12033 N Tryon Soil Vapor Assessment Report 20091019

Soil Vapor Assessment Report
N. Tryon St. Commercial Properties
Former Ira Griffin & Sons,
Nisbet Oil and Latimer Facilities
Charlotte, North Carolina
Brownfields Project 12033-08-60
H&H Job No. IVM-002
October 19r 2009
Hart & Hicknan
2923 South Tryon Street
Suite 100
Charlotte, NC 28203
704-s86-0007
3334 Hillsborough Street
Raleigh, NC 27607
9t9-847-424r
I Section
I
I Table of Contents
Pase No.
1.0 Introduction.............
r 2.0 Previous Assessment Activities
I 3.0 SoiI Vapor Assessment.............. .................6
3.1 Soil Vapor Sampling Methods.... ........... 6
7.2 Yapor Sample ResultsI i:? J.lflli:#*ll}'i:;# :: ::: :: : :::::: :::;I J.3 Soil Vapor Data Screening............
r 4.0 Conclusions and Recommendations..... ....................12
I 5.0 References................ ............... 14
I
List of Tables
r Table 1 Summary of Soil Vapor Analytical Detections
Table2 Summary of Soil Vapor Screening
I
List of Fisures
r Figure 1 Site Location Map
r Figure 2 Sample Location Map
I
List of Appendices
I Appendix A Boring Logs
r Appendix B Laboratory Analytical Data
I Appendix C Johnson & Ettinger Model Documentation
t
r
I
I:
Hart & Hickman, PC
I S:\AAA-M6I$ Prolects\Mv Tryon LLC (MVT)\MVT-002 Tryod Hills Assemblege\Bromhelds\Soil Vapor Repon\Soil Vapor Asssmeft Rsport.doc
I
I
3
I
I
I
t
I
t
Soil Vapor Assessment Report
N. Tryon St. Commercial Properties
Former Ira Griffin & Sons, Nisbet Oil and Latimer Facilities
Charlotte, North Carolina
H&II Job No. MVI-002
1.0 Introduction
Haft & Hickman, PC (H&H) has conducted soil vapor assessment activities at the North Tryon
I Street Commercial site that is comprised of the following three contiguous properties located
along North Tryon Street in Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina:
I
. . former Ira Griffin & Sons facility 2205-2221North Tryon Street
I o former Latimer property 2229 North Tryon Street
o Nisbet Oil facility 2120 North Church Street
I
I
A site location map is provided as Figure 1. The activities were conducted on behalf of the
r current property owner, MV Tryon II, LLC (MVT).
I In October 2008, MVT applied for Brownfields Program eligibility upon completion of Phase I
I and II Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs) on the properties. Following acceptance of the
I site into the Brownfields program, the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
I
Resources (DENR) Division of Waste Management (DWM) Brownfields Program requested
t collection of soil gas samples on the former Ira Griffin & Sons and the Latimer properties to
I determine if soil vapor poses a potential unacceptable risk to current or future site structures. In
I a letter dated April 15, 200},DENR requested the additional assessment to assist in making risk
t management decisions for inclusion in the Brownfields Agreement (BFA). DENR did not
I request collection of soil gas samples on the Nisbet Oil property because VOC detections in
I ground water (believed to be from an off-site source) were below the IHSB residential and
T industrial/commercial vapor intrusion screening levels.
ll
Hart & Hickman, PC
I S:lAAA-Mstq hojects\Mv Tryon LLC (MVT)MVT-002 Tryon HiUs Assmblege\Brownfields\Soil Vapor Repofi\Soil Vapor Assssment Report.doc
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
The former ha Griffin & Sons facility property consists of an approximate 2.86-aqe parcel of
land occupied by an approximate 35,840-sq ft building comprised of office and warehouse areas,
and an approximate 22,900-sq ft warehouse building. The remainder of the property is covered
with asphalt pavement for parking and landscaped areas. The former Latimer property consists
of an approximate 0.23-acre parcel of land that is occupied by an approximate 1,600-sq ft former
building foundation. A gas station and dry-cleaning facility previously operated on the subject
property from the 1940s until the 1970s. The site layout is shown on Figure 2.
A brief description of the results of the ESAs is provided in the following section followed by
the methods and results of the soil vapor assessment activities.
Hart & Hickman, PC
Sr\AAA-lvfastq Projects\Mv Tryon LLC (MVTIMVT-002 Tryon Hills Assenblege\Bromfields\Soil vapor Report\Soil vapor Asstrf,mt Repofi.doc
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2.0 Previous Assessment Activities
Former Ira Griffin & Sons Facility
In September 2008, H&H completed Phase I and II ESA sampling activities at the Ira Grifftn &
Sons property. Ira Griffin & Sons occupied the subject facility between 1983 and 2008 where
they fabricated, assembled, and shipped textile manufacturing equipment. During the 1950s, a
trailer manufacturer and neon sign manufacturer operated on the subject property. Crawford
Sprinkler Systems then occupied the property from 1979 until 1983. A review of site conditions
and activities indicated the following potential areas of concern at the site:
A former trailer manufacturer and a former neon sign manufacturer previously operated at
the property
A floor sump and drain associated with an equipment wash area in the warehouse
A paint booth within the facility
Use of small amounts of cutting oils, paints, and organic solvents during manufacturing
activities within the facilitv
Ground water sample results obtained during Phase II ESA activities indicate the presence of
solvents or their degradation daughter products. These volatile organic compounds (VOCs) may
have been released from a floor sump and drain located within the former Ira Griffin warehouse
equipment wash area. VOCs including tetrachloroethene (PCE), l,2-dichloroethane (1,2-DCA)
andlor l,1-dichloroethene (1,l-DCE) were detected in ground water samples collected from the
temporary monitoring wells TMW-3, TMW-S, and TW-4 at concentrations above the North
Carolina 2L Ground Water Quality Standards.
Latimer Property
In Septernber 2008, H&H completed Phase I and II ESA activities at the Latimer property. A
gas station and dry-cleaning facility previously operated on the subject property from the 1940s
Hurt & Hickman, PC
S i\AAA-M6ts ftojects\Iuv Tryoo LLC (IVIVT)MVT-002 Tryon Hills Assflblege\BrcMhelds\,Soi1 Vapor Repot\Soil vapor A$ssment Report.doc
a
a
o
a
o
a
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
until the 1970s. A review of historical site use and site observations indicated the following
potential areas ofconcern at the site:
site was formerly occupied by a gas station and dry-cleaning facility
two former fuel dispenser islands
two anomalies were identified during a ground penetrating radar (GPR) survey indicative
of potential former UST basins
a floor drain within the building floor slab in the area of a former garuge
Results of analyses of ground water samples collected during Phase II ESA activities indicate the
presence of VOCs at concentrations above the North Carolina 2L Ground Water Quality
Standards in the TW-DPT-I temporary monitoring well advanced in the vicinity of the GPR
anomaly suspected to be a former UST basin. The detected VOCs in ground water included
chlorinated solvent compounds tlpically associated with dry-cleaning operations and their
degradation daughter products. It appears that the area of the suspected former underground
storage tank (UST) basin is the source area for the identified ground water impacts. PCE and
trichloroethene (TCE) were detected at lower concentrations (still exceeding NC 2L standards) in
temporary monitoring well TMW-2located downgradient of the suspected source area.
Nisbet Oil Facility
In December 2008, H&H completed Phase I and II ESA activities on the Nisbet Oil facility
which currently operates as a bulk oil distributor. A former gas station and a truck repair facility
previously occupied the southeastern and eastern portions of the property, respectively. A
review of historical site use and site observations indicated the following potential areas of
concern at the site:
o bulk oil distributors have operated on the property since the 1980s
Hart & Hickman, PC
S:'lAAA-Mastq Prcjects\Mv Tryon LLC (MVTIMVT-002 Tryon Hiils Asmblege\Bromfields\Soil Vapor Report\Soil Vapor A$6smmt Roport.doc
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
t
solvent impacts have been reported in soil and ground water on the off-site Swafford and
Associates property located adjacent, southwest, and topographically upgradient to cross-
gradient ofthe subject site
a gas station operated in the southeastern portion of the subject property along North
Tryon Street during the 1930s and 1940s
a truck repair facility operated in the eastern portion of the subject property during the
1940s to 1960s
a significant volume of motor oil is stored within the Nisbet buildings
Results of analyses of ground water samples collected at the Nisbet Oil facility indicate the
presence of the VOC 1,1-DCE in permanent monitoring well MW-2 at a concentration above the
North Carolina 2L Ground Water Quality Standard but below the DENR lnactive Hazardous
Sites Branch (IHSB) residential and industrial/commercial vapor intrusion screening level. MW-
2 was installed to assess ground water on the Nisbet Oil property related to an off-site solvent
release on the adjacent Swafford and Associates property. Based on the ground water flow
direction and constituents detected, the impacts at MW-2 appear to be sourced at the Swafford
and Associates property where significant chlorinated VOC contamination in ground water has
been documented.
Hurt & Hickman, PC
S:!AAA-M4Iq kojects"Mv Tryoo LLC (N,wTIMVT-002 Tryon l{ills Asmblege\Bromfields\Soil Vapor Report\Soil Vapor Asssment Report.doc
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.0 Soil Yapor Assessment
H&H submitted a work plan for the soil vapor assessment on June 1,2009. The work plan was
subsequently approved by DENR on June 22,2009 with additions requesting a 24-hour period
between installation and sampling of soil vapor points (VPs), measurement of ambient indoor air
temperature at the start, middle, and end of sampling about the indoor VP, and measurement of
building dimensions. The field activities were conducted July 16 through 22, 2009. The
methods and results of the soil vapor assessment activities are provided below.
3.1 Soil Vapor Sampling Methods
Two subsurface VPs (labeled VP-3 and VP-5 in Figure 2) and one subslab VP (labeled VP-4 in
Figure 2) were installed on July 16,2009 on the former Ira Griffin & Sons property. Two
additional subsurface VPs (labeled VP-l and VP-2 in Figure 2), were installed on July 21,2009
on the former Latimer property. Note that H&H originally installed VP-l and VP-2 on July 16,
2009 in the locations proposed in the work plan; however, the VPs could not be sampled due to
the presence of water observed during purging activities conducted on the following day.
Therefore, the proposed VP-l and VP-2 locations were altered and the VPs were installed on
July 21,2009.
For the installation of VP-l through VP-3 and VP-5, a hand auger was utilized to install a 3-inch
diameter boring through the underlying soil to a depth of 5 feet below land surface (bls). Soil
cuttings from each VP were noted in a field logbook and on boring logs that are provided in
Appendix A. A rotary hammer drill was utilized to bore through the concrete slab at the VP-4
location. The building slab was observed to be approximately 6 inches thick at the VP-4 location
and underlain by a gravel layer.
A stainless steel AMS dedicated soil gas vapor point fitted with %-inch diameter Teflon tubing
was installed into each borehole. With the exception of VP-4, the tip installed at each subsurface
VP location was advanced to 5.5 feet bls. The tip installed at the VP-4 location was set
Hart & Hickmun, PC
S:\AAA-Mstq Projects\MV Tryon LLC (|r4VT)MVT-002 Tryon Hills Asmblege\BromfieldsiSoil Vapor Report\Soil Vapor Asstrmnt RePort.doc
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
t
I
approximately I to 2 inches beneath the slab using an AMS Gas Vapor Probe Kit and slide
hammer. Filter sand was then poured through each borehole around the vapor point to
approximately 4 to 6 inches above each subsurface point and approximately 5 inches below the
top surface of the concrete slab at the VP-4 location. Each borehole was subsequently completed
by installing hydrated bentonite from the top of the sand to the surface of the borehole.
After allowing the bentonite to set for at least 24-hours in each borehole, H&H personnel
collected vapor samples from VP-3 through VP-5 on July 17,2009 and from VP-l and VP-2 on
July 22,2009 using 6-liter Summa canisters. Prior to mobilizing to the site, the initial vacuum in
each Summa canister was measured and recorded using a vacuum gauge provided by the lab. In
the field, the following procedures were used to sample each VP. The VP was purged using a 60
mL syringe with a three-way valve to evacuate air in the probe annular space and tubing. After
purgrng the VP, the Summa canister was connected to a flow regulator (set by the lab to limit the
vapor intake rate to approximately 6-liters per hour) and the sample train was checked for leaks.
Subsequently, the flow regulator was connected to the VP tubing using a femrle to form an air-
tight seal. The canister's air intake valve was then opened to begin collection of the vapor
sample.
H&H personnel recorded the initial vacuum pressure indicated by a vacuum gauge on the flow
controller. After more than one hour of sampling when the regulator's vacuum gauge indicated
approximately 5 inches Hg or less, the canister's valve was closed, and the flow controller was
disconnected from both the VP and the canister. The final vacuum in each canister was
measured and recorded. As requested by DENR, the air temperature near indoor subslab VP-4
was recorded at the beginning, middle, and end of the sampling activities. The temperature
readings are summarizedilt Table 1. H&H also noted that the area and volume for the interior
space of the former Ira Griffin & Sons warehouse where the VP-4 sample was collected
measured 24,000-sq ft and 720,000-cu ft, respectively.
Hart & Hickman. PC
S:\AAA-M6tq Projects\MV Tryon LLC (MVT)\MVT-002 Tri,on Hills Asmblege\Brouhelds\Soil Vapor Report\Soil Vapor Assessment Report.doc
I
t
I
I
t
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
For quality control and evaluation of analytical reproducibility, a duplicate sample was collected
at VP-5 (labeled VP-5 Dup). The duplicate sample was collected at the same time as VP-5 using
a "T" sample confi guration.
Upon completion of the VP sampling, the Summa canisters were shipped under chain-of-custody
procedures to Air Toxics, Ltd. in Folsom, CA for analysis of VOCs by EPA Method TO-15. As
proposed in the work plan approved by DENR, each sample was analyzed for 1,2-DCA, cis-1,2-
DCE, PCE, TCE, and vinyl chloride.
3.2 Vapor Sample Results
The results for the vapor samples are summarized in Table 1, and the laboratory analytical dala
sheets are provided in Appendix B. The concentrations of compounds detected in the soil vapor
samples were compared to the DENR Inactive Hazardous Sites Branch (IHSB) Residential Soil
Gas Screening Concentrations (RSGSCs) and the Industrial/Commercial Soil Gas Screening
Concentrations (ICSGSCs). Please note that the IHSB Soil Gas Screening Concentrations
(SGSCs) are very conservative and are derived from the EPA Regional Screening Level (RSL)
indoor air concentrations assuming an attenuation factor of 0.1 between subslab soil vapor and
indoor air. Literature indicates that the attenuation factor between soil vapor and indoor air is
much greater. For example, Johnson, et al. (2002) indicates that empirical attenuation factors are
in the range of 0.0001 to 0.000001, and Johnson (2002) indicates that a reasonable range of
attenuation factors is 0.01 to 0.0001. The IHSB RSGSCs and ICSGSCs are based upon a
lifetime incremental cancer risk (LICR) of 1 x 10-5 for carcinogens and a hazard index of 0.2 for
non-carcinogens.
ln the case that an IHSB soil gas screening concentration was not available for a compound, the
concentration of that compound was compared to the Target Deep Soil Gas Concentration
(TDSGC) reported in the draft vapor intrusion guidance in EPA (2002). The EPA TDSGCs used
for comparison were based upon a LICR of 1 x 10-s for carcinogens and a hazard index of 0.2 for
non-carcinogens for consistency with the IHSB RSGSCs and ICSGSCs. Because the EPA
Hurt & Hickman, PC
S:\AAA-M6ter Projects\Mv Tryoa LLC (N{VT}MVT-002 Tryon Hills Assmbtege\Bromfrelds\Soil vapor Report\Soil vapor Assssment Report-doc
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TDSGCs for non-carcinogens are based upon a hazard index of 1, the TSSGCs for non-
carcinogens were multiplied by 0.2 for consistency with the IHSB SGSCs.
As indicated in Table 1, concentrations of cis-l,2-DCE, PCE, and TCE were detected in the soil
vapor sample collected from VP-l and concentrations of PCE were detected in the soil vapor
samples from VP-2 and VP-5. The concentrations of PCE and TCE detected in VP-l exceed the
RSGSCs and ICSGSCs and the concentration of cis-l,2-DCE detected in VP-l exceeds the
TDSGC. The concentration of PCE detected in VP-2 exceeds RSGSCs and ICSGSCs. The
concentration of PCE detected in VP-5 slightly exceeds the RSGSCs; however, the concentration
of PCE detected in VP-5 (Dup) does not exceed screening levels.
3.3 Soil Vapor Data Screening
H&H performed a sequential screening evaluation of the site soil vapor data to identify if
compounds detected in the vapor samples pose a potential indoor air risk to future building
occupants. The sequential screening evaluation consisted of the following process:
. Step I - Compare concentrations of the detected compounds to the IHSB SGSCs or the
EPA TSSGCs as described in Section 3.2 and identif,z compounds that exceed those
screening levels.
o Step 2 - For those compounds that exceed the screening levels, conduct site-specific
vapor intrusion modeling using the Johnson and Ettinger (J&E) model (model SG-ADV,
Version 3.1 dated February 2004). The J&E model is a screening level model for
evaluating subsurface vapor intrusion into buildings.
A summary of the results of the sequential screening evaluation is presented in Table 2 and is
detailed below.
Hurt & Hickman, PC
Sr\AAA-M6tq hojects\Mv Tryotr LLC (MVT)\MVT-002 Tryon Hitls Aswnblege\Bromfretds\Soil Vapor Repon\Soil vapor Assssm@t Repofi.doc
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Step 1
H&H compared the compounds detected in the soil vapor samples to the IHSB RSGSCs and/or
ICSGSCs or the EPA TSSGCs as described in Section 3.2. As summarized in Tables I and 2,
cis-1,2-DCE, PCE, and TCE were detected above the conservative screening levels.
Step 2
Because the IHSB and EPA screening levels are very conservative, to further evaluate the vapor
intrusion pathway, H&H conducted site-specific vapor intrusion modeling using the J&E model.
The J&E model is a one-dimensional analytical solution for convective and diffusive vapor
transport into indoor air spaces that relates vapor concentration at a subsurface source (i.e.,
ground water, soil, or soil gas) to the vapor concentration in indoor air space. Inputs to the
model include chemical properties of the contaminant, properties of the soil, and properties of
the existing or future building. Please note that the J&E model is based upon a number of
simpliffing assumptions regarding compound distribution and occulrence, subsurface
characteristics, transport mechanisms, and building construction. The assumptions are generally
reasonable yet conservative. Because of the model's conservative nature, it is likely that it will
over-predict compound concentrations in indoor air and thus their risk potential (EPA, 2003).
Because cis-1,2-DCE, PCE, and TCE were detected above the conservative screening levels, the
additive risks of all three were considered in the modeling. Inputs to the J&E model used in this
evaluation were based upon site-specific measurements or the model's default values and are
presented in the modeling sheets in Appendix C. The input parameters are summarized below:
Depth below grade to bottom of enclosed space floor of 10 cm (a in) based upon model
default value. The model assumes slab-on-grade construction and no basement.
Soil gas sampling depth below grade of 167 cm (5.5 ft) where the highest concentrations
were detected based upon site-specific sampling data.
10 Hurt & Hickman, PC
SLAAA-Mdtq kojects\Mv Tryon LLC (MVTIMVT-002 Tryon Hills Assmblege\BromfreldsrSoil Vapor Report\Soil Vapor A$6smedt Rspofl.doc
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
. Average soil temperature of l7o C based upon value obtained from EPA 2004.
o Soil stratum thicknesses of 91 cm and 76 cm based upon site-specific sampling data.
. "Clay" and "Clayey Sand" soil types based upon cuttings observed during VP-l borehole
installation.
o Soil bulk densities, total porosities, and water-filled porosities based upon model default
parameters for the soil types.
o Buildin9arca dimensions based on model default parameters.
. Soil-building pressure differential of 40 g/cm-s2 based on model default value.
. Floor wall seam crack width of 0.1 cm based upon model default value.
o Air exchange rate of 0.25 per hour based upon model default value.
o An averaging time for carcinogens of 70 years.
o An averaging time for non-carcinogens of 30 years.
o Exposure duration of 25 years for an industriaVcommercial worker.
o Exposure frequency of 250 days/yr for an industrial/commercial worker.
o The representative soil vapor concentrations for cis-l,2-DCE, PCE, and TCE utilized in
the J&E Model were from concentrations detected in VP-l, which were the highest
concentrations detected in the VPs installed at the site.I
I
I
The model was run for cis-I,2-DCE, PCE, and TCE using the highest detected concentrations,
r and the vapor intrusion risk was calculated by the model. The model results for each compound
I were then totaled to account for the additive risks of the compounds. The LICR was calculated
r to be 8.3 x l0-5 and the hazard index was determined to be 7.4 x 10-2. The results are
t summarized in Table 2. The calculated LICR is less than the upper limit of the acceptable risk
I range of 1 x lOa to 1 x 10-6 for carcinogens, and the calculatedhazardindex is less than the
I typical acceptable hazard index of 1.0 and the conservativehazard index of 0.2.
I
I
lrl
Hart & Hickman, PC
I S:\AAA-M6rer Projecrs\Nfv Tryon LLC (NfVT)\MVT-002 Tryoo Hills Asmblege\Bromfields\Soil Vapor Repon\Sort Vapor A$ssment Report.doc
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4.0 Conclusions and Recommendations
The results of sampling conducted as part of ESAs on the former Ira Griffin & Sons facility and
Latimer properties indicated the presence of VOCs in ground water near the eastern portion of
the former Ira Griffin & Sons property and in soil and groundwater on the former Latimer
Property. Per DENR request, H&H conducted vapor sampling in these areas.
In July 2009, H&H collected subsurface and subslab soil vapor samples from the areas of the
properties where the presence of VOCs indicates the potential for indoor vapor intrusion. The
results of the soil vapor sampling indicated that concentrations of cis-l,2-DCE, PCE, and TCE in
soil vapor exceed generic screening levels in samples collected on the former Latimer property.
The soil vapor sampling also indicated that concentrations of PCE exceed generic screening
levels in soil vapor in the eastern corner of the former Ira Griffin & Sons property.
H&H subsequently conducted vapor intrusion modeling using EPA's Johnson & Ettinger model
to evaluate the risk posed by the highest contaminant concentrations detected by vapor sampling.
The results of the vapor intrusion modeling indicated that the calculated exposure risks do not
exceed the upper limit of the acceptable LICR range of 1 x 10-a to 1 x 10-6 for carcinogenic risks
or ahazard index of 0.2 for non-carcinogenic risks. However, these results are dependent on
building and exposure parameters that may not be representative of future land development and
use. Based on the vapor data collected and J&E modeling evaluation, H&H recommends that
future development plans for the former Ira Griffin & Sons facility and Latimer properties
consider one of the following approaches:
o For the area shown on Figure 2 as "Limited Development Area," use the properties for
industrial/commercial pu{poses with no vapor intrusion mitigation (subject to approval by
DENR in the BFA);
12 Hart & Hickman, PC
S:\AAA-M6td Prcjects\Mv Tryon LLC (MVT)\MVT-002 Tryon Hills Assembtege\Browfields\Soil Vapor Report\Soil Vapor Ass€$ment Report.doc
t
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
. For the Limited Development Area, use engineering controls (such as a vapor barrier or
passive venting system) during construction of future buildings intended for residential
use; or
o Do not develop structures intended for inhabitable use in the Limited Development Area.
13 Hart & Hickman. PC
S:\AAA-Mots hojects\Mv Tryon LLC (MVT)MVT-0o2 Tryon Hills Assflblege\Bromfietds\Soil Vapor Report'rSoil Vapor As*mmt R€pod.doc
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
T
I
I
5.0 References
EPA (2002). Draft Guidance for Evaluating the Vapor Intrusion to lndoor Air Pathway from
Groundwater and Soils. EPA530-F-02-052, November 2002.
EPA (2003). lJser's Guide for Evaluating Subsurface Vapor Intrusion into Buildings. EPA
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, June 19, 2003.
EPA (2004). IJser's Guide for Evaluating Subsurface Vapor Intrusion into Buildings. EPA
Office of Emergency and Rernedial Response.
Johnson, Paul (2002). Identification of Critical Parameters for the Johnson and Ettinger (1991)
Vapor Intrusion Model. American Petroleum Institute, May 2002.
Johnson, P.C., R.A. Ettinger, J. Kurtz, R. Bryan, and J.E. Kester. (2002). Migration of Soil Gas
Vapors to lndoor Air: Determining Vapor Attenuation Factors Using a Screening-Level Model
and Field Data from the CDOT-MTL Denver, Colorado Site. American Petroleum Institute,
May 2002
t4 Hart & Hickman, PC
S:'!AAA-M6tq hojectsMv Tryotr LLC (MVT)\N{VT-002 Tryon Hills Assemblege\Bromfields\Soil Vapor Re ort\Soil Vapor Asssment Report.doc
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
Table 1
Summary of Vapor Analytical Detections
Tryon HillAssemblage
Charlotte, NG
Hart & Hickman Proiect No. MW-002
Ambient Air Temperature Meaurements
Near Indoor VPs Durino Samole Collection
*9o.!
oE-
aa
vP-4
o)Ei=
Y
q)
6-9F"-
Initial 1 130 29.2
Midpoint 1200 30.0
Final 1245 30.3
Notes:
1. IHSB = NC DENR Inactive Hazardous Sites Branch.
2. Bold value exceeds IHSB Residential Soil Gas Screening Level.
3. Bold ltalicized value exceeds IHSB Residential and Industrial/Commercial Soil Gas Screening Level.
4. s!9|Und9f!lned value exceeds EPA Target Deep Soil Gas Concentration (see Note 6).
5. NE = Value not established, Ug/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
6. * Indicates Target Deep Soil Gas Concentration from Table 2b of EPA (2002). Lifetime Incremental Cancer Risk (LICR) = 1E-05 for
carcinogens and 0.2 for non-carcinogens. Value is displayed only for compound with no established IHSB Residential or
Industrial/Commercial
I S:\AAA-Master Prcjects\lvlv Tryon LLC (MVIIMVT{o2 Tryon Hills Assemblege\BrcMfields\Soil Vapor Report\Soil VaporTable.xls
I
^
;=
Eoa
E
E
o)
o
:
Eoa
o
N
=
c)
o
Y
=.9o
ry
o
o
oe
7
i5Iot
u,
o)
o
o
=
E
ot-
o
o
o)
=
'c
F
o'-
=o
=
S
pg/m3
VP-,I 07t22t09 TO-15 <63 740 31.000 1.800 <40
vP-2 07t22t09 TO-15 <6.0 <5.9 3,100 <8.0 <3.8
VP-3 07t17t09 TO-15 <3.1 <3.0 <5.2 <4.1 <1.9
VP-4 07t17t09 TO-15 <3.0 <3.0 11 <4.0 <1.9
VP-5 07117109 TO-15 <3.2 <3.2 50 <4.3 <2.0
VP-5 (Dup)07t17t09 TO-15 <3.0 <3.0 32 <4.0 <1.9
IHSB Industrial/Commercial Vapor Intrusion
Soil Gas Screenino Level 47 700*210 610 280
IHSB ResidentialVapor lntrusion Soil Gas
Screenino Level 9.4 NE 41 120 1.1
IIIIITIIIIIIIIIIIII
Table 2
Summary of Soil Vapor Screening
Tryon Hill Assemblage
Charlotte, NC
Hart & Hickman Proiect No. MVT-002
Notes:
1. NC DENR Inactive Hazardous Sites Branch (IHSB) lndustrial/Commercial Vapor Intrusion Acceptable Soil Gas Screening Concentration (ASGSC) or, if not
established, 2002 US EPA Target Shallow Soil Gas Concentration (TSSGC) from Table 2b Risk = 1E-05
2. Risk and/or hazard quotient calculated using Johnson-Ettinger Model, SG-ADV, February 2004.
3.VP=VaporPoint; NC=Noncarcinogen; NFS=nofurtherscreeningwananted; pg/m'=microgramspercubicmeter; Y=Yes; lrl =No; VP=VaporPoint
Analvte
Does constituent
-antr.fi^n dalaaiad in Maximum Concentration
of Constituent
Detectected in a VP
fug/m')
Johnson & Ettinqer Outout Result
Hazard quolrenr Risk Exceeds 10'"
or
Hazard Quotient
Exceeds 0.2
IY/NI
Does Constituent
Pose a Potential
Vapor lntrusion Risk
at the Site?
IYIN)
a VP sample exceed IHSB
SGSG or EPATSSGC
Concentrationl?
from vapor intrusion
to indoor air,
carcinogen
{unillessl
from vapor intrusion
to indoor air,
noncarcinogen
lunitlessl
1,2-Dichloroethane
cis-1.2-Dichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroethene
Vinrrl Chlnridc
N
N
NFS
740
31,000
1,800
NFS
NFS
NC
3.8E-05
4.5E-05
NFS
NFS
2.5E-02
2.5E-O2
2.4E-02
NFS
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Additive Risl E.3E-05 7.4E-O2 N N
'3
[*
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
APPROXIMATE
0 2000 4000
SCALE IN FEET
U.S.G.S QUADRANGLE MAP
CHARLOTTE EAST, NC 1967 REVISED/INSPECTED 1988
DER.ITA. NC 1993
QUADRANGLE
7.5 MTNUTE SERTES (TOPOGRAPHTC)
SITE LOCATION MAP
PROJECTN. TRYON STREET BROWNFIELDS ASSESSMENT
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
REVISION NO:DATE: 4-23-2009
JOB NO: MVT-OO2 FIGURE NO:
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIT
!_F.r.rdrleM@d{,r82
X
Appendix A
Boring Logs
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
so
@
Fo
z
Y(J
tr
I
z
E
6r
PROJECT: Tryon Hills Assemblage Project
2923 South Tryon Street-Suite 100 3334 Hrllsborcugh Street
charlotte, Nonh carclina 28203 Raleeh, North carclina 27607 | JOB NUMBER: MVT-002
704-586-0007(p) 704-586r1373(f) 91s847-a241(p)919-u74261(i I LOCllOtt: CharlOfte, NC
Sheet 1 of 1
BORING NUMBER VP.1
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Slightly moist, brown-red sandy
Slightly moist, brown clayey medium SAND
Bottom of borehole at 5.0 feet.
Remarks:
Soil-vapor intrusion sampling well
insthlled.
DRILLING CONTRACTOR:H&H
DRILL RIG/ METHOD: Hand Auoer Installation
SAMPLING METHOD:
LOGGED BY SD
DRAWN BY:
BORING STARTED 7/21l09
BORING COMPLETED : 7/21 /09
TOTAL DEPTH:5
SURFACE ELEV:
DEPTH TO WATER:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
2923 South Tryon Street-Suite 100 3334 Hillsborcugh Skeet
Chadotte, North Carclina 28203 Rale€h, North Carclina 27607
704-58G0007(p) 704-586-0373(f) 919847-4241(p) 919-8/.7-42611r)
BORING NUMBER VP.z
PROJECT: Tryon Hills Assemblage Project
JOB NUMBER: MVT-002
LOCATION : Charlotte, NC
E
x.uJ
r.u
Fz=o
=
d
rn
J
IF
-J
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
WELL DIAGRAM
Slightly moist, redoish brown CLAY
Slightly moist, reddish brown clayey medium SAND
DRILLING CONTRACTOR:H&H
DRILL RIG/ METHOD: Hand Auoer Installation
SAMPLING METHOD:
LOGGED BY SD
DRAWN BY:
BORING STARTEDT/21l09
BORING COMPLETED: 7/21 /09
TOTAL DEPTH:5
SURFACE ELEV:
DEPTH TO WATER:
Remarks:
Soil-vapor intrusion sampling well
installed.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2923 South Tryon Street-Surte i00 3334 Hillsborcugh Street
Cha.lotte, North Carclina 28203 Raleqh, North Carclina 27607
704-586-0007(p) 704-586-0373(0 91$847-a241(p) 919-847426111)
BORING NUMBER VP-3
PROJECT: Tryon Hills Assemblage Project
JOB NUMBER: MVT-002
LOCATION : Charlotte, NC
8
EuJ
al
tJJ
t
a)-J
=t
J
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
WELL DIAGRAM
moist, orange-brown sandy CLAY
DRILLING CONTRACTOR:H&H
DRILL RIG/ METHOD: Hand Auoer Installation
SAMPLING METHOD:
LOGGED BY SD
DRAWN BY:
BORING STARTEDT/16/09
BORING COMPLETED: 7/1 6/09
TOTAL DEPTH:5
SURFACE ELEV:
DEPTH TO WATER:
Remarks:
Soil-vapor intrusion sampling well
installed.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2923 South Tryon Street-Surte 100 3334 Hillsborcugh Street
Charlotte, No.th Carclrna 28203 Raleigh, North Carclrna 27607
704-586-0007(p)704-586-0373(0 919847-4241(p)91$8474261(tl
Sheet 1 of 1
BORING NUMBER VP.4
PROJECT: Tryon Hills Assemblage Project
JOB NUMBER: MVT-002
LOCATION : Charlotte, NC
IL
Lll -
o
s
t
|.Il
UJtr
z
f
=
J
E
Ja)
IF
J
MATER.IAL DESCRIPTION
WELL DIAGRAM IL
o
ri
c0
o_
ir i
.?i:ri
Concrete Sentonrte /
Grout Slurry
1/4-ln Teflon
Tubing
AMS Pro Tip!CIYSanoy gravel beneath concrete slab
1
a
4
b
Bottom of borehole at 0.6 feet.
1
2
+
D
DRILLING CONTRACTOR:H&H
DRILL RIG/ METHOD: Hand Auaer Installation
SAMPLING METHOD:
LOGGED BY SD
DRAWN BY:
BORING STARTED 7/16/09
BORING COMPLETED: 7/1 6/09
TOTAL DEPTH:0.75
SURFACE ELEV:
DEPTH TO WATER:
Remarks:
Soil-vapor intrusion sampling well
installed.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
T
I
I
I
t
I
I
ail
2923 South Tryon Street-Suite 100 3334 Hiilsborcugh Street
Charlotte, North Carclina 28203 Raleigh, North Carctina 27607
704-586-0007(p)704-586-0373(0 919-847-4241(p)919-A47,4261(r)
Sheet 1 of 1
BORING NUMBER VP.s
PROJECT: Tryon Hills Assemblage Project
JOB NUMBER: MVT-002
LOCATION : Charlotte. NC
E
tuJ
r.lttr
Fz=oal
=
Jc0
-
a')
ItrJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Bottom of borehole ai 5.0 feet.
DRILLING CONTRACTOR:H&H
DRILL RIG/ METHOO: Hand Auqer Installation
SAMPLING METHOD:
LOGGED BY SD
DRAWN BY:
BORING STARTED 7/16i09
BORING COMPLETED : 7/1 6/09
TOTAL DEPTH:5
SURFACE ELEV:
DEPTH TO WATER:
Remarks:
Soil-vapor intrusion sampling well
installed.
t
I
Appendh B
Laboratorv Analvtical Data
S:\AAA-M6tgPrcjects\MvTTonLLC(IVfVT)\MVT-O02TryonHillsAssmblege\Bromfields\SoilVaporReport\SoilVaporA$sm@t\qott.docHA.ft & HiCkmAn, PC
I
r #,4frI WF#gg"#ss.Fs.
I
:*..tff:L$j:':::=::i.::111'if-.
I
t
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ia.,#tr- i
Bryanna Langley
Project Manager
8/31/2009
Mr. Matt Ingalls
Hart & Hickman
2923 South Tryon Street
Suite 100
Charlotte NC 28203
Project Name: NORTH TRYON HILLS ASSEMBLEGE
Project #: MW-002
Workorder #: 0907663R1
Dear Mr. Matt Ingalls
The following report includes the data for the above referenced project for sample(s)
received on 713012009 at Air Toxics Ltd.
The data and associated QC analyzed by Modified TO-15 are compliant with the project
requirements or laboratory criteria with the exception of the deviations noted in the
attached case narrative.
Thank you for choosing Air Toxics Ltd. for your air analysis needs. Air Toxics Ltd. is
committed to providing accurate data of the highest quality. Please feel free to contact
the Project Manager: Bryanna Langley at 916-98$1000 if you have any questions
regarding the data in this report.
Regards,
180 BLUE RAVINE ROAD, SUITE B FOLSOM, CA.95630
(916) 98s-1000 .FAX [phone]
Hours 6:30 A.M to 5:30 PST
Page 1 of 10
r ffiEirI WF-gg$gssrs.
L.l #ilr".'l iil r jr 5 *r"vir;e s .S;rtt: * 1 :i'S 3
I
I
I
I
T
CLIENT:
I PH.NE:
WORK ORDER #: 0907663R1
Work Order Summary
Mr. Matt Ingalls
Hart & Hickman
2923 South Tryon Street
Suite 100
Charlotte, NC 28203
7M-8874617
BILL TO: Accounts Payable
Hart & Hickman
2923 South Trvon Street
Suite 100
Charlotte, NC 28203
P.O. # MVT-002
PROJECT# MVT-OO2NORTHTRYONHILLSFA.X: 7M-586-0373
I DATE RECEIIED: 0713012009IDATE COMPLETED: 0811212009
DATE REISSUED: 08/31/2009
t
FRA.CTION # NA}IE
coNrACr: $8,s"ErYlBlF"G&t
TEST
Ivlodifred TO-15
Modified TO-15
Modified TO-15
Modified TO-15
Modified TO-15
trr
04A
I
o5A
I
I
I
w-2
VP-1
Lab Blank
CCV
LCS
RECEIPT FINAL
VAC./PRES. PRESST'RE
3.0 "Hg 5 psi
4.0 "Hg 5 psi
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
f ; ; .:-t*
-'-.ir=;r;t$-t:}t"'ut)ft-t+"t':tt3t-;'-{-.jCERTIFIED BY:DATE: 08/3U09
I
t
I
I
Laboratory Director
Certficationnumbers: CANELAP-02IIOCA.LANELAPiLELAP- AI3A7$,NJNELAP-CA004
NYNELAP - ll29l. L-IT NELAP -9166389892. AZ Licensure AZ07l9
Name of Accrediting Agency: NELAPiFlorida Department of Health, Scope of Application: Clean Air Act,
Accreditation number: E87680, Effective datet 07101109, Expiration date: 06/30/10
Air Toxics Ltd. certifies that the test results contained in this report meet all requirements of the NELAC standards
This repon shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the written approval of Air Toxics Ltd.
180 BLUE RAVINE ROAD. SUITE B FOLSOM. CA - 95630
(916) 985-r000 . (800) 98s-5955 . FA.\ [phone]
Page 2ofl0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,ffi*s'fl
Sfffcxf,cslrtr.
Laboratory Services Since 1989
LABORATORY NARRATIVE
Modified TO-15
Hart & I{ickman
Workorder# 0907663R1
Two 6 Liter Summa Canister samples were received on July 30, 2009. The laboratory performed analysis
via modified EPA Method TO- 1 5 usine GC/MS in the fi.:ll scan mode.
This workorder was independently validated prior to zubmittal using 'USEPA National Functional Guideiines'
as generally applied to the analysis of volatile organic compounds in air. A rules-based, logic driveru
independent validation engne was ernployed to assess completeness, evaluate pasVfail of relevant project
quality control requirements and verification of all quantified amounts.
Method modifications taken to nn these samples are summmized in the table below. Specific project
requirernents may over-ride the ATL modifications.
Receiving Notes
The Chain of Custody (COC) ffirmation for samples VP-2 and VP-l did not match the enties on the
sample tags with regard to sample identification. PER CLIENT E-MAIL INSTRUCTIONS RECEWED
ON AUGUST 24,2009, TI{E INFORMATION ON THE SAMPLE TAGS RATHER THAN THE COC
WAS USED TO PROCESS AND REPORT TIM SAIVPLES. AS A RESULT, THE WORKORDER
WAS REISSUED ON 8/31/09 TO CORRECT IDENTIFICATION OF SAMPLES VP-2 AND VP-l.
Analvtical Notes
There were no analytical discrepancies.
Definition of Data Qualifuine Flags
Eight qualifien may have been used on the data analysis sheets and indicates as follows:
B - Compound present in laboratory blank greater than reporting limit (background subfaction no
pertormed).
J - Estirnated value.
E - Exceeds inshument calibrationranse.
Requirement TO.I5 ATL Modifications
Daiiy CCV <:30% Difference </: 30% Difference; Compounds exceeding this criterion
and associated data are flagged and narrated.
Sample collection media Summa canister ATL recommends use of summa canisters to insure data
defensibility, but will report results from Tedlar bags at
client request
Ivlethod Detection Limit Follow 40CFR Pt.136
App.B
The MDL met all relevant requirements in Method TO-15
(statistical MDL less than the LOQ). The concentration of
the spiked replicate may have exceeded l0X the calculated
MDL in some cases
Page 3 of 10
I
I ffiffis*sr.trr]"
I Laboratory Servrces Srnce 1989t
S - Saturated peak.
I Q - Exceedsqualitycontollimis.
I U - Compound analyzd,forbut not detected above tlre reporting limit
UJ- Non-detected compound associated with low bias in the CCV
I N - The identificationis based onpresumptive evidence.
I
- File extensions may have been used on the data analysis sheets and indicates
I as follows:
r a-File was requantified
I b-File was quantified by a second column and detector
I rl-File was requantified for ttre purpose ofreissue
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I Page 4 of 10
I
t
I
t ffiSsr
r ffiFmxlcs{,FF,
I !1l"lii311,*{.1}i 9.._r'_l:;L9..=..==..=,::::::
Summary of Detected Compounds
MODIFIED EPA METHOD TO.15 GC/IUS FULL SCAN
I Client Sample ID: VP-2
I Lab ID#:0907663Rr-orA
Rpt. Limit Amount Rpt. Limit Amount
I Compound (ppbv) (ppbv) (ug/m3) (ug/m3)
I Tetrachloroethene 1.5 450 10 3100
I
I Client Sample ID: VP-l
I
Lab ID#: 0907663Rr-02A
Rpt. Limit Amount Rpt Limit Amount
(ppbv) (ppbv) (us/m3) (ug/m3)I compound
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
I Trichloroethene
I Tetrachloroethene
I
16 190 61 740
16 340 83 1800
16 4600 100 31000
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I Page 5 of 10
gffi,^&tr-
Wd#Htf"Sr.F$.
L.c*?sr'.:? i{}ry s,+r'ris+-s Sjn*;'* i 5SS
Compound
Client Sample ID: VP-2
Lab ID#: 0907663RI-01A
Amount
(ppbv)
Rpt. Limit
(us/m3)
Amount
(ug/m3)
File Name:
Dil. Factor:
y080911
2.98
Date of Collectlon: 712210910:00:00 AM
Date of Analysis: 8/9/09 03:12 PM
Rpt. Limit
Vinyl Chloride
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
450
3.8
5.9
t'.u
8.0
10
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
3100
Gontainer Type: 6 Liter Summa Canister
Surrogates %Recovery
Method
Limits
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Toluene-d8
1 .2-Dichloroethane-d4
4-Bromofluorobenzene
102
97
96
70-1 30
70-1 30
70-1 30
Page 6 of 10
:..'r:;,r*i & 5-*rffi -|f-l 5 jF-
#{- g =3-tt !.WF*ggcgs_Fs.
L;li>t'}r:rFrlry s€r-yr*4s .:i.'nc€ ? gfi$
Client Sample ID: VP-1
Lab ID#: 0907663R1-02A
File Name:
Dil. Factor:
y080912
31.0
Date of Cof fed:ion: 712210910:10:00 AM
Date of Analysis: 8i9l09 04:45 PM
Rpt. Limit
Compound
Amount
(ppbv)
Rpt Limit
(us/m3)
Amount
(us/m3)
Vinyl Chloride
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Container Type: 6 Liter Summa Canister
Surrogates
16
16
16
16
16
Not Detected
190
Not Detected
340
4600
%Recovery
4Q
61
63
83
100
Not Detected
740
Not Detected
1 800
31 000
Method
Limits
T
I
I
I
t
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
T
I
I
T
I
I
Toluene.dS
1,2-Dichloroethane-d4
4-Bromofluorobenzene
103
98
94
70-1 30
70-1 30
70-1 30
Page 7 of 10
I
I
rffi ,&sF-
ffiKs*#ss-rs"
{* ir c}*r:: fGry 5*i-'J.'r;r:-s 5;*'; * ? i}13$
Client Sample ID: Lab Blank
Lab ID#: 0907663R1-03A
Rot. Limit Amount Rpt" Limit Amount
Compound (ppbv) (ppbv) (ug/m3) (ug/m3)
Vinyl Chloride
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Container Type; NA - Not Applicable
Surrogates
0.50 Not Detected 1.3 Not Detected
0.50 Not Detected 2.0 Not Detected
0.50 Not Detected 2.0 Not Detected
0.50 Not Detected 2.7 Not Detected
0.50 Not Detected 3.4 Not Detected
o/oRecovery
Method
Limits
NIODIFIED EPA METHOD TG.15 GC/MS FTJLL SCAN
File Name:
Dil. Factor:
y080905
1.00
Date of Collection: NA
Date of Analysis: 8/9/09 10:06 AM
70-1 30
70-1 30
70-1 30
99
101
OQ
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Toluene.d8
1,2-Dichloroethane-d4
4-Bromofluorobenzene
Page I of 10
ffi#lss'_,wf#3€'$#ss_trs"
i.i: #*r;] rl]r",.' 5+r"'.ri6,4$ .Si$* 5, 1 ili]$
Client Sample ID: CCV
Lab ID#: 0907663R1-04A
File Name:
Dil. Factor:
y080904 Date of Collection: NA
1.00 Date of Analvsis: 8/9/09 09:09 AM
Vinyl Chloride
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Container Type: NA - Not Applicable
Surrogates
98
103
96
105
101
Method
Limits
Toluene-d8
1,2-Dichloroethane-d4
4-Bromofluorobenzene
102
91
99
70-1 30
70-1 30
70-1 30
Page 9 of 10
ffie%-*-s.Fs.
Client Sample ID: LCS
Lab ID#: 0907663R1-05A
File Name:
Dil. Factor:
y080903
1.00 Date of Analvsis: 8/9/09 08:31 AM
Compound %Recovery
Vinyl Chloride
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Container Type: NA - Not Applicable
Surrogates
82
97
81
88
85
%Recovery
Method
Limits
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
Toluene-d8
1,2-Dichloroethane-d4
4-Bromofluorobenzene
101
OA
100
70-1 30
70-1 30
70-1 30
Page 10 of 10
c
s
,E
fr $;ar * =i
3Sg -l
gEn $r
E$H
:*g
Fg
T
I
T
I
I
I
I
t
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
fri
bp-)
ul
*i
5-\&
a
t{
"i3,-t
TJ
U
?o
a
\l
.{sl
\s
cLllt:J
4
L*
.Ja-.\
Lntll.
rl^(,oo
.Jl
trl
\AlI
hlrLl"lIII(r)e.E}-c
iq
it
{J
(n
JJItslt.l1l!l1lElul
I
h
5
1LI
"41al
Fl
.I'l
flnf
I(l
'41
tJlI
(4
E
E
Itt
: il.i,1
'.i -tltil*d=JPiilr"l
otEuJ-l
IIrld-l
'l
ililll
rll-rl
il
Jl
-fl*l
I
HcEo(f
It
Ab,
.tr(/l
a
-
g
!trus
E(J
L
D
t!E(E
]A
d
E.E _s-j 9n c:eE EE E r ;EHEgg:.:hFEF
TFroi
;*E t';"F sf,ilE HEI*"P f FiB
f;Eg$E=r-EEsEs
EE$EFE$
Ess€FEq
FF$fiEEF
dEl.r O
,$H
+FH
Fil=
TrwrcK#tr rr&'
Labnrat*"ry "$*rrrr*ee Simee *S€S
I
I
t
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
Bryanna Langley
Project Manager
8112t2009
Mr. Matt Ingalls
Hart & Hickman
2923 South Tryon Street
Suite 100
Charlotte NC 28203
Project Name: N. Tryon Hills Assemblege
Project #: MVT-002
Workorder #: 0907610
Dear Mr. Matt Ingalls
The following report includes the data for the above referenced project for sample(s)
received on 712812009 at Air Toxics Ltd.
The data and associated QC analyzed by Modified TO-15 are compliant with the project
requirements or laboratory criteria with the exception of the deviations noted in the
attached case narrative.
Thank you for choosing Air Toxics Ltd. for your air analysis needs. Air Toxics Ltd. is
committed to providing accurate data of the highest quality. Please feel free to contact
the Project Manager: Bryanna Langley at 916-985-1000 if you have any questions
regarding the data in this report.
Regards,
180 BLUE RAVINE ROAD, SUITE B FOLSOM, CA.95630
[phone].FAX (916) 98s-1020
Hours 6:30 A.M to 5:30 PST
Page 1 of13
t
lre {r&
f.abcr*f*ryr F*firisas Sl,**e *S'Es
I
I WORK ORDER #: 0907610
Work Order SummaryI
CLIENT:
I
I PHorrE:
FAX:
Mr. Mafi Ingalls
Hart & Hickman
2923 South Tryon Street
Suite 100
Charlotte, NC 28203
704-88746]17
704-586-0373
BILL TO: Accounts Payable
Hart & Hickman
2923 South Tryon Street
Suite 100
Charlotte, NC 28203
P.O. # N/IVT-002
PROJECT # MVT-002 N. Tryon Hills Assemblege
CONTACT: BryannaLangleyN ;lHy;"#;;* 3{1YZii
;)
f,
I FRACTION# NAME
01A
I 8il^
03A
l::r
07A
I
t
I
I CERTIFIED BY:
VP-3
VP4
VP-4 Lab Duplicate
VP-5
vP-5 (DrJP)
Lab Blank
CCV
LCS
TEST
Modified TO-15
Modified TO-15
Modified TO-15
Modified TO-15
Modified TO-15
Modified TO-15
Modified TO-15
Modified TO-15
RECEIPT FINAL
VAC./PRES, PRESSURE
3.5 "Hg 5 psi
3.0 "Hg 5 psi
3.0 "Hg 5 psr
5.0 "Hg 5 psi
3.0 "Hg 5 psr
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
c;J*;6-,#/ E*,,*l
DATE: o8ll2/09
I Laboratory Director
Certfication numbers: CA NELAP - 02110CA, LA NELAP/LELAP- AI 30763. NJ NELAP - CA004
NY NELAP - ll29l, LJT NELAP - 9166389892, AZLicensure AZ07l9
I Name of Accrediting Agency: NELAP/Florida Department of Health, Scope of Application: Clean Air Act,
I Accreditation number: E87680, Effective date:07101/08, Expiration date:06/30/09
Air Toxics Ltd. certifies that the test results contained in this reoort meet all reouirements of the NELAC standards
This reporr shall not be reproduced, excepr in full, without rhe writren rpproval ofAirToxics Ltd,
180 BLUE RAVINE ROAD, SUITE B FOLSOM, CA - 95630
[phone] . [phone] . FAX [phone]I
I Pase 2 of 13
I Wxr"*p
I
I
LABORATORY NARRATIVE
Modified TO-15
Hart & Ilickman
Workorder# 0907610
I Four 6 Liter Sunnna Canister samples were received on July 28,2009. The laboratory performed analysis
t via modified EPA Method TO- 15 using GC/MS in the ftlI scan mode.
I This workorder was independently validated prior to submittal using 'USEPA National Functional Guidelines'
r as generally applied to the analysis of volatile organic compounds in air. A rules-based, logic driven,
I independent validation engne was anployed to assess completeness, evaluate pasVfail of relevant project
I qualitycontolrequirunentsandverificationofallquantifiedamounts.
I Method modifications taken to run these samples are summarized in the table below. Specific project
lr
Requiremenl TO-15 ATL Modifications
DailyCCV </:30Yo Difference <l-- 30%o Difference; Compounds exceeding this criterion
and associated data are flagged and narrated.
Sample collection media Summa canister ATL recommends use of summa canisters to insure data
defensibility, but will report results from Tedlar bags at
client request
Method Detection Limit Follow 40CFR ft.136
App.B
The MDL met all relevant requirements in Method TO-15
(statistical MDL less than the LOQ). The concentration of
the spiked replicate may have exceeded l0X the calculated
MDL in some cases
I
I
I
I
I
I
Receivine Notes
Sample collection date was incomplete on the Chain of Custody (COC) for samples VP-4, VP-5 and VP-5
(D[IP). The sampling date was taken from the tags.
Analvtical Notes
I Tetrachloroethene in samples VP-5 and VP-5 (DUP) was outside of the 25Yo RPD crtieria for duplicate
samples. These samples appear to be field duplcaies accroding to the COC.
I Definition of Data Qualifvine FlassI-Eigfrt qualifien mayhave been used on ttre data analysis sheets and indicates as follows:
r B - Compound present in laboratory blank greater than reporting limit (background subtraction no
I performed).
J - Estimated value.
I E - Exceeds instument calibrationrange.
I S - Saturatedpeak.
Page 3 of 13
I
I Wffi,r*Lrr,.
Laboratory Seryrces Srnce 1989
I- Q - Exceedsqualitycontollimits.
I U - Compound armilyzed for but not detected above the reporting limit
I UJ- Non-detected compound associated with low bias in the CCV
N - The identification is based on presumptive evidence.
I
I File extensions mayhave been used on the data analysis sheets and indicates
as follows:
t a-File was requantified
I b-File was quantifiedby a second column and detector
rl-File was requantified for the purpose of reissue
Page 4 of 13
I
I
w8€srE4 Cta -r* I€'XIflS LTD.
Laborafory Seryrces Srlcc 1989
Summary of Detected Compounds
MODIFIED EPA METHOD TO-15 GC/MS FULL SCAN
Client Sample ID: VP-3
Lab ID#:09076f0-01A
No Detections Were Found.
Client Sample ID: VP-4
Lab ID#: 0907610-024
Compound
Rpt. Limit Amount
(ppbv) (ppbv)
Rpt. Limit Amount
(ug/m3) (ug/m3)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Tetrachloroethene
Client Sample ID: VP-4 Lab Duplicate
Lab lD#:0907610-02AA
Gompound
Q.74
Rpt. Limit
(ppbv)
1.7
Amount
(ppbv)
Rpt. Limit
(ug/m3)
Amount
(ug/m3)
11
Tetrachloroethene
Client Sample ID: VP-5
Lab ID#: 0907610-03A
Compound
0.74
Rot. Limit Amount Rpt. Limit
(ppbv) (ppbv) (ug/m3) (ug/m3)
ll1.7
Tetrachloroethene
Client Sample ID: VP-5 (DUP)
Lab ID#: 0907610-04A
Compound
0.80 7.3
Rpt. Limit Amount
(ppbv) (ppbv)
5.5
Rpt. Limit
(ug/m3)
Amount
(ug/m3)
I
I
I
I
I
Tetrachloroethene 0.74
Page 5 of 13
*-ryHn"ffisf,
#l*F*xgrcs6-nffi.
L*b*r*f*r"y' .9ervr-ces Sface f *,89
Client Sample ID: VP-3
Lab ID#: 0907610-01A
METHOD TGI5 GCMS FULL SCAN
File Name:
Dil. Factor:
e080408
1.52
Date of Gollection: 7l17lo9 12:30:00 PM
Date of Analysis: 8/4/09 02;24PM
Compound
Rot. Limit
(ppbv)
Amount
(ppbv)
Rpt. Limit
(ug/m3)
Amount
(us/m3)
VinylChloride
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Gontainer Type: 6 Liter Summa Canister
Surrogates
0.76
0.76
0.76
0.76
0.76
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
%Recovery
1.9
3.0
3.1
4.1
5.2
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Method
Limits
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
100
100
102
Toluene-d8
1,2-Dichloroethane-d4
4-Bromofluorobenzene
70-1 30
70-1 30
70-1 30
Page 6 of 13
^#ik"
exr$ffissrrx.
t-*b*rsfery .Seryiees $i*rce $&S
Client Sample ID: VP-4
Lab ID#:0907610-02A
File Name:
Dil. Factor:
e080409
1.49
Date of Cof f ection: 7117109 12;45:00 PM
Date of Analvsis: 8/4/09 03:14 PM
Compound
Rot. Limit
(ppbv)
Amount
(ppbv)
Rpt. Limit
(ug/m3)
Amount
(us/m3)
VinylChloride
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Container Type: 6 Liter Summa Canister
Surrogates
0.74
0.74
0.74
0.74
0.74
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
1.7
%Recovery
1.9
3.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
11
Method
Limits
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Toluene-d8
1,2-Dichloroethane-d4
4-Bromofluorobenzene
99
99
101
70-1 30
70-1 30
70-1 30
Page 7of13
I
I
I
I
I
I
*I
"iftE_Atr -
I8EB IG.XICS LTD.
Le&*rafpry S*rvfe*s $inqe f $€S
Compound
Client Sample ID: VP4 Lab Duplicate
Lab ID#: 0907610-02AA
VIODIFIED EPAMETHOD TG15 C'C/]US FULL SCAN
Rot. Limit Amount Rpt. Limit Amount
(ppbv) (ppbv) (ug/m3) (us/m3)
File Name:
Dil. Factor:
e080425
1.49
Date of Collection: 711710912:45:00 PM
Date of Analvsis: 815/09 07:43 AM
Vinyl Chloride
cis- 1,2-Dich loroethene
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Container Type: 6 Liter Summa Ganister
Surrogates
0.74 Not Detected 'l .9 Not Detected
0.74 Not Detected 3.0 Not Detected
0.74 Not Detected 3.0 Not Detected
0.74 Not Detected 4.0 Not Detected
0.74 1.7 5.0 11
%Recovery
Method
Limits
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Toluene-d8
1 .2-Dichloroethane-d4
4-Bromofluorobenzene
99
96
101
70-1 30
70-1 30
70-1 30
Page 8 of 13
ffisr
eerscs$.rrlg.
t-ab*rxt*ry Ser*iees,Sisrce i $#9:
Client Sample ID: VP-5
Lab ID#: 0907610-034
File Name:
Dil. Factor:
e08041 0
1.61
Date of Golfection: 7117lQ9 12:20:00 PM
Date of Analvsis: 8/4/09 04:04 PM
Compound
Rot. Limit
(ppbv)
Amount
(ppbv)
Rpt. Limit
(ug/m3)
Amount
(ug/m3)
VinylChloride
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Container Type: 6 Liter Summa Canister
Surrogates
2.0
3.2
3.2
+.J
5.5
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
7.3
%Recovery
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
50
Method
LimiG
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
t
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
Toluene-d8
1 .2-Dichloroethane-d4
4-Bromofluorobenzene
101
92
94
70-1 30
70-1 30
70-1 30
Page 9 of 13
Srtr
Fg;rg-cs Lr:r..
I-ab*rzt*ry .$*rw"ces Sirrc,e * $Ss
Client Sample ID: VP-5 (DUP)
Lab ID#: 0907610-044
Rpt. Limit Amount Rpt. Limit Amount
Gompound (ppbv) (ppbv) (ug/m3) (ug/m3)
Vinyl Chloride
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Container Type; 6 Liter Summa Canister
Surrogates
Q.74
0.74
0.74
0.74
0.74
1.9
3.0
2n
4.0
6n
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
4.6
%Recovery
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
32
Method
Limits
EPA METHOD TGI5 GCMS FULL SCAN
File Name:
Dil. Factor:
e080423
1.49
Date of Collection: 7l'l7l0g 12:20:00 PM
Date of Analvsis: 8/5/09 06:16 AM
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
Toluene-d8
1,2-Dichloroethane-d4
4-Bromofluorobenzene
100
93
97
70-1 30
70-1 30
70-1 30
Page 10 of 13
s.-wa"€#dr
ffi? x$ affi*-
Lahor*fcr3r Senrr*es 5;nce f S89
Client Sample ID: Lab Blank
Lab ID#: 0907610-05A
File Name:
Dil. Factor:
e080405
1.00 Date of Analvsis: 8/4/09 12:08 PM
Compound
Rot. Limit
(ppbv)
Amount
(ppbv)
Rpt. Limit
(ug/m3)
Amount
(ug/m3)
VinylChloride
cis- 1,2-Dichloroethene
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
1.3
z.u
2.0
2.7
J.+
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Gontainer Type: NA - Not Applicable
Surrogates %Recovery
Method
Limits
t
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Toluene-dB
1 .2-Dichloroethane-d4
4-Bromofluorobenzene
98
97
102
70-1 30
70-1 30
70-1 30
Page 11 of13
??mmffisE?F-e"
La6ar*fcry,Se*rr*es $*rrce f 9,S9
Client Sample ID: CCV
Lab ID#: 0907610-064
File Name:
Dil. Factor:
e080403 Date of Collection: NA
1.00 Date of Analvsis: 8/4/09 10:44 AM
VinylChloride
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Container Type: NA . Not Applicable
Surrogates
84
87
86
87
84
Method
Limits
Toluene-d8
1,2-Dichloroethane-d4
4-Bromofluorobenzene
10't
98
101
70-1 30
70-1 30
70-1 30
Page 12 of 13
Fgffis&frtrIo
L*.b*r*t*ry,$erv!'**s $r*see f $.69
Client Sample ID: LCS
Lab ID#: 0907610-07,{
Gompound
METHOD TGI5 GCMS FULL SCAN
File Name:
Dil. Factor:
e080404 Date of Collection: NA
1.00 Date of Analvsis: 8/4/09 11:25 AM
Vinyl Chloride
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Container Type: NA - Not Applicable
Surrogates
103
100'101
101
Method
Limits
Toluene-dB
1,2-Dichloroethane-d4
4-Bromofluorobenzene
99
98
100
70-1 30
70-1 30
70-1 30
Page 13 of 13
"tP
IB
E
I
aq tt
!r gl-
egH b
a*q'-g$tr d)[gr F
=c)lL..e $E
5H$5*E'Fd!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SEFri'P
H HEf,fFEF$E8p=Eur H E 9l.!,i
$eEiEg
EEgf,gE.
EEfi$FFE
EEHEf,Eq
F$FgEEE
daho
.HE+FHFtrf
Appendix C
Johnson & Ettinger Model Documentation
s:\AAA+fasta Rojsts\Mv Tryotr LLc (MVT)MVT-oo2 Trlotr Hills Assmbl€gc\Brownfields\Soil vapor Rcport\soil vapor As6m@t xqort.Uc HAn't & HiCkmAn, PC
I I I I I I I I I I r I I r I I I I r
DATA ENTRY SHEET
l--sG-ADV_-l
lVersion 3.t;02/0al
f-R"""* IL l*9* J
c.tiifli FliiEi'i
Depth
below grade Soil gas
lo bottom sampling
of enclosed depth
space floor, below grade,
LF L.
Data
l:li 1 r:ll
Chemical
CAS No
(numbers only.
t:lil 5li i:i] i-EI:r
Soil Soil
gas gas
conc, a'li conc,
cc cs
(uo/m3l rnnmwt Chemical
127184 3.10E+04 | |Tetr actrlor oethvlene
Lf,r iFli
Stratum Ascs
soil type
f L."k"Gt-)
L_lytl'l"J
rlttEii
Stratum A
soil dry
bulk density,
EhI E rt
Average
50n
temperature,
Ts
it,I IF H
Stralum A
soil lotal
porosil.y,
n'
EI.Ii ER
Stratum A
soil water-filled
porosity,
0*^
E NI E'i
Stratum Bscs
ErlTrk
Stratum B
sorl dry
bulk density,
Pb-
i:ri i i lr
Stratum B
soil total
porosity,
Lit f !!i
Stratum B
soil waterJilled
porosIy,
oru
ira l i:ii
Straturn C
soil dry
bulk density
cPb
r:lirt(
Slratum C
soil total
porosily,
n"
Stratum C
soil water-filled
porosily,
or"
L:JIEii -lilFii i.trti:ti
Soil
slratum A User-defined
SCS stratum A
soil type soil vapor
(used to estimate (,r.: permeability,
sort vapor k"
Thickness Thickner
Thickness of soil of soil
ofsoil stratum B, stratum C,
stratum A, (Enter value or 0) (Enter value or 0)
ha hB hc
'/cm
E i.l iE i\
Stratum Cscs
soil type
[r-..r"psJ-)(-i":'l:Y","/cm
El{,Eii
Enclosed
!ii rrll Ei'I TTR
Enclosed
space
floor
length,
L8
lcm I
Eii Ihk
Enclosed
space
{loor
widlh,
(cm)
EH'I EIi
Enclosed
space
height,
Hg
(cm)
EH i iri
Floor-wall
seam clacK
width,
(cm)
L r.l i i:. ri
lndoof
arf exchange
rate,
ER
I 1/ht
space Soil-bldg
floor pressure
thickness, differenlial,
| ^oLcr*&
(cm) (g/cm-s2)
rli|[:x
Average vapor
flow rate into bldg
OR
Leave blank to calculate
e_r
------lL4rL-
f--- 5 ----l
!li i;ii EilItr;
Averaging Averaging
time for time lor Exposure
carcinogens, noncarcinogens, duration,
AT"ATIC ED
hii-f HIt
Exposure
frequency,
EF
(vrs) (yr9) (yrs) (days/yr)
f- ENp -l
l of 1
I I I I I I I r I I I I I r I I r I r
RESULTS SHEET
INCREMENTAL RISK CALCULATIONS:
fncremental Hazard
rlsk ftom quotient
vapor from vapor
intrusion to intrusion to
indoor air, indoor air,
carcinogen noncarcinogen
(unitless) (unitless)
@
tu{t:igAcE Ai..lD LRIiOR StJrvitulARY BELOW: ( D[) t',lc] t t,Sh iiEst ,r. | :; tF Eiili( jlis ^'HE f.ftESF.i.t t-,
I ENo --l
J&E-SG-ADV-VP-2 (PCE)1of1
I I I I I I r I I r I I I r I I I I r
DATA ENTRY SHEET
f i'J | [ r] Ei{TEfi Ei{ iER
Depth
below grade Soil gas
to bottom sampling Averago
of enclosed depth sorl
space floor, below grade, temperature,
LF L. TS
tslilFri
Stratum Ascs
soil type
l'-r..rrp s"il I
! ParanE€r,
a lt'ik I i
Stralum A
soil dry
bulk density,
Pb
EN TER
Stratum A
soil total
porosity,
n
Eil1'ETi
Stratum A
soil water-filled
Porosity,
o"^
ENIER
Stratum Bscs
Fl'rT6R
Stratum B
soil dry
bulk density,
B
Pb
Er{ttri
Stratum B
soil total
porosity.
NB
Er.l i dr(
Stratum B
soil waterjilled
pofosity,
o*u
EN Itr{
Stratum Cscs
soil type
a-r".k"p s"d )
\__P*.1:1"j. -,/
Eil I LJi
Stratum C
soil dry
bulk density,
cPb
tltlLr
Stratum C
soil total
porosity,
^c
Stratum C
soil water-filled
porosity,
9*"
(cm'/cm
soil
Soil Gas Concentration
Chemical
CAS No
(numbers only,
i,i{l EF EiiTtii
Soil Soil
gas gas
COnC, ( )r( COnC .
cs cq
luo/m3l Chemical
79016 1 80E+03 Triclrloroelhvlene
i:i,ll-eit Li;ii:ti [tJTEii
Totals must add uo to value of Ls (celt F24l
Lil lt:i L:ivTf i:.
Soil
stratum A Useriefined
SCS stfatum A
soil tYPe soil vapor
(used to eslimate ari( permeabilily,
soil vapor k,
Thickness of soit of soil
of soil stratum B, stratum C,
stratum A, (Enter value or 0) (Enter vatuo or 0)
h^ hB hc
Elt IE fi
Soil-bldg
pressure
thickness, differential,
| ^okrd
(cm) (g/cm-s'?;
Er,lIilF
Enclosed
space
floor
ti{TER
Enclosed
space
floor
length,
L8
(cm)
F.N IER
Enclosed
space
floor
widlh,
(cm)
ENi FR
Enclosed
space
height,
H8
(cm)
EN E R
Floor-wall
seam crack
width,
acml
El.ifirR
lndoor
air exchange
rate,
ER
r1lhl
ENl Urt
Average vapor
flow rate into bldg
OR
Leave blank to calculate
Q*r
---fr!U-
|--5-----l
EtllEri EhlTfii
Averaging Averaging
lime for time for
carcinogens, noncarcinogens,
ATc ATn"
i:ii iEli
Exposure
duration,
ED
lvrs)
E liTEfT
Exposure
frequency,
EF
(davs/vr)(vrs)(Vrs)
f-ENp
-l
1of 1
IIIIIIIIIIIIIITIIIT
RESULTS SHEEI
INCREMEITTAL RISK CALCULATOT,|S:
fncremental Hazard
risk from quotient
vapor from vapor
intrusion to intrusion lo
indoor air, indoor air,
carcinogen noncarcinogen
(unitless) (unitless)
ffi
lvlESSatiE AflD ERROF'i SL.lMtulAFtY BELi-rVv: (D(.:) N(fI USE llhstit 15 tF F-iii:rf)lr:i AtiE I'riESEt,lT)
MESSAGE: RisldHQ or risk-based soil concenration is based on a rouie-to-route exlraoolation
l-TNp----l
J&E-SG-ADV-VP-2 (TCE)
I I I I I I I
ENTER ENTER ENTER
Depth
below grade Soil gas
to bottom sampling Average
of enclosed depth soil
space floor, below grade. temperalure,
LF L. T"
I I I I I I I I I I I r
DATA ENTRY SHEET
ENTER
Stratum Ascs
soil type
fl"k"es;n-)Ll3rlT,
ENTER
Stratum A
soil dry
bulk density,
ENTER
Stratum A
soil lotal
porosity,
ENTER
Stratum A
soil waterJilled
porosrty,
o*^
ENTER
Stratum Bscs
ENTER
Stratum B
soil dry
bulk density,
.B
ENTER
Stratum B
soil total
porosrty,
ENTER
Stratum B
soil water-filled
porosrly,
0""
ENTER
Stratum Cscs
ENTER
Slratum C
soil dry
bulk dersity.
c
Pb
ENTER
Stralum C
soil total
Porosity,
nc
ENTER
Stratum C
soil water-filled
PoroSity,
e*"
Gas Concentration Dala
ENTER
Chemical
CAS No
(numbers only,
ENIER ENIET(
Soil Soil
gas gas
Conc, OR conc,
cq cq
(xg/m3) {oomv)Chemical
156592 1 8oE+03 | |cis-1 .2-Dichloroethvlene
Soil
stratum A User-defined
SCS stratum A
sorl type soil vapor
(used to estimate OR permeability,
soil vapor k,
Thickness Thickne
Thickness of soil of soil
of soil stratum B. stratum C,
stratum A, (Enter value or 0) (Enter value or 0)
hA h8 hc
sorl
ENTER
lndoor
air exchange
tate,
ER
{1/h}
soil
ENTER
Average vapor
flow rate into bldg
OR
Leave blank to calculate
Q*r
__ (Um)
f--s I
t/cm
Lootup Soil
ENTER
Enclosed
space
height,
HB
(cm)
ENTER
Floor-wall
seam crack
width,
(cm)
'lcta
ENTER
Enclosed
space
ENTER
Soil-bldg
lloor pressure
thickness, differenhal,
L",""r AP
(cm) (9/cm-s2)
ENTER ENTER
Enclosed Enclosed
space space
floor
length,
LB
(cm)
floor
width,
WB
(cm)
ENTER ENTER ENTER ENTER
Averaging Averaging
time for lime for Exposure
frequency,
EF
carcrnogens, noncarcrnogens,
ATc ATrc
Exposure
ouIaIon,
ED
l--Np I
1of1
IIIIIIIIITIIIIIIIII
RESULTS SHEET
INCREMENTAL RISK CALCULATIONS:
fncremential Hazar,d
risk from quotient
vapor from vapor
intrusion to intrusion to
indoor air, indoo. air
carcinogon noncarcinogen
(uniuess) (unitless)
re
MESSAGE AND ERROR SUMMARY BELOW: (DO NOT USE RESULTS lF ERRORS ARE PRESENT)
MESSAGE: RISUHO or dsk-based soil concentration is based on a route-to-roule extrapolatlon.
l-ENp -l
J&E-SG-ADV-VP-2 (CtS-1,2-DCE)