FUEL SYSTEMS_2011 VI Soil Sampling Rpt (no AppC)-OCR

AN EMPLOYEE-OWNED COMPANY
ENGINEERING LABORATORY HYDROGEOLOGY

December 21, 2011

Ms. Donna Marie DeCarlo
Hydrogeologist
Inactive Hazardous Sites Branch
Superfund Section - NC DENR
610 East Center Avenue, Suite 301
Mooresville, North Carolina 28115
Submitted by email ([e-mail]) and CD only

Subject: Vapor Intrusion and Soil Sampling Report
Former Fuel Systems Facility
5019 Hovis Road, Charlotte, NC
IHSB Incident #NONCD0001973, Former APS #16775

Dear Ms. DeCarlo:

Rogers & Callcott has prepared the report for the vapor intrusion and shallow soil investigation
conducted at the Former Fuel Systems Facility located at 5019 Hovis Road in Charlotte, North
Carolina (the Site). This report includes the analytical results of the soil gas and soil samples
collected October 25-26, 2011 at the Site. Recommendations for future activities based on the
sample results are included.

The enclosed CD contains an electronic copy of the Vapor Intrusion and Soil Sampling Report
with all appendices. If you have any questions, please contact us.

Sincerely,

ROGERS & CALLCOTT ENGINEERS, INC.

Patrick Sanderson
Project Manager

Enclosures

Copy: Anastasia Hamel – BorgWarner Inc. (one hard copy, one electronic copy)
Peter Holmes – BorgWarner Inc. (one electronic copy)

VAPOR INTRUSION
AND SOIL SAMPLING
REPORT

Former Fuel Systems Facility
5019 Hovis Road
Charlotte, NC

Prepared For:
BorgWarner Inc.
Auburn Hills, MI

December 2011

AIR QUALITY
HYDROGEOLOGY
ANALYTICAL LABORATORY
REGULATORY COMPLIANCE
CIVIL & ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
Vapor Intrusion and Soil Sampling Report
Former Fuel Systems Facility, Charlotte, North Carolina
December 2011
11\09-123\RPTS\VI_Soil_Report_12-20-11 - i - Rogers & Callcott Engineers, Inc.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
1.1 SITE INFORMATION ........................................................................................................... 1
1.2 PURPOSE ........................................................................................................................... 1
1.3 DATA EVALUATION ........................................................................................................... 2
2.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION ..................................................................................................... 3
2.1 VAPOR INTRUSION ............................................................................................................ 3
2.1.1 Field Methodology ............................................................................................... 4
2.1.2 Quality Assurance/Quality Control Samples ........................................................ 5
2.2 SHALLOW SOIL .................................................................................................................. 5
2.2.1 Visual Inspection .................................................................................................. 6
2.2.2 Sample Collection ................................................................................................ 7
2.2.3 Quality Assurance/Quality Control Samples ........................................................ 8
2.3 INVESTIGATION DERIVED WASTE ..................................................................................... 8
3.0 RESULTS AND RECOMMEDATIONS .................................................................................. 9
3.1 VAPOR INTRUSION RESULTS ............................................................................................. 9
3.1.1 Recommendation for Additional Action (Vapor Intrusion) ................................. 9
3.2 SOIL RESULTS................................................................................................................... 11
3.2.1 Recommendation for Additional Action (Soil) ................................................... 12
4.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 13
Vapor Intrusion and Soil Sampling Report
Former Fuel Systems Facility, Charlotte, North Carolina
December 2011
11\09-123\RPTS\VI_Soil_Report_12-20-11 - ii - Rogers & Callcott Engineers, Inc.

FIGURES

Figure 1 ................................................................................................................ Site Location Map

Figure 2 .................................................................................................... Soil Gas Sample Locations

Figure 3 ..........................................................Surface/Shallow Subsurface Soil Sampling Locations

TABLES

Table 1 ................................................................... Soil Sample Containers and Analytical Methods

Table 2 ......................................................................................... Sample Collection Field Summary

Table 3 ......................................................................................................Soil Gas Analytical Results

Table 4 ............................................................................................................. Soil Results Summary

APPENDICES

Appendix A .................................................................................................................... Photographs

Appendix B .......................................................................................... Supporting Historical Figures

Appendix C ........................... Analytical Laboratory Reports and Chain of Custody Documentation

Vapor Intrusion and Soil Sampling Report
Former Fuel Systems Facility, Charlotte, North Carolina
December 2011
11\09-123\RPTS\VI_Soil_Report_12-20-11 - iii - Rogers & Callcott Engineers, Inc.
ACRONYM LIST
1,1-DCA 1,1-dichloroethane
1,1-DCE 1,1-dichloroethylene
1,1,1-TCA 1,1,1-trichloroethane
bgs below ground surface
CSA Comprehensive Site Assessment
DPT direct push technology
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
EPH extractable petroleum hydrocarbons
HSL hazardous substance list
IDW investigation derived waste
IHSB Inactive Hazardous Sites Branch
Kysor Kysor/Michigan Fleet Division
g/m3 micrograms per cubic meter
mg/kg milligrams per kilogram
MS/MSD matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate
MSCC maximum soil contaminant concentration
NCDENR North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
PID photoionization detector
PRT Post-Run Tubing
PSA Preliminary Site Assessment
PSRG preliminary soil remediation goal
QA quality assurance
QC quality control
SVOC semi-volatile organic compound
TCE trichloroethylene
TPH total petroleum hydrocarbons
UST underground storage tank
VOC volatile organic compound
VPH volatile petroleum hydrocarbons
Vapor Intrusion and Soil Sampling Report
Former Fuel Systems Facility, Charlotte, North Carolina
December 2011
11\09-123\RPTS\VI_Soil_Report_12-20-11 Page 1 of 13 Rogers & Callcott Engineers, Inc.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of an initial vapor intrusion and soil investigation conducted
October 25-26, 2011 at the Former Fuel Systems Facility, located at 5019 Hovis Road in
Charlotte, North Carolina (the Site). This investigation was completed in accordance with the
Work Plan for Vapor Intrusion and Soil Sampling (Rogers & Callcott, 2011), the NC Department
of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) Inactive Hazardous Sites Program Guidelines
for Assessment and Cleanup (NCDENR, 2011a) and the Supplemental Guidelines for the
Evaluation of Structural Vapor Intrusion Potential for Site Assessments and Remedial Actions
under the Inactive Hazardous Sites Branch (NCDENR, 2011b). Based on the results of this initial
investigation, additional action in support of the vapor intrusion investigation is recommended.
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. The facility is currently vacant. 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 process 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 warehouse prior to shipping.

The property consists of 3.94 acres and includes a single story, industrial building that covers
approximately 55 percent 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. A set of 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 purpose of this report is to evaluate the soil gas and soil sample data collected in support of
the vapor intrusion and shallow soil investigation. The results of this evaluation are then used
to determine the need for any remedial action to mitigate vapor intrusion and shallow soil
contamination at the Site, or alternatively determine if additional investigation is necessary.
Vapor Intrusion and Soil Sampling Report
Former Fuel Systems Facility, Charlotte, North Carolina
December 2011
11\09-123\RPTS\VI_Soil_Report_12-20-11 Page 2 of 13 Rogers & Callcott Engineers, Inc.
Based on the manufacturing history and previous investigations conducted at the Site, three
primary objectives were identified in the Work Plan for Vapor Intrusion and Soil Sampling in
order to complete the initial investigation (Rogers & Callcott, 2011). The objectives were as
follows:

1) Evaluate the potential for structural vapor intrusion of contaminants originating from the
two volatile organic compound (VOC) groundwater plumes identified during previous
investigations at the Site.

2) Evaluate the need for remediation of contaminated surface and shallow subsurface soil
based on elevated soil concentrations of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) – diesel,
methylene chloride, and metals identified during the 1996 Preliminary Site Assessment
(PSA).

3) Close historical data gaps in surface soil and shallow subsurface soil in the unpaved area
and ditch on the western side of the property by sampling for VOCs, semivolatile organic
compounds (SVOCs), seven of the 14 Hazardous Substance List (HSL) metals (arsenic,
cadmium, chromium, mercury, selenium, silver, and thallium), and hexavalent chromium,
which have not been evaluated at the Site previously.
1.3 DATA EVALUATION
The analyte lists for soil gas and shallow soil samples were developed based on the Inactive
Hazardous Sites Branch (IHSB) guidance documents for soil investigations (NCDENR, 2011a) and
vapor intrusion (NCDENR, 2011b), as discussed in the Work Plan for Vapor Intrusion and Soil
Sampling (Rogers & Callcott, 2011). All soil gas data collected during this investigation were
evaluated by comparison against the IHSB Industrial/Commercial Acceptable Soil Gas
Concentrations. Soil data were compared to the August 2011 Residential Health-Based
Preliminary Soil Remediation Goals (PSRGs) provided by the IHSB or the Maximum Soil
Contaminant Concentration (MSCC) from the NCDENR Underground Storage Tank (UST) division
(NCDENR, 2007) for analytes that do not currently have a PSRG.

Soil sample locations exhibiting contaminant concentrations above the screening levels were
evaluated further to determine the need for remedial action. Sample locations with
concentrations below the screening levels were considered clean and no further action is
required for soil in these areas. Metal concentrations were also screened against the
concentrations in two control samples, which were collected at one location upgradient of the
investigation area.

Vapor Intrusion and Soil Sampling Report
Former Fuel Systems Facility, Charlotte, North Carolina
December 2011
11\09-123\RPTS\VI_Soil_Report_12-20-11 Page 3 of 13 Rogers & Callcott Engineers, Inc.
2.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION
The following subsections provide a description of the investigation methods employed to
evaluate the vapor intrusion potential from the two VOC contaminant plumes identified at the
Site, and the direct contact risk associated with areas of exposed soil. As described below, the
vapor intrusion evaluation accomplishes Objective 1, and the soil investigation accomplishes
Objectives 2 and 3 of this investigation. All field activities associated with this investigation
were conducted October 25-26, 2011. Photographs documenting the investigation are included
as Appendix A of this document.

Prior to sampling activities, the vapor intrusion and soil investigation areas were cleared for
underground utilities by the public locator (Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities) and a private
locator (Utility Specialists Incorporated), and verified by the current Site owner. All direct push
soil borings completed as part of the vapor intrusion or soil investigation were conducted by
EarthCon, Inc. using a Geoprobe®.
2.1 VAPOR INTRUSION
According to NCDENR’s Supplemental Guidance for the Evaluation of Structural Vapor Intrusion
Potential for Site Assessments and Remedial Actions Under the Inactive Hazardous Sites Branch
(NCDENR, 2011b), the potential for structural vapor intrusion must be evaluated when an
existing building or possible future building lot is located within 100 ft of contaminated soil or
groundwater. Previous investigations identified two VOC plumes in groundwater within 100 ft
of the existing structure at the Site: one in the northwest corner of the property identified
during the 2000 Comprehensive Site Assessment (CSA) Addendum, and one in the south-
southwest portion of the property identified as part of the 2008 sampling event (Ogden, 2000;
Martin and Slagle, 2009).

Within the two identified plumes, the following contaminants exceeded the 15A NCAC 2L
standards in groundwater: 1,1-dichloroethylene (1,1-DCE), 1,2-dichloroethane (1,2-DCA), 1,1,1-
trichloroethane (1,1,1-TCA), and trichloroethylene (TCE). However, of these contaminants, only
the 1,1-DCE concentrations exceeded the Acceptable Groundwater Concentrations given in the
IHSB Industrial/Commercial Vapor Intrusion Screening Tables. 1,1-DCE was detected at a
maximum concentration of 18,000 μg/L in the southwest plume and at >2500 μg/L in the
northwest plume, while the Acceptable Groundwater Concentration for 1,1-DCE is 160 μg/L.
Therefore, the potential for vapor intrusion of 1,1-DCE was further evaluated during this
investigation through soil gas sampling within the footprint of each of the two groundwater
plumes.

The vapor intrusion evaluation was performed in accordance with the methodology described
in NCDENR’s Supplemental Guidance for the Evaluation of Structural Vapor Intrusion Potential
Vapor Intrusion and Soil Sampling Report
Former Fuel Systems Facility, Charlotte, North Carolina
December 2011
11\09-123\RPTS\VI_Soil_Report_12-20-11 Page 4 of 13 Rogers & Callcott Engineers, Inc.
for Site Assessments and Remedial Actions Under the Inactive Hazardous Sites Branch (NCDENR,
2011b).
2.1.1 Field Methodology
Samples were collected as described in the Work Plan for Vapor Intrusion and Soil Sampling
(Rogers & Callcott, 2011). Minor adjustments were made to the soil gas sample locations due to
the identification of underground utilities. The soil gas sample locations are shown on Figure 2.
A total of seven soil gas samples (SG-1 – SG-7) were taken in support of the vapor intrusion
evaluation. Three samples (SG-1 – SG-3) were taken from the VOC plume adjacent to the
northwest corner of the building. SG-3 was collected at the location of the highest groundwater
concentration, as identified in the 2000 CSA Addendum sampling event. Soil gas samples SG-1
and SG-2 were collected adjacent to the building perimeter within the plume footprint. SG-2
was repositioned to a location slightly farther away from the building than proposed to
accommodate existing underground utilities. Four samples (SG-4 – SG-7) were taken from the
plume located at the southwest corner of the building. Sample SG-7 was collected adjacent to
monitoring well MW-8D, the location of the highest 1,1-DCE concentration during the most
recent groundwater sampling event at the Site in 2008, and samples SG-4, SG-5, and SG-6 were
collected adjacent to the building perimeter within the footprint of the plume. Based on
available groundwater elevation data, the samples along the perimeter of the building are
hydraulically up-gradient of the locations where the highest groundwater concentrations occur.
Potentiometric and plume maps from previous investigations are included in Appendix B.

As recommended by the IHSB’s Guidelines for Assessment and Cleanup, soil gas sampling was
performed in accordance with the guidelines set forth in the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) Science and Ecosystem Support Division Soil Gas Sampling Operating Procedure (EPA,
2010). The soil gas samples were collected by Geoprobe® using direct push technology (DPT)
and a Post-Run Tubing (PRT) system.

Water levels were measured in existing on-Site monitoring wells to determine the soil gas DPT
boring depths such that samples were collected from a depth that was sufficiently close but did
not penetrate the water table. In the northwest plume area, depth to water was measured at
24.99 ft below ground surface (bgs). Since the soil gas sampling locations were slightly downhill
from MW-1, the soil gas samples were taken from 18 ft bgs to ensure that the water table was
not encountered during DPT boring. For the southwest plume, water levels of 22.17 ft bgs and
22.0 ft bgs were measured in MW-4 and MW-9, respectively. Soil gas samples in the southwest
plume were collected from 18 ft bgs. Prior to sample collection, water level sounders were used
to confirm that no water was present in the rods of the PRT.

New O-rings and tubing were used for each sample. All reusable soil gas sampling equipment
was decontaminated before collecting each sample. The sample tubing at each location was
purged for 1.5-3 minutes using a photoionization detector (PID), for a total purge volume of
750-1500 mL. The volume of the sample tubing at each location was approximately 250 mL,
Vapor Intrusion and Soil Sampling Report
Former Fuel Systems Facility, Charlotte, North Carolina
December 2011
11\09-123\RPTS\VI_Soil_Report_12-20-11 Page 5 of 13 Rogers & Callcott Engineers, Inc.
thus a total of 3-6 line volumes were evacuated from the tubing prior to sample collection.
Samples were collected into evacuated SUMMA canisters equipped with flow limiting devices
that allowed for sample collection over a 1 hour period. After sample collection, the rods were
removed and the boreholes were abandoned by filling the holes to ground surface with
Benseal® grout installed by tremie pipe.

Samples were shipped to Air Toxics Ltd. where they were analyzed for 1,1-DCE by Modified EPA
Method TO-15 (5 & 20 ppbv). Chain of custody documentation for the soil gas samples is
included along with the laboratory reports in Appendix C of this report.
2.1.2 Quality Assurance/Quality Control Samples
In addition to the seven soil gas samples described above, three quality assurance/quality
control (QA/QC) samples were collected. Sample SG-7D was a duplicate of sample SG-7. The
two samples were collected simultaneously by attaching the center leg of a Swagelok® “T” to
the end of the sample tubing, and attaching the remaining legs to two SUMMA canisters. The
duplicate sample provided information on the consistency and reproducibility of the field
sampling and analytical procedures. An ambient blank (AB-1) was taken by opening a SUMMA
canister equipped with a flow limiting device and collecting ambient air over a 1 hour period.
The ambient blank was taken outdoors in the area of the southwest plume on the paved
surface approximately 20 ft west of MW-8D, as shown on Figure 2. The ambient blank provided
the background level of 1,1-DCE in the investigation area. Additionally, a trip blank canister was
submitted for analysis. The trip blank canister accompanied the other canisters 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 and
decontamination effectiveness. Also, the laboratory analyzed additional 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 SHALLOW SOIL
Due to the majority of the Site being covered by pavement or the building itself, there are only
limited areas of the Site where surface soil is found. The ditch and grassy area along the
western edge of the Site represent the only area of exposed surface soil adjacent to potential
contaminant sources, and therefore the only areas of potential risk due to soil exposure.

Surface soil samples had not been collected from the area of oily residue identified on the
western edge of the Site prior to this investigation. Two shallow soil samples (SS-5A and SS-17)
were collected from less than 3 ft bgs during the 1996 PSA from the Drum Storage Area and the
adjacent asphalt on the southwestern corner of the building. Both shallow soil samples
collected from this potential contaminant source area were below the screening levels for
VOCs. SS-5A was below detection for TPH-diesel, and SS-17 was not analyzed for this potential
contaminant. These shallow soil sample locations provide confirmation that contaminated
Vapor Intrusion and Soil Sampling Report
Former Fuel Systems Facility, Charlotte, North Carolina
December 2011
11\09-123\RPTS\VI_Soil_Report_12-20-11 Page 6 of 13 Rogers & Callcott Engineers, Inc.
shallow soil is not present in this potential source area just southeast of the unpaved area. The
historical sample locations and the area of oily residue are shown on Figure 3.
2.2.1 Visual Inspection
In accordance with IHSB guidance for soil sampling (NCDENR, 2011a), the area of exposed soil in
the footprint and adjacent to the oily residue was visually inspected prior to the selection of
sample locations. Because no visual evidence of contamination could be found in this area, four
equally spaced surface soil sample locations (BWNC-7 – BWNC-10) were marked in the unpaved
area on the west side of the building, as shown on Figure 3. Because the asphalt pavement
extended approximately 25 ft to the south beyond the northwest corner of the building, the
sample locations were shifted from the proposed locations by the same distance and direction.
The sample locations were placed at approximate 30-ft intervals over the 100-ft length of
exposed soil. This sample spacing meets the requirements of the IHSB guidance document,
which specifies that sample locations be spaced no farther than 50 ft apart (NCDENR, 2011a).
BWNC-8 was marked adjacent to a concrete pad where a roll-up door was located. This was the
only direct access point identified from the building interior to the unpaved area.

Sample locations within the drainage ditch running between the Site boundary and an
abandoned CSX rail line were also marked during the visual inspection. Five sample locations
were marked within the drainage ditch as proposed in the work plan. However, the final sample
locations, which are shown on Figure 3, were altered based on field observations.

BWNC-2 was located approximately 25 ft north of the building corner as originally
proposed in the work plan.
BWNC-3 was located approximately 10 ft south of BWNC-2, just downgradient of a
drainage collection area leading from the paved area toward the drainage ditch. This
sample was collected between the ditch and the chain link fence surrounding the
property in the most likely contaminated area. This sample location was added based on
field conditions, and was not originally proposed in the work plan.
BWNC-4 was located approximately 40 ft south of BWNC-3, and was approximately 5 ft
south of a proposed sample location.
BWNC-5 was located at the head of the culvert that diverts the ditch to the west, away
from the Site. The culvert location was identified in the field approximately 30 ft farther
north than originally identified in earlier reports.
BWNC-6 was placed in the ditch between BWNC-4 and BWNC-5, approximately 35 ft
north of BWNC-5 to sample the likely area of TPH-diesel contamination identified during
the 1996 PSA.
Vapor Intrusion and Soil Sampling Report
Former Fuel Systems Facility, Charlotte, North Carolina
December 2011
11\09-123\RPTS\VI_Soil_Report_12-20-11 Page 7 of 13 Rogers & Callcott Engineers, Inc.
One soil sample location was proposed downstream of the culvert on the other side of the
abandoned CSX rail. However, because it was outside of the Site property boundary, this
location was not sampled.
The control sample location (BWNC-1) was moved from the original location due to proximity
to the abandoned rail line. The new location was in the grassy area along Bealer Road to the
north of the Site (Figure 3).
2.2.2 Sample Collection
Soil samples were collected during this investigation using either a stainless steel hand auger or
DPT using a Geoprobe® as described in the work plan (Rogers & Callcott, 2011). Surface and
subsurface samples at BWNC-2, BWNC-3, and BWNC-4, and the subsurface soil sample at
BWNC-1 were collected by Geoprobe®. All other samples were collected using a stainless steel
hand auger. Samples were collected for HSL metals, hexavalent chromium, SVOCs, VOCs,
extractable petroleum hydrocarbons (EPH), and volatile petroleum hydrocarbons (VPH) at all
locations with the exception of BWNC-1, which was sampled for metals only. Sample containers
collected for each analysis are given in Table 1.

Loose material and debris was found along the surface of the drainage ditch, and vegetation
cover was present at all other sample locations. Therefore, surface soil samples were collected
from approximately 0.5-1 ft bgs (0.25-0.5 ft bgs for BWNC-1) rather than the 0-0.5 ft interval
proposed in the work plan to obtain a uniform soil sample free of debris and vegetation.

Following collection of the surface samples, locations BWNC-2 – BWNC-6 were screened using a
PID at 1-ft intervals down to 3 ft bgs to determine the subsurface interval to be submitted for
laboratory analysis. The subsurface sample interval exhibiting the highest PID reading at each
location was submitted. Table 2 provides the sample intervals collected at each location, the
sample type (grab or composite), the PID screening results, and the sample intervals analyzed.

Surface soil samples were collected from 0.5-1 ft bgs at locations BWNC-7 – BWNC-10 using a
stainless steel hand auger. Samples for VOC and VPH analyses were collected as grab samples
directly from the hand auger at each sample location. The remaining sample from each location
was then composited in a stainless steel mixing bowl, and one composite sample (BWNC-7-10)
was collected for HSL metals, hexavalent chromium, SVOCs, and EPH as proposed in the work
plan (Rogers & Callcott, 2011). Because no visual evidence of contamination was found in the
area, no PID readings or subsurface intervals were collected at sample locations BWNC-7 –
BWNC-10.

Samples were filled completely with no headspace, labeled, sealed, and placed on ice in
coolers, which were then transported by Rogers & Callcott personnel to the Rogers & Callcott
laboratory in Greenville, SC. Samples collected for hexavalent chromium, EPH, and VPH were
subsequently shipped to Test America Laboratories in Nashville, TN for analysis. All HSL metal,
Vapor Intrusion and Soil Sampling Report
Former Fuel Systems Facility, Charlotte, North Carolina
December 2011
11\09-123\RPTS\VI_Soil_Report_12-20-11 Page 8 of 13 Rogers & Callcott Engineers, Inc.
SVOC, and VOC analyses were completed by Rogers & Callcott. Chain of custody documentation
is included along with the analytical laboratory reports in Appendix C. The analytical methods
used for each set of parameters are noted in Table 1.
2.2.3 Quality Assurance/Quality Control Samples
Three types of QA/QC samples were collected in the field as part of the soil investigation.

Trip blanks were prepared prior to the field effort in the laboratory by filling sample vials with
organic-free water, and accompanied the sample containers during transport to and from the
field. One trip blank was analyzed for VOCs by Rogers & Callcott and for VPH by Test America.
Analysis of the trip blank provides information on the field and laboratory sample handling
procedures, and whether cross contamination between samples during storage and transport
may be present.

Equipment blanks were collected in the field by running organic-free water over the
decontaminated hand auger used for sample collection. One equipment blank was submitted
for analysis of all parameters. Analysis of the equipment blanks help to determine if the
decontamination procedures in place are adequate.

One duplicate sample was collected simultaneously with BWNC-5 from 0.5-1 ft bgs, and
analyzed for the same parameter list. The duplicate results provide information on the
precision of the field sampling procedures and aid in evaluating the expected variability in a soil
sample.

As previously mentioned, BWNC-1 was collected as a control sample upgradient of the
potential source areas at the Site. The metal results for this sample provide a baseline
comparison to determine if concentrations of metals on Site are elevated.

Additionally, matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate (MS/MSD) samples were prepared by the
laboratories to identify any potential matrix interferences, and verify the reproducibility of the
laboratory analytical procedures.
2.3 INVESTIGATION DERIVED WASTE
Investigation derived waste (IDW) generated during this investigation included soil cores from
the soil gas and soil sampling, and less than 10 gallons of soapy tap water and deionized water
used for cleaning sampling equipment. In accordance with the IHSB guidelines, the soil cores
remaining after sampling were spread on the ground surface adjacent to the boring location.
The water was discharged on the paved surface on Site.

Vapor Intrusion and Soil Sampling Report
Former Fuel Systems Facility, Charlotte, North Carolina
December 2011
11\09-123\RPTS\VI_Soil_Report_12-20-11 Page 9 of 13 Rogers & Callcott Engineers, Inc.
3.0 RESULTS AND RECOMMEDATIONS
The following subsections provide the results generated from the vapor intrusion and shallow
soil investigations. Following discussions of the results for each portion of the investigation,
recommendations for additional action items are provided. The laboratory reports generated
by Rogers & Callcott, Air Toxics, and Test America are included in Appendix C of this report.
3.1 VAPOR INTRUSION RESULTS
The 1,1-DCE concentrations for all soil gas samples and control samples are summarized in
Table 3. The lower reporting limits were based on the sample dilution required, and therefore
are not the same for all samples. For samples in which 1,1-DCE was not detected, the lower
reporting limits ranged from 20 – 40 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3). This detection limit is
well below the Acceptable Soil Gas Concentration of 1760 μg/m3 for 1,1-DCE as reported in the
IHSB Vapor Intrusion Screening Tables (February, 2011).

All samples collected in the footprint of the northwest plume (samples SG-1, SG-2, and SG-3)
showed no detectable concentrations of 1,1-DCE.

In the footprint of the southwest plume, samples SG-4 and SG-5, both taken adjacent to the
building, had no detectable concentrations of 1,1-DCE. Sample SG-6, which was also collected
adjacent to the building, had a 1,1-DCE concentration of 3,200 μg/m3. Sample SG-7, collected
within the plume at the area with the highest historical levels of groundwater contamination,
had a soil gas 1,1-DCE concentration of 150,000 μg/m3. The 1,1-DCE concentrations in both SG-
6 and SG-7 exceeded the Acceptable Soil Gas Concentration of 1760 μg/m3 for 1,1-DCE.

All QC samples support the validity of the results. The trip blank and ambient blank samples had
no detectable concentrations of 1,1-DCE. The field duplicate sample (SG-7D) had a 1,1-DCE
concentration of 140,000 μg/m3, which is a 7% difference from the value of 150,000 μg/m3
measured in sample SG-7.

Additionally, all laboratory control samples met the laboratory’s QC requirements. No receiving
or analytical discrepancies were noted in the laboratory report (Appendix C). 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 had
percentage recoveries that were within the method limits. Also, all surrogate percentage
recovery values met the method limits for all samples analyzed.
3.1.1 Recommendation for Additional Action (Vapor Intrusion)
Samples SG-6 and SG-7 exhibited exceedances of the Acceptable Soil Gas Concentration of 1760
μg/m3 for 1,1-DCE. Sample SG-7 was taken over the predicted area of highest groundwater
Vapor Intrusion and Soil Sampling Report
Former Fuel Systems Facility, Charlotte, North Carolina
December 2011
11\09-123\RPTS\VI_Soil_Report_12-20-11 Page 10 of 13 Rogers & Callcott Engineers, Inc.
contamination; therefore, the soil gas concentration measured in this sample should represent
the worst case scenario for any potential vapor intrusion at the Site. Sample SG-6 was taken
adjacent to the building perimeter, so this sample represents the most likely area for any
potential vapor intrusion into the structure. Based on soil gas exceedances within 100 ft of the
structure, further evaluation of the potential for vapor intrusion is warranted.

NCDENR’s Supplemental Guidance for the Evaluation of Structural Vapor Intrusion Potential for
Site Assessments and Remedial Actions Under the Inactive Hazardous Sites Branch states that
when the Acceptable Soil Gas Concentrations are exceeded, subslab soil gas samples should be
collected from just below the slab (NCDENR, 2011b). If subslab samples exceed the screening
levels, indoor air samples should be collected. However, for practical reasons, NCDENR’s IHSB
guidance allows for eliminating the subslab soil gas sampling step and proceeding with indoor
air sampling.

Indoor air samples should be collected during worst case conditions for vapor intrusion. Worst
case conditions occur when the weather is cold and windy since the exterior of the building is
colder than the interior under these circumstances. The heating of the indoor space produces a
chimney effect and air can rise into the structure (NCDENR, 2011b). Since planning field events
based on wind conditions is difficult, temperature should be the deciding element for
scheduling. Samples should be collected when the average high temperatures are less than 60°
Fahrenheit. For the Site, this means that indoor air sample collection should occur during the
months of December, January, or February.

Indoor air concentrations should be compared to the Acceptable Indoor Air Concentrations
given in the IHSB Vapor Intrusion Screening Tables (February, 2011). If the indoor air
concentrations do not exceed the screening values, samples were collected during worst case
conditions, and the groundwater plume is not advancing toward the building, no further vapor
intrusion evaluation is required. Based on groundwater flow direction and contaminant
concentrations recorded at the Site during previous investigations, the plume is migrating away
from the building (Appendix B).

If the indoor air concentrations exceed the screening levels, the need for mitigation would be
determined by the cancer risk and hazard index calculated using the measured indoor air
concentrations. A summary of the required actions based on the risk level is provided below.

Vapor Intrusion and Soil Sampling Report
Former Fuel Systems Facility, Charlotte, North Carolina
December 2011
11\09-123\RPTS\VI_Soil_Report_12-20-11 Page 11 of 13 Rogers & Callcott Engineers, Inc.
Indoor Air Results Action
Meet Acceptable Indoor Air Concentrations
(< 1.0 x 10-6 cancer risk and hazard index < 1)
No further analysis required if samples were
collected during worst case conditions and
the plume is not advancing toward the
structure
1.0 x 10
-6 – 1.0 x 10-4 cancer risk and
hazard index < 1
At least one additional sampling event during
worst case conditions is required
Cancer risk > 1.0 x 10-4 or hazard index > 1 Mitigation required

For practical reasons, Rogers & Callcott recommends that indoor air testing be conducted as
opposed to subslab testing. Rogers & Callcott’s recommendation is to revert to subslab
sampling only if there are exceedances of the Acceptable Indoor Air Concentrations to
determine if vapor intrusion is the source.
3.2 SOIL RESULTS
Table 4 summarizes the metals, SVOCs, VOCs, EPH, and VPH species detected in soil samples
collected during this investigation, as well as any screening level exceedances. This table
includes only those parameters that were detected in at least one soil sample. Complete
analytical results can be found in the laboratory reports from Rogers & Callcott and Test
America Laboratories, included in Appendix C.

A total of four metals were detected in soil samples collected at the Site. Arsenic was detected
only at BWNC-1, which was the control sample location. The surface (0.25-0.5 ft bgs) and
subsurface soil (2-3 ft bgs) arsenic concentrations at BWNC-1, 3.4 and 3.3 milligrams per
kilograms (mg/kg) respectively, exceeded the Residential Health-Based PSRG of 0.39 mg/kg.
However, arsenic was below detection limits at all other sample locations. Similarly, mercury
was detected at BWNC-1 (2-3 ft bgs) below the residential PSRG, but was below detection limits
at all other sample locations. Total chromium was detected in all soil samples collected, ranging
in concentration from 7.7 mg/kg at BWNC-4 (1-2 ft bgs) to 110 mg/kg at BWNC-6 (2-3 ft bgs).
There is no current PSRG for total chromium, but because hexavalent chromium was below
detection limits in all samples, all detected chromium is assumed to be trivalent chromium.
Therefore, the residential PSRG for trivalent chromium (24,000 mg/kg), which is at least two
orders of magnitude greater than all chromium concentrations at the Site, was used for
comparison, and all detected chromium concentrations were well below this residential PSRG.
Cadmium was detected in one sample, BWNC-5 (0.5-1 ft bgs), at 1.3 mg/kg, which is just slightly
over the detection limit and below the residential PSRG of 3.0 mg/kg.

The SVOCs bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate and 10 polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) were
detected in soil samples. Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate was detected at 0.32 mg/kg in BWNC-5
(0.5-1 ft bgs) and at 1.00 mg/kg in BWNC-5 (2-3 ft bgs), which are both below the residential
PSRG of 7.2 mg/kg. Additionally, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate was not detected in the duplicate
Vapor Intrusion and Soil Sampling Report
Former Fuel Systems Facility, Charlotte, North Carolina
December 2011
11\09-123\RPTS\VI_Soil_Report_12-20-11 Page 12 of 13 Rogers & Callcott Engineers, Inc.
surface soil sample collected at this location. The 10 PAHs were detected in only one soil
sample, BWNC-3 (0.5-1 ft bgs), which was the surface soil sample location just downgradient of
the drainage collection area leading from the paved area (Figure 3). Of the 10 PAHs detected,
six exceeded the residential PSRG: benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene,
indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, phenanthrene, and pyrene.

Acetone was the only VOC detected in soil. Acetone was detected only in sample BWNC-5 (2-3
ft bgs) at a concentration of 0.15 mg/kg. This concentration is five orders of magnitude below
the residential PSRG of 12,000 mg/kg.

VPHs, which consist of C5-C8 aliphatic hydrocarbons and C9-C10 aromatic hydrocarbons, were
below detection in all soil samples collected during this investigation. The EPH ranges detected
were C9-C18 aliphatic hydrocarbons and C19-C36 aliphatic hydrocarbons. C9-C18 hydrocarbons
were detected in BWNC-5 (0.5-1 ft bgs) and its duplicate sample at 19.2 mg/kg and 83.6 mg/kg,
respectively. The C9-C18 detections were well below the UST MSCC of 1,500 mg/kg. C19-C36
hydrocarbons were detected in samples BWNC-3 (0.5-1 ft bgs), BWNC-5 (0.5-1 ft bgs), and
BWNC-5D (0.5-1 ft bgs) at concentrations of 21.0, 33.7, and 191 mg/kg, respectively. All
detections of C19-C36 were well below the UST MSCC of 31,000 mg/kg.
3.2.1 Recommendation for Additional Action (Soil)
Based on the subsurface soil results for SVOCs at BWNC-3 (1-2 ft bgs), the area of PAH-
impacted soil at BWNC-3 appears to be confined to surface soil from 0-1 ft bgs. As previously
discussed, the surface soil sample at BWNC-3 was collected directly adjacent to a depressed
portion of the asphalt where a 1-2 inch thick layer of damp material had accumulated, likely
due to stormwater runoff from the area of the loading docks to the north (Appendix A, Photos
3 and 4). The preferential flow path for stormwater runoff is obvious from the stained area
identified in Figure 3 and in Appendix A, Photo 2. The area of BWNC-3 also contained loose
sediment-like material similar to that accumulated in the paved area. Therefore, as the
contaminants are found only in surface material immediately adjacent to the pavement and the
apparent accumulation of runoff in this area, the PAHs found in surface soil at BWNC-3 are
more likely due to recent stormwater events rather than historical Site activities.

Furthermore, a common source of PAHs is the tar in asphalt-paved surfaces. During the field
investigation, the area appeared to have been paved with asphalt recently. Thus, the elevated
levels of PAHs may be due to runoff from the pavement. Given that the source of
contamination may be a result of ongoing stormwater runoff, removing the impacted soil will
not result in long-term remediation as the contaminated material will continue to accumulate
after future storm events. Any soil removal should be conducted only after the stormwater
drainage issues at the Site are addressed by the Site owner or operator.

Vapor Intrusion and Soil Sampling Report
Former Fuel Systems Facility, Charlotte, North Carolina
December 2011
11\09-123\RPTS\VI_Soil_Report_12-20-11 Page 13 of 13 Rogers & Callcott Engineers, Inc.
4.0 REFERENCES

EPA, 2010. Soil Gas Sampling Operating Procedure. SESDPROC-307-R2. Athens, GA: Science and
Ecosystem Support Division.
Martin & Slagle GeoSciences, PA, March 2009. Additional Groundwater Assessment Report: Fuel
Systems Facility.
North Carolina Administrative Code, 2010. Title 15A, Subchapter 2L – Groundwater
Classifications and Standards. Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
NCDENR (North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources), 2007, UST
Section Guidelines for the Investigation and Remediation of Contamination from non-
UST Petroleum Releases. Division of Waste Management: UST Section.
NCDENR, 2011a. Inactive Hazardous Sites Program: Guidelines for Assessment and Cleanup.
Division of Waste Management: Superfund Section: Inactive Hazardous Sites Branch.
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.
Ogden Environmental and Engineering Services, Inc., May 2000. Comprehensive Site Assessment
Addendum Report: BorgWarner, Inc.
Rogers & Callcott, October 2011. Work Plan for Vapor Intrusion and Soil Sampling Former Fuel
Systems Facility, Charlotte, North Carolina.

Vapor Intrusion and Soil Sampling Report
Former Fuel Systems Facility, Charlotte, North Carolina
December 2011
11\09-123\RPTS\VI_Soil_Report_12-20-11 Rogers & Callcott Engineers, Inc.
TABLES
Table1
SoilSampleContainersandAnalyticalMethods
FormerFuelSystemsFacility
5019HovisRoad,Charlotte,NC
Analytical Parameter Sample Type/Method Container Preservative Holding Times
Volatile Organic
Compounds EPA 8260B
2 VOA vials with Sodium bisulfate solution and
stir bar and 1 VOA vial with methanol and one 2
oz jar for solids determination
Cool to < 6°C 14 days
Semivolatile Organic
Compounds EPA 8270D 8-oz. glass jar with Teflon-lined screw cap. Cool to < 6°C
Extract within 14 days and
analyze extracts within 40 days
of extraction.
Hazardous Substance List
Metals EPA 6010C/7471B 4-oz polyethylene or glass jar Cool to < 6°C 6 months
(Hg 28 days)
Hexavalent Chromium EPA 7196 4-oz polyethylene or glass jar Cool to < 6°C 30 days to extraction; 7 days
from extraction to analysis
Volatile Petroleum
Hydrocarbons (VPH)MADEP VPH1
Duplicate EnCore samplers or equivalent or
Duplicate pre-weighed empty VOA vials with
Teflon-lined screw caps. Extra VOA vial w/o
preservative.*
Cool to < 6°C and
complete laboratory
preservation** or
analyze within 48
hours
28 days
Extractable Petroleum
Hydrocarbons (EPH)MADEP EPH1 4-oz wide-mouth amber glass jar with Teflon-
lined screw cap.Cool to < 6°C
Extract within 14 days and
analyze extracts within 40 days
of e traction
\Projects\11\09123\RPTS\VIandSoilReport\Tables Rogers&CallcottEngineers,Inc.
Hydrocarbons (EPH)lined screw cap.of extraction.
Notes:
1 VPH and EPH analytical and preservation information from Massachusetts Department of the Environment
MADEP - Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
\Projects\11\09123\RPTS\VIandSoilReport\Tables Rogers&CallcottEngineers,Inc.
Table2
SampleCollectionFieldSummary
FormerFuelSystemsFacility
5019HovisRoad,Charlotte,NC
HSLMetals 1 Hex.Chrom./
SVOCs/EPH VOCs/VPH
0.250.5 Grab n/a X
2.03.0 Grab n/a X
0.51.0 2 Grab48XXX
1.02.0 2 Grab18XXX
2.03.0 Grab 15.6
0.51.0 2 Grab 11.7 X X X
1.02.0 2 Grab3.9XXX
2.03.0 Grab 1.6
0.51.0 2 Grab 26.0 X X X
1.02.0 2 Grab 14.7 X X X
2.03.0 Grab 7.3
0.51.0 2 Grabn/aXXX
1.02.0 Grab 0.0
2.03.0 2 Grab0.0XXX
0.51.0 2 Grabn/aXXX
1.02.0 Grab 0.0
2.03.0 2 Grab0.0XXX
BWNC7 0.51.0 2 n/a X
BWNC8 0.51.0 2 n/a X
BWNC9 0.51.0 2 n/a X
BWNC10 0.51.0 2 n/a X
BWNC5D 0.51.0 DuplicateGrab n/aXXX
Trip Blank n/a n/a n/a X
BWNC1
FieldSamples
AnalyticalParameters
SampleLocation SampleDepth
(ftbgs)SampleType
PID
Reading
(ppm)
Composite/
Grab3
BWNC2
BWNC3
BWNC4
BWNC5
QA/QCSamples
XX
BWNC6
Trip Blank n/a n/a n/a X
EquipmentBlank n/a n/a n/a XXX
15 13 17
1HSLmetalsincludearsenic,cadmium,chromium,mercury,selenium,silver,andthallium.
3SamplesforVOCandVPHanalysiscollectedasgrabsamples.
ppmpartspermillion
2Samplecollectedforlaboratoryanalysis.
ftbgsfeetbelowgroundsurface
SampleTotals:
\11\09123\RPTS\VIandSoilReport\Tables_1213 11 Rogers&CallcottEngineers,Inc.
Table3
SoilGasAnalyticalResults
FormerFuelSystemsFacility
5019HovisRoad,Charlotte,NorthCarolina
1,1DCE
(g/m3)
Northwestplume,adjacenttobuilding <40
Northwestplume,adjacenttobuilding <36
Northwestplume,areaofhighestGWconcentration <35
Southwestplume,adjacenttobuilding <35
Southwestplume,adjacenttobuilding <33
Southwestplume,adjacenttobuilding 3,200
Southwestplume,areaofhighestGWconcentration 150,000
QCSample:DuplicateofsampleSG7 140,000
QCSample:Am bientblank <33
QCSample:Tripblank <20
g/m3microgramspercubicmeter
Bold =Detectionexceedsthe AcceptableSoilGasConcentration for1,1DCEof1,760 g/m3asgivenin
NCDENR'sIHSBIndustrial/CommercialVaporIntrusionScreeningTables(NCDENR,2011b)
SG6
SG7
SG7D
AB1
TB1
SG4
SG5
Sample Description
SG1
SG2
SG3
\11\09123\RPTS\VIandSoilReport\Tables_121311 Rogers&CallcottEngineers,Inc.
Table4
SoilResultsSummary
FormerFuelSystemsFacility
5019HovisRoad,Charlotte,NC
SampleID PSRG/MSCC
BWNC1
(0.250.5)
BWNC1
(2.03.0)
BWNC2
(0.51.0)
BWNC2
(1.02.0)
BWNC3
(0.51.0)
BWNC3
(1.02.0)
BWNC4
(0.51.0)
BWNC4
(1.02.0)
BWNC5
(0.51.0)
Arsenic 0.39 3.4 3.3 <3.2 <3.2 <3.3 <3.2 <3.0 <3.2 <3.2
Cadmium 3.0 <1.2 <1.3 <1.3 <1.3 <1.3 <1.3 <1.2 <1.3 1.3
Chromium(Total)1 24,000 23 63 14 8.3 46 29 17 7.7 38
Mercury 1.0 <0.12 0.45 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.12 <0.13 <0.13
bis(2ethylhexyl)phthalate 7.2 NA NA <0.22 <0.22 <0.22 <0.22 <0.21 <0.22 0.32
benzo(a)anthracene 0.15 NA NA <0.22 <0.22 0.63 <0.22 <0.21 <0.22 <0.22
benzo(a)pyrene 0.015 NA NA <0.22 <0.22 0.67 <0.22 <0.21 <0.22 <0.22
benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.15 NA NA <0.22 <0.22 0.97 <0.22 <0.21 <0.22 <0.22
benzo(g,h,i)perylene 469 NA NA <0.22 <0.22 0.46 <0.22 <0.21 <0.22 <0.22
benzo(k)fluoranthene 1.5 NA NA <0.22 <0.22 0.37 <0.22 <0.21 <0.22 <0.22
Chrysene 15 NA NA <0.22 <0.22 0.68 <0.22 <0.21 <0.22 <0.22
Fluoranthene 460 NA NA <0.22 <0.22 1.2 <0.22 <0.21 <0.22 <0.22
indeno(1,2,3cd)pyrene 0.15 NA NA <0.22 <0.22 0.49 <0.22 <0.21 <0.22 <0.22
Phenanthrene 0.469 NA NA <0.22 <0.22 0.49 <0.22 <0.21 <0.22 <0.22
Pyrene 0.34 NA NA <0.22 <0.22 1.2 <0.22 <0.21 <0.22 <0.22
Acetone 12,000 NA NA <0.063 <0.063 <0.090 <0.066 <0.060 <0.064 <0.067
Aliphatics, C9 C182 1,500 NA NA < 12.3 < 12.1 < 13.0 < 12.8 < 10.6 < 11.8 19.2
Metals
SemivolatileOrganicCompounds
VolatileOrganicCompounds
ExtractablePetroleumHydrocarbons
Aliphatics,C9 C18 1,500 NA NA <12.3 <12.1 <13.0 <12.8 <10.6 <11.8 19.2
Aliphatics,C19C36 2 31,000 NA NA <12.3 <12.1 21.0 <12.8 <10.6 <11.8 33.7
NAnotanalyzed
1TotalChrom.resultsscreenedagainstCr(III)PSRG
basedonnondetec tsforCr(VI)inallsamples.
2MSCCusedasscreeninglevel
onlycompoundsdetectedinatleastonesampleare
includedinsummarytable.
MSCCMaximumSoilContaminantConcentration
boldvaluesrepresentPSRGorMSCCexceedances
Allresultsinmilligramsperkilogram
PSRGPrimarySoilRemediationGoal
\11\09123\RPTS\VIandSoilReport\Tables_121311 Rogers&CallcottEngineers,Inc.Page1of2
Table4
SoilResultsSummary
FormerFuelSystemsFacility
5019HovisRoad,Charlotte,NC
SampleID PSRG/MSCC
Arsenic 0.39
Cadmium 3.0
Chromium(Total)1 24,000
Mercury 1.0
bis(2ethylhexyl)phthalate 7.2
benzo(a)anthracene 0.15
benzo(a)pyrene 0.015
benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.15
benzo(g,h,i)perylene 469
benzo(k)fluoranthene 1.5
Chrysene 15
Fluoranthene 460
indeno(1,2,3cd)pyrene 0.15
Phenanthrene 0.469
Pyrene 0.34
Acetone 12,000
Aliphatics, C9 C182 1,500
Metals
SemivolatileOrganicCompounds
VolatileOrganicCompounds
ExtractablePetroleumHydrocarbons
BWNC5D
(0.51.0)
BWNC5
(2.03.0)
BWNC6
(0.51.0)
BWNC6
(2.03.0)
BWNC7
(0.51.0)
BWNC8
(0.51.0)
BWNC9
(0.51.0)
BWNC10
(0.51.0)
BWNC710
(0.51.0)
<3.3 <3.3 <3.4 <3.6 NA NA NA NA <3.1
<1.3 <1.3 <1.4 <1.4 NA NA NA NA <1.2
29 8.1 100 110 NA NA NA NA 31
<0.13 <0.13 <0.14 <0.14 NA NA NA NA <0.12
<0.23 1.0 <0.23 <0.24 NA NA NA NA <0.21
<0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.24 NA NA NA NA <0.21
<0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.24 NA NA NA NA <0.21
<0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.24 NA NA NA NA <0.21
<0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.24 NA NA NA NA <0.21
<0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.24 NA NA NA NA <0.21
<0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.24 NA NA NA NA <0.21
<0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.24 NA NA NA NA <0.21
<0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.24 NA NA NA NA <0.21
<0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.24 NA NA NA NA <0.21
<0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.24 NA NA NA NA <0.21
<0.067 0.15 <0.068 <0.070 <0.060 <0.064 <0.062 <0.063 NA
83.6 < 12.2 < 12.7 < 13.7 NA NA NA NA < 11.9Aliphatics,C9 C18 1,500
Aliphatics,C19C36 2 31,000
NAnotanalyzed
1TotalChrom.resultsscreenedagainstCr(III)PSRG
basedonnondetec tsforCr(VI)inallsamples.
2MSCCusedasscreeninglevel
onlycompoundsdetectedinatleastonesampleare
includedinsummarytable.
MSCCMaximumSoilContaminantConcentration
boldvaluesrepresentPSRGorMSCCexceedances
Allresultsinmilligramsperkilogram
PSRGPrimarySoilRemediationGoal
83.6 <12.2 <12.7 <13.7 NA NA NA NA <11.9
191 <12.2 <12.7 <13.7 NA NA NA NA <11.9
\11\09123\RPTS\VIandSoilReport\Tables_121311 Rogers&CallcottEngineers,Inc.Page2of2
Vapor Intrusion and Soil Sampling Report
Former Fuel Systems Facility, Charlotte, North Carolina
December 2011
11\09-123\RPTS\VI_Soil_Report_12-20-11 Rogers & Callcott Engineers, Inc.
FIGURES
Vapor Intrusion and Soil Sampling Report
Former Fuel Systems Facility, Charlotte, North Carolina
December 2011
11\09-123\RPTS\VI_Soil_Report_12-20-11 Rogers & Callcott Engineers, Inc.
APPENDIX A

PHOTOGRAPHS
VaporIntrusionandSoilSamplingReport
FormerFuelSystemsFacility,Charlotte,NorthCarolina
December2011
PhotoNo :1
Date:10/25/11
View:Looking
south,grassy
areabetween
thefence&the
building;flags
showsample
locations
PhotoNo :2
Date:10/25/11
View:Drainage
arealookingto
thesouth;
stainedarea
shows
preferential
stormwaterflow
path
VaporIntrusionandSoilSamplingReport
FormerFuelSystemsFacility,Charlotte,NorthCarolina
December2011
PhotoNo :3
Date:10/25/11
View:Sample
BWNC3located
adjacenttothe
drainagearea
PhotoNo :4
Date:10/25/11
View:Looking
north,drainage
area
BWNC3
VaporIntrusionandSoilSamplingReport
FormerFuelSystemsFacility,Charlotte,NorthCarolina
December2011
PhotoNo :5
Date:10/25/11
View:Soilgas
sampleSG1
PhotoNo :6
Date:10/26/11
View:Useof
theGeoprobeto
installthePRT
systematsoil
gassampling
locationSG4
VaporIntrusionandSoilSamplingReport
FormerFuelSystemsFacility,Charlotte,NorthCarolina
December2011
PhotoNo :7
Date:10/26/11
View:Soilgas
sampleSG4
PhotoNo :8
Date:10/26/11
View:Soilgas
sampleSG5
VaporIntrusionandSoilSamplingReport
FormerFuelSystemsFacility,Charlotte,NorthCarolina
December2011
PhotoNo :9
Date:10/26/11
View:Soilgas
samplesSG7
andSG7D
PhotoNo :10
Date:10/26/11
View:Ambient
blanksample
(AB1)forsoil
gassampling
Vapor Intrusion and Soil Sampling Report
Former Fuel Systems Facility, Charlotte, North Carolina
December 2011
11\09-123\RPTS\VI_Soil_Report_12-20-11 Rogers & Callcott Engineers, Inc.
APPENDIX B

SUPPORTING HISTORICAL FIGURES
,
Ge
o
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
As
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s

L
L
C
Bl
a
c
k

M
o
u
n
t
a
i
n

N
C

2
8
7
1
1
82
8
.
6
6
9
.
3
9
2
9

8
2
8
.
66
9
.
5
2
8
9
PO

B
o
x

1
0
2
3
LEGEND
,
Ge
o
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
As
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s

L
L
C
Bl
a
c
k

M
o
u
n
t
a
i
n

N
C

2
8
7
1
1
82
8
.
6
6
9
.
3
9
2
9

8
2
8
.
66
9
.
5
2
8
9
PO

B
o
x

1
0
2
3
LEGEND
,
Ge
o
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
As
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s

L
L
C
Bl
a
c
k

M
o
u
n
t
a
i
n

N
C

2
8
7
1
1
82
8
.
6
6
9
.
3
9
2
9

8
2
8
.
66
9
.
5
2
8
9
PO

B
o
x

1
0
2
3
LEGEND
Vapor Intrusion and Soil Sampling Report
Former Fuel Systems Facility, Charlotte, North Carolina
December 2011
11\09-123\RPTS\VI_Soil_Report_12-20-11 Rogers & Callcott Engineers, Inc.
APPENDIX C

ANALYTICAL LABORATORY REPORTS AND
CHAIN OF CUSTODY DOCUMENTATION
Not included in emailed copy