Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFUEL SYST_June 2012 Vapor Intrusion Report-OCR VAPOR INTRUSION REPORT Former Fuel Systems Facility 5019 Hovis Road Charlotte, NC Prepared For: BorgWarner Inc. Auburn Hills, MI June 2012 AIR QUALITY HYDROGEOLOGY ANALYTICAL LABORATORY REGULATORY COMPLIANCE CIVIL & ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING Vapor Intrusion Report Former Fuel Systems Facility, Charlotte, North Carolina June 2012 12\09-123\RPTS\VI Report\Vapor Intrusion Report - i - Rogers & Callcott Engineers, Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 1.1 SITE INFORMATION ........................................................................................................... 1 1.2 PURPOSE ........................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION ..................................................................................................... 2 2.1 QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL SAMPLES ....................................................... 3 2.2 LABORATORY ANALYSIS .................................................................................................... 3 3.0 RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................ 3 3.1 VAPOR INTRUSION RESULTS ............................................................................................. 4 3.2 CALCULATION OF WORST CASE 1,1-DCE CONCENTRATION ............................................. 4 3.3 RECOMMENDATION ......................................................................................................... 6 4.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 7 FIGURES Figure 1 ................................................................................................................ Site Location Map Figure 2 ....................................................................................................... Soil Gas Sample Results Figure 3 ................................................................................................ Indoor Air Sample Locations TABLES Table 1 ......................................................................................... Sample Collection Field Summary Table 2 .................................................... Indoor/Outdoor Temperatures during Sample Collection Table 3 .................................................................................................. Indoor Air Analytical Results APPENDICES Appendix A .................................................................................................................... Photographs Appendix B ........................... Analytical Laboratory Reports and Chain of Custody Documentation Appendix C ........................................................ Worst Case Indoor Air Concentration Calculations Vapor Intrusion Report Former Fuel Systems Facility, Charlotte, North Carolina June 2012 12\09-123\RPTS\VI Report\Vapor Intrusion Report - ii - Rogers & Callcott Engineers, Inc. ACRONYM LIST ASHRAE American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning Engineers 1,1-DCE 1,1-dichloroethene ° F degrees Fahrenheit FD field duplicate ft feet IHSB Inactive Hazardous Sites Branch K Kelvin Kysor Kysor/Michigan Fleet Division m2 square meters m3/s cubic meters per second µg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter NCDENR North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service PID photoionization detector ppm parts per million QA quality assurance QC quality control SCAN Soil Climate Analysis Network USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture Vapor Intrusion Report Former Fuel Systems Facility, Charlotte, North Carolina June 2012 12\09-123\RPTS\VI Report\Vapor Intrusion Report Page 1 of 7 Rogers & Callcott Engineers, Inc. 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of indoor air sampling conducted at the Former Fuel Systems Facility, located at 5019 Hovis Road in Charlotte, North Carolina (the Site), on May 3, 2012. This investigation was conducted due to detections of 1,1-dichloroethene (1,1-DCE) in subsurface soil gas samples collected at the Site in October 2011, and reported in the Vapor Intrusion and Soil Sampling Report (Rogers & Callcott, 2011). This investigation was completed in accordance with the Work Plan for Vapor Intrusion Sampling (Rogers & Callcott, 2012). 1.1 SITE INFORMATION Prior to its recent purchase from a bankruptcy trustee by Hovis LLC in December 2010, the Site was owned and operated by Fuel Systems LLC. Fuel Systems and the former owner, Kysor/Michigan Fleet Division (Kysor), operated the facility for manufacturing and warehousing fuel tanks for commercial and military transport trucks. The manufacturing processes included shaping and welding sheet aluminum and steel into fuel tanks, cleaning and degreasing tank components using chlorinated and aromatic solvents, acid etching of aluminum tanks, spray painting of tanks, and installation of instrumentation (Ogden, 1997). The finished tanks were stored in the facility prior to shipping. The property consists of 3.94 acres and includes a single story, industrial building that covers approximately 55% of the Site property. The building appears to be constructed predominantly of steel framing and masonry walls with concrete floors (slab on grade) and a steel framed tar and gravel roof. The Site is located in the northwest portion of the Charlotte city limits within an older industrial park. The area has been assigned an I-2 zoning classification (i.e., General Industrial). The Site is bounded by Hovis Road along its eastern property boundary and by Bealer Road along its northern property boundary. Sets of both active and decommissioned railroad tracks owned by CSX bound the property to the west. Constar International, a manufacturer of plastic drink bottles, occupies the adjacent property to the south. A Site location map is provided as Figure 1. 1.2 PURPOSE The potential for vapor intrusion of 1,1-DCE was evaluated through sampling of the subsurface soil gas just above each of the two groundwater plumes identified in previous investigations based on screening against the Acceptable Groundwater Concentrations provided in the IHSB Industrial/Commercial Vapor Intrusion Screening Tables. Within the plume identified to the south of the facility, two soil gas samples (SG-6 and SG-7) exceeded the Acceptable Soil Gas Concentration for 1,1-DCE of 1,760 µg/m3. Soil gas sample locations and 1,1-DCE results are summarized on Figure 2. As shown in the referenced figure, SG-6 was the only soil gas sample Vapor Intrusion Report Former Fuel Systems Facility, Charlotte, North Carolina June 2012 12\09-123\RPTS\VI Report\Vapor Intrusion Report Page 2 of 7 Rogers & Callcott Engineers, Inc. located adjacent to the facility that exceeded the screening level. Consequently, this investigation concentrated on sampling the area of the facility interior adjacent to sample location SG-6. This report presents the indoor air sample data collected during the May 3, 2012 sampling event. Sample results were compared to the 1,1-DCE Acceptable Indoor Air Concentration of 176 μg/m3 provided in the February 2012 IHSB Vapor Intrusion Screening Tables. Due to temperatures above the optimal ambient air temperature recommended by the NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) guidance (NCDENR, 2011), the sample results were also used to calculate the maximum possible 1,1-DCE indoor air concentrations under the recommended sampling conditions. 2.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION Sampling activities were conducted at the Site on May 3, 2012, as soon as possible after some potential indoor air contaminant sources were removed by the owner, and following two Site visits conducted in January and March 2012. Potential sources removed from the facility included the drums of used oil adjacent to a former machine pit. The pit was partially filled with soil after the January Site visit. The pit was still partially filled and not capped at the time of sample collection, but the fill soil had been covered with plastic sheeting. Some solvent containers (mineral spirits and WD-40) and several vehicles were still present in the facility. Photographs of the facility interior during sampling activities are provided as Appendix A. Sample collection began just before sunrise when exterior temperatures are typically coolest, and therefore the atmospheric conditions closest to those recommended by NCDENR guidance (average high temperatures less than 60° F). A total of five samples, including one field duplicate, were collected at the Site. All samples were collected into evacuated stainless steel 6-Liter Summa canisters. Flow regulators were used to collect the samples over a 4-hour period. As specified in the NCDENR guidance document, collection of an exterior background sample (BWIA-1) began approximately one hour before collection of the indoor air samples began. Prior to collection of the indoor samples, the interior of the facility was screened by a photoionization detector (PID) to determine the most likely potential source areas of background contamination. PID readings ranged from 1.8 to 5.2 parts per million (ppm) throughout the facility with the highest readings occurring in the northwest corner of the room located at the northeast corner of the facility. The lowest readings occurred in the southern portion of the facility in the area adjacent to SG-6. The area of the machine pit along the western wall of the facility exhibited PID readings ranging from 2.5 to 3.6 ppm. A total of five samples were collected at the locations shown on Figure 3. Sample BWIA-1 was collected as an exterior background sample, located outside the main entrance of the facility along Hovis Road. Sample BWIA-2 was located in the area of highest PID readings (Photos 1 and Vapor Intrusion Report Former Fuel Systems Facility, Charlotte, North Carolina June 2012 12\09-123\RPTS\VI Report\Vapor Intrusion Report Page 3 of 7 Rogers & Callcott Engineers, Inc. 2, Appendix A), sample BWIA-3 was located near the northeast corner of the machine pit (Photos 3 and 4, Appendix A), and BWIA-4 plus a field duplicate, BWIA-5, were located along the southern wall of the facility adjacent to soil gas sample location SG-6 (Photos 11-13, Appendix A). Table 1 provides sample IDs, sample locations, start and end times for sample collection, and the approximate PID reading or range measured at each sample location. Ambient air temperatures were measured every hour at interior sample location BWIA-4/5 and exterior sample location BWIA-1 during collection. Temperature measurements are summarized in Table 2. The average exterior temperature was 73.7° F during sampling, and ranged from 66.4° F when sampling began to 81.8° F when sampling was completed. Interior temperatures remained relatively stable during sample activities, with an average temperature of 74.6° F, rising slightly from 74.0° F when sampling began to a maximum of 75.4° F. 2.1 QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL SAMPLES Three quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) samples were collected during the indoor air investigation. As noted above, BWIA-5 was collected as a duplicate of sample BWIA-4. The two samples were collected simultaneously by attaching the legs of a Swagelok® “T” to two flow regulators and SUMMA canisters (Photo 13, Appendix A). The duplicate sample provided information on the consistency and reproducibility of the field sampling and analytical procedures. The background sample (BWIA-1) was collected in an upwind position outside of the building to monitor any exterior background levels of 1,1-DCE in the investigation area. Additionally, a trip blank (BWIA-Trip Blank) was submitted for analysis. The trip blank canister remained unopened, but accompanied the other canisters during transport from the Site to the laboratory, thus experiencing the same storage, shipping, and analysis conditions. The trip blank provided information on the field and laboratory sample handling procedures as well as sample integrity during shipping. The laboratory analyzed additional internal QA/QC samples at the time of sample analysis consisting of a laboratory blank, a continuing calibration verification sample, a laboratory control spike, and a laboratory control spike duplicate. 2.2 LABORATORY ANALYSIS Samples were shipped to Air Toxics Ltd. in Folsom, CA, where they were analyzed for 1,1-DCE by Modified EPA Method TO-15 (5 & 20 ppbv). Chain of custody documentation for the indoor air samples is included along with the laboratory reports in Appendix B. 3.0 RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The following subsections provide a discussion of the results generated from the indoor air investigation, a summary of methods used to calculate the maximum possible indoor air concentrations of 1,1-DCE during worst case conditions, and recommendations regarding the overall vapor intrusion assessment for the Site. Vapor Intrusion Report Former Fuel Systems Facility, Charlotte, North Carolina June 2012 12\09-123\RPTS\VI Report\Vapor Intrusion Report Page 4 of 7 Rogers & Callcott Engineers, Inc. 3.1 VAPOR INTRUSION RESULTS 1,1-DCE concentrations for indoor air samples including QA/QC samples are summarized in Table 3. Concentrations in all indoor air samples were below detection. The reporting limit ranged from 38 to 39 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) for samples BWIA-1 – BWIA-5. This reporting limit range is well below the Acceptable Indoor Air Concentration of 176 μg/m3 for 1,1-DCE listed in the IHSB Vapor Intrusion Screening Tables (February, 2012). All QA/QC samples support the validity of the results. The trip blank and background samples had no detectable concentrations. Sample BWIA-4 and its field duplicate also exhibited no detectable concentrations. Additionally, all laboratory control samples met the laboratory’s QC requirements. No receiving or analytical discrepancies were noted in the laboratory report (Appendix B). The laboratory control blank had a non-detectable concentration of 1,1-DCE, and the continuing calibration verification sample, laboratory control sample, and laboratory control sample duplicate all exhibited percentage recoveries that were within the acceptable method limits. Also, surrogate percentage recovery values met the method limits in all samples analyzed. 3.2 CALCULATION OF WORST CASE 1,1-DCE CONCENTRATION As previously noted, indoor air samples were collected when the average exterior temperature was above the optimal average high of 60° F. Exterior temperatures were greater than the interior temperatures for approximately 2 hours over the 4 hours during which the indoor air samples were collected. During the winter, when exterior temperatures decrease, the soil located beneath the building slab is cooled, thereby increasing the pressure gradient between the subsurface soil gas and the building interior. When such a pressure differential occurs, advection of vapors from the subsurface to the indoor air will increase. This negative pressure effect typically associated with indoor heating is known as the chimney or stack effect (McHugh, 2006). This pressure gradient can also be affected by air intake and exhaust rates associated with central heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems and dehumidification of indoor air. Because indoor air in the main portion of the Site facility where sampling was conducted is not currently conditioned, pressure gradients between the subsurface and the building interior were assumed to be entirely due to the temperature difference between the subslab soil gas and indoor air. The calculations presented below were used to determine the potential increase in vapor advection during the winter months as compared with the data collected in May. The advective flow rate due to the temperature difference between two adjoining volumes can be calculated based on the following equation [American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), 1997]: Vapor Intrusion Report Former Fuel Systems Facility, Charlotte, North Carolina June 2012 12\09-123\RPTS\VI Report\Vapor Intrusion Report Page 5 of 7 Rogers & Callcott Engineers, Inc. Where: Q = the advective flow rate (m3/s) C = discharge coefficient (typically 0.65 – 0.70) A = flow area between two volumes (m2) g = gravitational acceleration (9.81 m/s2) h = building height (ft) Ti = average indoor air temperature (K) Ts = average air temperature of subslab soil (K) Because the gravity, building height, flow area (i.e. – area of cracks in the slab through which vapor flow could occurs), and the discharge coefficients are constant throughout the year, the above equation can be used to determine the ratio between the advective flow rate into the building from the subsurface under worst case conditions (in winter months) and during the May sampling event (Qw/Q) as follows: Where: Qw = the advective flow rate during worst case conditions (m3/s) Tiw = average indoor air temperature during worst case conditions (K) Tsw = average air temperature of subslab soil during worst case conditions (K) Complete derivation of this equation and the calculation of Qw/Q are provided in Appendix C. To calculate Qw/Q , the following input values were used: Ti = 296.61 K Calculated as the average indoor air temperature measured at the Site over the sampling period. Ts = 295.10 K Calculated as the average of hourly soil temperatures measured at a depth of 4 inches during the sampling period on May 3, 2012, at a Soil Climate Analysis Network (SCAN) site operated by U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) – Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) near the town of Critz, VA. Tsw = 275.66 K Calculated as the average of hourly soil temperatures measured at a depth of 4 inches on January 19, 2012, over the same sampling period and at the same NRCS monitoring station. Tiw = 288.56 K Estimated to be a maximum of 60° F based on January 19, 2012 Site visit. Vapor Intrusion Report Former Fuel Systems Facility, Charlotte, North Carolina June 2012 12\09-123\RPTS\VI Report\Vapor Intrusion Report Page 6 of 7 Rogers & Callcott Engineers, Inc. Temperatures from January 19, 2012, were selected for the worst case calculation as outdoor air temperatures in Charlotte, NC (mean T = 38.3° F) and Critz, VA (mean T = 34.7° F) were under the threshold temperature for indoor air sampling of 60° F. Additionally, this was the date of the initial January Site visit. Although an indoor air temperature was not measured at the Site during the visit, the building was unheated, and Tiw was conservatively estimated to be a maximum of 60° F. Using the preceding input values, the flow rate ratio Qw/Q is found to be 2.96, which means that the air volume migrating from the subslab soil gas to the building interior was 2.96 times lower during the sampling period on May 3, 2012 than over the same time period on January 19, 2012. From the calculated flow rate ratio, the maximum possible 1,1-DCE concentration calculated for worst case conditions is 113 μg/m3, which is approximately 64% of the Acceptable Indoor Air Concentration of 176 μg/m3 for 1,1-DCE. This calculation makes the following conservative assumptions: • Indoor air temperature was 60° F on January 19, 2012. • The 1,1-DCE soil gas concentration is constant, which is considered a conservative estimate as the 1,1-DCE in groundwater will partition to the soil gas to a lesser extent during colder (worst case) conditions. • The entire mass of 1,1-DCE accumulates in the building, which again is a conservative estimate as some of the 1,1-DCE entering the building likely would diffuse through holes or vents in the roof of the building. • An indoor air concentration of 1,1-DCE just below the reporting limit of 38 μg/m3 at BWIA-4/5, which is a conservative assumption as the analytical laboratory indicated that the 1,1-DCE concentration was below the method detection limit (MDL) of 5 μg/m3 in all samples based on a visual review of the sample chromatograms. Using the same calculation method and assuming a 1,1-DCE concentration at the MDL of 5 μg/m3, the resulting worst case concentration is less than 15 μg/m3, which is approximately 8.5% of the Acceptable Indoor Air Concentration. 3.3 RECOMMENDATION Based on the results of the indoor air investigation and subsequent calculations, it was determined that: • 1,1-DCE was not detected in any of the samples. • Calculations demonstrate that sampling outside of the optimal temperature conditions had no impact on the findings. Therefore, no further action is warranted. Vapor Intrusion Report Former Fuel Systems Facility, Charlotte, North Carolina June 2012 12\09-123\RPTS\VI Report\Vapor Intrusion Report Page 7 of 7 Rogers & Callcott Engineers, Inc. 4.0 REFERENCES ASHRAE, 1997. ASHRAE Fundamentals Handbook. Atlanta, GA: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. NCDENR, 2011b. Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Structural Vapor Intrusion Potential for Site Assessments and Remedial Actions under the Inactive Hazardous Sites Branch and Industrial/Commercial Vapor Intrusion Screening Tables (August 2011). Division of Waste Management: Superfund Section: Inactive Hazardous Sites Branch. Ogden Environmental and Engineering Services Co, Inc., January 1997. Preliminary Site Assessment Report: KYSOR/Michigan Fleet Division. Rogers & Callcott, 2011. Vapor Intrusion and Soil Sampling Report, Former Fuel Systems Facility, Charlotte, North Carolina. Rogers & Callcott, 2012. Work Plan for Vapor Intrusion Sampling, Former Fuel Systems Facility, Charlotte, North Carolina. USDA – NRCS, 2012. National Water and Climate Center website: Soil Climate Analysis Network, 1 Jun 2012. http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/scan/. Vapor Intrusion Report Former Fuel Systems Facility, Charlotte, North Carolina June 2012 12\09-123\RPTS\VI Report\Vapor Intrusion Report Rogers & Callcott Engineers, Inc. FIGURES Hovis R d M o r g a n S t Tar Heel Rd R o z z e l l e s F e r r y R d E x c h a n g e S t Bealer Rd Wabash Ave S Hoski n s R d Westri d g e D r Brooktree Dr S R a m s e y S t Interurba n A v e T e r m i n a l S t W i l d w o o d A v e Broo k s h i r e B l v d We s t s t o n e D r Marbl e S t Ranch R d Ri d g e l e y D r Northern Dr Grov e w o o d D r Porter St Lewiston A v e Knollc r e s t D r Cantwell St Godle y L n Blackm o n S t Gulf Dr S a m p s o n S t Wi l l a r d S t Bradf o r d D r Pino c a S t Win d y V a l l e y D r Ga t e w o o d D r Lawton R d Sa l e m C h u r c h R d W i n c h e s t e r S t Bir k d a l e D r S Cloud m a n S t Williamson S t Palm B r e e z e L n Goff St Mel y n d a R d B u t l e r R d Mist r a l W a y Roa d w a y S t Sinclair St Welling A v e E T o d d L n Tanglebriar Dr Third St Mor n i n g B r e e z e L n Garfield St W T o d d L n Pon d e r o s a S t Anita Ct Brambl e P l Westcres t D r Toluca P l Jake s L n H o s k i n s A v e n u e D r Gusty C t Elder b e r r y A v e Sarena Pl Elton P l S Rams e y S t Ranc h R d Wabash Ave Lewi s t o n A v e R o c h e l l e L n Wind C h i m e C t Tillm a n R d Gum S t Green S t Hoskins M i l l L n Ridgev a l l e y D r Woodway Pl 0 600 1,200300Feet Wednesday, December 21, 2011, 11:52:00 AMC:\GIS\PROJECTS\Borg_Warner\09-123\Maps\11\Site Location.mxd DRAWN BY: MAL 12/21/2011CHECKED BY: PMSAPPROVED BY: GYM FIGURE 1 5019 Hovis Road,Charlotte, NC 28208 SITE LOCATIONMAP FUEL SYSTEMS FACILITY . REFERENCE: North Carolina One Map, 2010 aerial photography. MecklenburgCounty GIS, propperty boundary. SITE Approximate Site Boundary !A !A !A!A !A!A !A !A !A !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !(AB-1 SG-71,1-DCE = 150,000 ug/m3 SG-4 SG-5 SG-61,1-DCE = 3,200 ug/m3 SG-3 SG-2 SG-1 MW-1 MW-6 MW-7 MW-5MW-4 MW-9 MW-3 MW-2 MW-8D 0 60 12030Feet Friday, June 08, 2012, 03:21:17 PMC:\GIS\PROJECTS\Borg_Warner\09-123\Maps\11\FIG 2 sg results.mxd DRAWN BY: MAL 6/8/2012CHECKED BY: LASAPPROVED BY: GYM FIGURE 2 5019 Hovis Road,Charlotte, NC 28208 SOIL GASSAMPLE RESULTS FUEL SYSTEMS FACILITY . REFERENCE:North Carolina One Map, 2010 aerial photography.Mecklenburg County GIS, property boundary.Comprehensive Site Assessment Addendum, 2000 andAdditional Groundwater Assessment Report, 2008. !A Monitoring Wells Approximate Site Boundary !(Soil Gas Sample (ND for 1,1-DCE) !( Soil Gas Sample (Exceeds Acceptable Soil Gas Concentration) Acceptable soil gas concentration for 1,1-DCE = 1,760 ug/m3 (NCDENR IHSB Industrial Vapor Intrusion Screening Table) !A !A !A!A !A!A !A !A !A !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !? !? !? !? AB-1 SG-7 SG-4 SG-5 SG-6 SG-3 SG-2 SG-1 MW-1 MW-6 MW-7 MW-5 MW-4 MW-9 MW-3 MW-2 MW-8D BWIA-1 BWIA-3 BWIA-2 BWIA-4/5 0 60 12030Feet Friday, June 01, 2012, 11:44:07 AMC:\GIS\PROJECTS\Borg_Warner\09-123\Maps\11\FIG 3 ia samples.mxd DRAWN BY: MAL 6/1/2012CHECKED BY: PMSAPPROVED BY: GYM FIGURE 3 5019 Hovis Road,Charlotte, NC 28208 INDOOR AIRSAMPLE LOCATIONS FUEL SYSTEMS FACILITY . REFERENCE: North Carolina One Map, 2010 aerial photography.Mecklenburg County GIS, property boundary.Comprehensive Site Assessment Addendum, 2000 andAdditional Groundwater Assessment Report, 2008. !?Indoor Air Sample Location !(Soil Gas Sample Location !A Monitoring Wells Approximate Site Boundary Vapor Intrusion Report Former Fuel Systems Facility, Charlotte, North Carolina June 2012 12\09-123\RPTS\VI Report\Vapor Intrusion Report Rogers & Callcott Engineers, Inc. TABLES Ta b l e  1 Sa m p l e  Co l l e c t i o n  Fi e l d  Su m m a r y Fo r m e r  Fu e l  Sy s t e m s  Fa c i l i t y 50 1 9  Ho v i s  Ro a d ,  Ch a r l o t t e ,  NC Sa m p l e  ID S a m p l e  De s c r i p t i o n Sa m p l e  Lo c a t i o n St a r t  Ti m e E n d  TimePID Reading  (ppm) BW I A ‐1 O u t d o o r  Ba c k g r o u n d 20  ft  no r t h e a s t  of  bu i l d i n g  en t r a n c e  al o n g  Ho v i s  Rd .   6: 2 0  AM 1 0 : 2 0  AM 1 . 6 BW I A ‐2 I n d o o r  Ai r No r t h w e s t  co r n e r  of  no r t h e a s t  ro o m 7: 1 5  AM 1 1 : 1 5  AM 4 . 8 ‐5.2 BW I A ‐3 I n d o o r  Ai r At  no r t h e a s t  co r n e r  of  pi t   7: 2 0  AM 1 1 : 2 0  AM 2 . 5 ‐3.6 BW I A ‐4 I n d o o r  Ai r 5  ft  no r t h  of  in t e r i o r  so u t h  wa ll  ad j a c e n t  to  SG ‐67 :2 5  AM 11 : 2 5  AM 1 . 8 BW I A ‐5 F i e l d  Du p l i c a t e Fi e l d  du p l i c a t e  of  BW I A ‐47 :2 5  AM 1 1 : 2 5  AM 1 . 8 \1 2 \ 0 9 ‐12 3 \ R P T S \ V I  Re p o r t \ T a b l e s _ 6 ‐1 ‐12 Rogers  & Callcott  Engineers, Inc. Ta b l e  2 In d o o r / O u t d o o r  Te m p e r a t u r e s  du r i n g  Sa m p l e  Co l l e c t i o n Fo r m e r  Fu e l  Sy s t e m s  Fa c i l i t y 50 1 9  Ho v i s  Ro a d ,  Ch a r l o t t e ,  NC Ti m e In d o o r  Te m p e r a t u r e  (°  F) 1 Ou t d o o r  Te m p e r a t u r e  (°  F) 2 6: 3 0  AM 74 . 0 66 . 4 7: 3 0  AM 74 . 3 68 . 7 8: 3 0  AM 74 . 2 72 . 2 9: 3 0  AM 75 . 4 74 . 4 10 : 3 0  AM 74 . 8 78 . 8 11 : 3 0  AM 74 . 8 81 . 8 Av e r a g e : 74 . 6 73 . 7 1  ‐   In d o o r  te m p e r a t u r e s  me a s u r e d  at  sa m p l e  lo c a t i o n  BW I A ‐4/ 5 2  ‐   Ou t d o o r  te m p e r a t u r e s  me a s u r e d  at  sa m p l e  lo c a t i o n  BW I A ‐1 \1 2 \ 0 9 ‐12 3 \ R P T S \ V I  Re p o r t \ T a b l e s _ 6 ‐1 ‐12 Rogers  & Callcott  Engineers, Inc. Ta b l e  3 In d o o r  Ai r  An a l y t i c a l  Re s u l t s Fo r m e r  Fu e l  Sy s t e m s  Fa c i l i t y 50 1 9  Ho v i s  Ro a d ,  Ch a r l o t t e ,  No r t h  Ca r o l i n a 1, 1 ‐DC E R e p o r t i n g  Limit (μ g/ m 3 )(μ g/m 3 ) 20  ft  no r t h e a s t  of  bu i l d i n g  en t r a n c e  al o n g  Ho v i s  Rd .  (B a c k g r o u n d ) No t  De t e c t e d < 39 No r t h w e s t  co r n e r  of  no r t h e a s t  ro o m No t  De t e c t e d < 39 At  no r t h e a s t  co r n e r  of  pi t   No t  De t e c t e d < 38 5  ft  no r t h  of  in t e r i o r  so u t h  wa l l  ad j a c e n t  to  SG ‐6N o t  De t e c t e d < 38 Fi e l d  du p l i c a t e  of  BW I A ‐4N o t  De t e c t e d < 38 QC  Sa m p l e :  Tr i p  bl a n k No t  De t e c t e d < 20 μ g/ m 3  ‐   mi c r o g r a m s  pe r  cu b i c  me t e r De s c r i p t i o n BW I A ‐1 BW I A ‐2 BW I A ‐3 BW I A ‐Tr i p  Bl a n k BW I A ‐4 BW I A ‐5 Sa m p l e  ID \1 2 \ 0 9 ‐12 3 \ R P T S \ V I  Re p o r t \ T a b l e s _ 6 ‐1 ‐12 Rogers  & Callcott  Engineers, Inc. Vapor Intrusion Report Former Fuel Systems Facility, Charlotte, North Carolina June 2012 12\09-123\RPTS\VI Report\Vapor Intrusion Report Rogers & Callcott Engineers, Inc. APPENDIX A PHOTOGRAPHS Indoor Air Sampling Event Former Fuel Systems Facility, Charlotte, North Carolina May 3, 2012 Photo No: 1 Date: 5/3/12 View: Indoor air sample BWIA-2. Located in northeast room (PID = 4.8-5.2 ppm). Photo No: 2 Date: 5/3/12 View: BWIA-2 with area of oil staining in background. Indoor Air Sampling Event Former Fuel Systems Facility, Charlotte, North Carolina May 3, 2012 Photo No: 3 Date: 5/3/12 View: Indoor air sample BWIA-3 located adjacent to pit (PID = 2.5- 3.6 ppm). Photo No: 4 Date: 5/3/12 View: BWIA-3 sample location with pit in background. Indoor Air Sampling Event Former Fuel Systems Facility, Charlotte, North Carolina May 3, 2012 Photo No: 5 Date: 5/3/12 View: Partially filled pit covered with plastic sheeting (looking south). Photo No: 6 Date: 5/3/12 View: Partially filled pit covered with plastic sheeting (looking north). Indoor Air Sampling Event Former Fuel Systems Facility, Charlotte, North Carolina May 3, 2012 Photo No: 7 Date: 5/3/12 View: Forklift remaining in building during sample collection. Photo No: 8 Date: 5/3/12 View: Truck and lift remaining in building during sample collection. Indoor Air Sampling Event Former Fuel Systems Facility, Charlotte, North Carolina May 3, 2012 Photo No: 9 Date: 5/3/12 View: Oil stains and absorbent on floor in area of truck and lift. Photo No: 10 Date: 5/3/12 View: Motorcycle remaining in building during sampling. Indoor Air Sampling Event Former Fuel Systems Facility, Charlotte, North Carolina May 3, 2012 Photo No: 11 Date: 5/3/12 View: BWIA-4/5 sample location adjacent to soil gas sample location SG-6. Photo No: 12 Date: 5/3/12 View: BWIA-4/5 with southern wall of building in background. Indoor Air Sampling Event Former Fuel Systems Facility, Charlotte, North Carolina May 3, 2012 Photo No: 14 Date: 5/3/12 View: Southwest corner of building just west of BWIA- 4/5 location. Photo No: 13 Date: 5/3/12 View: BWIA-4/5 looking west toward old furnace and curing oven. Indoor Air Sampling Event Former Fuel Systems Facility, Charlotte, North Carolina May 3, 2012 Photo No: 16 Date: 5/3/12 View: Paint thinner and WD- 40 located along east wall of building near entrance to office space. Photo No: 15 Date: 5/3/12 View: Propane, paint can, and gasoline containers stored along east wall of building near entrance to office space. Vapor Intrusion Report Former Fuel Systems Facility, Charlotte, North Carolina June 2012 12\09-123\RPTS\VI Report\Vapor Intrusion Report Rogers & Callcott Engineers, Inc. APPENDIX B ANALYTICAL LABORATORY REPORTS AND CHAIN OF CUSTODY DOCUMENTATION 5/16/2012 Ms. Laura Simpkins Rogers & Callcott Engineers, Inc. 426 Fairforest Way Greenville SC 29607 Project Name: BWIA Project #: 2009-123 Dear Ms. Laura Simpkins The following report includes the data for the above referenced project for sample(s) received on 5/4/2012 at Air Toxics Ltd. The data and associated QC analyzed by Modified TO-14A/15 (5&20 ppbv) 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: Ausha Scott at 916-985-1000 if you have any questions regarding the data in this report. Regards, Ausha Scott Project Manager Workorder #: 1205098 Page 1 of 14 Ms. Laura Simpkins Rogers & Callcott Engineers, Inc. 426 Fairforest Way Greenville, SC 29607 WORK ORDER #:1205098 CLIENT:BILL TO: PHONE: Ms. Laura Simpkins Rogers & Callcott Engineers, Inc. 426 Fairforest Way Greenville, SC 29607 864-232-1556 05/04/2012 DATE COMPLETED:05/16/2012 P.O. #2009-123 PROJECT #2009-123 BWIA Work Order Summary FAX: DATE RECEIVED:CONTACT:Ausha Scott NAMEFRACTION #TEST VAC./PRES. RECEIPT PRESSURE FINAL 01A BWIA-1 Modified TO-14A/15 (5&20 p 9.5 "Hg 5 psi 02A BWIA-2 Modified TO-14A/15 (5&20 p 9.5 "Hg 5 psi 03A BWIA-3 Modified TO-14A/15 (5&20 p 9.0 "Hg 5 psi 04A BWIA-4 Modified TO-14A/15 (5&20 p 9.0 "Hg 5 psi 05A BWIA-5 Modified TO-14A/15 (5&20 p 9.0 "Hg 5 psi 06A BWIA-Trip Blank Modified TO-14A/15 (5&20 p 30 "Hg 5 psi 07A Lab Blank Modified TO-14A/15 (5&20 p NA NA 08A CCV Modified TO-14A/15 (5&20 p NA NA 09A LCS Modified TO-14A/15 (5&20 p NA NA 09AA LCSD Modified TO-14A/15 (5&20 p NA NA CERTIFIED BY: Laboratory Director DATE: Name of Accrediting Agency: NELAP/Florida Department of Health, Scope of Application: Clean Air Act, Accreditation number: E87680, Effective date: 07/01/11 , Expiration date: 06/30/12. 180 BLUE RAVINE ROAD, SUITE B FOLSOM, CA - 95630 (916) 985-1000 . (800) 985-5955 . FAX (916) 985-1020 05/16/12 Page 2 of 14 This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the written approval of Eurofins | Air Toxics, Inc. Air Toxics Ltd. certifies that the test results contained in this report meet all requirements of the NELAC standards Certfication numbers: AZ Licensure AZ0719, CA NELAP - 02110CA, LA NELAP - 02089, NY NELAP - 11291, TX NELAP - T104704434-11-3, UT NELAP -CA009332011-1, WA NELAP - C935 LABORATORY NARRATIVEEPA Method TO-15 Soil GasRogers & Callcott Engineers, Inc.Workorder# 1205098 Six 6 Liter Summa Canister samples were received on May 04, 2012. The laboratory performed analysis via EPA Method TO-15 using GC/MS in the full scan mode. The method involves concentrating up to 50 mLs of air. The concentrated aliquot is then flash vaporized and swept through a water management system to remove water vapor. Following dehumidification, the sample passes directly into the GC/MS for analysis. This workorder was independently validated prior to submittal using 'USEPA National Functional Guidelines' as generally applied to the analysis of volatile organic compounds in air. A rules-based, logic driven, independent validation engine was employed to assess completeness, evaluate pass/fail of relevant project quality control requirements and verification of all quantified amounts. There were no receiving discrepancies. Receiving Notes There were no analytical discrepancies. Analytical Notes Eight qualifiers may have been used on the data analysis sheets and indicates as follows: B - Compound present in laboratory blank greater than reporting limit (background subtraction not performed). J - Estimated value. E - Exceeds instrument calibration range. S - Saturated peak. Q - Exceeds quality control limits. U - Compound analyzed for but not detected above the reporting limit. UJ- Non-detected compound associated with low bias in the CCV and/or LCS. N - The identification is based on presumptive evidence. File extensions may have been used on the data analysis sheets and indicates as follows: a-File was requantified b-File was quantified by a second column and detector r1-File was requantified for the purpose of reissue Definition of Data Qualifying Flags Page 3 of 14 EPA METHOD TO-15 GC/MS Summary of Detected Compounds Client Sample ID: BWIA-1 Lab ID#: 1205098-01A No Detections Were Found. Client Sample ID: BWIA-2 Lab ID#: 1205098-02A No Detections Were Found. Client Sample ID: BWIA-3 Lab ID#: 1205098-03A No Detections Were Found. Client Sample ID: BWIA-4 Lab ID#: 1205098-04A No Detections Were Found. Client Sample ID: BWIA-5 Lab ID#: 1205098-05A No Detections Were Found. Client Sample ID: BWIA-Trip Blank Lab ID#: 1205098-06A No Detections Were Found. Page 4 of 14 Client Sample ID: BWIA-1 Lab ID#: 1205098-01A EPA METHOD TO-15 GC/MS 14050529File Name: Dil. Factor:1.96 Date of Collection: 5/3/12 10:20:00 AM Date of Analysis: 5/5/12 08:08 PM (ug/m3)(ug/m3)(ppbv)(ppbv)Compound AmountRpt. LimitAmountRpt. Limit 9.8 Not Detected 39 Not Detected1,1-Dichloroethene Container Type: 6 Liter Summa Canister Limits%RecoverySurrogates Method 97 70-1301,2-Dichloroethane-d4 97 70-130Toluene-d8 101 70-1304-Bromofluorobenzene Page 5 of 14 Client Sample ID: BWIA-2 Lab ID#: 1205098-02A EPA METHOD TO-15 GC/MS 14050530File Name: Dil. Factor:1.96 Date of Collection: 5/3/12 11:15:00 AM Date of Analysis: 5/5/12 08:48 PM (ug/m3)(ug/m3)(ppbv)(ppbv)Compound AmountRpt. LimitAmountRpt. Limit 9.8 Not Detected 39 Not Detected1,1-Dichloroethene Container Type: 6 Liter Summa Canister Limits%RecoverySurrogates Method 97 70-1301,2-Dichloroethane-d4 96 70-130Toluene-d8 99 70-1304-Bromofluorobenzene Page 6 of 14 Client Sample ID: BWIA-3 Lab ID#: 1205098-03A EPA METHOD TO-15 GC/MS 14050532File Name: Dil. Factor:1.91 Date of Collection: 5/3/12 11:20:00 AM Date of Analysis: 5/5/12 09:28 PM (ug/m3)(ug/m3)(ppbv)(ppbv)Compound AmountRpt. LimitAmountRpt. Limit 9.6 Not Detected 38 Not Detected1,1-Dichloroethene Container Type: 6 Liter Summa Canister Limits%RecoverySurrogates Method 96 70-1301,2-Dichloroethane-d4 98 70-130Toluene-d8 102 70-1304-Bromofluorobenzene Page 7 of 14 Client Sample ID: BWIA-4 Lab ID#: 1205098-04A EPA METHOD TO-15 GC/MS 14050531File Name: Dil. Factor:1.91 Date of Collection: 5/3/12 11:25:00 AM Date of Analysis: 5/5/12 09:07 PM (ug/m3)(ug/m3)(ppbv)(ppbv)Compound AmountRpt. LimitAmountRpt. Limit 9.6 Not Detected 38 Not Detected1,1-Dichloroethene Container Type: 6 Liter Summa Canister Limits%RecoverySurrogates Method 96 70-1301,2-Dichloroethane-d4 97 70-130Toluene-d8 100 70-1304-Bromofluorobenzene Page 8 of 14 Client Sample ID: BWIA-5 Lab ID#: 1205098-05A EPA METHOD TO-15 GC/MS 14050533File Name: Dil. Factor:1.91 Date of Collection: 5/3/12 11:25:00 AM Date of Analysis: 5/5/12 09:49 PM (ug/m3)(ug/m3)(ppbv)(ppbv)Compound AmountRpt. LimitAmountRpt. Limit 9.6 Not Detected 38 Not Detected1,1-Dichloroethene Container Type: 6 Liter Summa Canister Limits%RecoverySurrogates Method 98 70-1301,2-Dichloroethane-d4 97 70-130Toluene-d8 100 70-1304-Bromofluorobenzene Page 9 of 14 Client Sample ID: BWIA-Trip Blank Lab ID#: 1205098-06A EPA METHOD TO-15 GC/MS 14050534File Name: Dil. Factor:1.00 Date of Collection: 5/3/12 11:30:00 AM Date of Analysis: 5/5/12 10:07 PM (ug/m3)(ug/m3)(ppbv)(ppbv)Compound AmountRpt. LimitAmountRpt. Limit 5.0 Not Detected 20 Not Detected1,1-Dichloroethene Container Type: 6 Liter Summa Canister Limits%RecoverySurrogates Method 98 70-1301,2-Dichloroethane-d4 98 70-130Toluene-d8 101 70-1304-Bromofluorobenzene Page 10 of 14 Client Sample ID: Lab Blank Lab ID#: 1205098-07A EPA METHOD TO-15 GC/MS 14050522File Name: Dil. Factor:1.00 Date of Collection: NA Date of Analysis: 5/5/12 04:56 PM (ug/m3)(ug/m3)(ppbv)(ppbv)Compound AmountRpt. LimitAmountRpt. Limit 5.0 Not Detected 20 Not Detected1,1-Dichloroethene Container Type: NA - Not Applicable Limits%RecoverySurrogates Method 97 70-1301,2-Dichloroethane-d4 98 70-130Toluene-d8 100 70-1304-Bromofluorobenzene Page 11 of 14 Client Sample ID: CCV Lab ID#: 1205098-08A EPA METHOD TO-15 GC/MS 14050502File Name: Dil. Factor:1.00 Date of Collection: NA Date of Analysis: 5/5/12 08:00 AM %RecoveryCompound 1041,1-Dichloroethene Container Type: NA - Not Applicable Limits%RecoverySurrogates Method 96 70-1301,2-Dichloroethane-d4 100 70-130Toluene-d8 107 70-1304-Bromofluorobenzene Page 12 of 14 Client Sample ID: LCS Lab ID#: 1205098-09A EPA METHOD TO-15 GC/MS 14050503File Name: Dil. Factor:1.00 Date of Collection: NA Date of Analysis: 5/5/12 08:24 AM %RecoveryCompound 1221,1-Dichloroethene Container Type: NA - Not Applicable Limits%RecoverySurrogates Method 96 70-1301,2-Dichloroethane-d4 99 70-130Toluene-d8 108 70-1304-Bromofluorobenzene Page 13 of 14 Client Sample ID: LCSD Lab ID#: 1205098-09AA EPA METHOD TO-15 GC/MS 14050504File Name: Dil. Factor:1.00 Date of Collection: NA Date of Analysis: 5/5/12 08:45 AM %RecoveryCompound 1181,1-Dichloroethene Container Type: NA - Not Applicable Limits%RecoverySurrogates Method 94 70-1301,2-Dichloroethane-d4 99 70-130Toluene-d8 105 70-1304-Bromofluorobenzene Page 14 of 14 Vapor Intrusion Report Former Fuel Systems Facility, Charlotte, North Carolina June 2012 12\09-123\RPTS\VI Report\Vapor Intrusion Report Rogers & Callcott Engineers, Inc. APPENDIX C WORST CASE INDOOR AIR CONCENTRATION CALCULATIONS Vapor Intrusion Calculation (5019 Hovis Rd., Charlotte, NC) ‐ Vapor intrusion occurs due to pressure differential between ground surface and building interior (McHugh, 2006) Assumptions:  ‐ Pressure gradient between ground surface and building interior only due to temperature difference  ‐ HVAC not currently running in facility ‐ Volumetric flow rate (Q) is proportional to temperature by the following relationship: Q € sqrt((Ti ‐ Ts)/Ti)(ASHRAE Fundamentals Handbook, 1997) Q = flow rate Ti = indoor temperature (K) Ts = subsurface temperature (K) Thus: Qw/Q =sqrt((Tiw‐Tis)*Ti)/(Ti‐Ts)*Tiw)) Qw = Worst‐case flow rate Tw = Worst‐case subsurface temperature Tiw = Worst‐case indoor temperature ‐ Assumed to be 60F based on 1/19/12 Site visit Ti (from Site measurements during sampling): Ti (F)=74.5 ‐ Measured indoor temp in Fahrenheit Ti (K)= 296.61 Ts (from NRCS website, Critz, VA, 5/3/2012): Ts(700)=20.2 ‐ Readings in Celcius Ts(800)=20.3 ‐ (700) corresponds to 7:00AM Ts(900)=21.4 Ts(1000)= 23.3 Ts(1100)= 25.3 \12\09‐123\RPTS\VI Report\Appendix_C_Worst Case Calculations Rogers & Callcott Engineers, Inc.Page 1 of 1 Ts(K)= 295.10 ‐Average temperature over sampling period Tw (from NRCS website, Critz, VA, 1/19/2012) Tsw(700)= 2.9 ‐ Readings in Celcius Tsw(800)= 2.7 Tsw(900)= 2.6 Tsw(1000)= 2.5 Tsw(1100)= 2.6 Tsw(K)= 275.66 ‐Average temperature over theoretical sampling period Tiw(K)= 288.56 ‐Assume 60F Qw/Q =2.96 and: Qw =2.96 *Q Maximum Concentration (RL)=Cmax < 38 ug/m3 ‐ Assumed 1,1‐DCE concentration at the reporting limit Cmaxw < 113 ug/m3 ‐ Maximum concentration under worst‐case conditions \12\09‐123\RPTS\VI Report\Appendix_C_Worst Case Calculations Rogers & Callcott Engineers, Inc.Page 1 of 1  Vapor Intrusion Report  Former Fuel Systems Facility, Charlotte, North Carolina  June 2012  12\09‐123\RPTS\VI Report\Appendix C_Derivation Page 1 of 2 Rogers & Callcott Engineers, Inc.  Derivation of the advective flow rate ratio (Qw/Q):    The advective flow rate due to the temperature difference between two adjoining volumes can  be calculated based on the following equation [American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and  Air‐Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), 1997]:    ܳൌܥܣ ඨ2݄݃ ܶ௜ െܶ௦ ܶ௜ Where:     Q = the advective flow rate (m3/s)  C = discharge coefficient (typically 0.65 – 0.70)  A = flow area between two volumes (m2)  g = gravitational acceleration (9.81 m/s2)  h = building height (ft)  Ti = average indoor air temperature (K)  Ts = average air temperature of subslab soil (K)    Because the gravity, building height, flow area (i.e. – area of cracks in the slab through which  vapor flow occurs), and the discharge coefficients are constant throughout the year, the above  equation can be re‐arranged to the following form:      ܳඨ ܶ௜ ܶ௜ െ ܶ௦ ൌConstant    Thus, the following relationship between the flow rate (Q) during the indoor air sampling and  the flow rate during worst case conditions (Qw) can be derived:    ܳඨ ܶ௜ ܶ௜ െ ܶ௦ ൌܳ௪ඨ ܶ௜௪ ܶ௜௪ െ ܶ௦௪     Where:     Qw = the advective flow rate during worst case conditions (m3/s)    Tiw = average indoor air temperature during worst case conditions (K)    Tsw = average air temperature of subslab soil during worst case conditions (K)     Vapor Intrusion Report  Former Fuel Systems Facility, Charlotte, North Carolina  June 2012  12\09‐123\RPTS\VI Report\Appendix C_Derivation Page 2 of 2 Rogers & Callcott Engineers, Inc.  The equation can be re‐arranged to determine the ratio between the advective flow rate into  the building from the subsurface under worst case conditions and during the May sampling  event as follows:    ܳ௪ ܳ ൌ ඨሺܶ௜௪ െܶ௦௪ሻܶ௜ ሺܶ௜ െܶ௦ሻܶ௜௪