DERR-2024-006607

Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials i
Cover Page
Site Characterization Work
Plan
Lonestar Properties LLC – Former Anderson
Auto Wrecking Site, 2890 South State
Street, Spanish Fork, Utah County, Utah
Voluntary Cleanup Program Site #C127
Revised March 28, 2024 | Terracon Project No.
61237032
Prepared for:
Utah Department of
Environmental Quality/
Division Of Environmental
Response and Remediation Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP)
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials ii
Site Characterization Work Plan Approval Sheet (A1)
Utah Department of Environmental Quality/Division of
Environmental Response and Remediation Voluntary Cleanup
Program (VCP)
Lonestar Properties LLC – Former Anderson Auto Wrecking Site
2890 South State Street
Spanish Fork, Utah County, Utah
Revised March 28, 2024
Approved By
Terracon Project Manager
Date:
Signature
Daniel Dean
Printed Name
Terracon Authorized Project Reviewer
Date:
Signature
Amy Austin
Printed Name
Terracon Project QA/QC Officer
Date:
Signature
Andrew Turner
Printed Name
03/28/2024
'P\'XVWLQ 03/28/2024
03/28/2024
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials iii
Table Of Contents
Site Characterization Work Plan Approval Sheet (A1) ......................................... ii
Distribution List (A3) ................................................................................. v
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ............................................................. vi
1.0 Project Management (A) ..................................................................... 1
1.1 Project Task/Organization (A4)........................................................................... 1
1.2 Problem Definition/Background (A5) .................................................................... 1
1.3 Project/Task Description (A6) ............................................................................ 3
1.4 Quality Objectives and Criteria (A7) ..................................................................... 4
1.5 Specialized Training (A8).................................................................................. 7
1.6 Documentation and Records (A9) ....................................................................... 7
2.0 Data Generation/Acquisition (B)............................................................. 7
2.1 Sampling Process Design (B1) ........................................................................... 7
2.2 Sampling Methods (B2).................................................................................... 8
2.3 Sample Handling and Custody (B3) ..................................................................... 8
2.4 Analytical Methods (B4) ................................................................................... 8
2.5 Quality Control (B5) ........................................................................................ 8
2.6 Instrument/Equipment Testing, Inspection, and Maintenance (B6) ................................ 8
2.7 Instrument/Equipment Calibration and Frequency (B7) .............................................. 8
2.8 Inspection/Acceptance for Supplies and Consumables (B8) ........................................ 9
2.9 Use of Existing Data (Non-direct Measurements) (B9) ............................................... 9
2.10 Data Management (B10) .................................................................................. 9
3.0 Assessment And Oversight (C) ............................................................. 9
3.1 Assessments and Response Actions (C1) ............................................................. 9
3.2 Reports to Management (C2)............................................................................. 9
4.0 Data Validation And Usability (D) ........................................................... 9
4.1 Data Review, Verification, and Validation (D1) ........................................................ 9
4.2 Verification and Usability Methods (D2)................................................................. 9
5.0 References ................................................................................... 10
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials iv
Appendices
Appendix A: Exhibits
Exhibit 1 Topographic Site Overview
Exhibit 2 Proposed Surface Soil Sample Locations
Appendix B: Tables
Table 1A Screening Levels For Contaminants Of Concern—VOCs and
Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Soil
Table 1B Screening Levels For Contaminants Of Concern—Metals in Soil
Table 1C Screening Levels for Contaminants of Concern—PCBs in Soil
Table 2 Analytical Method Summary
Table 3 Summary Of Sampling Locations
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials v
Distribution List (A3)
Daniel Dean, PG
Consultant Project Manager
Terracon Consultants, Inc.
6952 South High Tech Drive, Suite B
Midvale, UT 84047
[phone]
[e-mail]
Andrew Turner, P.G.
Consultant QA/QC Officer
Terracon Consultants, Inc.
6952 South High Tech Drive, Suite B
Midvale, UT 84047
[phone]
[e-mail]
Lincoln Grevengoed
Utah Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Environmental Response and
Remediation Project Manager
195 North 1950 West
Salt Lake City, UT 84116
[phone]
[e-mail]
Joseph Earnest – VP of Real Estate
Development
Lone Star Builders, LLC
2208 West 700 South
Springville, UT 84663
[phone]
[e-mail]
Nikki Humphries – Real Estate
Entitlements
Lone Star Builders LLC
2208 West 700 South
Springville, UT 84663
[phone]
[e-mail]
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials vi
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
APN Assessor Parcel Number
bgs Below Ground Surface
BTV background threshold value
DERR Division of Environmental Response and Remediation
DQI Data Quality Indicators
DQO Data Quality Objectives
EPC Exposure Point Concentration
ESA Environmental Site Assessment
GIS Geographic Information System
MDL Method Detection Limit
mg/kg milligrams per kilogram (or parts per million)
NELAP National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program
PCB polychlorinated biphenyl
QA Quality Assurance
QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan
QC Quality Control
REC Recognized Environmental Condition
RL Laboratory Reporting Limit a.k.a. practicable quantification limit
RSL Regional Screening Level
SCWP Site Characterization Workplan
SOP Standard Operating Procedure
UCL95 95% upper confidence limit
UDEQ Utah Department of Environmental Quality
US EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
UST Underground Storage Tank
UTL 95% upper tolerance limit
VOC Volatile Organic Compounds
Site Characterization Work Plan
Former Anderson Auto Wrecking Site | Spanish Fork, Utah
Revised March 28, 2024 | Terracon Project No. 61237032
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 1
1.0 Project Management (A)
1.1 Project Task/Organization (A4)
The Utah Division of Environmental Quality (UDEQ)/Division of Environmental Response and
Remediation (DERR) Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP) is the lead regulatory agency
responsible for oversight of this Site Characterization Work Plan (SCWP) which will be
implemented by Lonestar Properties LLC. Terracon will perform and coordinate site
assessment activities that will be conducted at the site located at 2890 South State Street,
Spanish Fork, Utah herein the “site”. Identification of key personnel involved in the
UDEQ/DERR VCP project is provided in Section A4 of the Quality Assurance Project Plan
(QAPP; Terracon 2023a). Pertinent areas of this SWCP as they relate to greater detail or
reference in the approved QAPP, are indicated by QAPP designations in parentheses in
section headers.
1.2 Problem Definition/Background (A5)
Lonestar Properties LLC (Lonestar) is in the process of redeveloping the property located at
2890 South State Street, Spanish Fork, Utah. The site has been enrolled in the VCP and is
referenced as “VCP Site #127”. Heavy metals and petroleum hydrocarbons have been
documented at the site above applicable regulatory screening levels (IHI 2007a; IHI 2007b;
DERR, 2021; Terracon 2023). Limited additional surface soil sampling is required to further
define these impacts.
This SCWP pertains to and sets forth the site assessment activities and field sampling
locations designed to further evaluate the real or potential presence of a hazardous
substance, pollutant, or contaminant at the site.Exhibit 1 (Appendix A) depicts a
topographic overview of the site.Exhibit 2 (Appendix A) details the site layout and the
proposed sampling locations. The SCWP provides a discussion of specific site objectives, site
description, and details regarding site-specific field sampling. It is designed to be used in
conjunction with the above-referenced QAPP. The QAPP describes data collection
procedures, analytical testing, quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) activities, and data
evaluation processes to ensure that appropriate levels of data quality are obtained for field
sampling, testing, and analytical activities.
Project Background
The site is comprised of approximately 3.9 acres of land currently owned by Lonestar
Properties LLC. The site comprises two parcels consisting of the addresses, Utah County
Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs), and land uses listed below:
Site Characterization Work Plan
Former Anderson Auto Wrecking Site | Spanish Fork, Utah
Revised March 28, 2024 | Terracon Project No. 61237032
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 2
Address Parcel Number Acres Use
2890 South
State Street
27:010:0140 1.875 Vacant
1215 North
SR 51
27:010:0139 2.024 Residence/Vacant
The site was formerly occupied by the Anderson Auto Wrecking facility, which historically
operated as an automotive salvage yard from approximately 1977 to the mid-2010s. The
Anderson Auto Wrecking facility formerly stored large numbers of old vehicles, trailers,
tires, engines, scrap-metal, and other vehicle parts. Storage sheds at the wrecking yard
stored car batteries, gasoline cans, engine wastes, scrap metal, asphaltic tar, paint, as well
as miscellaneous debris. A crushing station, used to crush cars and other metallic debris,
was located on the southern portion of the yard behind a single-family home. The site
currently consists primarily of vacant land. Proposed development of the site includes
residential apartments.
Summary of Impacts
Impacts in the property area have been characterized. The UDEQ/DERR VCP indicated there
were some isolated areas with historical operations where the recent assessments indicated
possible shallow soil contamination that has not been fully defined. These areas are as
follows:
Area bordered by recent soil borings B-3, B-4, B-7, B-12, and B-13 where scrap
metal and vehicle storage and salvaging was present. This area may have shallow
metals, petroleum hydrocarbon, and VOC impacts to the soil.
Former crusher area near B-12. This area may have polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)
impacts to the soil.
A soil stockpile of unknown composition present to the northwest of the former
residence. This area may have shallow metals, petroleum hydrocarbon, and VOC
impacts to the soil.
Additional sampling of the soil in these areas is requested by the VCP to evaluate
environmental risks to future users of the site.
Regulatory Standards and Criteria
The laboratory analytical results will be compared to regulatory guidance and standards
compliant with Section A7.2 of the QAPP.
Soil sample results will be compared to the following current regulatory guidance and
standards:
EPA Regional Screening Levels (RSL) guidance for Residential and Industrial use
scenarios.
Site Characterization Work Plan
Former Anderson Auto Wrecking Site | Spanish Fork, Utah
Revised March 28, 2024 | Terracon Project No. 61237032
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 3
UDEQ/DERR Initial Screening Levels (ISLs) for petroleum hydrocarbons in soil
Tables 1A through 1C (Appendix B)itemize the screening levels to be used for comparisons
for each media to support project decisions regarding cleanup planning for redevelopment.
1.3 Project/Task Description (A6)
The proposed scope of work described in this SCWP is intended to gather the necessary
data to evaluate the environmental impacts and risks to site users from contaminants in
surface soil at the site. Planned redevelopment at the site includes residential use.
Soil Sampling
To assess soil impacts at the site resulting from metals, VOCs, petroleum hydrocarbons, and
PCBs, it is proposed to collect shallow soil samples from 11 locations at the site.Exhibit 2
(Appendix A) shows the proposed locations of the soil samples. The soil samples will be
collected from to surface to approximately six inches in depth in the areas shown on Exhibit
2.
Project Schedule
The tentative project schedule is provided in the table below. Actual dates may vary
depending on subcontractor availability.
Activity Planned Start Planned Completion
Soil sampling Within 2 weeks following SCWP
approval
Within 5 days following
start of sampling
Laboratory analyses Within 1–2 days following
sampling completion
Within 10 days following
start of laboratory
analyses
Report preparation Within 1 week following receipt
of analytical results
Within 4 weeks following
receipt of analytical
results
UDEQ review of report Within 2 weeks of receipt of draft
report
Within 2 weeks of
receipt of draft report
Issue final report Within 1 week of receipt of UDEQ comments on draft report
*No field work will be conducted until formal approval of the SCWP is received from the agency and
documented.
Field Work and Sample Collection
Field sampling will include the collection of thirteen shallow soil samples in three areas of
the site in order to further characterize areas with potential contamination indicated in
previous investigations. Soil samples will be collected using single-use disposable sampling
equipment and/or decontaminated hand-tools.
Site Characterization Work Plan
Former Anderson Auto Wrecking Site | Spanish Fork, Utah
Revised March 28, 2024 | Terracon Project No. 61237032
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 4
Field duplicates will be collected at a rate of 10 percent. A trip blank (laboratory-supplied
blank) will also be collected during this investigation. Field notes will be recorded during the
field work. Soil samples will be field screened with a photoionization detection (PID) to
detect potential volatile organic vapors.Exhibit 2 (Appendix A) depicts the approximate
proposed soil sampling locations.
Work will be conducted commensurate with the requirements set forth in the approved
QAPP. Prior to mobilizing to the site to begin assessment activities, the property access
agreement will be executed with the property owner. If deeper soil borings are required, the
public utility location service (Blue Stakes of Utah) will be notified at least 48 hours prior to
commencing any drilling activities, and a private utility location service will be used to locate
potential utilities and/or other subsurface obstacles in the immediate vicinity of each
proposed drilling location.
The following is a list of the contaminants of concern being analyzed at each sample
location:
Soil Samples:
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 8 Metals and Hexavalent
Chromium: Twelve shallow samples for RCRA 8 metals and hexavalent chromium (SS-1
through SS-9, SS-11 through SS-13) will be collected in the areas shown on Exhibit 2.
VOCs:Twelve shallow samples for VOCs (SS-1 through SS-9, SS-11 through SS-13) will be
collected in the areas shown on Exhibit 2.
Petroleum Hydrocarbons:Twelve shallow samples for petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH-
GRO, TPH-DRO, and TRPH; SS-1 through SS-9, SS-11 through SS-13) will be collected in
the areas shown on Exhibit 2.
PCBs: One shallow soil sample for PCBs will be collected in the former crusher area (SS-
10) as shown on Exhibit 2.
1.4 Quality Objectives and Criteria (A7)
As discussed in the QAPP, Data Quality Objectives (DQOs) have been developed for
sampling and analysis activities. DQOs identify the level of quality that the data must meet
to provide a sound basis for decision-making activities during the project.
DQOs—Soil Sampling
State the Problem:
A few isolated areas in the site have possible shallow soil contamination that was
not fully characterized in previous investigations. Additional sampling of soil is
required to evaluate environmental risks to future users of the site.
Site Characterization Work Plan
Former Anderson Auto Wrecking Site | Spanish Fork, Utah
Revised March 28, 2024 | Terracon Project No. 61237032
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 5
Identify the decisions:
Soil samples will be collected for laboratory analysis of RCRA 8 metals, hexavalent
chromium, VOC, petroleum hydrocarbons, or PCBs. Analytical data will be compared
to relevant screening levels to determine what actions may be needed to support
cleanup planning for redevelopment.
Identify inputs to the decision:
Analytical results will be obtained from analysis of soil samples for applicable
chemicals of concern as detailed in Section 2.0 Data Generation/ Acquisition (B) of
this SCWP.
Define boundary of project:
The boundary of the study area is identified as approximately 3.9 acres of land in
Spanish Fork, Utah. The site consists of two parcels (Section 1.2.1). The property
location is currently accessible to pedestrian foot traffic and sampling equipment as
necessary and shown on Exhibit 2 (Appendix A).
Develop the decision rule:
Data generated during this investigation will be compared to applicable screening
levels including RSL guidance (Section 1.2.3). This evaluation will allow the
development of remedial strategies, management plans, possible environmental
restrictions, and protective covenants providing necessary decision tools to aide in
the property’s redevelopment.
Specify limits on decision errors:
Sampling locations are biased towards locations where impacts are known or
suspected. For this reason, the data are intended to represent a worst-case scenario
for the site. Non-uniform impacts may introduce some level of uncertainty regarding
the localized lateral extent of subsurface contamination if present. To reduce this
uncertainty, the sampling design includes the collection of a sufficient number of
samples to further define the overall extent of contamination in the areas identified
during the previous investigations. Decision errors will also be controlled by
laboratory MDLs that are lower than the corresponding screening levels for various
media as detailed in Tables 1A through 1C (Appendix B) of this SCWP.
For a small percentage of analytes, cases may arise where a screening level is below
the lowest practically attainable MDL and a “non-detect” value is reported. In such
cases, the relative degree of uncertainty will be stated with consideration of the
presence or absence of other associated analytes within the same sample. For
analytes where the laboratory MDL is close to the applicable screening level (e.g.,
EPA Residential RSL for hexavalent chromium), the laboratory will be instructed to
provide the lowest achievable MDL. If requested by the laboratory, additional
sample volume will be provided so that the laboratory can conduct the required
analysis without the use of dilution factors.
Site Characterization Work Plan
Former Anderson Auto Wrecking Site | Spanish Fork, Utah
Revised March 28, 2024 | Terracon Project No. 61237032
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 6
Optimize the design for obtaining data:
The proposed sampling locations and analytical program have been selected to
identify potential environmental impacts on the property originating from historical
operations at the site. This information is necessary to support development of
remedial action and cleanup plans.
Performance/Measurement Criteria
Performance and measurement criteria are detailed in Section A7 of the QAPP. Data quality
indicators (DQIs) will be used to evaluate the performance and measurement criteria in
terms of precision (analytical and/or total measurement error determination), accuracy,
completeness, representativeness, and comparability. Concentrations of the parameters of
interest are anticipated to range from levels below the method detection limits to
concentrations that exceed the action levels.
Comparative Screening Levels
Analytical results will be evaluated for residential and commercial/industrial land use.Tables
1A through 1C (Appendix B) itemize the screening levels to be used for comparisons for
each media to support project decisions regarding cleanup planning for redevelopment.
For comparison of detected analytes that have multiple screening levels, the order of
precedence of comparative screening levels will vary by media, contaminant type, and
applicability. The detection limits for all media will be in accordance with the established
analytical methods. The analytical methods for each contaminant type are summarized in
Table 2 (Appendix B). Pace Analytical will perform the soil analyses.
Risk Evaluation
Exposure Point Concentrations (EPCs) for determining site risk levels will utilize 95% upper
confidence limits (UCL95s) for surface soil calculated using EPA’s ProUCL software. ProUCL
will be used to run outlier tests and outliers that exceeded a 5% significance level will be
excluded from the UCL95 calculation dataset. For analytes where the laboratory is unable to
consistently provide MDLs that are below the applicable screening level (e.g., EPA
Residential RSL for hexavalent chromium), Kaplan-Meier non-parametric methods will be
employed to utilize non-detect results in the UCL95 calculations. A target organ analysis will
be conducted for exposure scenarios where the cumulative non-carcinogenic Hazard Index
exceeds 1. All final carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risk results will be reported as one
significant figure per EPA guidelines.
ProUCL will be used to develop a site-specific background threshold value (BTV) for arsenic.
Arsenic data from unimpacted subsurface native soils collected under the Brownfields Phase
II ESA (Terracon 2023b) will be used to calculate the site-specific BTV. The site-specific BTV
will be based on a 95% upper tolerance limit (UTL). ProUCL will be used to run an outlier
test and outliers that exceeded a 5% significance level will be excluded from the BTV
calculation dataset.
Site Characterization Work Plan
Former Anderson Auto Wrecking Site | Spanish Fork, Utah
Revised March 28, 2024 | Terracon Project No. 61237032
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 7
1.5 Specialized Training (A8)
Details of training and certification requirements are provided in Section A8 of the QAPP.
1.6 Documentation and Records (A9)
Details of documentation and recording procedures are provided in Section A9 of the QAPP.
2.0 Data Generation/Acquisition (B)
2.1 Sampling Process Design (B1)
The sampling strategy for soil has been designed to further define the nature and extent of
shallow soil impacts in specific areas of the site
The exact location of each sample will be dictated by access, constraints, and safety. It has
been assumed that sample locations will be accessible. In instances where locations are
hindered by subsurface utilities or other obstacles not anticipated, relocation and
Geographic Information System (GIS) documentation will be generated, the reason for re-
location will be documented, and new GIS coordinates generated for the relocated boring.
Soil samples will be analyzed for select regulated contaminants as shown on Table 3
(Appendix B).
One shallow soil grab sample will be collected from twelve locations for analysis of
RCRA 8 metals, hexavalent chromium, VOCs, and petroleum hydrocarbons.
Additionally, one shallow soil sample will be collected in the former crusher area for
PCB analysis. The exact location of each sample will be dictated by access
constraints and safety. Such access constraints may include existing subsurface
utilities, limited working space, former building foundations, and other obstacles
associated with the site. Wherever possible, off-set locations will be biased such that
they are placed in the presumed most impacted area of any feature of concern that
is inaccessible.
The proposed sampling locations are depicted on Exhibit 2 (Appendix A). Prior to
mobilization, Terracon will generate GIS coordinates for locating soil sample locations in the
field. A description of the proposed sample locations, sample types, sample naming
convention, and laboratory analyses is presented in Table 3 (Appendix B). Field duplicates
will be collected at rate of 10 percent.
Site-specific conditions may require an adjustment to the field program and a deviation
from this SCWP to accommodate site-specific needs. If an adjustment or deviation becomes
necessary, the activities and reasoning will be documented and implemented. The
UDEQ/DERR Project Manager will be notified if the adjustment is determined to be a
Site Characterization Work Plan
Former Anderson Auto Wrecking Site | Spanish Fork, Utah
Revised March 28, 2024 | Terracon Project No. 61237032
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 8
significant one. Such adjustments (for example, major adjustments in sampling locations)
may introduce some degree of variability, which will be reconciled with project information
by evaluating whether contaminant levels may be underestimated or overestimated, and
how this may affect eventual site management or cleanup approaches, if applicable.
After sample collection is completed, each location will be properly abandoned by restoring
the surface with native soil to match the surrounding area. Samples will be delivered to the
analytical laboratory within holding times for all analytical methods to generate definitive
analytical data, which are critical to this assessment.
2.2 Sampling Methods (B2)
Soil Sampling
Soil samples will be collected using single-use disposable sampling equipment and/or
decontaminated hand-tools following the procedures detailed in Standard Operating
Procedures (SOPs), which are provided in Appendix B of the UDEQ/DERR-approved QAPP.
2.3 Sample Handling and Custody (B3)
Details of sample handling and custody requirements are provided in Section B3 of the
QAPP.
2.4 Analytical Methods (B4)
Details for analytical method requirements are provided in Section B4 of the QAPP.
2.5 Quality Control (B5)
Details for quality control requirements are provided in Section B5 of the QAPP.
2.6 Instrument/Equipment Testing, Inspection, and Maintenance (B6)
Requirements for instrument and equipment testing, inspection, and maintenance are
provided in Section B6 of the QAPP.
2.7 Instrument/Equipment Calibration and Frequency (B7)
Requirements for instrument and equipment calibration and frequency are provided in
Section B7 of the QAPP.
Site Characterization Work Plan
Former Anderson Auto Wrecking Site | Spanish Fork, Utah
Revised March 28, 2024 | Terracon Project No. 61237032
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 9
2.8 Inspection/Acceptance for Supplies and Consumables (B8)
Details for inspection and acceptance for supplies and consumables are provided in Section
B8 of the QAPP.
2.9 Use of Existing Data (Non-direct Measurements) (B9)
Details for use of existing data are provided in Section B9 of the QAPP. Data collected within
the VCP site boundary (Section 1.2.1 and Exhibit 2) under the 2023 Brownfields Phase II
ESA (sample locations B-3, B-4, B-5, B-6, B-7, B-8, B-9, B-12, B-13, B-14, B-15, SG-3, SG-
4, SG-5, SG-6, SG-9, SG-10; Terracon 2023b) will be considered definitive data.
2.10 Data Management (B10)
Details for data management are provided in Section B10 of the QAPP.
3.0 Assessment And Oversight (C)
3.1 Assessments and Response Actions (C1)
Details for assessment and response actions are provided in Section C1 of the QAPP.
3.2 Reports to Management (C2)
Reporting requirements are provided in Section C2 of the QAPP.
4.0 Data Validation And Usability (D)
4.1 Data Review, Verification, and Validation (D1)
The Terracon Project Manager will be responsible for data management on this project.
Details for data review, verification, and validation requirements are provided in Sections
D1, D2, and D3 in the QAPP.
4.2 Verification and Usability Methods (D2)
Data collected during this project will be collected in accordance with this SCWP and the
QAPP. Details for data verification, validation, and usability methods are provided in
Sections D2 and D3 in the QAPP.
Site Characterization Work Plan
Former Anderson Auto Wrecking Site | Spanish Fork, Utah
Revised March 28, 2024 | Terracon Project No. 61237032
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 10
5.0 References
IHI Environmental (IHI) 2007a. PHASE II SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION REPORT, Anderson
Auto Wrecking, 2890 South State Street, Springville, Utah. July 31, 2007.
IHI Environmental (IHI) 2007b. PHASE II SUPPLEMENTAL SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION
REPORT, Anderson Auto Wrecking, 2890 South State Street, Springville, Utah.October 24,
2007.
Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Environmental Response and
Remediation (DERR) 2021.SITE INSPECTION ANALYTICAL RESULTS REPORT, Anderson
Auto Wrecking Company, Utah County, Utah, UTN000802773. November 2021.
Terracon 2023a. Quality Assurance Project Plan, Lonestar Properties LLC – Former Anderson
Auto Wrecking Site, 2890 South State Street, Spanish Fork, Utah County, Utah.January 30,
2024.
Terracon 2023b. Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, Former Anderson Auto Wrecking,
2890 South State Street and 1215 North SR 51, Spanish Fork City, Utah County, Utah.
January 6, 2023.
Appendix A: Exhibits
Appendix B: Tables
Utah DEQ-
DERR ISL
(mg/kg)(mg/kg)(mg/kg)(mg/kg)
67-64-1 Acetone 61,000 670,000 --0.01
107-13-1 Acrylonitrile 0.25 1.1 --0.00179
71-43-2 Benzene 1.2 5.1 0.2 0.00027
108-86-1 Bromobenzene 290 1800 --0.000284
75-27-4 Bromodichloromethane 0.29 1.3 --0.000254
75-25-2 Bromoform 19 86 --0.000424
74-83-9 Bromomethane 6.8 30 --0.00134
104-51-8 n-Butylbenzene 3,900 58,000 --0.000258
135-98-8 sec-Butylbenzene 7,800 120,000 --0.000201
98-06-6 tert-Butylbenzene 7,800 120,000 --0.000206
56-23-5 Carbon tetrachloride 0.65 2.9 --0.000328
108-90-7 Chlorobenzene 280 1,300 --0.000212
124-48-1 Chlorodibromomethane 8.3 39 --0.000373
75-00-3 Chloroethane 14,000 57,000 --0.000946
67-66-3 Chloroform 0.32 1.4 --0.000229
74-87-3 Chloromethane 110 460 --0.000375
95-49-8 2-Chlorotoluene 1,600 23,000 --0.000301
106-43-4 4-Chlorotoluene 1,600 23,000 --0.00024
96-12-8 1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane 0.0053 0.064 --0.00105
106-93-4 1,2-Dibromoethane 0.036 0.16 --0.000343
74-95-3 Dibromomethane 24 99 --0.000382
95-50-1 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 1,800 9,300 --0.000305
106-46-7 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 2.6 11 --0.000226
75-71-8 Dichlorodifluoromethane 87 370 --0.000713
75-34-3 1,1-Dichloroethane 3.6 16 --0.000199
107-06-2 1,2-Dichloroethane 0.46 2 --0.000265
75-35-4 1,1-Dichloroethene 230 1,000 --0.000303
156-59-2 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 160 2,300 --0.000235
156-60-5 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 70 300 --0.000264
78-87-5 1,2-Dichloropropane 2.5 11 --0.000358
142-28-9 1,3-Dichloropropane 1,600 23,000 --0.000279
108-20-3 Di-isopropyl ether 2,200 9,400 --0.000248
100-41-4 Ethylbenzene 5.8 25 5 0.000297
87-68-3 Hexachloro-1,3-butadiene 1.2 5.3 --0.000342
98-82-8 Isopropylbenzene (Cumene)1,900 9,900 --0.000243
78-93-3 2-Butanone (MEK)27,000 190,000 --0.00468
75-09-2 Methylene Chloride 57 1,000 --0.001
108-10-1 4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK)3,300 14,000 --0.00188
1634-04-4 Methyl tert-butyl ether 47 210 0.3 0.000212
91-20-3 Naphthalene 3.8 17 51 0.001
103-65-1 n-Propylbenzene 3,800 24,000 --0.000206
100-42-5 Styrene 6,000 35,000 --0.000234
630-20-6 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 2 8.8 --0.000264
79-34-5 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 0.6 2.7 --0.000365
76-13-1 1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane 6,700 28,000 --0.000365
127-18-4 Tetrachloroethene 24 100 --0.000276
108-88-3 Toluene 4,900 47,000 9 0.000434
87-61-6 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene 63 930 --0.000306
120-82-1 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 24 110 --0.000388
71-55-6 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 8,100 36,000 --0.000286
79-00-5 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 1.1 5 --0.000277
79-01-6 Trichloroethene 0.94 6 --0.000279
75-69-4 Trichlorofluoromethane 23,000 350,000 --0.000382
96-18-4 1,2,3-Trichloropropane 0.0051 0.11 --0.000741
95-63-6 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 300 1,800 --0.000211
526-73-8 1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene 340 2,000 --0.000287
108-67-8 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 270 1,500 --0.000266
75-01-4 Vinyl chloride 0.059 1.7 --0.000291
1330-20-7 Xylenes, Total 580 2,500 142 0.000698
NA TRPH ----1,000 33
NA TPH-GRO ----150 0.1
NA TPH-DRO ----500 0.769
CAS – Chemical Abstracts Service. NA - Not Applicable. MDL - Laboratory Method Detection Limit. -- Not Established.
EPA RSL – EPA Regional Screening Level (November 20213. EPA MCL - EPA Maximum Contaminant Level (November 2023).
DEQ-DERR - Utah Department of Environmental Quality-Division of Environmental Response.
mg/kg – milligrams per kilogram, mg/L – milligrams per liter
TRPH - Total Recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbons
TPH-GRO - Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Gasoline Range Organics
TPH-DRO - Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Diesel Range Organics
Soil
TABLE 1A
SCREENING LEVELS FOR CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN - VOCs AND PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS IN SOIL
MDL (Soil)CAS#Parameter
EPA RSL Soil
Resident
EPA RSL Soil
Industrial
MDL
Soil
(mg/kg)(mg/kg)(mg/kg)
Arsenic 7440-38-2 0.68 3 0.65
Barium 7440-39-3 15000 220000 0.26
Cadmium 7440-43-9 71 980 0.07
Chromium (Total-Dissolved)1 7440-47-3 120,000 1,800,000 0.14
Chromium (Hexavalent)18540-29-9 0.3 63 0.268
Lead 7439-92-1 200 800 0.19
Mercury 7439-97-6 9.4 40 0.0028
Selenium 7782-49-2 390 5,800 0.74
Silver 7440-22-4 390 5,800 0.28
MDL - Method Detection Limit
TABLE 1B
SCREENING LEVELS FOR CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN - METALS IN SOIL
Analyte CAS No.
EPA RSL
Resident Soil
EPA RSL Industrial
Soil
CAS – Chemical Abstracts Service. mg/kg – milligrams per kilogram. mg/L – milligrams per liter.
EPA RSL - EPA Regional Screening Level (November 2023).
NE - Not Established.
1) EPA RSLs are for Chromium III (insoluble salts).
MDL
Soil
(mg/kg)(mg/kg)(mg/kg)
PCB 1016 12674-11-2 4.11 27 0.011822
PCB 1221 11104-28-2 0.200 0.83 0.011822
PCB 1232 11141-16-5 0.172 0.72 0.011822
PCB 1242 53469-21-9 0.230 0.95 0.011822
PCB 1248 12672-29-6 0.227 0.94 0.007379
PCB 1254 11097-69-1 0.235 0.97 0.007379
PCB 1260 11096-82-5 0.240 1.0 0.007379
PCBs -- Polychlorinated Biphenyls
CAS – Chemical Abstracts Service. mg/kg – milligrams per kilogram. mg/L – milligrams per liter.
EPA RSL – EPA Regional Screening Level.
TABLE 1C
Analyte CAS No.
EPA RSL Resident
Soil
EPA RSL Industrial
Soil
SCREENING LEVELS FOR CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN - PCBs IN SOIL
VOCs Soil SW-846 8260B 4 oz glass, none, 4°C 14 days 0.01 to 0.0004 mg/kg
RCRA Metals Soil SW-846 6010B, 7471 4 oz glass, 4°C 180 days 0.0843 to 0.2 mg/kg
Chromium (Hexavalent)Soil 3060A/7199 4 oz glass, 4°C 30 days 0.268 mg/kg
TPH-GRO Soil 8260/GRO 4 oz glass, 4°C 14 days 0.0314 mg/l
TPH-DRO Soil 8015D/DRO 4 oz glass, 4°C 14 days 0.769 mg/kg
TRPH Soil 9071B 4 oz glass, 4°C 28 days 33.0 mg/kg
PCBs Soil 8082 4 oz glass, 4°C 1 year 0.00738 to 0.01182 mg/kg
TABLE 2
ANALYTICAL METHOD SUMMARY
Matrix
(Solid/Liquid/Soil Gas)Parameter Analytical Method Sample container/
preservative Holding Time Laboratory Method
Detection Limit (MDL)
Sample Location Rationale Sample ID Sample Matrix Analytes
Western Portion of Site
Delineate metals, VOC, and
petroleum hydrocarbon
impacts to surface soil from
historical site activities.
SS-1 through SS-9,
SS-12, SS-13 Surface Soil TPH-GRO, TPH-DRO, TRPH, VOCs,
RCRA 8 Metals, Hexavalent Chromium
Former Crusher Area
Delineate potential presence
of PCBs from historic site
activities.
SS-10 Surface Soil PCBs
Soil Stockpile Northwest
of Residence
Delineate metals, VOC, and
petroleum hydrocarbon
impacts.
SS-11 Surface Soil TPH-GRO, TPH-DRO, TRPH, VOCs,
RCRA 8 Metals, Hexavalent Chromium
TPH - Total Petroluem Hydrocarbons. GRO - Gasoline Range Organics. DRO - Diesel Range Organics.
RCRA 8 Metals - Arsenic, Barium, Cadmium, Chromium, Lead, Mercury, Selenium, Silver.
TABLE 3
SUMMARY OF SAMPLING LOCATIONS
TRPH - Total Recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbons
PCBs - Polychlorinated Biphenyls