor, this 11th day of :.larch, n,C. 191,l
Signed in the nresence of
___ .. b._,,hl !;f __ Ls/ ____________ _
___ t£!fl1B-~~-Ell1!~---L~L ____ _
State nf ~1ssou ri
Crrnr.ty of J.1.ckson
On the 11th dsv of Ir.rel , A. J.J . 10/l nerson,i,lly an,:,e red before -nc Y.. "· ~'hi te and
F!;t-clla ·{. V,'hi.te, husb4nd & v-r!.fe the signers of thr.r-"'ithln 1nstruP'!l.tn, who duly -.cknor.ledgP.d
tone that they executed the s~~e.
c·rnT,_n .. SFA'..)
~t co"t"ttsslon ex·ires July 7, l9L/
f2 1 4883
Recnrdcd at the reouest of Ray iln'!lmond , ';,r. 12,A.D., l')/4.2 , ~t 11:/6 ,.,:.r .
C0UNTY UCORDH
CORPORATION DEED
TOOELE COUNTY JTATE BA.'lK DBPOSITORS 1 LI(,!UID,-TIIIG ASSOCIA' ION , " cornoration of Utah,
1nd someti,:ies Knov,n as TOOLLE COUNTY »TA'.IE ll~IK LIQUIDATiilG CORPOR,-TION , Granto~ of Tooele
County, State of Utah, hereby conveys to GRANTSVILLE bOIL CONSERVA1ION IJISTRICT , Grantee
of Grantsville, Uta h, for the sum of Two and sixty five (a265 ,Cl0) dollars, the following
described land in Tooele .,;onnty, .itate of Utah:
Commencing at NW corner of NE4 of Section 10,
To,.nship 3 "outh, Rnngc 5 Wc~t,E. 24 ,45 chnins , b . 80
chains, "· 2L.45 chains ., N.80 chains to beginning ,
containing 195 .60 cicres . Lorantsville Out .
Comme.".lcing 'lt center of ::iection 15, Tov.nship J i>OUth,
Range 5 Sest, L 24 , /,5 ch,i,i"ls, 11. 40 ch,iins, I,. ,1,1, .1,5
chains, s , 40 chai•1s to beylnnlng, containing 97 .80
C\Crcs. uri".lts ville Out.
(Cancelled U, S , Docu-nent~ry stamps affixed in amount of .55¢)
,:ITNF.0ul•TH thf' h,md of SA.id Lormtor this 15 dW of l.hrch, 1141.
rJOhl.E COUN'IY -.,TATE llAl,K DJ:;f>O;.,ITQh-.,1
LI~UID~TI~G Au~CIATION , A Corporation ,
The Tooele vounty State on."lk
Liquidating corpor~tion ,
(CORPORATE SEAL)
riy Peter G. Shields
BY Bessie B . Dentley
Secretary.
STATE OF UTAH
COUNTY OF TOOELE
ss .
On thts 15 day of March A.D. 1941 personally appeared before me Peter G. Shields and
B essi~ B . Bentley~ the Presldant and Secretary, respectively, of the Tooele County State
Bank Denosi tors ' Liquidating Association, who being duly sworn by me each for himself d i d
say that he stgned wd executed the above <ind within instrument by authority of a reso l ution
of the noa.rd of Direc_2trs of said Corporation, and they eac h duly acknowledged to me tha.t
sa id Corpor'l tion executed the same .
G.L . Huff
Notary Public
(NOTARY SEAL)
Co'!lmission l!.xu.
Anr . ,\-19,\3 • Residing at Iooele , Utah
#2U889
Recorded a.t the request of Ray Hammond , ~ar . 16-1942 , at 9 :30 A ,M.
COUNTY RECORDER
WARRANTY DEED
O.T. BARRUS md CECIL BARRUS , husband and wife , grantors , of Tooele ~ity, County of Tooele ,
State of Utah , hereby CO'.'IVEY AND IV.ARRANT to JOHN E . PAPANIKOLAo , NICK E. PAPANIKOLAS and
GUSE. PAPANIKOLAS , as joint tenants and not as tenants in co~mon , with full right of
survivorship , grantee , of !Aagna , County of Salt Lake , State of Utah , for the sum of TEN
(flO .OO}L----------DOLLARS , the following described tract of land in Tooele City, Tooele
and other good and valuable considerations ,
County, State of Utah :
Beginning at the 1•ortheast corner of Lot five , in Block
three , Plat "A" o" the Tooele Ciey Survey, and runni ng thence
Vlest 20 .24 rods to an 1lley ; thence "outh three rods ; thence
East 20 . 24 rods to Main Street of said Tooele City; thence North
three rods to the place of beginning .
WITNESS, the hands of said grantors , this 18th day of March , A.O. 1942 .
Sifned in the presence of
_ Frank_W . _Frai le-y_ ___ LsL ____ _ ____ O.T~_bsrrus_LsL _____________ _
_ ___ Cecil _Barrus_L§L ____________ _
(Cancelled U.S . !Jocm1entary stamns affixed in amount of :;4 .40)
STATE OF UTAH ,
CQUNTY OF TOOELE
ss .
On the l'lth day of :.!arch, A.D. 1942 , personally app.iared before me O.T . Bar rus ,and
Cecil Barrus , husband and wife , the signers of the within instrument , who duly ackno1·1ledged
to me th<+t they executed the sa·,e .
CrnTARY SEAL) __ fraak _~~-Ir~1l~i----L~L _______ _
ly commission expires Sentember 30 , 1943 Notary Public .
#214895
Residence : 1ooele ~ity, Utah .
Recorded at the request of Nick E . Pananikolas , Mar . 18 , A.D. 1942, at 1 :02 P .i.l .
EP'.! COU'lTY RECORDER
WARRANTY DEED
AG'IFS LINDHOL:.I -------g r a_ntor of Tooele City, County of Tooele , State of Ut ah, hereby
C'll/VEYS a.nd WARRtu'lTS to DALE BRO'//N AND EDITH BROWN , his wife as joint t enants with full r igh t s
of survi vorship and not as tenants in common . grantee of Tooele City, Tooele County, Ut ah for
the sum of THREE HUNDRED and No/100 -------DOLLARS , the following de s cribed tract of land in
Tooele City , Tooele County , State of Ut ah :
Commencing at a po i nt 9 rods and 4 feet north
of the Southeast Corner of Block 39 , Pl at "A"
Tooele Ci ty Survey and extending thence west
22 rods more o r less to an alleyv1ay, thence south
3 rods , thence ~ast 22 rods , mo r e o r less , to the
west line of 1st West Street in Tooele, Utah, thence
north 3 rods to the point of beginnine .
(Cancelled U.S . Documentary stamps affixed in amount of .55¢)
WITl/ESS , the ha..'1d of said grantor , thi s 1 1 th day of .!arch, A.D.1 942 .
Signed in the Presence of
/s/
II
1
11
• •
l l I
I I
• •
I
•
I
I
I
I
Gl.er-,a ?razi er :ti s w'fe, ·the la tter also kno-.m as GLElil:A E . F RA Z IER, t:-.e si;;ne r s o!." the withi:i
ct n strumen t who d u l y akknowl edged tc me t lnt . t h ey exe cuted the same .
(rfotar·ia l seal)·
1My ccrm:nission exjfros Jan 8, 1948
Myr tle .Ulsop /s/
Nota r v ?u bli c .
l.!y r esi dence is Tooel e·, u ·>:ah
~223824
!Recorded at the requ~st of Scc1;r ity Titl~ Co., Dec .. 18-1'.h'/, .at 3 :3] P .J.c.
J3R COUNTY IlECO,WER --------------~------------~----------------·---------------------------------------------------
'l.'A R?,ANTY DEE I.)
ROYAL s. SHIELbS . a nd If.ARY HELE[-! SHIELDS' his wife gran tors bf Tobe le' County bf Tooele ,
State of Utah, h ereby CONVEY and WARRAli-J' to D'Nayn e W. Wr i ght and -S hirley Ell eh Wri g"i.t , h i s ·wife ,
as ·joint· t~nants, with full rights o f survivorship, but not as tenants i n c orrs-non , gra n tee· of '
Tooele CHy, '.:ooele Couhty, Sta te of Utah for the sum o f TW O HUNDRE D AND SEVE NTY -FIVE ($275.00)
DOLLARS the 1'ollowing described t ract of lar,d in Tooele City ., Tooel e< County, Etate of Utah :
2eg::.nn:.ng a t a poi nt ·11hi ch is 18.':i f eet East anc 244 f eet Nor th from t:,e
Sou.thwe s·t corner of ·1ot one ; ·1n rloc k f o ;:,ty-ei.gtt, P J at· "A" of t he . Tooele
C:i t.y Surveay, ·and running tr,ence •Eas t 1 32 fee t; then c e Nort h 6 1 fee t;·
thence Wes t 132 feet; thence South 61 f eet to the place of beg i n ning.
(Cancelled ll . S . Documentary Stam p s affixed in the anwunt of 55 cen t s .)
WI T'{ESS ,_tne _h.n d s o f sai d granto rs thi s 21st day o f July, A. D. 1 91 ►7 ••
Sicned in th~ pre sence of
Hattie Holbrook hi
T~TE OF UTAH ,
Cmmty of Snl t Lake
)
) s s .
)
Roval s. Shields /s/
~ila ry :le e rn Shi.elds /s /
On the 31st day of J ·cJ.l y, A.D. 191+7 per s ona lly appea r ed before me Royal s . Stie l ds a nd Mary
Helen ·e,hiGlds, his · wi fe, the signers o ::" the v1 ith~n ~n s trumont, who dul y acknowle dr;ed t o me t:lat
they executed ~h e same ,
WiY c ommission exptres
2 238?9
( Notarial
Ma r y R. 3andloy /s/
r,ota r y Pub~i c.
Re sidi ng in Sa l t La k e Ci t y
Recorderl at th.-e request of D,zay,:e W. Wright, Dec, ?0-191+7, at 11 :JO A.,:!.
Seal)
,:,BR COUN'IY RECORDER
WP.RRt,WrY DEE D
Jc:,hn L . Allsop & liiyr tle Allsop , h i s wife grant~r s of To oele , County of Toce,le, State of Ut e h,
hereby CO:-JVEY and WARRANT to EARNEST BRUl,'.BEL0/1 AND DO'.\J:!A L. BRU!r.B ELOW, HIS 1/IF E, as ~o i nt tenan ~s
and not as tenants in eornmon, with full r i ghts of survtvorsh i p r,ra ntee of Tooele County Too e l e
Stfrte of L tah for t:he sum of Ten Dollars ar.<i other good and valuab le c o nsi dera tion DO L;:J.RS, c l::e
fo l lowing <:'escribed tract o f land in Tooele County, Sta te of Utah, to-wi t:
Lot 3 , Block 2 , Va lleyv i ew Subc ivision, a sul::cli.v isi 0n . of Bl ock 1.7 ; Pla t "A",
Tooole City St:rvey, and ,iar t of t h e Sou thwest quarter of Sec tion 2 2 , Township
3 SoutL, Range I+ \";est, Salt Lake ease and Mer-1:d1.an
(Can cel.led L S, Documentary St&mps afflxed in t h, amou,i~ of $2 .20)
WITNESS the hands of sai d grant ors , t hi s 22nd day ot December A . D. 1 9 L17
Signed i.n the presence of
Frank W. ?railey /s/
STATE CF UTAH, )
) ss .
Cou:it y of Tooel e )
J ohn L. Allsop
Myrtle Allsop
On t he 2?nd day of De c emb e r A.D ., 1947 personally appeared before me John L . Allsop a nd
li'.yrt le Allsop , hi s wife , the sJgners of the within ins t rume nt who duly acknow led gedto rce t r,at
t}1ey exec11ted the same.
(Notarial e,ea l ) Frank W .. F railey /s /
. IJl,!y comrri 5sion 2x pires October 1, 1951
No t a ry Public .
My r es i dence is Tooele , Uta h
#223832
ecorded a t the reoues t o f Security Title Co.,· Dec . 22-191+7 , at 2 :30 P.M.
JBP COut/TY RE CORDER
DEE D
TE IS DEED, made t his 10th day of J une , A. D., l <Jl+'/, between UTAH-I DAE O DEVELOPME N'i' COM PANY ,
a corpora tion organized a nd exi s tin1s under the l aws cf t he S t a te of Utah a nd hereinaft e r khown
as tr.e Partv of the First Fart ; and GRANTSVILLE S()TL CONSERYA'i'ICN DISTRTCT . hereinaf'tGr known
las the Party of the Seco,,d Part: '
,...-486
W I T N E S S E T H :
That the said Party of the First Part, for and in consideration of the surri of.FIVE HUNDRED
1FORTY-FIVE ($545 .00) DOLLARS, in hand paid by the Party of the Second Part; the receipt and sufl
ficiency whereof is hereby acknowledged, has bargained and sold, and by these presents does
bargain, sell and convey unto the said Party of the Second Part, and to its successors and assi , s
forever, all its right, title and interest in and to the following described real property situate
in Tooele County, State of Utah, to-wit:
Being parts of ·sections 11 and 12, in Township 3 South, Range 5 West, Salt
Lake Base and Meridian, U. s. Survey: Commencing nt tho Northeast Corner of
Section 11, Township and Range aforesaid, and running thence West 18,89 chains;
thence South 80 chains; thence East 28.22 chains; thence North Bo chains; thence
West 9.33 chains to place of beginning, containing 223.56 acre~, more or less.·
Subject to and together with existing rights-of-way as established for a road
or highway and intersecting a portion of said land;
(Cancelled U.S.Documentary Stamps affixed in the amount of $1.10)
together with all and singular the tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances thereunto belong-
ing or in anywise appertaining.
IN WITNESS ·wHEREOF, the Party of the First Part has caused this Deed to be executed by its
proper officers thereunto duly authorized and its corporate seal to be affixed the day and year
first above written.
Attest: (G<:D:rpcratel Seal)
W. P. Cook /s/ (W~ P. Cook)
Secretary.
STA TE OF UTAH
ss
COUNTY OF SALT LAKE
UTAH-IDAHO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
By A. M. Cheney /s/
Its Vice President
on this &0th day of June, 1947, before me, Helen Crossgrove, a Notary ~ublic, personally
appeared A. M. Cheney, known to me to be the Vice President_of the corporation that executed th
above instrument, and acknowledged to me that such corporation executed the same.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and
year in this certificate first above written.
(Notarial Seal)
My commission expires:
November 29, 1949.
Helen Crossgrove /s/
Notary Public
Residing at Salt Lake City, Utah
#223835 4 at Recorded at the request of Grantsville Soil Cons. Dist., by Raymond Hammond, Dec. 22-19 7~
3:30 P.M.
JBR COUNTY RECORDER
-----------------------------------------------
-THIS IND~NTlffiE Made this 14th day of October, A.D., 1947, by and between FRANKLIN D. RICH-
ARDS, of Washington, D.C., as Federal Housing Commissioner, successor in office to Abner H. Fer
guson, by CLYDE L. POWELL, Assistant Federal Housing Commissioner----Grantor, and c. E.
B~RTLETT and fHYLLIS:rnARTLETT, husband and wife of ·Tooele, Utah, as joint tenants with full
right of survivorship and not as tenants in common, their heirs and assigns, Grantees.
WITNESSETH: That the said Grantor, for and in consideration of the sum of FOUR THOUSAND
FIVE HUN~1RED and N0/100---DOLLARS ($4500.00), to him in hand paid by the Grantees, the receip
whereof is he~eby ~cknowledge~, does hereby grant, bar~ain, sel~, convey and confirm unto the I
Grantees, ,their heirs and assigns, forever, the following described real property situate in th
City of Tooele, County of Tooele, State of Utah, to-wit:
Lot Five (5) in TOOELE HIGHLANDS ADDITION NO. 1 in the City of Tooele,
County of Tooele, State of Utah, according to the Plat thereof recorded
in the Office of the County Recorder of said County.
(Cancelled U. S. Documentary Stamps affixed in the amou,..nt of $4.95)
And, the said Grantor, for himself and his successors, hereby covenants to and with the
said Grantees, their heirs and assigns, that "previous to the time of the execution of this con-
veyance, the said Grantor has not conveyed the same estate, or any right, title or interest elbr
therein, to any person other than the Grantees, and that at the time of the execution of this
conveyance the said premises are free from encurnbtances done, made or suffered by the Grantor,
or any person claiming under him.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said CLYDE L. POWELL has set his hand and seal, as Assistant Federl
Housing Commissioner, for and on behalf of Franklin D. Richards as Federal Housing Commissioner!
under authority and by virtue of Section 2b4(g) of the National Housing Act, as amended, and
Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1947, effective July 27, 1947, pursuant to the Reorganization Act
of 1945.
Signed in th~ presence of:
E.E.N./s/Sarah H. Sanders /s/
Nell G. Brown /s/
FRANKLIN D. RICHARDS (SEAL)
As Federal Housing Commissioner
By Clyde L. Powell /s/ (SEAL)
CLYDE L. PONELL
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ss Assistant Federal Housing Commission r ~ the 15th day of October, A,D., 1947, personally appeared before me Clyde 1, Powell who I
is perijonally well known to me and known to me to be the duly appointed·Assitant Federal Housinl_
Commissioner, and the person who executed the foregoing instrument, bearing date October 14, I
1947 by virtue of the authority v.est§d In him by Section 2ot,(g) of the National Housing Act, al
I
I
I
I
RECEIVED
No ...... ::;~.~.?.~ ... ~ ............. -D78 Ff8 2 3 Pl" 3: 5 7
'filit J\ll tn ~4ont 'fil4:ese Jr:e~ufo ~4aU @nnre. ~r:e:eting: n GOV/SEC.OF SIATE
WHEREAS, ..................... • .-. ............. GRANTSVILLE. SOIL. CONSERVATION .. DISTRICT
TOOELE
••••••• ........................................................................ ,..,,.,..,,.,.,.·•••• • ___ ................................................................................. -_ ............. .,o ••o"'••• .. ••·•••·>.e .. .,.0~·0 ........ .,, ..... ,.,••o.,.,,_~ ..... n ...... .., ... --.,•-~<1>·,<-•,.ll'••'•~DO"<>'Cl•oc,r t"l "'""'
of the County of .. ; ............................... 2.9..~!-:~u••··---········ ... ~........................ State of ~ ......... :!!!'~ ................ : ..... • heretofore purchased. fro m
the State of Utah, the lands hereinafter described, pursuant to the laws of said State in S'flcb case made and provided,
AND WHEREAS, th~ said ....... • __ ~ GRANTSV!f,LE. SOIL. CONSERVATION .. DISTRICT ............... : .................. , .. ······------·· ...
---------------------,.----···--·---·
••••••••••••••••••••••••••• .. ••••••••••••••••••••• ................................... "·••<•"••••••e•••••••• ..... •e••: .............................................................................................. -♦-------'-------······························
ha ... s. paid for said lands, pursuant to the conditions of said sale, and the laws of the Stat.a duly enact.ed in relation thereto, the
sum of ..... Six Hundred .. FortY_.and .. no/100 .. ($640 •. 00) ..................................................................................... -........... .Dollarsr
and all legal interest thereon accrued, as fully appears by the certificate of the proper officer, now on file in the office of the Secretary
of State of the State of Utah;
NOW THEREFORE, I ..................... ~.~~!~ ... ~.~!~~~.'?.~ ............................................ , Governor, in consideration of the premises,
and by virtue of the power and authority vested in me by the laws of the State of Utah, in such case made and provi de d, do issue
this PATENT, in the name and by the authority of the Stateof Utah, hereby granting and co nfirming unto the said
• GP.~NTSVILLE SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICT
....... _ .. , ................ , ..... ?_ ......... ,~ ........................................ _ ................ !!/.? ..... _ .................. ,. ... "" .............................................................................. > 4 .. _ --••<••-+••···· .. -----"'•*••⇒• q .« ........... "'--~·
.......... • .... . . • ..................... ,. •• 0.. • • rt ............ .0 .... .o .. and to .......... : ... i~s ........... ~assigns
forever, th~ollowing tract or pal'Cel of land~ situated i:p the County of ........................ !?.~.~~~ .............. 0.. .. : ... 7 .......... State aforesaid~
to-wit· ..... southe<1st . Quar~~r (~JS¼? .. of.,;he __ No;rtheas.t .. Quarter .. <NE1')of. s,e~ti,on, Nine __ (9). and .East. Ha~f __ (E½L . v . . . . of Northwest Quarter (NW~) and Southwes t Qu a:rte'.'I.' (SW¼) of the N.Prthwest Quarter (NW¼;) of Section Ten
' 1/. •••••·• • ♦•"• ....... • _ •-• ... ••-9 ...................... ••••••· ........... •. o/ , _ ~ .. 11.1'-2 J.,,.,. •. "•;T •'P ••'",.•• '• V . • '"'" _ 7 •• _ •-"· y • ••• _ . >,. .. , ,.,.,.,.,._ • ., .. ,.,.,..,. ...... ,.. ◊ •-•••¥•••••••••• ... •Yr .. •• . f'•••: .,.. ..... .,., ................... , .. !!'•. ◊~ .. 1 t /lQ ._tt-9 -... •? ........ .,,.,. ¥ • ,o••-•• • ••
(10), Township Three (3) So\lth, Range Five (5) West, Salt Lake Meridian . Subject t •C all existing
..... ,.,.,. __ ,.,. P .. • • __ •T ... ., .. ••••• _ • ,.,. ................................... '!>,-'""'.-,.-, j ·. _y,-.. •ti .. ,.,.,, __ ,..,,..,•99•,-••••-•••P ___ ._ ... .,,..,,,.,.,.,., >•••• .................................. ¥., ......................... ½ _ .. ,. _ f'P"", "'·••, _ • ., •. \•~~"'~ .... ,_.,,._ ..... ,. __ ., .... > .• ½. . , • P. .......... ,.,.,.,..,_ .. .,,. . -,••••
rights of record. 1
.... _ ...................................... "• ......................... ? ....... ' .. ., .... _ ...................... : .. '.· ..... '!' .••.•• ' ............ , . ~ ....................... ,. ............ ,. ... , .. + ...................... , ?? * ·•· ........... l"·l"JIO('!_ "· '"'"' '., ?, *·'" ?. "'. ' ........ ' "'' 1 '"·"'· ........ « .•..••. ., . .. . ' .•• .•• ·" •• _ .. ,.
••• • ......... •"'-•"1• ... ••·••· .. •···••-:• "'.:'~ ••••, •• , .. ,..,➔ •. ? •." ""'· •• t .* .. ·.·, : . :~ •"•f't • -~ •.•--"!'! .•. ·• , !" '!I • • • ••. •. -·:_-. . • • • • , •• ,_ .·, , (t•. llltl"-t., • • •······· ·•··· ·····C'l,1:•··t··--·'.·l#'"fi•t·•··h·•••• .. •1"1",•·•--·•··1•"•·•·•d·•· td.I·· _ Ris..ihh ·9f W'lly for cone!,, qdcl,loi,. t~n111fc, telophor.e i.nd tru,. -
°'(:R'ES$~'i"'i''ing 'to 'tne O 1,,8, •• e o. V. a •• ' a • coa • a..n ••. · 0 • ~-mis$ion linos consfr-.icfod by ,(l;ilh~ri rr, of ,t~~ .. 'il.i}iiP,1..Sitl!Ju • .c.:Q • .1.:4\1'.!lO.}'••···············
minerals, in t!?,.'i' ••• ~~!~.JE:1.14~., .. ~nsl,JQ •• i.t .... .o.r. .. l)S~$~._ •• _, ·_·• .. •· ..... y.~•.:_?.;:·-rv..:;;;;J,~:·__:u.:_:·_.-:~.:._;·;__x:_:;,·~c_:A.,:·J..:g:._-·.:50~·i~f:_.:·.:..jj::.:ij;:,.o·~'f:.:..i~·~;..:s.;tfl;,;_t.,...::3_9 .. •_'~)::_:::_6_s:·:· ... :2:.,..,·:-_:3:U~.,1, ·autnor'fi.iitf·oy"it, the right to p1·v npe ct fo;r ~ f!'line ~ -__ . -_· .. ·
.!'.9.T.?.X~ ••• 9.9.;~t.~JJ.LQ.tb.o.r. •• {o.i~r.(lls •• .t:i~~.:t4~ .. :~'r:1h• .. u~~··,.································· ·•· · •-· _ · --_ •• • •••. · _ _ _ •-__ · __ · _ _ _ _ ·~--~
• co:r:r •limi c,:: with the c on d i tior:,l.'i t.:.n d $QbJoct 1,.,0 ~he Hm-• • •• _ _ _ .. _ _ ____ -.•.•·-· .. __ -•· _ ......... , ..... ,.,.,,, ..... , ............ ,,, ..........•. , .. , .J.t.,,\fa pm;,,~.i',,!l',i,tlc •• 65 "",.Ch::l.fJ-~ll -•1,,,.~t~··lJoq~•}\!WO.t~t¢·"'···•• .. ················•·······•· ........... ~ •• : •••• :._. _____ : ... ~:.:~--:_· _______ ---, ..
19.GZ ,, emu tt111c nd mcn ts there t o ., ......,,.,....,". · ,,_, __ __,_ ···
3,:2.(11
~
¾?;:;~
iii;~
.-~,;•
i:
,i! ,.
~h
:J/·.
~ ' --=·=1~~~;,~ :
··················.··· ..................................................................................................................................................... o=t>;AS.·Md;E+iDRK.l< •••••••••••••••••••••
cont.2.i ning .... ?~.~ ... ~::'.'~.r.::~ .. ~.~:':~!.'..:~:::~ ... 1~.'?:(~~·~···~~.~.?.:.?rL., ........................................... ~ ....... acres according to the said c.,rtificate.
'l'O HAVE AND 'TO HOLD the above described and. grantedpremises unto the said--:-:=:-gM~');~~!JJ:~ ... ~.9.L ........................... .
----~-------~~~--~~~~~~~---------and to ................. its ....................... • ............................... .
&~assigns forever, subjeci; to any easement or right or way of the public, to use all such highways s.s may have been estab.
Llshe.:i according to faw, ov2r the same O!:' .'l.l~Y part the/-2◊f, and subject also to ail rights of way for ditches, tunnels, and telephone
:o.!',d tr!:.11..smi~sior, !foes that may hav.s i:)een constr>.::cted: by authority of the United States.
IN TBS\TilV.!ONY WHEREOF, :r have he:reunto set my hand and caused the great seal of the State of Utah t,o be hereunto af-
.,. d .,.,· .. S ~. "-k ,.,. thl------2Sth •• d . f --.-~ January ~-----. h ' f Lo d ;;i xe . vone at nlt ,uu a •ul ty, s ........................................ ay o ...................................................................... m t c year o our r ,
one thousand nine hundred and ............. ~.~~~!:.~Y..".'.~~~!1.~ ............... , and of the ind~pendence of the
Unitod Stat<, of AmeriM tho t~ humlied ~,r~ ond in th,--• 83
yM,;:iC~~~-
Lieutenant Governor ~ Secretary of Stato
• ' . • /2 1 • -~ ' : • /. . .,-4.i\ ..
{. ~
, .// t·· ;?., .·,-;;,,./ -_,vliv\·L • . . / • ~ \; • .. ':!,., .. 4--·/ ' ·: .. ? • ,, ,.
• .... _ .A<~f.: .. A:.LsZ.%.~.14-:::.~::·.~:-.·:-.
Recorded P:i:nt Book= .. :.?..::::?. Page-.. 6 .. --.
Certificate of Sale No~23786 ~ -............................. .
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
--EN
RAL'
By .f~_, __ ,.1
Director, Division.-..of-State Lands , .. :~ .--" r··.~ ... _· .: . ~-. \
,,,:' :/;:~.\
< .. '· /. .f 1 ;; "..-
3::J.1
,,
··,
··•J~
'\j)~
•.
;;;,
·::.,
';'i .,
---~'
.;,
i " ,,
· .. ?
Attachment 4
Title Report
,: ,I, M E it l
~~ ·~ .... ' ' ' "-s-
.,,...-
"""""L_/11?
Firs t American Ti tle
Commitment for Title Insurance
Utah -2021 v. 01.00 (07-01-2021)
Transaction Identification Data, for which the Company assumes no liability as set forth in
Commitment Condition 5.e.:
Issuing Agent: First American Title Insurance Company
Issuing Office: 215 South State Street, Suite 280, Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Issuing Office's ALTA® Registry ID: 1144618
Commitment Number: 023-6298523
Issuing Office File Number: 023-6298523
Property Address: APN [01-130-0-0018], Tooele, UT
Revision Number: 1
ESCROW /CLOSING INQUIRIES should be directed to your Escrow Officer: Carol Pauli at (801)578-
8888 located at 215 South State Street, Suite 280, Salt Lake City, UT 84111.
SCHEDULE A
1. Commitment Date: March 07, 2024 at 8:00 a.m.
2. Policy to be issued:
a. ALTA® Standard Owner's Policy
Proposed Insured: TBD
Proposed Amount of Insurance: $1,000.00
The estate or interest to be insured: See Item 3 below
Premium: $220.00
3. The estate or interest in the Land at the Commitment Date is:
Fee Simple
4. The Title is, at the Commitment Date, vested in :
Grantsville Soil Conservation, as to Parcel 1
and
Grantsville Soil Conservation District, as to Parcels 2, 3 and a portion of Parcel 4
5. The Land is described as follows:
See Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof
This page is only a palt of a 2021 AL TA Commitment for Title Insurance issued by First American Title Insurance Company. This
Commitment is not valid without the Notice; the Commitment to Issue Policy; the Commitment Conditions; Schedule A; Schedule B,
Pait I-Requirements; and Schedule B, Pait II-Exceptions; and a counter-signature by the Company or its issuing agent that may
be in electronic form.
Copyright 2021 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved.
The use of this Form (or any derivative thereof) is restricted to ALTA licensees and
ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited.
Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association.
Form 50122149 (5-16-22) Page 1 of 19
,: ,I, M E it l
~~ ·~ .... ' ' ' "-s-
.,,...-Firs t American Ti tle
"""""L_/11?
Commitment No.: 023-6298523
SCHEDULE B, PART I-Requirements
All of the following Requirements must be met:
Commitment for Title Insurance
Utah -2021 v. 01.00 (07-01-2021)
1. The Proposed Insured must notify the Company in writing of the name of any party not referred to in
this Commitment who will obtain an interest in the Land or who will make a loan on the Land. The
Company may then make additional Requirements or Exceptions.
2. Pay the agreed amount for the estate or interest to be insured.
3. Pay the premiums, fees, and charges for the Policy to the Company.
4. Documents satisfactory to the Company that convey the Title or create the Mortgage to be insured,
or both, must be properly authorized, executed, delivered, and recorded in the Public Records.
5. Provide releases, reconveyances, or other instruments, acceptable to the Company, including
payment of any amounts due, removing the encumbrances shown in Schedule B, Part II that are
objectionable to the Proposed Insured.
6. Provide us with copies of appropriate agreements, resolutions, certificates, or other evidence needed
to identify the parties authorized to execute the documents creating the interest to be insured.
7. Provide us with any information regarding personal property taxes which may have been assessed or
are due and payable which could become a lien on the real property.
8. The Restrictions on Foreign Acquisitions of Land Act, codified in Utah Code as §63L-13-101, §63L-13-
201, and §63L-13-202, effective May 3, 2023, prohibits acquisition of an interest in real property by
certain foreign parties. Any loss or damage incurred resulting from a violation of this law is excluded
from coverage under the terms of a title insurance policy.
If a prohibited foreign entity is a party to this transaction, the Company must be notified in writing.
The Company does not intend to knowingly close or insure a transaction that violates the referenced
state law.
This page is only a palt of a 2021 AL TA Commitment for Title Insurance issued by First American Title Insurance Company. This
Commitment is not valid without the Notice; the Commitment to Issue Policy; the Commitment Conditions; Schedule A; Schedule B,
Pait I-Requirements; and Schedule B, Pait II-Exceptions; and a counter-signature by the Company or its issuing agent that may
be in electronic form.
Copyright 2021 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved.
The use of this Form (or any derivative thereof) is restricted to ALTA licensees and
ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited.
Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association.
Form 50122149 (5-16-22) Page 2 of 19
,: ,I, M E it l
~~ ·~ .... ' ' ' "-s-
.,,...-Firs t American Ti tle
"""""L_/11?
Commitment No.: 023-6298523
SCHEDULE B, PART II-Exceptions
Commitment for Title Insurance
Utah -2021 v. 01.00 (07-01-2021)
Some historical land records contain Discriminatory Covenants that are illegal and
unenforceable by law. This Commitment and the Policy treat any Discriminatory Covenant in a
document referenced in Schedule B as if each Discriminatory Covenant is redacted,
repudiated, removed, and not republished or recirculated. Only the remaining provisions of the
document will be excepted from coverage.
The Policy will not insure against loss or damage resulting from the terms and conditions of any lease or
easement identified in Schedule A, and will include the following Exceptions unless cleared to the
satisfaction of the Company:
1. (a) Taxes or assessments that are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority
that levies taxes or assessments on real property, or by the Public Records; (b) proceedings by a
public agency that may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or
not shown by the records of such agency or by the Public Records.
2. Any facts, rights, interest, or claims which are not shown by the Public Records but that could be
ascertained by an inspection of the Land or by making inquiry of persons in possession thereof.
3. Easements, claims of easement or encumbrances that are not shown by the Public Records.
4. Any encumbrance, violation, variation, adverse circumstance, boundary line overlap, or encroachment
(including an encroachment of an improvement across the boundary lines of the Land), that would be
disclosed by an accurate and complete land title survey of the Land and that are not shown in Public
Records.
5. (a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the
issuance thereof; ( c) water rights, claims or title to water, whether or not the matters excepted under
(a), (b), or (c) are shown by the Public Records.
6. Any lien or right to a lien for services, labor or material, unless such lien is shown by the Public
Records at Date of Policy.
7. Any defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim, or other matter that appears for the first time in the
Public Records or is created, attaches, or is disclosed between the Commitment Date and the date on
which all of the Schedule B, Part I-Requirements are met.
Subject to underwriting review and approval, some or all of Exceptions 1-7 may be omitted on
extended coverage and Eagle policies
This page is only a palt of a 2021 AL TA Commitment for Title Insurance issued by First American Title Insurance Company. This
Commitment is not valid without the Notice; the Commitment to Issue Policy; the Commitment Conditions; Schedule A; Schedule B,
Pait I-Requirements; and Schedule B, Pait II-Exceptions; and a counter-signature by the Company or its issuing agent that may
be in electronic form.
Copyright 2021 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved.
The use of this Form (or any derivative thereof) is restricted to ALTA licensees and
ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited.
Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association.
Form 50122149 (5-16-22) Page 3 of 19
,: ,I, M E it l
~~ ·~ .... ' ' ' "-s-
.,,...-Firs t American Ti tle
"""""L_/11? Commitment for Title Insurance
Utah -2021 v. 01.00 (07-01-2021)
(The following exception affects Parcel 1)
8. Taxes for the year 2024 now a lien, not yet due. Tax Parcel No. 01-130-0-0018
General property taxes were not assessed against the land for the year(s) 2023 because of
ownership by a tax exempt entity. Tax Parcel No . 01-130-0-0018
(The following exception affects Parcel 2)
9. Taxes for the year 2024 now a lien, not yet due. Tax Parcel No. 01-131-0-0001
General property taxes were not assessed against the land for the year(s) 2023 because of
ownership by a tax exempt entity. Tax Parcel No . 01-131-0-0001
(The following exception affects Parcel 3)
10. Taxes for the year 2024 now a lien, not yet due. Tax Parcel No . 01-131-0-0003
General property taxes were not assessed against the land for the year(s) 2023 because of
ownership by a tax exempt entity. Tax Parcel No. 01-131-0-0003
(The following exception affects Parcel 4)
11. Taxes for the year 2024 now a lien, not yet due. Tax Parcel No. 14-042-0-0005
General property taxes were not assessed against the land for the year(s) 2023 because of
ownership by a tax exempt entity. Tax Parcel No . 14-042-0-0005
(The following exception affects Parcel 1, together with other land not included herein)
12. The effect of the 1969 Farmland Assessment Act, wherein there is a five (5) year roll-back provision
with regard to assessment and taxation, by reason of that certain Application for Assessment and
Taxation of Agricultural Land, recorded February 05, 2021 as Entry No. 534393 of Official Records.
13. The land is included within the boundaries of Deseret Peak Special Service District, North Tooele
County Fire Protection Service District, Tooele County Mosquito Abatement District, Tooele County
Department of Solid Waste, and is subject to charges and assessments made thereby.
(The following affects a portion of Parcel 2 together with other land)
14. An Oil and Gas Lease by and between A. Fred Anderson etux as Lessor and Jess Coogan as Lessee,
recorded October 19, 1915 in Book Cat Page 49 of Official Records.
This page is only a patt of a 2021 AL TA Commitment for Title Insurance issued by First American Title Insurance Company. This
Commitment is not valid without the Notice; the Commitment to Issue Policy; the Commitment Conditions; Schedule A; Schedule B,
Patt I-Requirements; and Schedule B, Patt II-Exceptions; and a counter-signature by the Company or its issuing agent that may
be in electronic form.
Copyright 2021 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved.
The use of this Form (or any derivative thereof) is restricted to ALTA licensees and
ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited.
Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association.
Form 50122149 (5-16-22) Page 4 of 19
,: ,I, M E it l
~~ ·~ .... ' ' ' "-s-
.,,...-Firs t American Ti tle
"""""L_/11?
(The following affects Parcel 2 together with other land)
Commitment for Title Insurance
Utah -2021 v. 01.00 (07-01-2021)
15. An Oil and Gas Lease by and between Grantsville Soil Conservation District as Lessor and Bonneville
Oil and Gas Development Co. as Lessee, recorded March 15, 1955 as Entry No. 239493 in Book 1 at
Page 415 of Official Records.
An Assignment in favor of Charles S. Woodward recorded March 15, 1955 as Entry No. 239506 in
Book 1 at Page 428 of Official Records.
(The following affects a portion of Parcel 3)
16. An easement over, across or through the Land for electric transmission, distribution and telephone
circuits and incidental purposes, as granted to Utah Power & Light Company, a Corporation by
Instrument recorded September 19, 1955 as Entry No. 242330 in Book G at Page 195 of Official
Records.
(The following affects a portion of Parcel 2 and southerly portion of Parcel 4)
17. An easement over, across or through the Land for electric transmission, distribution and telephone
circuits and incidental purposes, as granted to Utah Power & Light Company, a Corporation by
Instrument recorded September 19, 1955 as Entry No. 242331 in Book G at Page 196 of Official
Records.
18. An easement over, across or through the Land for lines of Telephone and Telegraph and incidental
purposes, as granted to The Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Company by Instrument
recorded June 29, 1961 as Entry No. 258460 in Book 26 at Page 69 of Official Records.
NOTE: The above easement purports to affect the subject property, but the exact location cannot be
determined because of a blanket or incomplete legal description.
(The following affects a portion of Parcel 3)
19. Reservations contained in that certain Patent recorded October 12, 1977 as Entry No. 320669 in Book
152 at Page 639 of Official Records.
(The following affects a portion of Parcel 3)
20. Reservations contained in that certain Patent recorded March 08, 1978 as Entry No. 323135 in Book
157 at Page 326 of Official Records.
(The following affects a portion of Parcel 3)
This page is only a patt of a 2021 AL TA Commitment for Title Insurance issued by First American Title Insurance Company. This
Commitment is not valid without the Notice; the Commitment to Issue Policy; the Commitment Conditions; Schedule A; Schedule B,
Patt I-Requirements; and Schedule B, Patt II-Exceptions; and a counter-signature by the Company or its issuing agent that may
be in electronic form.
Copyright 2021 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved.
The use of this Form (or any derivative thereof) is restricted to ALTA licensees and
ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited.
Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association.
Form 50122149 (5-16-22) Page 5 of 19
,: ,I, M E it l
~~ ·~ .... ' ' ' "-s-
.,,...-
"""""L_/11?
Firs t American Ti tle
Commitment for Title Insurance
Utah -2021 v. 01.00 (07-01-2021)
21. Reservations contained in that certain Patent recorded March 08, 1978 as Entry No. 323140 in Book
157 at Page 336 of Official Records.
(The following affects a portion of Parcel 3)
22. Reservations contained in that certain Patent recorded March 08, 1978 as Entry No. 323141 in Book
157 at Page 338 of Official Records.
(The following affects Parcel 2 together with other land)
23. An Oil and Gas Lease by and between Grantsville Soil Conservation District as Lessor and J.S.
Abercrombie Mineral Co., Inc. as Lessee, recorded June 05, 1979 as Entry No. 331181 in Book 172 at
Page 278 of Official Records.
A portion of the overriding royalty interest of J.S. Abercrombie Mineral Company, Inc. in and to said
Lease was assigned to R. K. Moore, Rodger L. Felt, Benjamin G. Carter, Josephine E. Abercrombie
and David C. Stephenson by Assignment of Overriding Royalty recorded February 05, 1980 as Entry
No. 336097 in Book 179 at Page 838 of Official Records
The overriding royalty interest of Kent H. Huff, a single man in and to said Lease was assigned to
Bert H. Berrong by Assignment of Overriding Royalty Interest recorded April 10, 1980 as Entry No.
337159 in Book 181 at Page 341 of Official Records.
(Note: Grantor not vested in the subject property of record)
The interest of Benjamin G. Carter in and to said Lease was assigned to J.S. Abercrombie Mineral
Company, Inc. by Assignment of Lease recorded May 16, 1980 as Entry No. 337710 in Book 182 at
Page 136 of Official Records.
The interest of Josephine E. Abercrombie in and to said Lease was assigned to J.S. Abercrombie
Mineral Company, Inc. by Assignment of Lease recorded June 13, 1980 as Entry No. 338403 in Book
183 at Page 42 of Official Records.
The interest of J.S. Abercrombie Mineral Company, Inc. in and to said Lease was assigned to John R.
Lewis and Richard H. Schulze by Assignment of Lease recorded June 24, 1980 as Entry No. 338536 in
Book 183 at Page 232 of Official Records.
The interest of John E. Hoffman and Linda K. Hoffman, husband and wife in and to said Lease was
assigned to Buckeye Energy Corporation by Assignment of Lease recorded August 15, 1980 as Entry
No. 339535 in Book 184 at Page 717 of Official Records.
(Note: Grantor not vested in the subject property of record)
This page is only a patt of a 2021 AL TA Commitment for Title Insurance issued by First American Title Insurance Company. This
Commitment is not valid without the Notice; the Commitment to Issue Policy; the Commitment Conditions; Schedule A; Schedule B,
Patt I-Requirements; and Schedule B, Patt II-Exceptions; and a counter-signature by the Company or its issuing agent that may
be in electronic form.
Copyright 2021 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved.
The use of this Form (or any derivative thereof) is restricted to ALTA licensees and
ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited.
Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association.
Form 50122149 (5-16-22) Page 6 of 19
"t ,I, M E it 1 ~" ·~ .... ' ' ' '-"'-s-
.,--
. .t..li# """"'
FirstAmerican Title
Commitment for Title Insurance
Utah -2021 v. 01.00 (07-01-2021)
The interest of Grantsville Soil Conservation District in and to said Lease was assigned to Merrill J.
Fidler and Marjorie T. Fidler by Assignment of Lease recorded February 27, 1981 as Entry No. 343658
in Book 190 at Page 341 of Official Records.
The interest of John E. Hoffman in and to said Lease was assigned to Amcole Energy Corporation by
Assignment of Lease recorded July 16, 1982 as Entry No. 352339 in Book 204 at Page 43 of Official
Records.
(Note: Grantor not vested in the subject property of record)
(The following exception affects all of the Land, together with other land not included herein)
24. An Oil and Gas Lease by and between Grantsville Soil Conservation District as Lessor and Anchor
Resources, Inc. as Lessee, recorded February 21, 1990 as Entry No. 32524 in Book 299 at Page 676
of Official Records.
A Subordination Agreement, wherein the lien of the Oil and Gas Lease shown herein-above was
subordinated to the Temporary Easements recorded January 27, 1994 as Entry No. 62196 in Book
367 at Page 584 of Official Records. Said Subordination Agreement recorded April 07, 1994 as Entry
No. 64047 in Book 372 at Page 337 of Official Records
25. An easement over, across or through the Land for a road, groundwater response, and utility and
pipeline for environmental response and incidental purposes, as granted to the United States of
America by Instrument recorded January 27, 1994 as Entry No. 62196 in Book 367 at Page 584 of
Official Records.
Any violation or enforcement of a law, ordinance, permit, or governmental regulation relating to
environmental protection as disclosed by the hereinabove easement.
An Acknowledgement of Easement recorded April 07, 1994 as Entry No. 64046 in Book 372 at Page
332 of Official Records.
NOTE: The above easement purports to affect the subject property, but the exact location cannot be
determined because of a blanket or incomplete legal description.
(The following exception affects Easterly portion of Parcel 4)
26. An unrecorded Lease executed by Grantsville Soil Conservation District, as Lessor, and Tooele
County, a body politic and corporate of the state of utah, as Lessee, as disclosed by Lease Agreement
between Grantsville soil conservation District And Tooele County of 400 Acres for Desert Peak
Complex Expansion recorded December 15, 2000 as Entry No. 156589 in Book 0652 at Page 0014 of
Official Records.
This page is only a patt of a 2021 AL TA Commitment for Title Insurance issued by First American Title Insurance Company. This
Commitment is not valid without the Notice; the Commitment to Issue Policy; the Commitment Conditions; Schedule A; Schedule B,
Patt I-Requirements; and Schedule B, Patt II-Exceptions; and a counter-signature by the Company or its issuing agent that may
be in electronic form.
Copyright 2021 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved.
The use of this Form (or any derivative thereof) is restricted to ALTA licensees and
ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited.
Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association.
Form 50122149 (5-16-22) Page 7 of 19
,: ,I, M E it l
~~ ·~ .... ' ' ' "-s-
.,,...-
"""""L_/11?
Firs t American Ti tle
Commitment for Title Insurance
Utah -2021 v. 01.00 (07-01-2021)
NOTE: The present ownership of the leasehold rights as disclosed by the herein-above mentioned
lease and any other matters affecting said lease are not shown herein.
(The following exception affects Parcel 4)
27. Easements, notes and restrictions as shown on Deseret Peak Subdivision Phase 2 subdivision plat
recorded July 16, 2002 as Entry No. 184433 in Book 766 of Plats at Page 10.
28. Resolution Establishing the Deseret Peak Special Service Districtrecorded October 16, 2006 as Entry
No. 269777 of Official Records.
29. A Resolution No. 2008-03 of the Redevelopment Agency of Tooele County Expanding the Deseret
Peak Commercial Project Area recorded October 30, 2008 as Entry No. 315962 of Official Records.
30. An Ordinance No. 2008-20 adopting the Deseret Peak Commercial Community Development Project
Area Plan, as approved by the Redevelopment Agency of Tooele County Board recorded November
10, 2008 as Entry No. 316331 of Official Records.
(The following exception affects Parcel 4)
31. Conditional Use Permit recorded August 24, 2009 as Entry No. 331251 of Official Records.
32. A Resolution Proposing the Reorganization of the North Tooele County Fire Protection Service District
from a Special Service District to a Local District, calling a public hearing and providing Notice thereof
and related matters recorded August 05, 2014 as Entry No. 401706 of Official Records.
A Resolution Reorganizing the North Tooele County Fire Protection Service District from a Special
Service District to a Local District known as the North Tooele Fire Protection Service District
recorded recorded August 05, 2014 as Entry No .4 01707 of Official Records.
A Resolution Reorganizing the North Tooele County Fire Protection Service District from a Special
Service District to a Local District recorded recorded August 05, 2014 as Entry No .4 01708 of Official
Records.
33. An easement over, across or through the Land for water facilities and incidental purposes, as granted
to Grantsville City, Utah, a Municipal corporation of the state of Utah by Instrument recorded
November 26, 2019 as Entry No. 498616 of Official Records.
NOTE: The above easement purports to affect the subject property, but the exact location cannot be
determined because of a blanket or incomplete legal description.
34. Terms and Recitals contained in that certain Settlement Agreement recorded November 26, 2019 as
Entry No. 498621 of Official Records.
This page is only a patt of a 2021 AL TA Commitment for Title Insurance issued by First American Title Insurance Company. This
Commitment is not valid without the Notice; the Commitment to Issue Policy; the Commitment Conditions; Schedule A; Schedule B,
Patt I-Requirements; and Schedule B, Patt II-Exceptions; and a counter-signature by the Company or its issuing agent that may
be in electronic form.
Copyright 2021 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved.
The use of this Form (or any derivative thereof) is restricted to ALTA licensees and
ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited.
Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association.
Form 50122149 (5-16-22) Page 8 of 19
,: ,I, M E it l
~~ ·~ .... ' ' ' "-s-
.,,...-Firs t American Ti tle
"""""L_/11? Commitment for Title Insurance
Utah -2021 v. 01.00 (07-01-2021)
(The following affects the Northeasterly boundary of Parcel 2)
35. A right of way for road and incidental purposes over and across the Land, being within the
boundaries of a highway.
(The following affects Parcels 1, 2 and 4)
36. Vehicular access is limited to openings permitted by the Utah State Department of Transportation in
accordance with Section 41-Ga-714, Utah Code Annotated, as amended 2015.
37. Mechanics' and/or Materialmen's Lien claims if either work is started, any material delivered or
service rendered, prior to the recordation of the Security Instrument to be insured.
LOSS OF PRIORITY under this provision may jeopardize the Company's ability to insure under an
ALTA Lenders Policy.
The State Construction Registry discloses the following Preliminary Notice(s): (None Within the last
12 months)
(The following exception affects a portion of Parcel 4)
38. A portion of the property is not found described on any of the vesting deeds.
39. Our search of the Public Records finds no outstanding Mortgages affecting the Land.
(The following exception affects Parcel 1)
40. Any claim that the Title is subject to a trust or lien created under The Perishable Agricultural
Commodities Act, 1930 (7 U.S.C. §§499a, et seq.) or the Packers and Stockyards Act (7 U.S.C. §§181
et seq.) or under similar state laws.
Consideration for the deletion of this exception is highly fact intensive. Please contact the underwriter
assigned to your file as soon as possible to discuss.
41. Any claim to (a) ownership of or rights to minerals and similar substances, including but not limited
to ores, metals, coal, lignite, oil, gas, uranium, clay, rock, sand, and gravel located in, on, or under
the Land or produced from the Land, whether such ownership or rights arise by lease, grant,
exception, conveyance, reservation, or otherwise; and (b) any rights, privileges, immunities, rights of
way, and easements associated therewith or appurtenant thereto, whether or not the interests or
rights excepted in (a) or (b) appear in the Public Records or are shown in Schedule B.
42. Water rights, claims or title to water, whether or not shown by the Public Records.
This page is only a pa,t of a 2021 AL TA Commitment for Title Insurance issued by First American Title Insurance Company. This
Commitment is not valid without the Notice; the Commitment to Issue Policy; the Commitment Conditions; Schedule A; Schedule B,
Part I-Requirements; and Schedule B, Patt II-Exceptions; and a counter-signature by the Company or its issuing agent that may
be in electronic form.
Copyright 2021 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved.
The use of this Form (or any derivative thereof) is restricted to ALTA licensees and
ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited.
Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association.
Form 50122149 (5-16-22) Page 9 of 19
,: ,I, M E it l
~~ ·~ .... ' ' ' "-s-
.,,...-
"""""L_/11?
Firs t American Ti tle
Commitment for Title Insurance
Utah -2021 v. 01.00 (07-01-2021)
The name Grantsville Soil Conservation District, Grantsville Soil Conservation and State Of Utah
School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration, a governmental agency exempt from execution
pursuant to Utah Code Annotated 63-30d-101 et.seq., has NOT been checked for judgments, State
and Federal tax liens, or bankruptcies.
The map attached, if any, may or may not be a survey of the land depicted hereon. First American Title
expressly disclaims any liability for loss or damage which may result from reliance on this map except to
the extent coverage for such loss or damage is expressly provided by the terms and provisions of the title
insurance policy, if any, to which this map is attached.
Title inquiries should be directed to Paula Vealey@ [phone].
***
This page is only a palt of a 2021 AL TA Commitment for Title Insurance issued by First American Title Insurance Company. This
Commitment is not valid without the Notice; the Commitment to Issue Policy; the Commitment Conditions; Schedule A; Schedule B,
Pait I-Requirements; and Schedule B, Pait II-Exceptions; and a counter-signature by the Company or its issuing agent that may
be in electronic form.
Copyright 2021 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved.
The use of this Form (or any derivative thereof) is restricted to ALTA licensees and
ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited.
Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association.
Form 50122149 (5-16-22) Page 10 of 19
,: ,I, M E it l
~~ ·~ .... ' ' ' "-s-
.,,...-
"""""L_/11?
Firs t American Ti tle
EXHIBIT A
Commitment for Title Insurance
Utah -2021 v. 01.00 (07-01-2021)
The Land referred to herein below is situated in the County of Tooele, State of Utah, and is described as
follows:
PARCEL 1:
A PARCEL OF LAND, SITUATE IN THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 3 SOUTH,
RANGE 5 WEST, SALT LAKE BASE AND MERIDIAN, SAID PARCEL ALSO LOCATED IN GRANTSVILLE CITY,
TOOELE COUNlY, UTAH, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE SECTION LINE, SAID POINT BEING SOUTH 89°36'07" WEST 1,555.01
FEET FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 3 SOUTH, RANGE 5 WEST, SALT
LAKE BASE AND MERIDIAN, AND RUNNING:
THENCE SOUTH 89°36'07" WEST 1,122.63 FEET TO QUARTER OF SECTION 3 AND ALONG AN EXISTING
BARBED WIRE FENCE;
THENCE NORTH 00°02'14" WEST 673.49 FEET ALONG THE QUARTER SECTION LINE TO A POINT ON
THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF HIGHWAY 112; THENCE SOUTH 59°20'32" EAST 1,305.51 FEET ALONG
THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF HIGHWAY 112, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
PARCEL 2:
THE EAST HALF OF SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 3 SOUTH, RANGE 5 WEST, SALT LAKE BASE AND
MERIDIAN.
LESS AND EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO JOHN RICHARD ANDERTON AND
COLEEN P. ANDERTON, HIS WIFE AS JOINT TENANTS BY THAT CERTAIN WARRANlY DEED RECORDED
AUGUST 10, 1962 AS ENTRY NO. 262677 IN BOOK 35 AT PAGE 34 OFFICIAL
RECORDS AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP
3 SOUTH, RANGE 5 WEST, SALT LAKE BASE AND MERIDIAN; THENCE RUNNING EAST 493.9 FEET,
THENCE SOUTH 1182.2 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF A STATE
HIGHWAY; THENCE NORTH 59°50' WEST 2314.5 FEET ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE TO A POINT
1495.8 FEET WEST OF THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE EAST 1495.8 FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING.
PARCEL 3:
THE WEST HALF OF SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 3 SOUTH, RANGE 5 WEST, SALT LAKE BASE AND
MERIDIAN.
PARCEL 4:
This page is only a patt of a 2021 AL TA Commitment for Title Insurance issued by First American Title Insurance Company. This
Commitment is not valid without the Notice; the Commitment to Issue Policy; the Commitment Conditions; Schedule A; Schedule B,
Patt I-Requirements; and Schedule B, Patt II-Exceptions; and a counter-signature by the Company or its issuing agent that may
be in electronic form.
Copyright 2021 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved.
The use of this Form (or any derivative thereof) is restricted to ALTA licensees and
ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited.
Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association.
Form 50122149 (5-16-22) Page 11 of 19
,: ,I, M E it l
~~ ·~ .... ' ' ' "-s-
.,,...-
"""""L_/11?
Firs t American Ti tle
Commitment for Title Insurance
Utah -2021 v. 01.00 (07-01-2021)
LOT 5, DESERET PEAK SUBDIVISION PHASE 2, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF ON FILE
AND OF RECORD IN THE TOOELE COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE.
This page is only a patt of a 2021 AL TA Commitment for Title Insurance issued by First American Title Insurance Company. This
Commitment is not valid without the Notice; the Commitment to Issue Policy; the Commitment Conditions; Schedule A; Schedule B,
Patt I-Requirements; and Schedule B, Patt II-Exceptions; and a counter-signature by the Company or its issuing agent that may
be in electronic form.
Copyright 2021 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved.
The use of this Form (or any derivative thereof) is restricted to ALTA licensees and
ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited.
Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association.
Form 50122149 (5-16-22) Page 12 of 19
,: ,I, M E it l
~~ ·~ .... ' ' ' "-s-
.,,...-Firs t American Ti tle
"""""L_/11? Commitment for Title Insurance
Utah -2021 v. 01.00 (07-01-2021)
wTOOELE
( GRANTSVILLE CITY
SECTION 10, T3S, RSW, SLB&M
DRAWN BY:
---+----+-----+--
' I
' ...
I
Ol-131~0-000320.ooAc
GRA TSVILLE SO,L CONSERVATION
----+----+--\---
01-131-~-000bo4.00AC
GRANTSVILLE S □14 CONSERVATION
1 Lot
SEC .\,/N i RNG
I
---~c_ ___::'-_'f ~N~ot--\---1 0--.f---I --,-----+---
1
I
I I
' ' T T
'
I
---+----+-----+--------+----+ --+---
i i
I ' I .,.
'
DATE: 11/26/14 ""~n• SEC 10, TIS, RS W, SLB&M
Bk 1 Pg 131
SCALE : 1"=400'
:;;;;. :;;;.;;;~;;·
::~~:-~.rt~r~~
Bk 1 Pg 131
SCALE: 1"::400'
oany. This
'chedule B,
Part I-Requirements; and Schedule B, Part II-Exceptions; and a counter-signature by the Company or its issuing agent that may
be in electronic form.
Copyright 2021 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved.
The use of this Form (or any derivative thereof) is restricted to ALTA licensees and
ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited.
Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association.
Form 50122149 (5-16-22) Page 13 of 19
,: ,I, M E it l
~~ ·~ .... ' ' ' "-s-
.,,...-
"""""L_/11?
Firs t American Ti tle
Commitment for Title Insurance
Utah -2021 v. 01.00 (07-01-2021)
This page is only a patt of a 2021 AL TA Commitment for Title Insurance issued by First American Title Insurance Company. This
Commitment is not valid without the Notice; the Commitment to Issue Policy; the Commitment Conditions; Schedule A; Schedule B,
Patt I-Requirements; and Schedule B, Patt II-Exceptions; and a counter-signature by the Company or its issuing agent that may
be in electronic form.
Copyright 2021 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved.
The use of this Form (or any derivative thereof) is restricted to ALTA licensees and
ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited.
Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association.
Form 50122149 (5-16-22) Page 14 of 19
,: ,I, M E it l
~~ ·~ .... ' ' ' "-s-
.,,...-Firs t American Ti tle
"""""L_/11? Commitment for Title Insurance
Utah -2021 v. 01.00 (07-01-2021)
ALTA COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE
issued by
FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
NOTICE
IMPORTANT-READ CAREFULLY: THIS COMMITMENT IS AN OFFER TO ISSUE ONE OR MORE TITLE
INSURANCE POLICIES. ALL CLAIMS OR REMEDIES SOUGHT AGAINST THE COMPANY INVOLVING THE
CONTENT OF THIS COMMITMENT OR THE POLICY MUST BE BASED SOLELY IN CONTRACT.
THIS COMMITMENT IS NOT AN ABSTRACT OF TITLE, REPORT OF THE CONDITION OF TITLE, LEGAL
OPINION, OPINION OF TITLE, OR OTHER REPRESENTATION OF THE STATUS OF TITLE. THE
PROCEDURES USED BY THE COMPANY TO DETERMINE INSURABILITY OF THE TITLE, INCLUDING ANY
SEARCH AND EXAMINATION, ARE PROPRIETARY TO THE COMPANY, WERE PERFORMED SOLELY FOR
THE BENEFIT OF THE COMPANY, AND CREATE NO EXTRACONTRACTUAL LIABILITY TO ANY PERSON,
INCLUDING A PROPOSED INSURED.
THE COMPANY'S OBLIGATION UNDER THIS COMMITMENT IS TO ISSUE A POLICY TO A PROPOSED
INSURED IDENTIFIED IN SCHEDULE A IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS AND PROVISIONS OF THIS
COMMITMENT. THE COMPANY HAS NO LIABILITY OR OBLIGATION INVOLVING THE CONTENT OF THIS
COMMITMENT TO ANY OTHER PERSON.
COMMITMENT TO ISSUE POLICY
Subject to the Notice; Schedule B, Part I-Requirements; Schedule B, Part II-Exceptions; and the
Commitment Conditions, First American Title Insurance Company, a Nebraska Corporation (the
"Company''), commits to issue the Policy according to the terms and provisions of this Commitment. This
Commitment is effective as of the Commitment Date shown in Schedule A for each Policy described in
Schedule A, only when the Company has entered in Schedule A both the specified dollar amount as the
Proposed Amount of Insurance and the name of the Proposed Insured.
If all of the Schedule B, Part I-Requirements have not been met within six months after the
Commitment Date, this Commitment terminates and the Company's liability and obligation end.
FIRST A!M ERI CA N TITLE INSURAN CE COMPA NY
CJLx f· fe ;;;;?
By:---·-----=-~--------
Ke,meth Ii).. DeG iorgio ,, Pres iden t
By :
_y_ C-JJZ
Lisa W. Cornehl, S,e,cretary
This page is only a palt of a 2021 AL TA Commitment for Title Insurance issued by First American Title Insurance Company. This
Commitment is not valid without the Notice; the Commitment to Issue Policy; the Commitment Conditions; Schedule A; Schedule B,
Pait I-Requirements; and Schedule B, Pait II-Exceptions; and a counter-signature by the Company or its issuing agent that may
be in electronic form.
Copyright 2021 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved.
The use of this Form (or any derivative thereof) is restricted to ALTA licensees and
ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited.
Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association.
Form 50122149 (5-16-22) Page 15 of 19
,: ,I, M E it l
~~ ·~ .... ' ' ' "-s-
.,,...-
"""""L_/11?
1. DEFINITIONS
Firs t American Ti tle
COMMITMENT CONDITIONS
Commitment for Title Insurance
Utah -2021 v. 01.00 (07-01-2021)
a. "Discriminatory Covenant": Any covenant, condition, restriction, or limitation that is
unenforceable under applicable law because it illegally discriminates against a class of
individuals based on personal characteristics such as race, color, religion, sex, sexual
orientation, gender identity, familial status, disability, national origin, or other legally
protected class.
b. "Knowledge" or "Known": Actual knowledge or actual notice, but not constructive notice
imparted by the Public Records.
c. "Land": The land described in Item 5 of Schedule A and improvements located on that land
that by State law constitute real property. The term "Land" does not include any property
beyond that described in Schedule A, nor any right, title, interest, estate, or easement in any
abutting street, road, avenue, alley, lane, right-of-way, body of water, or waterway, but does
not modify or limit the extent that a right of access to and from the Land is to be insured by
the Policy.
d. "Mortgage": A mortgage, deed of trust, trust deed, security deed, or other real property
security instrument, including one evidenced by electronic means authorized by law.
e. "Policy": Each contract of title insurance, in a form adopted by the American Land Title
Association, issued or to be issued by the Company pursuant to this Commitment.
f. "Proposed Amount of Insurance": Each dollar amount specified in Schedule A as the Proposed
Amount of Insurance of each Policy to be issued pursuant to this Commitment.
g. "Proposed Insured": Each person identified in Schedule A as the Proposed Insured of each
Policy to be issued pursuant to this Commitment.
h. "Public Records": The recording or filing system established under State statutes in effect at
the Commitment Date under which a document must be recorded or filed to impart
constructive notice of matters relating to the Title to a purchaser for value without
Knowledge. The term "Public Records" does not include any other recording or filing system,
including any pertaining to environmental remediation or protection, planning, permitting,
zoning, licensing, building, health, public safety, or national security matters.
i. "State": The state or commonwealth of the United States within whose exterior boundaries
the Land is located. The term "State" also includes the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Guam.
j. "Title": The estate or interest in the Land identified in Item 3 of Schedule A.
2. If all of the Schedule B, Part I-Requirements have not been met within the time period specified in
the Commitment to Issue Policy, this Commitment terminates and the Company's liability and
obligation end.
This page is only a patt of a 2021 AL TA Commitment for Title Insurance issued by First American Title Insurance Company. This
Commitment is not valid without the Notice; the Commitment to Issue Policy; the Commitment Conditions; Schedule A; Schedule B,
Patt I-Requirements; and Schedule B, Patt II-Exceptions; and a counter-signature by the Company or its issuing agent that may
be in electronic form.
Copyright 2021 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved.
The use of this Form (or any derivative thereof) is restricted to ALTA licensees and
ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited.
Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association.
Form 50122149 (5-16-22) Page 16 of 19
,: ,I, M E it l
~~ ·~ .... ' ' ' "-s-
.,,...-
"""""L_/11?
Firs t American Ti tle
Commitment for Title Insurance
Utah -2021 v. 01.00 (07-01-2021)
3. The Company's liability and obligation is limited by and this Commitment is not valid without:
a. the Notice;
b. the Commitment to Issue Policy;
c. the Commitment Conditions;
d. Schedule A;
e. Schedule B, Part I-Requirements; and
f. Schedule B, Part II-Exceptions; and
g. a counter-signature by the Company or its issuing agent that may be in electronic form.
4. COMPANY'S RIGHT TO AMEND
The Company may amend this Commitment at any time. If the Company amends this Commitment
to add a defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim, or other matter recorded in the Public Records
prior to the Commitment Date, any liability of the Company is limited by Commitment Condition 5.
The Company is not liable for any other amendment to this Commitment.
5. LIMITATIONS OF LIABILITY
a. The Company's liability under Commitment Condition 4 is limited to the Proposed Insured's
actual expense incurred in the interval between the Company's delivery to the Proposed
Insured of the Commitment and the delivery of the amended Commitment, resulting from
the Proposed Insured's good faith reliance to:
i. comply with the Schedule B, Part I-Requirements;
ii. eliminate, with the Company's written consent, any Schedule B, Part II-Exceptions; or
iii. acquire the Title or create the Mortgage covered by this Commitment.
b. The Company is not liable under Commitment Condition 5.a. if the Proposed Insured
requested the amendment or had Knowledge of the matter and did not notify the Company
about it in writing.
c. The Company is only liable under Commitment Condition 4 if the Proposed Insured would
not have incurred the expense had the Commitment included the added matter when the
Commitment was first delivered to the Proposed Insured.
d. The Company's liability does not exceed the lesser of the Proposed Insured's actual expense
incurred in good faith and described in Commitment Condition 5.a. or the Proposed Amount
of Insurance.
e. The Company is not liable for the content of the Transaction Identification Data, if any.
f. The Company is not obligated to issue the Policy referred to in this Commitment unless all of
the Schedule B, Part I-Requirements have been met to the satisfaction of the Company.
g. The Company's liability is further limited by the terms and provisions of the Policy to be
issued to the Proposed Insured.
This page is only a patt of a 2021 AL TA Commitment for Title Insurance issued by First American Title Insurance Company. This
Commitment is not valid without the Notice; the Commitment to Issue Policy; the Commitment Conditions; Schedule A; Schedule B,
Patt I-Requirements; and Schedule B, Patt II-Exceptions; and a counter-signature by the Company or its issuing agent that may
be in electronic form.
Copyright 2021 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved.
The use of this Form (or any derivative thereof) is restricted to ALTA licensees and
ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited.
Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association.
Form 50122149 (5-16-22) Page 17 of 19
,: ,I, M E it l
~~ ·~ .... ' ' ' "-s-
.,,...-
"""""L_/11?
Firs t American Ti tle
Commitment for Title Insurance
Utah -2021 v. 01.00 (07-01-2021)
6. LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY MUST BE BASED ON THIS COMMITMENT; CHOICE OF LAW AND
CHOICE OF FORUM
a. Only a Proposed Insured identified in Schedule A, and no other person, may make a claim
under this Commitment.
b. Any claim must be based in contract under the State law of the State where the Land is
located and is restricted to the terms and provisions of this Commitment. Any litigation or
other proceeding brought by the Proposed Insured against the Company must be filed
only in a State or federal court having jurisdiction.
c. This Commitment, as last revised, is the exclusive and entire agreement between the
parties with respect to the subject matter of this Commitment and supersedes all prior
commitment negotiations, representations, and proposals of any kind, whether written or
oral, express or implied, relating to the subject matter of this Commitment.
d. The deletion or modification of any Schedule B, Part II-Exception does not constitute an
agreement or obligation to provide coverage beyond the terms and provisions of this
Commitment or the Policy.
e. Any amendment or endorsement to this Commitment must be in writing and
authenticated by a person authorized by the Company.
f. When the Policy is issued, all liability and obligation under this Commitment will end and
the Company's only liability will be under the Policy.
7. IF THIS COMMITMENT IS ISSUED BY AN ISSUING AGENT
The issuing agent is the Company's agent only for the limited purpose of issuing title insurance
commitments and policies. The issuing agent is not the Company's agent for closing, settlement,
escrow, or any other purpose.
8. PRO-FORMA POLICY
The Company may provide, at the request of a Proposed Insured, a pro-forma policy illustrating
the coverage that the Company may provide. A pro-forma policy neither reflects the status of
Title at the time that the pro-forma policy is delivered to a Proposed Insured, nor is it a
commitment to insure.
9. CLAIMS PROCEDURES
This Commitment incorporates by reference all Conditions for making a claim in the Policy to be
issued to the Proposed Insured. Commitment Condition 9 does not modify the limitations of
liability in Commitment Conditions 5 and 6.
10. CLASS ACTION
ALL CLAIMS AND DISPUTES ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO THIS COMMITMENT,
INCLUDING ANY SERVICE OR OTHER MATTER IN CONNECTION WITH ISSUING THIS
COMMITMENT, ANY BREACH OF A COMMITMENT PROVISION, OR ANY OTHER CLAIM OR
DISPUTE ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO THE TRANSACTION GIVING RISE TO THIS
COMMITMENT, MUST BE BROUGHT IN AN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY. NO PARTY MAY SERVE AS
PLAINTIFF, CLASS MEMBER, OR PARTICIPANT IN ANY CLASS OR REPRESENTATIVE
PROCEEDING. ANY POLICY ISSUED PURSUANT TO THIS COMMITMENT WILL CONTAIN A CLASS
ACTION CONDITION.
This page is only a patt of a 2021 AL TA Commitment for Title Insurance issued by First American Title Insurance Company. This
Commitment is not valid without the Notice; the Commitment to Issue Policy; the Commitment Conditions; Schedule A; Schedule B,
Patt I-Requirements; and Schedule B, Patt II-Exceptions; and a counter-signature by the Company or its issuing agent that may
be in electronic form.
Copyright 2021 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved.
The use of this Form (or any derivative thereof) is restricted to ALTA licensees and
ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited.
Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association.
Form 50122149 (5-16-22) Page 18 of 19
,: ,I, M E it l
~~ ·~ .... ' ' ' "-s-
.,,...-Firs t American Ti tle
"""""L_/11?
11. ARBITRATION
Commitment for Title Insurance
Utah -2021 v. 01.00 (07-01-2021)
The Policy contains an arbitration clause. All arbitrable matters when the Proposed Amount of
Insurance is $2,000,000 or less may be arbitrated at the election of either the Company or the
Proposed Insured as the exclusive remedy of the parties. A Proposed Insured may review a copy
of the arbitration rules at http://www.alta.org/arbitration.
This page is only a patt of a 2021 AL TA Commitment for Title Insurance issued by First American Title Insurance Company. This
Commitment is not valid without the Notice; the Commitment to Issue Policy; the Commitment Conditions; Schedule A; Schedule B,
Patt I-Requirements; and Schedule B, Patt II-Exceptions; and a counter-signature by the Company or its issuing agent that may
be in electronic form.
Copyright 2021 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved.
The use of this Form (or any derivative thereof) is restricted to ALTA licensees and
ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited.
Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association.
Form 50122149 (5-16-22) Page 19 of 19
Attachment 5
TEAD Environmental Easement
BOQ(._...;:;.:3.~IP,L..1 __
RECOROEC Al RlOUfS i Oi-
ASSOCIATEO TITLE COMPANY .
WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: 0 6 2 I 9 6 94 JAN 27 l~ IQ: Si
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS . 9,~-..5°90 · DONNI\ s . ~:cKrl:C•,,C.f.
ATTN: REAL ESTATE DIVISION PAGE ~l~-11. iOO~E COL!Ni'l' it::::CKOf.;;
1325 J. STREET, ROOM 1390 Dl-4PT--A~7(, • ,,,_) µ,_
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95824-2922f' DEPUTY . 'Ut/. FE~J. y
T-~C/o1· V
EASEMENT DEED
THE GRANTOR, Grantsville Soil Conservation District, for
certain environmental benefits and in consideration of TWENTY TWO
THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($22,500), grants unto the UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA, and its assigns, a temporary easement and
right-of -way for the purposes hereinafter stated, . over and
through, under, along and across, those certain parcels of land
situated in the County of Tooele, State of Utah, and more
particularly described as follows:
PAR CEL #1 .!f -~ ,,d. -/
BEGINNING at a point on the Tooele Army Depot North Boundary,
said poi~t being 3537.79 feet West and 9.23 feet South from the
Sou thwest corner o f Section 11, Township 3 South, Range 5 West,
Sa l t Lake Base and Meridian and running thence:
No rth 01-32 -26 West 3000.51 feet; thence
North 6 1 -39-49 East 1625.74 fee t; thence
North 76 -17-47 East 1473 .0 5 feet; thence
South 85-31-11 East 1 363.22 feet, more or less, to the
Southerly right of way line of State Highway 112, (the Tooele-
Grantsville Road); thence
South 59-03-29 East 6297.25 feet, more or less, along said
r ight of way line to the Westerly line of the Clegg Livestock
Co., In c., parcel; thence
Sout h 00-06-23 West 745.5 2 feet, more or less, along said
westerly li ne to the Tooele Army Depot North Boundary, said point
also b ei ng on the south l i ne of Section 12, Township 3 South,
Range 5 West, Sal t Lake Base and Meridian; thence
South 89-49-4 0 West 615.78 feet, more or l e ss along the
south line of said Section 12 and the Tooele Army Depot North
Bo unda ry to the Southwest corner of said Section 12; thence
South 89-47-08 West 405 .49 feet along the South line of
Section 11, Township 3 South, Range 5 West, Salt Lake Base and
Meridian and the Tooele Army Depot North Boundary; thence
North 57-5 4-10 west 5247.50 f eet; thence
North 85-31-11 Wes t 1198.02 feet; thence
South 76-1 7 -4 7 West 1126.97 fe e t; thence
sou th 6 1-39-59 wes t 733 .35 feet; thence
South 01-32 -2 6 East 229 0.66 feet to the Tooele Army Depot
Nort h Boundary and the Sou th l ine of Section 1 0, Township 3
s outh, Range 5 West, Salt Lake Base and Me ridian; thence
S ou th 89-49-13 West 1200 .34 f e et along the South line of
\J-j
said Section 10 to the point of beginning.
Area 332.94 acres
PARCEL # 2 "'5-~-/-
BEGINNING at a point on the Tooele Army Depot North Boundary,
said point also being the Southeast corner of Section 10,
Township 3 South, Range 5 West, Salt Lake Base and Meridian and
running thence:
South 89-01-50 West 190.23 feet along the South line of said
Section 10; thence
North 28 -11-36 West 1771.83 feet; thence
North 61-48-24 East 1213.98 feet; thence
North 33-43-41 West -904.00 feet; thence
South 85 -31-11 East 127.26 feet; thence
S o uth 33-43-41 East 834.97 feet; thence
North 61-48-24 East 485.55 feet; thence
South 28-11-36 East 2737.13 feet to the Tooele Army Depot
North Boundary, said point also being on the south line of
Section 11, Township 3 South, Range 5 West, Salt Lake Base and
Meridian; thence
North 89-53-21 West 1852.30 feet along said Tooele Army
Depot North Boundary and said South lin e of said Section 11 to
the po i nt o f beginning .
Area~ 95.16 a cres
P ARCE L # 3
BEGI NNI NG at a point 1539.75 feet East and 579.49 feet North from
t he Southwest c orner of Se ction 11 , Township 3 South, Range 5
West, Sa lt Lake Base and Meridian and running thence:
North 47 -36-01 East 1403.60 feet; thence
So uth 57 -54-10 East 103.78 feet; thence
So uth 4 7 -36-01 west 1456.65 feet; thence
No rth 28 -11-3 6 West 103.15 f eet to the poi nt of the
beginning.
Area~ 3 .2 8 a c res
PA RCEL# 4
NE 1 /4 NE 1 /4 NE 1/4 SE 1 /4 loc ated in said Sect i on 10.
Containing 2 .5 acres, more or less.
SW 1 /4 S W 1 /4 NE 1/4 SE 1/4 located in said Section 10.
Cont ain i ng 2 .2 5 a cres, mo re or l e ss.
PARCEL t 6
NW 1/4 NW 1/4 SW 1/4 SE 1/4 located in said Section 11.
Containing 2.5 acres, more or less.
PARCEL # 7 ~-~ -/
SE 1/4 SE 1/4 NW 1/4 SW l/4 located iri said Section 11.
Containing 2.5 acres, more or less.
Total 440.55 acres, more or less.
END OF DESCRIPTION
Said easements and rights-of-way are for the following purposes:
TEMPORARY ROAD EASEMENT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE
An assignable easement and right-of-way in, on, over and
across said property herein described for a period not to exceed
30 y ea rs, beginning with the date of the signing of this
instrument, and terminating earlier by the completion of the
remediation and fil ing in the local land records by the
representative of the United States in charge of the Tooele Army
Depot Groundwater Remediation Project a notice of termination;
for use by the United St ates , its representatives, agents and
contractors, for the location , construction, operation,
maintenance, alteration and replacement of roads and
appurtenances thereto; together with the right to trim, cut, fell
and remove therefrom all trees, underbrush, obstructions and
other vegetation, st ructu res or obstacles within the limits of
the easement; subject to existing easements for public roads and
h ighways, public utilities, railroads and pipelines; reserving,
however, to t h e landowner(s), their heirs, executors,
administrato r s , successors and assigns, all such right, title,
interest and privilege as may be used and enjoyed without
interfering with or abridgi ng the rights and easement hereby
acquired.
TEMPORARY GROUNDWATER RESPONSE EASEMENT
An assignable easement and right-of-way in, on, over and
acro ss the land de scribed for a period not to exceed 30 years,
beg inn ing with the dat e of the signing of th is instrument, and
terminating earlier by the completion of the remediation and
fi li ng in the local land records by the representative of the
United States in charge of the Tooele Army Depot Groundwater
Remediation Project a n otice of termi n at ion; for use by the
Un i ted S t ates , its representatives, agents , contractors, and
assigns, as a work area for environmental response; including the
right to move, store, and remove equipment and supplies; erect
and remove temporary structures on the land; investigate and
collect samples; construct, operate, maintain, alter, repair and
remove groundwater monitoring wells, groundwater purification and
injection systems, appurtenances thereto and other devices for
the monitoring and treatment of contamination in soil, air and
water; and perform any other such work which may be necessary and
incident to the Government's use for the investigation and
response on said lands under the Project; together with the right
to trim, cut, fell and remove therefrom all trees, underbrush,
obstructions and other vegetation, structures or obstacles within
the limits of the easement; subject to existing easements for
p ub lic roads and highways, public utilities, railroads and
pipelines; reserving,however, to the landowner(s), their heirs,
executors, administrators, successors and assigns, all such
right, title, interest and privilege as may be used and enjoyed
without interfering with or abridging the rights and easement
he reby acquired .
TEMPORARY UTILITY AND PIPELINE EASEMENT
FOR ENVIRONMEN TAL RESPONSE
An assignable easement and right-of-way in, on, over and
across the land described for a pe riod not to exceed 30 years,
beginning with the date of the signing of this instrument, and
terminating earlier by the completion of the remediation and
filing in the l ocal land records by the representat ive of the
Uni ted Sta tes in charge of the Tooele Army Depot Groundwater
Rem ediation Project a notice of termination; for use by the
Uni ted States , its representatives, agents, contractors, and
as signs , for the l ocat ion, construction, operation, ma intenance,
a lteration, repair and patrol of ove rhead power lines and
underground pipelines; together with the right to trim, cut,
fell and remove therefrom a ll trees, underbrush, obstructions and
other vegetation, structures or obstacles within the limits of
the easement; subject to existing easements for public roads and
highways, public utilities, railroads and pipelines; reserving,
however, to the landowne r (s), their heirs, executors,
administrat ors, successors and assigns, all such right, title,
interest and privilege as may be used and enjoyed without
interfering with or abridging t h e rights and easement hereby
acquired.
The Granter agrees, if allowable under State of Utah law and
Federal law and regu lation, to allow abandonment in place of all
wells, p ipel ines and appurtenances, roadway, and overhead utility
l ine s following the completion of t h e Tooele Groundwater
Re medi a tion Project, a s mutually agreed by the Grantor and the
United States of America.
The Grantor covenants and agrees with the United States of
America and its assigns to pay all taxes and assessments on said
land promptly when due and warrant and defend against the lawful
claims and demands of all persons whatsoever, for the full term
of said easement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, these presents are hereby signed this
4TH day of JANUARY 19 9,3 .4 gfiiJ:
. ~
~ i . Jo AMM t<-J ~I½-,, 1fM:/L.kifY'A'
WIT NESSIS WILLIAMS, CHAIRMAN
j{1_'. .
,,}i
;-· :: : ''
• •. ·. ~ •• ,~:~: ' ,. ·· ..
• ·•~1r .
GRANTSVILLE SOIL CONSERVATION
DISTRICT
~:&03At'wlf,li ✓ VEL w. MAR N' SECRETARY
GRANTSVILLE SOIL CONSERVATION
DISTRICT
/
On this the 4TH day of -="'J;;:;ANU~AR=Y'--,-__ ..,.... ___ ~~ 199,4', 4
before me the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State,
personally appeared Ferris Williams, Chairman, Grantsville Soil
Co n serv ation District, and Evelyn w. Martin, Secretary,
Grantsville Soil Conservation District, personally known to me
(or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the
person (s) whose names are s .ubscribed to the within instrument and
acknowledged to me that they executed the same.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature of Notary
.:!
fl :f:1
'"·,·:I!,
'
-.•;;:, '
• ' ~·?
' f{
:11)
.•
CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE
This is to certify that the interest in real property
conveyed by the foregoing easement deed dated 1993 from Grantsville Soil Conservation Distri_c_t_....,t-o-,....,...th_e__,,.U~N~I~T=E=n~-
STATES OF AMERICA, is hereby accepted by the undersigned officer
on behalf of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and the Grantee
consents to recordation thereof by its duly authorized officer.
Dated:
. FISHER
Chief, Real Estate Di.i
Sacramento District
US Army Corps of Engineers