04_AECOM_Environmental Report_Final

General Chemistry Raw Data Report Job ID: 140-37968-1 Batch: 89834 Method: 202 InOrg CPM Analyst Initials: SJF Instrument: NONE [ Lab Sample ID: 140-37968-A-3 Analysis Date: Aug 12, 2024 13:48 Initial Analyte Detector Dilution Raw Result Unit Amount Inorganic Condensible Particulate Matter None 4 8135 ug/Semple 128.8 mL Lab Sample ID: 140-37968-A-8 Analysis Date: Aug 12, 2024 13:48 Initial Analyte Detector Dilution Raw Result Unit Amount Inorganic Condensible Particulate Matter None 1 5165 ug/Sample 146.7 mL Lab Sample ID: 140-37968-A-13 Analysis Date: Aug 12, 2024 13:48 Initial Analyte Detector Dilution Raw Result Unit Amount Inorganic Condensible Particulate Matter None 1 19450 ug/Sample 148.9 mL Lab Sample ID: 140-37968-A-18 Analysis Date: Aug 12, 2024 13:48 Initial Analyte Detector Dilution Raw Result Unit Amount Inorganic Condensible Particulate Matter None 1 7825 ug/Sample 48.5 mL Lab Sample ID: 140-37968-A-27 Analysis Date: Aug 12, 2024 13:48 Initial Analyte Detector Dilution Raw Result Unit Amount Inorganic Condensible Particulate Matter None 1 5970 ug/Sample 739.5 mL Eurofins Knoxville Page 72 of 88 8/21/2024 12:21:54 PM

TestAmerica Knoxville High Volume Particulate Filter Gross Weight Data Analyst: SFBTGR Balanee Model: weight date: 39/2024 8/19/2924 19/2024 Balance SN: Temp‘: 214 weight time | _ 10:42 a5? 15:13 Methad mathod 5 % Humidity: rT Parieulaton 1 WARNING | report not finalized wu ype Lng sonpet | UMSTare | fiteri> — | Tere vsgn [St WON Seon ight ross Weigh) Sone WASH] ss veoh | Relemice | g gy | Teme | Temp | Homi] Hurt | earinsae visi Sample ID Number wl 4 2 3 4 @ Ajima) Tare |Tolerance| Tara |Tolerance} (otal pg) RETR TE TL a TS Refersnce Weight Sq 4.93977 4.99374 4.93975 4.99975) 0.25 OK [Reference Weight 190g 99.99900 99.999.20 99.99910 99,99910] 0.99 OK Zero Check 0.09090. 0.90902 0.09090. 6.90000) 09 OK rice visa TREES ea eS et a res Filler Meight 140-37968-A-8 $4. 98585, 3.9304? 3895079 63,96103) oA? OK 3165) Filter sight 449-37 365-A-13 S.02202 30.64154 £5,54147| O44 OK Feros Tae Spann [op a ee a Fier vicat agrees Sees | sss oe a aa Filter Weight 140-37903-A-4 $3,83845 3.89220 63,39225| 6.09 OK 3310) icra rans Surazee[—scvarar | asaana Bhaaigs[ nat —[ ok san Filter V'eight 140-37383-4-14 3.427041 $3.43276 63.43263 6343276) GA OK 5385) Filler Vs'eight 140-37 965-A-13. §9.72400 $0.72639 08.72580 65,72585) 0.03 OK 2245] Fiervisant TITER Ss [ spe | sea? eesti ago 3378 tras WTO qeaais | nasi | OS enasnet at —| oR Relerence Weight Sg 4.93975 4.99974 4.33973 4.99973) 0.22 OK 99.99900 9999910 99.99910 99,99910} 0.99 OK Fe ae eaanitt hat ok waight set 9 Fle tame Printed 202024721 AM ZA Trac\Agriwes_hateh_21240A12 jn122) version 4.4 Pago 1 aft Page 73 of 88 8/21/2024 12:21:54 PM

Method(s): Analyst: Ms /M202. m6 {TaP Balance ID: Date (mm/dd/yyyy): AS 08/157 2624 Sample ID: Volume (mL): YO- 21 A- | [ey HO- 379 ye 4-3 [12% HO- 370g -A-4 | HS. 5 Ho- 37110 Aol o3-% HO-2 14s - A | [At HO-s70%-Ag | HPO Ho-sios-A-) {| ioF.F HO- PUFA 1a | WAS 4 HO- St -A-H | 32.0 Ho-aMs AW | Sty WH 2 4 -A 1% UBS (40-3 Piss-A -P 32.0 10-379 0%-A-1| 82.2 HO-270Y- A= 27 \a75 WO-S AWS -A = 25% Ze.” Page 74 of 88 8/21/2024 12:21:54 PM

Eurofins Knoxville Particulate Matter Determination Data Review/Narrative Checklist Method: EPA Method 202 by SOP KNOX-WG-0006, Rev, 14 Batch Number: 89834, 89835 Job Number(s}: 37968 Analyst Name: SFB/TMB/TGR Method Citation: M202 Drying Filters O Ambient O Other. Temperature Inorganic CPE (202) 2 Ambient O Other. Organic CPE (202) (Ambient 0 Other. Extracted and Combined per Method 292 Review Items Section 1: Calibration NIA If No, why is data reportable? 1. Was the daily balance calibration check performed and recorded in the balance calibration check log book? 2. Was the balance zero and calibration checked with three weights that bracket the range to be measured prior to use? were used, C Other weights bracketing weight range 3. Was the balance checked with 100 gram weight per 10 samples and at the end of weighing session? C Another weight was used. grams) . Was the balance zero checked per 10 samples and at the end of weighing session? . Was the balance tared before each weighing? . Was the oven ID documented? 4. 6. §. Was the balance ID documented? 7. 8. . Was pH paper ID documented? [>< >< [><] | |< ]>¢]><]><] >< | ><] o¢ [A 2 Section 2; Tare Weight Procedure 1. Were the beakers weighed in TALS batch? 4 FilterTracl¥ 2. Were the beakers baked before weighing? 3. Were all tare weights performed in duplicate? beakers. Duplicate weights not required for baked 4. Were all tare weights averaged? >} ><} ><) >< Section 3: Procedure 1. Were all special project requirements met? (Review all Backlog Comments and Project Documents.) 2. Were sample IDs verified? (Review Job Numbers and Client IDs on sample labels.) 3. Were all sample weights performed in duplicate (at least)? 4. Was the average of the last two weights used? be PX [| Calculations checked for error? Sample 9796*3-18 (Weight 1 + Weight 2)/2= 8.31479 Gross Weight Average - Tare Weight Average = ¥°1S459 > | ><] ><] ><] >« Section 4: TALS Reporting . Was Batch Information added? Correct analyst name recorded? Does the analytical time match the beginning of the last set of weights? .. Were applicable documents scanned and added? NCM No.: . Was appropriate narrative NCM added? x NCM No: _x [6054] 1 2. 3. 4. Are all non-conformances documented? 8. 6. . Final report acceptable? (Results, units, analysis dates are correct. Flags and/or errors were

iate narrative NCM added? x NCM No: _x [6054] 1 2. 3. 4. Are all non-conformances documented? 8. 6. . Final report acceptable? (Results, units, analysis dates are correct. Flags and/or errors were addressed.) BS XK | <1>« | ><] >K | >< 15 Level Reviewer: SFB Date: 8/20/2024 2 Level Reviewer: DCW Date: 8/20/24 Comments: Comments: Page 75 of 88 WC106RS, 09/08/22 8/21/2024 12:21:54 PM

General Chemistry Raw Data Report Job ID: 140-37968-1 Batch: 89835 Method: 202 Org CPM Analyst Initials: SJF Instrument: NONE [ Lab Sample ID: 140-37968-A-4 Analysis Date: Aug 12, 2024 13:49 Analysis Date: Aug 12, 2024 13:49 Analysis Date: Aug 12, 2024 13:49 Analysis Date: Aug 12, 2024 13:49 Analysis Date: Aug 12, 2024 13:49 Analyte Detector Dilution Raw Result Unit Organic Condensible Particulate Matter None 1 3810 ug/Sample Lab Sample ID: 140-37968-A-9 Analyte Detector Dilution Raw Result Unit Organic Condensible Particulate Matter None 1 3960 ug/Sample Lab Sample ID: 140-37968-A-14 Analyte Detector Dilution Raw Result Unit Organic Condensible Particulate Matter None 1 5685 ug/Sample Lab Sample ID: 140-37968-A-19 Analyte Detector Dilution Raw Result Unit Organic Condensible Particulate Matter None 1 2845 ug/Sample Lab Sample ID: 140-37968-A-28 Analyte Detector Dilution Raw Result Unit Organic Condensible Particulate Matter None 1 3875 ug/Sample Page 76 of 88 Eurofins Knoxville 8/21/2024 12:21:54 PM

TestAmerica Knoxville High Volume Particulate Filter Gross Weight Data Analyst: SFBTGR Balanee Model: weight date: 39/2024 8/19/2924 19/2024 Balance SN: Temp‘: 214 weight time | _ 10:42 a5? 15:13 Methad mathod 5 % Humidity: rT Parieulaton 1 WARNING | report not finalized wu ype Lng sonpet | UMSTare | fiteri> — | Tere vsgn [St WON Seon ight ross Weigh) Sone WASH] ss veoh | Relemice | g gy | Teme | Temp | Homi] Hurt | earinsae visi Sample ID Number wl 4 2 3 4 @ Ajima) Tare |Tolerance| Tara |Tolerance} (otal pg) RETR TE TL a TS Refersnce Weight Sq 4.93977 4.99374 4.93975 4.99975) 0.25 OK [Reference Weight 190g 99.99900 99.999.20 99.99910 99,99910] 0.99 OK Zero Check 0.09090. 0.90902 0.09090. 6.90000) 09 OK rice visa TREES ea eS et a res Filler Meight 140-37968-A-8 $4. 98585, 3.9304? 3895079 63,96103) oA? OK 3165) Filter sight 449-37 365-A-13 S.02202 30.64154 £5,54147| O44 OK Feros Tae Spann [op a ee a Fier vicat agrees Sees | sss oe a aa Filter Weight 140-37903-A-4 $3,83845 3.89220 63,39225| 6.09 OK 3310) icra rans Surazee[—scvarar | asaana Bhaaigs[ nat —[ ok san Filter V'eight 140-37383-4-14 3.427041 $3.43276 63.43263 6343276) GA OK 5385) Filler Vs'eight 140-37 965-A-13. §9.72400 $0.72639 08.72580 65,72585) 0.03 OK 2245] Fiervisant TITER Ss [ spe | sea? eesti ago 3378 tras WTO qeaais | nasi | OS enasnet at —| oR Relerence Weight Sg 4.93975 4.99974 4.33973 4.99973) 0.22 OK 99.99900 9999910 99.99910 99,99910} 0.99 OK Fe ae eaanitt hat ok waight set 9 Fle tame Printed 202024721 AM ZA Trac\Agriwes_hateh_21240A12 jn122) version 4.4 Pago 1 aft Page 77 of 88 8/21/2024 12:21:54 PM

Method(s): Analyst: Ms /M202. m6 {TaP Balance ID: Date (mm/dd/yyyy): AS 08/157 2624 Sample ID: Volume (mL): YO- 21 A- | [ey HO- 379 ye 4-3 [12% HO- 370g -A-4 | HS. 5 Ho- 37110 Aol o3-% HO-2 14s - A | [At HO-s70%-Ag | HPO Ho-sios-A-) {| ioF.F HO- PUFA 1a | WAS 4 HO- St -A-H | 32.0 Ho-aMs AW | Sty WH 2 4 -A 1% UBS (40-3 Piss-A -P 32.0 10-379 0%-A-1| 82.2 HO-270Y- A= 27 \a75 WO-S AWS -A = 25% Ze.” Page 78 of 88 8/21/2024 12:21:54 PM

Eurofins Knoxville Particulate Matter Determination Data Review/Narrative Checklist Method: EPA Method 202 by SOP KNOX-WG-0006, Rev, 14 Batch Number: 89834, 89835 Job Number(s}: 37968 Analyst Name: SFB/TMB/TGR Method Citation: M202 Drying Filters O Ambient O Other. Temperature Inorganic CPE (202) 2 Ambient O Other. Organic CPE (202) (Ambient 0 Other. Extracted and Combined per Method 292 Review Items Section 1: Calibration NIA If No, why is data reportable? 1. Was the daily balance calibration check performed and recorded in the balance calibration check log book? 2. Was the balance zero and calibration checked with three weights that bracket the range to be measured prior to use? were used, C Other weights bracketing weight range 3. Was the balance checked with 100 gram weight per 10 samples and at the end of weighing session? C Another weight was used. grams) . Was the balance zero checked per 10 samples and at the end of weighing session? . Was the balance tared before each weighing? . Was the oven ID documented? 4. 6. §. Was the balance ID documented? 7. 8. . Was pH paper ID documented? [>< >< [><] | |< ]>¢]><]><] >< | ><] o¢ [A 2 Section 2; Tare Weight Procedure 1. Were the beakers weighed in TALS batch? 4 FilterTracl¥ 2. Were the beakers baked before weighing? 3. Were all tare weights performed in duplicate? beakers. Duplicate weights not required for baked 4. Were all tare weights averaged? >} ><} ><) >< Section 3: Procedure 1. Were all special project requirements met? (Review all Backlog Comments and Project Documents.) 2. Were sample IDs verified? (Review Job Numbers and Client IDs on sample labels.) 3. Were all sample weights performed in duplicate (at least)? 4. Was the average of the last two weights used? be PX [| Calculations checked for error? Sample 9796*3-18 (Weight 1 + Weight 2)/2= 8.31479 Gross Weight Average - Tare Weight Average = ¥°1S459 > | ><] ><] ><] >« Section 4: TALS Reporting . Was Batch Information added? Correct analyst name recorded? Does the analytical time match the beginning of the last set of weights? .. Were applicable documents scanned and added? NCM No.: . Was appropriate narrative NCM added? x NCM No: _x [6054] 1 2. 3. 4. Are all non-conformances documented? 8. 6. . Final report acceptable? (Results, units, analysis dates are correct. Flags and/or errors were

iate narrative NCM added? x NCM No: _x [6054] 1 2. 3. 4. Are all non-conformances documented? 8. 6. . Final report acceptable? (Results, units, analysis dates are correct. Flags and/or errors were addressed.) BS XK | <1>« | ><] >K | >< 15 Level Reviewer: SFB Date: 8/20/2024 2 Level Reviewer: DCW Date: 8/20/24 Comments: Comments: Page 79 of 88 WC106RS, 09/08/22 8/21/2024 12:21:54 PM