HomeMy WebLinkAbout11043_AquAir_Soil Vapor Assessment Report_20111129Soil Vapor Assessment Report
Former AquAir Facility
Charlotte, North Carolina
Brownfields Project No. 11043-07-60
H&H Job No. RBH-001
November 29, 2011
2923 South Tryon Street Suite 100
Charlotte, NC 28203
704-586-0007
3334 Hillsborough Street Raleigh, NC 27607 919-847-4241
#C-1269 Engineering
#C-245 Geology
S:\AAA-Master Projects\RBH\Soil Vapor Assessment\Vapor Report\Soil Vapor Assessment Report.doc Hart & Hickman, PC
i
Table of Contents
Section Page No.
1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1
2.0 Soil Vapor Assessment ....................................................................................................... 2
2.1 Soil Vapor Sampling Methods ......................................................................................... 2
2.2 Soil Vapor Results ............................................................................................................ 4
2.3 Helium Tracer Gas Testing .............................................................................................. 6
3.0 Conclusions and Recommendations ................................................................................. 7
4.0 References ........................................................................................................................... 8
List of Tables
Table 1 Summary of Soil Vapor Analytical Detections List of Figures
Figure 1 Site Map List of Appendices
Appendix A Laboratory Analytical Data
1
S:\AAA-Master Projects\RBH\Soil Vapor Assessment\Vapor Report\Soil Vapor Assessment Report.doc Hart & Hickman, PC
Soil Vapor Assessment Report
Former AquAir Facility Charlotte, North Carolina H&H Job No. RBH-001
1.0 Introduction
This report present the results of soil vapor sampling conducted by Hart & Hickman, PC (H&H)
at the former AquAir facility located in Charlotte, North Carolina. Soil vapor assessment
activities were conducted in accordance with the approved October 4, 2011 Soil Vapor Sampling
Work Plan and the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources’
(DENR’s) October 19, 2011 response letter.
A site map is provided as Figure 1. As indicated in Figure 1, there are two primary areas of
groundwater impact at the site. One area is located west of the railroad tracks that cross the site
(Area 1), and the other area is located east of the railroad tracks (Area 2). The purpose of the soil
vapor sampling was to 1) evaluate if soil vapor from underlying groundwater impacts in these
two areas may pose a potential concern for future site development, and 2) if potential soil vapor
concerns are identified, to further define these two areas of the site that may warrant soil vapor
land use restrictions in the site Brownfields agreement.
Soil vapor assessment methods and analytical results are presented in Section 2.0, and our
conclusions and recommendations based upon the analytical data are provided in Section 3.0.
S:\AAA-Master Projects\RBH\Soil Vapor Assessment\Vapor Report\Soil Vapor Assessment Report.doc Hart & Hickman, PC
2
2.0 Soil Vapor Assessment
The soil vapor sample point installations were conducted on October 27, 2011. and the
subsequent soil vapor sampling was conducted the following day October 28, 2011. H&H
collected subsurface soil gas samples (SSGSs) from eleven locations on the property. Seven
SSGSs were collected from within and surrounding Area 1, and four SSGSs were collected from
within and surrounding Area 2. The locations of the SSGSs are indicated on Figure 1. No soil
vapor samples were collected within 10 ft of existing potential vapor conduits such as monitor
wells or remediation wells.
Groundwater remediation including air sparging, soil vapor extraction, and pump and treat is
being conducted at the site. To ensure that the soil vapor sampling was reflective of static
conditions and the results were not impacted by the remediation systems the remediation systems
were shut down prior to the sampling. The systems were shut down on August 10, 2011, which
is approximately 2.5 months prior to the sampling activities.
2.1 Soil Vapor Sampling Methods
As no structures are present on the property, H&H collected deeper soil vapor samples at a depth
of 6 ft. This interval was selected based upon a review of vapor intrusion guidance which
indicates that at depths below 5 ft, potential atmospheric influences will be negligible. For
example, EPA’s Vapor Intrusion Guidance (2002) indicates that soil vapor samples should not be
collected at depths less than 5 ft unless they can be obtained directly below a building (i.e., sub-
slab samples).
Each SSGS point was installed using a stainless steel hand auger and an AMS Gas Vapor Probe
Kit to set a AMS 0.625-inch diameter stainless steel probe with an approximate 1-inch long soil
gas screen fitted with 0.25-inch diameter Teflon® tubing to a depth of approximately 6 ft bgs.
S:\AAA-Master Projects\RBH\Soil Vapor Assessment\Vapor Report\Soil Vapor Assessment Report.doc Hart & Hickman, PC
3
H&H advanced each SSGS boring to 5 ft bgs with a stainless steel hand auger. Subsequently,
the AMS Gas Vapor Probe Kit was used to drive the sample point an additional 1 ft below the
base of the hand auger boring. Sand pack was then placed in the annular space between the
borehole and soil gas screen from the bottom of the boring to approximately five inches above
the soil gas screen. The remaining annular space of the boring was sealed to ground surface
using hydrated bentonite to minimize the potential for short circuiting of vapors in the borehole
and at the ground surface. The probe was then completed at the surface with a valved sample
port connected to Teflon® tubing.
Prior to sampling, a leak check was conducted at each vapor monitoring point by constructing a
shroud around the sampling point and saturating the air within the shroud with helium gas.
Using a syringe, a sample was collected from the gas in the shroud into a Tedlar® bag and
analyzed for helium concentrations using a helium gas detector. Vapor from the monitoring
points was then purged and sampled outside of the shroud into a separate Tedlar® bag and
analyzed using the helium gas detector to ensure that helium concentrations were less than 10%
of the helium concentrations in the shroud.
Following a successful leak check, on the following day, vapor samples were collected into six-
liter Summa canisters for laboratory analysis. In accordance with DENR Brownfields Section’s
October 19, 2011 response letter, the Summa canisters were allowed to fill slowly using an
airflow regulator over a period of approximately one hour per point. Also, in accordance with
DENR’s response letter, a helium tracer gas atmosphere was maintained at the surface of each
SSGS point during the test to demonstrate that there was not short circuiting to the surface during
the test. The helium gas atmosphere was created by constructing a shroud around the sampling
point and saturating the air within the shroud with helium gas. To ensure a sufficient helium
atmosphere was maintained during sampling, H&H continually monitored helium levels within
the shroud and added helium as needed to maintain an 80 to 90% helium atmosphere. A record
of helium measurements taken during sampling activities is provided as Table 1.
S:\AAA-Master Projects\RBH\Soil Vapor Assessment\Vapor Report\Soil Vapor Assessment Report.doc Hart & Hickman, PC
4
After sample collection, the regulator valves on the canisters were closed and the sample tubing
was removed. The samples were shipped under standard chain-of-custody procedures to Con-
Test Analytical Laboratory in East Longmeadow, MA for analysis of VOCs by EPA Method
TO-15 and helium by EPA Method 3C.
2.2 Soil Vapor Results
The results of the soil vapor sample analyses are summarized in Table 2, and the laboratory
analytical data sheets are provided in Appendix A. The concentrations of compounds detected in
the soil vapor samples were compared to DENR IHSB Industrial/Commercial Soil Gas
Screening Concentrations (SGSCs).
Please note that the IHSB 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
sub-slab soil vapor and indoor air. However, literature indicates that the attenuation factor
between sub-slab 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. In addition, the
site samples were collected at a depth of 6 ft and not in sub-slab shallow soil. Concentrations
detected in the samples would therefore undergo further attenuation between the depth where the
sample was located and the ground surface. With regard to risk levels, the IHSB SGSCs are
based upon a lifetime incremental cancer risk (LICR) of 1 x 10-5 (1 in 100,000) for carcinogens
and a hazard index (HI) of 0.2 for non-carcinogens. Therefore, H&H also compared the data to
calculated screening levels based upon a LICR of 1 x 10-4 (1 in 10,000) for carcinogens and a HI
of 1 for non-carcinogens.
As indicated in Table 2, seven of the eleven soil vapor samples (SSGS-1, SSGS-2, SSGS-4,
SSGS-5, SSGS-8, SSGS-9, and SSGS-10) contained compound concentrations above the IHSB
Industrial/Commercial SGSCs based upon a LICR of 1 x 10-5 and a HI of 0.2. Of those seven
S:\AAA-Master Projects\RBH\Soil Vapor Assessment\Vapor Report\Soil Vapor Assessment Report.doc Hart & Hickman, PC
5
soil vapor samples, six (SSGS-2, SSGS-4, SSGS-5, SSGS-8, SSGS-9, and SSGS-10) contained
concentrations above the IHSB Industrial/Commercial SGSCs based upon a LICR of 1 x 10-4 for
carcinogens and a HI of 1 for non-carcinogens. SSGS-1, SSGS-2, SSGS-4, and SSGS-5 are
located in or nearby Area 1, and SSGS-8, SSGS-9, and SSGS-10 are located in or nearby Area 2.
The highest soil vapor concentrations were detected in samples SSGS-2, SSGS-4, and SSGS-5 in
Area 1 and SSGS-9 in Area 2. These samples are located within the areas of primary
groundwater impact where elevated levels of VOCs in soil gas were expected. The primary
compounds detected (based on prevalence and concentration) in soil vapor in these areas include
tetrachloroethene (PCE), trichloroethene (TCE), carbon tetrachloride, and chloroform. In
addition, lower levels of 1,2-dichloroethane (1,2-DCA), 1,1-dichloroethylene (1,1-DCE), 1,1,2,2-
tetrachloroethane, 1,1,1-trichloroethane (1,1,1-TCA) were detected along with other compounds.
Because of its prevalence in soil vapor and groundwater at the site, soil vapor PCE
concentrations are depicted on Figure 1. PCE concentrations detected in groundwater samples
collected in July 2011 are also depicted in Figure 1 for ease of reference. PCE concentrations
ranged from 16,000,000 µg/m3 in SSGS-4 (inside Area 1) to 14 µg/m3 in SSGS-7 (outside of
Area 1). The IHSB Industrial/Commercial SGSC for PCE based upon a LICR of 1 x 10-5 is 210
µg/m3, and the calculated SGSC for PCE based upon a LICR of 1 x 10-4 is 2,100 µg/m3.
No compounds above screening levels were found in soil vapor samples SSGS-3, SSGS-6,
SSGS-7 (located along the perimeter of Area 1) or SSGS-11 (located east of and outside Area 2).
S:\AAA-Master Projects\RBH\Soil Vapor Assessment\Vapor Report\Soil Vapor Assessment Report.doc Hart & Hickman, PC
6
2.3 Helium Tracer Gas Testing
The results of the helium tracer gas test performed at each sample point indicate that helium was
not detected in any of the eleven samples. As such, H&H concludes that there was no short
circuiting of the probes to ambient air occurred during the sampling.
S:\AAA-Master Projects\RBH\Soil Vapor Assessment\Vapor Report\Soil Vapor Assessment Report.doc Hart & Hickman, PC
7
3.0 Conclusions and Recommendations
The results of the soil vapor sampling conducted at the property indicate the presence of elevated
levels of VOCs in soil vapor in two areas of primary groundwater impact at the site (Area 1 and
Area 2). The primary VOCs detected include PCE, TCE, carbon tetrachloride, and chloroform.
Lower levels of 1,2-DCA, 1,1-DCE, 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane, 1,1,1-TCA, and other compounds
were also detected.
Based upon the results of the soil vapor sampling, H&H recommends that the Brownfields
Agreement for the site indicate that installation of a soil vapor barrier or mitigation system is
required for potential future enclosed buildings in the two areas indicated in Figure 1. Area 1 is
approximately 3.7 acres, and Area 2 is approximately 1.7 acres. These proposed areas are based
upon the results of the soil vapor sampling, the results of monitor well sampling, and physical
features (i.e., the railroad tracks). Where perimeter soil vapor samples (SSGS-1, SSGS-8, and
SSGS-10) indicated detections of VOCs above Industrial/Commercial SGSCs, recent
groundwater data was used to evaluate the proposed soil vapor restriction areas in Figure 1. For
example, recent groundwater data from monitoring well AMW-109, which is located south of
SSGS-10, indicated no detections for VOCs. As such, the extent of Area 2 was expanded to the
south toward but not to AMW-109.
S:\AAA-Master Projects\RBH\Soil Vapor Assessment\Vapor Report\Soil Vapor Assessment Report.doc Hart & Hickman, PC
8
4.0 References
EPA (2002). Draft Guidance for Evaluating the Vapor Intrusion to Indoor Air Pathway from
Groundwater and Soils. EPA530-F-02-052, November 2002.
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 Indoor 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.
Table 1
Helium Shroud Readings
Soil Vapor Sampling
Former AquAir Facility
Charlotte, North Carolina
H&H Project No. RBH-001
S:\AAA-Master Projects\RBH\Soil Vapor Assessment\Vapor Report\Vapor Table.xlsx
11/18/2011
Table 1
Hart & Hickman, PC
Sample ID Start %He Time %He Time %He Finish %He
SSGS-1 8:17 91.1%8:36 87.3%8:56 87.2%9:15 84.1%
SSGS-2 8:19 87.3%8:38 91.4%8:58 87.3%9:17 90.5%
SSGS-3 10:16 89.4%10:35 88.5%10:55 87.3%11:14 88.3%
SSGS-4 8:27 92.7%8:46 89.9%9:06 89.5%9:25 89.8%
SSGS-5 8:23 92.8%8:43 90.5%9:03 88.2%9:21 89.9%
SSGS-6 10:01 88.2%10:20 87.5%10:40 90.2%10:59 85.7%
SSGS-7 10:06 88.1%10:25 87.3%10:45 90.3%11:04 89.4%
SSGS-8 12:16 87.3%12:35 87.1%12:55 89.3%13:14 87.1%
SSGS-9 12:21 88.0%12:40 85.1%13:00 88.7%13:19 88.5%
SSGS-10 12:26 89.1%12:45 88.4%13:05 87.9%13:24 90.6%
SSGS-11 12:31 88.5%12:50 87.0%13:10 86.3%13:29 87.3%
Table 2 (Page 1 of 3)
Summary of Soil Gas Analytical Data
Former AquAir Facility
Charlotte, North Carolina
Hart & Hickman Project No. RBH-001
S:\AAA-Master Projects\RBH\Soil Vapor Assessment\Vapor Report\Vapor Table.xlsxVapor Table.xlsx
11/29/2011
Table 2 (Page 1 of 3)
Hart & Hickman, PCAcetoneBenzeneBromodichloromethaneBromoformBromomethane2-Butanone (Methyl Ethyl Ketone)Carbon DisulfideCarbon TetrachlorideChlorobenzeneChloroformChloromethaneCyclohexaneDibromochloromethane1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB)1,2-Dichlorobenzene1,3-Dichlorobenzene1,4-DichlorobenzeneSSGS-1 10/28/11 TO-15 16 3.9 <3.4 <5.2 <1.9 2.0 8.3 160 50 47 <1.0 <1.7 <4.3 <3.8 1.6 <3.0 <3.0
SSGS-2 10/28/11 TO-15 41 35 <13 <21 <7.8 <240 16 300,000 73 11,000 <4.1 <6.9 <17 <15 64 <12 <12
SSGS-3 10/28/11 TO-15 16 1.9 <0.67 0.43 <0.39 2.2 30 11 <0.46 9.8 4.6 0.68 <0.85 <0.77 <0.60 <0.60 <0.60
SSGS-4 10/28/11 TO-15 <380,000 <13,000 <27,000 <41,000 <16,000 <470,000 <120,000 13,000,000 100,000 700,000 <8,300 <14,000 <34,000 <31,000 18,000 <24,000 <24,000
SSGS-5 10/28/11 TO-15 41 <6.4 <13 <21 <7.8 5.0 <62 56,000 7.5 8,100 <4.1 <6.9 <17 <15 2.6 <12 <12
SSGS-6 10/28/11 TO-15 18 1.8 <0.67 0.60 0.30 2.1 17 48 0.49 4.6 <0.21 0.69 <0.85 0.31 0.63 0.37 0.46
SSGS-7 10/28/11 TO-15 14 3.1 <0.67 0.70 <0.39 2.0 20 14 <0.46 9.6 <0.21 0.67 0.36 0.22 0.31 0.24 0.30
SSGS-8 10/28/11 TO-15 14 1.8 3.1 <5.2 <1.9 1.7 13 1,300 <2.3 13,000 <1.0 <1.7 <4.3 <3.8 <3.0 <3.0 <3.0
SSGS-9 10/28/11 TO-15 41 3.3 5.4 <21 <7.8 3.8 7.5 11,000 <9.2 43,000 <4.1 <6.9 <17 <15 <12 <12 <12
SSGS-10 10/28/11 TO-15 13 1.7 <0.67 0.31 <0.39 1.1 9.3 33 <0.46 1,300 0.26 0.39 <0.85 <0.77 <0.60 <0.60 <0.60
SSGS-11 10/28/11 TO-15 11 1.3 <0.67 <1.0 <0.39 1.3 8.8 2.5 <0.46 4.4 0.52 <0.34 <0.85 <0.77 <0.60 <0.60 <0.60
NC C4 C C NE NC NC C NC C4 NC NE C C4 NC NE C4
280,000 160 33 1,100 NE 44,000 6,200 82 440 53 780 NE 45 2 1,760 NE 110
1,400,000 1,600 330 11,000 NE 220,000 31,000 820 2,200 530 3,900 NE 450 20 8,800 NE 1,100
Notes:
1. Only those analytes detected in at least one sample are shown in this table
2. Bold indicates compound exceeds IHSB Industrial/Commercial Soil Gas Screening Level at a risk level of 1 X 10¯5 or Hazard Index of 0.2
3. Underlined indicates compound exceeds IHSB Industrial/Commercial Soil Gas Screening Level at a risk level of 1 X 10¯4 or Hazard Index of 1
4. Has both carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic properties
* = 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene used as a surrogate for 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
** = trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene used as a surrogate for cis-1,2-DichloroethyleneAnalytical MethodIHSB Industrial/Commercial Soil Gas Screening
Concentration
(LICR = 1 X 10¯4 or HI of 1)
NE = Not Established, µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
J = Detected but below the reporting limit. Result is an estimated concentration.
B = Analyte is found in the associated blank as well as in the sample
Carcinogenic (C) or Non-Carcinogenic (NC) EffectSample IDSampling Date IHSB Industrial/Commercial Soil Gas Screening
Concentration
(LICR = 1 X 10¯5 or HI of 0.2)
µg/m3
Table 2 (Page 2 of 3)
Summary of Soil Gas Analytical Data
Former AquAir Facility
Charlotte, North Carolina
Hart & Hickman Project No. RBH-001
S:\AAA-Master Projects\RBH\Soil Vapor Assessment\Vapor Report\Vapor Table.xlsxVapor Table.xlsx
11/29/2011
Table 2 (Page 2 of 3)
Hart & Hickman, PCDichlorodifluoromethane (Freon 12)1,1-Dichloroethane1,2-Dichloroethane1,1-Dichloroethylenecis-1,2-Dichloroethylenetrans-1,2-Dichloroethylene1,2-Dichloropropane1,2-Dichloro-1,1,2,2-tetrafluroethane (Freon 114)EthanolEthylbenzene4-EthyltolueneHeptaneHexachlorobutadieneHexane2-Hexaone (MBK)IsopropanolMethyl-tert-Butyl-Ether (MTBE)Methylene Chloride4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK)SSGS-1 10/28/11 TO-15 3.1 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 9.1 <2.0 <2.3 <3.5 5.9 7.8 2.9 1.6 <5.3 2.6 <2.0 <49 <1.8 5.7 <2.0
SSGS-2 10/28/11 TO-15 3.6 600 1,200 27,000 5,900 890 <9.2 <14 <150 22 9.0 <8.2 <21 <280 <8.2 7.4 <7.2 200 <8.2
SSGS-3 10/28/11 TO-15 2.7 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.46 <0.70 3.0 7.4 3.8 2.6 0.30 4.6 1.2 1.6 <0.36 2.0 0.57
SSGS-4 10/28/11 TO-15 <20,000 5,800 67,000 120,000 33,000 <16,000 <18,000 <28,000 <300,000 42,000 <20,000 <16,000 <43,000 <560,000 <16,000 <390,000 <14,000 <140,000 <16,000
SSGS-5 10/28/11 TO-15 3.6 65 2.8 47 6.3 1.7 <9.2 <14 16 <8.7 <9.8 <8.2 3,600 <280 <280 <200 <7.2 39 <8.2
SSGS-6 10/28/11 TO-15 3.1 <0.40 0.55 0.63 0.33 0.18 <0.46 0.45 2.8 6.9 4.6 2.2 1.4 3.8 0.88 1.8 0.21 5.4 0.34
SSGS-7 10/28/11 TO-15 3.0 <0.40 0.28 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.46 0.38 3.0 14 11 3.1 0.79 4.6 0.98 100 0.19 5.7 <0.41
SSGS-8 10/28/11 TO-15 3.0 43 14 28 33 3.4 3.2 <3.5 7.3 6.9 3.3 1.3 <5.3 <70 1.8 2.1 <1.8 8.2 <2.0
SSGS-9 10/28/11 TO-15 3.2 130 18 37 240 19 4.4 <14 28 6.1 3.9 <8.2 <21 <280 <8.2 10 <7.2 56 <8.2
SSGS-10 10/28/11 TO-15 2.8 1.2 <0.40 <0.40 1.1 <0.40 <0.46 <0.70 6.0 7.2 3.6 1.4 <1.1 21 0.76 4.7 <0.36 18 0.20
SSGS-11 10/28/11 TO-15 2.4 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.46 <0.70 1.8 3.9 1.7 1.8 <1.1 3.2 <0.41 <0.64 <0.36 1.7 <0.41
NC C C4 NC NE NC NC4 NE NE C4 NE NE C NE NE NE C4 C4 NC
1,760 770 47 1,760 520**520 36 NE NE 490 NE NE 56 NE NE NE 4,700 2,600 26,000
8,800 7,700 470 8,800 2600**2600 180 NE NE 4,900 NE NE 560 NE NE NE 47,000 26,000 130,000
Notes:
1. Only those analytes detected in at least one sample are shown in this table
2. Bold indicates compound exceeds IHSB Industrial/Commercial Soil Gas Screening Level at a risk level of 1 X 10¯5 or Hazard Index of 0.2
3. Underlined indicates compound exceeds IHSB Industrial/Commercial Soil Gas Screening Level at a risk level of 1 X 10¯4 or Hazard Index of 1
4. Has both carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic properties
* = 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene used as a surrogate for 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
** = trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene used as a surrogate for cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene
Carcinogenic (C) or Non-Carcinogenic (NC) EffectSample IDSampling Date Analytical MethodIHSB Industrial/Commercial Soil Gas Screening
Concentration
NE = Not Established, µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
J = Detected but below the reporting limit. Result is an estimated concentration.
B = Analyte is found in the associated blank as well as in the sample
µg/m3
IHSB Industrial/Commercial Soil Gas Screening
Concentration
(LICR = 1 X 10¯5 or HI of 0.2)
Table 2 (Page 3 of 3)
Summary of Soil Gas Analytical Data
Former AquAir Facility
Charlotte, North Carolina
Hart & Hickman Project No. RBH-001
S:\AAA-Master Projects\RBH\Soil Vapor Assessment\Vapor Report\Vapor Table.xlsxVapor Table.xlsx
11/29/2011
Table 2 (Page 3 of 3)
Hart & Hickman, PCPropeneStyrene1,1,2,2-TetrachloroethaneTetrachloroethyleneTetrahydrofuranToluene1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene1,1,1-Trichloroethane1,1,2-TrichloroethaneTrichloroethyleneTrichlorofluoromethane (Freon 11)1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane (Freon 113)1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene1,3,5-TrimethylbenzeneVinyl Chloridem,p-Xyleneo-XyleneSSGS-1 10/28/11 TO-15 5.2 0.85 <3.4 1,900 4.5 29 1.7 12 <2.7 82 1.4 1.2 7.6 2.8 2.4 20 7.2
SSGS-2 10/28/11 TO-15 39 <8.5 1,600 700,000 <5.9 150 6.2 8,900 780 110,000 13 2,100 20 8.3 16 61 25
SSGS-3 10/28/11 TO-15 4.2 0.57 <0.69 68 0.37 30 0.27 1.4 <0.55 1.8 1.8 1.0 8.7 3.5 <0.26 22 7.7
SSGS-4 10/28/11 TO-15 <280,000 51,000 24,000 16,000,000 <12,000 68,000 <30,000 1,400,000 <22,000 2,000,000 <22,000 <31,000 <20,000 <20,000 <10,000 34,000 <17,000
SSGS-5 10/28/11 TO-15 <140 <8.5 <14 16,000 <5.9 2.4 <15 350 <11 570 <11 36 <9.8 <9.8 <5.1 <17 <8.7
SSGS-6 10/28/11 TO-15 4.1 1.2 <0.69 63 0.52 26 1.2 4.8 0.25 8.6 2.0 1.4 5.5 2.5 <0.26 18 6.9
SSGS-7 10/28/11 TO-15 3.8 0.41 <0.69 14 0.62 56 0.59 2.2 <0.55 1.6 1.9 1.2 12 5.7 <0.26 41 16
SSGS-8 10/28/11 TO-15 <34 <2.1 <3.4 2,200 4.2 29 <3.7 10 100 710 1.5 7.4 7.0 3.0 <1.3 20 7.2
SSGS-9 10/28/11 TO-15 13 <8.5 <14 11,000 <5.9 25 <15 36 57 3,300 <11 3.7 3.3 <9.8 <5.1 16 5.7
SSGS-10 10/28/11 TO-15 3.3 0.26 <0.69 120 1.0 28 <0.74 0.81 <0.55 9.4 2.3 2.2 8.4 3.7 <0.26 21 7.8
SSGS-11 10/28/11 TO-15 4.9 0.13 <0.69 24 <0.29 17 <0.74 0.23 <0.55 0.44 1.4 0.81 3.8 2.1 <0.26 12 4.6
NE NC C C4 NE NC NC NC C C NC NC NC NC*C4 NC NC
NE 8,800 21 210 NE 44,000 17.6 44,000 77 610 6,200 260,000 62 62*280 6,200 6,200
NE 44,000 210 2,100 NE 220,000 88.0 220,000 770 6,100 62,000 2,600,000 620 620*2,800 62,000 62,000
Notes:
1. Only those analytes detected in at least one sample are shown in this table
2. Bold indicates compound exceeds IHSB Industrial/Commercial Soil Gas Screening Level at a risk level of 1 X 10¯5 or Hazard Index of 0.2
3. Underlined indicates compound exceeds IHSB Industrial/Commercial Soil Gas Screening Level at a risk level of 1 X 10¯4 or Hazard Index of 1
4. Has both carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic properties
* = 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene used as a surrogate for 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
** = trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene used as a surrogate for cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene
Carcinogenic (C) or Non-Carcinogenic (NC) EffectSampling Date IHSB Industrial/Commercial Soil Gas Screening
Concentration
NE = Not Established, µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
J = Detected but below the reporting limit. Result is an estimated concentration.
B = Analyte is found in the associated blank as well as in the sample
µg/m3Sample IDAnalytical MethodIHSB Industrial/Commercial Soil Gas Screening
Concentration
(LICR = 1 X 10¯5 or HI of 0.2)
Hart & Hickman, PC
Appendix A
Laboratory Analytical Data
Page 1 of 44
Page 2 of 44
Page 3 of 44
Page 4 of 44
Page 5 of 44
Page 6 of 44
Page 7 of 44
Page 8 of 44
Page 9 of 44
Page 10 of 44
Page 11 of 44
Page 12 of 44
Page 13 of 44
Page 14 of 44
Page 15 of 44
Page 16 of 44
Page 17 of 44
Page 18 of 44
Page 19 of 44
Page 20 of 44
Page 21 of 44
Page 22 of 44
Page 23 of 44
Page 24 of 44
Page 25 of 44
Page 26 of 44
Page 27 of 44
Page 28 of 44
Page 29 of 44
Page 30 of 44
Page 31 of 44
Page 32 of 44
Page 33 of 44
Page 34 of 44
Page 35 of 44
Page 36 of 44
Page 37 of 44
Page 38 of 44
Page 39 of 44
Page 40 of 44
Page 41 of 44
Page 42 of 44
Page 43 of 44
Page 44 of 44