IDX VI REPORT-OCR

November 20, 2008

Mr. Tony Duque
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR)
NC Brownfields Program
401 Oberlin Road, Suite 150
Raleigh, NC 27605

RE: Vapor Intrusion Evaluation Report
Former Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc Facility
234 Springs Road, Washington, NC

Dear Mr. Duque:

On behalf of Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc (HBB), URS Corporation - North Carolina
(URS) is pleased to submit this Vapor Intrusion Evaluation Report for the above-
referenced site. The report documents the results of vapor intrusion sampling conducted
in September 2008 at the former HBB site. The sampling was completed in accordance
with the Revised Draft Vapor Intrusion Work Plan, submitted to NCDENR on August 20,
2008.

Please contact me at 919-461-1290 if you have any questions regarding this submittal.

Sincerely,

URS Corporation – North Carolina

A. Brett Berra, PE
Senior Project Manager

cc: Mario Kuhar, HBB
Jim Smith, City of Washington

Enclosure
URS Corporation – North Carolina
1600 Perimeter Park Drive, Suite 400
Morrisville, NC 27560
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

FINAL

Vapor Intrusion Evaluation Report
Former Hamilton Beach Brands Facility
Washington, North Carolina

Prepared for:

Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc.
4421 Waterfront Drive
Glen Allen, Virginia 23060

Prepared by:

URS Corporation – North Carolina
1600 Perimeter Park Drive, Suite 400
Morrisville, NC 27560

November 20, 2008

Vapor Intrusion Evaluation Report HB Washington, NC

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
1.1 Site Description........................................................................................................1
1.2 Objectives ................................................................................................................3
1.3 Target Compounds...................................................................................................3
1.4 Target Concentrations..............................................................................................3
2.0 SAMPLING RESULTS.......................................................................................................5
2.1 Samples Collected....................................................................................................5
2.2 Sample Results.........................................................................................................6
2.3 Building Foundation Inspection Results..................................................................7
2.4 Building Inspection Survey Results.........................................................................8
3.0 DATA EVALUATION .....................................................................................................10
3.1 Methods..................................................................................................................10
3.2 Data Evaluation Results.........................................................................................10
3.3 Conclusions and Recommendations ......................................................................11
4.0 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................12

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS METHODS
APPENDIX B SAMPLE HANDLING AND DOCUMENTATION PROCEDURES
APPENDIX C SOP FOR SUB-SLAB SOIL-GAS SAMPLING
APPENDIX D FOUNDATION INSPECTION CHECKLIST
APPENDIX E INDOOR AIR BUILDING INSPECTION SURVEY
31826291 ii November 2008
Vapor Intrusion Evaluation Report HB Washington, NC

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2-1 Sampling Locations ................................................................................................ 9

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1-1 Chemical Usage for 2007 by Current Building Occupant ...................................... 2
Table 1-2 Selected Results for Groundwater Monitoring of Unit A....................................... 2
Table 1-3 Target Compounds.................................................................................................. 3
Table 1-4 Target Concentrations............................................................................................. 4
Table 2-1 Number of Samples by Type .................................................................................. 5
Table 2-2 Sub-Slab Soil Gas Results ...................................................................................... 6
Table 2-3 Indoor Air Results................................................................................................... 7
Table 2-4 Ambient (Outdoor) Air Results .............................................................................. 7
Table 3-1 Data Evaluation Summary .................................................................................... 11

31826291 iii November 2008
Vapor Intrusion Evaluation Report HB Washington, NC

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

ATL Air Toxics Ltd (analytical laboratory)
bgs Below ground surface
COC Chemical of concern
DCA Dichloroethane
DCE Dichloroethylene
ERH Electrical resistance heating
HBB Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc.
HQ Hazard quotient
IUR Inhalation unit risk
MEK Methyl ethyl ketone
mg/L Milligrams per liter
MIBK Methyl isobutyl ketone
NCDENR North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
ORNL Oak Ridge National Laboratory
OSHA Occupational Safety & Health Administration
PCE Tetrachloroethylene
PEL Permissible exposure limit
ppb Parts per billion
ppm Parts per million
RFC Reference concentration
RL Reporting Limit
SIM Selective ion mode
TCA Trichloroethane
TCE Trichloroethylene
TO Toxic organic
µg/m3 Micrograms per cubic meter
URS URS Corporation – North Carolina
VC Vinyl chloride
VOC Volatile organic compound
ZVI Zero valent iron

31826291 iv November 2008
Vapor Intrusion Evaluation Report HB Washington, NC

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc. (HBB) has certain responsibilities for the facility located at 234
Springs Road in Washington, North Carolina. Various phases of site investigation and
remediation have been completed, including extensive characterization and remediation of soil
and groundwater. An indoor air monitoring program was performed in 1998 to evaluate
occupational exposures.
This report presents the results of a study undertaken by URS Corporation – North Carolina
(URS) on behalf of HBB in September 2008 to collect additional site characterization data in
support of evaluating the potential for vapor intrusion (VI) for various volatile organic
compounds (VOCs).
1.1 Site Description
The site is an irregularly-shaped parcel of land that is slightly larger than 39 acres in size. The
plant building and surrounding grounds occupy about 30 acres. The facility was used to
assemble, package, and warehouse small electric household appliances until HB discontinued
manufacturing operations in December 1998. The building currently is occupied by another
manufacturing company. The chemicals used by the current occupant include hexane, aromatic
organic chemicals (i.e., toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes), and a number of oxygen-containing
organic chemicals. The approximate annual usage for 2007 for each reported chemical is shown
in Table 1-1.
Chemicals were initially detected in groundwater at the site in 1992 and various organic
chemicals have been detected in soil and groundwater during subsequent investigations. The
chemicals of concern (COCs) are primarily chlorinated solvents and their degradation products.
These occur as a dissolved plume within two hydrostratigraphic units: Unit A – a shallow,
unconfined unit comprised of low permeability materials, and Unit B – an underlying semi-
confined unit comprised of more permeable silty-sand. The depth to groundwater (i.e., Unit A) is
typically about 1.5 – 3 m (5 –10 ft.) beneath the building. Unit B, the deeper aquifer, varies from
about 5.5 – 10.7 m (18 – 35 ft.) below ground surface (bgs) in the vicinity of the building. The
contamination in Unit A is believed to underlie only the southeast corner of the building.
31826291 1 November 2008
Vapor Intrusion Evaluation Report HB Washington, NC

Table 1-1. Chemical Usage for 2007 by Current Building Occupant
Compound Approximate Annual Usage
(lbs)
Toluene 4,700
Ethylbenzene 41
Xylenes 770
Hexane 0
Methyl isobutyl ketone [MIBK] 760
Methyl ethyl ketone [MEK] 5
Methanol 460
Butanol 56
Ethyl acetate 42
Butoxyethyl acetate 0

Steps have been taken to remediate the site. Electrical resistance heating (ERH) was applied
between December 2003 and July 2004 to address impacted soil and groundwater in the source
area. Following this, subsurface injection of zero valent iron (ZVI) and molasses was conducted
from February 10, 2005 to August 12, 2005. Overall, 103 tons of ZVI and approximately 36,000
gallons of feed grade molasses were injected into 1,407 direct push bore holes. A total of 4,645
injections were completed at varying depths throughout the plume.
The following data in Table 1-2 illustrate the compounds present and their levels in groundwater
beneath the southeast corner of the building. Unit A and an underlying confining layer act as a
barrier to vapor transport from the underlying Unit B. Therefore, although the contamination
levels in Unit B underlie a much larger fraction of the building footprint, it is the VOCs in Unit
A that are of primary interest for vapor intrusion.
Table 1-2. Selected Results for Groundwater Monitoring of Unit A
Shallow Groundwater Concentration (mg/L) on 4-24-07 Compound ERH-2 ERH-3
Trichloroethylene (TCE) 0.073 0.023
cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene (DCE) 14.0 11.5
1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE) 16.7 13.4
1,1-Dichloroethane (DCA) 1.7 0.93
Vinyl Chloride (VC) 0.39 0.92
Toluene 0.33 0.032

31826291 2 November 2008
Vapor Intrusion Evaluation Report HB Washington, NC

1.2 Objectives
The overall goal of the effort was to evaluate the potential for vapor intrusion at the existing
building. To accomplish this, sub-slab soil gas and indoor air data were collected within the
building. In addition, the building slab/floor was inspected to identify potential preferential
pathways.
The data were used to evaluate VI and support decisions as to whether mitigation measures are
warranted to address this pathway.
1.3 Target Compounds
The primary constituents of interest at this site are chlorinated solvents. Given the surbsurface
investigations that have already been performed, the samples were analyzed for a relatively short
list of specific target analytes (see Table 1-3). Other compounds may be present in the
subsurface, but they do not represent a vapor intrusion concern given their physical properties,
expected low concentrations in shallow groundwater, etc.
Table 1-3. Target Compounds
Compound CAS # MolecularWeight Conversion Factor
Tetrachloroethylene (PCE) 127-18-4 165.8 1 ppb = 6.78 μg/m3
Trichloroethylene (TCE) 79-01-6 131.4 1 ppb = 5.37 μg/m3
cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene (DCE) 156-59-2 96.9 1 ppb = 3.97 μg/m3
trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene (DCE) 156-60-5 96.9 1 ppb = 3.97 μg/m3
1,2-Dichloroethane (EDC) 107-06-2 99.0 1 ppb = 4.05 μg/m3
1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE) 75-35-4 96.9 1 ppb = 3.97 μg/m3
1,1-Dichloroethane (DCA) 75-34-3 99.0 1 ppb = 4.05 μg/m3
1,1,1-Trichloroethane (1,1,1-TCA) 71-55-6 133.4 1 ppb = 5.46 μg/m3
1,1,2-Trichloroethane (1,1,2-TCA) 79-00-5 133.4 1 ppb = 5.46 μg/m3
Vinyl Chloride (VC) 75-01-4 62.5 1 ppb = 2.56 μg/m3

1.4 Target Concentrations
Target concentrations were derived from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) website
“Regional Screening Levels for Chemical Contaminants at Superfund Sites” (http://epa-
prgs.ornl.gov/chemicals/index.shtml). This site is an update of the risk values formerly put out
by EPA Regions III, VI, and IX. The target concentrations for a worker exposure scenario to
indoor air are shown in Table 1-4 along with the inhalation unit risk (IUR) values and reference
31826291 3 November 2008
Vapor Intrusion Evaluation Report HB Washington, NC

concentration (RFC) values given on the ORNL website. The target concentrations are the lower
of the 1E-05 cancer risk or the hazard quotient (HQ) of 1 for non-cancer effects. For any
compound with an IUR value, the lower of the two choices proved to be the cancer risk. The
selected risk level of 1E-05 is in the middle of the typical risk management range of 1E-04 to
1E-06. These concentrations are higher than what is expected to be found in typical indoor air
(Hodgson and Levin, 2003).
Table 1-4. Target Concentrations
Compound IUR
(μg/m3)-1
RFCi
(mg/m3)
Target
Concentration
(μg/m3)
Tetrachloroethylene (PCE) 5.9E-06 2.7E-01 21
Trichloroethylene (TCE) 2.0E-06 6.0E-01 61
cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene (DCE) -- -- 260a
trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene (DCE) -- 6.0E-02 260
1,2-Dichloroethane (EDC) 2.6E-05 2.4E+00 4.7
1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE) -- 2.0E-01 880
1,1-Dichloroethane (DCA) 1.6E-06 5.0E-01 77
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
(1,1,1-TCA) -- 5.0E+00 22,000
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
(1,1,2-TCA) 1.6E-05 -- 7.7
Vinyl Chloride (VC) 4.4E-06 1.0E-01 28
a – Assumed value based on value for trans-1,2-DCE

31826291 4 November 2008
Vapor Intrusion Evaluation Report HB Washington, NC

2.0 SAMPLING RESULTS
The number, type, and general location of samples are described below, followed by a short
summary of sample results, and discussion of the building inspection results.
2.1 Samples Collected
The general strategy was to collect sub-slab soil-gas, indoor air, and ambient air samples
simultaneously on one day so that the data are directly comparable. The total number of regular
samples is as shown in Table 2-1 (additional quality control samples were collected). Sampling
and Analysis Methods and Sample Handling and Documentation Procedures are described in
Appendices A and B, respectively.
Table 2-1. Number of Samples by Type
Activity Number of Locations
Sub-Slab Soil-Gas Samples 4
Indoor Air Samples 4
Ambient Air Samples 1

The approximate sampling locations are shown in Figure 2-1 and described below.
Soil gas – Samples were collected directly beneath the slab at four locations. Two locations were
near the southeastern corner of the building where the underlying shallow groundwater in Unit A
shows some contamination. A third sample was collected in the central portion of the building
that overlies deep groundwater contamination in Unit B. A fourth sample was collected at a
location that is roughly at the center of the building to measure the soil gas levels at an area
without subsurface contamination. Real-time analyzers were used to measure total hydrocarbons,
methane (CH4), carbon dioxide (CO2), and oxygen (O2). One sample from each location was
submitted for off-site analysis of speciated VOCs.
Indoor Air – Eight-hour samples were collected at four locations within the building. One
location was near the southeastern corner of the building where the underlying shallow
groundwater in Unit A shows some contamination. The other samples were placed in large open
spaces and/or where workers spend a significant amount of time. Two of these samples were
collected in a portion of the building that overlies deep groundwater contamination in Unit B
Ambient (Outdoor) Air – One eight-hour sample was collected immediately upwind of the
building.
31826291 5 November 2008
Vapor Intrusion Evaluation Report HB Washington, NC

2.2 Sample Results
Soil Gas – Sample results for sub-slab soil gas are summarized in Table 2-2 below. As expected,
the two samples collected in the area where Unit A is impacted show the highest concentrations.
The other two samples have much lower concentrations.
Table 2-2. Sub-Slab Soil Gas Results
Sample Results (µg/m3) Compound Sample 01 Sample 02 Sample 03 Sample 04
Vinyl Chloride 34,000 11,000 0.058 ND
1,1-dichloroethylene 51,000 28,000 6.4 ND
trans-1,2-dichloroethylene 1,800 430 ND ND
1,1-dichloroethane 27,000 43,000 32 0.052
cis-1,2-dichloroethylene 7,100 1,200 0.11 ND
1,1,1-trichloroethane 3,500 7,500 46 2.3
1,2-dichloroethane 15 ND 0.015 ND
trichloroethylene 1,700 1,000 0.38 0.026 U
tetrachloroethylene ND 720 11 3.5
ND – Not Detected.
U – Detected in the laboratory blank at a similar concentration.

Indoor Air – Sample results for indoor air are summarized in Table 2-3 below. Results show
some spatial variability, as is expected, and concentrations are generally low. None of the stated
target concentrations were met or exceeded by the indoor air results.
Ambient (Outdoor) Air – Ambient air sample results are presented in Table 2-4 below. The
measured concentrations are all relatively low compared with the indoor air samples.
31826291 6 November 2008
Vapor Intrusion Evaluation Report HB Washington, NC

Table 2-3. Indoor Air Results
Sample Results (ug/m3)
Compound
Target
Concentration
(ug/m3) Sample 01 Sample 02 Sample 03 Sample 04
Vinyl Chloride 28 0.18 0.076 ND ND
1,1-dichloroethylene 880 4.3 1.8 0.72 0.35
trans-1,2-dichloroethylene 260 ND ND ND ND
1,1-dichloroethane 77 0.94 7.6 0.97 0.25
cis-1,2-dichloroethylene 260 0.32 0.64 ND ND
1,1,1-trichloroethane 22,000 2.2 32 3.7 0.75
1,2-dichloroethane 4.7 0.22 0.45 0.51 0.19
trichloroethylene 61 0.38 4.0 0.41 0.15 U
tetrachloroethylene 21 0.27 1.5 0.37 0.22
ND – Not Detected.
U – Detected in the laboratory blank at a similar concentration.

Table 2-4. Ambient (Outdoor) Air Results
Compound Sample Results (µg/m3)
Vinyl Chloride ND
1,1-dichloroethylene ND
trans-1,2-dichloroethylene ND
1,1-dichloroethane ND
cis-1,2-dichloroethylene ND
1,1,1-trichloroethane 0.051
1,2-dichloroethane 0.026
trichloroethylene 0.061
tetrachloroethylene 0.075
ND – Not Detected.

2.3 Building Foundation Inspection Results
Building foundations are expected to function adequately for many years with minimal care.
There is not an industry standard for inspecting and maintaining building foundations that is
widely used. In most cases, building foundations are not routinely maintained beyond sealing or
painting the indoor surface for moisture control and aesthetic reasons. The maintenance
checklist used for this project was organized into the following categories: cracks & separation,
drainage, vegetation, water leaks, and miscellaneous.
31826291 7 November 2008
Vapor Intrusion Evaluation Report HB Washington, NC

Occasional hairline cracks were located at various points along the foundation wall; however,
none were more than a hairline in diameter. Drain spouts were located approximately every 250
feet around the building. In general, the site drainage system appeared effective. Due to a recent
heavy rain, some pooling of water was observed around the drain spouts. Pooling did not occur
at the foundation. Also, some tall shrubs were located adjacent to the building, but did not appear
to affect the integrity of the foundation. No major problems, anomalies, or obvious preferential
pathways were identified in the foundation inspection. A copy of the checklist is shown in
Appendix D.
2.4 Building Inspection Survey Results
A building inspection was performed in order to identify and remove any possible indoor sources
of chlorinated VOCs. The building has central air conditioning with mechanical fans, individual
bathroom ventilation, and outside air intakes; all of which are typical of an industrial use
building. Paint thinner present in the building was identified and removed 24 hours prior to the
sampling event. The completed Indoor Air Building Inspection Survey is shown in Appendix E.
31826291 8 November 2008
Vapor Intrusion Work Plan HB Washington, NC

3.0 DATA EVALUATION
This section describes the methods used to evaluate the vapor intrusion pathway followed by a
discussion of the results and implications thereof.
3.1 Methods
The results of the indoor air and ambient air samples were compared to determine the likely
contribution of ambient air to the measured indoor air concentrations. In addition, the results of
the indoor air and soil-gas samples were compared and attenuation factors (i.e., α values) were
calculated. The attenuation factor is a concentration ratio (US EPA, 2002):
αss = Cindoor / Csub-slab (Eq.. 3-1)

where:
αss = Attenuation factor based on sub-slab soil-gas concentrations (unitless);
Cindoor = Average concentration in indoor air (μg/m3); and
Csub-slab = Concentration in sub-slab soil gas (μg/m3).

If the attenuation factor for a given compound is in the 0.1 to 10 range, it is likely that the source
of the compound in the soil gas is due to migration of indoor air into the slab. Buildings
“breathe” and air can move both from the soil into the building and the opposite direction, from
the building into the soil (McHugh, et al., 2006). If the attenuation factor is <0.01, vapor
intrusion is a likely source of the compound in indoor air.
3.2 Data Evaluation Results
The measured indoor air concentrations were consistently higher than the measured ambient
concentrations and in most cases were at least an order of magnitude higher. This suggests that
infiltration of the ambient air into the building was not a significant source of the VOCs in the
indoor air.
Attenuation factors (α) were calculated for each constituent using the average indoor air
concentrations and maximum sub-slab soil gas concentrations in equation 3-1 above. These data
are summarized in Table 3-1. All calculated α values were <0.01 and the results were reasonably
consistent around 1E-04. It appears like that vapor intrusion is the source of the target
compounds in the indoor air.
31826291 10 November 2008
Vapor Intrusion Work Plan HB Washington, NC

Table 3-1. Data Evaluation Summary
Results (ug/m3)
Compound Alpha Maximum
Sub-Slab
Average
Indoor Air Ambient
Vinyl Chloride 3.8E-06 34,000 0.13 <0.044
1,1-dichloroethylene 3.5E-05 51,000 1.8 <0.068
trans-1,2-dichloroethylene <1.8E-03 1,800 <3.3 <0.68
1,1-dichloroethane 5.6E-05 43,000 2.4 <0.14
cis-1,2-dichloroethylene 6.8E-05 7,100 0.48 <0.14
1,1,1-trichloroethane 1.3E-03 7,500 9.7 0.051
1,2-dichloroethane 2.3E-02 15 0.34 0.026
trichloroethylene 7.1E-04 1,700 1.2 0.061
tetrachloroethylene 8.2E-04 720 0.59 0.075

3.3 Conclusions and Recommendations
As expected, relatively high concentrations of the target compounds were measured in the sub-
slab soil-gas at the southeast corner of the building. These data represent “worst case” conditions
in the subsurface. These same target compounds were detected in the indoor air at concentrations
well above those measured in ambient (outside) air. No sources of these chemicals were believed
to be in the building at the time of sampling.
Evaluation of the measurement results indicates that vapor intrusion is occurring at this building.
However, indoor air results were all below target concentrations. Four of the target compounds
were detected at concentrations up to 5 to 10% of the target concentration (i.e., 1,2-
dichloroethane, 1,1-dichloroethane, TCE, and PCE). The other target compounds were always
<1% of the target concentration. The measured concentrations do not pose an unacceptable
health risk to the building inhabitants.
Sub-surface contamination is present in Unit A in a limited area of the building, or “hot-spot”.
Because the contamination is confined to a small area, the overall rate of vapor intrusion at the
building is low enough that the contribution of pollutant concentration in indoor air due to VI is
not significant. There is no reason to expect that these findings will change in the future.
Therefore, no further testing is recommended.

31826291 11 November 2008
Vapor Intrusion Work Plan HB Washington, NC

4.0 REFERENCES
Hodgson, A.T. and H. Levin. Volatile Organic Compounds in Indoor Air: A Review of
Concentrations Measured in North America Since 1990. Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory, Berkeley, CA. LBNL-51715. April 21, 2003.
McHugh, T.E., P.C. DeBlanc, and R.J. Pokuda. Indoor Air as a Source of VOC Contamination in
Shallow Soils Below Buildings. Soil & Sediment Contamination, 15, pp103-122. 2006.

31826291 12 November 2008

APPENDIX A

SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS METHODS

SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS METHODS
Information is given below for sampling and analysis methods that were employed for the sub-
slab soil gas and indoor air samples.
Sub-Slab Soil Gas
Sub-slab soil-gas samples were collected by drilling through the floor and collecting soil gas
from immediately beneath the concrete slab. The sub-slab soil-gas probes consist of a ¼ in.
(0.64 cm) swagelok union connected to a 4 in. (10 cm) length of stainless steel tubing that
extended to near the bottom of the slab A 2 in. (5 cm) deep starter hole was drilled using a
hammer drill and a 7/8 in. (2.2 cm) bit. The hole was continued down through the slab using a
5/16 in. (0.79 cm) bit. The probes were sealed using quick-dry, expanding cement or an
equivalent material. The probes were left in place for a minimum of 30 minutes and lines purged
of three void volumes before the start of sample collection. A 2 ft (0.6m) length of polyethylene
of tubing was used to connect the canister to the sub-slab probe. The sampling procedures were
consistent with the guidance given in the SOP included as Appendix C.
Both real-time and off-site analyses were employed, as shown in the table below. All samples
for off-site analysis were two-hour time-integrated samples collected in 6-L evacuated, stainless-
steel canisters (i.e., the sampling rate will be slightly less than 50 ml/min). Differential pressure
measurements were made at each soil-gas sampling location using a Dwyer magnehelic gauge
(http://www.dwyer-inst.com) capable of reading to the nearest 0.005 in. H2O (1 Pa) or an
equivalent device. A minimum of four (4) hourly readings were collected hourly on the day that
sub-slab samples were collected. In addition, ambient barometric pressure data were obtained
for the two-week period surrounding the sampling effort.
A vacuum leak check was performed at every location to ensure that the lines & fittings were
leak-tight. In addition, tracer leak tests were performed at each sampling locations as a further
check. Leakage of ambient air into sub-slab soil gas sampling probes was a potential issue.
Samples will be analyzed by EPA Method TO-15 in selective ion mode (SIM). This is the most
sensitive analytical option that is commercially available1. The analyses were performed by Air
Toxics Ltd. (ATL). All canisters were certified clean by the laboratory prior to use (as opposed

1 U.S. EPA. Compendium Method TO-15, Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) in Air Collected
in Specially-Prepared Canisters and Analyzed by Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS). In:
Compendium of Methods for the Determination of Toxic Organic Compounds in Ambient Air, 2nd Edition.
EPA/625/R-96-010b. January 1999.

to batch blanking). This was done in lieu of including a field blank (field blanks are not very
meaningful for this sampling and analysis approach).
The laboratory achieved the analytical sensitivity sufficient for comparing the indoor air results
to the target concentrations and exceeded what was required for evaluating the soil gas results.
Summary of Measurement Parameters
Measurement
parameter Frequency Sampling
Method Analytical Method
Off-Site
VOCs Every
location Canister US EPA Method TO-15
On-Site
Total Non-Methane
Hydrocarbons
Every
location Portable analyzer
Photo-ionization Detector
(PID)
Fixed Gases
(O2, CH4, CO2)
Every
location Portable analyzer Infrared (IR) Detector
Helium (Tracer Gas) Every
location Portable analyzer Thermal Conductivity
Detector (TCD)

Indoor and Ambient Air Samples
Evacuated stainless-steel canisters were used for sample collection. Prior to sampling, each
canister was evacuated to approximately –29” Hg by the subcontract laboratory. The system
consisted of a canister and a Veriflo® vacuum regulator or equivalent device. This system met
the basic requirement contained in EPA Compendium Method TO-15. The samplers were turned
on and off manually on an approximately 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. schedule.
The sample is drawn into the canister via the vacuum inside the canister. The sampling rate was
be set to fill the canister at a rate of approximately 10 ml/min. This flow rate collected
approximately 4.8 liters of sample during the 8-hour sampling period and left a small, residual
vacuum (e.g., 6 – 8 “Hg) inside the canister. Vacuums below this threshold tend to produce non-
linear flow rates, and consequently the sample collected after his vacuum is obtained will not be
uniform. One co-located (duplicate) sample was collected of the indoor air to evaluate precision
(i.e., variability due to sampling).

Indoor air samples were collected at breathing zone height: 1.5 m above floor level. The
sampling location was free of nearby obstructions and allowed free airflow to the extent feasible.
The building operations were not changed for purposes of the sampling (e.g., the HVAC system
was not turned on or off on account of the sample collection). External building doors and
windows were kept closed during sampling to the extent feasible.
One ambient (outdoor) air sample was collected at breathing zone height just outside the
building, concurrent with the indoor air samples. Considerations for collection of the ambient air
samples include:
• Canisters were sited so there is unobstructed air flow around the sampler; and
• The “upwind” or background sample was sited to ensure that local conditions (i.e.,
specific emission sources) did not impact the background.

APPENDIX B

SAMPLE HANDLING AND DOCUMENTATION PROCEDURES

DOCUMENTATION AND SAMPLE HANDLING PROCEDURES
The documentation (record keeping) and sample handling procedures employed are described
below.
Documentation
Thorough documentation of project activities were conducted during this monitoring effort.
Three main areas of documentation are field operation, laboratory, and data management
records.
Field operation records include field logbooks, sample COC forms, operator checklists, and
maintenance logbooks. These records were transmitted from the field to the Project Manager at
least monthly either as hard copy or electronic files via e-mail.
The laboratory maintained records for the various aspects of the TO-15 analyses. This includes
sample custody, raw data from the analysis, Quality Control (QC) check of data, analysis reports,
and electronic data files. These data will be maintained and archived by the laboratory and will
normally not be transmitted as part of the data submittal. These data are available and may be
reviewed if there are any anomalies with the data. The laboratory was responsible for
maintaining these analytical records and transmitting the analytical results to the Project
Manager, or their designate, as hard copy and electronic files (i.e., Excel spreadsheets) for
loading to the project database. EPA Level II data packages were requested and received from
the laboratory.
For all documentation in written form, black indelible ink was used with any hand corrections
being made by a single line through the incorrect entry with the author’s initials immediately
following the correction. All work performed during the data collection, review, and validation
process was traceable to the author. All data products have the ability to be reversed to their
original result if required.
Any corrective actions, whether taken in the field, laboratory, or data management center, were
documented. Corrective action may be taken in response to an audit finding, QC check that does
not meet specifications, or any other obvious malfunction in hardware or software.
Documentation of any corrective action showed the nature of the deficiency, actions taken, and
evidence gathered to verify resolution of the deficiency. Corrective actions may be documented
as:

• Field calibration or trip report forms;
• Laboratory narratives accompanying the analytical data;
• Instructions or notes included in the original data validation package; or
• Project e-mails copied to the project staff impacted by the situation (with a copy
always to the Project Manager).

The validated data generated for this project are stored electronically in a database until released
by mutual agreement between URS and the client. Written records will be maintained for a
minimum of five years after the conclusion of the monitoring program.
Sample Handling Procedures
Field operation records include sampling data sheets, sample chain-of-custody (COC) records,
and portable monitor calibration data sheets. All field operation records were transmitted at least
monthly to the Project Manager. The COC forms were returned with the samples to the
subcontract laboratory with copies of these records forwarded by the laboratory to the Project
Manager with the hard copy report of analysis results.
Identification for the samples followed the protocols listed below:
HB-xx-01-MMDDYY-R-001

Where: HB Identifies the project as Hamilton Beach
xx Identifies the sample type as sub-slab, indoor air, or ambient air
(SS or IA or AA)
01 Identifies the site location (01 through 04)
MMDDYY Month, Day, Year
R Sample type—R for routine, D for duplicate, B for blank
001 Sequential sample number starting at 1 and continuing through the
project.

The COC form was filled out for all samples in the shipment with the top copy of the three-part
form included with the sample, while the other (e.g., pink and yellow) copies were archived on
site. The preferred method of shipment was via FedEx standard overnight service to ensure
proper integrity of the media.

APPENDIX C

SOP FOR SUB-SLAB SOIL-GAS SAMPLING

STANDARD OPERATING
PROCEDURE
FOR COLLECTION OF SOIL VAPOR
SAMPLES

Guideline No.: 0020

URS Corporation
5550 Blazer Parkway
Suite 175
Dublin, Ohio 43017

Standard Operating Procedure Guideline No. 0020
Collection of Soil Vapor Samples Revision: 1
Page 2 of 6
Appendix C - SOP for Soil Vapor Sampling.doc0020 Oct. 28, 08 Dublin, OH
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Purpose...................................................................................................................................3
2. Procedure ...............................................................................................................................3
2.1 Set-up and Purging.......................................................................................................3
2.2 Sampling.......................................................................................................................4
3. Quality Control ......................................................................................................................5
4. Special Considerations/Requirements/Equipment.................................................................6

Standard Operating Procedure Guideline No. 0020
Collection of Soil Vapor Samples Revision: 1
Page 3 of 6
Appendix C - SOP for Soil Vapor Sampling.doc0020 Oct. 28, 08 Dublin, OH
1. PURPOSE
The purpose of this guideline is to provide guidance for the collection of soil vapor samples from
temporary or permanently installed vapor sampling points. Potential hazards are addressed in the
Health and Safety Plan (HASP).
2. PROCEDURE
This procedure must be carried out in the following manner:
2.1 Set-up and Purging
1. Be aware of safety. Wear appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE), as
prescribed by the URS HASP for the project.
2. Open the soil gas monitoring well box (if present) and inspect the existing tubing.
Check for any signs of cracks, clogging or any other characteristics that may impact the
collection of a representative sample.
3. If the sampling location is in a paved area, brush debris away from the sampling
location to provide a clean surface.
4. Place an approximately 2-ft by 2-ft square of plastic sheeting over the sampling
location. Poke a hole, only as large as needed, for the sampling tube to penetrate the
plastic. Seal the interface between the land surface and plastic sheeting with a ring of
bentonite slurry, weather stripping, or similar substance around the sampling location.
5. Place a plastic bucket (enclosure) over the wellhead and run well tubing through the
outlet of the enclosure. Use plumber’s putty to seal the interface between the tubing
and the enclosure.
6. Seal the interface of the enclosure and plastic sheeting with bentonite slurry, weather
stripping, or similar substance.
7. Connect tracer gas cylinder to bottom side port of enclosure.
8. Release enough tracer gas to displace any ambient air in enclosure. Continue flushing
the inside of the enclosure with the tracer gas.
Standard Operating Procedure Guideline No. 0020
Collection of Soil Vapor Samples Revision: 1
Page 4 of 6
Appendix C - SOP for Soil Vapor Sampling.doc0020 Oct. 28, 08 Dublin, OH
9. Connect the tubing to the vacuum pump. Use only new Teflon tubing, if needed, for
length and new silicone tubing for leak free unions. Do not reuse any tubing between
sample locations.
10. Purge the soil gas tubing of 1.5 to 3 volumes. Record purging start and stop time.
Verify air is being drawn from the monitoring well by placing finger on the vacuum
pump outlet tube to check for positive pressure. The tracer gas cylinder should be open
during the purge time to maintain a positive pressure within the enclosure.
11. After purging is completed, disconnect the vacuum pump from the tubing.
12. Leave the tracer gas flowing into the enclosure as you move into the sampling phase.
2.2 Sampling
1. Attach the pressure gauge provided by the laboratory to the Summa canister, open
valve completely, record reading, close valve completely, and remove the pressure
gauge. The canister should show a vacuum of approximately 28 inches of mercury
(Hg). If the canister does not show a vacuum, discard the canister and replace it with
another canister. If the flow controller has a built-in gauge, skip steps 2 and 8, but
record readings.
2. Attach flow controller provided by the laboratory to the Summa canister inlet (one for
each Summa canister). Do not reuse flow controllers between locations. Each flow
controller is pre-set by the laboratory to collect the sample over a two-hour period.
3. Attach tubing from the soil gas monitoring well to the flow controller on the Summa
canister. All tubing used in this step should be the same tubing that was used in the
purging process.
4. Open Summa canister valve completely and record the time.
5. Until you are ready to move onto another sampling location, the tracer gas cylinder
should remain open during sampling to maintain a positive pressure in the enclosure.
Because of the two-hour sampling time, more than one location should be sampled at
the same time (with staggered starting times). When you are ready to move to the next
location, stop the flow of the tracer gas with the valve on the regulator, then pinch-
clamp close both ports on the enclosure to maintain the tracer gas atmosphere within
the enclosure.
Standard Operating Procedure Guideline No. 0020
Collection of Soil Vapor Samples Revision: 1
Page 5 of 6
Appendix C - SOP for Soil Vapor Sampling.doc0020 Oct. 28, 08 Dublin, OH
6. After two hours, or if the vacuum gauge reading drops below 5 inches Hg before two
hours, close the Summa canister valve completely. Record the time.
7. Disconnect tubing.
8. Remove the flow controller, attach the pressure gauge to the Summa canister, open
valve completely, record reading, close valve completely, and remove the pressure
gauge. There should still be a slight vacuum in the Summa canister.
9. If the canister does not show a significant net loss in vacuum after sampling, evaluate
and document the problem. If necessary, use another Summa canister to recollect the
sample and contact the project manager immediately.
10. Connect a Landfill Gas Analyzer to the soil gas monitoring well tubing. Obtain
readings for CH4, CO2, and oxygen (O2). Record readings.
11. Connect a photoionization detector (PID) and/or flame ionization detector (FID to the
soil gas monitoring well tubing. Obtain readings for total volatile organics with the
(PID) and/or (FID). Record readings.
12. Remove enclosure.
13. Replace box cover (if present) or, if it is a temporary sampling point, prepare the boring
for abandonment.
3. QUALITY CONTROL
1. Field duplicates are collected by attaching a T-fitting supplied by the laboratory to the
end of the tubing from the soil gas monitoring well. A Summa canister with a flow
controller is attached to each end of the T-fitting. For sampling, both Summa canister
valves are opened and closed simultaneously.
2. Ambient blanks are collected by opening the Summa canister valve for the designated
two-hour time frame concurrently with collection of a soil vapor sample. Placement
of the ambient blank Summa canister should be upwind of the associated soil vapor
sampling location. Record all sampling data associated with the ambient blank
Summa canister on the sampling log.
Standard Operating Procedure Guideline No. 0020
Collection of Soil Vapor Samples Revision: 1
Page 6 of 6
Appendix C - SOP for Soil Vapor Sampling.doc0020 Oct. 28, 08 Dublin, OH
3. Equipment blanks are collected by duplicating conditions, equipment, and supplies
(e.g., tubing) used to collect the soil gas samples. An equipment blank is not
necessary if only a small section of clean, new tubing is used as a union for sample
collection at each location. Contact the project manager before leaving the site to
confirm whether an equipment blank should or should not be collected.
4. Care should be taken so that no samples are collected during or near an area where
vehicle or other equipment exhaust is being discharged.
4. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS/REQUIREMENTS/EQUIPMENT
Personnel implementing this guideline must ensure that the following are in place:
ο Soil vapor sampling logs
ο Small brush or broom
ο Bentonite paste or similar substance
ο Duct Sealant
ο Plastic sheeting
ο Plastic buckets (to serve as enclosures)
ο Vacuum pump
ο Tracer gas in compressed gas cylinder
ο Meter capable of detecting the tracer gas
ο PID or FID
ο Summa canisters with flow controllers (supplied by the laboratory)
ο Teflon tubing (food- or laboratory-grade)
ο Polyethylene tubing (food- or laboratory-grade)
ο Watch or timer
ο Safety cutting tool

APPENDIX D

FOUNDATION INSPECTION CHECKLIST

APPENDIX E

INDOOR AIR BUILDING INSPECTION SURVEY