Five-Year Review Report
First Five-Year Review Report
for
Bountiful/Woods Cross 5th S. PCE Plume
EPA ID: UT0001119296
Bountiful, West Bountiful and Woods Cross
Davis County, Utah
September 2013
Prepared by
Region 8 USEPA
Denver, Colorado
/it. • tUJ
Martin 1 lestmark, Date
Assistant Regional Administrator
Office of Ecosystems Protection
and Remediation
-------
(This page left intentionally blank)
-------
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction 1
2.0 Site Chronology 2
3.0 Sitewide Background 3
3.1 Sitewide Physical Characteristics 3
3.2 Sitewide Land and Resource Use 4
4.0 Background, Remedy Selection and Implementation and O&M: OU1 7
4.1 OU1 Physical Characteristics 7
4.2 OU1 Land and Resource Use 7
4.3 OU 1 History of Contamination 7
4.4 OU 1 Initial Response 8
4.5 OU 1 Basis for Taking Action 9
4.6 OU 1 Remedial Actions 10
4.7 OU1 Remedy Selection 11
4.8 OU1 Remedy Implementation 12
4.9 OU 1 Operation and Maintenance (O&M) 13
5.0 Background, Remedy Selection and Implementation and O&M: OU2 13
5.1 OU2 Physical Characteristics 13
5.2 OU2 Land and Resource Use 13
5.3 OU2 History of Contamination 14
5.4 OU2 Initial Response 14
5.5 OU2 Basis for Taking Action 15
5.6 OU2 Remedial Actions 15
5.7 OU2 Remedy Selection 16
5.8 OU2 Remedy Implementation 18
5.9 OU2 Operation and Maintenance (O&M) 19
6.0 Progress since the Last Five-Year Review 19
7.0 Five-Year Review Process 20
7.1 Administrative Components 20
7.2 Community Involvement 20
7.3 Document Review 20
7.4 Data Review 27
7.5 Site Inspection 37
7.6 Interviews 37
8.0 Technical Assessment 39
8.1 Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision
DOCUMENTS? 39
8.2 Question B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels and
REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES (RAOs) USED AT THE TIME OF REMEDY SELECTION
STILL VALID? 41
8.3 Question C: Has any other information come to light that could call into
QUESTION THE PROTECTIVENESS OF THE REMEDY? 43
8.4 Technical Assessment Summary 43
iii
-------
9.0 Issues 44
10.0 Recommendations and Follow-up Actions 45
11.0 Protectiveness Statements 47
12.0 Next Review 47
Appendix A: List of Documents Reviewed A-l
Appendix B: Press Notice B-l
Appendix C: Interview Forms C-l
Appendix D: Site Inspection Checklist D-l
Appendix E: Photographs from Site Inspection Visit E-l
Appendix F: Environmental Covenant F-l
Appendix G: Data and Maps G-l
Appendix H: Detailed Data Review Findings for OU1 and OU2 H-l
List of Tables
Table 1: Chronology of Site Events 2
Table 2: OU1 ROD Groundwater COC Cleanup Goals 12
Table 3: Table A from the OU2 ROD, Cleanup Levels 17
Table 4: OU1 Previous and Current ARARs for Groundwater COCs 21
Table 5: OU2 Previous and Current ARARs for Groundwater COCs 22
Table 6: Institutional Controls in Place 23
Table 7: OU1 Institutional Control (IC) Summary Table 24
Table 8: OU2 Institutional Control Summary Table 25
Table 9: OU2 PCE MCL Exceedances in the Upper, Middle and Lower Zones 32
Table 10: OU2 Domestic Well PCE MCL Exceedances, 2003-2011 34
Table 11: Comparison of Cleanup Goals and VISLs 42
Table 12: Current Site Issues 44
Table 13: Recommendations to Address Current Site Issues 45
List of Figures
Figure 1: Site Location Map 5
Figure 2: Detailed Site Map 6
Figure 3: Institutional Control Base Map 26
Figure 4: OU1 Detail 29
Figure 5: OU2 Detail 36
iv
-------
List of Acronyms
AOC
Administrative Order on Consent
ARAR
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement
BCI
Bountiful Cleaners Incorporated
bgs
below the ground surface
BHHRA
Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment
CAH
Chlorinated Aliphatic Hydrocarbon
CERCLA
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
CFR
Code of Federal Regulations
CIC
Community Involvement Coordinator
COC
Contaminant of Concern
DCE
Dichloroethene
DERR
Division of Environmental Response and Remediation
EAB
Enhanced Anaerobic Bioremediation
EOS®
Emulsified Oil Substrate
EPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
FS
Feasibility Study
FYR
Five-Year Review
GPM
Gallons Per Minute
GWTS
Groundwater Treatment System
GAC
Granular/liquid Activated Carbon
HI
Hazard Index
HDR
HDR Engineering, Inc.
IC
Institutional Control
LTMP
Long Term Monitoring Plan
LTRA
Long Term Response Action
MCL
Maximum Contaminant Level
MCLG
Maximum Contaminant Level Goal
mg/kg
milligrams per kilogram or parts per million (ppm)
MTBE
Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether
MNA
Monitored Natural Attenuation
MW
Monitoring Well
NCP
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
NPL
National Priorities List
OU
Operable Unit
O&M
Operation and Maintenance
PA
Preliminary Assessment
PCE
T etrachl oroethene
POTW
Publicly Owned Treatment Works
ppb
parts per billion
ppm
parts per million
PRP
Potentially Responsible Party
PWT
Pacific Western Technologies, Ltd.
QAPP
Quality Assurance Project Plan
RME
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
RfC
Reference Concentration
RA
Remedial Action
V
-------
RAO
Remedial Action Objective
RBC
Risk-Based Concentrations
RD
Remedial Design
RI
Remedial Investigation
ROD
Record of Decision
RPM
Remedial Project Manager
START
Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team
SVE
Soil Vapor Extraction
TCE
Trichloroethene
TMB
trimethylbenzene
l^g/kg
micrograms per kilogram (ppb)
^g/L
micrograms per liter (ppb)
UDEQ
Utah Department of Environmental Quality
UPDES
Utah Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
VISL
Vapor Intrusion Screening Levels
VOC
Volatile Organic Compounds
vi
-------
Executive Summary
The Bountiful/Woods Cross 5th S. PCE Plume site (the Site) is located in southern Davis
County, Utah, about 10 miles north of Salt Lake City, and covers an area of about 450 acres. In
1998, EPA investigations revealed groundwater contamination at the Site and the EPA divided
the impacted areas into two operable units (OUs). OU1 is known as the trichloroethene (TCE)
Groundwater Plume at the W.S. Hatch Company (Hatchco) property, formerly the "Woods Cross
800 West Plume." OU1 includes contaminated subsurface soil and groundwater. OU2 is a
tetrachloroethene (PCE) plume emanating from the Bountiful Family Cleaners property,
currently owned by Bountiful Cleaners, Inc. (BCI) and the former David Early property. OU2
was formerly known as the "5th South PCE plume " with an unknown source or as the " Unknown
Source Plume."
The remedy at OU1 currently protects human health and the environment because no one is
using contaminated groundwater for domestic uses. It should also be noted that there are no
known vapor intrusion issues within residential or commercial buildings in the vicinity of OU1.
However, in order for the remedy to be protective in the long-term, the following actions need to
be taken:
• Better define the downgradient edge of the OU1 plume laterally and the entire plume
vertically (e.g. develop cross sectional maps).
• Implement institutional controls to restrict groundwater use near the TCE plume, prohibit
new well drilling for domestic use and recommend vapor intrusion mitigation in all
permits for construction planned on or along the projected path of the contaminated
plume.
The remedy at OU2 is expected to be protective of human health and the environment upon
completion, and in the interim, exposure pathways that could result in unacceptable risks are
being controlled.
vii
-------
Five-Year Review Summary Form
SITE IDENTIFICATION
Site Name: Bountiful/Woods Cross 5th S. PCE Plume
EPA ID:
UT0001119296
Region: 8
State: UT
NPL Status: Final
City/County: Bountiful, West Bountiful, and
Woods Cross/Davis
Multiple OUs?
Yes
Lead agency: EPA
Has the site achieved construction completion?
No
Author name: Sam Garcia and Treat Suomi
Author affiliation: EPA Region 8 and Skeo Solutions
Review period: 12/10/2012 - 09/15/2013
Date of site inspection: 12/11/2012
Type of review: Statutory
Review number: 1
Triggering action date: 09/15/2008
Due date (five years after triggering action date): 09/15/2013
viii
-------
Five-Year Review Summary Form (continued)
Issues/Recommendations
OU(s) without Issues/Recommendations Identified in the Five-Year Review:
None
Issues and Recommendations Identified in the Five-Year Review:
OU(s):
0111,0112
Issue Category: Institutional Controls
Issue: Required institutional controls have not been implemented to
restrict groundwater use at most of the properties above the contaminated
groundwater plumes.
Recommendation: Implement institutional controls to restrict groundwater
use and prohibit new well drilling for domestic use at properties above the
contaminated groundwater plumes.
Affect Current
Protectiveness
Affect Future
Protectiveness
Implementing
Party
Oversight
Party
Milestone Date
No
Yes
EPA/State
EPA
09/30/2015
OU(s):
0111,0112
Issue Category: Institutional Controls
Issue: Required institutional controls have not been implemented to
recommend vapor intrusion mitigation in all permits for construction of new
commercial and/or residential buildings planned on or along the projected
path of the contaminated groundwater.
Recommendation: Implement institutional controls to recommend vapor
intrusion mitigation in all permits for construction of new commercial
and/or residential buildings planned on or along the projected path of the
contaminated groundwater.
Affect Current
Protectiveness
Affect Future
Protectiveness
Implementing
Party
Oversight
Party
Milestone Date
No
Yes
EPA/State
EPA
09/30/2015
ix
-------
Five-Year Review Summary Form (continued)
OU(s): OU1
Issue Category: Monitoring
Issue: There is a lack of data for the downgradient edge of both the deep
and shallow OU1 groundwater plumes, and for the vertical extent of the
OU1 groundwater plume.
Recommendation: Obtain the necessary data to better define the
downgradient edge of the OU1 plume laterally and the entire plume
vertically (e.g. develop cross sectional maps).
Affect Current
Protectiveness
Affect Future
Protectiveness
Implementing
Party
Oversight
Party
Milestone Date
No
Yes
EPA
EPA
09/30/2014
OU(s): OU2
Issue Category: Remedy Performance
Issue: There is potentially an unacceptable risk of chronic health effects
due to long-term exposure to PCE in BCI basement indoor air.
Recommendation: Complete the ongoing comprehensive evaluation of
potential soil vapor intrusion associated with the source area at OU2.
Affect Current
Protectiveness
Affect Future
Protectiveness
Implementing
Party
Oversight
Party
Milestone Date
No
Yes
EPA
EPA
09/30/2014
OU(s): OU2
Issue Category: Remedy Performance
Issue: The toxicity values used to calculate the soil gas and groundwater
cleanup goals for PCE and TCE have been revised, resulting in cleanup
goals that no longer fall within the EPA's acceptable risk range.
Recommendation: Revise the cleanup goals for the OU2 source area.
Affect Current
Protectiveness
Affect Future
Protectiveness
Implementing
Party
Oversight
Party
Milestone Date
No
Yes
EPA
EPA
09/30/2014
OU(s): OU2
Issue Category: Changed Site Conditions
Issue: A few domestic wells have shown increasing concentrations of
COCs that exceed MCLs.
Recommendation: Update the well survey and ensure that the revised
LTMP formalizes routine sampling and provides results to well owners
regarding contaminant levels in wells and any related changes in risk.
Affect Current
Protectiveness
Affect Future
Protectiveness
Implementing
Party
Oversight
Party
Milestone Date
No
Yes
EPA
EPA
09/30/2014
X
-------
Five-Year Review Summary Form (continued)
OU(s): OU2
Issue Category: Monitoring
Issue: Additional data is needed to better define the OU2 groundwater
plume vertically.
Recommendation: Compile or obtain the necessary data to better define
the OU2 plume vertically.
Affect Current
Protectiveness
Affect Future
Protectiveness
Implementing
Party
Oversight
Party
Milestone Date
No
Yes
EPA
EPA
09/30/2014
Protectiveness Statement(s)
Operable Unit: Protectiveness Determination: Addendum Due Date
OU1 Short-term Protective (if applicable):
Click here to enter elate,
Protectiveness Statement: The remedy at OU1 currently protects human health and the
environment because no one is using contaminated groundwater for domestic uses.
However, in order for the remedy to be protective in the long-term, the following actions need
to be taken: Better define the downgradient edge of the OU1 plume laterally and the entire
plume vertically; Implement institutional controls to restrict groundwater use near the TCE
plume, prohibit new well drilling for domestic use and recommend vapor intrusion mitigation
in all permits for construction planned on or along the projected path of the contaminated
plume.
Operable Unit: Protectiveness Determination: Addendum Due Date
OU2 Short-term Protective (if applicable):
Click here to enter elate,
Protectiveness Statement: The remedy at OU2 is expected to be protective of human health
and the environment upon completion, and in the interim, exposure pathways that could
result in unacceptable risks are being controlled.
xi
-------
First Five-Year Review Report
for
Bountiful/Woods Cross 5th S. PCE Plume Superfund Site
1.0 Introduction
The purpose of a five-year review (FYR) is to evaluate the implementation and performance of a
remedy in order to determine if the remedy is protective of human health and the environment.
FYR reports document FYR methods, findings and conclusions. In addition, FYR reports
identify issues found during the review, if any, and document recommendations to address them.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency prepares FYRs pursuant to the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) Section
121 and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP).
CERCLA Section 121 states:
If the President selects a remedial action that results in any hazardous substances,
pollutants, or contaminants remaining at the site, the President shall review such remedial
action no less often than each 5 years after the initiation of such remedial action to assure
that human health and the environment are being protected by the remedial action being
implemented. In addition, if upon such review it is the judgment of the President that
action is appropriate at such site in accordance with section [104] or [106], the President
shall take or require such action. The President shall report to the Congress a list of
facilities for which such review is required, the results of all such reviews, and any
actions taken as a result of such reviews.
The EPA interpreted this requirement further in the NCP, 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
Section 300.430(f)(4)(ii), which states:
If a remedial action is selected that results in hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants remaining at the site above levels that allow for unlimited use and
unrestricted exposure, the lead agency shall review such action no less often than every
five years after initiation of the selected remedial action.
Skeo Solutions, an EPA Region 8 contractor, conducted the FYR and prepared this report
regarding the remedy implemented at the Bountiful/Woods Cross 5th S. PCE Plume Superfund
site (the Site) in Bountiful City, Davis County, Utah. The EPA's contractor conducted this FYR
from December 2012 to September 2013. The EPA is the lead agency for developing and
implementing the remedy for the cleanup at the Site. Utah Department of Environmental Quality
(UDEQ), as the support agency representing the State of Utah, has reviewed all supporting
documentation and provided input to the EPA during the FYR process.
This is the first FYR for the Site. The triggering action for this statutory review is the on-site
construction start date of the remedial action for operable unit (OU) 1. The FYR is required
because hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants remain at the Site above levels that
1
-------
allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. The Site consists of two OUs. This FYR
addresses both site OUs.
2.0 Site Chronology
Table 1 lists the dates of important events for OU1 and OU2 at the Site.
Table 1: Chronology of Site Events
r.M'iu
Diilo
Golder Associates conducted an investigation at the Woods Cross
Refinery where tetrachloroethene (PCE) was detected in groundwater
both upgradient and downgradient of the refinery
May 1987
The EPA discovered contamination on site
June 22, 1995
The EPA's Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team
(START) took samples in the area of OU lto identify the extent of
groundwater contamination
1996
The EPA initiated a removal action to provide bottled water to several
residential properties using contaminated groundwater for domestic use.
February 26, 1996
The EPA completed the bottled water removal action
May 24,1996
UDEQ's Division of Environmental Response and Remediation
(DERR) conducted a Preliminary Assessment (PA) for the OU2 PCE
Plume
July 24, 1996
UDEQ/DERR's PA confirmed a considerable release of PCE
contamination in groundwater, but a source was not identified for OU2
1996
The EPA initiated a second removal action to connect several homes
using contaminated groundwater to a municipal water system
November 18, 1996
The EPA completed the second removal action
May 31, 1997
The EPA completed an initial/preliminary PRP search for the Site
July 23, 1997
W.S. Hatch Company (Hatchco) removed structures associated with
potential past releases of contaminants of concern, OU 1
1995-1998
The EPA and UDEQ conducted a PA of the Hatchco property, OU 1
1998
The EPA and UDEQ's PA identified the wash rack and adjacent area of
the Hatchco property as the primary sources of contamination for OU 1
1998
The EPA proposed the Site for listing on the National Priorities List
(NPL)
December 1, 2000
The EPA initiated an initial remedial investigation/feasibility study
(RI/FS) at the Site
December 3, 2001
The EPA placed the Site on the NPL
September 13, 2001
The EPA and Hatchco entered into an Administrative Order on Consent
(AOC) to conduct a RI/FS at OU 1
September 28, 2001
The EPA issued a General Notice of Potential Liability letter to
Bountiful Cleaners Incorporated (BCI) for OU2
September 23, 2002
The EPA and BCI entered into an AOC to conduct a RI/FS at OU2
April 1, 2003
The EPA initiated an RI to identify potential sources of volatile organic
compounds (VOC) and to determine the extent of groundwater
contamination in OU2
April 2, 2003
Hatchco completed the OU 1 RI/FS, which confirmed the presence of
hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants on the Hatchco
property subsurface soil and in OU 1 groundwater
June 1, 2005
The EPA initiated an RI/FS at OU2
June 1, 2005
The EPA initiated a Pilot Study Implementation Plan at OU2
July 2005
The EPA completed the OU2 RI
August 30, 2006
2
-------
r.M'iu
Diilo
The EPA's RI for the Site identified the subsurface soils at the BCI and
the former David Early properties as the source of pollution at OU2
August 2006
The EPA completed the OU1 RI/FS
September 28, 2006
The EPA and UDEQ signed the Record of Decision (ROD) for OU1
September 28, 2006
The EPA began the remedial design (RD) for the Hatchco Property
(OU1)
December 6, 2006
The EPA began the RD for OU2
April 10, 2007
The EPA completed the RD for the Hatchco property (OU 1)
September 17, 2007
The EPA initiated the remedial action (RA) for OU 1
September 19, 2007
The EPA signed the ROD for OU2
September 27, 2007
The EPA completed the initial RI/FS at the Site (OU1), which was
started in 2001
September 27, 2007
The EPA initiated on-site RA construction for OU 1
September 15, 2008
The EPA began installation of injection wells for biobarrier #1
December 2008
The EPA initiated RA construction for OU2
September 10, 2009
The EPA completed the RD for OU2
September 29, 2009
The EPA began construction of the OU2 groundwater treatment system
August 26, 2010
The EPA began installation of biobarriers #2 and #3
January 2011
The EPA completed construction of the OU2 groundwater treatment
system
January 18, 2011
The EPA and UDEQ conducted final inspection of the OU2
groundwater treatment system, marking the start of the shakedown
period
April 13,2011
The EPA, Security Investment Ltd., and UDEQ entered into an
environmental covenant (OU2)
October 31, 2011
The EPA and state determined the OU2 remedy to be operational and
functional, beginning the long-term response action period
April 13, 2012
The EPA completed the Remedial Action Report for the OU2
downgradient groundwater RA
September 25, 2012
3.0 Sitewide Background
3.1 Sitewide Physical Characteristics
The Site is located in southern Davis County, Utah, about 10 miles north of Salt Lake
City, and covers an area of about 450 acres (Figure 1). A mixture of land uses surrounds
the Site. Over 84,000 people live within a four-mile radius of the Site.
In 1998, EPA investigations revealed groundwater contamination at the Site. After listing
on the NPL, the EPA divided the impacted areas into two OUs for ease of investigation
and cleanup. This FYR discusses the history and remedial status of OU1 and OU2
(Figure 2).
The topography around the Site slopes gently to the west and is 4,300 feet above mean
sea level. The Site is located in the Basin and Range physiographic province on the
southern portion of the East Shore Aquifer. In general, the East Shore Aquifer system is
confined or semi-confined, with some unconfined areas along the mountain front to the
east and in floodplain deposits along stream channels. Perched zones may be evident
3
-------
along the benches and in valley lowland areas. Groundwater flow is generally towards the
west/northwest, following the topography towards the Great Salt Lake.
3.2 Sitewide Land and Resource Use
Private residences and agricultural land bound the Site to the west; commercial properties
and residences bound it to the south; industrial sites and residences bound it to the north;
and an interstate highway, railroad tracks and commercial properties bound it to the east.
In addition, within the Site boundaries there are an interstate highway, railroad tracks,
shopping mall and a petroleum refinery.
There are also industrial, agricultural and residential land uses in the area impacted by the
contaminated groundwater. Many area residents and business owners have historic
groundwater rights and use private wells for agricultural and household uses. In addition,
municipal water is available in the area. As part of the remedy at the Site, the EPA
connected a few area residents that had contaminated well water to the municipal water
system. Site stakeholders anticipate future use of groundwater will be consistent with
current use including irrigation and agricultural.
4
-------
Figure 1: Site Location Map
Bountiful, UT
Bountiful/
Woods Cross
5th S. PCE Plume
Superfund Site
BountifuI/Woods C ross Sthjsfl
BpJCEfclumVsuperfund SiteU
0 0.125 0.25 0.5 0.75
Legend
¦ Miles
Approximate Site Boundary
BountifulA/Voods Cross 5th S. PCE Plume Superfund Site
Bountiful. Davis County. Utah
Disclaimer; This map and any boundary lines within the map are approximate and subject to change. The map is not a survey. The map is for
informational purposes only regarding the EPA's response actions at the Site.
-------
Figure 2: Detailed Site Map
<'r
W 400 N
Water
Treatm ent
Plant \
5
0U1
W 500 S
Legend
Source Ares
Water Treatment Plant
I Approximate Site Boundary
Vj
O
NORTH
Bountiful/Woods Cross 5th S. PCE Plume Superfund Site
Bountiful, Davis County. Utah
Disclaimer: This map and any boundary lines within the map are approximate and subject to change: The map is not a survey. The map is for informational purposes only regarding the EPA's response
actions at the Site.
6
-------
4.0 Background, Remedy Selection and Implementation and O&M: OU1
4.1 OUl Physical Characteristics
OU1 is known as the trichloroethene (TCE) Groundwater Plume at the W.S. Hatch
Company (Hatchco) property, formerly listed by the EPA as the "Woods Cross 800 West
Plume". OUl includes contaminated subsurface soil and groundwater. The OUl source
area and contaminated plume area is rectangular in shape with the long axis oriented west
to east.
OUl includes the source area, between Interstate 15 and 800 West Street, and between
500 South and 750 South streets in Woods Cross, Davis County, Utah and the TCE
groundwater plume. The OUlproperty is in Section 25, Township 2N, Range 1W of the
Salt Lake Base Line and Meridian. The street address is 643 South, 800 West.
4.2 OUl Land and Resource Use
From 1936 to 1986, Hatchco operated on 13 acres of the Site as a specialized carrier of
bulk petroleum; asphalt; and petroleum products and solvents, such as toluene and
xylene. Hatch Service Company, a wholly owned subsidiary of Hatchco, also operated at
this location and occasionally used Hatchco facilities to service, clean and park tractor-
trailers and tank trucks. At the peak of operations, the facility was home to approximately
75 trucks, 200 trailers and 125 employees.
The eastern half of the property was originally covered with natural grasses. The western
half was covered with asphalt and was occupied by buildings where semi-trucks and
trailers were repaired and maintained.
Jack B. Kelley Inc. purchased all of Hatchco's stock on December 10, 1986, and
continued trucking operations on the property until February 1996. Hatchco sold 10 acres
to Kalahari on December 30, 1997 and the remaining 3 acres were sold to the Utah
Transit Authority (UTA) on July 25, 2008. The former Hatchco property, the OUl source
area, is currently a paved parking lot for the Utah Commuter Rail, owned by the UTA.
As of 2006, the closest domestic wells were within 1,000 feet of the leading edge of the
TCE plume. Although no domestic groundwater use is currently known within the
delineated OUl groundwater plume, contaminated groundwater is flowing to the
northwest where several domestic groundwater wells are located.
4.3 OUl History of Contamination
The primary release mechanisms for contaminants at OUl include leaks, spills, direct
discharge and infiltration to the surface or subsurface. The Hatchco facility used grease
and oils in on-site mechanics operations and used various solvents, including chlorinated
solvents, to service, clean and maintain the trailers and tank trucks. Media affected by the
potential releases include surface soil, subsurface soil, groundwater and air.
7
-------
4.4 OU1 Initial Response
In 1995, Hatchco hired TRTech, a contractor, to perform a Phase I Environmental Survey
on the original 13-acre Hatchco property. During the survey, TRTech identified several
environmental issues, including chlorinated solvent contamination of the shallow aquifer.
In 1996, EPA's Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team (START) took
several samples in the area to identify the extent of groundwater contamination. Results
of the START report confirmed the presence of chlorinated solvents in groundwater at
the property.
From 1995 to 1998, Hatchco removed structures associated with potential past releases of
contaminants of concern (COC), including an underground waste oil storage tank, a
French drain, and an underground oil/water separator. During the French drain removal,
the oil residue in the drain was tested and, although the sample contained chlorinated
solvents, the workers reported the oil waste as nonhazardous.
Hatchco stored the waste from removal of these structures in a 200-gallon underground
tank; Hatchco removed the tank in 1995. Before removal, Hatchco pumped material from
the tank into 55-gallon drums for disposal. The material in the drums contained waste
petroleum products, carbon disulfide, methylene chloride, TCE, lead and mercury. In
1996, the Utah Solid and Hazardous Waste Control Board issued a "no further corrective
action" determination for the Site
Through a Cooperative Agreement with the EPA, UDEQ conducted a Preliminary
Assessment (PA) of the Hatchco property in 1998. The PA confirmed that OU1 soils
contained contaminants and that the wash rack (an area formerly used to wash vehicles)
and adjacent area were the primary sources of contamination. Solvent-contaminated
groundwater in the shallow aquifer presented the primary pathway for contaminants to
migrate to potential receptors. The PA found the primary COCs were chlorinated
solvents. Other potential contaminants in the area included: greases, oils, diesel fuel,
waste fuel and waste oil.
In 1998, TRTech conducted a pilot test and operated a low-volume air sparging system to
remove vinyl chloride from the shallow aquifer. The pilot test was effective in reducing
PCE, TCE and vinyl chloride concentrations in groundwater near the source; however,
TRTech did not release a report on the air sparging system results and groundwater
impacts downgradient of the Hatchco property.
In July 1997, the EPA completed an initial/preliminary PRP search for the Site,
augmented by the issuance of information request letters to Hatchco in January 2001 and
February 2003. On September 28, 2001, the EPA and Hatchco entered into an
Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) for a remedial investigation/feasibility study
(RI/FS) at OU1. Hatchco completed the RI/FS in July 2004.
8
-------
In December 2004, the EPA decided to complete the RI/FS for OU2 before issuing the
Record of Decision (ROD) for OU1. This decision allowed for a broad assessment of the
groundwater conditions at the Site prior to remedial selection.
4.5 OU1 Basis for Taking Action
In December 2000, the EPA proposed the Site for inclusion on the National Priorities List
(NPL) and in September 2001, the EPA finalized the Site on the NPL.
The remedial investigations confirmed the presence of hazardous substances, pollutants
or contaminants in the Hatchco property subsurface soil and groundwater. However,
there are no COCs in surface soils. Surface soil data reveal volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) at levels near or below the detection limits. This could be due to the volatility of
the COCs (see Section 4.1 of this FYR) and the fact that the Hatchco property had been
vacant and inactive for several years before the investigations. In addition, prior to the RI,
between 1995 and 1998 Hatchco excavated, treated and removed hot spots of
contaminated surface soils.
The investigations also confirmed VOCs in groundwater at concentrations above
maximum contaminant levels (MCLs). The baseline risk assessment, included in the
2003 Remedial Investigation Final Report, concluded that the contaminated groundwater
should not be used for drinking water or indoor domestic use. In addition, the Hatchco
risk assessment determined that the subsurface soil at the Hatchco property is
contaminated, but does not pose a direct exposure concern to human health. However, the
subsurface soil was a source of contamination to groundwater.
Based on the current and likely future land uses in the area of the contaminated
groundwater plume, current and future residents, and current and future workers in area
businesses are the most susceptible to future exposures. Potential exposure pathways by
which residents and workers could be exposed to VOCs in groundwater include the
following:
• Direct ingestion of the water (from a well) as drinking water.
• Dermal contact with the water while showering or bathing.
• Inhalation of VOCs that are released from indoor water uses to indoor air.
• Inhalation of VOCs that are released from groundwater and migrate through soil
into indoor air.
• Inhalation of VOCs that are released from groundwater and migrate through soil
into outdoor air.
• Incidental ingestion of groundwater that occurs at the surface (e.g., into streams,
lakes or wetlands).
The 2003 OU1 RI included information from the Baseline Human Health Risk
Assessment (BHHRA) that evaluated soil, subsurface soil and groundwater. The BHHRA
did not evaluate surface water, as there are no surface water features present in OU1.
9
-------
For human receptors, the EPA determined there was a need to remediate groundwater
contamination to drinking water standards. Because the concentration of contaminants in
groundwater tends to decrease with increasing distance from the source and because most
groundwater users draw their water from a single well, the BHHRA evaluated human
exposure on a well-by-well basis. The BHHRA determined that residents living near
OU1 could be impacted in the future by contaminants migrating downgradient from the
Hatchco property. The BHHRA concluded that most workers or residents do not drink
water from the shallow aquifer; therefore, the BHHRA considered the exposure pathway
by groundwater ingestion mainly hypothetical, although some exceptions may occur.
In October 2005, the EPA and UDEQ conducted interviews to assess if any property
owners with domestic wells located downgradient from the Hatchco property were using
their wells for drinking groundwater. Results from the interviews indicate that there are
up to seven residences where well water is used for drinking; however, in all cases, the
contamination levels at these wells are below the MCLs. None of the well owners
interviewed were interested in connecting to municipal water wells as long as the
contaminant levels remained below screening levels. Two other wells are contaminated at
levels above the MCLs; however, these wells are used for livestock watering only.
For ecological receptors, the 2004 ecological risk assessment determined that exposure
can only occur if groundwater is discharged at the surface (e.g., into streams, lakes or
wetlands). The risk assessment calculated screening-level risks for aquatic receptors as if
water from upper aquifer wells might reach the surface. Wildlife could be exposed to
groundwater expressed at the surface by ingestion as drinking water, and by ingestion of
aquatic food web items. The risk assessment determined that because VOCs tend to be
rapidly lost from surface water and do not tend to build up in the food chain, and because
limited data suggested that VOCs were not detectable in surface waters collected on or
near the site, these pathways were judged unlikely to be of concern.
The OU1 RI only investigated the nature and extent of the groundwater plume from the
Hatchco property to the suspected secondary source location area (near MW-14S) (Figure
4). The EPA addressed the suspected secondary source during the OU2 RI/FS and found
subsequent OU2 sampling did not indicate an additional source area.
4.6 OU1 Remedial Actions
In accordance with CERCLA and the NCP, remedial actions are required to protect
human health and the environment and to comply with applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements (ARARs). A number of remedial alternatives were considered
for the Site, and final selection was made based on an evaluation of each alternative
against nine evaluation criteria that are specified in Section 300.430(e)(9)(iii) of the NCP.
The nine criteria are:
1. Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
2. Compliance with ARARs
3. Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
10
-------
4. Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility or Volume through Treatment
5. Short-Term Effectiveness
6. Implementability
7. Cost
8. State Acceptance
9. Community Acceptance
OU1 Remedy Selection
The remedy selection at the Site occurred in two RODs, one each for OU1 and OU2.
OU1 is the TCE groundwater plume at the Hatchco property.
The EPA developed Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs) for OU1 based on sitewide
sampling data, the BHHRA, fate and transport evaluations, and ARARs.
The EPA selected the OU1 remedy as detailed in the OU1 ROD, which was signed on
September 28, 2006. The selected remedy for OU1 addresses both subsurface soil and
groundwater contaminated with PCE, TCE, cis-l,2-dichloroethene (cis-l,2-DCE), vinyl
chloride and other VOCs at the Hatchco property.
The 2006 ROD listed the following RAOs for OU1:
• Reduce the potential of the subsurface, saturated zone soils to act as a source of
groundwater contamination (i.e., to reduce the potential for contaminant migration
from subsurface soils to groundwater).
• Prevent unacceptable exposure to current and future human populations posed by
ingestion of contaminated groundwater, and prevent potential inhalation of VOCs
released during the indoor use of contaminated groundwater.
• Return groundwater to beneficial use if possible or practicable.
The selected remedy for OU1 includes the following major components:
• Institutional controls to eliminate potential direct exposure and indirect exposure
(e.g., vapor intrusion) to groundwater to ensure protectiveness of the remedy.
• Injection of chemical/biological agents (food-grade compounds and microbes)
into the contaminated subsurface soil and the saturated zone to enhance the rates
of COC biodegradation.
• Groundwater monitoring to track VOCs and natural attenuation parameters until
the MCLs are achieved.
The OU1 ROD established the groundwater cleanup goals reported in Table 2.
11
-------
Table 2: OU1 ROD Groundwater COC Cleanup Goals
COC
Kcmcdiiilioii (>o:il
(Drinkinii \\:iu*r MCI.) (.uii/l.)
PCE
5
TCE
5
Vinyl Chloride
2
Cis-1,2-DCE
70
Benzene
5
Naphthalene
6.5*
1,2,4-trimethylbenzene
70
OU1 COCs listed in this table taken from the Groundwater Cleanup Levels
Table listed in Section 13.2 of the OU1 ROD.
*There is no MCL for naphthalene; the cleanup level is the preliminary
remediation goal listed in the ROD.
4.8 OU1 Remedy Implementation
The selected remedy for the TCE groundwater plume includes monitored natural
attenuation (MNA) with institutional controls and enhanced in-situ biological/chemical
remediation.
The EPA started the OU1 remedial design in December 2006. During design and
implementation of the remedy, the EPA's remedial action contractor, CDM, determined
that the groundwater contamination was observed at a depth of 70-80 feet. The RI
previously completed by HDR had only characterized groundwater contamination in the
shallow portion of the aquifer to a depth of approximately 50 feet. The remedy
implementation therefore had injection wells that included shallow wells, paired wells at
shallow and deep intervals, and deep wells. Remedial design was completed in October
2007, and the on-site remedial action began on September 15, 2008 (the triggering date
for the current FYR). Remedial action contractors for the EPA conducted baseline
sampling in October and November 2008. Subsequently, the source area and biobarrier
#1 injection wells were installed between December 2008 and February 2009. The
contractor performed the first Emulsified Oil Substrate (EOS®) injection in the source
area and biobarrier #1, from December 2008 to February 2009 . Following EOS®
injections, bioaugmentation was performed in the source area and biobarrier #1. The EPA
determined the need for biobarriers #2 and #3 based on the pre-remedial action
characterization data, as well as four quarters of groundwater monitoring conducted from
downgradient wells between May 2009 and January 2010. Procurement, installation of
biobarriers #2 and #3, and EOS® injections were completed between January and July
2011. The contractor completed phase 1 bioaugmentation at biobarriers #2 and #3 in
1 For additional information on how the Emulsified Oil Substrate electron donor works, see Use of Bioremediation
at SuperfundSites, U.S. EPA 2001 at http://www.clu-in.org/download/remed/542r01019.pdf.
12
-------
December 2011 and phase 2 in June 2012. The contractor conducted the addition of more
EOS® in the source area (at hot spots) to provide a long-term source of electron donor,
and addition of sodium lactate to provide rapidly utilized substrate to increase reaction
rates.
The contractor is continuing to work with the EPA and UDEQ to reach the operational
and functional determination at OU1. Additional remedial work may include:
• Addition of more emulsified oil in the source area (at hot spots) to provide a long-
term source of electron donor, and addition of sodium lactate to provide rapidly
utilized substrate to increase reaction rates.
• Additional EOS® injection events for the biobarriers (may include additional
bi oaugmentati on).
• Additional groundwater monitoring will be conducted until cleanup goals are
achieved.
• Groundwater monitoring and MNA will continue until the performance standards
are reached for a period of two consecutive years.
4.9 OU1 Operation and Maintenance (O&M)
OU1 has not entered the O&M phase. The contractor is working with the EPA and the
state to finalize an O&M plan and make an operational and functional determination for
OU1. For OU1, determination of "operational and functional" is dependent on the
performance monitoring data collected near EOS® injection locations.
5.0 Background, Remedy Selection and Implementation and O&M: OU2
5.1 OU2 Physical Characteristics
OU2 is a tetrachloroethene (PCE) plume emanating from the Bountiful Family Cleaners
property, which is owned by Bountiful Cleaners, Inc. (BCI) and the former David Early
property. OU2 is 400 acres and was formerly known as the "5th South PCE Plume " with
an unknown source or as the " Unknown Source Plume."
The boundaries of OU2 are approximately from 300 North to 750 South streets and from
500 West to 1400 West streets. OU2 includes the BCI property, the former David Early
property and the PCE groundwater plume. The OU2 terrain slopes to the west toward the
Great Salt Lake.
5.2 OU2 Land and Resource Use
The OU2 source area includes the former David Early property and a small shopping
center that includes the Bountiful Family Cleaners and two other commercial
establishments that lease their stores from BCI. The parking lots at the OU2 source area
are paved and the properties are zoned for commercial use.
13
-------
In addition to the industrial uses, the land at OU2 is utilized for commercial, agricultural
and residential purposes. A dry cleaning business has operated on a portion of the OU2
source area since the early 1940s.
A total of 37 groundwater production wells have been identified in the vicinity of the
PCE plume. Of these 37 wells, one is a municipal supply well (West Bountiful 5th South
Well), two are industrial supply wells (Woods Cross Refining Co. Well #2 and Well #3),
and the remaining 34 wells are domestic supply wells (DW01 through DW34; DW12 was
abandoned in April 2013).
5.3 OU2 History of Contamination
On April 13, 1966, the South Davis County Sewer Improvement District issued a permit
to connect the BCI dry cleaning facility to the main sewer lateral. The permit was to
connect a "Solvent Saver Unit" and one dryer to the main sewer lateral. A "Solvent Saver
Unit" is a machine attached to a clothes dryer that is used to reclaim PCE. Prior to the
lateral connection, the wastewater from the dry cleaning facility likely discharged to a
septic system.
Local records discovered during the later BCI investigation support this conclusion.
Records indicate that the BCI property was the location of a former septic drain field;
however, BCI did not operate the septic drain field. When BCI purchased the property in
1967, the building had already been connected to the city sewer system. The most likely
release mechanisms for contaminants at OU2 include the wastewater from the Solvent
Saver Unit discharging into the septic system and potentially some leaks and spills that
occurred through operations at the facility.
5.4 OU2 Initial Response
In 1996, through a cooperative agreement with the EPA, UDEQ/Division of
Environmental Response and Remediation (DERR) conducted a PA to identify a source
for the contaminated groundwater. Although it did not pinpoint a source, PA sampling
found PCE concentrations ranging from 7 to 30 micrograms per liter (|ig/L) at depths as
shallow as 24 feet and as deep as 140 feet. The plume covered an area of approximately
160 acres and the EPA determined groundwater to be the primary medium that could
result in a completed exposure pathway. The PA identified the refinery, several dry
cleaners (including BCI), and various automotive maintenance facilities as potential
sources of the PCE contamination in groundwater.
Through EPA removal actions, in 1996, bottled water was provided to area residents that
were determined to have private wells affected by the contamination. In 1997, the EPA
had affected residents permanently connected to the municipal water supply.
In July 1997, the EPA completed a PRP search for the Site, augmented by the issuance of
information request letters to parties of interest in January 2001, June 2002 and February
2003. On September 23, 2002, the EPA issued a General Notice of Potential Liability
14
-------
letter to BCI. The EPA subsequently concluded that the septic drain field was the source
of the PCE groundwater contamination and that the release of PCE from the property
occurred prior to BCI's ownership.
5.5 OU2 Basis for Taking Action
In April 2003, the EPA and BCI entered into an AOC to conduct an RI at the BCI
property. During the same time, the EPA was conducting an RI to identify other potential
VOC sources and to determine the nature and extent of groundwater contamination
emanating from the BCI property. The EPA RI covered an area of approximately 400
acres. The EPA completed the sitewide RI/FS in August 2006.
The EPA RI confirmed the presence of hazardous substances, pollutants and
contaminants in subsurface soils at the BCI and Hatchco properties (the source). The
VOC groundwater plume starts at the source (BCI) and extends approximately 1.6 miles
to the northwest. The main COC is PCE. The PCE plume covers an area of
approximately 400 acres. The OU2 RI identified 26 domestic wells and a municipal water
supply well downgradient of the source and within the PCE groundwater plume. Seven of
these domestic wells had PCE concentrations above the MCL.
Ecological risks to aquatic receptors were determined to be below a level of concern. The
risk assessment based this conclusion on the low potential for contaminated groundwater
to discharge to surface water; the lack of suitable natural habitat in the area; and the
residential, industrial/commercial, and agricultural land uses at OU2. Aquatic impacts are
unlikely due to the distance between the Site and the Great Salt Lake (approximately 2.5
miles).
Surface soils are not contaminated above a level of concern; therefore, surface soils do
not pose a threat to human health and the environment. The surface at the source area
(north parking lot of BCI property) is paved.
5.6 OU2 Remedial Actions
In accordance with CERCLA and the NCP, remedial actions are required to protect
human health and the environment and to comply with applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements (ARARs). A number of remedial alternatives were considered
for the Site, and final selection was made based on an evaluation of each alternative
against nine evaluation criteria that are specified in Section 300.430(e)(9)(iii) of the NCP.
The nine criteria are:
1. Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
2. Compliance with ARARs
3. Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
4. Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility or Volume through Treatment
5. Short-Term Effectiveness
6. Implementability
15
-------
7. Cost
8. State Acceptance
9. Community Acceptance
OU2 Remedy Selection
OU2 is a PCE plume emanating from the Bountiful Family Cleaners property, currently
owned by BCI.
The groundwater at the Site is a potential source of drinking water for residents and
communities. The volatilization of PCE from shallow soils and soil under the BCI
building pose a potential health threat to current and future workers. Therefore, the EPA
selected a remedy for OU2 as described in the OU2 ROD, signed on September 27, 2007.
The 2007 OU2 ROD listed the following RAOs:
• Prevent direct ingestion of untreated groundwater as drinking water.
• Prevent exposure via inhalation of VOCs in contaminated groundwater that are
released to indoor air during indoor water use.
• Prevent exposure via inhalation of VOCs from groundwater and soils that migrate
upward through soil into indoor and sub-slab air.
• Restore groundwater to its beneficial use.
The selected remedy for OU2 includes the following major components:
• Institutional controls to eliminate potential direct exposure and indirect exposure
(e.g., vapor intrusion) to groundwater.
• PCE source area cleanup through excavation and disposal of shallow
contaminated soil and soil vapor extraction for deeper contaminated soil.
• Provision of alternate drinking water supply to impacted residents.
• Cleanup and hydraulic containment through installation of an extraction and
injection groundwater treatment. As necessary, the extracted groundwater will be
cleaned using granular/liquid activated carbon (GAC) and clean water will be
injected into the aquifer, as necessary.
• Groundwater monitoring to ensure the remedy responds as designed over time
and all the wells not selected for long-term monitoring will be abandoned
according to the State of Utah's well abandonment requirements.
The OU2 ROD established cleanup levels for soil gas (vapor intrusion pathway), soil gas
(vapor transfer to groundwater pathway), groundwater (vapor intrusion pathway),
groundwater (ingestion) and soil (contaminants leaching to groundwater). Table 3 lists
the core chemical compounds (COCs, degradation products or chemicals exceeding
cleanup levels) detected in groundwater at the Site. The COCs driving the risk and
remedy selection are:
16
-------
• Groundwater: PCE, TCE, vinyl chloride and benzene.
• Indoor air at the source: PCE; TCE; vinyl chloride; 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene; 1,3,5-
trimethylbenzene; and benzene.
Table 3: Table A from the OU2 ROD, Cleanup Levels
RECORD OF DECISION
Bountiful/Wood', Cross ?th South PCE Plume NPL Site - Operable Unit 1 September 200"
Exposure Setting >
Coinmercial (Source Area)
Cancer Risk Level = 11^
Hazard Quotient - 1.0
Residential
Lower of
Cancer Risk
Level Id-4
Residential
Hazard
Quotient = 1.0
Pathway >
Vapor
Intrusion
Vapor
Transfer
to
Ground
Water
Leaching
fo
Ground
Water
Vapor
Intrusion
Ingestion
CASN
Chemical Name
Target
Soil Gas
C'onc.
(ugm3)
Target
Ground
Water
C'onc.
("gL)
Target
Soil Gas
Cone.
(ug'm3)
Target
Soil
C'onc.
(mgkg)
Target
Ground
Water
Cone.
(ug'L)
Drinking
Water
MCL/MCLG
(ug/L)
71432
Benzene
1,314
932
705
0.03
221
5/0
75354
Dichloroethylene, 1,1-
8.760
1.195
5,130
0.06
285
7/7
156592
Dichloroethvlenexis-12-
nit
nvt
7,420
0.4
nvt
70/70
156605
Dichloroethylene. trans-1.2-
2.628
1.041
25.243
0.7
248
100 /100
100414
Ethvlbenzene
43.800
24.648
124.393
13
5.868
700 / 700
127184
Tetrachloroethylene
2,079
484
2,148
0.06
96
5/0
108883
Toluene
219.000
137.941
158.768
12
32,843
1000/1000
79016
Trichloroethvlene
6.132
2,403
1,276
0.06
477
5/0
95636
Trimethylbenzene, 1.2.4-
74
59
1,524
324
14
12*
108678
Trimethylbenzene. 1.3.5-
74
61
1.457
324
15
12'
75014
Vinyl chloride
1,394
169
1.647
0.01
34
2/0
108383
Xylene, m-
4,380
2.661
1.645.708
210
634
10.000
95476
Xylene.o-
4.380
3.797
1,153.415
190
904
10.000
106423
Xvlene.p-
4.380
2.549
1.718.136
200
607
10.000
nvt - Not sufficiently volatile or toxic to pose an inhalation risk for the vapor intrusion pathway
a - Risk based HQ = 1
17
-------
5.8 OU2 Remedy Implementation
The EPA started remedial design in April 2007 and completed it in September 2009. The
EPA began remedial action construction activities at OU2 in September 2009 and
completed activities in 2012, as documented in the September 25, 2012 Remedial Action
Report. In 2007, the EPA and UDEQ determined the reinjection activities would not be
required to support the hydraulic containment remedy. Remedial action contractors began
construction of the groundwater remedy in the summer of 2010. Multiple contractors and
subcontractors were used during the various phases of remedy construction. Contractors
installed the groundwater extraction wells, constructed the groundwater treatment
facility, installed the underground process piping, and installed the treatment system. The
contractors also installed additional monitoring wells as part of the monitoring well
network for OU1. The EPA began construction of the groundwater treatment building in
the summer of 2010. Pacific Western Technologies, Ltd. (PWT), the EPA's contractor,
conducted operational testing of the groundwater treatment system in February 2011. The
system was deemed operational on February 11, 2011. The EPA and UDEQ conducted
the final inspection of the water treatment system on April 13, 2011. This began the
shakedown period.
Based on low PCE surface and subsurface soil concentrations near the BCI facility,
sampled during the RI, the EPA determined that soil vapor extraction (SVE) and
enhanced anaerobic bioremediation (EAB) pilot testing and full-scale implementation of
SVE and EAB systems in the source area were not necessary. In addition, direct-push soil
sampling in the area north of the BCI building indicated that subsurface soil contaminant
concentrations are below remedial objectives. Ground penetrating radar and utility
location activities also confirmed that a former septic tank (possible source for the
contamination) is not located in the area north of the BCI building. The potential source
area (i.e., process water sumps located in the BCI basement) was excavated and sampled
and the sample results indicated no COC concentrations above the cleanup criteria
established in the ROD. Therefore, in 2009, the EPA delayed implementation of the
selected remedy for the source area while performing additional investigations. The EPA
is in the process of completing a comprehensive evaluation of potential soil vapor
intrusion associated with the source area at OU2.
The groundwater treatment system has two main components: the extraction system and
the treatment system (Appendix G). The groundwater extraction wells are in the middle
aquifer zone of the shallow East Shore Aquifer and are located approximately along the
centerline of the dissolved PCE plume. The treatment system removes PCE and other site
contaminants from the groundwater using GAC.
Under the state water rights allocation for OU2, the groundwater treatment system can
extract up to 160-acre feet (52,136,229 gallons) of water per year, which equates to a
continuous flow rate of approximately 100 gallons per minute (gpm) per year. The treated
groundwater is released into the A-l Extension canal and flows to the A-l Canal, where it
is placed into beneficial use in a wetlands mitigation project (Appendix G).
18
-------
5.9 OU2 Operation and Maintenance (O&M)
The Site has not yet entered O&M. The groundwater remedy at OU2 is currently in the
long term response action (LTRA) phase. Construction of the OU2 groundwater remedy
was completed on September 25, 2012. LTRA activities are occurring according to the
2009 O&M plan, the 2011 revised long-term monitoring plan tables, and the 2011
Groundwater Treatment System O&M Manual. LTRA activities are designed to ensure
the effectiveness of the groundwater treatment system. The effectiveness of the
groundwater treatment system is measured by evaluating hydraulic control of the middle
aquifer zone to ensure that hydraulic plume control is being maintained, and by
monitoring water quality influent and effluent data to ensure the treatment system is
performing in accordance with design specifications and meeting effluent water quality
standards. Specific LTRA activities include:
• Groundwater monitoring.
• Continuous monitoring of water elevation with electronic water-level data
loggers.
• Routine inspections and evaluations.
• Regular groundwater treatment system LTRA site visits.
The EPA's contractor performs the majority of site-wide LTRA tasks and the South
Davis Sewer District performs the majority of the groundwater treatment system LTRA
tasks. The South Davis Sewer District took over operation of the water treatment system
on August 29, 2011. The South Davis Sewer District provides quarterly reports to the
EPA detailing LTRA activities and the contractor provides technical reports to the EPA
on a semi-annual basis detailing monitoring results and system performance.
A few issues have arisen since the LTRA period started. One 5,000-pound GAC vessel
was expected to last approximately seven years based on carbon usage calculations for
contaminant breakthrough, but is now in need of replacement due to PCE breakthrough.
The EPA, UDEQ, PWT and the South Davis Sewer District are working to identify the
most economical solution for refurbishing or replacing the GAC. Other system
maintenance has included configuring a backwash system for GAC vessels, and repairing
and replacing system parts as necessary (i.e., flow meters and bags). In addition, in
December 2012, the South Davis Sewer District personnel discovered a problem with the
computer system at the water treatment plant. The system was found to have been hacked
and was being used as a server for online computer gaming. The EPA worked with the
LTRA contractors to resolve the situation by reinstalling the operating system and
software, installing a reliable firewall device, and installing antivirus and protection
software. Other activities at the water treatment plant include general grounds and
building maintenance. A required upgrade included installing a gas heater in the water
treatment building.
6.0 Progress since the Last Five-Year Review
19
-------
This FYR addresses OU1 and OU2 and is the first FYR for the Site.
7.0 Five-Year Review Process
7.1 Administrative Components
EPA Region 8 initiated the FYR in December 2012 and scheduled its completion by
September 2013. EPA remedial project manager (RPM) Sam Garcia led the EPA site
review team, which also included EPA community involvement coordinator (CIC) Peggy
Linn and contractor support provided to the EPA by Skeo Solutions. The review schedule
established consisted of the following activities:
• Community notification.
• Document review.
• Data collection and review.
• Site inspection.
• Local interviews.
• FYR Report development and review.
7.2 Community Involvement
In February 2013, the EPA published a public notice in the Davis County Clipper
newspaper announcing the commencement of the FYR process for the Site, providing
contact information for EPA RPM Sam Garcia, EPA CIC Peggy Linn, UDEQ CIC Dave
Allison and UDEQ Project Manager Michael Storck, and inviting community
participation. The press notice is available in Appendix B. No one contacted the EPA as a
result of the advertisement. Several community members and local officials were
contacted and invited to participate in interviews for the FYR. Interviews for those
community members that opted to participate are in Appendix C and summarized in
Section 7.6 below.
The EPA will make the final FYR Report available to the public. The EPA will place
copies of the document in the designated site repository: Davis County Library, South
Branch 725 South Main Street, Bountiful, Utah 84010.
7.3 Document Review
ARARs Review
This FYR included a review of relevant, site-related documents, including the RODs, an
interim remedial action report and recent monitoring data. A complete list of the
documents reviewed is in Appendix A.
Remedial actions are required to comply with the ARARs identified in the ROD. In
performing the FYR any newly promulgated standards, including revised chemical-
specific requirements (such as MCLs, ambient water quality criteria), revised action and
location-specific requirements, and State standards if they were considered ARARs in the
20
-------
ROD, are reviewed to establish whether the new requirement indicates that the remedy is
no longer protective.
QUI
Groundwater ARARs
According to the Site's 2006 OU1 ROD, the chemical-specific groundwater ARARs for
OU1 are the National Primary Drinking Water Standards (40 CFR Part 141). The ROD
also identified Utah chemical-specific groundwater ARARs for the Site; specifically,
Utah Rule R309-200 Drinking Water Standards. The State of Utah's drinking water
quality standards, as applicable to this Site, are consistent with federal standards. As
shown in Table 4, groundwater ARARs have not changed.
Table 4: OU1 Previous and Current ARARs for Groundwater COCs
COC"
21 UK. ARARs
( iiriviil AKAKs1 ¦'
AKAKs ( h;in«e
(fiJi/l)
(fiii/l.)
PCE
5
5
None
TCE
5
5
None
Vinyl Chloride
2
2
None
Cis-1,2-DCE
70
70
None
Benzene
5
5
None
Naphthalene
NA°
NA°
None
1,2,4-trimethylbenzene
NAe
NAe
None
Notes:
a - COCs from 2006 ROD
b - Based on federal MCL
c - There is no MCL for naphthalene; the cleanup level of 6.5 |ig/L is the preliminary
remediation goal listed in the ROD.
d - Federal primary MCLs are available at
htto://water.era.eov/drink/contaminants/index.cfm (last accessed 4/1/2013).
e - There is no MCL for 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene; the current cleanup level is 70 |ig/L.
OU2
Groundwater ARARs
According to the Site's 2007 OU2 ROD, the chemical-specific groundwater ARARs for
OU2 are the National Primary Drinking Water Standards (40 CFR Part 141). The ROD
also identified Utah chemical-specific groundwater ARARs for the Site. The State of
Utah's drinking water quality standards, as applicable to this Site, are consistent with
federal standards. As shown in Table 5, drinking water standards have not changed.
21
-------
Table 5: OU2 Previous and Current ARARs for Groundwater COCs
2IHP ARARs
( ui'iviil ARARs1''
ARARs ( h;in«e
(iiii/l.)
Ueii/ene
s
s
None
1,1-DCE
7
7
None
Cis -1,2-DCE
70
70
None
Trans-1,2-DCE
100
100
None
Ethylbenzene
700
700
None
PCE
5
5
None
Toluene
1,000
1,000
None
TCE
5
5
None
1, 2, 4-Trimethylbenzene
NA°
NA°
None
1,3, 5-Trimethylbenzene,
NA°
NA°
None
Vinyl chloride
2
2
None
Total Xylene
10,000d
10,000d
None
Notes:
a - Contaminants from Table A in the 2007 ROD
b - Based on federal MCL
c - There is no MCL for trimethylbenzene; the cleanup level based on the hazard quotient
of 1.0 is 12 ng/L.
d - The OU2 ROD listed m-xylene, o-xylene and p-xylene as COCs with MCLs of 10,000
|ig/L. There is no MCL for m-xylene, o-xylene and p-xylene; therefore, total xylene is
listed in the table, with its MCL of 10,000 |ig/L.
e - Federal primary MCLs are available at
htto://water.era.eov/drink/contaminants/index.cfm (last accessed 4/2/2013).
Institutional Control Review
Both the 2006 OU1 ROD and the 2007 OU2 ROD call for institutional controls to protect
public health and the environment.
In addition, combined institutional control objectives listed in the RODs for both OU1
and OU2 include:
• Restrict the use of groundwater as a drinking water source until MCLs are met.
• Restrict new well development for drinking water and domestic use along the
projected path of the contaminated groundwater plumes until MCLs are met.
• Recommend vapor intrusion mitigation in all permits for construction of new
commercial (office space) and/or residential buildings plans on or along the
projected path of the contaminated plumes.
It was not anticipated that land use controls would be needed for the OU2 source area
because the remedy calls for the remedial action to return the source area to unrestricted
use. Remedy design and implementation are still ongoing at the source area for OU2.
Upon completion of the OU2 source area remedy, the EPA may need to evaluate whether
or not additional institutional controls are needed.
To meet the objective of the institutional controls related to vapor intrusion, the EPA
intends to work with UDEQ to recommend to local permitting officials that vapor
intrusion mitigation be included in new permits. This would be an informational
22
-------
institutional control that would require the EPA and UDEQ to periodically send
information to the permitting officials regarding the plumes and recommend that they
include vapor intrusion mitigation in any permit within the boundaries of the plume. It
should be noted that there are no known vapor intrusion issues within residential or
commercial buildings in the vicinity of the Site.
To date neither the State of Utah nor the local governments have implemented any
institutional controls restricting groundwater use in the area. The EPA is considering
implementing an informational institutional control that periodically notifies property
owners and residents in the vicinity of the contaminated groundwater that there is a risk if
they use the groundwater for domestic uses.
Currently, only a few property parcels at the Site have institutional controls in place
(Table 6, Figure 3). Tables 7 and 8 below summarize the current state of institutional
controls at the Site.
Table 6: Institutional Controls in Place
()w ncr
Ini|);ick'(l
PiiivoKsr'
1 iisl ru moil 1 in
PliICO
I so Rest ric(ion
Davis County
06-034-0070 (A)
06-034-0071 (B)
Environmental
covenant filed
12/20/2011
The Property will not be used in any manner
that would interfere with or adversely affect
the implementation, integrity, or
protectiveness of the response actions
performed or to be performed at the Site.
Security Investment
Ltd.
06-034-0097 (C)
06-034-0098 (D)
06-034-0019 (E)
06-033-0046 (F)
Environmental
covenant filed
02/15/2012
The Property will not be used in any manner
that would interfere with or adversely affect
the implementation, integrity, or
protectiveness of the response actions
performed or to be performed at the Site.
Utah Transit
Authority
06-167-0003(G)
Environmental
covenant filed
05/17/2006
The property is required to have active or
passive organic vapor intrusion mitigation
for structures constructed for commercial or
residential purposes. The installation of
wells, except for monitoring, is prohibited
until MCLs are met.
Notes
a. The letter in parenthesis after the parcel number corresponds to the parcel key letter in Figure 3.
23
-------
Table 7: OU1 Institutional Control (IC) Summary Table
AiVii of Inlcrcsl - ()l 1 Croiindwiilcr :iikI Source ( onliimiiiiilion
Mcdiii
ICs
Needed
l( s( idled
for in (lie
Decision
Documents
Impiicled
Piircel(s)
l<
OI).jec(i\e
Inslriinicnl in
Place
Noles
Ground-
water
Yes
Yes
Properties
above the
TCE plume
emanating
from the
Hatchco
Property.
Hatchco
Property
Parcel
06-167-0003
Restrict
installation of
groundwater
wells and
recommend
vapor
intrusion
mitigation in
all permits for
construction
of new
buildings
planned on or
along the
projected
path of the
contaminated
plumes.
Environmental
covenant at the
Hatcho property
that requires
vapor intrusion
mitigation and
restricts
installation of
groundwater
wells.
ICs are needed
for properties
along the TCE
plume
Subsurface
soil at the
source area
No
No
Hatchco
Property
Parcel
06-167-0003
ICs are not
currently
needed.
None
The EPA
determined
that although
contaminated
soil is present,
it is at a depth
that does not
pose
unacceptable
risk via a
direct
ingestion
pathway. The
environmental
covenant in
place does not
limit
disturbance of
the impacted
soil.
24
-------
Table 8: OU2 Institutional Control Summary Table
Area of Inlcrcsl -
()l 2 (iroiindwiiior iind Source Coiil;imiii;ilion
ICs
(;il led
Mcdi;i
ICs
Needed
lor in
(lie
Decision
Dociimc
ills
Impiiclcd
P;irccl(s)
IC
OI).jcc(i\c
Iiislriiiiicnl in
Place
Noles
Groundwater
Yes
Yes
Properties
above the PCE
plume
emanating
from the BCI
property
Restrict
installation of
new
groundwater
wells and
indoor use of
groundwater
from existing
wells.
Recommend
vapor
intrusion
mitigation in
all permits for
construction
of new
buildings
planned on or
along the
projected
path of the
contaminated
plumes.
There is an
environmental
covenant in
place for the
properties
owned by
Security
Investment Ltd.
and Davis
County that
restricts
installation of
new
groundwater
wells and
indoor use of
groundwater.
ICs are needed
for properties
along the PCE
plume
Soil
No
No
BCI property
ICs are not
currently
needed. If the
selected
remedy
changes, the
EPA may
need to
evaluate the
future need
for soil ICs.
None
None
25
-------
Figure 3: Institutional Control Base Map
Water
Treatment
Plant
Source: Esri. DigitalGlobe. GeoEygTfcubed; USDA USGS AEX. d^Mpping, AeroJIif]
IGN IGP. swisstopo. and the GIS User Community
Parcel ID Key
06-034-0070
06-034-0071
06-034-0097
06-034-0098
Legend
^ Approximate Site Boundary
_ I OU2 Area of Impacted Groundwater
J_ _ _ J OU1 Area of Impacted Groundwater
/// Overlap of OU1 & OU2 Impacted Groundwater
Source Area
~ Parcels with Environmental Covenants
| Parcels
Water Treatment Plant
Parcel ID
06-034-0019
06-034-0046
06-167-0003
SOLUTIONS
o
NORTH
Bountiful/Woods Cross 5th S. PCE Plume Superfund Site
Bountiful, Davis County, Utah
Disclaimer: This map and any boundary lines within the map are approximate and subject to change: The map is not a survey. The map is for informational purposes only regarding the EPA's response
actions at the Site. This map was created using maps from PWT and CDM Annual Reports.
26
-------
7.4 Data Review
QUI
Groundwater monitoring at OU1 includes analysis of TCE, PCE, cis-l,2-DCE, trans-1,2-
DCE, vinyl chloride, ethene and ethane. According to the April 26, 2012 Final Long-
Term Groundwater and Soil Vapor Monitoring Plan - Revision 2, following the first year
of sampling, the determination was made that concentrations of naphthalene and 1,2,4-
trimethylbenzene were below remediation goals within the source area, and sampling for
those parameters was discontinued.
Overall, sampling data from the review period indicate that the selected remedy is
performing as designed. Data analysis verifies the presence of reducing conditions and
strongly suggests that the biobarriers are successfully degrading the contaminant mass as
it passes through. Appendix H includes detailed discussions of data review findings
according to well location and type (Figure 4).
With the exception of a hot spot at HMW-17D and at HMW-16D, sampling data
indicates that VOC concentrations in the source area monitoring wells have remained low
with limited exceedences of maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) observed. This data
review also examined COC concentrations in relation to an active treatment criterion of
200 parts per billion (ppb) for total chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbon (CAH)
concentrations. Total CAH concentrations represent the total groundwater concentrations
of PCE, TCE, DCE and VC. As described in CDM's 2008 revised final remedial design,
the design concentration criterion for active treatment of contaminated groundwater,
consistent with the pilot study report (CDM 2006), was the 200 microgram per liter
([j,g/L) contour for total CAH compounds. This groundwater concentration was selected
for active treatment because it provides sufficient concentration reduction to allow for
subsequent MNA processes to achieve target cleanup levels. Additionally, this remedial
criterion will be used with data generated during the quarterly groundwater monitoring
events to evaluate the need for additional EOS® injections. Other than at HMW-17D, all
monitoring wells located in the source area have VOC concentrations below the 200 ppb
active treatment criterion.
Data analysis identified an issue with contaminant concentrations at HMW-23D (down
gradient from the source area). HMW-23D had a PCE concentration of 28 |ig/L and a
TCE concentration of 17 |ig/L during the November 2011 sampling event. The screening
interval for this well is 79 to 94 feet below ground surface and is the lowest screening
levels of the existing wells. This well was not sampled during the March 2012 event.
Theses detections of VOCs indicate that the ability to define the plume vertically is
limited. Therefore, additional monitoring will be necessary to observe long-term trends,
better define the plume and ensure the effectiveness of the implemented remedy.
This data review included OU1 data from the October/November 2008 baseline sampling
event through March 2012 (Appendix G). In reviewing the data presented in the OU1
Third Annual Monitoring Report (2013), reviewers observed that there were some
inconsistencies throughout the data review period in reported detection and reporting
27
-------
limits. Although detection limits were not presented, reporting limits were sometimes
reported higher than MCLs. Because of changing reporting limits and no information on
the detection limits, the EPA should work on revising the Quality Assurance Project Plan
(QAPP) for OU1. This will ensure that future data meets the data quality objectives for
the Site to support trend analyses over time and to ensure the analytical methods are
sensitive enough for determining whether MCLs are achieved or exceeded.
28
-------
Figure 4: OU1 Detail
fr
27DA
27S^
25DA
25S^
18M
18UD<|>
18US
3S<£ V
30D^.
2S%31D
32S -0- 024S
33S<£
22S 145
23D 210
A 21S 29D
* o 293
20D A
20S Y
^34S
W 750 S
O
o
00
CO
W 500 S
©
<£28D
-------
0U2
The EPA has conducted groundwater monitoring activities at OU2 periodically since
March 2003. In November 2010, prior to start-up of the groundwater treatment system
(GWTS), a groundwater monitoring event took place, which consisted of gauging and
sampling the entire OU2 monitoring well network. This data review examined
groundwater monitoring results from the 2010 baseline sampling event (August 2010-
February 2011) through the annual 2012 sampling event (November 5-20, 2012).
Site groundwater contaminants include: benzene, 1,1-DCE, cis-l,2-DCE, trans-1,2-DCE,
ethylbenzene, PCE, toluene, TCE, 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene (TMB), 1,3,5-
trimethylbenzene, vinyl chloride, m-xylene, o-xylene and p-xylene. Data provided for
review during this FYR was from the monitoring reports and included analytical results
for only the following COCs: PCE, TCE, cis-l,2-DCE, trans-1,2-DCE, vinyl chloride and
benzene. Analysis was performed for all other COCs, but are not all reported in the
monitoring reports because they are not primary risk drivers in groundwater or are not
detected at significant concentrations in groundwater. In 2011, the EPA revised the long-
term monitoring plan by removing the natural attenuation parameters from the
groundwater sample analysis plan.
Overall, the number of COC MCL exceedances across all zones has decreased since the
2010 baseline sampling event. A comparison of 2012 PCE plume maps of the three
different zones and data from the 2010 baseline sampling event through the annual 2012
sampling event indicate that the plume location has remained relatively stable since 2010
(Appendix G). This suggests that the hydraulic containment system is effectively
preventing downgradient plume migration.
The GWTS has been operational at the Site since February 11, 2011, pumping and
treating groundwater from four extraction wells (EW-1 through EW-4) (Figure 5 and
Appendix G). The current OU2 groundwater monitoring plan consists of tri-annual
monitoring during the first year of GWTS operation (2011) and semi-annual events from
2012 to 2015 with a reduced number of wells monitored during non-annual events. From
2016 forward, groundwater monitoring will be conducted annually. The existing
monitoring network includes 54 groundwater monitoring wells (Figure 5).
The Upper (U), Middle (M), and Lower (L) zones for OU2 wells are all within the
shallow aquifer of the East Shore Aquifer. The Upper Zone is typically considered less
than 80-feet below ground surface, the Middle Zone is nominally 80- to 160-feet below
ground surface, and the Lower Zone is greater than 160-feet below ground surface. The
data review examines contaminant concentrations within each of the three zones.
PCE is the most prevalent and highly concentrated COC in the OU2 groundwater. The
analytical results from the review period indicate that the down-gradient PCE plume with
concentrations above the MCL extends west of the Holly Refinery in the Middle and
Lower Zones. Analytical data indicate decreasing levels of PCE in the Upper Zone from
east to west away from the source as it migrates downgradient. In general, the PCE
contamination in the Upper Zone of the aquifer is well delineated, with the highest levels
30
-------
of contamination centered near the source close to well MW-16U. PCE contamination is
virtually absent in the Upper Zone from the Warm Springs Fault to the west (Figure 5).
Conversely, the Middle and Lower Zones demonstrate higher concentrations of PCE to
the west as the contaminant plume migrates vertically between aquifer zones, and moves
laterally within the Middle and Lower confined artesian aquifer zones. The extent of the
dissolved PCE plume, as defined by the furthest detected value of PCE, is approximately
1.6 miles west-northwest from the source. This plume direction matches the regional
groundwater flow. PCE MCL exceedances are shown per zone in Table 9.
31
-------
Table 9: OU2 PCE MCL Exceedances in the Upper, Middle and Lower Zones
Well ID
Nov-10
May-11
Aug-11
Nov-11
May-12
(Hg/L)
(Hg/L)
(Hg/L)
(Hg/L)
(Hg/L)
Upper Zone
BC01U
33
NS
NS
25
NS
MW02U
8.6
NS
NS
0.96
NS
MW05U
64
NS
NS
79
NS
MW09U
ND
NS
NS
1.3
7.1
MW10U
9.1
NS
NS
3.3
NS
MW15U
21
NS
NS
11
NS
MW16U
11
NS
NS
100
78
MW18US*
14
NS
NS
NS
NS
Middle Zone
MW03M
49
NS
NS
19
NS
MW04M
6.7
NS
NS
4.6
NS
MW08M
8.9
NS
NS
19
NS
MW14M
29
18.7
22
14
9
MW20M
ND
3.86
6
ND
5.1
MW21M
2.8
2.33
11
ND
6.4
PMW-22
ND
NS
NS
24
NS
PMW-23
2.9
NS
NS
20
NS
PMW-24
ND
8.63
26
16
13
PMW-25
20
21.9
21
ND
3
Lower Zone
MW01L
5.1
5.15
10
6.5
5.5
MW03L
30
NS
NS
11
NS
MW13L
2.6
6.87
9.4
5.3
4.2
MW14L
10
6.56
20
7.2
7.7
Shaded cells and bold values indicate PCE concentrations in
exceedance of the 5 ng/L PCE MCL
NS - Not sampled
ND - Not detected
* Analytical results for this wells are included in this table
because the well was included in the OU2 baseline monitoring
event and because the results provide additional data to
evaluate the OU2 groundwater plume.
Domestic Groundwater Well Monitoring
Although there are many domestic wells in the area, the RI/FS determined that COCs at
the Site affected very few wells used for potable uses. Domestic groundwater well
sampling, in addition to sampling Site monitoring wells, has been conducted by the EPA
32
-------
periodically since June 2003. This data review included domestic well data from 2003 to
2011 (Table 10). Dissolved PCE has been detected in many of the domestic wells at
concentrations as high as 58 |ig/L (DW25 in 2007), which is significantly above the MCL
of 5.0 |ig/L. However, institutional controls restrict the use of groundwater for human
consumption within the plume area. According to the Annual 2012 Groundwater
Monitoring and System Performance Report, the majority of the domestic wells are used
only for irrigation and livestock. However, the report also states that some of the wells
were previously used for drinking water.
33
-------
Table 1(
): OU2 Domestic Well PCE
MCL Exceedances, 2003-2012
Well ID
Aquifer
Zone
Jun-03
Sep-03
Dec-03
Apr-05
May-06
May-07
May-08
May-09
Oct-09
May-10
May-11
Nov-11
Nov-12
DW05
middle
6
7.5
7.4
6.1
5.4
DW11
lower
6.9
6.2
7.6
DW12
middle
6
22
24
18
17
27
12
15
16.8
11
12
DW14
middle
9.3
33
22
29
23
13
18.2
13.7
DW15L
lower
15
15
13.7
DW15D
lower
14
11
6.2
12
10.3
12
DW16
middle
46
7.9
38
45
35
26
34
26
26.7
21
DW17
lower
10
9.8
8.6
18
6.9
5.3
DW18
middle
6.4
DW19
middle
6.5
DW22
middle
30
36
34
DW23
middle
5.2
DW25
middle
28
16
35
58
36
36
27.8
19
31.5
32
DW26
lower
10
5.6
DW28
middle
11
9.5
9.3
8.86
8.9
6.25
DW32
middle
14.3
Note:
This table only displays values in exceedance of the PCE MCL of 5.0 ng/L.
Shaded cells indicate that PCE concentrations were either not detected or were below the MCL
34
-------
Groundwater Treatment System Performance Monitoring
The GWTS began intermittent operation on February 2, 2011, and began operating
continuously on February 11, 2011. The effectiveness of the GWTS is measured by
evaluating hydraulic control of the middle aquifer zone to ensure that hydraulic plume
control is being maintained, and by monitoring influent and effluent water quality data to
ensure the treatment system is meeting applicable effluent water quality standards.
This data review included treatment system data from February 2, 2011 through
December 31, 2012. Treatment system samples are analyzed for the full list of VOCs
which includes the following constituents: PCE, TCE, cis-l,2-DCE, vinyl chloride,
MTBE, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, total xylenes and naphthalene. As expected,
system influent routinely has PCE concentrations above the MCL. However, the GWTS
influent PCE concentrations have remained relatively stable over the review period with
only minor variations. Treatment system effluent samples collected during the review
period were below maximum allowable discharge limits. During the review period, there
were no exceedances of effluent discharge limits for any of the analytes listed in the Utah
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (UPDES) equivalent permit.
As of December 26, 2012, the GWTS has treated approximately 77,561,983 gallons of
PCE-contaminated groundwater and removed an estimated PCE mass of 9.08 pounds
(lbs) from the subsurface. The GWTS data indicates that the system is operating within
its designed capacity and effectively removing PCE from the Site's groundwater.
Soil gas and indoor air sampling
The EPA has conducted multiple investigations related to vapor intrusion and the OU2
source area. The EPA's contractor conducted additional vapor intrusion investigation
activities on the BCI property in July 2012 to evaluate if the existing building on the
property could be at risk from subsurface vapor intrusion and to assess whether
operational changes at the Bountiful Family Cleaners have influenced indoor air
concentrations observed during the previous sampling events.
Based on the recent indoor air data, the levels of PCE in indoor air on the main floor of
the BCI building are below the reference concentration (RfC). The levels of PCE in
indoor air in the basement of the BCI building are above the RfC. These results imply
there is potentially an unacceptable risk of chronic health effects due to long-term
exposure to PCE in basement indoor air.
The September 2012 PWT study of soil gas and indoor air sampling at the BCI property
stated that an additional cold month sampling event is needed to comply with current
EPA guidance requiring multiple sampling events to characterize long-term exposure
risks. Following the receipt of additional data from the next groundwater, soil gas and
indoor air sampling event, the EPA plans to complete a comprehensive evaluation of
potential soil vapor intrusion associated with the source area at OU2.
Appendix H includes additional detailed discussions of OU2 data review findings.
35
-------
Figure 5: OU2 Detail
O
o
BTOT
DVI55
DVU24
DW5S DW2S
W 400 N
JDWB 7
Aim53
Aowt
~ ^ JL DVU27
t MV /20M
PMVJ26 0 0 MWB1M
EVA ""fcSL_
l DW10
DVV5*
DWD9
DW12
V1
MWB2L
e
©
Treatm ent
PKV\05 DW11
evo \ jdwij. a Plant
V A
MW13U
3VX3
MWI3M ft ^ „DWI4
HWI9U ® DV/ISD 0MVW,L S A w
~ (Ti-. • r EW1
4r ^~PM\TC2
04,7,5 © PMVU2S
fDW1« 10 EV«
PMVU24
MVJ04L
Dv*2 W 500 S
DWI7
DWIS "
DVU25
0W1
MW11U
MW12L
Holly
Refinery
DW21
£jJW22
a Production
Wll
. Production
W MW14L
BCl Property
MVUB5L
C- MWI7U
S. BCfilU
® & MV'/OJM
- %£? " ^ w wtfcu
^ WW15U
MW10L
MW06U
Pi
Adwis
sir* soutn
vu»«
Legend
S> Extraction Wells
© Monitoring Wells 0U2 Source Area
~ Dome stic Wei Is m OU2 Lowe r Plu me
W£IBr Treatment Plant | | OU2 Middle Plume
I m m* OU2 Upper Plume
I | Approxmate Si IB Boundary
O
NORTH
Bountiful/Woods Cross 5th S. PCE Plume Superfund Site
Bountiful, Davis County. Utah
Disclaimer: This map and any boundary lines within the map are approximate and subject to change: The map is not a survey. The map is for informational purposes only regarding the EPA's response
actions at the Site. This map was created using maps from PWT Annual Reports.
36
-------
7.5 Site Inspection
A site inspection was conducted on December 11, 2012. Participants included Sam
Garcia, EPA; Eric Marsh and Treat Suomi, Skeo Solutions; Aaron Baird, PWT; Dal
Wayment, Eric Nemcek and Matt Meyers, South Davis Sewer District; and Michael
Storck, UDEQ. The Site Inspection Checklist is in Appendix D and the site photographs
are in Appendix E.
Site inspection participants met at the South Davis Sewer District offices and started with
an overview of the Site and status of the remedial components. Site visit participants
drove and walked relevant portions of the Site, including the water treatment plant,
extraction wells, monitoring wells, capped areas and source areas. Upon inspecting the
water treatment plant at OU2, participants observed DW-12, located in front of the
building, was leaking (see photo in Appendix E). Site visit participants discussed that the
land lessee uses DW-12 well to water livestock and that a potential solution might be to
abandon the well and seek alternative water sources for the landowner. In addition, the
EW-4 well vault had condensation and a couple of inches of water observed on the floor
of the vault. Site inspection participants also inspected the OU1 source area, the location
of the biobarriers and OU1 monitoring wells.
Following the site inspection, Skeo Solutions staff reviewed the documents made
available to the public in the site repository, the Davis County Library, South Branch.
Several documents were available for the Site, including a 2005 RI, a 2005 focused
feasibility study and a 2006 FS. There were also several risk assessment documents
available. The only decision document available was the 2007 OU2 ROD. The library
staff indicated that they would prefer to have the site documents on a CD, as opposed to
printed copies. The EPA will work with the library to ensure materials are updated and
available to the public.
7.6 Interviews
The FYR process included interviews with parties affected by the Site, including the
current landowners and regulatory agencies involved in Site activities or aware of the
Site. The purpose was to document any perceived problems or successes with the phases
of the remedy implemented to date. Interviews took place during the site inspection on
December 11, 2012, via email and by phone. The interviews are summarized below.
Appendix C provides the complete interviews.
Aaron G. Baird: Mr. Baird completed his interview on December 11, 2012, at the OU2
groundwater treatment facility. He is a LTRA contractor with PWT. Mr. Baird believes
that the project is going well; the remedial components are functioning as designed.
South Davis Sewer District maintains the facility and provides a consistent presence on
the Site. Mr. Baird described an issue with a sediment crust layer that formed on the GAC
surface in the lead GAC vessel. To mediate this issue, contractors re-piped the filter bags
in the system, but Mr. Baird noted additional work regarding this issue may be necessary
37
-------
in the future. Mr. Baird also recommends that site stakeholders consider additional
remedies to address residual PCE contamination in the source area.
Matt Myers: Mr. Myers completed his interview via email on December 17, 2012. He is a
LTRA contractor and District Engineer at the South Davis Sewer District. Mr. Myers
performs site reporting activities and tracks budget and funding. He believes that there
are sufficient operational resources and funds available for remediation, and that site
stakeholders are managing these funds in a cost-effective way. Mr. Myers states that the
facility is effectively removing PCE from the confined aquifer and discharging water
appropriately. The South Davis Sewer District has fixed, or is planning to fix, some
minor issues involving transfer pumps, winter heating, bag filters, network security and
backwashing of activated carbon tanks.
Nathan Smith: Mr. Smith completed his interview on December 18, 2012 by phone. He is
a remedial action contractor with CDM. Mr. Smith believes that the project is going well;
the bioremediation at the source area is resulting in contaminant concentrations below or
near detection with the exception of some hot spots. Mr. Smith believes it is now a matter
of monitoring for the expected results. Mr. Smith expects slower degradation in the
downgradient area than at the source area but still expects good degradation. Mr. Smith
thinks that moving into semi-annual sampling is a good idea, but that it still makes sense
to collect samples after injections are completed in order to monitor the progress of
leachate remediation.
Dal Wavment: Mr. Wayment completed his interview over the phone on March 8, 2013.
He is the South Davis Sewer District manager, and was involved with the Site as a LTRA
contractor since the plume was first located. Mr. Wayment reports that remediation with
the activated carbon filter is going smoothly, and that he is well informed about the Site
at all times. Mr. Wayment mentioned that he has conducted an informational tour of the
activated carbon cleaning system for representatives of North Salt Lake. North Salt Lake
is a small incorporated town located between Salt Lake City and Woods Cross that is
dealing with PCE contamination in town wells.
Michael Storck: Mr. Storck completed his interview by email on March 25, 2013. He
works for the UDEQ/DERR. Overall, he is confident in the remedial activities at OU1
and the LTRA activities at OU2. He noted that quarterly reports are prepared in a timely
manner by the South Davis Sewer District. He reports that the remedy at OU2 is going
well, and the remedy at OU1 is still undergoing evaluation. He has not heard of any
concerns or inquiries regarding environmental issues or remedial activities at the Site.
Mr. Storck is satisfied with the institutional controls.
Mayor Parry and Gary Uresk: Mayor Parry and City Manager Gary Uresk completed
their interview over the phone on March 12, 2013. They are aware of site activities and
consider themselves well informed by the EPA regarding the remedial progress. They are
not aware of any changes of local regulations or state laws that may affect the
protectiveness of the Site's remedy. Mayor Parry and Gary Uresk have received no
comments from residents about the Site.
38
-------
Local Business Representative 1: A local business representative completed his interview
via email on December 7, 2012. The local business representative is unaware of any
remedial activity at the Site, but is aware that the EPA and contractors have been
conducting testing to determine the most appropriate remedy. The local business
representative does not think the Site has affected the surrounding community. He feels
well informed about the Site, but notes that there are large gaps of time during which the
EPA does not supply him with site information.
Local Business Representative 2: Local Business Representative 2 completed his
interview by phone on March 8, 2013. He works with Holly Refinery, a local business.
Local Business Representative 2 believes cleanup activities are going well with no
adverse effects on the surrounding community. Holly Refinery owns several wells used
for industrial purposes. He noted that they switched from potable wells to the West
Bountiful water lines. This switch was not because of the site plume, but in response to a
recent mandate from the State of Utah to use chlorine in the water-treatment process.
Utah Transit Authority Representative: A Utah Transit Authority representative
completed her interview by phone on March 11, 2013. The Utah Transit Authority
representative works for the Utah Transit Authority, which recently built a park and ride
lot at OU1. She mentioned that monitoring wells were installed when the lot was built,
but they have not received any updates since. Though she is aware of the environmental
issues at the Site, she indicated a general desire to receive periodic emails about the Site
and related activities.
Resident 1: Resident 1 completed his interview by phone on March 13, 2013. Resident 1,
a livestock farmer, is aware of activities and voiced several concerns regarding well water
supply. In addition to providing water for horses, cows and other livestock, Resident l's
home receives well water. Resident 1 is concerned about the possibility of a depleted
water supply due to refinery activities, and the potential financial expenses of connecting
the property to the city water supply. Resident 1 has only spoken with two EPA
representatives since construction commenced. Resident 1 indicates that he receives
drinking water from a well that was tested once a year and his well water is not currently
exceeding MCLs.
8.0 Technical Assessment
8.1 Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents?
Yes, the remedy implemented at OU1 is functioning as intended and the remedy
implemented at OU2 is functioning as intended.
The EPA has installed biobarriers and performed EOS® injections at OU1. The EPA is
working to revise the O&M plan and achieve an operational and functional determination
for OU1. The operational and functional determination for OU1 is dependent on the
evaluation of performance monitoring data that have been collected near EOS® injection
39
-------
well locations. Overall, sampling data from the review period indicate that the selected
remedy is performing as designed. Data analysis verifies the presence of reducing
conditions and suggests that the biobarriers are successfully degrading the contaminant
mass as it passes through. Additional monitoring will be necessary to observe long-term
trends, better define the plume and ensure the effectiveness of the implemented remedy.
Review of the LTRA reports indicate there were variances in the reporting limits,
questions regarding detection limits and variations between reports in historical data. The
EPA should work on revising the QAPP for OU1 to ensure that future data is consistent
and available for trend analysis over time and that analysis allows for review of whether
or not MCLs are achieved or exceeded. Institutional controls are needed to restrict
groundwater use near the TCE plume, prohibit new well drilling for domestic use and
recommend vapor intrusion mitigation in all permits for construction of new buildings
planned on or along the projected path of the contaminated groundwater.
The EPA continues to operate the water treatment system at OU2 to treat and
hydrologically contain the PCE plume. Overall, the number of COC MCL exceedances
across all zones has decreased since the 2010 baseline sampling event. With the
exception of the significant change in concentrations in wells MW-16U and MW-17U
(attributed to significant changes in groundwater elevation), PCE concentrations across
the site have remained relatively consistent with previous sampling events. In 2010, wells
within all the three zones had PCE, TCE, benzene and vinyl chloride exceedances. Since
2010, no benzene or vinyl chloride exceedances have been observed, and TCE
exceedances have only been detected in two Upper Zone wells (MW-12U and MW-16U)
and one Middle Zone well (MW08M). In 2012, TCE was not detected in any of the
Lower Zone wells, and trans-1,2-DCE, 1,1-DCE, vinyl chloride, benzene, toluene,
ethylbenzene, and xylenes were not detected in any wells.
PCE concentrations within the middle and lower zones remained relatively stable during
the review period. A comparison of 2012 PCE plume maps of the three different zones
and data from the review period indicate that the plume location has remained relatively
stable since 2010. This suggests that the hydraulic containment system is effectively
preventing downgradient plume migration. As of December 26, 2012, the GWTS has
treated approximately 77,561,983 gallons of PCE-contaminated groundwater and
removed an estimated PCE mass of 9.08 pounds (lbs) from the subsurface. In addition,
the GAC at the GWTS did not last as long as expected but was replaced in 2013 by the
South Davis Sewer District. Additional evaluation of the GWTS may identify
improvements that could increase the amount of mass removed and determine
improvements that might lengthen the life of the GAC.
In 2009, the EPA delayed implementation of the selected remedy for the OU2 source
area, but continued monitoring soil gas, indoor air, and groundwater concentrations in the
source area. The EPA is in the process of completing a comprehensive evaluation of
potential soil vapor intrusion associated with the source area at OU2 and evaluating what
additional remedial actions may be needed.
40
-------
Land use controls are not expected to be needed at OU2 source area because the selected
remedy was expected to return the source area to unrestricted use. Institutional controls
are required to restrict groundwater use, prohibit new well drilling for domestic use and
include vapor intrusion mitigation in all permits for construction of new buildings
planned on or along the projected path of the contaminated groundwater plume. Remedy
design and implementation are still ongoing at the source area for OU2. Upon completion
of the remedy for the OU2 source area, the EPA may need to use the remedy selection
process to evaluate whether or not additional institutional controls are required.
The EPA identified several wells that will require maintenance. During the site
inspection, EW-04 was observed to have condensation on the walls and floor of the well
box. EW-4 has been regularly inspected since the site inspection and found to have no
leaks and no additional water is accumulating. Well DW12 (located just west of the
treatment building) was leaking due to a corroded well casing. The EPA abandoned the
well on February 12, 2013. Holly Refinery staff damaged MW02 while conducting
grading activities on the Holly Refinery Property. MW02 was repaired in April 2013.
Between 2008 and 2011, a few domestic wells have shown PCE concentrations that
exceed the 5.0 |ig/L MCL. Greatest PCE concentrations were routinely observed at
DW16 and DW25. DW25 experienced increasing PCE concentrations between May 2010
(19 |ig/L) and November 2011(32 |ig/L). The EPA previously worked with property well
owners and users to ensure that no contaminated well water was being used for human
consumption. The EPA also connected required residences to municipal water. The
current LTRA contractor for OU2 communicates regularly with residents utilizing
domestic wells. In order to ensure long term protectiveness, the EPA should consider
updating the well survey and ensuring that the revised LTMP plan formalizes routine
sampling and results be provided to well owners regarding contaminant levels in wells
and any related changes in risk.
8.2 Question B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels and
remedial action objectives (RAOs) used at the time of remedy selection still valid?
No, the exposure assumptions, toxicity data and cleanup levels used at the time of the
OU1 and OU2 remedy selection are no longer valid. The RAOs used at the time of the
remedy selection remain valid.
For OU2, the EPA based cleanup goals on the MCLs or RBCs based on a hazard index
(HI) of one (HI=1) and a cancer risk factor of 1E-4 (1 in 10,000) or 10-4, assuming a
Reasonable Maximum Exposure (RME) through ingestion of contaminated groundwater
and inhalation of soil and groundwater vapor via the vapor intrusion pathway. In
addition, the EPA selected soil cleanup levels protective of the soil vapor transfer to
indoor spaces, soil vapor transfer to groundwater, and contamination leaching to
groundwater. As noted in the OU2 ROD, the risk drivers for groundwater are PCE, TCE,
vinyl chloride, and benzene while the risk drivers for indoor air at the source are PCE,
TCE, vinyl chloride, 1,2,4 trimethylbenzene, 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene and benzene. The
OU2 ROD used a version of the Vapor Intrusion Screening Levels (VISL) table available
41
-------
at the time; the current FYR compared the cleanup goals for these COCs to 2013 VISLs
to determine if the goals remain valid. Based on this comparison, the soil gas and
groundwater cleanup goals in the source area for TCE and PCE exceed current screening
levels at the source area and therefore no longer fall within the EPA's acceptable risk
range and TCE exceeds the noncancer HI of 1 (Table 11). In addition, the downgradient
vapor intrusion-based cleanup goals for residential areas exceed current screening levels
and therefore no longer fall within the EPA's acceptable risk range.
Table 11: Comparison of Cleanup Goals and VISLs
Commercial Exposure (Source Area)
Target Risk: 1.00E-04 or 111=1
Average groundwater temperature 15° C
Residential Exposure
Target Risk: 1.00E-04 or
HI=1
Average groundwater
temperature 15° C
coc
2007
ROD
Target
Soil Gas
Cone.
(jig/m3)
2013
VISL
Target
Soil Gas
Cone.
(jig/m3)a
2007
ROD
Target
GW
Cone.
(Mg/L)
2013
VISL
Target
GW
Con.
(Mg/L)
2007 ROD
Target GW
Cone.
(Hg/L)
2013 VISL
Target GW
Cone. (jig/L)
Benzene
1,314
1,300
932
930
221
220
PCE
2,079
1,800
484
420
96
100
TCE
6,132
88
2,403
36
477
8.5
1,2,4
trimethylbenzene
74
310
59
240
14
57
1,3,5-
trimethylbenzene
74
NA
61
NA
14
NA
Vinyl chloride
1,394
2,800
169
330
34
19
a. 2013 VISLs can be found at: lUtD://\\ \\ \\ .CDa.ao\ /os\\ crA aDorintrusion/auidancc.html
b. Bold values are current screening levels that are more stringent than the cleanup goals and
therefore no longer fall within the EPA's acceptable risk range.
c. NA=not applicable, there is no 2013 VISL target.
Additionally, cleanup levels set for this site were developed in the 2007 OU2 ROD.
Because these documents were developed prior to the EPA's 2009 Risk Assessment
Guidance for Superfund, Part F, the exposure assumptions for the inhalation exposure
pathway were conducted differently than they would be today. The exposure metric that
was used in the ROD and for calculating preliminary remediation goals utilized
inhalation concentrations that were based on ingestion rate and body weight (mg/kg-
day). The updated methodology in the 2009 Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund,
Part F uses the concentration of chemical in the air, with the exposure metric of
ug/m3. While there may be no significant change in clean-up levels, it is important to
present the most current methodology for the Inhalation pathway.
The EPA had PWT conduct a comprehensive review of soil gas and indoor air sampling
at the BCI property in September 2012. The review determined that additional
investigation activities were necessary to re-evaluate indoor air concentrations following
42
-------
removal of a PCE dry cleaning machine, to re-evaluate the soil gas to indoor air exposure
pathway in the BCI building and to determine whether VOCs are present in soil gas at
concentrations above risk-based target levels. After collecting July 2012 indoor air data,
the EPA determined the levels of PCE in indoor air on the main floor of the BCI building
are below the RfC, and the levels of PCE in indoor air in the basement of the BCI
building are above the RfC. These results imply that there is potentially an unacceptable
risk of chronic health effects due to long-term exposure to PCE in basement indoor air.
The VOCs found in indoor air at the BCI building could originate from volatilization
from sources within the building, intrusion of vapors released from contaminated soil or
groundwater beneath the building, or contamination in ambient air. The EPA determined
that an additional cold-month sampling event is needed to comply with current EPA
guidance requiring multiple sampling events to characterize long-term exposure risks.
Following the receipt of additional data from the next groundwater, soil gas and indoor
air sampling event, the EPA plans to complete a comprehensive evaluation of potential
soil vapor intrusion associated with the source area at OU2.
8.3 Question C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question
the protectiveness of the remedy?
No other information come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the
remedy.
8.4 Technical Assessment Summary
The OU1 remedy is performing as designed and implemented. The enhanced anaerobic
bioremediation (EAB) remedy included installing biobarriers near the source area
(Biobarrier 1) and downgradient (Biobarriers 2 and 3). Additional monitoring will be
necessary to observe long-term trends, better define the plume and ensure the
effectiveness of the implemented remedy. Institutional controls are needed to restrict
groundwater use near the OU1 TCE plume and prohibit new well drilling for domestic
use. In addition, institutional controls are needed to recommend vapor intrusion
mitigation in all construction permits for new buildings planned on or along the projected
path of the contaminated plume. The EPA and UDEQ are working together to achieve
RA completion and enter the LTRA phase. No additional information has become
available that could call into question the protectiveness of the OU1 remedy.
Components of the remedy implemented at OU2 are performing as intended. The EPA
continues to operate the water treatment system at OU2 to treat and hydrologically
contain the PCE plume; however, additional monitoring will be necessary to better define
the plume vertically. There are source area components selected in the OU2 ROD that
have not yet been implemented and may require modification. Institutional controls are
needed to restrict groundwater use, prohibit new well drilling for domestic use and to
recommend vapor intrusion mitigation in all permits for construction of new buildings
planned on or along the projected path of the contaminated plume. Remedy
implementation is ongoing at the source area for OU2.
43
-------
The EPA should consider updating the well survey and ensuring that the revised LTMP
plan for OU2 formalizes routine sampling and provides results to well owners regarding
contaminant levels in wells and any related changes in risk.
There is potentially an unacceptable risk of chronic health effects due to long-term
exposure to PCE in BCI building basement indoor air. The soil gas and groundwater
cleanup goals in the OU2 source area for TCE and PCE exceed current screening levels
at the source area and no longer fall within the EPA's acceptable risk range. To ensure
long-term protectiveness, the EPA is in the process of completing a comprehensive
evaluation of potential soil vapor intrusion associated with the source area at OU2. In
addition, the vapor intrusion-based cleanup goals for groundwater, beneath residential
areas, exceed current screening levels and therefore no longer fall within the EPA's
acceptable risk range.
9.0 Issues
Table 12 summarizes the current site issues.
Table 12: Current Site Issues
OIJ
Issue
Affects Current
Protectiveness?
Affects Future
Protectiveness?
OU1, OU2
Required institutional controls have not been
implemented to restrict groundwater use at
most of the properties above the contaminated
groundwater plumes.
No
Yes
OU1, OU2
Required institutional controls have not been
implemented to recommend vapor intrusion
mitigation in all permits for construction of
new commercial and/or residential buildings
planned on or along the projected path of the
contaminated groundwater.
No
Yes
OU1
There is a lack of data for the downgradient
edge of both the deep and shallow OU1
groundwater plumes, and for the vertical
extent of the OU 1 groundwater plume.
No
Yes
OU2
There is potentially an unacceptable risk of
chronic health effects due to long-term
exposure to PCE in BCI basement indoor air.
No
Yes
OU2
The toxicity values used to calculate the soil
gas and groundwater cleanup goals for PCE
and TCE have been revised, resulting in
cleanup goals that no longer fall within the
EPA's acceptable risk range.
No
Yes
OU2
A few domestic wells have shown increasing
concentrations of COCs that exceed MCLs.
No
Yes
OU2
Additional data is needed to better define the
OU2 groundwater plume vertically.
No
Yes
44
-------
10.0 Recommendations and Follow-up Actions
Table 13 provides recommendations to address the current site issues.
Table 13: Recommendations to Address Current Site Issues
Issue
Recommendation /
Follow-Up Action
Party
Responsible
Oversight
Agency
Milestone
Date
Affects
Protectivcncss?
Cu rrcnt
Future
Required
institutional
controls have not
been
implemented to
restrict
groundwater use
at most
properties above
the contaminated
groundwater
plumes.
Implement
institutional controls
to restrict groundwater
use and prohibit new
well drilling for
domestic use at
properties above the
contaminated
groundwater plumes.
EPA
EPA
09/30/2015
No
Yes
Required
institutional
controls have not
been
implemented to
recommend
vapor intrusion
mitigation in all
permits for
construction of
new commercial
and/or residential
buildings
planned on or
along the
projected path of
the contaminated
groundwater.
Implement
institutional controls
to recommend vapor
intrusion mitigation
for construction of
new commercial
and/or residential
buildings planned on
or along the projected
path of the
contaminated
groundwater.
EPA
EPA
09/30/2015
No
Yes
There is a lack of
data for the
downgradient
edge of both the
deep and shallow
OU1
groundwater
plumes, and for
the vertical
extent of the
OU1
groundwater
plume.
Obtain the necessary
data to better define
the downgradient edge
of the OU1 plume
laterally and the entire
plume vertically (e.g.
develop cross
sectional maps).
EPA
EPA
09/30/2014
No
Yes
45
-------
Issue
Recommendation /
Follow-Up Action
Party
Responsible
Oversight
Agency
Milestone
Date
Affects
Protectiveness?
Current
Future
There is
potentially an
unacceptable risk
of chronic health
effects due to
long-term
exposure to PCE
in BCI basement
indoor air.
Evaluate potential soil
vapor intrusion
associated with the
source area at OU2.
EPA
EPA
09/30/2014
No
Yes
The toxicity
values used to
calculate the soil
gas and
groundwater
cleanup goals for
PCE and TCE
have been
revised, resulting
in cleanup goals
that no longer
fall within the
EPA's
acceptable risk
range.
Revise the cleanup
goals for the OU2
source area.
EPA
EPA
09/30/2014
No
Yes
A few domestic
wells have
shown increasing
concentrations of
COCs that
exceed MCLs.
Update the well survey
and ensure that the
revised LTMP
formalizes routine
sampling and provides
results to well owners
regarding contaminant
levels in wells and any
related changes in risk.
EPA
EPA
09/30/2014
No
Yes
Additional data
is needed to
better define the
OU2
groundwater
plume vertically.
Compile or obtain the
necessary data to
better define the OU2
plume vertically.
EPA
EPA
09/30/2014
No
Yes
The following additional items, though not expected to affect protectiveness, warrant additional
follow-up:
• The EPA should work on revising the QAPP for OU1.
• Additional evaluation of the GWTS may identify improvements that could increase the
amount of mass removed and determine improvements that might lengthen the life of the
GAC.
• The EPA will work with the local document repository to ensure materials are updated
and available to the public.
46
-------
• The EPA will provide periodic updates on relevant Site activities to interested
stakeholders.
11.0 Protectiveness Statements
The remedy at OU1 currently protects human health and the environment because no one is
using contaminated groundwater for domestic uses. However, in order for the remedy to be
protective in the long term, the following actions need to be taken:
• Better define the downgradient edge of the OU1 plume laterally and the entire plume
vertically.
• Implement institutional controls to restrict groundwater use near the TCE plume, prohibit
new well drilling for domestic use and recommend vapor intrusion mitigation in all
permits for construction planned on or along the projected path of the contaminated
plume.
The remedy at OU2 is expected to be protective of human health and the environment upon
completion, and in the interim, exposure pathways that could result in unacceptable risks are
being controlled.
12.0 Next Review
The next FYR will be due within five years of the signature/approval date of this FYR.
47
-------
Appendix A: List of Documents Reviewed
Additional Monitoring Well Installation Activities Technical Memorandum. Prepared by CDM
Federal Programs Corporation for EPA Region 8. November 30, 2009.
Administrative Order on Consent for Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study for Respondent
W.S. Hatch Company. September 26, 2001.
Annual 2011 Groundwater Monitoring and System Performance Report for Bountiful/Woods
Cross 5th South PCE Plume Site. Prepared by Pacific Western Technologies, Ltd., March 2012.
Annual 2012 Groundwater Monitoring and System Performance Report for Bountiful/Woods
Cross 5th South PCE Plume Site. Prepared by Pacific Western Technologies, Ltd., March 2013.
Baseline Groundwater Monitoring Event Summary for Bountiful/Woods Cross. Prepared by
CDM Federal Programs for EPA Region 8. February 6, 2009.
Baseline Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment for the Bountiful/Woods Cross Site
Bountiful, Utah. Prepared by EPA Region 8. April 1, 2004.
Baseline Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment for the Bountiful/Woods Cross Site
Bountiful, Utah OU2. Prepared by EPA Region 8. May 1, 2005.
Bountiful/Woods Cross 5th South PCE Plume Superfund Site OU2 Water Treatment Plant
Completed and Operational. Announcement, prepared by EPA Region 8, September 2011.
CERCLA Information System Site Information accessed from website
http://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0801528. Accessed October 2012 -
February 2013.
Draft Final Remedial Investigation Volume 1 for OU2 Bountiful/Woods Cross 5th South PCE
Plume Site. Prepared for EPA Region 8, July 2004.
EPA Record of Decision: OU1 Bountiful/Woods Cross 5th South PCE Plume, Utah. Prepared by
EPA Region 8, September 2006.
EPA Record of Decision: OU2 Bountiful/Woods Cross 5th South PCE Plume, Utah. Prepared by
EPA Region 8, September 2007.
Environmental Covenant for Bountiful/Woods Cross 5th South PCE Plume Site between Davis
County, the EPA, and Utah DEQ. Utah Code Ann. §§ 57-25-101. January 2012.
Final Focused Feasibility Study Report for OU2 Bountiful/Woods Cross 5th South PCE Plume
Site. Prepared for EPA Region 8, July 2005.
A-l
-------
Final Interim Remedial Action Report for OU2 Bountiful/Woods Cross 5th South PCE Plume
Site. Prepared for EPA Region 8, September 2012.
Final Long-Term Monitoring Plan for Groundwater, Soil Vapor, Operations and Maintenance,
Site Management, and Construction Quality Assurance for Bountiful/Woods Cross 5th South
PCE Plume NPL Site. Prepared by CDM Federal Programs Corporation for EPA Region 8.
September 29, 2009.
Final Remedial Investigation Addendum Report for OU2 Bountiful/Woods Cross 5th South PCE
Plume Site. Prepared for EPA Region 8, July 2005. Prepared by CDM Federal Programs
Corporation for EPA Region 8. January 2008.
Final Remedial Investigation Report for OU2 Bountiful/Woods Cross 5th South PCE Plume Site.
Prepared for EPA Region 8, July 2005.
Final Sampling and Analysis Plan for Treatability Testing and Groundwater Sampling for
Bountiful/Woods Cross 5th South PCE Plume Davis County, Utah.
First Annual Monitoring Report for Bountiful/Woods Cross 5th South PCE Plume OU1 Davis
County, Utah. Prepared by CDM Federal Programs Corporation for EPA Region 8. January 14,
2010.
Groundwater Treatment System Monthly O&M Report for Bountiful/Woods Cross 5th South
PCE Plume NPL Site OU2. Prepared by Pacific Western Technologies, Ltd for EPA Region 8.
May 27, 2011.
Hydrogeologic Characterization Report for Phillips 66 Company - Woods Cross Refinery Davis
County, Utah. Prepared by Dames & Moore, Salt Lake City, Utah. November 1, 1991.
Industrial Wastewater Discharge Permit for CDM, Inc. Prepared by South Davis Sewer District.
October 16, 2008.
Initial System Performance Evaluation Report for Bountiful/Woods Cross. Prepared by PWT for
EPA Region 8. October 14, 2011.
Interim Report for the Enhanced Anaerobic Bioremediation Pilot Test for Bountiful/Woods
Cross Superfund Site. Prepared by the U.S. Department of the Interior. April 2006.
Long Term Monitoring Program Groundwater Monitoring Schedule for OU2 Bountiful/Woods
Cross 5th South PCE Plume Site. Prepared by Pacific Western Technologies, Ltd., Submitted for
Reference December 2012.
Operations and Maintenance Plan Revision 1 for Bountiful/Woods Cross. Prepared by CDM
Federal Programs for EPA Region 8. December 30, 2011.
A-l
-------
Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment on the W.S. Hatch (Hatchco) Truck Terminal, in Woods
Cross, Utah. Prepared by TRTech, Inc. April 14, 1997.
Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessment for Jack Kelley Trucking in Woods Cross, Utah.
Prepared by PSI, Salt Lake City, Utah. December 10, 1997.
Preliminary Assessment Decision for Bountiful/Woods Cross PCE Plume prepared by EPA
Region 8. July 24, 1996.
Preliminary Assessment for Bountiful/Woods Cross 5th South PCE Plume, West
Bountiful/Bountiful/Woods Cross, Utah. Prepared by Utah Department of Environmental
Quality Division of Environmental Response and Remediation. July 24, 1996.
Proposed Cleanup Plan for OU2 Bountiful/Woods Cross 5th South PCE Plume Site,
Announcement, Prepared by EPA Region 8, September 2006.
Public Health Assessment for Bountiful/ Woods Cross 5th South PCE Plume Davis County,
Utah. Prepared by Utah Department of Health Bureau of Epidemiology under cooperative
agreement with The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. September 16, 2002.
Quarterly Reporting Period Ending June 30, 2011 - Status Report for Bountiful/Woods Cross 5th
South PCE Plume Site. Prepared by South Davis Sewer District, July 2011.
Quarterly Reporting Period Ending September 30, 2011 - Status Report for Bountiful/Woods
Cross 5th South PCE Plume Site. Prepared by South Davis Sewer District, October 2011.
Quarterly Reporting Period Ending December 31, 2011 - Status Report for Bountiful/Woods
Cross 5th South PCE Plume Site. Prepared by South Davis Sewer District, February 2012.
Quarterly Reporting Period Ending March 31, 2012 - Status Report for Bountiful/Woods Cross
5th South PCE Plume Site. Prepared by South Davis Sewer District, May 2012.
Quarterly Reporting Period Ending June 30, 2012 - Status Report for Bountiful/Woods Cross 5th
South PCE Plume Site. Prepared by South Davis Sewer District, August 2012.
Quarterly Reporting Period Ending September 30, 2012 - Status Report for Bountiful/Woods
Cross 5th South PCE Plume Site. Prepared by South Davis Sewer District, November 2012.
Record of Decision for Bountiful/Woods Cross/5th South PCE Plume NPL Site Operable Unit 1.
Prepared by EPA Region 8. September 28, 2006.
Record of Decision for Bountiful/Woods Cross/5th South PCE Plume NPL Site Operable Unit 2.
Prepared by EPA Region 8. September 27, 2007.
A-l
-------
Region 8 Regional Website information accessed from website
http://www.epa.gov/region8/superfund/ut/bountifulwoods/index.html. Accessed October 2012 -
February 2013.
Remedial Investigation Final Report, W.S. Hatch Co., Woods Cross, Utah. Prepared by HDR
Engineering, Inc. December 2003.
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study for W.S. Hatch Co. Woods Cross, Utah. Prepared by
HDR Engineering, Inc. January 29, 2004.
Risk Assessment Report for Woods Cross Refinery, Light Oil Dock, Woods Cross, Utah.
Prepared by Environmental Resources Management for Holly Refining and Marketing
Company. April 25, 2007
Second Annual Monitoring Report for Bountiful/Woods Cross 5th South PCE Plume UOl Davis
County, Utah. Prepared by CDM Federal Programs Corporation for EPA Region 8. August 19,
2011.
Semi-Annual 2012 Monitoring Report for Bountiful/Woods Cross 5th South PCE Plume Site.
Prepared for EPA Region 8, August 2012.
Soil Gas and Indoor Air Sampling at the BCI Property. Prepared by Pacific Western
Technologies, Ltd, September 2012.
Source Area Data Assessment for ROD Amendment Evaluation. Prepared by Pacific Western
Technologies, Ltd, May 2012.
Subsurface Investigation Report for Former Hatchco Trucking, Woods Cross, Utah. Prepared by
ROCS, Inc. for Vicor Realty. November 11, 1998.
Third Annual Monitoring Report for Bountiful/Woods Cross 5th South PCE Plume OU1 Davis
County, Utah. Prepared by CDM Federal Programs Corporation for EPA Region 8. March 25,
2013.
Trip Report for November 2011 Monitoring Even,t Bountiful/Woods Cross Operable Unit 1,
Work Assignment #319-RARA-088G, CDM Project No. 79171.3383.319. Prepared by CDM
Federal Programs. December 6, 2011.
Work To Begin On the Phase 2 Pilot Study, Volume 1 Issue 5 for OU2 Bountiful/Woods Cross
5th South PCE Plume Site. Prepared by EPA Region 8, April 2008.
A-l
-------
Appendix B: Press Notice
m
•4t PKS%e--
EPA Five-Year Review Planned for the
Bountiful/Woods Cross 5th S. PCE Plume
Superfund Site
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is conducting the first Five-Year Review of remedial
actions performed under the Superfund program for operable unit (OU) 1 and OU2 at the
BountifulAVoods Cross 5th S. PCE Plume Superfund site (the Site) in Bountiful, Utah. The purpose of the
Five-Year Review is to make sure the cleanup actions selected for OU1 and OU2 remain protective of
human health and the environment. It is scheduled to be completed by September 2013.
The 150-acre Site is located in Davis County, Utah, north of Salt Lake City. Commercial and industrial
operations at the Site contaminated the groundwater. EPA selected a cleanup plan for OU 1 in 2006 and a
cleanup plan for OU2 in 2007.
More information is available at the Site's Information Repository and on EPA's website:
EPA invites community participation in the Five-Year Review process: Community members are
encouraged to contact EPA staff members with any information that may help the Agency make its
determination regarding the protectiveness and effectiveness of the remedies at the Site.
Davis County Library, South Branch
725 South Main Street
Bountiful, UT 84010
801-295-8732
http://www.epa.gov/region8/superfund/ut/bountifulwoods
Peggy Linn
Community Involvement Coordinator
EPA Region 8
303-312-6622
Email: linn.peggy@epa.gov
Dave Alison
Community Involvement Coordinator
Utah Department of Environmental Quality
801-536-4479
Email: dallison@utah.gov
Sam Garcia
Remedial Project Manager
EPA Region 8
303-312-6247
Email: garcia.sam@epa.gov
Michael Storck
Project Manager
Utah Department of Environmental Quality
801-536-4100
Email: mstork@utah.gov
B-l
-------
Appendix C: Interview Forms
Bountiful/Woods Cross 5th South
PCE Plume Superfund Site
Five-Year Review Interview Form
Site
Name:
Bountiful/Woods Cross 5th EPA ID
South PCE Plume
Interviewer Name: Suomi, Treat
Subject Name: Baird, Aaron G.
Subject Contact Information:
Time: 1 PM MST
No.:
Affiliation:
Affiliation:
Date:
UT0001119296
Skeo Solutions
Pacific Western Technologies, LTD.
720-202 2664
12/11/2012
Interview Location: OU-2 Groundwater Treatment Facility
Interview Format (circle one):Cln Person) Phone
Mail
Other:
Interview Category: LTRA Contractor
1. What is your overall impression of the project, including cleanup, maintenance and reuse
activities (as appropriate)?
I think the project is going well. The remedy implemented to address the down-gradient
dissolved PCE groundwater plume (groundwater extraction and treatment) is functioning
as designed, it is being maintained very well by the operator, and the system effluent
water is being placed into beneficial use. Additional remedies should be considered to
address the residual PCE contamination in the source area.
2. What is your assessment of the current performance of the remedy in place at the Site?
The remedy extracts and treats PCE-contaminated groundwater in accordance with
remedial action objectives. The treatment system has been effective in removing Site
contaminants and is compliant with effluent discharge requirements. We have been able
to observe hydraulic control of the dissolved PCE plume, but we have not been operating
long enough and do not have enough data to have observed significant decreasing trends
in contaminant concentrations.
The groundwater extraction and treatment remedy does not address the residual
contaminant mass in soil at the source area, and will take decades to address the elevated
dissolved PCE concentrations that have recently been observed in Upper Zone source
area wells.
3. What are the findings from the monitoring data? What are the key trends in contaminant
levels that are being documented over time at the Site?
Groundwater monitoring data indicates considerable groundwater drawdown in
monitoring wells near extraction wells. PCE concentrations in the extraction wells and in
the combined treatment system influent have remained relatively stable with only minor
variations. A few monitoring wells have indicated a decreasing trend in PCE
concentrations, but as stated above, it is still too early to effectively evaluate
C-l
-------
concentration trends over time.
A significant increase in dissolved PCE concentrations has recently been observed in
Upper Zone source area wells MW-16U and MW-17U.
4. Is there a continuous on-site O&M presence? If so, please describe staff responsibilities and
activities. Alternatively, please describe staff responsibilities and the frequency of site
inspections and activities if there is not a continuous on-site O&M presence.
Yes, there is a continuous on-site O&M presence. The EPA has a contract with the South
Davis Sewer District to operate and maintain the system. The system operation goal set
by the EPA requires a minimum system operational uptime of 90 percent and it has been
greater than 99 percent since start-up. The EPA's expectations for on-site O&M presence
are weekly O&M site visits and the ability to respond to emergencies within three hours.
The operator has been able to adhere to this requirement and is now even conducting
brief treatment facility inspections on an almost daily basis. Weekly on-site O&M visits
include the collection of system operational data, including pressure at multiple points in
the system, individual extraction well flow rates, combined groundwater influent flow
rates and volumes, treated groundwater effluent flow rates and volumes, water levels in
extraction wells and water tanks, and transfer pump run times. More extensive system
testing and monitoring activities are conducted on a monthly and quarterly basis.
5. Have there been any significant changes in site O&M requirements, maintenance schedules
or sampling routines since start-up or in the last five years? If so, do they affect the
protectiveness or effectiveness of the remedy? Please describe changes and impacts.
There have not been any significant changes since system start-up almost two years ago,
with the exception of the reduced system sampling frequency. Reduced system sampling
frequency went from monthly during the first year to quarterly thereafter. After receipt of
analytical results from initial treatment system water samples, some minor reductions in
analytes were implemented.
6. Have there been unexpected O&M difficulties or costs at the Site since start-up or in the last
five years? If so, please provide details.
A sediment crust layer formed on the surface of the GAC in the lead GAC vessel quicker
than expected and the bag filters were re-piped to operate in series to mediate the issue. It
was expected that the carbon would begin to clog up due to solids buildup or biofouling;
and therefore, the pressure differential across the carbon would likely govern required
change out before contaminant breakthrough occurred. However, we just recently
observed contaminant breakthrough above discharge limits for PCE in the lead GAC
vessel and the GAC will need to be replaced in the near future. Based on current influent
PCE concentration levels, flow rates, and carbon use calculations, carbon change out
frequency for a 5000 lb GAC vessel was anticipated to be every 7 to 8 years. I am unable
to speak to costs in this interview because all system costs are monitored and paid for by
the system operator.
C-2
-------
7. Have there been opportunities to optimize O&M activities or sampling efforts? Please
describe changes and any resulting or desired cost savings or improved efficiencies.
There has been some O&M optimization. We bypassed the effluent equalization tank and
as a result, we are able to operate the treatment system with one transfer pump rather than
two. We have also increased pumping rates to the maximum allowable rate under the
water rights allocation for the Site, which currently is near our maximum achievable
pumping rates. These changes were implemented in mid-2012 following the one-year
Operational and Functional Period.
8. Do you have any comments, suggestions or recommendations regarding O&M activities and
schedules at the Site?
After the first two years of system operation, the majority of the "kinks" in the system
should be worked out and the system should operate relatively consistently. The system is
automated; there are sensors and alarms for nearly every possible issue and it can be
effectively monitored remotely. There may be an opportunity to reduce on-site visits in
the future.
There is an opportunity to adjust the system sampling schedule. The memorandum we
received from the State regarding the treated water discharge requirements for the Site
did not specify a sampling frequency or any reporting requirements. System performance
and compliance groundwater samples are collected to evaluate the progress of the system
and to confirm that the treatment system effluent is in conformance with the discharge
requirements. Currently, water samples are collected from the extraction wells, treatment
system influent, lead GAC vessel effluent, and effluent discharge on quarterly sampling
schedule, but there could be more judgment in the necessity of the samples. For example,
it took about two years to get contaminant breakthrough on the lead GAC vessel; given
this, after the lead GAC is replaced, maybe you don't need to sample the lead GAC every
quarter for the first year, or maybe you only need sample after the lead GAC vessel and
not the effluent.
As the system continues to operate and as additional data become available, there may be
an opportunity to take extraction well EW-4 off-line. EW-4 has low flow rates that are
typically less than 10 gallons per minute and low PCE concentrations that have been at or
below the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL). The mass removed from this well is
very minimal and because of its distance from the treatment plant, it requires a significant
amount of energy to transport the water to the treatment plant. Well EW-4 is the furthest
well down gradient and extraction wells EW-1, EW-2, and EW-3 should have sufficient
radius of influence to capture the plume moving down gradient from the source area in
the future.
C-3
-------
Bountiful/Woods Cross 5th South PCE Five-Year Review Interview Form
Plume Superfund Site
Site Name: Bountiful/Woods Cross 5th South EPA ID No.: UT0001119296
PCE Plume
Interviewer Name: Suomi, Treat Affiliation: Skeo Solutions
Subject Name: Local Business Owner 1 Affiliation: Local Business Owner 1
Date: 12/07/2012
Interview Format (circle one): In Person Phone Mail Other^email
Interview Category: Local Business
1. What is your overall impression of the remedial activities at the Site?
I was unaware that there were any remedial activities going on at BFC, unless that means
testing and such to determine what would be the best remedy.
2. What have been the effects of this Site on the surrounding community, if any?
I don't know of any effects on the surrounding community.
3. What is your assessment of the current performance of the remedy in place at the Site?
My assessment of the current performance is that it is a very, very slow process. There
has been some kind of testing going on at our plant for just over 11 years now.
4. Are you aware of any complaints or inquiries regarding environmental issues or the remedial
action from residents since implementation of the cleanup?
No, I am not aware of any complaints or injuries.
5. Do you feel well-informed regarding the Site's activities and remedial progress? If not, how
might the EPA convey site-related information in the future?
Yes, for the most part I feel informed, but there are large spaces of time that pass before I
hear or see anything.
6. Do you have any comments, suggestions or recommendations regarding the management or
operation of the Site's remedy?
No, Mario and yourself have been great to work with.
C-4
-------
Bountiful/Woods Cross 5th South Five-Year Review Interview Form
PCE Plume Superfund Site
Site Name: Bountiful/Woods Cross 5th
EPA ID No.:
UT0001119296
South PCE Plume
Interviewer Suomi, Treat
Affiliation:
Skeo Solutions
Name:
Subject Name: Myers, Matt
Affiliation:
South Davis Sewer
District
Subject Contact Information:
801-295-3469
mmvers(2),sdsd.us
Time: 10:30AM
Date:
12/17/12
Interview Format (circle one):
In Person
Phone
Mail Othervemail}
Interview Category: LTRA Contractor
1. What is your overall impression of the project, including cleanup, maintenance and reuse
activities (as appropriate)?
We have sufficient operational resources and funds, and are managing them in a cost-
effective way. The facility is well attended to.
2. What is your assessment of the current performance of the remedy in place at the Site?
The remedy is effectively removing PCE from the confined aquifer and discharging to
the negotiated receiving water. The groundwater treatment facility (GWTF) was well-
designed for this purpose, but for some minor issues that South Davis Sewer District
(SDSD) has remedied or is planning to remedy: (a) adequate balancing and aligning of
transfer pumps, (b) adequate winter heating, (c) versatility to run bag filters in series or
parallel, (d) adequate network security, (e) ability to backwash granular activated carbon
tanks (SDSD is putting this off until it becomes clear whether re-plumbing the bag filters
and operating in series fixes this issue).
3. What are the findings from the monitoring data? What are the key trends in contaminant
levels that are being documented over time at the Site?
This monitoring well-related question is better suited to PWT to answer.
4. Is there a continuous on-site O&M presence? If so, please describe staff responsibilities and
activities. Alternatively, please describe staff responsibilities and the frequency of site
inspections and activities if there is not a continuous on-site O&M presence.
SDSD O&M staff is literally minutes away as they perform O&M activities for the
district. Staff performs a detailed inspection and routine maintenance at least weekly. Due
to recent issues (leaks in water heater, culinary plumbing and in process equipment) staff
has been inspecting daily so that any such issue is identified, and either corrected or
mitigated, until corrective action can be taken. District staff involvement is as follows:
(a) Dal Wayment (General Manager) - Executive contact, oversees entire OU2
C-5
-------
operations program, (b) Ed Marsing (Operations Superintendent) oversees all O&M
activities at OU2, (c) Eric Nemcek (Assistant Superintendent) primary operator of OU2,
(d) Tim Munden (Operator) assists Eric as directed in operation of OU2, (e) Matt Myers
(District Engineer) coordinates with operations, management, the EPA, PWT and other
contractors as needed, performs all reporting activities, tracks budget and funding. Other
SDSD staff is included in O&M activities as necessary.
5. Have there been any significant changes in site O&M requirements, maintenance schedules
or sampling routines since start-up or in the last five years? If so, do they affect the
protectiveness or effectiveness of the remedy? Please describe changes and impacts.
See Question 2 for summary of several O&M requirements. Sampling routines have
changed from monthly to quarterly, but this affects the operation very little. Most recent
lab results seem to indicate breakthrough between GAC vessels 1 & 2, at a much earlier
than anticipated time frame. If after data vetting this turns out to be the case, and if this is
any indication of the interval for GAC change-out, O&M operations would be impacted.
This will increase costs, but the District is operating at well under the established budget
thus far.
6. Have there been unexpected O&M difficulties or costs at the Site since start-up or in the last
five years? If so, please provide details.
Copied from Question 2: (a) Adequate balancing and aligning of transfer pumps (b)
adequate winter heating, (c) versatility to run bag filters in series or parallel, (d) adequate
network security, (e) ability to backwash granular activated carbon tanks (SDSD is
putting this off until it becomes clear whether re-plumbing the bag filters and operating in
series fixes this issue). These issues are relatively minor and were simple enough to
correct by district personnel within the budget.
7. Have there been opportunities to optimize O&M activities or sampling efforts? Please
describe changes and any resulting or desired cost savings or improved efficiencies.
With the elimination of one of the earlier planned discharge alternatives, it became
possible to maintain enough head to push water through the system and the discharge
without using the second set of transfer pumps. The GWTF is now operating with only
one set of transfer pumps and the second essentially serving as spare for now.
Eliminating the discharge pumps is estimated to save approximately $65-75/month
depending on volume being pumped. Plumbing the bag filters in series better protects the
GAC media from blinding off with fine particles and extends the media's useful life. It is
difficult to calculate a cost savings until further operating data is available.
8. Do you have any comments, suggestions or recommendations regarding O&M activities and
schedules at the Site?
Nothing more than has already been written.
C-6
-------
Bountiful/Woods Cross 5th South PCE Five-Year Review Interview Form
Plume Superfund Site
Site Name: Bountiful/Woods Cross 5th EPA ID No.: UT0001119296
South PCE Plume
Interviewer Name: Suomi, Treat Affiliation: Skeo Solution
Subject Name: Smith, Nathan Affiliation: CDM
Subject Contact Information: SmithNT@cdm.com
Time: 1:00 PM Date: 12/18/2012
Interview Location: Conference Call
Interview Format (circle one): In Person ^Phone^ Mail Other:
Interview Category: Remedial Action Contractor
1. What is your overall impression of the project, including cleanup, maintenance and reuse
activities (as appropriate)?
Overall it seems to be going extremely well, if not better.
2. What is your assessment of the current performance of the remedy in place at the Site?
I am extremely pleased with the bioremediation resulting in contaminants below MCL or
near detection. There are a few hot spots. Source material being cleaned up is resulting in
down gradient wells having reductions in COC concentrations. Down gradient plume - 2nd
and 3r bio-barriers are installed and are performing well. Done with bio-augmentation and it
is now a "wait and see" until we see something.
3. What are the findings from the monitoring data? What are the key trends in contaminant
levels that are being documented over time at the Site?
Initial November data shows concentrations declining. We do not expect to see as rapid
degradation down gradient as with the source material. Bio barriers set to treat groundwater
as it moves through so we expect lower but good degradation.
4. Is there a continuous on-site O&M presence? If so, please describe staff responsibilities and
activities. Alternatively, please describe staff responsibilities and the frequency of site
inspections and activities if there is not a continuous on-site O&M presence.
Now all wells are installed. Routine injection work with source injection started in July 2012.
We will be doing maintenance work injections in hot spots in source area in January, then
quarterly. Hot spot near 18D declined substantially. 17D still has "a lot" of elevated
concentrations.
Upkeep of wells - In the past we had issues with plows shearing off well caps. Wasatch
Environmental is the subcontractor that takes care of needs as they arise.
C-7
-------
5. Have there been any significant changes in site O&M requirements, maintenance schedules
or sampling routines since start-up or in the last five years? If so, do they affect the
protectiveness or effectiveness of the remedy? Please describe changes and impacts.
Overall we have completed work as in the RD and have mostly completed things as laid out
and now backing off to semi-annual sampling.
6. Have there been unexpected O&M difficulties or costs at the Site since start-up or in the last
five years? If so, please provide details.
rd
No major issues since initial work in the source area. We had issues with the 3 biobarrier,
some wells didn't perform well, so we replaced them. West of biobarrier #3 there were also a
few wells that were replaced. Holly wanted to put in new buildings so Holly paid for and
moved those wells.
Biobarrier #3 - Because wells are artesian, ball valves on top of the well have frozen and
broken. They are checked during injections.
7. Have there been opportunities to optimize O&M activities or sampling efforts? Please
describe changes and any resulting or desired cost savings or improved efficiencies.
We started using passive diffusion bags for sampling in source area prior to injection wells.
This has saved money. Deployed 54 or 55 PDS within a day and then sampled within a day.
Previously that would have taken 5-6 days of sampling. Did initial test in 2011 annual
samples event and then deployed and used in April 2012.
Design called for gravity feed injections. Then went out there and realized it would not work
and switched to pressure injections. It saved thousands of man hours.
Biobarriers #2 and #3 installations - DPT instead of hollow stem auger saved money and
time. We installed up to 10 per day.
As we transition the operating remedy in the source area, may want to think about passive
diffusion bags where MNA data is not needed - maybe where VOC data is all that [needs].
We may consider hydrosleeve bags for sampling where MNA data is [needed]. Source area
will continue to just treat hot spots and target areas needing to be addressed.
8. Do you have any comments, suggestions or recommendations regarding O&M activities and
schedules at the Site?
Not really anything or additional comments. Moving into semi-annual schedules but it makes
sense to collect samples after injections to monitor progress of leachate remediation.
C-8
-------
Bountiful/Woods Cross 5th South PCE
Plume Superfund Site
Site Name: Bountiful/Woods Cross 5th
South PCE Plume
Interviewer Name: Suomi, Treat
Subject Name: Storck, Michael
Subject Contact Information: 801-536-4179
Time: 3:45 P.M.
Interview Location: office
Interview Format (circle one): In Person
Five-Year Review Interview Form
EPA ID No.: UT0001119296
Affiliation: Skeo Solutions
Affiliation:
Date: March 25, 2013
Phone Mail Otherfemail v
Interview Category: State Agency Division of Environmental Response and Remediation
1. What is your overall impression of the project, including cleanup, maintenance and reuse
activities (as appropriate)?
Overall, I feel the remediation efforts for both OUs have been successful. OU2
maintenance activities are conducted by the South Davis Sewer District and they have
done a very good job in conducting activities and the preparation of quarterly reports.
2. What is your assessment of the current performance of the remedy in place at the Site?
The remedy at OU2, pump and treat, is performing as designed and expected. The
remedy at OU1 is still ongoing as injection of the wells with emulsified oil substrate is
still being evaluated.
3. Are you aware of any complaints or inquiries regarding site-related environmental issues or
remedial activities from residents in the past five years?
No
4. Has your office conducted any site-related activities or communications in the past five
years? If so, please describe the purpose and results of these activities.
No.
5. Are you aware of any changes to state laws that might affect the protectiveness of the Site's
remedy?
No.
6. Are you comfortable with the status of the institutional controls at the Site? If not, what are
the associated outstanding issues?
C-9
-------
The ICs being implemented through the State Engineers office are effective.
7. Are you aware of any changes in projected land use(s) at the Site?
None
8. Do you have any comments, suggestions or recommendations regarding the management or
operation of the Site's remedy?
Not at this time as I am satisfied with the remedial action at OU1 and the LTRA at OU2.
C-10
-------
Bountiful/Woods Cross 5th S. PCE Plume Five-Year Review Interview Form
Superfund Site
Site Name: Bountiful/Woods Cross 5th S.
PCE Plume
Interviewer Name: Sarah Alfano
Subject Name: Mary DeLoretto
Subject Contact Information: 801-741-8808
Time: 3:30pm EST
Interview Format (circle one): In Person
Interview Category: Local Government
1. Are you aware of the former environmental issues at the Site and the cleanup activities that
have taken place to date?
Yes
2. Do you feel well-informed regarding the Site's activities and remedial progress? If not, how
might the EPA convey site-related information in the future?
Once we put our park and ride lot at the site, they installed wells. I have not gotten any
updates since that happened. There is another person who works on the site with me but I do
not think he has received any recent updates either. I have not had any updates in a couple
years. Email follow-up would be preferable. It should say in the subject what it pertains to so
that it is not deleted as junk mail.
3. Have there been any problems with unusual or unexpected activities at the Site, such as
emergency response, vandalism or trespassing?
No.
4. Are you aware of any changes to state laws or local regulations that might affect the
protectiveness of the Site's remedy?
No.
5. Are you aware of any changes in projected land use(s) at the Site?
No, we only know about our park and ride lot.
6. Has the EPA kept involved parties and surrounding neighbors informed of activities at the
Site? How can the EPA best provide site-related information in the future?
I have not heard anything and I am not aware of what surrounding neighbors and other
parties have been told.
7. Do you have any comments, suggestions or recommendations regarding the project?
No, however, we would like to receive updates so we know what is going on at the site.
EPA ID No.: UT0001119296
Affiliation: Skeo Solutions
Affiliation: Utah Transit Authority
Date: 3/11/2013
PhoneJ Mail Other:
C-ll
-------
Bountiful/Woods Cross 5th South PCE Five-Year Review Interview Form
Plume Superfund Site
Site Name: Bountiful/Woods Cross 5th
EPA ID No.:
UT0001119296
South PCE Plume
Interviewer Name: Sarah Alfano
Affiliation:
Skeo Solutions
Subject Name: Dal Wayment
Affiliation:
South Davis County Sewer
Subject Contact Information: 801-295-3469
Time: 1:00 PM
Date: 3/8/2013
Interview Format (circle one): In Person
^l*hone^ Mail Other:
Interview Category: LTRA Contractor/Local Government
1. Are you aware of the former environmental issues at the Site and the cleanup activities that
have taken place to date?
Yes
2. Do you feel well-informed regarding the Site's activities and remedial progress? If not, how
might the EPA convey site-related information in the future?
I do feel informed.
3. Have there been any problems with unusual or unexpected activities at the Site, such as
emergency response, vandalism or trespassing?
There have been none.
4. Are you aware of any changes to state laws or local regulations that might affect the
protectiveness of the Site's remedy?
No, I am not
5. Are you aware of any changes in projected land use(s) at the Site?
No
6. Has the EPA kept involved parties and surrounding neighbors informed of activities at the
Site? How can the EPA best provide site-related information in the future?
We have been kept informed. We are operating the activated carbon filter. As manager of the
sewer district, I have been involved back since the days of sampling to locate the plume.
Because we have been involved and notified directly, we are very well informed at all times.
We do not have responsibility for extensive notice and we have had pretty good participation
for the community meetings. Beyond newspaper notices and flyers, they had messages in the
city newsletters and things like that. Short of going door to door, I do not know what else
could be done.
7. Do you have any comments, suggestions or recommendations regarding the project?
No we have been involved the whole time. The project seems to be going well, the plume is
responding to the pumping, and it seems to be working though we are not the ones that
determine that. There is a consulting firm monitoring the wells and doing the monitoring.
We have exhibited the facility several times. The City of Woods Cross and the City of North
Salt Lake are dealing with PCE in their wells. The other city is looking at doing activated
C-12
-------
carbon cleaning as well. We have hosted tours for that city. They are a small town between
Salt Lake City and Woods Cross. It is an incorporated town.
C-13
-------
Bountiful/Woods Cross 5th South PCE Five-Year Review Interview Form
Plume Superfund Site
Site Name: Bountiful/Woods Cross 5th
EPA ID No.:
UT0001119296
South PCE Plume
Interviewer Name: Sarah Alfano
Affiliation:
Skeo Solutions
Subject Name: Local Business
Affiliation:
Holly Refinery
Representative 2
Subject Contact Information:
Time: 1:30 P.M.
Date: 3/8/2013
Interview Format (circle one): In Person
^Phon^ Mail Other:
Interview Category: Local Business
1. Are you aware of the former environmental issues at the Site and the cleanup activities that
have taken place to date?
Yes.
2. What is your overall impression of the project, including cleanup, maintenance and reuse
activities (as appropriate)?
I think they are going well.
3. What have been the effects of this Site on the surrounding community, if any?
None.
4. Have there been any problems with unusual or unexpected activities at the Site, such as
emergency response, vandalism or trespassing?
No.
5. Has the kept involved parties and surrounding neighbors informed of activities at the Site?
How can the EPA best provide site-related information in the future?
They are doing a good job now.
6. Do you own a private well in addition to or instead of accessing city/municipal water
supplies? If so, for what purpose(s) is your private well used?
We own several wells and we use them for industrial purposes. We had potable wells but we
took them out and connected to the West Bountiful. I decided to switch, not due to the site
plume, but because Utah is moving toward mandatory treatment with chlorine and I did not
want chlorine in the water.
7. Do you have any comments, suggestions or recommendations regarding any aspects of the
project?
No, it has gone well.
C-14
-------
BOUNTIFUL/WOODS CROSS 5TH S. PCE
PLUME Superfund Site
Five-Year Review Interview Form
Site Name: BOUNTIFUL/WOODS CROSS
5TH S. PCE PLUME
Interviewer Name: Peggy Linn
Subject Name: Mayor Parry and City
Manager Gary Uresk
Subject Contact Information:
Time: 12PM
Interview Format (circle one): In Person
EPA ID No.: UT0001119296
Affiliation: EPA
Affiliation: Woods Cross
Date: 3/12/2013
^*hon(^
Mail
Other:
Interview Category: Local Government
1. Are you aware of the former environmental issues at the Site and the cleanup activities that
have taken place to date?
Yes, we are aware.
2. Do you feel well-informed regarding the Site's activities and remedial progress? If not, how
might the EPA convey site-related information in the future?
We have been kept up-to date and what the ongoing status is.
In a timely manner?
Sure, I do not have anything to compare it to.
Any suggestions on how it might be better, is the same format ok?
When it was first kicked off, we were in the loop. There might have been some lag but it has
been pretty good. We know how to contact you if we have any questions.
3. Have there been any problems with unusual or unexpected activities at the Site, such as
emergency response, vandalism or trespassing?
No, not that we are aware of.
4. Are you aware of any changes to state laws or local regulations that might affect the
protectiveness of the Site's remedy?
We are pretty much on top of that for local regulations and we are trying to keep up with
state regulations as well. It is not as easy but I think we are abreast on those things.
5. Are you aware of any changes in projected land use(s) at the Site?
No, that is not an issue.
6. Has the EPA kept involved parties and surrounding neighbors informed of activities at the
Site? How can the EPA best provide site-related information in the future?
There has not been a lot of work at the site. There have been drillings at the plume but I think
people have been informed; I have not had any comments from residents.
C-15
-------
7. Do you have any comments, suggestions or recommendations regarding the project?
I know it is a matter of time as far as the remediation goes, I don't think we would have any
recommendations. The issue with all of these environmental issues is the time it takes to
clean them up. It is frustrating but we understand all the steps that you have to move through
with testing etc. I think I understand why it has to carry on so long. Is this the remediation
with the biochem bugs?
Yes some of that was in OU1. We are seeing decreasing concentrations, it is having a
positive effect. There were concerns with another local site but not related to the FYR for this
site.
C-16
-------
Appendix D: Site Inspection Checklist
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SITE INSPECTION CHECKLIST
I. SITE INFORMATION
Site Name: Bountiful/Woods Cross 5th S. PCE
Plume
Date of Inspection: 12/11/2012
Location and Region: Bountiful, Utah Region 8
EPA ID: UTD980952840
Agency, Office or Company Leading the Five-Year
Review: EPA Region 8
Weather/Temperature: Mostly Cloudy/36°F
Remedy Includes: (Check all that apply)
Landfill cover/containment
~ Access controls
Institutional controls
^ Groundwater pump and treatment
~ Surface water collection and treatment
PI Other:
~ Monitored natural attenuation
Groundwater containment
Vertical barrier walls
Attachments: ^ Inspection team roster attached
1 1 Site map attached
II. INTERVIEWS (check all that apply)
1. O&M Contractor Baird. Aaron G. Pacific Western Technologies.
Name LTD.
Title OU2 O&M Contractor
Interviewed 153 at site Plat office 1 1 b\ ohonc Phone: 720-202-2664
Problems, suggestions [X] Report attached:
12/11/2012
Date
2. O&M Contractor Mvers. Matt South Davis Sewer District
Name Title: O&M Contractor
Interviewed 1 1 at site PI at office 153 bv email Phone: 801-295-3469
Problcms/suaacstions [X] Report attached:
12/17/2012
Date
3. Local Business Banserter. Brvce Bountiful Family Cleaners
Name Title:
Interviewed PI at site l~~l at office [Xl bv email Phone:
Problcms/suaacstions [X] Report attached:
12/07/2012
Date
4. O&M Contractor Smith. Nathan CDM
Name Title:
Interviewed l~~l at site l~~l at office l~~l bv email 153 Phone:
Problcms/suaacstions [X] Report attached:
12/18/2012
Date
5. State Agencv Storck. Michael
Name Title:
Interviewed l~~l at site l~~l at office [Xl bv mail Phone:
Problcms/suaacstions [>^ Report attached:
03/25/2013
Date
D-l
-------
3.
Local Regulatory Authorities and Response Agencies (i.e., state and tribal offices, emergency
response office, police department, office of public health or environmental health, zoning office,
recorder of deeds, or other city and county offices). Fill in all that apply.
Agency.
Contact
Name Title
Problems/suggestions ~ Report attached:
Agency.
Contact
Name
Title
Problems/suggestions ~ Report attached:.
Agency
Contact
Name Title
Problems/suggestions ~ Report attached:
Agency.
Contact
Name Title
Problems/suggestions ~ Report attached:
Agency.
Contact
Name Title
Problems/suggestions ~ Report attached:
Date
Phone No.
Date
Phone No.
Date
Phone No.
Date
Phone No.
Date
Phone No.
4.
Other Interviews (optional) EH Report attached:
III. ON-SITE DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS VERIFIED (check all that apply)
O&M Documents
~ O&M manual
~ As-built drawings
~ Maintenance logs
| Readily available
| Readily available
| Readily available
~ Up to date
Up to date
Up to date
~ n/a
~ n/a
~ n/a
Remarks: O&M Manual for OU1 is being revised and updated.
Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan
~ Contingency plan/emergency response plan
Remarks:
Readily available ^ Up to date EH N/A
Readily available Up to date EH N/A
O&M and OSHA Training Records
Remarks:
Readily available ~ Up to date EH N/A
D-2
-------
4.
Permits and Service Agreements
~ Air discharge permit
~ Readily available
~ Up to date
IEI N/A
~ Effluent discharge
Readily available
13 Up to date
~ n/a
~ Waste disposal, POTW
Readily available
1^1 Up to date
~ n/a
I-! Other Dcrmits:
~ Readily available
~ Up to date
~ n/a
Remarks: The state atroroved the Effluent Discharge in a letter.
5.
Gas Generation Records
Remarks:
~ Readily available
~ Up to date
IEI N/A
6.
Settlement Monument Records
Remarks:
~ Readily available
~ Up to date
IEI N/A
7.
Groundwater Monitoring Records
Remarks:
Readily available
1^1 Up to date
~ n/a
8.
Leachate Extraction Records
~ Readily available
~ Up to date
IEI N/A
Remarks:
9.
Discharge Compliance Records
~ Air ~ Readily available ~ Up to date
IEI
N/A
~ Water (effluent) 3 Readily available 3 Up to date
~ n/a
Remarks:
10.
Daily Access/Security Logs
Remarks:
Readily available
13 Up to date
~ n/a
IV.
O&M COSTS
1.
O&M Organization
I~1 State in-house
I~1 PRP in-house
1 1 Contractor for state
1 1 Contractor for PRP
1 1 Federal facility in-house
1 1 Contractor for Federal facility
153 Contractor for the EPA
D-3
-------
2. O&M Cost Records
153 Readily available ^ Up to date
~ Funding mechanism/agreement in place ~ Unavailable
Original O&M cost estimate: _ ~ Breakdown attached
From: mm/dd/wvv
Date
From: mm/dd/wvv
Date
From: mm/dd/wvv
Date
From: mm/dd/wvv
Date
From: mm/dd/wvv
Date
Total annual cost by year for review period if available
To: mm/dd/wvv
Date
Total cost
To: mm/dd/wvv
Date
To: mm/dd/wvv
Date
To: mm/dd/wvv
Date
To: mm/dd/wvv
Date
Total cost
Total cost
Total cost
I I Breakdown attached
I I Breakdown attached
I I Breakdown attached
I I Breakdown attached
I I Breakdown attached
Total cost
Remarks: See Section 4.3 of the current FYR report for an explanation of O&M. OU1 is not yet in the O&M
phase and OU2 only begun in late 2012. Therefore, O&M costs will be considered during the next FYR.
3. Unanticipated or Unusually High O&M Costs during Review Period
Describe costs and reasons:
V. ACCESS AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS M Applicable ~ N/A
A. Fencing
1. Fencing Damaged
Remarks:
~ Location shown on site map ~ Gates secured
N/A
B. Other Access Restrictions
1. Signs and Other Security Measures
Remarks:
~ Location shown on site map
N/A
C. Institutional Controls (ICs)
D-4
-------
1. Implementation and Enforcement
Site conditions imply ICs not properly implemented ^ Yes ~ No ~ N/A
Site conditions imply ICs not being fully enforced ^ Yes ~ No ~ N/A
Type of monitoring (e.g., self-reporting, drive by):
Frequency:
Responsible party/agency:
Contact mm/dd/wvv
Name Title Date Phone no.
Reporting is up to date ~ Yes ~ No El
N/A
Reports are verified by the lead agency
I~1 Yes
~ No
IEI N/A
Specific requirements in deed or decision documents have been met
IEI Yes
~ No
~ n/a
Violations have been reported
I~1 Yes
lElNo
~ n/a
Other problems or suggestions: ^ Report attached
Remarks: See section 6.3 of the current FYR
2. Adequacy ~ ICs are adequate ^ ICs are inadequate ~ N/A
Remarks: See section 6.3 of the current FYR
D. General
1. Vandalism/Trespassing ~ Location shown on site map £3 No vandalism evident
Remarks:
2. Land Use Changes On Site ^ N/A
Remarks:
3. Land Use Changes Off Site ^ N/A
Remarks:
VI. GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS
A. Roads ~ Applicable ^ N/A
1. Roads Damaged ~ Location shown on site map ~ Roads adequate ~ N/A
Remarks:
B. Other Site Conditions
Remarks: In general, the site is well maintained.
VII. LANDFILL COVERS ~ Applicable ~ N/A
A. Landfill Surface
1. Settlement (low spots) ~ Location shown on site map £3 Settlement not evident
Arial extent: Depth:
Remarks:
D-5
-------
2.
Cracks
1 1 Location shown on site map
^ Cracking not evident
Leneths:
Widths:
Deoths:
Remarks:
3.
Erosion
Arial extent:
Remarks:
1 1 Location shown on site map
^ Erosion not evident
Depth:
4.
Holes
Arial extent:
Remarks:
~ Location shown on site map
Holes not evident
Depth:
5.
Vegetative Cover
1 1 Grass
^ Cover properly established
I~1 No signs of stress
1 1 Trees/shrubs (indicate size and locations on a diagram)
Remarks:
6.
Alternative Cover (e g
r., armored rock, concrete)
~ n/a
Remarks: Asohalt cover at OU1 is in sood condition.
7.
Bulges
Arial extent:
Remarks:
~ Location shown on site map
IE31 Bulges not evident
Heisht:
8.
Wet Areas/Water Damage ^ Wet areas/water damage not evident
1 1 Wet areas
1 1 Location shown on site map
Arial extent:
1 1 Ponding
1 1 Location shown on site map
Arial extent:
I~1 Seeps
1 1 Location shown on site map
Arial extent:
1 1 Soft subgrade
1 1 Location shown on site map
Arial extent:
Remarks:
9.
Slope Instability
1 1 Slides
~ Location shown on site map
£3 No evidence of slope instability
Arial extent:
Remarks:
B.
Benches ~ Applicable £3 N/A
(Horizontally constructed mounds of earth placed across a steep landfill side slope to interrupt the slope in
order to slow down the velocity of surface runoff and intercept and convey the runoff to a lined channel.)
1.
Flows Bypass Bench
Remarks:
1 1 Location shown on site map
1 1 N/A or okay
2.
Bench Breached
Remarks:
1 1 Location shown on site map
1 1 N/A or okay
D-6
-------
3.
Bench Overtopped
1 1 Location shown on site map
I~1 N/A or okay
Remarks:
C.
Letdown Channels
~ Applicable £3 N/A
(Channel lined with erosion control mats, riprap, grout bags or gabions that descend down the steep side
slope of the cover and will allow the runoff water collected by the benches to move off of the landfill
cover without creating erosion gullies.)
1.
Settlement (Low spots)
~ Location shown on site map
~ No evidence of settlement
Arial extent:
Depth:
Remarks:
2.
Material Degradation
~ Location shown on site map
~ No evidence of degradation
Material t\ Dc:
Arial extent:
Remarks:
3.
Erosion
~ Location shown on site map
~ No evidence of erosion
Arial extent:
Depth:
Remarks:
4.
Undercutting
~ Location shown on site map
~ No evidence of undercutting
Arial extent:
Depth:
Remarks:
5.
Obstructions
Tvpe:
~ No obstructions
|—| Location shown on site map Arial extent:
Size:
Remarks:
6.
Excessive Vegetative Growth Tydc:
~ No evidence of excessive growth
~ Vegetation in channels does not obstruct flow
|—| Location shown on site map Arial extent:
Remarks:
D.
Cover Penetrations
~ Applicable ^ N/A
1.
Gas Vents
I~1 Active
1 1 Passive
1 1 Properly secured/locked Q Functioning Q Routinely sampled Q Good condition
1 1 Evidence of leakage at penetration Q Needs maintenance Q N/A
Remarks:
D-7
-------
2
Gas Monitoring Probes
1 1 Properly secured/locked ~ Functioning ~ Routinely sampled
O Good condition
1 1 Evidence of leakage at penetration ~ Needs maintenance
~ n/a
Remarks:
3
Monitoring Wells (within surface area of landfill)
1 1 Properly secured/locked ~ Functioning ~ Routinely sampled
1 1 Good condition
1 1 Evidence of leakage at penetration ~ Needs maintenance
~ n/a
Remarks:
4
Extraction Wells Leachate
1 1 Properly secured/locked ~ Functioning ~ Routinely sampled
1 1 Good condition
1 1 Evidence of leakage at penetration ~ Needs maintenance
~ n/a
Remarks:
5
Settlement Monuments ~ Located ~ Routinely surveyed
Remarks:
~ n/a
E.
Gas Collection and Treatment ~ Applicable £3 N/A
1
Gas Treatment Facilities
1 1 Flaring ~ Thermal destruction
~ Collection for reuse
1 1 Good condition ~ Needs maintenance
Remarks:
2
Gas Collection Wells, Manifolds and Piping
1 1 Good condition ~ Needs maintenance
Remarks:
3
Gas Monitoring Facilities (e.g., gas monitoring of adjacent homes or buildings)
1 1 Good condition ~ Needs maintenance ~ N/A
Remarks:
F.
Cover Drainage Layer ~ Applicable £3 N/A
1
Outlet Pipes Inspected ~ Functioning ~ N/A
Remarks:
2
Outlet Rock Inspected ~ Functioning Q N/A
Remarks:
G.
Detention/Sedimentation Ponds ~ Applicable £3 N/A
1.
Siltation Area extent: Dcoth:
1 1 Siltation not evident
Remarks:
~ n/a
D-8
-------
2.
Erosion Area extent: Depth:
1 1 Erosion not evident
Remarks:
3.
Outlet Works ~ Functioning
Remarks:
~ n/a
4.
Dam ~ Functioning
Remarks:
~ n/a
H. Retaining Walls ~ Applicable £3 N/A
1.
Deformations ~ Location shown on site map
1 1 Deformation not evident
Horizontal displacement: Vertical displacement:
Rotational displacement:
Remarks:
2.
Degradation ~ Location shown on site map
Remarks:
1 1 Degradation not evident
I. Perimeter Ditches/Off-Site Discharge ^ Applicable
~ n/a
1.
Siltation ~ Location shown on site map
153 Siltation not evident
Area extent:
Depth:
Remarks:
2.
Vegetative Growth ~ Location shown on site map
1 1 Vegetation does not impede flow
IEI N/A
Area extent:
Tvpe:
Remarks:
3.
Erosion ~ Location shown on site map
1^1 Erosion not evident
Area extent:
Depth:
Remarks:
4.
Discharge Structure ^ Functioning
Remarks:
~ n/a
VIII.
VERTICAL BARRIER WALLS ^ Applicable
~ n/a
1.
Settlement ~ Location shown on site map
153 Settlement not evident
Area extent:
Depth:
Remarks:
D-9
-------
2.
Performance Monitoring Tydc of monitoring: Groundwater monitoring
1 1 Performance not monitored
Freauencv: 1"! Evidence of breaching
Head differential:
Remarks: See section 6.4 of the current report.
IX.
GROUNDWATER/SURFACE WATER REMEDIES ^Applicable ~ N/A
A.
Groundwater Extraction Wells, Pumps and Pipelines £3 Applicable ~ N/A
1.
Pumps, Wellhead Plumbing and Electrical
Good condition ^ All required wells properly operating EH Needs maintenance 1 1 N/A
Remarks: EW-4 has condensation. Source is unknown but under investigation.
2.
Extraction System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes and Other Appurtenances
Good condition EH Needs maintenance
Remarks:
3.
Spare Parts and Equipment
1^1 Readily available EH Good condition ED Requires upgrade EH Needs to be provided
Remarks:
B. Surface Water Collection Structures, Pumps and Pipelines ~ Applicable ^ N/A
1.
Collection Structures, Pumps and Electrical
1 1 Good condition EH Needs maintenance
Remarks:
2.
Surface Water Collection System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes and Other Appurtenances
1 1 Good condition ED Needs maintenance
Remarks:
3.
Spare Parts and Equipment
1 1 Readily available ED Good condition ED Requires upgrade ED Needs to be provided
Remarks:
C.
Treatment System ^ Applicable ED N/A
D-10
-------
1.
Treatment Train (check components that apply)
1 1 Metals removal O Oil/water separation Q Bioremediation
~ Air stripping Carbon adsorbers
I"! Filters:
I-! Additive (e.e.. chelation asent. flocculent):
n Others:
Good condition Q Needs maintenance
1 1 Sampling ports properly marked and functional
1 1 Sampling/maintenance log displayed and up to date
153 Equipment properly identified
153 Ouantitv of groundwater treated: 53.543.600 eallons
I-! Ouantitv of surface water treated annuallv:
Remarks: The GAC is not lastins as Ions as it was orieinallv Droicctcd.
2.
Electrical Enclosures and Panels (properly rated and functional)
1 1N/A Good condition Q Needs maintenance
Remarks:
3.
Tanks, Vaults, Storage Vessels
1 1 N/A Good condition Q Proper secondary containment
1 1 Needs maintenance
Remarks:
4.
Discharge Structure and Appurtenances
1 1 N/A Good condition Q Needs maintenance
Remarks:
5.
Treatment Building(s)
1 1 N/A ^ Good condition (esp. roof and doorways)
1 1 Needs repair
Chemicals and equipment properly stored
Remarks:
6.
Monitoring Wells (pump and treatment remedy)
153 Properly secured/locked ^ Functioning ^ Routinely sampled
1 1 Good condition
1 1 All required wells located ~ Needs maintenance
~ n/a
Remarks: MW-2 on Hollv Refinerv Droocrtv was damaeed durine normal work bv Hollv Refinerv. Part
of the well casins collaoscd and needs to be replaced.
D. Monitoring Data
1.
Monitoring Data
~ Is routinely submitted on time ^ Is of acceptable quality
D-ll
-------
2. Monitoring Data Suggests:
Groundwater plume is effectively contained ~ Contaminant concentrations are declining
E. Monitored Natural Attenuation
1. Monitoring Wells (natural attenuation remedy)
Properly secured/locked ^ Functioning ^ Routinely sampled
~ All required wells located ~ Needs maintenance
Remarks: See the report for specifics regarding DW-12. EW-4 and MW-2.
X. OTHER REMEDIES
If there are remedies applied at the site and not covered above, attach an inspection sheet describing the physical
nature and condition of any facility associated with the remedy. An example would be soil vapor extraction.
XI. OVERALL OBSERVATIONS
A. Implementation of the Remedy
Describe issues and observations relating to whether the remedy is effective and functioning as designed.
Begin with a brief statement of what the remedy is designed to accomplish (e.g., to contain contaminant
plume, minimize infiltration and gas emissions).
See protectiveness statement in section 10.0 of the current FYR.
B. Adequacy of O&M
Describe issues and observations related to the implementation and scope of O&M procedures. In
particular, discuss their relationship to the current and long-term protectiveness of the remedy.
OU1 has not vet entered the O&M phase. See section 4.3 of the current FYR for a discussion of the OU2
O&M activities.
C. Early Indicators of Potential Remedy Problems
None identified.
D. Opportunities for Optimization
Additional evaluation of the GWTS may identify improvements that could increase the amount of mass
removed and determine improvements that might lengthen the life of the GAC.
^ Good condition
~ n/a
D-12
-------
Appendix E: Photographs from Site Inspection Visit
Bag filters 1 and 2 inside the groundwater treatment facility
E-l
-------
•" — tt"
Leaking domestic monitoring well (DW-12) in front of groundwater treatment facility. The well
is leaking groundwater containing PCE concentrations of up to 12 |_ig/L
Treated groundwater discharge point alongside weir located west of the groundwater treatment
facility
E-2
-------
Extraction well (EW-4). Note build-up of moisture
Hatchco property now a paved parking lot (facing south)
E-3
-------
Monitoring well (1W-25) on Hatchco property with secured cover
East entrance of Bountiful Family Cleaners
E-4
-------
9
BOUNTIFUL WOODS CROSS 5TH SOUTH
NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST SITE
GROUNDWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
For emergencies, please contact.
South Davis Sewer District
(801)295-3469
f*u flHlw> inlnnnatnTi, ptttuwr
s I itxtrtfiurrml P»i*cctn«H Afcwv,
I ttJh IKpi
I n\
miai I'ck*
*wl ttk.-rriJmtli
PRIVATE PROPERTY
NO TRESPASS!NCj
Sign on fence in front of the groundwater treatm ent facility
Entrance to groundwater treatment facility (facing east)
E-5
-------
Utah Commuter Rail stop located southwest of the Hatcho property (the Utah Commuter Rail
Parking Lot)
E-6
-------
Appendix F: Environmental Covenant
ENVIRONMENTAL COVENANT
This Environmental Covenant is entered into by Security Investment Ltd. ("Owner"), the
United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA"), and the Utah Department of
Environmental Quality ("DEQ"), (collectively "Parties") pursuant to Utah Code Ann. §§ 57-25-101
et seq. ("Act") and concerns the Property described in Paragraph B.2 below. The EPA and
DEQ each enter this Environmental Covenant in their capacity as an Agency as defined in the
Act. The EPA and DEQ assume no affirmative obligations through the execution of this
Environmental Covenant.
A. Environmental Response Project
1. EPA's studies at the Bountiful/Woods Cross 5th South PCE Plume Site ("Site") located in
Bountiful, West Bountiful, and Woods Cross, Utah have determined that a tetrachloroethylene
(PCE)-contaminated groundwater plume (PCE Plume), from past drycleaning operations at 344
South 500 West in Bountiful, extends from the source west under the Holly Refinery property to
beyond 1100 West Street in West Bountiful and then under Owner's property at approximately
145 South 1100 West, West Bountiful, Utah. The PCE Plume is designated as Operable Unit 2
("OU 2") at the Site.
2. In September 2007 EPA issued, with DEQ concurrence, the Record of Decision for the
cleanup of 0U2. The cleanup plan included a groundwater extraction and treatment system that
proposed placing extraction wells west of 1100 West Street in West Bountiful and 2 extraction
wells and the treatment buildings on Holly Refinery property. The pipeline from the extraction
well to the treatment building will cross the Owner's property.
3. Records regarding the Site are available at the Davis County Library, South
Branch, 725 South Main Street, Bountiful, Utah 84010 (801-295-8732) and the EPA Superfund
Record Center, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202 (1-800-277-8917, Ext. 6473).
B. Covenant
Now therefore, the Parties agree to the following:
1. Environmental Covenant This instrument is an environmental covenant developed and
executed pursuant to the Act.
2. Property This Environmental Covenant concerns real property, located at approximately 150
South 1100 West in West Bountiful, Davis County, Utah, and more particularly described in
Exhibit A attached hereto and hereby incorporated by reference herein ("Property").
3. Owner Security Investment Ltd., a Utah Limited Partnership, whose offices are located at 138
South Main, P.O. Box 190, Bountiful, Utah 84010 is the owner of the Property in fee simple.
Consistent with Paragraph B7 of this Environmental Covenant, the obligations of the Owner are
F-l
-------
imposed on assigns, successors in interest, including without limitation future owners of an
interest in fee simple, mortgagees, lenders, easement holders, lessees, and the like ("Transferee").
4. Holder Owner, whose address is listed above, is the Holder of this Environmental Covenant.
5. Agency DEQ and EPA are each an "Agency", as defined in Section 57-25-102(2) of the Utah
Act, in regards to this Environmental Covenant. EPA and DEQ may be referred to herein
collectively as the "Agencies".
6. Activity and Use Limitations As part of the Environmental Response Project described above,
the Owner hereby imposes and agrees to implement, administer, and maintain the following
activity and use limitations. In the event the Owner conveys or transfers an interest in the
Property or any portion thereof to another party, the Owner shall take necessary measures to
ensure that the Transferee will implement, administer, and maintain the following activity and
use limitations:
The Property will not be used in any manner that would interfere with or adversely affect the
implementation, integrity, or protectiveness of the response actions performed or to be
performed at the Site.
7. Running with the Land This Environmental Covenant shall be binding upon the Owner and
any Transferee during that person's period of control, occupation, or ownership interest, and
shall run with the land, pursuant to the Act and subject to amendment or termination as set
forth herein.
8. Compliance Enforcement This Environmental Covenant may be enforced pursuant to the
Act. Failure to timely enforce compliance with this Environmental Covenant or the activity
and use limitations contained herein by any party shall not bar subsequent enforcement by
such party, and shall not be deemed a waiver of the party's right to take action to enforce any
non-compliance. Nothing in this Environmental Covenant shall restrict the DEQ or EPA
from exercising any authority under applicable law.
9. Rights of Access Owner hereby grant to the Agencies, their agents, contractors, and
employees the right of access to the Property for inspection, implementation, or enforcement of
this Environmental Covenant and for construction, operation and maintenance of the
Environmental Response Project described above.
10. Compliance Reporting Upon request, Owner or any Transferee or Holder shall submit
written documentation to the DEQ and EPA verifying that the activity and use limitations remain
in place and are being followed.
11. Notice upon Conveyance Each instrument hereafter conveying any interest in the
Property or any portion of the Property shall be substantially in the following form:
F-2
-------
THE INTEREST CONVEYED HEREBY IS SUBJECT TO AN ENVIRONMENTAL
COVENANT, DATED 20 , RECORDED IN THE DEED OR OFFICIAL RECORDS
OF THE COUNTY RECORDER ON, 20 , IN [DOCUMENT, or BOOK, PAGE ,J.
THE ENVIRONMENTAL COVENANT CONTAINS THE FOLLOWING ACTIVITY
AND USE LIMITATIONS:
The Property will not be used in any manner that would interfere with or adversely affect
the implementation, integrity, or protectiveness of the response actions performed or to
be performed at the Site.
Owner shall notify the Agencies within ten (10) days after each conveyance of an interest in any
portion of the Property. Owner's notice shall include the name, address, and telephone number of
the Transferee, a copy of the deed, or other documentation evidencing the conveyance, and an
unsurveyed plat that shows the boundaries of the property being transferred.
12. Representations and Warranties Owner hereby represents and warrants to the other
signatories hereto:
A. that the Owner is the sole owner of the Property;
B. that the Owner holds fee simple title to the Property which is subject to the interests or
encumbrances identified in Exhibit B (Ownership and Encumbrance Title Abstract)
attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein;
C. that the Owner has the power and authority to enter into this Environmental Covenant, to
grant the rights and interests herein provided and to carry out all obligations hereunder;
13. Amendment or Termination This Environmental Covenant may be amended or terminated
pursuant to the Act. The requesting party shall reimburse the DEQ for costs associated with
DEQ's review of a request for amendment or termination.
14. Effective Date. Severability and Governing Law The effective date of this Environmental
Covenant shall be the date upon which the fully executed Environmental Covenant has been
recorded as a document of record for the Property with the County Recorder. If any provision of
this Environmental Covenant is found to be unenforceable in any respect, the validity, legality,
and enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not in any way be affected or impaired. This
Environmental Covenant shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the
State of Utah.
15. Recordation and Distribution of Environmental Covenant Within thirty (30) days after the
date of the final required signature upon this Environmental Covenant, EPA shall file this
Environmental Covenant for recording in the same manner as a deed to the Property, with the
Davis County Recorder's Office. The EPA shall distribute a file- and date-stamped copy of the
recorded Environmental Covenant to: the DEQ; EPA; the City of West Bountiful; and, each
person holding a recorded interest in the Property.
F-3
-------
16. Notice Unless otherwise notified in writing by or on behalf of the current owner, DEQ, or
EPA any document or communication required by this Environmental Covenant shall be
submitted to:
DEQ:
Project Manager (Bountiful/Woods Cross 5th South PCE Plume Site)
Division of Environmental Response and Remediation
DEQ
P.O. Box 144840
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-4840
EPA:
Regional Institutional Control Coordinator
U.S. EPA-Region 8
Mail Code: 8EPR-SR
1595 Wynkoop Street
Denver, CO 80202
Remedial Project Manager (Bountiful/Woods Cross 5th South PCE Plume Site)
U S EPA - Region 8
Mail Code: 8EPR-SR
1595 Wynkoop Street
Denver, CO 80202
Owner:
Alice S. Johnson or Mary S. Hepworth. Partners
138 South Main
P.O. Box 190
Bountiful, Utah 84010
17. Governmental Immunity In executing this covenant, the DEQ does not waive governmental
immunity afforded by law. The Owner, for itself and its successors, assigns, and Transferees,
hereby fully and irrevocably releases and covenants not to sue the State of Utah, its agencies,
successors, departments, agents, and employees ("State") from any and all claims, damages, or
causes of action arising from, or on account of the activities carried out pursuant to this
Environmental Covenant except for an action to amend or terminate the Environmental Covenant
pursuant to sections 57-25-109 and 57-25-110 of the Utah Code Ann. or for a claim against the
State arising directly or indirectly from or out of actions of employees of the State that would
result in (i) liability to the State of Utah under Section 63G-7-301 of the Governmental Immunity
Act of Utah, Utah Code Ann. Section 63G-7-101 et seq. or (ii) individual liability for actions not
covered by the Governmental Immunity Act as indicated in Sections 63G-7-202 and -902 of the
Governmental Immunity Act, as determined in a court of law.
{Remainder of page intentionally left blank}
F-4
-------
The undersigned representatives of Owner represents and certifies thai they are authorized to
execute this Environmental Covenant.
IT IS SO AtrttUKI):
Security Investment Ltd,
By: ^m/t-n10/31/11
Alice S. JpKhson, General Miner' Date
P.O. Box 190
R ounti fti 1, Utah 84011-0190
KD1-245-33 51
And
Hy fatr . 10/3lZiL
MjrySyt IcpworlH. (igricr;il Partner ^ ' Dale
P.OHfox 1-
Public
It, FAtmi
iis.s».«oe
' inri
MyC
.. M»<0
ion Iiph'Sft
'
^ Stale o» Utah •
-------
UTAH DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
The Utah Department of Environmental Quality authorized representative identified
below hereby approves the foregoing Environmental Covenant pursuant to Utah Code Ann.
Sections 57-25-102(2) and 57-25-l04(l)(e).
Name: Brent II. Everett Date
Title: Director, Division of Environmental Response and Remediation
Utah Department of Environmental Quality
STATE OF UTAH )
; ss.
County of Salt Lake )
Before me, a notary public, in and for said county and state, personally appeared Brent II.
Everett, an authorized representative of the Utah Department of Environmental Quality, who
acknowledged to me that he did execute the foregoing instrument thisday of
fehrua n/_, 20/^?
OMA J. POWERS
CMBKttOM 1107 J#
COM, EXP. tt-Xt-WS
Notary Public T~ .
My Commission expires: //(POf^y
F-6
-------
UNITFD ST -MLS EN VIRONMFNTAI. PROTECTION AGENCY
Bill Murray, Director DsW
Siiperfiiiid Remedial Response Program
Office of Ecosystems and. Remediation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, legion S
% fti] fZ__
STATE OF COLORADO )
: ss.
COUNTY Of DENVER )
On this 1% day of , 2012, before me, a notary public, in and for said
county and stale, personally appeaiw H ilfMnrray, Director of the Siiperfuiid Remedial Response
Program, Office of Ecosystems Protection and Remediation at the United States Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 8, who acknowledged to me that he did execute the foregoing
instrument.
9
F-7
-------
EXHIBIT A
AS SURVEYED LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF PROPERTY
BEGINNING ATA POINT WHICH IS SOUTH 00°02'56" EAST 1,182.92 FEET
ALONG SECTION LINE (BASIS OF BEARING 2646.53' SECTION MON. TO SECTION
MON.) FROM THE CENTER OF SECTION 23 "AN EXISTING DAVIS COUNTY
BRASS CAP IN CONCRETE" TOWNSHIP 2 NORTH, RANGE 1 WEST, SALT LAKE
BASE & MERIDIAN.
THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY OF MILL CREEK MEADOWS
SUBDIVISION THE FOLLOWING 3 COURSES: (1) EAST, A DISTANCE OF 806.53
FEET; (2) NORTH 00°02'57" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 85.80 FEET; (3) SOUTH
89°50'55' EAST, A DISTANCE OF 760.96 FEET TO THE WESTERLY BOUNDS OF
DAVIS COUNTY PARCEL; THENCE SOUTH 00°0r33" WEST, ALONG SAID PARCEL
AMONG OTHER AD-JOINERS DISTANCE OF 749.54 FEET; THENCE NORTH
89°48'22" EAST, GENERALLY ALONG A WIRE FENCE A DISTANCE OF 797.62
FEET TO THE WESTERLY R.O.W. OF 1100 WEST STREET; THENCE SOUTH
00°16'24" EAST ALONG SAID R.O.W., A DISTANCE OF 109.53 FEET TO ADJOINER;
THENCE NORTH 89°5r53' WEST, GENERALLY ALONG A WIRE FENCE A
DISTANCE OF 2,582.73 FEET MORE OR LESS TO AD-JOINER THENCE NORTH
00.08'07" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 110.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89°51'53" EAST, A
DISTANCE OF 217.82 FEET TO DESCRIBED ABOVE QUARTER SECTION LINE;
THENCE NORTH 00°02'56" WEST, ALONG SECTION LINE A DISTANCE OF 657.00
FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
CONTAINING 31.65 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. TOGETHER WITH AN
EXISTING MILL CREEK R O W. EASEMENT DESCRIPTION BOOK 3862 PAGE 862
BEGINNING ATA POINT WHICH IS SOUTH 00°02'56" EAST 1,182.92 FEET
ALONG SECTION LINE (BASIS OF BEARING 2646.53' SECTION MON. TO SECTION
MON.) FROM THE CENTER OF SECTION 23 "AN EXISTING DAVIS COUNTY
BRASS CAP IN CONCRETE" TOWNSHIP 2 NORTH, RANGE 1 WEST, SALT LAKE
BASE & MERIDIAN.
THENCE EAST, ALONG MILL CREEK MEADOWS SUB., A DISTANCE OF
806.53 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00°02'57" WEST ALONG SAID SUB. BOUNDARY, A
DISTANCE OF 10.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF A NON TANGENT CURVE TO THE
LEFT, OF WHICH THE RADIUS POINT LIES NORTH 00°19'55" EAST, A RADIAL
DISTANCE OF 225.00 FEET ALONG THE ARC, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
28°54'41", A DISTANCE OF 113.56 FEET TO A POINT OF REVERSE CURVE TO
THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 390.41 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
28"43'51"; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE ARC, A DISTANCE OF 195.80 FEET TO
THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE SOUTH 89°50'55"
EAST, A DISTANCE OF 464.08 FEET TO THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY OF DAVIS
COUNTY'S PARCEL; THENCE SOUTH 00°01'33" WEST, ALONG SAID PARCEL, A
DISTANCE OF 85.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89°50'55" WEST, A DISTANCE OF
F-8
-------
464.29 FEET TO THE POINT OF A CURVE OF TANGENCY TO THE LEFT, OF
WHICH THE RADIUS POINT LIES SOUTH 00°02'54' EAST, A RADIAL DISTANCE OF
305.41 FEET; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE ARC, THROUGH A CENTRAL
ANGLE OF 28°20'08" A DISTANCE OF 153.17 FEET TO A POINT OF REVERSE
CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 310.0 FEET AND A CENTRAL
ANGLE OF 28°23'01THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE ARC, A DISTANCE OF
154.65 FEET; THENCE WEST, A DISTANCE OF 826.70 FEET; THENCE NORTH
00°02'56" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 285.81 FEET; THENCE EAST, A DISTANCE OF
20.00 FEET TO DESCRIBED ABOVE QUARTER SECTION LINE; THENCE SOUTH
00°02'56" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 210.81 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
CONTAINING 3.03 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
ALSO TOGETHER WITH AN EXISTING MILL CREEK R O W. EASEMENT
DESCRIPTION BOOK 4356 PAGE 1138
BEGINNING AT A POINT WHICH IS SOUTH 00"02'56" EAST 1257.92 FEET
ALONG SECTION LINE (BASIS OF BEARING 2646.53" SECTION MON. TO SECTION
MON.) AND WEST 20.00 FEET FROM THE CENTER OF SECTION 23 "AN EXISTING
DAVIS COUNTY BRASS CAP IN CONCRETE" TOWNSHIP 2 NORTH, RANGE 1
WEST, SALT LAKE BASE & MERIDIAN.
THENCE NORTH 88°56'14" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 335.53 FEET TO THE
EASTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION 90 FOOT WIDE
EASEMENT AS DESCRIBED IN BOOK 81 PAGE 634 OF DAVIS COUNTIES'
RECORDS; THENCE NORTH 31 °48'00" WEST, ALONG SAID BOUNDARY LINE A
DISTANCE OF 132.97 FEET TO THE POINT OF CURVE OF A NON TANGENT
CURVE TO THE LEFT, OF WHICH THE RADIUS POINT LIES NORTH 58°11 '50"
EAST, A RADIAL DISTANCE OF 47.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG
THE ARC, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 58"'12'00", A DISTANCE OF 47.75
FEET; THENCE EAST, A DISTANCE OF 365.51 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00°02'56"
EAST, A DISTANCE OF 97.00 FEET, TO POINT OF BEGINNING.
CONTAINING 0.7841 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
EXHIBIT B
OWNERSHIP AND ENCUMBRANCE TITLE ABSTRACT'
F-9
-------
ATTACHMENT 2 - OWNERSHIP AM© ENCUMMANCE T1HE AMTMCT
KMSzaoUMiFUt
lamiwy 4,201)
i"™ ;
*•' ¦ ""1"' ' "~7]
PlMWliD
Instft^ment
Instrument Typ«
Grantor;
Grantee
IW,
mm
06-033-0Mfa
> &om
t2510046
*49 WIS!
. B 001
Memorandum of
Lease
Secunrty Investment Ltd.
Marrht?im Server* Curuoration
32/03/2009
2/05/2009
Memorandum of Amended and Restated Grouod teas* pwes not>i.e shit
Amended and Restated Ground Lease dated as of March 20, 2009 by ard
between Security Investment, Ltd., & Utah iim it«d partr^rsNp m<4 Ma "hcim
Services Corporation, a Delaware corporation d/b/a Manheim Utah and d/b/a
Total Resource* Auctions leased rear estate w*th smocovewents w th ar .nit al
term that wiH continue not more than lh*«# years from execution of ground
lease. if the ground hmt continues after the initial term, a primary term will
ccmtmue for five years, The tenant also has the right to extend the ground'
lease lor up to three successive five-year t?xtt«sSaw periods.
#2391375
B4&13/P8G1
B^Q7
Judgment
Second Judical District Court
in and far Daws County, Utah
WHJiam R, Smith antf Luctean A.
Smith, as Trustees of the Smith
Family Revocable Tftat; Mack
G. Sm«th tnd Carolyn Smith, is
Trustees of the Mack G and
Carolyn Smith Revocable Trust;
I Lynn Srmth as Trustee of the
J, Lynn Smith living Trust; a«tt
Cindy 5. Hatch
S/04/W0S
9/2,1/2008
Pinal Order, Judgme ni and Decree Quieting Title to Pontiffs, is&ued by the
Second mkm Dntnct C&yrt in and for Davis County, Utah. The Plaintiff* are
bstetf as; Wif&am fl Smith and Lurfean A- Smith, as- Trustees of the Smith
Family Revocable Trust; Mack C Smith and Carolyn Smith, as Trustees of the
Mask S. Carolyn Smith Revocable 'trust; 1, lynn swth as T«ist«* of Ihe J.
Lynn Smith Irving Trust; and Ondy S Hatch.
The parcel of -and subject to tNs judgment is 06-D30-0010. This parcel
number has since been deleted from Davi* County records, but was once part
of the curre-nt parcel # 06-033 0046.
If 2301948
8435G/P1138
S°QQg
R/W and
Easement Grant
Security Investment Lta.
Davis County, IJT
8/21/WO/
8/29/2007
: ' ¦' td Easement for a Storm Drain Security investment Ltd.
grants to Davis County, UT a perpetual right-of-way and easement for the
iwjrpos# of digging and constructing a flood and storm water disposal system
and operating,, maintaining, tiering, inspecting, protecting and replacing a
storm water disposal systtm over and across the subject property.
»2299645
3435I/P8-38
mb
Agreement
W.lbam fl smith, as Trustee
cf t^e SrUft *amr!y
Revocable IfmtP Mack C
Smith, as Trust** of thu
ami C*rulyt< Smi'lt
?mi*stion and !*jrface Damages Agi?fmert mad? b« tween
C-anivofhilup^ Osmpa^, a yelawar^ corporate, am W«'wm k bms'h, m
af EVSrdHh F^itl ly R<*wd« Jhlr M^ck (i Sm>th, jn TruilKP r?f tfv»-
C> .mc» C^rwlyii Sm-lh Ri-vu-a^lr J Lynn Smith av T ruiti«i« ij? the J,
iynr' 5»ni{LwmgTiu&i, at-d C.ndyS "OwnC"."i
The parties agreed to terminate an easement created when a predk?cessor-in-
intere5t of the Owners entered imo a Right of-Way Agreement with
OM^cePWllps Cmpaafs ptmSm&ssaMMntmmtvmmch Oil ReRning
Company, dated Jufy 29,1932. ConocoPNHips Company no longer needed
the pipeline and abandoned what pa rt of the pipeline that remained after
portmns had be«n removed. The parties also ewpressed their desire to
resolve claims for surface damages resulting from OonocoPnill.ps Company's
cteamng of portions of itie pipefine from the property, and to settle the
Owners' claims for compensation resulting from such cleaning.
To«r»k Assotialet, Inc. Attwnry Week f rwiixt - Errfortrmmt Cochaenuji Ptf 2
F-10
-------
ATTACHMENT 2-OWNERSHIP AND ENCUMBRANCETITtE ABSTRACT
m-mtmwmimi
January 4, 2011
Parcel ID
To.*
Info
¦, likWianarnt j frtstfywiwt Typ*s
Grantor
Grantee
Instrument j Recorded
Dale Dale
Dnerfptioft
06 033 00olyt>on fstablitfvng ai>d Organizing the South Davi* RctrcaJion Special
V"vi<-p Drs^ rt, Ktefcl v^'ng the Boundaries of Said Cksmrt, D'csgn^trng the
typr of Service to be Performed Within tneBounCa'iet of t*c Dfs*r»r
Providing tor the Appointment of an initial Admn)s"dtivc Cont'd Ek«a*d of
the District and Prescribing and Setting Forth Other Details and Matters in
Conner t ion Therewith.
#1WG262
B3242/P720
mm
Easement
Martheim Services Corp.
West iountiful; City
2/2S/2QC3
i/{]V?D09
Grant of waterllne Easement. Manhe-rn Services Corp. granted, bargained
and conveyed to Wesl BoiHitlKtf City a twenty foot wide perpetual caserneo?
and '|r»i? of way together with the fight of Ingress and egress for the
rcr^truction. ownership, operation. mawitenancc, rena-r And ultimate
fcpt«f"ncnt c* an underground water transmission pf^eSi^e and appurtenant
1a€il>t-f*s on, over, across, under and through the subject property
*J5354S1
B2S39/P27
MSI
Easement
Security investment Ltd.
West Bountiful Crty
7/28/1999
7/29/1999
Grant of a tweniy-foor wide perpetual ease mint and FlgfrtN-ofway, together
with the right of ingress *nd egress, for the construction, ownership,
operation, maintenance, repair and ultimate replacement of an underground
water transmission pipeime and appurtenant facilities on, over, across, under
and through grantors (and.
»tSlSDIS
B2534/P2S2
Ordinance
West Bountiful Oty Corp
$/i8/i999
6/08/1999
Ordinance Annexing Sfnseific Property to West Spumiful, Utah. Th# ordinance
stipulated that the property was to be zoned Ught Industrial and Agricurturai.
That ponion tying west o' the projection of the existing 14$0 West Street was
to be light Industrial, and that portion lying to the east of said projection was
to be Agricultural.
W 23*7^42
B22S4/^1167
IM*U
Application for
Gfeer* Beit
Security investment Ltd
Application few Assessment and Taxation of Agricultural Land. This document
indicates that this parcel was being leased byGec^e Bros, at the t*me.
*136*261
822Dy/P17ba
B Oli
Quitclaim Deed
Security investment
Company
Security investment Ltd.
11/30/1997
12/01/1997
Conveyed parcel from Security kwrntrnml Company, a Utah corporation to
Security investment Ltd.. a Utah fimited partnership. Deed was signed by
Nora A. Stable m President of Security investment Company.
# 1360S44
B7202/P1010
Affidavit
Htw Stat# inc
In this Vhrtavif, Ovufn H?r»t Covey, PreMdent of Nrw istate, It.r ee,"mat>on Lompa *y Had rh.i-vgrr?
-------
kiimmmi a - ownership Mm mmmmmi title Assmci
TCM332 BOUWIFill
l»yarf 4»t0ll
Parte! 10
ftlfo;.-
Iratrument Type
drantor
6.. -
instrument
d.»i*
Recorded
Date-;
' ¦" • lSrSCI|^^ff~ C1-*
Cfc-fl43 QQ&b
(ccn't)
I-W2
iffln'l)
i~fl B-U9S4
81247/P761
w
Fj&ement
Security Investment
Company
Soa* Davlv Co Sewer
Improvement D< strict
1/J1/19B8
?/?S,'-9BS™ '
Security Investment Company conveyed to the South Davis County Sewer
improvement District a thirty foot wide perpetwai easement to construct,
reconstruct operate, repair, rtplxe and maintain a *cwer main collection
line and apptirteHant structures including mains, submains and building
sewers,
m-m&mn
sMcM.vpjnn
a en
Quitclaim Deed
Woods Cro if Refining
Company U€
West Bountiful City
S/22/2006
5/25/200*
Woods Doss Refining Company LLC, a Delaware limited fiabrtKy company,
Quitclaimed m West BountIM CKy *tract of 'M7
Cui'.ilaiT Deed
Security investment
Company
Security Investment Ltd.
nmnm
12/01/199?
Conveyed parcel from Security Investment Company. a b'tah corporation, to
Security investment Ltd., a Utah limited partnership Deed wW?
VP 1144
aw
Re*o^u1t©n
Oavrs County Commission
South D»vt$ Recreation Special
Service District
6/15/2004
3/14/2004
A Resolution Establishing and Org^m^irqj; the Scuth Davis Recreation Special
S*rvie« ©istfict, EitabttsNn* ttw BounMts of Slid District, Designating tfw *
iype o* service to oe rifrormeo wWtiits tne sounaaries of tnc wisirjct,
Providing for the Appointment of m Initial Administrative Control Board of
the District and Prescribing and Setting Forth Other Details and Matters in
Connection Therewith.
Toeroek Associates. Inc. Attorney Work Product - Enforcement Confidential . Page 4
F-12
-------
ATTACHMENT 2 - OWNERSHIP AND ENCUMBRANCi TITIE ABSTRACT
TO-032 BOUNHFUt •
January 4, 2011
Pared ID
Wo
InstrwwM-.
iMtrumenlType.
Orantw
instrumfini j Recorded :
Date i Date
Mh. . .
0€-0^-«^7
(con't)
i-aiM
Icon i\
0I7S59P 1
S305Q/P287
&l019
Appktftm fur
5fW Btfr
SfCJ'ity Investment ltd
5/23/2002
V-13/70W
Application fc Astrnmeit itnd rotation o> ftgrrcu,rural land This dwument
mdtrwes :nat this parre> w«w bong itssed by Oo-ge Bros, at the time.
•; *•
[
#mHi2
B29%/P"447
B 073
W«r»®yt3«d
Security investment Ltd.
Oav« County, UT
12/28/2001
1/02/2002
Securttf liwestmtnt ltd conwyed to ISswis County parcel
more particuhrtf dticriM st: Beginning at the Southwest Comer of t#t It,
Mifertefc Meadows tairif i Part' of tltt South Half o( Section 25, Ta»mJhift 1
Morth, fcsrige 1 West, Silt lake Mm anil Meridian, W#st Bountiful City, limns
County, Utah, Said Point of tef Inning is Orven as North [TOZ'Si" Wei
J40.25 Feet Along th* Quart*' Section Line and East 50,00 feet f rem tl»
South Quarter Comer of Said Section 2J, smd gunnmg Thence East 757 *4
Feet Along the South Une of MifeiMk Meadows, Ifcence North 0WST Wist
85 go Feet Along the Eaa One of 1st it Mlilcreeti Meadows, Thence South
srso'55" East 7V00 Fnt ftlonf the South Une of lot18 Millereek Meadows,
Thenct 'Swlli (KE'sr EM 160 60 feet, Thews West «1W Feet to the
QyarMr Section line, f hen« North §"02*57" We « 75 00 Feet Along the
Quarter Sectxm tine. Thence («t SO-00 wf to the FoWof ftegiRfing.
Pared * 06-0344014 his «w been Meted from Dairii County nxonfe, hut it
wis once part of the parcel cwftwrtly trwwn « parol * OMB4-O097.
:¦ .. -
#I5354S1
82539/P17
a?op3
Easement
Security investment Ltd,
West Bountiful City
7/28/1999
7/29/1999
brant of a twenty-tot* wide perpetw! easement and tight-of-*#*, teffther
Wttl, the right of ingress awl i?g res lor tfce construction, swtieisJiip,
upe alien, maintenance, repair and ultimate replacement of in unietgrouni
water transmission pipeline and apfunenant faclitfes on. twee, moss, under
and thnwgh grantor's tend
Ly •• f
J. •
'
1
* 1522019
B2S14/P2S2
BdBM
Ordinance
West Bounttfu I Oty Corp
5/18/1999
6/08/1999
Ordinance Annexing Specific Property to West lountifui, Utah, The oriln»i*e
stipulate# that the praptfty wast# be joned light InduMrtal aai%rtt«ltMf»l,
That portion If im§ west of the projection of the existing 14SQ W«t Street w»
to he light Industrial, and Out portion lytr* to the east of saitf projection am
tobtA(ri{ultural
ttm7944
B2251/P1369
B?Pgl
AppNcftionfor
Gre«r» Belt
Security Investment Ltd
3/12/1998
3/12/1998
AgftKMon for Aaessiwint soil Tatatton of *grt«il(ur»l Und this doewnet*
indicate thit tfcls pireii was belpg leased by S»rf» 8«», M the time
tllSiiio
82209/P1766
8-0/2
,
Quitclaim Deed
Security
Ccmpzny '
Security Imrestirrent Ltd
u/jo/iot
12/&1/1997
Conveyed parcel fw» Securif mvmtrae«t Company, a Wii c#rperatio«, to
Setufity lnweitmenl Ud. a Utah limsed partntfshlp, Dwd was sfcnea by
Nora A. Stahte as Piesifcnt sf Securtf liwesonent Com piny.
Toeroek inc.
Attorney Work Product - rnfowment Confidential '«•>
F-13
-------
ATTACHMENT t - OMrNERSH* AND ENCUMBRANCE TITLE ABSTRACT
¦ TO-OM BOUNTIFUL
January 4, 2011
PaiuEID
T»
info
Instrument
Instrvmeftt Type
^ ..-.m
Grant*
inttiunwM
oat* '
Retorted
EUle
•¦iijy -v-v' v:' -.11!-,".; nescrtpM#. +§¦ ''i
OB 0« CO*!
(ton'li
T-Q04
,
*12Q1C20
B1929/J>9C6
¦HW*
Easement
Stcurtty Iwestment
Ctmfmw
Amoco Pipeline Comjjary
»/!BftS95
10/24/1W5
StrarttJ Itwistmsiit Company granted, sold, conveyed and watrantcd to
Amoco Ptpttftff Compaq, a Maine corporation, a permanent eaiement, 30
fe« in width tor the purpose, from lime to time, of conitriKUng, opetitlisfc
inspecting, maintaining, prawoMnj, marking, relocating, , replacing.
changing the $te of, art femwtng a pipelne, and appurtenant®, etttfpment,
and f Kilties useful«Inddmt) 1 to or for the opetation or protection thereof,
forth* transportation of 0#, hydrocarteorn. (M. water, »nd any other
substances wt*e#»r fluid or nM, any product* and eferivathss of any of the
foregoing,, and any combination! and rniiMures of an* of the forefohg, open
and: .along »rout* to be selttttd by grantee an, ewer and thraugri tie siAJsit
property.
ft survey illustrating the easement is included with thfc docum*n» as Eichibit ft.
ff?*»««
fsnos.'Wi
MM
Easement
Agreement
Divh Csufitf, UT at a*
Seeurt* lw»ww C:"-w-y
tt»!
8/27/1*6
B/J7/1SS6
Davn Count*, 0T; Am L 6«®f je and Mtrgaret * 6eotg« as Trustee* of lite
Res L, etorge and Margaret * Geetf e family trust: ami Security Investment
Company, conveyed ie Sex I, Seerfe and Margaret A. George as Tmttcct of
the Re* I. Cewrg# and Mug are! A. George family trust and Security
Investment Company 9 lervfoot wide easement for the conn ruction anil
maintenance of an irrigation pipeline together with all appurtenant boxes,
gates and turnout*
A survey Ulusuattng the easement Is iWuded with this document at Exhibit A,
DO 034 009*
P21MSS7S
R4lDS'ufaSS
Application for
Green 8eft
security investment Ud.
(/21/J006
8/24/1006
AonkJ! uror of Agncultiaralland there Is no
lessee li»ti*d on lh,> rinnjliwnt. unly t» owner Security Irwertnwnt Ltd.
• ¦
#2102111
hmbimhi
hull
*/W and
Easement Gram
Sicwrtf IrwestnwRl ltd
Datfis County, SJT
S/1S/J005
9/0U20C/S
In this Sight-rf-Way and EasewBl far a Rem* 0«in» Stcurti* Irwestment Ltd.
eenwtyedta 0wis County s perpetual rigM-ofway and easement for the
purpose ct digging and constructing a flood anil storm water iispesat system
anil operating, maintain, repawinf, Iwpertmc. pro»«tm» and (eplaclug a
storm water system over and acr«s the tufcjert property.
Toeroat Associate*, hie, " Attorney Work rttxhKt - Snforaw* Conlidcri * I • ?»««*
F-14
-------
ATFACWWWr J - OWIW MID INCUMMANCI TfTU ASCTRACT
iD-oszaoufflinji. .
Mmwry ZOlt
Parcel TD
la*
Info
[.,,,¦[,, m-i nm 1
tn5ifun>6rn
• jioIiS
g3iM„TO6
a-jai
Grantor
! Imtrumvnt
G,lrrt- 1 D«.
Recorded
DM*
¦ 0®§€f|jrtlfSW; .'V '
&6*»4-eo9a
fcon't)
'"•V
T-Offi
^con'tf
'
Qwitr^arn Deed
Davis County, UT
Security Investment Ltd.
S/KW0C5
sftyiocs
Djv»v Com-ty, UT qU'tcl^'rfifd to Seturliy 'fvcunHTH ltd. 1,6? tiife parcel of
Idnd dcscr.bea as: Beglr'Hng art the S W tome' uf lot M, M:l! Creek
Meadows; fcet»ng the
Quarter Section Usie, Thence E«l SO 00 Fe®l to the Point of fleprwitog.
See tte note above and in the report about parcel #06-034-0014,
Tesnsek Associates, Inc. Attorney Work Product - Enfottaunem ConTaiwitlit Nf> 7
F-15
-------
ATTACWMfNT I - OWNERSHV AND INCUMBRANCE HTIf *BSTi»tf
TtXU BOUNTIFUL
jMMny 4,1011
Parcel ID
1m
Info
instrument
IfistiTimentType
(Stwitor
Grartee
»«« .
"Hiconlciil -
Bate
06034-0098
Iccn't)
.
LQ&
{con'!}
«153C.4SJ
82!»39/P17
8-003
Casement
Security Investment Ltd.
We*t BountiM Cify
7/?B/IW
7/20/1999
Grant at a twrntv-fuat w-de oerpetus1 esscn^r-l and fiflhi-of-*ayr toge'he
*v?th theffgh* r»f >n$re\> and egress fn'tne construct .on, ownership.
ooe^a!io% ^a.nTciJirH^, repair and ulfimatr repUcemeM of an underground
water traromivwon o«p2
BOW
Ordinance
West&ou«tifuUityfi>m
S/18/1999
6/08/1999
Oedinante Arwtwg Specific hapenyte West iounttful, Utah. the ordinance
stipulated tfc» tht Rfljoedf was to I* word Light InduttiW and Agricultural.
That portion Mnf wei* el It* projection at the MSStlRf MSO West Struct was
to be iifht Imf uitnal, and that portion »nt to #*(« of Slid projection was
to be AgrTHftw-M
#138 ."34*
Application few-
Green Belt
Security Investment Ltd.
:yi«yi*j98
3/12/1998
ApRlifjtonftf As« ismem ami Taxation of Agficwllunt land. This document
indicate that this parcel was f*i«tg kM In* George Bros. at the time.
« 1*64260
B22C9/P1766
km
Qu«tcia»m Deed
Seairty l pmrnmmt mmmmt, 3D feet in *idth fee the purpose, 'ram
time to time, of constructing, operating, inspertiflg, maintaining, protecting,
marking, relocating, repairing, replacing, changir^ the ef, and removing a
pipeline, and appurtenances, equipment, and facilities useful or incidental to
or for the operation, e# protecWon thereof, far the transportation of oil,
hydrocarbons, gas, water, and any other substances whether fkiM or solid,
any products and derivatives of any of the foregotr*, and any combinations
and mixtures of any of the foregoing, upon and abng a route to be selected
by Grantee cm, -over and through the subject property.
A survey illustrating the easement is included with th*s document as Exhibit A,
C
V-
* 749828
81i0e/P460
M2i
Easement
Agreement
CXdvis County, UT. et at
.
Security investment Company,
ef ai
8/27/1986
Davis County* UT: ^ George wl l^afgaret A. &orge as Truitee-s of the
Re* L George and Margaret A- George family trust; are! Security Investment
Company, conveyed to Re* L George atvS Margaret A, Georgi as Trusteei of
\ he Rex L Geori& aai Margaret A, George famt^ trust and Security
investment Company a tervfoot wide easement for the construction and
rrvaintvnance of an irrtgation pipeline together *th all appurtenant boxes,
gates and turn-outs-
Asurvey iHustrating the easement is included wrtH this document as Exhibit A,
ToeroekfeMiites,!*. sttorne*WertPr6*«-lnfofcme«ttaiilWf«tial Pips®
F-16
-------
°T*1 TSifiii0
CHAPMAN AND CUTLER u.r 1023264
Theotiaix» s. Cbnpnum 201 South Main Street, Salt Lake City Utah 84111-2266 Chicago
if *^ f Telephone (80S)533-01)66 IS1 Wot Monroe Sfwet
iffiw Facsimile (mi ) 533-9595 Chicago, 1L mm
chapman.com (312) mS-3000
San Francisco
Bret P. Rundall 595 Market Street
Direct Dial: (801)320-6755 Sas> Francisco, CA 94105
rariidaH@chapmart.com ^41!^
June 14,2006
Richard L. Sisk 8ENF-L
Enforcement Attorney
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
999 18th Street, Suite 300
Denver, CO 80202-2466
Dear Rich ird:
Enclosed is a copy of the file stamped copy from the Davis County Recorder of the
Environmental Notice and Institutional Control relating to the W.S. Hatch site located at 766
West 700 South in Woods Cross, Utah.
Please contact me at your earliest convenience if you have any question or comments.
Very truly yours,
Chapman and Cutler LLP
BFR:pw
Enclosure
Bret F. Randall
F-17
-------
J£
,T
After recording, return to:
Kevin R. Murray, Esq.
Chapman and Cutler LLP
136 South Main, Suite 1000
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
E 2168749 B 4036 P 134-133
RICHARD T. MftU8HftN
DAUIS COUNTY. UTAH RECORDER
05/17/2006 08:16 AM
FEE $18.00 Psss 5
DEP RT REC'D FOR CHAPMAN ft® OHlE
R
With copy to:
Division Director
Division of Environmental Response and Remediation
Utah Department of Environmental Quality
168 North 1950 West
P. O. Box 144840
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4840
Bountiful / Woods Cross 5th South PCE Plume NPL Site
W.S. Hatch Company, Inc. Property
Location: 766 West 700 South, Woods Cross, Utah
PARCEL NUMBER: 06-167-0003
ENVIRONMENTAL NOTICE AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROL
Pursuant to the Utah Environmental Institutional Control Act (Utah Code Sections
19-10-101, etseq.), W.S. Hatch Co. Inc. ("Owner herein), owner of the property located
in Woods Cross, in Davis County, State of Utah ("Property"), with a street address of
766 West 700 South, and as more particularly described as:
hereby makes and imposes upon the Property the following described Institutional
Control, subject to the terms and conditions herein stated:
1. Notice is hereby given that the Property is contaminated with hazardous
materials as described beiow and, therefore, institutional control(s) must be imposed to
mitigate the risk to the public health, safety and/or the environment:
Volatile organic compounds are present in subsurface soils at concentrations
exceeding EPA Region 3 Residential Risk Based Concentrations (adjusted to be
equivalent to a 1E-4 cancer risk). However, due to the depth of occurrence,
subsurface soils do not pose an unacceptable human health risk via the direct
ingestion pathway. Volatile organic vapors originating in subsurface soil
All of Lot 3, WOODS CROSSING COMMERCIAL PARK, as
recorded in the office of the County Recorder for Davis
County, Utah
F-18
-------
Appendix G: Data and Maps
TABLE 1
GROUNDWATER CAT*
BQUNTiruwwoaos cross npl site, operable uwrr 1
_2£5_
VOC - Mass Concentrations
(Hi CT
0<,wi
-gggii.
Otper Parameters
"yy-
JSSggJ*
Ncraffc Nifctc
-Sii_
ssfe
Pararip>.fF CAS
Samp *¦ Pan-
HMWIIS"
HMW11S
ii
=1=
MD
3E
Hi
__
__
it
wg;
M
HHWwT'
HMW14S
HMW14S
HMWWS
HMW14S
T3T"
__
}M
1300
870
Jit
±
120
~1T~
"W
ir
301.2
-425"
__
~?0~
T"
cTTr
0.005
35.4
HE
BgBsr
HMW18S
__
410
~ZW
3 SO
HMW15S
HMW15S
-n
o.r
0.24
"ITT
5.15
-TT"
120
"HH"
~
it
o
Q~os
-i-
"IT-
HMW15S
HMW15S
in-
HMW15-
HMWIS;
0.5
MD
1110
_
-M-
6
5.8
¦4.8
w
pgr]
t*
—
hmwiod
HMW16D
4P-
3E
HMWiSD"
HMW1SD
HMW160
HMW16P
HMW18D
mm
100
0.5
0.5
15
-u
T7"
10
"W
"W
ibi
f
_____
1S
TW
1S5
"W~
HMWiSD~
HMW16D__
W-
820
-sT-
210
45.58
85.76
w
E"l 2 1
0
1.8
w
"Id"
Wt-
tiMwiisir
_2i*d_
hBwmT"
R5wia§~
HMWWS
HMW19S
HMW16S
MMW18S
HMW1&3
mim-
TT
6.1-
-rsr
a».
*
___
13.9
-33-
W
0.5
~TT~
—
HMW17D
HMW17P
17000
HMW17D
nrnrnr
HMWiTD"
jjirT
HMW17D
HMW17D
BMW17P
HMW17D
0.5
18250
- 57000
41000
-££_
-4L-
G-l
-------
TABLE 1
GROUNDWATER DATA
SOUNTIFUL/WOOOS CROSS NPt SITS, QPSRABL6 UNIT 1
VOG - Mass Concentrations
Other
Parameters
PCE
TCE
c^s 1 2-DCE
tt«f« 4 2-DCE
Total 1,2-OCE
V^wHt-crrfe
Tefal VOCs
Ettene
Etfati*
AM wt>
Chemica!
Oxygen
Demand
CWcrWe
D ssc yeri
Oxy«en
ferrous Iron
Methane
m ate-'N trite
asM
Sulfate as 504
'ammeter (AS>
1;" i*
-t3 ij 1 r,
13 j 39
ri-j «ij -s
"-83-1
74-84-0
rtlU
I8i8'3 Q0-6
> +
>¦ f
ADK-9-- 003
{wwyv
Weil ID
->«<** *»c
t
U*J
t
a»'
PIT.
* I
i
»J)'
n
i .1
rti j i
D
i'M1
fs-h
O
mji
O
it^i
r
mq/t
rng*L
0
HMW1SD
1 , JJ>
_
I
, i >}
'
t'U
s
1
1'iU
1 4
.1
10
y
+
15
y
;>'-0
l i1-
U.U5
180
HMW18D
5/14/2033
u.S
U
3,
r
s jJ
>
y
iOUU
OS
JD
9, 1
8 3
,1
3,
u
78
230
IJ.O
.
UJ
O
u
12
HMW'18
1
8/24/2009
u
y
<• >j
>
j
u
4oUii
U
}
200
u
eUU
u
210
200
r
i4iJyy
0.05
u
1
u
HM-.V18
')
11/2/20Q3
o
u
* A
>- JJ
, Jj 1
>11. j
200
u
' J
J
,99
9
1cu
'¦^3
15000
0
u
2.7
HMW'K
1
2/9/2313
"V*—
y
r
')
¦ Tj
'
SJ
1 }3
1 ¦¦ —
JD
r J
- w
y
To
y
_tt. „ _
fcO
150
•1.00
r iiOOO
0.05
y
19
HMW18
1
>11 iU
u.g
u
12u
'
9 I
'!
U.3
u
ite'3
1 &}>-]
cO*U
sa
10
y
«U
i
eUli
! '
14000
0.05
y
28
HMW1>>
1
H J1J
>j j
u
1 r,
i
!3
71
9
i;i o
u
1
i.
1 j
c >
0
J 9
275Q
0.5
i-
u ~ if,
J
HM'-Vte
J
4/28/2011
0
u
UcJ
99 f
11 9
'i
3>
~it r
¥
0
y
2Mj
^50
mt
MO
2.5(5
1720
IRORI
0
1
51.1
M
HMW tf>
8-
3
11/17/2011
.. —
y
* i
'
3J
'1
1190
'j ~
' , n£i "
•"212 "
tj
j j
17
MO
1
13000
BO
0.5
u
O
HMWM5
1
I j1
u
sS/U
n
/UU
•>
n ;i
V 3
u
y
92
9
D
1 .fcO
18300
O
0
y
3- .
D
1IMW1B
3
II Sfi
tt.iU
1 C(U
<
,
f
18
I i
12
c 1
13
, ' <
,3,
<} ito't
31
mi#}?,
8/14/2009
I'
"
20
'
0.5
u
a?
O
1 9-
5.5
.1
1 «
u
X
10
As
9
0.1 8
UJU
iWWI^
8i24.®J08
•I
8.1
J J
u
o.t
1.4
Ir, l ^
1.J
u
10
u
1B
U
!• 1
i
llMW;1*,h
11/2/2009
u
- u-z -
ir
.1
1 3
10
u
—ft i
»» J
U.3S
-.1
U.'O
J- J
HMW'18£>
2/3/2010
i. 39
u
'i
u
5.1
'1
90.1
>
1*
Tfi
y
i
u
3
cU
0.58
ij!*3
b
35"
HMW1&5S
0.5
u
" "V
!
3
'1
9
•»
10
u
10
u
d9
8.1
i
3j
0.77
530C
1'4
'¦><.: i.l
HMW'ISC*
11 I j i J
JJ
.1
.3
b
^3.0/
s.u/
y.o
u
U'-r
1
M
1
y
J i >
,<¦,}
\*
D
1.8
, ,
ii ac
u3
u
i
n^witb
4/28/2011
0
u
.1
>
0
u
ij
u
J
J9
MD
4.03
392
3
Wu
WD
HMW'18is
8/25/2011
•j
¦1 ¦?'
,i
•I
5
'j
5
u
0
u
0
u
Oc
MD
. 1.38
<3^
4500
y
U
MU
HMWIob
11/17/2011
u
u
1 4
,i
j
J
j
1
1.3
, j
3
,,
y
y
_
1d
MD
0.9
1.39
13700
tm
0.5
y
1, w
O
HMVv
16S
1
i
•18
A
3.9
y
3 /
a
u
y
i
'j
SJ.C
919J
?!1'
y
u
D
HMW
190
1 1 JJ*
IX
. 9'
&W
jj
,
i'i
5 -
3.7
.t
10
y
91
15
u
cOU
' >1
i 1
-
M99
I9t
HMW
19D
> ,
9.1
.1*3
•j
1 'J
•'
3
Ki
9
'
.i
10
y
s
15
y
Hi
3>)
9 "0"
J
0 53
22y
HMW
10D
8/21/2009
u
'3
, ij
U
<55
D
51'
1.0
j
10
u
y
ti
5
(J.cD
2oy
HMW
130
ri®23/20O9
11 T
,-<}
'3
!J
*¦5.
lno
I
>•. 1 ,
10
y
15
u
J *
>J u
22u
HMW
ISO
11/9/2010
')
Jj
197"""
"""81""
y
¦ --"97"
«ts
D
•i'75
*
is
IJ
y
tit-
U
y
Hi *>
/r-
"
......
i) * \
M
^7r- -
Htm
19D
11/15/2011
o.y
D
9c
j
ya.o
19
~>3
3
u
d
»u
Jo
1 «
u
~'s 'j
O
JJ
1 -I
K
cdO
MO
HMW
1BD
j ji
s.a
J
'}
1 J
3 7
.!
> D
0
u
i
91
39
' 9 5
j
i
1 -c
;,9
mm
195
ui })>¦
.....
t3
21
i
»t5
5.5
u
5 J1 *"
" r "
y
u.^o
0.05
1oO
hmw
10S
¥13/2503
J J
u
3
t
n
D
111
10
y
SJI
i>
y
I J
«
U
HMW
10S
8/21/2009
cO
u
'1
'/
»3
y
D
: 99
1.5
-1- -
y
y
1J»
r j3
j 3
. . .._
0.05
u
o5'J
hmw
19S
10/29/2009
u.o£
J
9>
1 »>
y
4.y/
5 J
15""
21 ij 9
10
y
1
u
I
u
170
i 19
i o
90
CJ
u
HMW
19S
t E „j j
0.5
u
1 5
j,
S.ae
W.3
U
Ui.
0
y
LJ
,i>J"
1llJ
,3
M
j 9
l
y
H
r A
HMW
19$
If) !
y
i
,\
15
2 1
.j
1 1
9
3
3
3
i
t
Hi *»
.V,
0.0
> i
XU
MD
HMW
13S
5
U
5
y
J
5
u
c.5
0
0
y
o
U
50
's
7
M
u
¦
O
HMW1S
37
0
jr.1
0.5
u
0.5
y
~
i
u
, oi
10
u
10
y
289
15
y
0
1
.i
16
i „
HMW1S
n ir> n
17
5
u
5
u
5
y
ii
t,
I
3
y
3
y
305
10
y
H 8
, 5
ii
ii.
24
I;
P
HMW:20D
ii 1
5.5
0'
21
9.8
»
.V
9.«
10
y
10
y
238
15
y
' >• J
1 ,
i
33
iuy
HMW20D
i i 3 H
•s ..
n
3-
•j
,9
1.2
.ID
30 2
0.85
i'l
91 ^
10
y
10
u
255
15
u
180
) >J3
1 ft
j
1
I u
HMW23D
> 9 9
a -1
¦j
£fi
'i
7 1
3
1
y
7 1
1
u
10
u
10
y
289
15
y
140
J i
1 9
,i
120
HMW20D
10/30/2009
.< l
0.51
u
0.7
„ fj
10
y
10
y
221
15
u
30
i
J 1 ,
j
9
i j
HMW20D
11/11/2010
n
29
D
1 7
o.s
y
1.7
0.5
A
1
y
1
y
253.5
51
71
H'J
U
j
y
1. *
HMW20D
j "¦>
24.8
JS
0.86
j
8.24
0
j'j
0
u
0
y
255
30
39
t"i
j J9
0
y
,
159
MD
HMW20D
9/1/2011
c.a
11
15
,l
5
y
1.5
5
15
0
y
0
y
442
390
tVs
g.5'1
0
y
y
81 1
D
WMW'200
11/9/2011
,t
11
J i
5
y
0 V
5
1 5
0
y
0
u
130
90
Hi ri
y.o
1 IJ
f
u
J 9
MD
HMW20D
J 5
.1
15
>0
.!
5
U
0 i>*
5
tl
\* i>
0
u
0
y
42
~8
i-
j ^
XI
u
n.
hmW20S
111 if
150
D
CClj
it
13
D
233
30
1 „
10
y
10
u
f> 3
15
y
00
J3,
< "j*"
* >
21 y
HMW20S
5/13/2003
p.
1' J
•i
220
D
10
P
239
18
19
10
u
10
u
>
15
u
10
•n
rji4
i
J
HMW20S
3/19/2009
y
U'j
')
220
D
18
D
11
jf 9
10
y
10
IJ
J1
15
y
90
t
3 > 3
j
HMW20S
1 j , t c
r 39
112
>
lf§
D
18 5
m 3
9 23
, J s
10
u
10
u
15
.
00
» 3
J.I,3
20
coy
111 1 j
1
i
190
D
20
D
210
5 9
L
t
1
u
y
' >
0
u
n
H'i
JJ
O.'S
4.50
&
.So
1M* 11,
4/28/2011
151
D
21.5
3
5 81
0
y
y
ij
0
51
Hi
1
o.c
7
4.52
MD
HMW. 'i-
9/1/2011
u
38
160
28
1t,3
'
-
0
u
o
u
72
39
H'ji
i
1/
8
1.1
j
y
O
Hfi1*, i-
11/9/2011
u
58
' I,
19
" " Vjh
3 8
0
u
0
y
80
40
2.4
14.8
u
17""
MD
MH*
) it
5
u
52
r j
1ft
186
71
, 7T
g
y
0
y
3-
13
159
1.58
802
u
u
25/
D
1 if1V
Uj
U.J JJ
3.9
.10
150
D
- i1
5
203
29
s 9
1t
u
10
y
i* 3
15
y
280
>•>
0.09
130
UJJ3
u
I-! IJ
HMW
21D
JA
s
¦ID
55
O
it.
U
TTo
19
19-, i
1(
..
10
y
7.
15
u
270
i.C
0.03
170
y
u
1"J
HMW
210
8/18)2009
10
y
50
0
tjj
10
y
Ui
13
1C
u
10
u
" *
15
y
250
0.9o
0.05
100
I jj
u
i/y
HMW
21D
10/23/2009
3.9S
107 .
13
's
*
M r»
!*',
>->9
10
u
.'0
u
v.3
15
u
240
ii.cO
0.035
78
y
u
¦loy
HMW
21D
11/11/2010
u
n
D
i >
y
1 j
1M
0
y
IJ
y
91
75
245
U.S
0.115
28 3
i
11
T •
HMW
21D
4/25/2011
.
D
n
'
fj
H'i.
13 3
. i 1
0
y
rj
y
, 3
19
230
J 1^.
0.04
90 3
i 1
MIj
HMW
210
9/2/2011
1 8
.i
H-
.!
1i}1
12
. }}>j
0
y
Q
u
,3
15
I
3
0
10
rj
u
. .9
H1 t'i
HMW
21D
11/14/2011
J*
.i
m
J.O
.1
99 r
15
1»[
3
u
1 xu
001
10
y
198
1 1
25 3
U.3
xu
111
HMW
21D
j
u
130
3 ,
Ji J
14
? , ,
0
u
0
y
10
209
t
1 55
0.02
1210
j
0
u
41
G-2
-------
TABLE 1
GROUNDWATER DATA
BOUNTIFUL/WOODS CROSS HPL SITE, OPERABLE UNIT 1
G-3
-------
TABLE 1
GROUNDWATER DATA
BOUNTIFUL/WOOOS CROSS NFL51TE OPFRAB 5 UNIT 1
VOt; - Mass Concentra
sons
Other Parameters
TCE
c* ^ 2 DC£
tra( s 1,2 DC£
ktaM 2-DC£
Vi» vt Sckfirte
Total VOCs
Ethffie
fctftarse
Aflahnsw
Chemicai
Oxygen
Demand
CWonde
Dissolved
i-s- cyslrct
mt*n*
U fratc Wiinle
asfc
Sulfate as S04
P*«i>*«er C AS
1 <•
c it
71" "
5 3
, J1
m.
•/n
I^A'-OO f
«* f.
SasS04
Well ID
M.i
!
I'M
i i*
s
JH
E
fJ.n
0,'
!
UJ!
M4«
>n>
i
itv]i
~
rtiq/t
n
r>
» 3
!
r
1
n
m«rl
O
HH*
i u
05
i
'¦A
j
81
41
m t
10
U
u
15
U
t8u
it
31
y
u
53
« iH
5/18/2309
y
u
D
81
D
u
81
1
ii •*;
13
u
u
0
_
15
u
2u0
A >
73
i ift-*
u
m
0
D
?5
u
ti
i i
'IU
13
i
ti
.91
1-5
u
210
1 i
U.U5
'
u
130
f H' >
10/28/2909
K
9. j
D
9 It,
£i f
¦
1 ,
U
•iy
y
, 1,
15
u
2'JU
.....
UJO
9
o
y
' 81
i H* j >
-11/10/2010
JO
'<
D
9
D
JD
fl
1'}
iao./
u
u
u
, 1 j
y
u
trJj
r.1
'
t.
0
u
69.4
{iH-v
11 It j I
J
SB
1 9
,1
5i'.9
51
11^9-5
ti
.s
xu
Jr
13
u
202
r.lfUi
K)
.-}'
B
3.5
ti
78.4
MD
MM *
llli
u.s>
u
i
17
i
r- 5
U
17
1
'l
41
lj
11
i -j >
0
ti
40.8
M
o9
i i 9
.>>¦
0
12
11.9
MM *
11 1 j
,l
1
ion
s
.1
Ij, 3
,
U
. >u
10
u
140
0 8
1,1
0.882
X
74.3
MM*
11 tj u
1 a
II
)
i
s
! , ,
.....
¦l
4UU.5
il
y
2eij.o
0
y
. 1?8
MOh
*»
r,;
o
u
79.8
HH*
11/14/2011
J
i
.... t .
12
;r 3f «
3
u
oxu
289
10
y
1
9
u.5
xu
.' !:<
> MS > >
>, 11
¦to
i
)
11 /
i
IIq.js/'
r\}*3 >l?j
3
u
3
y
187
29
r1*J
1 r»
U l».
0
U
1
j'j '
M
I H' ' J
1 j\
13
.ID
e >
s
O
?0
u
130
>
u
r,
o
u
3
y
2S1
8.9
9
rli '
3
u
1 11
l r
rill
HM'/vz-mJ
IHAx
1, 11
_
J
i
11
,1
"I
f-3 1
3.37
ti
1/0
0
y
1
H t
1
0
1 i
i'i
M'J
1*
i
-i uy
1 s
J
IfM R
1 4
V
3
u
u
u
I
V
y
.9 ,
Ms * 9
" ' it!
1
-
l
I i
1,3 *}
-
• "3
u
r
y
336
33
.....
P1 S
9 22
M
HMW29D
« 1 <1
J
94
95
IS
J
S.-3
'<}! '
o
y
t
y
323
27
I
r1*3
3 19
1.4
J
U
y
42.1
HMWcSD
3.81
,l
' 24
22
'5"
u
j
y
3
y
y
272
37
bts.l
1 5
1" ' '
3 ',5
V J
0
u
25.8
M
MMVV290
9 ,1
3 <41
-1
13
13
8
13
ift
u
*1-1
3
u
y
238
55
n
0.97
,
ii. '
.!
12.8
D
HMW28S
It
1.25
35.5
29
113
^ !
c.6&
3;;.
0
ti
u
323
18
105
M
3.18
258
MD
MMW29S
*1 1
1 4
J
55
45
2.4
J
.f.i .-I
1i>9
o
y
C
y
91
133
107
MC
c
149
y
•9~->
224
D
HMW2BS
1.2.
J
49
40
a-.s..
J
9,
0" ...
u
c
y
38
-21
j
. 131
MOi
-
0-2
- &
1 r .
.?**.
MD
MMW29S
ti t
1 5
.I
57
^8
.1
¦3'J.Q
-Vf'A-a
0
u
L
u
08
48
125
0.7
o
f
Vij i
231
HMW25
} »
9
I i
J
1 J
Si
1, ^
9
i
1 to I
...
HMW2S
I,
i:,
3>
U1
>9
31
.1
lU
u
-13
15
u
270
? n
a
' J
-> 9
I9M
WMW2S
5/1.9/2009
u
jJ
i
4U
JD
! J
'3 t
313")
12
,1
^9
9
250
u
y
11
HMW2S
8.(24/2309
u
J'
U
I'j
> 'J
U
>• U
3 J
D
>9 J
'
J
1J
ti
-5
! .
I
3.05
u
5
mwm
1 ft
I ~
J
9 J ~
9
" > Ti
53
y
~ 5 35"
1 ,
i j
1
" 9i'iJ
. .... _
y
17
HMW2S
9 Jt j
;'i
U
150
50
D
«.<- •
b'j
'1M '
y
X, 'i
30
<_ J)
1.1J8
t" > '
1 ? S J
3.053
k'
HMW2S
i »U
J J
u
1 ft
JD
9.5
D
'
u
ulu
23
i
n j
¦1"
1 1!
h i
0,5
u
4.58
JD
HMW2S
3/27/2012
5
u
5
u
6.5
9.5
V.
«55
•11.5
y
9j
78
1
D
1
:, >>
Isfliu
.j
0
u
1.35
J
HMW30D
, t
0
,
11
5
U
11
11
1
rJ,
0
u
ii
0
o
•ti i
J
«.
y.
U
1 2
1**8
(!)
11/10/2011
to
1
J
31
*
u
U
; i
9
f »
U,Q
"91
9 i'j
M
HMW33D
" jl
.1
? 1
.!
C.9
J
.
3
U
u
y
29
«'S .1.
t.i
1
¦»'
59?
1 34
b', 9
P
HMW31Q
* 11-
.1
eO
"5
5
u
3
i.®
rr 9
y
u
y
J
3
/•Q.&
M
ii:
u
U.'SQ
.:rj
M
:
11/10/2011
' 3
\>j '
'¦¦ l.;
338
J
14.^6
5
U
>
y
y
13
U
r
r s f
>
' u r, ¦
u
0 /
r
R.1
HMW31D
> J1
6
15
ii
8
u
11
u
2?.
u
u
3
u
r;.5
C'j
1 21
'J.rjfi
U
1.11
?J
HMW32S
11
3.58
i
?,>-•1
'&
3
39 11*
9
y
u
53
R-ttj
^
3
u
3
y
if
57
1
1!
u.o
13,
> fj
u.5
u
MD
HMW32S
- i\
0.48
.1
229
V
..9
2f?
,r j>.
0
y
0
u
m i
10
!,-i
i ,9
£ U2
o
u
182
D
MMW33S
n J11
0.93
,i
333
;-i
*
1,
9193
3
u
y
' 3"
¦34
19
r 1
r
«.y&
0
u
220
m
HMWS3S
u
, j 1
*
n
3
.!!•
- i
22
D
3
y
y
*49
54
t>,
a 3
»¦
U
O
HMW33S
11 /3/2011
J
j" '
330
n
?.1
9,,.
0
u
u
391
0
u
Jl
MQD
1
ri.
1
U
MD
HMW33S
, «1
.1
>.i
<1
319
r>
9
3
0
y
•91
13
19
M
t 1
U
HMW345
" , "J 11
u
99
71
i
J
74 1
1.9
l
... _ v
1.4
y
¦ -:.v.
133
I j
p 1
1 rt,
21
J
ti
D
HMW34S
11/3/2311
06
2.15
J
r
1.4
11o.5
o
y
y
45
nr i
i
5 7
y
135
hi D
HMW34S
'{
0.46
.u
1191
15
'iftl.OO
0
u
y
y»-
84
1-33
'!
} "
i f.;
f jJ
0
u
220
D
HMW3D
11 f
11
3
1
13
y
13
y
';3
15
u
<>.00
1 2
J
3.1
70
HMW30
i 9 Sfl
12
9.7
G.5
U
1.9
0.5
U
...
,,
..
...
HMW30
l ,J9
107
.0.92
J
051
U
0
3.7
U
It o.
...
2v9
v..
O.tloS
„
...
BMW3D
11/18/2010
15
D
41
D
1.2
JD
11
0.5
u
0/
1
u
y
o
u
214
P
84.9
HMW3D
nt; ) 1
8.3
12
7W-~-
9
a
u
> ?9
3
u
y
3S3
13
U
240
MD
i)
9r r
UP
2.83
91.8
D
HMW3S
r
„„
_ .
u
_ i'_ _
- i;-
~ TT-
_
as
1
200
u
200
y
884
37
180
119
-
_
-
tii i
0.05
u
25
U
HMW3S
>19 ih
3,5
u
533
ti
500
y
28
270
iii
0
y
330
HWW3S
^ SiH
3.5
u
M.f
u
t )l
.1
199
u
1 99
533
ii
500
u
815
15
li
0.2
3 3
1 > JJi
0
u
22
WMW3S
2/10/2010
0.5
u
i ^
u
19
f
10
y
. 10
y
748 I
32
340
> >
, ,
t j,'
0.05
u
HMW3S
5/12/2310
0.5
u
u
9
- T&"
3G9.5
24
380
0.05
y
U Bf-
! 'MW",S
It r J j
3.5
u
3,5
u
D
1 7
u
1
y
y
850
28
324
D
tf
"'pfj
0.5
u
S7.8
? ) t
0
u
0
u
,
.1
/ m
If
YU
y
i
300
1Q4
f '1
, 93
.,99 j
H1D
_
y
1293
MD
HniW3b
jrjll
5
u
5
u
5
1.9
9
i~
3.
J8
U
u
43
268
i l
1 t
0
u
'758
MD
It 1 )
5
u
5
u
5
ijSd
J
j
T
2.
J
y
V
42
295
fclfj
t
•}
BD
0.5
xu
773 '
D
MM'A'3ii
}
5
y
1
u
1.7
J
5
y
17
y
y
O'lc
3
u
199
3.S
f }C '
O
0
y
1023
D
G-4
-------
TABLE 1
GROUNDWATER DATA
BOUNTIFUL/WOODS CROSS HPL SITE, OPERASLS UNIT 1
G-5
-------
TABLE 1
GROUNDWATER DATA
BOUNTIFUL/WOODS CROSS NPt SITS, QPSRA8LE UNIT 1
VOC - Mass Concentrations
Other Parameters
PCE
TCE
ci#-1 2 DCE
trans-1.2-DCE
Tola! 1,2-DCE
Vinyl CNc-nrie
Total VOCs
fcthene
Ethane
AifcatiMiv
CJ
lo
'3
hi
'1
ocii
'j
fyi
n
10VJ
...
OSMU
11M/2008
88
! )
')
1/y
H 3
1 fh *,
Hi
J!)
91-^:
10
U
10
u
3»0
15
U
270
]
0
1.8
IF
OSMU
snrizmn
W.5
U
1 j
'i
JD
i it --
!)
15
J
50
u
1 3
UiJi
IJ-rj
i <-,<•
j y
) >}
OSMU
8/20/2009
U
¦1
u
1
-in
1 1
. t
.. 1
M
J
200
y
^?52
•atU
390
9 1
T Ju'<
OSMU
11/3J200B
j
u
.1
,r, '
; i
j
¦> j--
1 -f,
J
200
U
200
u
3
53
350
j
t JJi
0 05
—^7—
u
OSMU
, i i, JU
1"
u
j r
.1
10.05
>j 32
J
ii)»,
3.0
J
10
u
850
15
u
440
U3"
1 jjj
OSMU
'1, ! 1 J
J
u
tJ.OQ
i
'
i*?
1 1
1 j %
6.5
J
10
y
fbk-
15
370
y.9o
i Jj'
OSMU
11/17/2010
w.a
u
u.s
1 ?
5-5?
<1 1h
15 V
3.04
1
u
/22.S
52
417
h
i ^
f 1'j
1 i
OSMU
4/28/2011
i
1 7A
0.7
j
2 12
1.15
fj
VU
0
y
3 0q
240
188
!j i J
, 9
1 . i
H1D
0
^05
MO
OSMU
8/85/2011
y
r;
j
4q
1 8
J
11
u
0
y
52/
21
3/2
MiJ
:lj
jj
0
*>?5
MD
OSMU
y
I r
,1
! •:
.i
3.9
5
U
y
3
QXU
544
18
587
r3,i
0 5
, 1
j
6D
0 5
—Ii!l2—
O
OSMU
> , }U
j
j «
1
j
5.4
kb
..)
0
u
0
u
475
0
u
213
1
, j
Hl'J
D
D
SLMU
j ~
Vi
!¦ <
>t
12
1012
110
!5
:-f)>
.V
..
___
SLMU
11/4/2008
1
\'i
ji
')
533
22
JD
005
10
u
10
u
340
15
u
190
1.21
ti
55
SLMU
> i/j
u
m
' s
}
—.1
u
<20
«
D
521
2.9
j
10
u
850
oO
I'SO
0 eJfj
1100
SIMU
8/20/2009
u
17
'}
1 j}
8.8
'5
13S.S
32
D
1ST .S
320
100
y
909.5
41
330
|j?l
„ j
5600
SLMU
I U,. sfi
i)
u
i
19?
11 O
30.S
3 8?
40.32
250
-100
y
773.5
5U
3^0
U2-"-
10000
S.l.MU
1 i >1j
j
u
~i
U
5 7
'j
i
8R
10
y
9^„
;i.j
; <
I f)ci
r
____
Si.MU
5/12/2010
U.5
u
•lo
11
,9
-\m
2.9
,..i
lUcii
J
,
0 8'
,
lc jj
SIMU
11/17/2010
i U
,1
, j
18
j
j
y
O'lo
•0
D
0 c"
» »j>
11UJ
SlimU
4/28/2011
0
u
i j
1
J
i« 1
,1
1.16
U Ai
u
fU
0
y
»^
¦ r-y
4UU
r^!5
11
HID
MD
SI.R1U
8/31/2Q11
u
o.y
2&
1.9
.1
, 9
3.8
J
f
y
o
y
99
o2
¦¦ 3' -
Mf\l
S.04
3UUU
j
MD
StffelU
f i 1
u
1 5
.[
¦& «4
,l
„99
,1
') "
>9.,
«
, 3
.i
c?xu
5-1U
AO
901
M!)
0 **
QU9U
BD
0
SIMU
i1
u
15
1.0
,1
lo.9
, 3
u
0
y
845
21
242
11
&.0
10100
D
D
G-6
-------
TABLE 3
HIMORK \l, GHOL'MJWAItRA^ALl'lICA.L MEM l.'I'S
BmmtH'ulAVoods Cross Stli South I'CK Plump, Ol 2
Davis County, I tah
Well
Sample Name
C 1 P Sample
Namr
SiHIipk' l>4Us
PC K
K F
ch-I J!
IK K
irani-1 J
IMF
Viml
i hltirMU
ISon/i'fn*
M 1IJE
iw 1-1
^ I'
ii-m i >
... .'HRt.l. .
nr* *'>i
n'JiUlin r .1-1 iW -1 V
h 2". 2M' "¦
' f4
Nl> ' i.
N" «¦ >
ii
\; s n
h] > • ft
)>M i'*
fi V -hi, '
•t.4
~ V
P, w u
Mil i:
iP4 \\s < : i ,\\ t *,*"
7/UK2lXt2
M> i.
M' l..u
N.> ' n
V M
%,> n
Hi »iir
III '
IV 1 NSW -1
_
n -«•
s%
MU 2,0
8,5
\\} ^A\
Mi Hi
\|H "u
\ ! s ' u
iMU i >
i\i (1 t ¦
Hi I MW-I i>i ;p
-
i ' u;
¦.'1,1
NIK2.0
8,2
M > "> '
LiC nil
\pnt ,m»j5
i i ii i
2,4
_
¦—
_
ik on
-
ft 4.,,. "frtiV,
Mt-i\
u<
23
_
-
_
la oi i
nsB-Hf oir-A-^. I 1-<
....
OS''12:1.18
Mi
, .,
40
0.10 J
NIM>.5
ND-JJ.5
Bf Oil
OSH-Kl. MM ,-\-0":s.i:s
ir~r>
07/2M18
5.0
'jO
0.22 J
Kixas
ND<0,5
NIXO. 5
iV Di!
tiiuMHtr iiir s>'
H "H*.
tlW/08
5 <\
1X37 j
h r
ND<0,S
ni:k(i,j
HI.K0.S
in on
W v'-^i o"M-U'
.,
05,'i SAW
K."
0.2
Sff
0.12 J
ND«0.5
\I> u ^
MXOS
IK on
t I iuh2-Hl on l-iA\ -iu>
It." 12'H)
0.05
' s
ND<0,5
NIK9S
M > a..-
Nth-OS
ik on
] f 11117-ilf i>H Mitt -hi:
IHAvi
ll/23.'l 1
... ..
13 i
t\ S
ND<5J}
NIXS.tl
M>- ^ ci
ND<5.0
Kkon;
„
March 2003
Mi u ;
ND«0.5
„
„
_
RKi»i! :
w-
June 2003
ND<0.5
ND<0..5
...
„
BKorr
-
Sept. 200.1
0,1)86 .1
Nl>-"0.5
„
HKon
Dec, 2003
ND<0.5
NXHOj
...
—
„
(iS\0-U
-
April 2005
ND<0.5
ND<0.3
-
.....
BKDH-
i 1 -fiW-Oil
mtsAS
H.i-I.TO
HIKO.5
ND<0.5
mxo.5
ND<0.5
ND<-C1.5
ND<0.5
Hkon i
] f! ni?-hK
KD<5,0
ND<5,0
ND<5J>
ND--S.0
M3<5i»
March 2003
MK0.5
ND1 |
June 2003
NTKU5
M><0.5
„
...
MWull
-
Sept. 2003
ND<0.5
NIH<>.5
-
-
..
\|\\nn
Da;. 7003
ND<0,5
ND<0.5
„
_
G-7
-------
TABLE 3
HIS I'OKKWL fiKOl M)U VI EK AN \l \ TIC VI. RENtLih
BmintirtilAVandii C"n>is 5lli South PC K Plume, Ol"2
f)ii» K County, L-tah
\WH
Sample Nuroc
CU> Sample
Nam?
Suuipk' Dan*
PCE
TCE
c»s-U
IK F
irjiis-IJ
IX K
Vinyl
C hlurifh'
lllH/t'Ilr
M 1 BF
(Wflj
w-»
:nsri t
iMSl.t
W11
(MsTU
'wil t
MA'UI
'\pn! >«'"¦
MIK0.5
NIX0.5
MWujl
M.tv -U'sKi
N1X0.5
N1X0.5
„
...
MWtill
u,\BA!\\r,l?:-X4r.'h ul
tr-fr
i\~ "Mi V,s
MW
NIK0.5
1, " F
Ml 1 H)
NIX0.5
KIXO.S
ni:m».5
Ml l!?
RD >:'
I -
\IWull
1 I -{/A-Hij
WI)M 1
1.2*
NIXU)
KlXt.O
Ml Lu
MIKIi)
M) 1 M
~ -l
'ill
osMliV\n\ni( -(Ai.un
lin-M*
OS.'Jftf] 1
KDcS.ff
ND<5.«
M) 111
\n > m
NIXS.CI
\n --ii
\nw>n
illlir MWull -< A\
t H: -%S<1
t l-is.'i t
ND<5.0
NtXJ.O
I! 4'> !
\n ; ti
N1K5.0
^ i
\I\MIU
»51ZB2-M\MMl -t.W-
mow:
05/03,11
ND<5.«
XO<5.§
MX5.I1
M>-5.n
ND<5,8
Ml- 5.11
5"
MUuf M
Mitreli 2003
41
2.1 j
_
_
„
_
MV, u[M
„
-
J'use 2003
7.7
0.23 .1
_
..
_
MW'i'U
-
Sept. 2003
46
1.5
-
-
„
~
\i\\n!M
-
..
Dec. MB
4R
1.0
_
,,
_
...
....
M\\ M; \|
-
April 2005
35
0.76
„
_
_
„
_
M\\ ir M
May 20«ii)
28
MX0.5
-
„
..
„
..
KtV.uf M
"Ml MW'ii M-viiM?. i
„
05/il«
3d
0.72 J
ND<0,5
M 1 (i >
ii.j
„
ii i J
M\\ u; M
M \\ u 1M N Wij
H^Rfi
n?/2iif08
26
0.55
Nit 11 5
M) 1! •=
M) (1.5
\n t' '<
* 5
05UH2
HO \I>H
05/07/12
M1K5JI
wo- 5.11
Ml- 5.0
MW\)W
„
-
March 2003
2.7 j
0,090 J
_
-
..
_
_
KWKVnl
-
„
June 2001
2.6
NIXO.S
...
_
_
..
MVUHI
Sept. 2003
2.4
0.076 j
„
„
_
„
„
Muni j
„
..
Dec. 2003
2.9
NIX0.5
_
...
_
mwoii
..
-
April 2005
3.4
0.13 J
-
-
...
-
-
MW011
-
-
May 20%
4.1
ND<0.5
„
„
-
MWO] i
08B-MWO1 L»N-j051 2-1
-
0S/!2...'0R
5.8
NIXO.S
NIX0.5
Mi ii"
NTX0.5
..
MlX(i,5
Saa-Ajaiaal 1012 MomMing Itepof 1 Tiible J
G-8
-------
TABLE 3
HIS I'OKKWL fiKOl M)U VI EK AN \l \ TIC VI. RENtLih
BmintirtilAVondii C"n>is 5lli South PC K Plume, Ol"2
f)ii» K County, Ltali
Well
Sample Vi»K
(It* Sample
Name
Sample Date
PCE
TC.E
ch-1.2
DCE
trans-1,2
DCE
Vinyl
C hlurifli'
lllH/t'Or
M 1 BF
(Kflj
(«a,j
(M«
i»l-»
W1'
(MSl-l
'MUl t
Mttull
USBAIWMI
H27R?
5.(5
0,21 J
ND«XS
NIKO.J
\1> II ^
MW'iii;
( -<:\\-iw
K36A8
li/il/il)
?.!
NIK0.5
ND<0.5
TOK0..S
\J> !i s
m> (i =
M> < 1.0
\1) 1 <1
Nl>- 1 •!
M> 1 'i
M"W isi J
lis! MO-UWOll -l.W III;
H0AJ4
(tKSO/i 1
10
ND«5.0
NIKSJI
ND<5JI
Mj. 7 -i
Ml .= 5
1.2
NIKO.J
_
„
_
MW02U
-
....
May 200h
0.J9
NtXO.S
_
...
-
_
-
MW02U
liMiAIWil'r A-iTJi.-ul
H27S0
07/2MW
2.1
059
0.2ft ,1
NIH0.5
ND<0.5
NtK0.5
>1
MW02U
iUifOAiwim 4,\\ ;n
H0AZ7
11/17/1 1
<),») ,1
ND<5.«
NIK5.0
WIX5.0
ND<5.0
NO2
N0nHr.
11/17/10
0.69
ND«>,5
NIMIS
NIXO.S
NIKO.J
ND<0.5
NIK0.5
MHI Tsbk-J Page Jul'
G-9
-------
TABLE 3
HIS I'OKKWL fiKOl M)U VI EK AN \l \ TIC VI. RENtLih
BmintiftilAVondii C"n>is 5lli South PC K Plume, Ol"2
f)ii» K County, Ltali
\MI
Sample Viwic
CI.l* Sample
N saint1
Sy triple Dan*
PCE
TCE
cis-U
IK F
irjiis-IJ
ix !•:
Vinyl
C hlurifli'
M 1 BF
(Kflj
:nsri.t
iMSl.t
W11
<
'Mil t
1 j > IBJ-MWunUA^i'i
Ifir.U'i
; : ¦
0,48 !
NT>5 o
Ml Mi
Ml- 5 ii
\!> ii
MJ ' II
- ¦
M\MC1
March 2IHB
NCK0.S
0.5«j J
_
MWD'i
Ju»« m$
S.KIX5
NIX0.5
_
„
_
_
_
MWKJi
Sept 2TO3-
tUOJ
0,080 J
-
-
-
-
-
MWiVi
...
Dec. 20M
NIK0.3
_
_
-
„
_
MWiPl
Apri 1 2005
NCK0.5
NTHIS. 5
..
_
..
_
_
KPAI)?!
May 200ft
0.24 J
4a
_
..
_
...
_
l!M* MW'IJF \\]
n:rR^
07/20/08
MT.K0.5
NtXO.5
ND-sO-S
Kl>O.J
ND«V
N:0:h
'IUUV-UWiOt -« jW-ui:
iPuBI
11/17/11)
ND<0,5
NIK0-5
ND<0.5
NIKIXS
ND<1).S
ND<0.5
Nrxo.5
MWIL1!
fl 1 UINMViMJj ,( .U«!
\U't\W i
ll.'17/l i
ND<5.0
ND<5,0
ND<5j)
MKSJS
MD<3,0
K1V5.C)
NI>;S.O
MU'j;i,
„
March 200.3.
1.3' J
0.50 J
...
_
_
_
MttuU
June 2003
0.35 J
NTK0.S
„
..
_
_
MU'lJI
Sept, 2003
0.!IJ
0,11 J
_
...
_
_
_
mu'i;i
Dec. 2003
NLK0.5
HD<()5
_
_
_
_
...
\n\nU
„...
April 2005
NTK0.5
0.76
_
„
„
„
MVnUl
May IflCfe
MtH 10
Q.t? J'
..
_
_
_
...
MW'itl
usB MW if'!' -'rjs-0 I
uri"
07/.28/0K
NEK0.S
0.2? J
NB<0.5
1.1
>i J'l I
! ->«.
MW-H1
! 1 !!>h:-\1\\m41 .fj\v-sm
H ^ iB _
tUIO/H)
NIK0-5
ND<0.5
NIKCLJ
xxxn.s
\p
Irf,!!
MW'iM
fill ICAIWO";! -i,'¦A'-i 1.1
Hin.v>2
u a 1/11
ND<5,0
MD<5,0
Nl>.S.O
MK5.0
ND<51>
\! s *- u
t
-------
TABLE 3
HIS I'OKKWL fiKOl M)U VI EK AN \l \ TIC VI. RENtLih
BmintiftilAVondii ("runs 5lli South PC K Plume, Ol"2
f)ii» K County, Ltali
\WM
Sample Viwic
CI.l* Sample
N saint1
Sy triple Dan*
IK K
TCE
cis-U
IH'K
irjiis-IJ
ix !•:
Vinyl
C hlurifli'
lllH/t'Ilr
MTBE
i
W-il
:nsri.t
iMSl.t
SMS1 '
(MSl-)
WD
MWOW
OR B»M W03M-N -0728 4)1
H27S0
"H>
U
\ 1 J. <1 -
Mi )i =
M> <1 *
M) ii 5
0.22 i
\n\^M
09 B- M W03 M - N 4)51 -01
05-1W
? i;i
n.K3
M !- P..-®
\n n -
M» «i 4
\]> ;i-=
0.21 j
MWn^l
1110B2-MWO3M-GW-OO
11/16/10
•Iv
Ml (1 f.
Ml ii -
M> !i 4
M) il.-
NXM'1.5
HI 1 B2-MW03M-CJW-00
Mr. \\K \
11/21/11
in
0.68 J
M> 5 >
M t >
\1* 4
M>- :• 4
M1.K5.5
MWIK'f
March 2003
ikv
0.87
_
..
_
...
MWiSI
June 3003
1.7
_
_
_
..
_
KtWiS]
-
„
Sept 2003
14
2.1
-
-
-
--
_
MWii']
-
Dec. 2W5
'Hll
U 1
_
..
...
MV\H5]
-
«
April 2005
' 4
1.9
„
„
_
„
_
\\\W\
MaylOOf'i
Hi
2,K
-
...
-
...
-
M\Vli5|
KSH-MW'UI
M22S8
3.4
0.2 J
M> u 5
ND<0.S
KD<.0.5
MK0.5
\h\in]
iWK-MWiHf
05'" 19/09
:: ii
1.4
0.13 J
Ml « -
MD--J.1.5
KI>.'(J.S
NtXO.5
\1 urn: j\\-un
11/16/10
;n
2,0
ND<0,5
Mi n -
Mi>-0,S
KD<#.S
MD<0,5
MWl^l
; i i
Jli^W J
11/21/11
1
l;4 J
MtKS.O
\1l 4 u
ND-sSi)
NO«5.U
SD<5..f)
MWn-1
;; i iir-\u\ini -i,w;i
HuA/h
11/21/11
' 1
1.2 J
NTXSi)
Ml ' M
ND<5.o
ND<5.0
ND--5.0
V1VUU!
„
March 2003
f l 1
ND<0.5
_
..
..
_
\n\n4i
„
Sum 2003
'¦2 »S
0.45 J
_
_
_
„
_
MWUl
-
Sept 2003
1 1
0.66
„
„
_
..
„
\i\\un
„
Dec, 2003
v !
(J.55
-
-
-
--
-
\i\uur
-
April 2005
i.,
0.33.(
_
-
-
--
-
MWM1
May 2006
7.U
0.^5
„
-
_
„
„
MVui-il
08B-MW04U-N-Q725-01
1 f 27»
07/25/fM
ix
0.D1
1.2
MXI.S
MIK0.S
ND«'D.5
ND<0.S
MWOH
1110B2-MW04lj-GW4H,)
HMiBS
tl«1«
1 ¦'
1.0
1.4
f»D<0.5
NIK0.S
NIXM.5
HIK0..5
MWUl
1 111 B 2 -M W04U-G W-OO
H0AW5
umnt
* ; i
0.7! J
0.99 J
ND<5.(>
ND<5.0
ND<5.0
ND<5.0
Sumi-AmmoI 1012 MoniMfin j Repm
Table 3
G-ll
-------
TABLE 3
HIS I'OKKWL fiKOl M)U VI EK AN \l \ TIC VI. RENtLih
BmintirtilAVondii ("runs 5lli South PC K Plume, Ol"2
f)ii» K County, Ltali
Well
Sample Vi»i(
CI J' Sample
Name
Sample Dan-
l'C K
TC.E
cis-U
IH'K
irjiis-U
IK K
Vinyl
C hlurifli'
lllH/t'Or
M 1 BF
(Wit
IWjlt
(MR 1.1
i«l»
(MKl.i
M.rdi J"ir.
11
"»11--0.5
MWuJM
_
_
June 3.003
7
NIH0.5
..
...
„
_
MWiUM
-
-
Sept, 2003
'If 1
0.032 J
-
-
-
...
-
MUuiM
_
Dee, 2003
().*
NDO.5
..
_
_
...
_
MW'MM
-
-
April J005
4,^3
ND<0.S
-
--
-
-
_
MWulM
„
May 2006
k.
NIK0.5
-
„
„
--
..
MWu.Ki
uMi-MWi/JM Vir.-uii
if rs
07/2S/0SS
" -
NI-K0.5
MD<0.5
Ml (! -
Ml *i s
MD««,5
ND<0.5
MWulM
i i h\\-in
IHuItu
tl.'19/10
tl7
Ml <0,5
ND<0,5
Ml " «
M> li :
ND<«,5
N1K0.S
mv. iaw
fill H^-MV, iMM-cav-iih
imW.-i
11/17/11
Ij. !
\IX5i!
ND<5.C1
M) ;jl
Ml = m
NO<5.0
NtKS.O
MWlll!
-
March 2003
1 1
N11 s.0,5
...
...
..
-
UMIHi
~
„
June 2003
11
N1K0.5
„
_
--
...
_
MWlMi
...
-
Sept, 2003
0.048 j
„
-
-
..
..
MWiill
_
...
Dec, 2003
f) hi
MD«0,S
_
_
_
...
...
mwiwi.
-
April J DOS
IS t
NIX0.S
„
„
..
MVU.4'
„
-
MuyJOW
1! V (
NIK0.5
-
-
-
„
..
MWOll
UHHAWill 111
It? 1"
07/25/W
1! _'l. 1
turns
\U
\lt II >
KCK0.5
M>
MSIll1
•' line \tUnli
iiii.ir
11.'19/10
\p. i, <
MD.5
\l> l ¦ •
Mi II «
NiMlS
Mi n«
\1> 'I?
M\\ D4I
"1 ill.-MWuli -1 .W-iill
IWWV
11/17,'H
\I) «,i
MUuil
-
--
March 2003
32
0,30 J
-
...
--
--
-
Mtt.nl1
..
June 2003
4.2
ND<0.J
_
_
..
...
\l\\inl
„
Sepi 2003
54
0.(140 J
_
..
_
„
„
\ll\ml
...
Dec. 2003
22
NDcO.5
_
_
..
..
_
MVi'nl
-
--
April 2005
21
,NI3«,0.5
-
_
-
--
-
MWnil
-
"
May »)«>
• "
ND<0,5
»
"
„
"
„
\PAn-.l
iixtt-MWDM .o-i;> v:
_
05/13/08
CsK
ND<0,5
NDO.S
MK0.5
NIX0.5
..
NTXP.5
G-12
-------
TABLE 3
HIS I'OKKWL fiKOl M)U VI EK AN \l \ TIC VI. RENtLih
BmintiftilAVondii C"n>is 5lli South PC K Plume, Ol"2
f)ii» K County, Ltali
\W|I
Sample Viwic
CI.l* Sample
Nam?
Sample Dan*
H K
n -
' i ^ a\ u-j
Wuiih
H I'll)
M
Mi Ji
X] l-
\n n •
M) M -
\]> -i ;
M) li ^
MV.'nl
11 }}ir-\]\s<^\ iij
11 Ml
7I.V
K v?J
n n ^ i
M) =jt
M) 3.U
Mi r"
\!) c u
MWn-M
„
->!!: ^
1 >
\n i. ^
..
„
„
_
muo'-m
-
*
NO* u c
„
_
M\\ i
Sept "'IHh
¦> 4
MTV II -
„
_
„
!?»v 2W3
I 4
M> n ^
„
..
_
Mtt i)c-M
„
...
\piil
2 S
Nl> a c
„
_
M\\ inM
¦
M.iv 1\u i5
MW05L
.....
\piil
0.39 J
ND<0.5
..
MWOSL
..
M.iy N<
0,41 J
ND<0,5
..
MW05L
OK&M VV05L-0513-N-1
i;c ' t i >f 1
[ 1 ts 111
U.ftt
OT<0.5
ND<0.S
ND
-------
TABLE 3
HIS I'OKKWL fiKOl M)U VI EK AN \l \ TIC VI. RENtLih
BmintiftilAVondii C"n>is 5lli South PC K Plume, Ol"2
f)ii» K County, Ltah
Well
Sample Name
CI.l* Sample
N* 53 Hit1
Sample .Date
PCE
TCE
vUAJ
IK F
lrar^-1 J
IK K
\ i«yl
C hlurifk'
lllH/t'Ilr
M 1 BF
Ofcfl-)
im^>
(HftT-*
MW06U
March 2003
ND<0.5
ND-"0.5
-
MWOTU
>i\l) \\W\i '] \ 1,1 J | .!) i
07/24/rm
NEKO,5
KIMX5
\!> a ^
\]t ¦ -
M « ii :
MW07U
r i :nn '.\i\vn (A\ 'iu
h ^rc ;
11/13/10
N-1MJ.5
ND<1\5
M» ii *
M» n "
\1> i: ^
M> (i
MJ •! -
etfwrostr
April 2005
ND<0_5
MD<0.5
„
„
_
MWORU
May**
ND<0.5
ND<(L5
-
„
_
MW'OMj
O88-MWO8U-N-0514-1
-
05/14/08
0.47 J
ND<0.5
ND<0.5
ND<(K5
KD<0.5
MK1X5
MW08U
m B-M VVORU -N -07244) 1
ip-|^
07/J4'08
NIK0.5
NIK0.5
ND<0-5
NDi(,1.5
M'WO-KU
11 tOB2-MW(J8U-OW"0O
11 WH I
U/18/10
ND<0.5
ND<0,5
ND<'05
ND<0.5
ND <&.$
M:D<0„5
NIXCli
MYV08U
S1U B2-MWO8U-GW-O0
IP' \\ 1
\vm\
ND<5J)
ND<5.0
nd<5j:i
ND<5,0
MtKiJ)
NtXSJ.)
MW08M
-
April 2005
8.9
1.9
„
„
-
»
-
MW08M
-
May 2006
H.5
ij.S
..
„
MWOJsM
ORB - M W08M »N«05\4A
..
05/1 «
21
4.4
0.67 J
d'lh J
MIXllS
...
MIXOJ
MW08M
OftB-M WO8M-N-O724-01
mm
mmm
18
5 A
0.66
0„M j
ND<0.5
NIX0.5
1.1;! i J
MWOSM
1110B2-MW08M-GW-00
H36C5
ti/iwio
g ()
2A
NIK0.5
ND<0.5
ND<0.5
NIXfJ.S
NDcO.5
Saa-AjaiB.il '1012 Vkmtoring fcepMi Till* i togs li of l
G-14
-------
TABLES
H1S1 OttlC'AL (iROLNDW-VlEK AN 1LYT1C\L RKSl LIS
Koiiiitiful Wtiixls Cross 5th South PCI ('limit-. (>l 2
Davis C'miiit), Ttal)
w i>ll
Sample Sairu-
< Li* Sample
\nnu-
Sample Hair
i*t r
IX K
ds-1,2
IK F
1 rans- U
IX K
Vim 1
C hhiririt-
Bwi/t'iK'
M1 BE
'H 1 t
!W!lJ
IHi! f !
Wl 1
'MB I l
W1 >
IfcsiL, .
MV.nS\l
" 1 < HO
Jl'i-W
! • ;v n
10
4 < 1
\\i *
\i), S.I
M> 5li
\n ; i!
n:> ? '1
'KHS'-MUnsU-^U-.V
1 • \ r i
14
j " J
M!) - i'
\J! - -i
sn s ii
M > '!?
Mrs ^ n
\]\Kus]
-
V*i i! 2i*\:
i 1
! • H I
-
-
_
_
-
uuhm
M.;y >i:ijii
* 1
O 5 i
..
_
...
_
_
\1Vui\J
'•iSH-MUsi.XI -N-i^U-i
--
n- 14 us
? 0
i: j
0,1<> j
ND'n
HmiI
t ii '(j
33
]. i
NIM),5
ND<0„5
ND- n ^
ND<0.5
\u\iki
1' 1UV -f,\V-D'l
IKW*
j i i ». ' i
i ^ 1
it - j
ND<5.»
Nl><5,0
\r> - i:
HIK5J
sr
t; \fV-M V\i :• '-SIMM1 h-11 >' >
UJ ">11 Urt
4.4
\n m -
HO u =:
m> tj,-
XO<»,;.
ki:ko,s
ND •>
Mi n *
NIKO.S
NLKtU
M1XI.S
NEKO.5
"lOh-MWlM -N-ti1-" i S-Ji"
...
i\- Is
i> 4
M) o ^
ND^O.s
ND<0.5
NIKH5
MB<0.5
MW-uur
illiiH: M\AnLiiLL]^ i)i!
W36C7
n/oo/io
*1#
,s] t U %
ND<0,5
NTJcO.S
NIK0.5
ND<0.5
ND MjH -
i 1 i 1 !i;-\!\HWW >W-\M
iioA ro
1 li'lW! 3
1 t 1
\ 1 > Mi
NIX5.0
MHSM
ND<,S.I)
NIXS.0
ND<5.(>
MW-ihH
H0AA3'
05/01/12
"J
MH5II
ND«5;0
MXSM
ND<5.»
NO<5.#
KIKSil
\\\\-n<)M
OS,'05# 8
n ^i,l
ND<0.5
SD1!
\i> Or
ND<0.5
,ND<0,5
KTKttJ
NIKO.S
ND<0.5
nvB iu-SnW)
H2W
1 imm
1)
\D m -.
XKIIS
N1K0.S
ND S u
NIKS.O
ND
-------
TABLE 3
HISTORICAL GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Bountiful/Woods Cross 5th South PCE Pin,me, OU2
Davis County, Utah
\WM
Sample Nuroc
CI.l* Sample
N saint1
Sy triple Dan*
PCE
TCE
ch-1.2
DCE
trans-1,2
DCE
Vfnyt
Chloride
Benzene
MTBE
WW
ck«
WU
ww
uxb
^n^is
ND<0.5
ND<0.S
mms
ND<0.S
ND<0.5
ND<0,5
\!V> l*i|
L),; 15.0*
0-24 J
NIKO-5
WMXS
ND«i}.$
ND<0.5
...
ND^O.5
mw-iw
i»sn-m\\uui
K27Q7
07f27A>8
ND<0.5
ND<0.5
N0<0.5
KIK0.5
ND<0.5
N.D«.).5
NDi a-.w-uu
H36C9
11/09/10
NIK0.5
NT) <0-5
NTX«.J
ND<0.5
NIK0.5
HD
MIX'S..!)
ND u :
ND<0.5
ND<0.5
bll)<0,5
ND<0.5
WXI1.5
MW-10M
1 i I0B2-M'W 10|!I-(jW4ji)
HjfVD 1
1.1'10/10
l.i
MXO-5
NtXO.S
KD<0.5
SD<0.5
ND<«.5
SO
ND<5.0
NIXS.O
ND
-------
TABLE 3
HIS I'OKKWL fiKOl M)U VI EK AN \l \ TIC VI. RENtLih
BmintiftilAVondii C"n>is 5lli South PC K Plume, Ol"2
f)ii» K County, Ltah
YWH
Sample Nuroc
CI.l* Sample
N saint1
Sy triple Dan*
PCE
TC.E
cis-U
IK F
trans-IJ
DCE
Vinyl
Chloride
Benzene
M 1 BF
WW
(«1.
Wl >
(«.c»
WU
C»1.>
'Wll.t
MW-I fl-
ORB-MWt 1 U-N-0725-01
HHPS
01/25/08
ND<0.5
Kl> 0 J
\ 11- 0 >
ND<0.S
ND< 0.5
NIX0.5
\J"i:
MW Ub
09B-M W11U-N-05 i &-01
O5W0O
NIK 10
No- h;
\1) !i:
HI)*" 10
NIX 10
HD<»
2.4ini
MW-11U
I \ 10B2-MWJ tU-GW-00
B36P3
lt/10/10
ND<{15
NTXCtJ
\P 1!
NTX0.S
NIK<).S
ND<0.5
i.",;
MW-1IU
1 H1B2-MW! UJ-GW-Oft
VI
iptf>/ll
ND<5,0
ND- II 5
ND<0.5
N1X0.5
N0«},5
, ,
Mw-i m
U9B-M w't 1M-N-051M) 1
05/16/0^
2.1
ND<0.5
\u ii ¦'
ND<0J
W.X1.1.5
NIXiJ.J
!r P 1
MW 1 fM
! nnfp-MW ;\\\ i\\\ .n.i
II '^]>f
11/13/10
UBS
NtXO.S
Ml ("•
NIXO.S
ND<0.5
ND-iCt.S
Mi !,y
MW.UM
1 p 1 P^-MWilM £]W'-(H1
nn w
tt.iA/l I
2,7.!
0,4t J
M> 1 n|
IP MW/
07.-25/OK
NIXO.S
5.0
K .'
0.15 J
ND<0.5
NtK0.S
m\\ pi
11 >,m '-mw i :i -(3w 'hj
IP.?1X,
11*13/10
KtXO.S
6.0
•1!
ND<0.5
(m
Ni:x«1.5
:4k
MW Pt
nMHPAIW'Pl
i)S»/i 1
MX 1.0
4,49
0.30 J
0.44 J
NCK1.0
P*<
Mft-ll1!
us; ib:.m\\ In .1 ,u.i^
11<> \t ~>
0S.'31/li
m:.),5
P
ND$n
MW-nM
msR-MW PM-N-PP-oi
111' nf
07/25/0K
1.3
R1X&5
\l» fi _¦
NIX0.J
NTXJJ.J
NIX0.5
tp
mw pm
M OB^MW PM-ijW^i'i
II hi]
i r/13/io
0.93
NIXO.,5
ND<0.5
MCKtlS
KCX0.5
NIXft.5
\n *» -
MW-PM
ip' nr'-MW p\i-tjW-
-------
TABLE 3
HIS I'OKKWL fiKOl M)U VI EK AN \l \ TIC VI. RENtLih
BmintiftilAVondii Crons 5lli South PC K Plume, Ol"2
f)ii» K County, Ltali
Weil
Sample Nanif
CI J' NampU'
Name
.Saoijilf Dan-
l'C K
TCE
cis-U
IH'K
(rati <¦-! ,2
IX K
Vinyl
C hlurifh'
lllH/t'Or
M 1 BF
IWl-l
t
IHKlt
(MSl.t
MVi PI
\ i n • i "t r
i:sBA1\\ U! ui
IP '1,0
\r iw
1 1r
n •.
NI) ts,"=.
\[J Dr.
Mi) li 'i
\1> n,-.
Mi i" «.
'S I VV » 1 1
\n\-Pf
ncl UVAIW PI
¦05>'0 I
ND<5.0
ND<;S,0
ND-cS.0
H1X5.0
NIX5.0
Ml 5 m
M
"M 1 !1 lA\ uii
II<|\\{>
llrlft/n
J M i
ND-=5.i»
N»<5.0
ND<5ii
ND<5.i>
NIXSJ)
Ml 'i
MW-UI,
05UB2-MW UI.-tAS-Oo
m\m
mmm
\n- s.u
N'0<5,«
tt
MKSfl
KO<5,0
ND\IW 1 41 -i
iP«?n'>
U/flW
N0<0.5
KD<0.S
N0«».S
ND<0.5
N1X0.5
N1X0.5
NJW-1 ?l
114 1 IIPAIW • U lAV-'H
....
W28/11
MIX 1.0
MD*=t.O
ND-fJi)
KIKl.O
ND<1.0
MIX!.!!
-
MVui U
US' 1 H2'\]\\ I ;i .< ,\\ U'J
»ti:\w
0S/2W11
NIX5.0
MtXS.O
NDci.0
NQ i: -
ND<(U
ND<0.5
2.4
NO<«.5
NI.X0.5
MU-1 AS
04* IHM1U AM i\\
tt4<28-''l f
3,«
Ml It!
ND-il.U
KIX1.0
MIX 1,0
ND
«5/U2»i2
M..I
KIXS.0
ND'0.5
ND-tfLS
HI.X0.5
Ni:x(l,5
ND<0.5
\IW-I M
uinH>-u\\ i -<.\\-uo
nw i
Il/dWlO
2.0
NX) <0.5
ND<«.5
3.9
NTXtXS
SIX0.5
MW-1 M
Oil il^AtW P! C-W-01,
04/28/11
(j.S7
ND< I J)
ND< 1.0
NDO.O
MIX 1.0
ND<1.0
MIX 1.CI
MU -\ M
os] -hwiu pi .i
i Hi -XK 1
(W2%11
i).4
N1K5.0
NIXJ.O
W1.X5U
NIX5.C1
NIX5.1).
MIX.5.0
\n\-i m
W 1 iiV-\f\\ ] ' i -1
iim^:
11/15'11
5.3
ND«5.0
NIX5.0
W,X5.ij
KIX5.I)
NIX5.0
ND<5.0
MW-l.U,
JI5IIB2 MWBL-f.VVim
110 \ \7
115/02/12
42 J
ND
-------
TABLE 3
HIS I'OKKWL fiKOl M)U VI EK AN \l \ TIC VI. RENtLih
BmintirtilAVondii C"n>is 5lli South PC K Plume, Ol"2
f)ii» K County, Ltali
\MI
Sample Nuroc
CI.l* Sample
N saint1
Sy triple Dan*
PCE
TCE
cis-U
IH'K
irjiis-IJ
ix !•:
Vinyl
C hlurifh'
MTBE
Ofcfl-)
OnfU
!HSl»
IHfitl
IW11
iwD
M\v.i u;
08B-M Wt4U-N-072f»4) 1
.H27S7
1)1/261)8
ND<0.5
KD<0,5
1! 1! t
Nil II '
) i 1 i
M> <,_•
1JMO
MW-] 41,
11IOR2-MW14U-GW-0O
mms
11 /1 fy i o
ND<0-5
N!J<0-5
Nil- <:5
M) it.--
M>
2,300
MW-I4U
0512B2-MW [4U»GW4W
H0AB4
05/08/12
MX5J
m<5M
M><-5,§
MK5,Ci
KD<5.0
\»-5.n
i,WB
MW-I4M
08B- M W14M-N -07 26 -01
H27S6
07/26/0$
20
\\) 115
ND«l.S
NDcO.S
ND-rfi.S
Mi
77
MW-UM
11 lnB2-MWi4M-CjW-O0
mm4
t'i/SO/IO
ND 11.s
N1X05
ND«;(l.J
NLMX5
Ml- (1
ND-ciij
MW-MM
041 1 B^WWI 4M-GW-Q0
O5.'05/i!
1 R.7
NT)' 1 4i
ND<*i .0
ND<1.0
ND
2.2 3
MW-14M
OS 12B2-MW14 M-GW-tt
110 AB3
mmmi
Mi" 5,0
ND
MW-T4L
081 1B2-MWJ 4 ,-GW-00
H0AK4
08/24/11
20
HD<$-0
ND«5.0
ND<5.0
MD
1.8
2.1
N1K0.5
0-23 J
KI.KIL5
MW-15U
08B-MW15LMSM107431
H2953
) | ,'07/|)8
38
2.1
4.9
N'D<(XS
...
ND<0.5
MW-I5U
IttB-MW15U-N-0515-91
05/15/09
1 n
1.9
3.0
NDcO.S
MD<0.5
MD
-------
TABLE 3
HIS I'OKKWL fiKOl M)U VI EK AN \l \ TIC VI. RENtLih
BmintirtilAVondii C"n>is 5lli South PC K Plume, Ol"2
f)ii» K County, Ltali
\W|I
Sample Viwic
Cl.P Sample
Natne
Sample Date
l'C K
IWl 1
If V
;nsi.)
cK-U
IK (¦
:nsrl t
trans-1,2
DCE
i»t»
Vfnyt
Chloride
WU
<
MTBE
MW.I'l
! I » I IPA1W 1--1 hi
HOATfi
¦ :
11
12
Ml Mi
MXS.O
ND<5.0
MJ ' M
NIIKS.C!
MW IM
ush MV. lM'A SNiU^u]
IKVIW
NO- 0.5
0.1! J
HD
(!.«•) 2.
0.10 J
0.35 J
NB<0.5
M» ¦> =
f»D<0.5
MW -IM
rl Mrfi ' MW !ul
IHM h
nwm
11
NtKO.S
HD-=0.5
MD- -i 2
ND-,I),5
MW Ihl
i 1 i 1 n: MW litl •* A\ -i m
W"\\~
i i !. ¦<
ND<0,5
MW-n
uNii-Mw it \-1111" mi
i p i * ¦=,
11/07/08
i ii
na-m
ND<0.5
ND'5.1)
MW -*M.V
11 nfh:-\iw hi s nw-'iu
n ma--*
ivix/io
u
200
i\%
l.R
2.6
ND<0.5
TO3(-4
lumo
HD<0.J
ND<0.5
ND<0.5
K1X0.5
M) i'l.,'
NIK0.5
MU^SM*
ill! \\\.\\w • s\M jW <«i
IMMi
1.8 J
ND<5.0
MD-:J.O
MDcS.O
_
MW N"
o mw ° i
U/02-W
ND«-2.5
ND<2.5
KO<2.J
ND<2.S
..
MD<2.5
MU-1
i^r-MW iiiVi j
...
1 i / E53/BQ
NtK2.S
M'D<2.5
ND<2.5
ND<2.?
NIK23
„
K0<2.5
MW -] v *
iwfvMW i».-i>i/> . in so*#
U/IM/M
ND
-------
TABLE 3
HISTORICAL GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Bountiful/Woods Cross 5th South PCE Pin,me, OU2
Davis County, Utah
Weil
Sample Name
CLP Sa«np(«
Name
Satmple Date
PCE
TC.E
cU-t,2
DCE
trans-1,2
DCE
Vfnyt
Chloride
Benzene
MTBE
CkA.)
tWU
t»l-»
<»>!>
MW-19"
09B-MW19-109-110309
MIX2.5
2.17J
NIX2.S
NIX2,S
KIX25
..
ND<2,5
MW-H"
tWB - M W i 9-130-11.03 09
il/03/M
HtX2.S
'NIX2.5
NIX 2. J
MX2..S
NIXI-S
....
MIX 2.5
MW-19**
09B-MW19-R8-110309
...
U/03/09
ND<2.5
NIX2.5
NIX.2.5
NIX2.S
NIX2.5
NIX3.5
MW-19"
096 - MW19-130-110409
11/1)4/10
NTX2.5
0,71 J
SLX2.5
ND<2.5
NIX2.5
ND<2.5
W.|?«
()9e-MWi9.t45-lfl)5«»
nmm
ND<2.5
ND-=2.5
NIX3.5
MI.X23
K1.X25
f»0<2.5
M.W-19"
09B-MW19-W3-! 10509
iimsm
NIX2..5
NTX2.5
NJX2.5
NIX 2.5
NIX2.5
N'D<2.5
fcfW-19**
{»B-MW19-2(3-itOSOT
...
ti.«/«
NIX2.5
N1X2.S
ND<2.5
ND<2.5
MIX2.S
MX2.5
MW-190
(WB-MWltlU-l'D-lHKW
...
itfllW
NI.XI.5
NIX 2.5
Ni:x2..s
MIX.2.5
NIX2.5
...
N1.X2J
MW-I9U
11 tOB2.MW19U-GW.IM
H36F5
tl'12-10
ND<«,5
N1XT1..S
MD<0.5
NIXtLJ
ND<05
NIX0.5
NIXIJJ
MW-1WJ
04UB2-MW19U-G\V..0n
....
05/05/1 1
ND<1.0
MXl.O
ND<1.0
NIX 13)
MIX 1.0
ND
KtKS.0
MW-I9U
C1512IJi-MWifU-€;W4»
H0AB9
mmmi
NIX5.II
NtX5.ll
MKS.8
NIX5.0
MXS.ft
NO<5,tt
SB
-------
TABLE 3
HISTORICAL GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Bountiful/Woods Cross 5th South PCE Pin,me, OU2
Davis County, Utah
\WH
Sample Viwic
CU> Sample
Narm1
Sjuiplv Dan*
PCE
TCE
W-)
ch-1.2
DCE
OufU
trans-1,2
DCE
i»t»
Vfnyt
Chloride
w-n
NIK'S.#
ND<5.«
MKSii
NDMT~
1SM\-\\W 1i?- ["VHTnw
!i; *14f 'if*
5.11.
1.4# J
NTX2.5
NTX2.5
ND<2.5
..
N1X1.S
i^hAiw io.i ;•** Hiv.ii'5
Ml W,
(>.97
0.75 i
ND<2.S
KD<2.5
ND
(1.25
0.70 J
ND<2.5
N1K3.5
ND<2.5
„
ND<2.5
MW AnM^
tWi-MW ?iM
il)/J7/i»
3.85
U«u
ND-7.5
NIK2.S
NIK2.5
„
NO<2.5
Mtt _M»M
in) 1 hH!'^
\uosm
3.47
5.12 J
ND<2.5
ND<2.S
ND<2.5
„
ND<2,5
mw o>m
! IWM-UW Ui
IP'.j S
11'11/10
NtXO.S
Nt'X'O.S
MD(»
NDO.O
RD<1 i>
NIKl.Cl
\D 1 ii
NIX LB
MW !0M
iij" ihnm\\:hi\m,\\ ^
05/04/1 !
3.76
1.07
NI)<1,0
HD< 1.0
ND<1.0
M) 1 'i
NDcl.0
MU JiiM
nr-Mvi °^\u,w orr
?Hi
U&.'25-i 1
(,.()
2.SJ
ND-4J)
KD- 1 .i
ND<5.il
MW :»tM
2u\t-c;\\»w
m\( a
1IS/0I/12
S.I
2,3 J
MX5,tt
NDh
MM0
2.S
NLXO.S
ND<».J
ND<0.5
ND<0.5
\i> n -
NtKO.5
MW^M
1 t/18/10
2Jt
0.3? J
ND<0.5
ND<'0.5
ND l.'i
»D<1.0
1ikk.iI »« Tibk- 3 ft,g®.!e, of Hi
G-22
-------
HIS I'OKKWL fiKOl M)U VI EK AN \l \ TIC VI. RENtLih
BmintirtilAVondii C"n>is 5lli South PCK Plume, Ol"2
f)ii» K County, I tali
\MI
Sample Viwic
CI.l* Sample
Name
Sy triple Dale
PCE
««
TCE
cis-U
IK F
¦¦us'tt
trans-1,2
DCE
i»t»
\ iml
C hlunrte
Eji^l 1
MIHK
>
is? i JV-MW } I \M,\\ a-'
l(i i/M i)
¦w- :
11
2,5 J
Ml Mi
NIXJ.O
\n ;¦ u
M > s »i
\n -
! 1 1H*'-M\\:i\UA\ A'i
\ ] > ;'i
M) 'M
MW-ilM
n5I2B2-\im 2I\m;\y-»m
MO \t 1
IB/07/12
6.4
MK5.I1
\!> S.li
ND ; n
' !
11\; -E
(lMl
mmrm
..
NIXSiJ
M. -i
NIXS.O
\d * ^
1 !
UVi
[H-UKM'SjMP-iNl IDS
-
09/11/08
30
1.0 J
\D ¦> ii
MD-hS.O
\H- 0
„
J s* 1
i
:if V,i::-P! AIMi'-l ins
—
00/14/UR
14
f®<5J>
M) =11
NTX5.0
\n ^!!
n !
f AW
! 1 Wh '-nttul-ljW-nu
\\}<* r
11/13/10
ND<0,5
MXtt.S
Ml :t*
ND\\ ;
1 I lUui-uU - v
A
El./13/10
ND<0.5
NIXO.S
Mi IIs
ND<0.5
Ml- i\ <
ND in
Il/M/10
NIXti.5
ND<0.5
\n «-
ND<0,5
\] P u*
ND«X5
\r> -
I'MW-j?
< 1 J'HM'Mtt 'ii)
no .\/i
11/14/! I
24
NEKS.0
\n ii
ND'-S.tl
\n ms
ND<5.0
0.42 J
rMvw;
11 tniV'-PMW 'W-nu
H'uii.i
11/1 I/Ml
2,9
NIX03
NIX0J
N'DO.5
\n -ir
MTXK5
\I>- (i.5
E1 i nwpMW A\-ui
HaW
U>14/1 1
!«
ND<5.0
2.2 J
ND<5.0
M> - !
NIK5.0
¦f?4
I'Mtt
: i: thM'MW :5-iava*
Hdlid!
11/14/1 1
20
N1X5.0
I.8J
HD-=S.ii
\n ^ ^
NIK5.0
¦P.-
¦ 1 >UP-PM\\ 7* {AWtu
If ^1:4
11/S1/10
NTK0.5
N3K0.5
NIXOJ
NIXUJ
\n s"
MD-;C!,5
\D- iiA"
f'MV. -"'4
A\ -tin
05/05/11
8,63
1.34
NIXIil
Nl>-1.(»
M' ] u
N'0< 1 J)
Mr-
pmuo}
usi HVM'Mtt 'I iA\-0n
hum \
08/2W! i
20
3.0 J
i.Si
MD
MV ^ o
ND«5.0
15
I'M'W-'1-!
nvUVM'MW-M.W^
INi\>o
08/26/1 1
2b
3.8 S
1.8 J
NIX5.0
MV * «i
N'D<5.0
r*M\\-"'4
*! tlh'M'MW-MAV-mi
WW-i
11.'14/11
I (i
NIKS .ft
IJ J
ND
os/avn
II
NII<5.«
ND<5.tl
M0<5J
5.n
K.M
PM\\ -24
05l21t2-PMV24-t;>\ -M
MOW 4
omun
13
NCK5.§
NIK5JJ
ND<5.0
M)* 5.H
ND<5.U
W
Sumi-AmmoI 1012 MoniMfin j Repm
Table 3
P»g« iTuf
-------
TABLE 3
HIS I'OKKWL fiKOl M)U VI EK AN \l \ TIC VI. RENtLih
BmintiftilAVondii C"n>is 5lli South PC K Plume, Ol"2
f)ii» K County, Ltali
\W|I
Sample Name
CI.l* Sample
Nairn*
Sy triple Dale
H K
if r
vUAJ
IK F
lrar^-1 J
IK K
\ i«yl
C hlande
lU'HZHH1
(MKl.l
MIHK
' ] USH?.^MW IMAV.nn
II si It)
2i>
- 0 "
M) 0 -
M» (i *
M.» o
Ml u 4
uM iHM'MW UA\-'iU
iJS 1 i
Hi s
NU- 1 u
M> 1 61
M) l '»
\]> \ 'i
MV l.'i
o i
¦ tfUH")-PMW^'-iAVC
...
i>s u5 ] i
?] Q
NTV 1.0
\n in
\n i'i
\l) Hi
M> ] u
u i
I'MW .J*
'>X? [HM'MV. AV-ui
iin,\( 7
W 1 t
21
\| > -,jt
M) ^ 41
Mf 11 M
M> Mi
\ n- r 11
\n ^ u
VMW-I*
MM BIM'MW :\\ 4)0
II Ui]
\n- - u
Ml- s {(
Nl> 5 0
\n 5.o
xn mi
M) ?M
Ml r
PMW -25
<»SJ2tU-l'MVVI5-<;*X-WI
MOM 5
H50-M2
3Jt J
ND-S.il
Nil- 5.0
Ml- 5.0
M)-5.0
M><5.0
MV^.O
* 1 ilifSM'MW
| (.rtii ?(»
II 11 1U
\h 4i *
\D r, s
Ml-
\n> o ¦<
M>-
MV M r
M ~ 'i >
0>r' > < :\\.uu
>hi i i
\D* 1 n
\n Hi
NU HI
N3> Iji
\n Ht
Ml- 1 (I
Mi Hi
uSM IV FMW'^-MVutl
Hi i'\f 1
14 1
\\) I
Xil' ^ 1 i
M)
M) vii
\!» " 'i
\n -m
M> .t
i'M\\
MM HIM'Mtt in
1 lo\/^
f 1 N!< 1 1
Nl> * o
xn 50
Ml 5 «•
M» -,*J
Ml * u
|»M\\ -J!f>
OJUH^PMW -00
MOM 7
IM7.I2
M>- 5.0
MK5.0
M>-5.0
\O-5.0
M><5.0
Ml-5.0
Sample identification code: ("<5i2B? ~ May 2012,
MWI <>L»- Moniteriii
GW = Groiindwrster
01) ~ Target sample
NOTES;
PCIi Teimcliloroetheae
ICE - TnebforoctaM?
DCK ^"Dicfilorocthene
\tgil, * Micrograms per liter
Sf* » SimutPr»be<& sample
J - J flu# laboratory tlaui iiaalifi-cr indicates resaEi h an estimated vuiuc hemeeo the M'DL mid irli-vjit
NEX Amslyie imi dlei.jj.C6ed m &' ssb-ave sotted method1 defection llmti
— =; Hq{ available
Daii.1 presented in bold represent?- J ,i i s^lk-.unf dir m: lIu- « hi-i !\\sTt \m nJw i ei iwvi t tut' e'vent i v>m Vnu, >1 'u 1J i
* MW-!BtiS/UD<*M are OU1 well - rt ,<\tn si; .suits "im i ^er«* .-te Hie w.ied m tins il'K ^ s iii-,.* "'.c- ' ,*¦ m. u>L I mi i*i.y '
because ihey provide utklmona1 d r M < <, ilu ie < >1 y>^ -L; jila>TK-
*si.fcpth-discrct-i; samples collected during well mslyltetkm
Bountiful OU2
: well mmiher
JO Duplicate i
mA
S«at-AftH«aJ 20! 2 MariNriag Rejwn
Table J
Page IS <»r is
G-24
-------
¦at menu
'Dlscilar qerBqmtj
lEWffl
i;ir^tmentii=ijLil lil IriTljti^^PjQr^illjTT;
oecoQ
fiBiilffa'r!®? jt? Sountiij v* ^E^pisiwrcjsg'jEw r
FIGURE 3
GROUNDWATER
EXTRACTION
AND TREATMENT
SYSTEM
BountifulM/oods Cross
5th South PCE Plume
Operable Unit 2
LEGEND
Groundwater Extraction Wei!
Process Piping
i Discharge Line
State Plane Coordinate System
Utah North Zone - NAD 83
.delta PhotqirSv Pr.
G-25
-------
Path: K:\GlS Uwary^Dt5^115 Bountjful*WC GWTRGlS'iWapslfigT'figure ? Upper Zone PCE Plume, 06t5*2.mxd
FIGURE 7
DISSOLVED PCE PLUME
IN THE UPPER ZONE
Bountiful/Woods Cross
5th South PCE Plume
Operable Unit 2
LEGEND
OU2 Source Area
NOTES
1) Data ton cxtyOLU vn'to
' * Vi'tlU VV-1S JS'UD arc
^AV-27 USiUO are OU i «#s
Jt Mfiian^l£rmeaSiHeS*jiS- 5T2012 ki 5|®ZB12
^ Historical <&3a corakJwW in plae^ftfrt al
i&acwranraxn lines
ypwx e
0 SCO ^.w
1 I I
Sedan Fee
State Plane Coordinate System
Utah North Zone-NAD 63
St.. wtui «e» f«. isoa
*&'. 0oOT.Gui«i-qi>4-*rs)»«l lS=
Groundwater Monitoring Well
Groundwater Extraction W§il
PCE ConcentraBon
In nucrograsrasfctef (/^H)
Anafyie not detected at
or above Reporting sjniit
Warm Springs Fault
Dissolved PCE teocooosntration
(Dashed where inferred)
Dissdved PCE 10 pgi'L
dissolved PC£ S.fl iig/L
(Maximum Cortamlftant Level)
MW06U +
EWJ
G-26
-------
FIGURE 8
DISSOLVED PCE PLUME
IN THE MIDDLE ZONE
Bountiful/Woods Cross
5th South PCE Plume
Operable Unit 2
LEGEND
Groundwater Monitoring Well
Groundwater Extraction Well
Domestic Groundwater
Production Well
PCE Concentration
in micrograms/liter (pg/L)
Analyte not detected at
or above Reporting Limit
J indicates estimated value
between MDL and Reporting Limit
Warm Springs Fault
Dissolved PCE Isoconcentration
(Dashed where inferred)
|ND
-------
YpWT £
«CfC VSnEBl'TKWOLOQEI OH '"f _ "
FIGURE 9
DISSOLVED PCE PLUME
IN THE LOWER ZONE
BountifulWoods Cross
5th South PCE Plume
Operable Unit 2
notes
State Plane Coordinate System
Utah North Zone ¦ NAD 83
=h-.-ij«eT
2012
3>
Historical data considered
in placement of isoconceutration lines
MW02L #
ew-4 ^
OW07 •
2)
G-28
-------
Sn
jHMWIfB N.
/
,r"
HMWttD
J
A
*im!th
BOUNTIFUL / WOODS CROSS NPL SITE
OPERABLE UNIT 1
3RD ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT - ADDENDUM
PAST INJECTION WELL AND CURRENT MONITORING WELL
TCE AND CAH EXTENT IN GROUNDWATER AND PDB LOCATIONS - DEEP PORTION SOURCE AREA
DESIGNED: NTS
DRAWN: MK
CHECKED: RW
DATE: May 2012
FILE: FK5 A-2.pdf
SCALE: r=60'
FIGURE
NO.
A-2
G-29
-------
DESIGNED: NTS
DRAWN: MK
CHECKED: RW
DATE: May 2012
RLE: FIG A-1.pdf
SCALE: 1' —60F
<£KkT
BOUNTIFUL / WOODS CROSS NPL SITE
OPERABLE UNIT 1
3RD ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT - ADDENDUM
PAST INJECTION WELL AND CURRENT MONITORING WELL
TCE AND CAH EXTENT IN GROUNDWATER AND PDB LOCATIONS - SHALLOW PORTION SOURCE AREA
FIGURE
NO.
A-1
G-30
-------
Appendix H: Detailed Data Review Findings for OU1 and OU2
QUI
Source Area Monitoring Wells
VOC concentrations in the source area monitoring wells have remained low with the exception
of a hot spot at HMW-17D and at HMW-16D. Other than at HMW-17D, all monitoring wells
have VOC concentrations below the 200 ppb active treatment criterion. TCE was detected at
OSMU, SLMU, HMW-15S, and HMW-16S, but only exceeded the MCL at HMW-15S (5.5
|ig/L), Cis-1,2 -DCE and vinyl chloride were also detected at most source area monitoring wells,
but cis-l,2-DCE concentrations were well below the MCL and vinyl chloride concentrations
were below or slightly above the MCL.
The only well outside of the hot spot with a substantial increase in any of the COCs was HMW-
16D. At HMW-16D, the concentration of cis-DCE nearly doubled between 2011 (48 |ig/L) and
2012 (83 |ig/L), while the concentration of TCE declined nearly 75 percent since November
2011. These observations suggest that reductive dechlorination has been established near the
well. According to the 2012 annual monitoring report, the establishment of reducing conditions
and progress of dechlorination at this well provide promising results from the electron donor
injection.
During the review period, HMW-17D hot spot results reflect a transition via reductive
dechlorination from TCE to DCE, vinyl chloride and ethene. The dechlorination of TCE to
ethene is the measure used to determine the effectiveness and success of the remedy. TCE
concentrations remained below the detection limit and cis-DCE declined by an order of
magnitude, from 31,000 |ig/L to 3,600 |ig/L from November 2011 to March 2012. Benzene
concentrations have only exceeded the MCL three times over the review period. The highest
benzene concentration observed was barely above the MCL at 7 |ig/L in August 2011.In
addition, vinyl chloride declined from 16,000 |ig/L to 9,000 |ig/L, while ethene increased from
939 |ig/L to 1,440 |ig/L in the same timeframe. This represents the largest decline to date in
COC concentrations, coupled with the highest concentration of ethene observed during the
monitoring program. The total CAH concentration at the well is now 12,840 ppb, less than 20
percent of the all-time high of nearly 65,000 ppb in May 2010. These results indicate that the
combination of emulsified oil and sodium lactate injections has produced a highly-reducing
environment that is allowing for sustained dechlorination to ethene.
Biobarrier #1 Monitoring Wells
At HMW-18S, VOC concentrations during the March 2012 event remained low, which has been
the case since 2010. At the HMW-18D hot spot, TCE and cis-l,2-DCE concentrations dropped
below MCLs, and vinyl chloride (although still well above the MCL at 530 |ig/L) decreased by
over 25 percent since November 2011. Decreases in COC concentrations were coupled with a
greater than 50 percent increase in ethene concentrations. The ethene concentration of 343 |ig/L
in HMW-18S during March 2012 was the highest concentration observed at the well to date.
These observations, along with the reducing conditions observed, suggest that the biobarrier is
successfully degrading the contaminant mass as it passes through. Similar to HMW-17D, it is
critical to maintain this high rate of dechlorination until the total CAH concentrations at this well
decline, at least to less than the active treatment criterion.
H-l
-------
Downgradient of biobarrier #1, COC concentrations remained low at HMW-19S. COC
concentrations at this well declined by November 2010 and have remained at, near or below
MCLs since then. Although still above the MCL of 2 |ig/L, vinyl chloride concentrations in
HMW-19S declined from 4.9 |ig/L at the November 2011 sampling to 3.2 |ig/L in March 2012.
At HMW-19D, COC concentrations are still well above MCLs and increased slightly since
November 2011, but remained at least 25 percent lower than the highest concentrations observed
at the well.
Biobarrier #2 and #3 Monitoring Wells
Within biobarrier #2, VOC concentrations declined from 2009 through 2011 but remained
relatively constant in 2011 and 2012 at HMW-20D and HMW-29D. In 2012, concentrations of
TCE and vinyl chloride were above MCLs at both wells. In addition, cis-l,2-DCE concentrations
in HMW-29D exceeded the MCL. Concentrations for all COCs but PCE remained well above
MCLs at HMW-20S and HMW-34S. TCE concentrations decreased at these locations, while
concentrations of degradation products (cis-DCE and vinyl chloride at HMW-34S, and cis-DCE
at HMW-20S) increased, indicating that conversion of TCE may be occurring at these locations.
VOC concentrations remained relatively constant at HMW-28D and HMW-29S.
By March 2012, TCE concentrations at biobarrier #3, MW-2D decreased and vinyl chloride
concentrations increased. Most notably, ethene was detected in MW-2D during March 2012,
indicating that dechlorination is occurring at this location. At MW-2S, a slight decrease in TCE
occurred by March 2012, combined with a slight increase in vinyl chloride. At HMW-30D, the
TCE concentration decreased and cis-DCE concentration increased, indicating that some
degradation is occurring at these locations as well. The remaining biobarrier #3 monitoring wells
(HMW-3 ID, HMW-32S, and HMW-33S) did not exhibit notable changes in VOC
concentrations during the most recent sampling event.
HMW-23D had a PCE concentration of 28 |ig/L and a TCE concentration of 17 |ig/L during the
November 2011 sampling event. The screening interval for this well is 79 to 94 feet below
ground surface and is the lowest screening levels of the existing wells. This well was not
sampled during the March 2012 event. Theses detections of VOCs indicate that the ability to
define the plume vertically is limited.
Overall, sampling data from the review period indicate that the selected remedy is performing as
designed. Data analysis verifies the presence of reducing conditions and strongly suggests that
the biobarriers are successfully degrading the contaminant mass as it passes through. Additional
monitoring will be necessary to observe long-term trends better define the plume and ensure the
effectiveness of the implemented remedy.
OU2
PCE is the most prevalent and highly concentrated COC in the OU2 groundwater. The analytical
results from the review period indicate that the down-gradient PCE plume with concentrations
above the MCL extends west of the Holly Refinery in the Middle and Lower Zones. Analytical
data indicate decreasing levels of PCE in the Upper Zone from east to west away from the source
as it migrates downgradient. In general, the PCE contamination in the Upper Zone of the aquifer
is well delineated, with the highest levels of contamination centered near the source close to well
H-2
-------
MW-16U. PCE concentrations at MW-16U increased between the baseline 2010 sampling event
(11 |ig/L) and the annual 2011 sampling event (100 |ig/L). The groundwater elevation rose
approximately 14 feet in Upper Zone OU2 source area wells in 2011. The significant increase in
the PCE concentration observed in well MW-16U appears to be related to the rise in
groundwater to approximately 68 feet bgs, which caused the water to come in contact with
contaminated soil. During the November 2012 monitoring event, a significant decrease in
groundwater elevation (11.7 foot drop) was observed in MW-16U, when compared to the
groundwater elevation from the November 2011 monitoring event, along with a significant
decrease in PCE concentrations, from 100 |ig/L in November 2011 to 14 |ig/L in November
2012. During that time, a significant increase in PCE concentrations has occurred in well MW-
17U, located approximately 375 feet west (down-gradient) from well MW-16U. A PCE
concentration of 84 [j,g/L was detected in the MW-17U sample, which is slightly lower, but
comparable, to the 100 [j,g/L PCE detected in the sample collected from MW-16U during the
annual groundwater sampling event in November 2011. PCE contamination is virtually absent in
the Upper Zone from the Warm Springs Fault to the west (Figure 5).
Conversely, the Middle and Lower Zones demonstrate higher concentrations of PCE to the west
as the contaminant plume migrates vertically between aquifer zones, and moves laterally within
the Middle and Lower confined artesian aquifer zones. The extent of the dissolved PCE plume,
as defined by the furthest detected value of PCE, is approximately 1.6 miles west-northwest from
the source. This plume direction matches the regional groundwater flow.
Overall, the number of COC MCL exceedances across all zones has decreased since the 2010
baseline sampling event. With the exception of the significant change in concentrations in wells
MW-16U and MW-17U, PCE concentrations across the site remained relatively consistent with
the previous sampling events. In 2010, wells within all the three zones had PCE, TCE, benzene
and vinyl chloride exceedances. Since 2010, no benzene or vinyl chloride exceedances have been
observed, and TCE exceedances have been minimal. TCE exceedances have been detected in
two Upper Zone wells since 2010, MW-12U (6.5 |ig/L [8/31/2011] and 6.6 |ig/L [11/14/2012])
and MW-16U (12 |ig/L [11/19/2011] and 7.4 |ig/L [1/9/2012]). A single TCE exceedance was
observed at the Middle Zone well MW08M on 11/20/2012 at a concentration of 5.4 |ig/L. In
2012, TCE was not detected in any of the Lower Zone wells, and trans-1,2-DCE, 1,1-DCE, vinyl
chloride, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes were not detected in any wells.
A comparison of 2012 PCE plume maps of the three different zones and data from the 2010
baseline sampling event through the annual 2012 sampling event indicate that the plume location
has remained relatively stable since 2010 (Appendix G). This suggests that the hydraulic
containment system is effectively preventing downgradient plume migration.
Soil gas and indoor air samples are analyzed for 1,2,4- and 1,3,5-TMB, but groundwater samples
are not because the EPA does not currently consider TMB a primary risk driver in groundwater
and because it is not available in the standard VOC analysis through the EPA Contract
Laboratory Program.
H-4
-------
Domestic Groundwater Well Monitoring
The ROD called for residences with affected domestic wells to be connected to municipal water
supplies. At the time of the OU2 ROD, only seven domestic wells were determined to be
affected by PCE contamination. Although there are many domestic wells in the area, the RI/FS
determined that COCs at the Site affected very few wells used for potable uses. Domestic
groundwater well sampling has been conducted by the EPA periodically since June 2003. This
data review included domestic well data from 2003 to 2012. Dissolved PCE has been detected in
many of the domestic wells at concentrations as high as 58 |ig/L (DW25 in 2007), which is
significantly above the MCL of 5.0 |ig/L. The highest PCE concentrations are routinely observed
in wells within the middle aquifer zone. Wells DW25 and DW16 routinely had the highest PCE
concentrations over the review period. Both of those wells are located in the southwestern corner
of the middle zone PCE plume, west of the Warm Springs Fault (Appendix G). DW25
experienced increasing PCE concentrations between May 2010 (19 |ig/L) and November
2011(32 |ig/L), However, institutional controls restrict the use of groundwater for human
consumption within the plume area. According to the Annual 2012 Groundwater Monitoring and
System Performance Report, the majority of the domestic wells are used only for irrigation and
livestock. However, the report also states that some of the wells were previously used for
drinking water.
Groundwater Treatment System Performance Monitoring
This data review included treatment system data from February 2, 2011 through December 31,
2012. Treatment system samples are analyzed for the full list of VOCs which includes the
following constituents: PCE, TCE, cis-l,2-DCE, vinyl chloride, MTBE, benzene, toluene,
ethylbenzene, total xylenes and naphthalene. As expected, system influent routinely has PCE
concentrations above the MCL. However, the GWTS influent PCE concentrations have remained
relatively stable over the review period with only minor variations. Treatment system effluent
samples collected during the review period were below maximum allowable discharge limits.
During the review period, there were no exceedances of effluent discharge limits for any of the
analytes listed in the Utah Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (UPDES) equivalent permit.
As of December 26, 2012, the GWTS has treated approximately 77,561,983 gallons of PCE-
contaminated groundwater and removed an estimated PCE mass of 9.08 pounds (lbs) from the
subsurface. Approximately 1.68 lbs of PCE mass have been removed at EW-1, 4.10 lbs at EW-2,
2.57 lbs at EW-3, and 0.24 lbs at EW-4. Under the state water rights allocation, the GWTS can
extract up to 160 acre-feet (52,136,229 gallons) of water per year, which approximates a
continuous flow rate of 100 gpm. The GWTS extracts groundwater from the four extraction
wells at flow rates within water rights extraction limits. On August 15, 2012, following the third
quarter GWTS sampling event, the combined system extraction rate was increased to maximize
groundwater pumping volume under the water rights allocation. Following the pumping increase,
EW-1 averaged 8.9 gpm, EW-2 averaged 53 gpm, EW-3 averaged 27 gpm, and EW-4 averaged
8.2 gpm and the treatment system operated at an average combined groundwater influent flow
rate of approximately 94 gpm. The GWTS data indicates that the system is operating within its
designed capacity and effectively removing PCE from the Site's groundwater.
Soil gas and indoor air sampling
H-4
-------
The EPA had PWT conduct a comprehensive review of soil gas and indoor air sampling at the
BCI property in September 2012. The report details all soil gas and indoor air sampling that has
occurred at the OU2 source area. Historical investigations identified trace levels of PCE in
shallow soil beneath the existing BCI building and to the north and west of the building, and in
deeper (>60 feet bgs) soils to the south of the building. PCE in soil beneath the source area has
been delineated horizontally and vertically.
The EPA conducted multiple investigations related to vapor intrusion and the OU2 source area.
On December 20, 2011, the EPA submitted a letter to the owner of BCI providing the results
from the October 20, 2011 indoor air sampling event. The letter stated that the PCE
concentrations detected in indoor air in Suites 2 and 3 presented a potential unacceptable
exposure risk to workers in those suites and requested that BCI take the appropriate steps to
eliminate the exposure. Accordingly, BCI removed a PCE dry cleaning machine, thought to be
contributing to the results, from the Bountiful Family Cleaners on January 28, 2012. Additional
investigation activities are necessary to re-evaluate indoor air concentrations following removal
of the PCE dry cleaning machine, to re-evaluate the soil gas to indoor air exposure pathway in
the BCI building, and to determine whether VOCs are present in soil gas at concentrations above
risk-based target levels.
The EPA's contractor conducted additional vapor intrusion investigation activities on the BCI
property in July 2012 to evaluate if the existing building on the property could be at risk from
subsurface vapor intrusion and to assess whether operational changes at the Bountiful Family
Cleaners have influenced indoor air concentrations observed during the previous sampling
events. The EPA determined that cancer risks from indoor air at the BCI building are almost
entirely due to concentrations of PCE in air, with much smaller contributions from TCE and
other VOCs. Based on the July 2012 concentrations of PCE and other VOCs in basement indoor
air, cancer risks to workers in the BCI building basement slightly exceed the more conservative
target cancer risk level of 1E-06 (one in one-million), but do not exceed the target cancer risk
level of 1E-04. Based on the recent indoor air data, the levels of PCE in indoor air on the main
floor of the BCI building are below the reference concentration (RfC). The levels of PCE in
indoor air in the basement of the BCI building are above the RfC. These results imply there is
potentially an unacceptable risk of chronic health effects due to long-term exposure to PCE in
basement indoor air.
The September 2012 PWT study of soil gas and indoor air sampling at the BCI property stated
that an additional cold month sampling event is needed to comply with current EPA guidance
requiring multiple sampling events to characterize long-term exposure risks. Following the
receipt of additional data from the next groundwater, soil gas and indoor air sampling event, the
EPA plans to complete a comprehensive evaluation of potential soil vapor intrusion associated
with the source area at OU2.
H-5
------- |