Imagine the result
Schneider Electric
Results of Groundwater and Sub-slab Sampling
Former Square D Facility 128 Bingham Road Asheville, North Carolina
April 19, 2013
i
Table of Contents
Executive Summary vi
1. Background 1-1
1.1 Site Description 1-4
1.2 Site History 1-4
1.3 Site Geology and Hydrogeology 1-6
2. Methods Used in Recent Investigations 2-1
2.1 On-site Investigation Activities at Plant 1 2-2
2.1.1 Expanded Semiannual Groundwater Monitoring Event 2-2
2.1.2 Plant 1 Sub-Slab and Air Investigation Planning Surveys 2-2
2.1.2.1 Building Survey Prior to Sub-Slab Investigation 2-2
2.1.2.2 HVAC/Air Flow Survey 2-3
2.1.3 Sub-Slab Investigation 2-4
2.1.3.1 Sample Port Installation 2-5
2.1.3.2 Sub-Slab Sample Collection 2-6
2.2 Off-site Investigation Activities at BCBOE Property 2-7
2.2.1 Expanded Semiannual Groundwater Monitoring Event 2-7
2.2.2 Additional Off-site Groundwater Monitoring (MW-20D) 2-7
2.2.3 Installation of Monitoring Well MW-26 2-7
2.2.4 Groundwater Sample Collection 2-8
2.3 Investigation Derived Waste 2-9
3. Results 3-1
3.1 Water Levels 3-1
3.2 On-site Investigation Results for Plant 1 3-1
3.2.1 Groundwater Analytical Results 3-1
3.2.2 VI Screening of Groundwater Results 3-2
3.2.3 Building Characteristics and HVAC/Air Flow Summary 3-3
3.2.4 Sub-Slab Analytical Results 3-4
ii
Table of Contents
3.3 Off-site Investigation Results for BCBOE 3-5
3.3.1 Groundwater Analytical Results and VI Screening 3-5
4. Conclusions and Recommendations 4-1
4.1 On-site Investigation at Plant 1 4-1
4.2 Off-site Investigation at BCBOE Property 4-1
5. Reporting and Schedule 5-1
6. References 6-1
iii
Table of Contents
Tables
1 Summary of Recent Correspondence
2 Groundwater Elevations – November 26, 2012
3 Groundwater Analytical Results Related to Vapor Intrusion Screening
4 Most Recent Groundwater Analytical Results
5 Sub-Slab Analytical and Screening Results
Figures
1 Site Location Map
2 Site Features Map
3 Building Layout with Sub-Slab Results
4 Shallow Groundwater Elevation Contour Map – November 26, 2012
5 PCE Concentrations in Shallow Aquifer Groundwater – Most Recent
6 TCE Concentrations in Shallow Aquifer Groundwater – Most Recent
7 PCE Concentrations in Bedrock Groundwater – Most Recent
8 TCE Concentrations in Bedrock Groundwater – Most Recent
9 Proposed Indoor Air Sample Locations
Appendices
A Findings of Plant 1 Building Surveys
B Sub-Slab Port Installation and Sampling
C Documentation of Field Work Related to Wells MW-20D and MW-26
D Investigation-Derived Waste Documentation
E Screening Evaluation of Former Plant 1 Groundwater and Sub-Slab Data
F Laboratory Reports for Sub-Slab Samples
G Indoor Air Sampling Plan
iv
Table of Contents
Acronyms and Abbreviations
ARCADIS ARCADIS G&M of North Carolina, Inc.
Air Toxics Eurofins Air Toxics, Inc.
BCBOE Buncombe County Board of Education
bgs below ground surface
Champion Champion Products Inc.
CAP Corrective Action Plan
COPC constituent of potential concern
CSA Comprehensive Site Assessment
∆P pressure differential
cis-1,2-DCE cis-1,2-dichloroethene
DENR North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
DO dissolved oxygen
DWQ North Carolina Division of Water Quality
ELCR Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk
ESA Environmental Site Assessment
HI Hazard Index
HQ Hazard Quotient
HVAC heating, ventilation, air conditioning
IHSB Inactive Hazardous Sites Branch
in Hg inches of mercury
IDW investigation derived waste
IAQ indoor air quality
NFA No Further Action
µg/kg micrograms per kilogram
v
Table of Contents
µg/L micrograms per liter
ml milliliter
ml/min milliliters per minute
NCAC North Carolina Administrative Code
ORP oxidation-reduction potential
Pace Pace Environmental Services, Inc.
PCE tetrachloroethene
Plant 1 128 Bingham Road Building
ppb parts per billion
PVC polyvinyl chloride
PWR partially weathered rock
QMP Quality Management Plan
RI Remedial Investigation
SE Schneider Electric
SESD Science and Ecosystem Support Division
TCE trichloroethene
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
USGS United States Geological Survey
VC vinyl chloride
VI vapor intrusion
VOC volatile organic compound
vi
Results of Groundwater and
Sub-slab Sampling Former Square D Facility Asheville, North Carolina
Executive Summary
The former Square D site is located at 128 Bingham Road (Plant 1), Asheville, North
Carolina (the Site). The former Plant 2, which is not included as part of the definition of
the Site, was owned and operated by Square D and located at 175 Bingham Road.
Plant 2 was sold by Square D to the Buncombe County Board of Education (BCBOE)
in 1989. Past use of former Plant 1 included production of electronic and electro-
mechanical controls along with other electrical products. Plant 1 consists of
approximately 266,300 square feet of building space located on a 14-acre tract of land
that was sold by Square D to ASC Business Park LLC in April 2005. The former Plant
1 building is leased to a number of tenants which use their space for various
manufacturing, warehousing, office and light industrial uses.
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were detected in groundwater beneath the Site in
early 1991. Constituents of potential concern (COPCs) in groundwater include
tetrachloroethene (PCE), trichloroethene (TCE), and degradation products. Historically,
investigation activities have been completed at the Site to delineate soil and
groundwater impacts. An active pump and treat system is in place to remediate
groundwater and provide hydraulic control of groundwater beneath Plant 1. Semi-
annual groundwater monitoring and reporting activities are also completed to
document groundwater quality and operations and maintenance of the pump and treat
system.
Additional on-site and off-site remedial investigation activities were requested in a
letter dated March 30, 2012 provided by North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources (DENR). The primary requests in DENR’s letter were the
delineation of off-site groundwater impacts associated with Plant 1, on-site
investigation of the potential for vapor intrusion (VI) at Plant 1, and off-site
investigation of the potential for VI at the BCBOE property. In response to DENR’s
letter, Schneider Electric (formerly Square D Company) completed on-site and off-
site investigation activities that included the following:
• On-site investigations at the former Plant 1:
– Conducted an expanded groundwater monitoring event in May 2012; and
– Conducted two rounds of sub-slab sampling.
• Off-site investigations at the BCBOE property:
vii
Results of Groundwater and
Sub-slab Sampling Former Square D Facility Asheville, North Carolina
– Performed expanded groundwater sampling to include the monitoring well MW-15 cluster concurrently with the May 2012 semi-annual groundwater event.
– Sampled existing monitoring well MW-20D; and
– Installed and sampled a new shallow aquifer monitoring well.
The results of on-site and off-site investigation activities indicate the following:
On-site Investigations at the Former Plant 1:
• Groundwater sampling results indicated that concentrations of PCE and
TCE within 100 feet of Plant 1 exceeded Inactive Hazardous Sites Branch
(IHSB) generic VI screening levels for an industrial/commercial setting.
Calculations of excess lifetime cancer risks (ELCRs) indicated that cancer
risks were below the 1x10-4 target level set by DENR. However, cumulative
non-cancer hazard indexes (HIs) were above the target HI of 1, triggering
investigation of sub-slab vapor at Plant 1.
• Sub-slab vapor testing at Plant 1 indicated the presence of PCE and TCE in
vapors underlying the building slab, at concentrations above IHSB generic
industrial/ commercial screening levels. Calculations of ELCRs indicated
that cancer risks were below the 1x10-4 target level set by DENR. However,
cumulative non-cancer HIs were above the target HI of 1.
– The HI benchmark was exceeded at location MP-3 (beneath the basement).
– The vapor results trigger investigation of indoor air in the Plant 1 building, in accordance with the IHSB VI guidance.
Based on the results of sub-slab sampling at the former Plant 1, an on-site indoor air
sampling program is required. The objective of indoor air sampling will be to determine
whether the COPCs may have migrated into the building at levels that pose
unacceptable risks to workers. The recommended indoor air sampling program
includes the following:
• Collection of 10 indoor air samples;
• Collection of six sub-slab samples at existing sampling ports, which will be
collected simultaneously with indoor air samples;
viii
Results of Groundwater and
Sub-slab Sampling Former Square D Facility Asheville, North Carolina
• Samples will be analyzed for the groundwater COPCs and degradation
products: PCE, TCE, cis-1,2-dichloroethene (cis-1,2-DCE) and vinyl chloride
(VC), using Method TO-15; and
• Two rounds of indoor air and simultaneous sub-slab sampling are
anticipated, one in the near-term (outside of the heating season) and one in
“worst-case” conditions, during the heating season.
Indoor air sample results will be compared to the IHSB industrial screening levels for
indoor air. The sub-slab data will be used to evaluate whether any COPCs detected in
indoor air are also present in the sub-slab space in similar proportions. Attenuation
factors will be calculated to support this evaluation. The results of the indoor air
evaluation will be used to determine if additional action is warranted.
Off-site Investigations at the BCBOE Property:
• Groundwater sampling results were below the detection limits for VOCs in
monitoring wells MW-20D and MW-26. VOC results for monitoring well MW-
20D were also below the detection limits for sampling completed by
Champion Products, Inc. (Champion) in 1995.
– These results indicate that the extent of VOCs in shallow aquifer and bedrock groundwater has been delineated in the vicinity of the BCBOE property and no further action (NFA) is warranted.
– These results indicate that VOCs in the shallow aquifer were non-detect within 100 feet of the BCBOE building and did not exceed the IHSB VI target concentrations; therefore, no VI investigation of the BCBOE building is warranted.
1-1
Results of Groundwater and
Sub-slab Sampling Former Square D Facility Asheville, North Carolina
1. Background
On behalf of Schneider Electric (SE) and in response to a March 30, 2012, letter from
the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR),
ARCADIS G&M of North Carolina, Inc. (ARCADIS) has prepared this report to provide
the details of recent investigation activities at the former Square D 128 Bingham Road
Building (Plant 1) facility in Asheville, North Carolina. The objectives of this report are
the following:
• Address items cited in North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources’ (DENR’s) March 2012 letter;
• Provide details and results of on-site groundwater investigation activities at
the former Plant 1. Provide details and results of off-site groundwater
investigation activities at the Buncombe County Board of Education
(BCBOE) property;
• Provide details and results of on-site sub-slab vapor1 investigation
activities at the former Plant 1; and
• Provide recommendations for collection of on-site indoor air and additional
on-site sub-slab vapor samples at Plant 1.
Additional on-site and off-site remedial investigation activities were requested in a letter
dated March 30, 2012 provided by DENR. The primary requests in DENR’s letter were
the delineation of off-site groundwater impacts associated with Plant 1, on-site
investigation of the potential for vapor intrusion (VI) at Plant 1, and off-site investigation
of the potential for VI at the BCBOE property. DENR’s letter also requested additional
remedial investigation (RI) and an updated RI Report, allowing for previous work to be
incorporated by reference. Historical RI work that was completed by SE was
summarized in the following reports and were previously submitted to DENR:
1 It is noted that the term “sub-slab vapor” refers to air in the soil or other material (such as gravel or fill
material) directly underlying a building slab. The term is commonly used by DENR and the USEPA in the
context of VI investigations, and does not imply that contaminant vapors are present in the sub-slab space.
1-2
Results of Groundwater and
Sub-slab Sampling Former Square D Facility Asheville, North Carolina
• Comprehensive Site Assessment Report (CSA), prepared by Law
Engineering, dated August 1996;
• Corrective Action Plan (CAP), prepared by BBL, dated July 1997;
• Revised CAP, prepared by BBL, dated January 1998; and
• Letter from BBL to Qu Qi of DENR Division of Water Quality, regarding
Supporting Information for Site Conceptual Model, dated June 2002.
A number of recent correspondences and reports were provided to DENR that
proposed investigation activities and/or summarized details and results of investigation
activities. A summary of these correspondences and reports are provided in Table 1.
SE has recently completed a significant amount of work associated with the former
Plant 1, including on-site investigation activities, to address items that were outlined in
DENR’s letter dated March 30, 2012, which includes the following:
• Located and reviewed internal files and completed a review of DENR
historic files related to the Site;
• Performed expanded groundwater sampling concurrently with the May 2012
semi-annual groundwater monitoring event, and issued a semi-annual
monitoring report (dated December 2012; ARCADIS 2012a);
• SE met with DENR on August 1, 2012, to review additional work that DENR
requested, which included the May 2012 groundwater results, VI screening,
and proposed investigation activities;
• Completed a building survey of Plant 1 in October 2012 to determine
proposed locations for sub-slab sampling, and performed an evaluation of
air flow in the building in February 2013;
• Performed a semi-annual groundwater monitoring event on November 27-
28, 2012, and issued a semi-annual monitoring report (dated March 2013;
ARCADIS 2013);
• Installed sub-slab monitoring points, collected two rounds of sub-slab vapor
samples in December 2012 and February 2013; and
1-3
Results of Groundwater and
Sub-slab Sampling Former Square D Facility Asheville, North Carolina
• Screened groundwater and sub-slab vapor data relative to the Inactive
Hazardous Sites Branch (IHSB) VI screening levels, and performed
supplemental risk calculations to evaluate potential exposure associated
with the detected concentrations.
SE has completed off-site investigation activities on the BCBOE property to address
items that were outlined in DENR’s letter dated March 30, 2012, which includes the
following:
• Performed expanded groundwater sampling to include the monitoring well
MW-15 cluster concurrently with the May 2012 semi-annual groundwater
monitoring event, and issued a semi-annual monitoring report (dated
December 2012; ARCADIS 2012a);
• Sampled groundwater from monitoring well MW-20D in August 2012;
• Installed monitoring well MW-26 in October 2012 within 100 feet of the
BCBOE building and collected two rounds of groundwater samples in
October 2012; and
• Screened groundwater data relative to the IHSB VI screening levels.
The requirements of DENR’s letter dated March 30, 2012, have been satisfied based
on the following:
• Reporting activities that were briefly discussed above;
• Results of previous on-site and off-site investigation activities; and
• Results of recent on-site and off-site investigation activities that indicate the
following:
– NFA is warranted for off-site groundwater or VI at the BCBOE property.
– Further investigation is warranted for on-site VI at Plant 1. A proposal to implement an on-site indoor air sampling program at Plant 1 is included in this report.
1-4
Results of Groundwater and
Sub-slab Sampling Former Square D Facility Asheville, North Carolina
Details and results of on-site and off-site investigation activities completed from May
2012 through February 2013 are discussed in this report. Details of a proposed on-site
indoor air monitoring program are discussed in an Appendix G to this report.
1.1 Site Description
The site is located at 128 Bingham Road (Plant 1), Asheville, North Carolina (the Site).
The former Plant 2, which is not included as part of the definition of the Site, was
owned and operated by Square D and located at 175 Bingham Road. Plant 2 was sold
by Square D to the BCBOE in 1989. The location of the Site and general vicinity are
shown on a portion of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 minute topographic
map, Asheville Quadrangle presented as Figure 1. Site features are shown in Figure
2. Past use of former Plant 1 included production of electronic and electro-mechanical
controls along with other electrical products. Plant 1 consists of approximately 266,300
square feet of building space located on a 14-acre tract of land that was sold by
Square D to ASC Business Park LLC in April 2005. The former Plant 1 building is
leased to a number of tenants that use their spaces for various manufacturing,
warehousing, office and light industrial uses.
1.2 Site History
Volatile organic compound (VOC) impacts were initially identified in the subsurface at
the Site in 1991. From 1991 through 1996 investigation activities were performed at the
Site as part of a CSA to assess horizontal and vertical extent of impacts to
groundwater both on and off the Site. Site investigation activities were concluded in
1996 with the submittal of a CSA Report to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality
(DWQ) (Law 1996). The CSA identified the presence of VOCs in shallow soil and
groundwater in the northeastern portion of the Site. Trichloroethene (TCE) was the
dominant constituent, and tetrachloroethene (PCE) was present in lower
concentrations. Low levels of TCE and PCE contamination were detected at the MW-
15 well cluster that were considered to be related to the former drum storage area in
the northeastern portion of the site. Additional PCE impacts were discovered in the
northwestern portion of the Site in bedrock groundwater. However, the suspected PCE
source in this area appeared to be from off-site, migrating onto the former Square D
property (Law 1996).
In response to the findings, SE initiated remedial action in 1994 to address VOC
impacts to shallow groundwater in the vicinity of the suspected TCE source at the north
end of the Plant 1 building. Initially, the pump and treat remediation system installed by
1-5
Results of Groundwater and
Sub-slab Sampling Former Square D Facility Asheville, North Carolina
SE consisted of a single recovery well (RW-1) screened in the shallow aquifer. In 1998,
two additional recovery wells (BR-1 and WW-2) screened in bedrock were added in
accordance with the Revised CAP (BBL 1998).
Operation of the system continued without modification until 2002, when SE and BBL
presented an analysis of hydrogeologic conditions and historical monitoring data for the
Site and the adjacent Champion Products, Inc. (Champion) facility (BBL 2002). The
analysis found evidence for a separate source of PCE on the Champion site, and
concluded that PCE-impacted groundwater appears to have migrated onto the Site due
to pumping of bedrock groundwater at WW-2. As a result, DWQ approved the
suspension of pumping at WW-2 in March 2002 to prevent further potential migration of
PCE in bedrock groundwater from the suspected off-site source.
A groundwater recovery and treatment system is still in operation at Plant 1 using
recovery wells RW-1 and BR-1. Groundwater treated by an air stripper is discharged to
the sewer in accordance with a discharge permit from the Buncombe County
Metropolitan Sewerage District (permit G-021-00). As of December 31, 2012,
approximately 20.3 million gallons of groundwater have been recovered and treated
from RW-1 and the bedrock recovery wells, with 1,105,620 gallons recovered and
treated during 2012. As of December 2012, 16.73 kg (36.8 lbs.) of VOCs have been
treated.
In conjunction with remediation efforts, SE completes semi-annual groundwater
monitoring at Plant 1. Semi-annual groundwater monitoring activities include:
• Measurement of static water levels at monitoring and recovery wells
associated with groundwater monitoring and remediation activities at the
former Square D and Champion sites.
– Collection of groundwater samples from the following wells: three wells screened in the shallow aquifer (MW-3, and MW-5, and TW-1) and five wells completed in the bedrock (BR-1, MW-10D, MW-13D, WW-1, and WW-2).
– Collection of groundwater samples from two bedrock monitoring wells located on the former Champion site (MW-17Dd and MW-18D).
• Field analysis of groundwater samples for traditional water quality
parameters, and laboratory analysis of groundwater samples for VOCs.
Details and results of sampling activities are provided in semi-annual reports to DENR.
1-6
Results of Groundwater and
Sub-slab Sampling Former Square D Facility Asheville, North Carolina
1.3 Site Geology and Hydrogeology
Based on previous investigations at the Site, two primary hydrogeologic units exist
beneath the Site. A shallow water-bearing unit extends from the water table to the top
of competent bedrock and consists of residual soil and partially weathered rock (Law
1996). Saprolite is a residual soil zone developed by the in-situ chemical weathering of
bedrock; saprolite at the site consists primarily of silt with some sand, clay, and large
rock fragments. Underlying the saprolite layer is a transitional zone of partially
weathered rock which has similar lithology, however with an increase of rock fragments
(Law 1996). For purposes of this report, the saprolite and partially weathered rock
(PWR) will be referred to collectively as the shallow aquifer. A bedrock aquifer unit
underlies the shallow aquifer and consists of fractured crystalline rock.
Based on groundwater elevation data collected at the site, the shallow groundwater
flow is generally toward the north. Historical groundwater elevation trends indicate that
historical water table fluctuations have generally occurred in relation to historical
groundwater pumping activities at the Site; the response of water levels in shallow
monitoring wells to pumping of bedrock wells indicates that the shallow aquifer unit is
hydraulically connected to bedrock fracture zone(s).
Groundwater flow in crystalline bedrock is often governed by naturally occurring
preferential flow pathways such as fractures and joints (secondary porosity), and
therefore can be highly variable. It is highly likely that in the vicinity of the Site, bedrock
groundwater flows preferentially via secondary porosity along geologic structures such
as joints and fractures, and may not flow locally in the same direction as shallow
saprolite groundwater.
2-1
Results of Groundwater and
Sub-slab Sampling Former Square D Facility Asheville, North Carolina
2. Methods Used in Recent Investigations
The methods and details of recent investigations completed by ARCADIS are discussed
in this section. The recent investigation work performed included the following on-site and
off-site activities:
• On-site Investigation Activities at Plant 1:
– Conducted an expanded groundwater monitoring event in May 2012. The expanded data set provided an updated snapshot of overall plume conditions and extent, and provided groundwater data needed for comparison to IHSB VI screening levels. When groundwater is known to contain VOCs within 100 feet of a building, as at the former Plant 1, comparison of groundwater data to screening levels is the first action specified in the step-wise procedure outlined in the IHSB VI guidance.
– Conducted two surveys of the former Plant 1 building to characterize interior conditions relative to a sub-slab investigation, to choose sub-slab sample locations, and to collect air flow information relative to potential future indoor air sampling.
– Conducted two rounds of sub-slab vapor sampling at former Plant 1, to determine whether constituents in the groundwater plume are present in soil vapor directly beneath the building, and to provide data needed for comparison to IHSB VI screening levels. Sub-slab VI is a step in the IHSB VI guidance that may follow screening of groundwater data.
• Off-site Investigation Activities at BCBOE Property:
– Conducted an expanded groundwater monitoring event in May 2012, which included sampling three existing monitoring wells: MW-15, MW15Ds, and MW-15Dd. The expanded data set provided an updated snapshot of overall plume conditions and extent,
– Sampled existing bedrock monitoring well MW-20D on BCBOE property that had not been sampled since 1995, to add to the overall picture of the current extent of the plume.
– Installed and sampled a new shallow aquifer monitoring well, MW-26, on BCBOE property to delineate the extent of the Plant 1 plume, to provide water level data for extending the potentiometric surface map to the east, and to sample the first occurrence of groundwater within 100 feet of the BCBOE building for potential VI screening.
Work was performed in accordance with the procedures described in SE’s October 2012
letter to DENR (ARCADIS 2012b). Data collection and QA/QC procedures were
completed in accordance with the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) Region 4 Science and Ecosystem Support Division (SESD) Quality
Management Plan (QMP), dated April 11, 2011 and associated SESD QMP documents.
Details regarding documentation, completeness, representativeness, comparability,
2-2
Results of Groundwater and
Sub-slab Sampling Former Square D Facility Asheville, North Carolina
preservation and handling and field quality control samples, including references to the
applicable sections of the SESD QMP, are provided in the October 2012 letter.
2.1 On-site Investigation Activities at Plant 1
2.1.1 Expanded Semiannual Groundwater Monitoring Event
In accordance with SE’s May 9, 2012, letter to DENR (ARCADIS 2012c), additional
groundwater samples were collected to determine current overall plume conditions and
extent, and to provide groundwater data needed for comparison to IHSB VI screening
levels. Groundwater samples were collected from 8 additional monitoring wells (shallow
aquifer wells MW-1, MW-4, MW-6, MW-7, MW-12, MW-14, MW-16, and TW-2) during the
May 2012 semiannual monitoring event to assess current groundwater conditions. The
locations of the wells are shown in Figure 2. Details and results of the groundwater
sampling were provided in the Groundwater and Soil Gas Sampling Work Plan submitted
to DENR on August 17, 2012 (ARCADIS 2012d).
2.1.2 Plant 1 Sub-Slab and Air Investigation Planning Surveys
ARCADIS reviewed historical documents and performed site surveys to gather
information about the former and current Plant 1 building conditions, identify potential sub-
slab sample locations, and to plan for a potential indoor air sampling event (see Section
4.0). Prior to the site surveys, ARCADIS reviewed available documents on past site
activities and investigations within Plant 1, and as-built drawings provided by the current
property owner, including 1970 plans for plant additions.
2.1.2.1 Building Survey Prior to Sub-Slab Investigation
The first building survey was conducted on October 29, 2012. The property owner was
on-site to coordinate the survey at Plant 1 and provide building maintenance staff for
interviews and walkthrough assistance. Donna DeCarlo (DENR) also accompanied
ARCADIS during the site survey. The following activities were completed at the Plant 1
building:
• Interviewed building maintenance staff to determine current use of the building
space;
• Identified existing manufacturing, production, maintenance, and waste storage
areas at the building;
2-3
Results of Groundwater and
Sub-slab Sampling Former Square D Facility Asheville, North Carolina
• Identified current users/producers of chemicals, especially chemicals that
include solvents or solvent-containing products;
• Identified use and location of chemicals used in the building or on-site property
and how chemicals were disposed;
• Inspected the building foundation construction and condition of the building
materials inside and outside of the building;
• Identified basement and floor level areas that are above grade, identified
potential vapor entry points (e.g., looked for cracks and seams in slab,
openings at floor/wall boundaries and at transitions between different segments
of the building), and potential vapor migration pathways (e.g., utility
penetrations, drains, sumps, trenches, pits, machinery anchors); and
• Identified the usage parameters of the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
(HVAC) operation.
The findings of the survey are included in Appendix A. Locations for sub-slab vapor
samples (Figure 3) were chosen based on the findings of the building survey, as
described in Section 2.1.3. DENR approved the locations before sampling was conducted,
in a letter dated November 28, 2012.
2.1.2.2 HVAC/Air Flow Survey
The second building survey was an HVAC/air flow survey that was completed on
February 13, 2013, to characterize the continuity of air spaces between parts of the
building and to collect pressure differential measurements (∆P). The objective of the
assessment was to provide information needed to design an effective indoor air sampling
program. HVAC components and typical usage patterns were identified with input from
building maintenance staff. Air space continuity was characterized by identifying walls that
fully segregate sections of the building, conduits from the basement to the upper floor,
ceiling and floor construction. Potential conduits from the sub-slab to indoor air, such as
cracks and seams in floor slabs, wall and floor penetrations, and drains through the floor
slab were identified. Measurements collected were used to estimate air-flow pathways
and identify typical pressure strengths. The findings of the survey, included in Appendix
A, were used to develop the proposed indoor air sampling program appended to this
report.
2-4
Results of Groundwater and
Sub-slab Sampling Former Square D Facility Asheville, North Carolina
2.1.3 Sub-Slab Investigation
The sub-slab investigation was conducted to determine whether constituents in the
groundwater plume are present in soil vapor directly beneath the building, and to provide
data needed for comparison to IHSB VI screening levels. Sub-slab vapor investigation is a
step in the IHSB VI guidance that may follow screening of groundwater data.
Six sub-slab sample locations (Figure 3) were chosen based on IHSB guidance and the
rationale provided in Attachment 1 of the NCDENR October 1, 2012, letter, which is
restated below:
• Previous investigation activities completed at Plant 1,
• Groundwater flow and the proximity of groundwater containing PCE and TCE
at concentrations above IHSB VI acceptable levels (as reported in the August
17, 2012, work plan),
• Results of the site reconnaissance/interviews including the segmented
construction of the building, subsurface utilities and HVAC practices that may
cause sub-slab gases to be transmitted differently in different parts of the
building. Access to sample locations with respect to work activities or
equipment.
The locations were approved by DENR in their letter dated November 28, 2012. More
specific details for selection of each of the sub-slab sampling locations are provided
below:
• MP-1 was installed in the warehouse area of Suite 100 near soil sample BS-14,
where 6.4 micrograms per kilogram (µg/kg) PCE was detected in soil during a
2008 Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) (Rogers & Callcott
Engineers, Inc. 2006).
• MP-2 was installed in Suite 200 near the location of the (now abandoned)
exterior temporary well BW-1. At this location, 6.4 micrograms per liter (µg/L)
PCE was detected in groundwater during the 2008 Phase II ESA (Rogers &
Callcott Engineers, Inc. 2006). An unused floor scale is located near this
sample location and the floor elevation is approximately five feet above the
parking lot grade.
2-5
Results of Groundwater and
Sub-slab Sampling Former Square D Facility Asheville, North Carolina
• MP-3 was installed in the basement maintenance area near shallow aquifer
monitoring well TW-1, which has historically exhibited VOC impacts. Also
located in this area are sumps and floor drains which are potential pathways for
VI. Boilers located in the maintenance area can increase negative pressure
differentials and increase the likelihood of VI.
• MP-4 was collected in the Suite 500 warehouse, which does not have a floating
floor like the rest of Suite 500. Nearby shallow aquifer monitoring wells MW-1
and MW-3 have historically exhibited VOC impacts. The floor elevation is
approximately 10 feet above the exterior grade. The construction
characteristics of the sub-floor space are unknown. The building owner
reported that a large crawl space exists in this area but is sealed and
inaccessible for entry or viewing. However, during sub-slab port installation,
gravel was encountered under the floor slab.
• MP-5 was installed in a riser room at the exterior wall of the building in Suite
500. Nearby shallow aquifer monitoring wells MW-7 and MW-15 have
historically exhibited VOC impacts.
• MP-6 was installed in Suite 400, within the manufacturing area of the original
building. The sample location is near a feature that is presumed to have been a
former sump or floor scale and could be a potential pathway to VI. The feature
has been sealed at the floor surface.
2.1.3.1 Sample Port Installation
Sub-slab vapor point installation was performed in accordance with the IHSB VI guidance
and with ARCADIS’ Standard Operating Procedure for sub-slab soil gas sampling and
analysis (provided in ARCADIS 2012b). Sub-slab vapor monitoring ports were installed by
coring through the floor slab using an electric hammer drill equipped with a 1-inch
pulverizing bit to create an overbore hole and then a ½-inch pulverizing bit to complete the
slab coring. The drill bit was advanced an additional two to six inches into the sub-slab
material to create a cavity for the manual placement of the sampling port. The sample port
was constructed with ¼-inch stainless steel tubing attached to 3/8-inch stainless steel
Swagelok® fittings. The sample port tubing was fitted with a stainless-steel washer
wrapped with Teflon® tape to rest in the slot created by the 1-inch overbore. The sample
port was then sealed with a quick-setting non-shrink grout from above the washer to just
under the Swagelok® fitting. The sample port was capped with a stainless steel
Swagelok® plug and the port was covered by a protective covering level with the
2-6
Results of Groundwater and
Sub-slab Sampling Former Square D Facility Asheville, North Carolina
surrounding floor. The vapor monitoring points were allowed to equilibrate for at least 24
hours before sampling. Sample port installation field notes are provided in Appendix B.
2.1.3.2 Sub-Slab Sample Collection
Sub-slab vapor samples were collected twice, on December 13, 2012, and February 13,
2013. Both sampling rounds took place during the heating season, on days when the
average and actual high temperatures were less than 60 degrees Fahrenheit. These
conditions conform to the “worst-case” conditions recommended in the IHSB guidance.
The protective cover and stainless steel plug were removed from the sample port and a
compression fitting nut and ferrule were used to connect the sampling port to Teflon®
tubing. The vapor monitoring point was fitted with a shroud and leak tested using helium
as a tracer gas prior to collecting the sample (during purging) and after sampling to insure
indoor air was not drawn into the sample.
The sampling points were purged of one to three times the dead air space within the port
and tubing prior to sampling using a 60-milliliter syringe and a Tedlar bag to screen the
purged air with a portable helium detector and PID capable of measurements in the range
of parts per billion (ppb) (RAE Systems ppbRAE with 10.6 eV lamp). No helium was
detected in the purged air of any samples, and sampling was completed without any
alterations to the sampling ports. Samples were collected while the shroud remained
enriched with helium and after sample collection the sampling points were screened again
for helium.
Samples were collected in batch-certified 1-liter SummaTM canisters equipped with flow-
control regulators set for an approximately 10-minute sampling duration (100 milliliters per
minute [ml/min]). The majority of the sample canisters provided had a starting pressure of
-28 inches mercury (in Hg) and sample collection was terminated at approximately -3 in
Hg. Normally sample collection ceases at -5 in Hg; however, the site elevation is
approximately 2,000 feet higher than the laboratory and additional volume was collected
to compensate for the difference in atmospheric pressure.
Duplicate vapor samples were collected and a trip blank was prepared to accompany the
field samples. Samples were shipped under chain-of-custody procedures to Eurofins Air
Toxics Inc. (Air Toxics) in Folsom, California for analysis. Samples were analyzed by
USEPA Method TO-15 for PCE, TCE, cis-1,2-dichloroethene (cis-1,2-DCE) and vinyl
chloride (VC), with nominal reporting limits below the respective IHSB screening values
for each compound. Sub-slab vapor sampling field notes for both events are provided in
Appendix B. Sub-slab vapor sample results were compared to IHSB
2-7
Results of Groundwater and
Sub-slab Sampling Former Square D Facility Asheville, North Carolina
commercial/industrial Acceptable Soil Gas Concentrations for VI (IHSB 2012). These
results are discussed in Section 3.2.4 below.
2.2 Off-site Investigation Activities at BCBOE Property
2.2.1 Expanded Semiannual Groundwater Monitoring Event
In accordance with SE’s May 9, 2012, letter to DENR (ARCADIS 2012c), additional
groundwater samples were collected to determine current overall plume conditions and
extent. Groundwater samples were collected from three additional monitoring wells on the
BCBOE property (shallow aquifer well MW-15 and bedrock monitoring wells MW-15Ds
and MW-15Dd) during the May 2012 semiannual monitoring event to assess current
groundwater conditions. The locations of the wells are shown in Figure 2. Details and
results of the groundwater sampling were provided in the Groundwater and Soil Gas
Sampling Work Plan submitted to DENR on August 17, 2012 (ARCADIS 2012d).
2.2.2 Additional Off-site Groundwater Monitoring (MW-20D)
Monitoring well MW-20D, a bedrock well located off-site on BCBOE property, was
installed by Champion and sampled one time in 1995, with no detected VOCs. Monitoring
well MW-20D is located in the BCBOE parking lot (Figure 2) and could not be sampled
during the May 2012 monitoring event since the well was previously paved over with
asphalt.
On August 8, 2012, a utility locator located the well and checked the surrounding area for
underground utilities. A driller repaired the well, which included cutting and removing a 2-
foot by 2-foot section of asphalt above the well. The expansion plug, lock, and well casing
were observed to be intact. The driller installed a new expansion plug and a 12-inch
manhole cover. ARCADIS collected a groundwater sample from the well (discussed in
Section 2.2.4).
2.2.3 Installation of Monitoring Well MW-26
At the request of NCDENR, off-site monitoring well MW-26 was installed to delineate VOC
impacts in shallow aquifer groundwater from former Plant 1. (Existing monitoring well MW-
20D is screened in the bedrock aquifer.) It was also placed at a distance less than 100
feet from the BCBOE building that is appropriate for VI screening, as determined by IHSB
guidance. Prior to installing the well, ARCADIS obtained a well permit from DENR
(Appendix C). The location of the well (Figure 2) was approved by DENR in their letter
dated September 20, 2012. The well was installed on October 10, 2012.
2-8
Results of Groundwater and
Sub-slab Sampling Former Square D Facility Asheville, North Carolina
Prior to the initiation of drilling activities, non-dedicated downhole equipment was
decontaminated using an Alconox® and water solution. Drilling was conducted using a
hollow-stem auger (HAS) rig with split-spoon sampling completed at 2 to 5-foot intervals
through the unconsolidated soils. The field geologist visually observed the recovered soil
from the split-spoon, logged the soil type, and field-screened the soil core for presence of
volatile organic vapors using a calibrated photoionization detector (PID; RAE Systems
MiniRAE 2000 with 10.6 eV lamp).
The well was installed using 8-inch augers to a depth of 29 feet below ground surface
(bgs), where auger refusal was encountered. Water was not observed within the borehole;
therefore, drilling continued utilizing a 4-inch air rotary hammer. Drilling proceeded through
transitional partially weathered rock, which alternated between soft and hard highly
weathered materials. The drill cuttings were observed to be moist at 44 feet bgs and
drilling continued until wet cuttings were observed at 46 feet. The water level was allowed
to stabilize and reached equilibrium at 32.6 feet bgs prior to installation of the well.
Monitoring well MW-26 was constructed of two-inch-diameter polyvinyl chloride (PVC) well
casing and screen. The well screen has a slot size of 0.01-inch and is 20 feet in length,
encompassing the water table within the partially weathered rock with the top of the well
screen placed at 24 feet bgs and the bottom of the well screen at 44 feet bgs. The annular
space around the well screen was filled with #2 gravel sand pack to two feet above the top
of the well screen (24 feet bgs). Above the sand filter pack, 2 feet of hydrated bentonite
chips were added to create a bentonite well seal. The remaining annular space (above the
bentonite layer) was completed with a neat Portland cement grout to approximately one
foot bgs. The monitoring well was completed at surface with a flush-mounted bolt-down
manhole assembly secured in a concrete well pad.
Monitoring well MW-26 was developed by surging and removal of groundwater with a
submersible pump to remove fine materials. Well installation documents including a boring
log, well construction record and development log are provided as Appendix C. The well
was surveyed by ARCADIS, a North Carolina-licensed surveyor.
2.2.4 Groundwater Sample Collection
Groundwater samples were collected by ARCADIS from MW-20D on August 8, 2012, and
from MW-26 on October 12 and 30, 2012. At both wells, prior to the initiation of purging
activities, ARCADIS collected depth-to-water measurements from monitoring wells
using an electronic sounder. In accordance with DWQ policy, one well volume was
removed from bedrock monitoring well MW-20D. A decontaminated, submersible 4-inch
Grundfos® pump was used to remove 1.3 well volumes of water. During both rounds of
2-9
Results of Groundwater and
Sub-slab Sampling Former Square D Facility Asheville, North Carolina
sampling at MW-26, three well volumes of groundwater were purged with new, dedicated
Teflon® bailers.
Measurements of groundwater temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen (DO), oxidation-
reduction potential (ORP), and specific conductance were collected at regular intervals
during purging (generally after the removal of each well volume of water). The water
quality parameter measurements and water levels for the August and October 2012
sampling events were recorded on field notes provided in Appendix C.
Groundwater samples were collected from both wells using new, dedicated Teflon bailers.
Disposable nitrile gloves were used throughout each groundwater monitoring event, which
were changed between wells to prevent potential cross-contamination during groundwater
sampling activities. Each sample was transferred slowly from the bailer into laboratory-
supplied 40-milliliter (mL) glass vials, pre-preserved with hydrochloric acid and stored in a
cooler on wet ice. Collected samples were transported under proper chain-of-custody
procedures to Pace Analytical Services, Inc. of Asheville, North Carolina (Pace;
Certification Nos. 12 and 37706) for analysis of VOCs by EPA SW-846 Method 8260.
Groundwater sampling was completed in accordance with the USEPA Operating
Procedure No. SESDPROC-301-R1 for Groundwater Sampling (USEPA Region 4
2007a). Equipment not intended for single use was decontaminated prior to sampling at
each location in accordance with USEPA Operating Procedure No. SESDPROC-205-R1
for Field Equipment Cleaning and Decontamination (USEPA Region 4,2007b).
2.3 Investigation Derived Waste
Investigation-derived waste (IDW), including drill cuttings and purged groundwater
generated were containerized. Soil was containerized in 55-gallon drums and purged
groundwater was containerized in water holding tanks. IDW was appropriately labeled and
stored. Soil was classified as nonhazardous and was transported and disposed of at an
appropriate disposal facility. The soil manifest is provided in Appendix D. Purged
groundwater was run through the on-site groundwater treatment system.
3-1
Results of Groundwater and
Sub-slab Sampling Former Square D Facility Asheville, North Carolina
3. Results
Findings of the investigations described in Section 2 are presented in this section.
3.1 Water Levels
Water levels were collected at monitoring well MW-20D on August 8, 2012, and at
monitoring well MW-26 on October 12 and 30, 2012. That data is included on
groundwater sample collection forms in Appendix C. To put these wells in the context of
other Site wells, water level data for November 26, 2012, is provided in Table 2. On that
date, a full groundwater monitoring event was conducted, which included water levels
collected at monitoring wells MW-20D and MW-26.
Figure 4 is a water table elevation map showing calculated groundwater potentiometric
surface elevations in the shallow aquifer for November 26, 2012, along with contour lines
of the potentiometric surface elevations. The contour lines indicate that the horizontal
component of shallow groundwater flow is generally to the north, consistent with historical
monitoring data. Based on the potentiometric contours, the BCBOE building is side-
gradient to the site.
For bedrock groundwater, a meaningful potentiometric map can’t be produced based on
the available data, due to the inherent heterogeneity of a fracture flow system, and
because bedrock water level data represent a wide range of open/screened intervals
within the bedrock unit, varying by several hundred feet.
3.2 On-site Investigation Results for Plant 1
3.2.1 Groundwater Analytical Results
A full discussion of the details and results of groundwater monitoring activities, including
analytical data, lab reports, water level measurements and field parameters, are provided
in previous reports (ARCADIS 2012a, 2012d and 2013).
Summary data for groundwater are presented in two tables that serve different purposes:
• A summary of analytical results for the additional wells sampled during the May
2012 semiannual monitoring event (wells within approximately 100 feet of Plant
1) is provided in Table 3. This table also presents a comparison to VI screening
levels, as discussed in Section 3.2.2. Although the data on this table are not in
all cases the most recent data for each well, they reflect the screening
comparison that has already been provided to DENR (ARCADIS 2012d).
3-2
Results of Groundwater and
Sub-slab Sampling Former Square D Facility Asheville, North Carolina
• The most recent monitoring data for all of the wells sampled in 2012 is provided
in Table 4. This table presents a comparison to 15A North Carolina
Administrative Code (NCAC) 2L groundwater quality standards.
TCE and PCE results for shallow aquifer and bedrock groundwater are presented on
Figures 5 through 8. An overview of groundwater quality relative to state groundwater
standards (shown in Table 4) follows:
• Among both the shallow aquifer and bedrock monitoring wells, the VOCs
detected in the highest concentrations were PCE and TCE. These two
compounds were present in wells at concentrations higher than their respective
15A NCAC 2L groundwater standards (0.7 µg/L for PCE and 3 µg/L for TCE).
• Lower concentrations of various other compounds (cis-1,2-DCE, 1,1-DCE, 1,1-
DCA, chloroform, toluene and 2-butanone) were also detected. The
concentrations of these compounds were below their respective 2L
groundwater standards.
Because concentrations of PCE and TCE were above the groundwater standards within
100 feet of the former Plant 1 building, they are constituents of potential concern (COPCs)
for the VI investigation. The degradation products of these compounds, cis-1,2-DCE and
VC, are also COPCs in accordance with IHSB VI guidance.
3.2.2 VI Screening of Groundwater Results
Results for the May 2012 sampling event for wells within 100 feet of Plant 1 are presented
in Table 3 for VOCs. In accordance with IHSB guidance, VI screening is performed on
wells within 100 feet of a building. The table compares the analytical results to IHSB VI
generic screening values for acceptable groundwater concentrations in an industrial
setting. Several of the wells exhibited PCE and TCE concentrations that were above the
industrial screening values for VI.
When concentrations are above the generic screening values, the IHSB guidance allows
for an additional screening step in which the individual excess lifetime cancer risk (ELCR)
and non-cancer hazard quotient (HQ) are calculated for each constituent at each affected
well location, the results added together and then compared to risk targets (a 1×10-4 risk
level for carcinogenic compounds and a cumulative non-cancer Hazard Index (HI) of 1.0
for non-carcinogenic compounds). The HI is the sum of the individual constituent HQs. In
accordance with this guidance, the collective risks associated with individual wells were
then added together for comparison against a target ELCR of 1×10-4 and a non-cancer
hazard quotient of 1.0. The details of the calculations are provided in Appendix E, and
3-3
Results of Groundwater and
Sub-slab Sampling Former Square D Facility Asheville, North Carolina
summary results are shown in Tables 1 and 2 of Appendix E. The results were as
follows:
• For well MW-15 (which had the highest PCE and TCE concentrations), the total
ELCR was calculated to be 7×10-7, well below the target ELCR of 1×10-4,
indicating that cancer risks were below the target level set by DENR.
• For well MW-15, the HI was calculated to be 14, which is greater than the
benchmark of 1. The single largest contributor to the HI of 14 was TCE, which
had a constituent-specific HQ of 13. None of the other constituent-specific HQs
were greater than 1, which is also the total HI used by DENR for decision-
making. These calculations indicate that non-cancer hazards are above the
target level set by DENR.
• The results of the non-cancer calculations indicated that further investigation of
the potential for VI at Plant 1 should be conducted. In correspondence between
DENR and SE (DENR letter dated September 20, 2012 and SE response
dated October 2, 2012), it was determined that the next step in the investigation
would be sub-slab vapor testing, the results of which are reported herein.
It should be noted that the calculation was based on the DENR’s protocol for VI risk
calculations. In developing the screening levels for VI, DENR calculated screening levels
using all available toxicity information. Thus, DENR calculated screening levels for both
PCE and TCE based on their carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic toxicity information.
DENR then selected the lower of the two screening levels and this concentration was
considered protective of both carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic effects. For PCE and
TCE, the screening level presented by DENR was based on the non-cancer endpoint, as
this screening level was considered more protective of human health. The results of the
calculation, which was based on the comparison of the measured concentrations and the
screening levels, then, did not include either PCE or TCE in the calculation of the total
ELCR.
3.2.3 Building Characteristics and HVAC/Air Flow Summary
The building was evaluated to identify sub-slab sample locations and to design an indoor
air quality (IAQ) sampling plan to identify any potential VI issues. Suites 100, 200 and 290
appear to be connected with a common air space. Separately, suites 400, 430, and 450
also appear to be connected with a common airspace. The other suites maintain their own
relative airspace or did not have an observable reason to consider them connected.
3-4
Results of Groundwater and
Sub-slab Sampling Former Square D Facility Asheville, North Carolina
The HVAC units run on a discontinuous schedule depending on conditioning requirements
but when outside conditions do require it, the systems operate primarily with constant flow
rate recirculation. In the summer months they are cooling and the winter they are heating
and switching between the two modes is controlled by the building manager. The
recirculation fans on the conditioning systems are not bound thermostatically and they
were running continuously while measurements were collected. Detailed information
recorded for the individual suites during site reconnaissance and the HVAC/air flow survey
is provided in Appendix A. With one exception (Suite 100 break room), differential
pressures measured negative with respect to the outside. This will tend to induce air to
flow into the spaces both through wall leaks as well as floor slab leaks. These draft
pressures will also move air within the spaces as detailed in a few of the descriptions
given in Appendix A.
3.2.4 Sub-Slab Analytical Results
A summary of the analytical results for sub-slab vapor samples is provided as Table 5 and
presented on Figure 3. Laboratory reports are provided in Appendix F. PCE was
detected in all six of the sample locations; TCE was detected in three sample locations.
Results for the two sampling rounds were similar.
Table 5 compares the sub-slab analytical results to IHSB VI generic screening values for
acceptable soil gas concentrations in an industrial setting. Three of the sample locations
exhibited PCE and TCE concentrations that were above the industrial screening values for
VI.
• TCE detections were above the TCE screening level in three samples: MP-1
(beneath Suite 100), MP-3 (beneath the basement), and MP-6 (beneath Suite
400).
• PCE detections were above the PCE screening level in two of the same
samples: MP-3 and MP-6.
When concentrations are above the generic screening values, the IHSB guidance allows
for an additional screening step in which the ELCR and non-cancer HI are calculated for
each affected sample location and compared to risk targets (a 1×10-4 risk level for
carcinogenic compounds and an HI of 1.0 for non-carcinogenic compounds). PCE and
TCE concentrations were then used to calculate ELCRs and non-cancer HI for the
detected compounds. The details of the calculations are provided in Appendix E, and
summary results are shown in Table 19 in Appendix E. The results were as follows:
3-5
Results of Groundwater and
Sub-slab Sampling Former Square D Facility Asheville, North Carolina
• The maximum ELCR was 5×10-6, below the IHSB acceptable risk target of
1×10-4, indicating that cancer risks were below the target level set by DENR.
• The cumulative HI of 2 was above the IHSB benchmark of 1. The HI
benchmark was exceeded at location MP-3 (beneath the basement). TCE was
the single largest contributor to both the cumulative ELCR and HI. These
calculations indicate that non-cancer hazards are above the target level set by
DENR, at MP-3.
• The results of the non-cancer calculations indicated that further investigation of
the potential for VI at Plant 1 should be conducted. In accordance with the
IHSB VI guidance, the next step in the investigation will be indoor air sampling.
A plan for an indoor air sampling program at Plant 1 is presented in Appendix
G.
3.3 Off-site Investigation Results for BCBOE
3.3.1 Groundwater Analytical Results and VI Screening
Groundwater analytical results for the off-site wells (MW-15, MW-15Ds, MW-15Dd, MW-
20, and MW-26) are provided in Tables 3 and 4. (See explanation of the uses of these
two tables in Section 3.2.1). Analytical results indicate the following:
• VOCs were not detected in groundwater samples collected at monitoring wells
MW-20D and MW-26, which are located on the BCBOE property. These results
indicate that delineation is complete in shallow aquifer and bedrock
groundwater to the east of Plant 1. There is no evidence of VOCs in
groundwater near the BCBOE building.
• The reporting limits for PCE and TCE at MW-26 were below the IHSB
screening levels for acceptable groundwater concentrations for both industrial
and residential settings. These results indicate no potential for exposure via the
VI pathway and hence, no risk relative to the BCBOE building.
4-1
Results of Groundwater and
Sub-slab Sampling Former Square D Facility Asheville, North Carolina
4. Conclusions and Recommendations
Conclusions of investigation activities are summarized below for on-site and off-site
investigations.
4.1 On-site Investigation at Plant 1
Groundwater sampling results indicated that concentrations of PCE and TCE within 100
feet of Plant 1 exceeded IHSB generic VI screening levels for an industrial/commercial
setting. Calculations of ELCRs indicated that cancer risks were below the 1×10-4 target
level set by DENR. However, cumulative non-cancer HIs were above the target HI of 1,
triggering investigation of sub-slab vapor at Plant 1.
Sub-slab vapor testing at Plant 1 indicated the presence of PCE and TCE in vapors
underlying the building, at concentrations above IHSB generic industrial/ commercial
screening levels. Calculations of ELCRs indicated that cancer risks were below the 1×10-4
target level set by DENR. However, cumulative non-cancer HIs were above the target HI
of 1.
• The HI benchmark was exceeded at location MP-3 (beneath the basement).
• The vapor results trigger investigation of indoor air in the Plant 1 building, in
accordance with the IHSB VI guidance.
Based on these conclusions, an indoor air sampling program is recommended for the
Plant 1 building. The objective of indoor air sampling will be to determine whether the
COPCs may have migrated into the building at levels that pose unacceptable risks to
workers. Details of the proposed sampling program are provided in Appendix G. Ten air
samples are proposed at the locations shown in Figure 9. The results of the indoor air
evaluation will be provided to DENR in a future report, and will be used to determine if
additional action is warranted.
4.2 Off-site Investigation at BCBOE Property
Recent groundwater sampling results were non-detectable for VOCs in monitoring wells
MW-20D and MW-26 near the BCBOE building. VOC results for monitoring well MW-20D
were also below detection limits for sampling completed by Champion in 1995.
4-2
Results of Groundwater and
Sub-slab Sampling Former Square D Facility Asheville, North Carolina
• These results indicate that the extent of VOCs in shallow aquifer and bedrock
groundwater has been delineated in the vicinity of the BCBOE property and no
further action is warranted.
• VOCs in the shallow aquifer were non-detect within 100 feet of the BCBOE
building and did not exceed the IHSB VI target concentrations; therefore, no VI
investigation of the BCBOE building is warranted.
5-1
Results of Groundwater and
Sub-slab Sampling Former Square D Facility Asheville, North Carolina
5. Reporting and Schedule
The first sub-slab and indoor sampling event will be completed outside of the heating
season and upon DENR approval of the sampling that is proposed in this report. The
second sampling event will be completed during the peak of the 2013-2014 heating
season. The schedule for field activities assumes that the proposed monitoring points
will be made accessible. SE will work with DENR and the current property owners at
128 Bingham Road to secure access for investigation activities.
A report will be submitted to DENR within 90 days after completion of the second
sampling event. This report will include the details and results of both sampling events
and recommendations for further action (if warranted). SE will notify DENR if the
schedule for field activities or reporting changes.
6-1
Results of Groundwater and
Sub-slab Sampling Former Square D Facility Asheville, North Carolina
6. References
ARCADIS. 2012a. May 2012 Semi-Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report, Former
Square D Company Site, 128 Bingham Road, Asheville, North Carolina, NC
Groundwater Incident No. 5394. Prepared by ARCADIS G&M of North
Carolina, Inc., December 2012.
ARCADIS. 2012b. Response to DENR Letter dated September 20, 2012, Former
Square D Facility, 128 Bingham Road, Asheville, NC, IHSB
#NCD00039591878 – Fmr APS #5394, prepared by ARCADIS G&M of North
Carolina, Inc., October 2, 2012.
ARCADIS. 2012c. Letter from Jon Rutledge, ARCADIS to Donna DeCarlo, NCDENR
Division of Waste Management, Inactive Hazardous Sites Branch, Response
to DENR Letter Dated March 30, 2012, May 9, 2012.
ARCADIS. 2012d. Groundwater and Soil Gas Sampling Work Plan, Square D
Facility, Asheville, North Carolina, IHSB #NCD00039591878 – Fmr APS
#5394, prepared by ARCADIS G&M of North Carolina, Inc., August 2012.
ARCADIS. 2013. November 2012 Semi-Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report
(July–December 2012), Former Square D Company Site, Asheville, North
Carolina, NC Groundwater Incident No. 5394. Prepared by ARCADIS G&M of
North Carolina, Inc., March 2013.
BBL, 1998. Revised Corrective Action Plan, Square D Facility, Asheville, North
Carolina, Groundwater Incident No. 5394, prepared by Blasland, Bouck and
Lee, Inc., January 1998.
BBL. 2002. Letter from Thomas V. Taylor, P.G. and Scott E. Davies, Blasland, Bouck
and Lee, Inc. to Qu Qi, P.G., North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, Groundwater Section, regarding
Supporting Information for Site Conceptual Model, June 28, 2002.
ERM. 2002. September 2002 Ground Water Monitoring Report, Former Champion
Finishing Company Facility, 200 Bingham Road, Asheville, North Carolina,
prepared by ERM NC, PC, October 2002.
6-2
Results of Groundwater and
Sub-slab Sampling Former Square D Facility Asheville, North Carolina
Law. 1996. Comprehensive Site Assessment Report, Groundwater Incident No.
5392, Square D Company Facility, Asheville, North Carolina, prepared by Law
Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc., September 20, 1996.
NCDENR. 2012. Letter from Donna DeCarlo, NCDENR Division of Waste
Management, Inactive Hazardous Sites Branch to Bryce Wendland, Schneider
Electric, Request for Additional Investigation, Square D (former), 128 Bingham
Road, Asheville, Buncombe County, NC, IHSB # NCD00039591878 – FMR
APS #5394, prepared by NCDENR Division of Waste Management, Inactive
Hazardous Sites Branch, March 30, 2012.
NCDENR. Inactive Hazardous Sites Branch, 2011. Supplemental Guidelines for the
Evaluation of Structural Vapor Intrusion Potential for Site Assessments and
Remedial Actions Under the Inactive Hazardous Sites Branch, June 21, 2011.
NCDENR. Inactive Hazardous Sites Branch, 2012. IHSB Residential and Industrial/
Commercial Vapor Intrusion Screening Tables, July 2012.
Rogers & Callcott Engineers, Inc. 2006. Phase II Sampling Results, ASC Business
Park, Former Square D Facility, 128 Bingham Road, Asheville, NC, prepared
by Rogers & Callcott Engineers, Inc. April 11.
USEPA. 1998. Technical Protocol for Evaluating Natural Attenuation of Chlorinated
Solvents in Ground Water. United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Research and Development, National Risk Management Research
Laboratory. Cincinnati, OH. EPA/600/R-98/128. September 1998.
USEPA Region ., 2007a. Science and Ecosystem Support Division Operating
Procedure No. SESDPROC-301-R1 for Groundwater Sampling. November 1,
2007.
USEPA Region 4. 2007b. Science and Ecosystem Support Division Operating
Procedure No. SESDPROC-205-R1 for Field Equipment Cleaning and
Decontamination. November 1, 2007.
Tables
Date Correspondence or Discussion Purpose
March 30, 2012 Letter from DENR to Schneider Electric Regarding Request for Additional Information
Request for Remedial Investigation with emphasis on investigation of potential vapor intrusion and off-site impact delineation
May 9, 2012 Schneider Electric response to DENR March 30, 2012 letter (ARCADIS 2012a)
Extension request for workplan submittal pending results of file review, expanded groundwater sampling and proposed meeting with DENR
August 1, 2012 Meeting at DENR's Mooresville, NC office Discussion between Schneider Electric and DENR regarding project history, actions taken to date in response to March 30, 2012 letter, and next steps
August 17, 2012 Groundwater and Soil Gas Sampling Workplan (ARCADIS 2012b)
Description of results of expanded groundwater monitoring event and initial VI screening. Proposes installation of MW-26, sampling of MW-20D, and collection of soil gas samples at Plant 1 only
September 20, 2012 DENR response to Groundwater and Soil Gas Sampling Workplan
DENR approval of MW-26 location, requests change from soil gas to sub-slab samples at Plant1. States that no sub-slab sampling is required for the BCBOE property.
October 2, 2012 Schneider Electric response to DENR September 20, 2012 letter
Response to DENR provides supporting information regarding sub-slab sampling procedures at Plant 1.
October 4, 2012 DENR response to Schneider Electric October 2, 2012 letter DENR approval of sub-slab sampling plan
November 15, 2012 Letter from Scheider Electric to DENR Reports results of October 29, 2012 Plant 1 building reconnaissance, proposes sub-slab sample locations
November 28, 2012 DENR response to Schneider Electric November 15, 2012 letter DENR approval of sub-slab sample locations
Table 1Summary of Recent Correspondence
Former Square D Company Site - Asheville, NC
1 of 1
Well IDReference Point
Elevation(ft amsl)
Water Level Measurement
(feet)
Groundwater Elevation(ft amsl)
BR-1 2213.82 NM NMC-RW-1 2178.00** 41.30 2136.70C-RW-2 2178.15** 42.20 2135.95MW-1 2216.64 72.97 2143.67MW-2 2217.21 73.71 2143.50MW-3 2215.69 74.32 2141.37MW-4 2204.30 65.25 2139.05MW-5 2197.11 57.22 2139.89MW-6 2202.74 58.48 2144.26MW-7 2214.41 74.67 2139.74MW-8 2216.73 72.55 2144.18MW-9 2157.88 17.50 2140.38MW-10 2189.03 48.22 2140.81MW-10D 2188.28 64.21 2124.07MW-11/RW-1 2211.46 NM NMMW-12 2215.48 68.51 2146.97MW-13D 2204.73 95.35 2109.38MW-14 2215.89 68.98 2146.91MW-15 2201.42 64.04 2137.38MW-15Ds 2201.94 64.81 2137.13MW-15Dd 2202.04 64.77 2137.27MW-16 2208.24 61.25 2146.99MW-17 2179.37 40.40 2138.97MW-17Ds 2179.61 40.82 2138.79MW-17Dd 2179.40 90.85 2088.55MW-18 2178.08 41.62 2136.46MW-18D 2178.05 44.48 2133.57MW-19 2173.09 38.34 2134.75MW-19D 2173.08 26.25 2146.83MW-20D 2163.85 66.62 2097.23MW-21 2182.69 NM NMMW-21D 2183.15 NM NMMW-22 2199.67 77.57 2122.10MW-23 2190.53 57.19 2133.34MW-24 2180.01 53.52 2126.49MW-25 2178.54 41.75 2136.79MW-26 2165.39 32.05 2133.34OB-1 2211.48 NM NMOW-1 NA NM NARW-2 NA 57.91 NASVE-1 2178.01 40.78 2137.23SVE-2 2195.23 58.98 2136.25TW-1 2205.25 58.22 2147.03TW-2 2205.14 61.05 2144.09WW-1 2168.02 36.16 2131.86WW-2 2167.60 36.63 2130.97
Notes:
Reference point elevations at wells MW-1, MW-2, MW-3, and MW-8 were resurveyed and updated in November 2008.Shading indicates bedrock well.ft amsl = Elevations referenced to feet above mean sea level.** = Access port elevation.NM = Not measured.NA = Not available.
Table 2
Groundwater Elevations - November 26, 2012
Former Square D Company Site - Asheville, NC
Table 2-WLs.xlsx Page 1 of 1 4/19/2013
PCE TCEcis-1,2-
DCE1,1-DCE
1,1-DCA
Chloroform Toluene
µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L
49 4.4Not
Established
160 160 35 16,000
Saprolite Monitoring WellsOn-site Wells
MW-1 5/31/12 13.5 37.3 1.9 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 3.0MW-3 5/31/12 11.8 23.1 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 1.0 < 3.0MW-4 5/31/12 12.8 33.9 2.7 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 3.0MW-6 5/30/12 5.2 2.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 3.0MW-7 5/31/12 60.1 43.9 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 2.5 < 3.0MW-12 5/30/12 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 8.8 < 3.0MW-14 5/30/12 3.7 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 1.3 < 3.0MW-16 5/30/12 4.2 1.2 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 3.0TW-1 5/30/12 43.9 25 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 3.0TW-2 5/30/12 60.7 21.7 2.1 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 3.0
Off-site WellsMW-15+ 5/30/12 123 287 11.7 2.2 1.5 2.3 < 3.0MW-26+ 10/12/12 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 3.0MW-26+ 10/30/12 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 3.0
On-site WellsBR-1 5/31/12 35.1 44.2 11.2 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0MW-13D 5/31/12 28.7 17.1 2.1 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 2.8
MW-15Ds+ 5/31/12 6.6 9.0 1.7 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0MW-15Dd+ 5/31/12 72.7 73.1 8.6 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0MW-20D+ 8/8/12 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0
Notes:
Only detected compounds are included. Groundwater samples analyzed by a NC certified laboratory using EPA SW-846 Method 8260.
+ = Well located on Buncombe County Board of Education Property< = Indicates non-detect at the reporting limit shown.PCE = tetrachloroethene.TCE = trichloroethene.cis-1,2-DCE = cis-1,2-dichloroethene.1,1-DCE = 1,1-dichloroethene.1,1-DCA = 1,1-dichloroethane.
Results shaded exceed the Acceptable Groundwater Concentrations - IHSB Industrial/Commercial Vapor Intrusion Screening Table, July 2012.
Bedrock Monitoring Wells
Selected wells include those sampled in May 2012 that are within approximately 100 feet of either the Plant 1 building or the BCBOE building. Results for MW-20D and MW-26 are also included for reference.
IHSB Industrial/Commercial Vapor Intrusion Screening Concentrations (µg/L)
Table 3Groundwater Analytical Results Related to Vapor Intrusion Screening
Former Square D Company Site - Asheville, NC
Units Date
Off-site Wells
Table 3-GW VI_rev.xlsx Page 1 of 1 4/19/2013
PCE TCE cis-1,2-DCE 1,1-DCE 1,1-DCA Chloroform Toluene 2-Butanone
µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L2L Standard (µg/L) 0.7 3 70 7 6 70 600 4,000
On-site WellsMW-1 5/31/12 13.5 37.3 1.9 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0MW-3 11/26/12 11.4 25 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0MW-4 5/31/12 12.8 33.9 2.7 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0MW-5 11/27/12 6.9 27.4 8.8 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0MW-6 5/30/12 5.2 2.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0MW-7 5/31/12 60.1 43.9 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 2.5 < 1.0 < 1.0MW-12 5/30/12 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 8.8 < 1.0 < 1.0MW-14 5/30/12 3.7 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 1.3 < 1.0 < 1.0MW-16 5/30/12 4.2 1.2 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0TW-1 11/27/12 55.2 26.6 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0TW-2 5/30/12 60.7 21.7 2.1 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0
Off-site WellsMW-15+ 5/30/12 123 287 11.7 2.2 1.5 2.3 < 1.0 < 1.0MW-17* 12/6/2012 250 2.8 2.3 < 1.0 < 1.0 0.75 J < 1.0 < 1.0MW-18* 12/6/2012 5.6 1.4 J < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0MW-19* 12/6/2012 < 1.0 < 2.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0MW-22* 12/6/2012 31 26 60 < 1.0 0.86 J 0.77 J < 1.0 < 1.0MW-23* 12/6/2012 18 130 60 < 1.0 < 1 1.4 < 1.0 < 1.0MW-24* 12/6/2012 57 5.9 27 1.4 1.5 0.84 J < 1.0 < 1.0MW-25* 12/6/2012 100 < 2.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0MW-26+ 10/12/12 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0MW-26+ 10/30/12 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0SVE-2* 12/6/2012 12 40 21 < 1.0 < 1.0 0.65 J < 1.0 < 1.0C-RW-1* 12/6/2012 22 0.97 J < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0C-RW-2* 12/6/2012 79 1.5 J < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0
On-site WellsBR-1 11/27/12 33.7 40.5 9.4 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0MW-10D 11/28/12 34.3 4.3 3.4 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 3.6 < 1.0MW-13D 11/27/12 38.9 23.8 3.8 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 8.2 <1.0WW-1 11/27/12 108 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0WW-2 11/27/12 174 6.2 1.5 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 1.6 < 1.0
Off-site WellsMW-15Ds+ 5/31/12 6.6 9.0 1.7 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0MW-15Dd+ 5/31/12 72.7 73.1 8.6 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0MW-17Dd* 11/28/12 249 17.5 5.7 < 2.0 < 2.0 < 2.0 8.2 29.3MW-18D* 11/28/12 31.7 46.5 13.3 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0MW-20D+ 8/8/12 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0
Notes:
The most recent analytical data for each well sampled in 2012 is shown.Only detected compounds are are included.Groundwater samples analyzed by an NC certified laboratory using EPA SW-846 Method 8260.2L Standard = 15A NCAC 2L .0202 Groundwater Quality Standards.Results shaded exceed Groundwater Quality (2L) Standard.< = Indicates non-detect at the reporting limit shown.J = The analyte was positively identified but the value is estimated below the reporting limit.* = Well located on former Champion Site.+ = Well located on Buncombe County Board of Education PropertyPCE = tetrachloroethene.TCE = trichloroethene.cis-1,2-DCE = cis-1,2-dichloroethene.1,1-DCE = 1,1-dichloroethene.1,1-DCA = 1,1-dichloroethane.µg/L = micrograms per liter.
Saprolite Monitoring Wells
Bedrock Monitoring Wells
Table 4Most Recent Groundwater Analytical ResultsFormer Square D Company Site - Asheville, NC
Units Date
Table 4-GW 2L_new.xlsx Page 1 of 1 4/19/2013
IHSB Industrial/Commercial Vapor
Intrusion Screening
Concentrations (µg/m3)Location of Sample
Business Operation
Sample Collection Date 12/13/12 2/13/13 12/13/12 2/13/13 12/13/12 2/13/13 12/13/12 2/13/13 12/13/12 2/13/13 12/13/12 2/13/13
PCE (µg/m3) 350 75 150 140 130 440/420 820/220 16 18 18 27 500 360TCE (µg/m3) 17.6 130 110 < 6.5 < 6.4 240/240 440/120 < 7.1 < 6.6 < 7.1 < 6.5 60 23cis-1,2-DCE (µg/m3) Not Established < 4.8 < 4.7 < 4.8 < 4.7 < 4.7/< 4.7 < 4.4/< 4.1 < 5.2 < 4.9 < 5.2 < 4.8 < 4.9 < 4.6Vinyl Chloride (µg/m3) 280 < 3.1 < 3.0 < 3.1 < 3.0 < 3.0/< 3.0 < 2.9/< 2.7 < 3.4 < 3.2 < 3.4 < 3.1 < 3.2 < 3.0Notes:
Sub-slab vapor samples analyzed by Euroins/AirToxics laboratory using EPA Method TO-15.
Results compared to the Acceptable Soil Gas Concentrations- IHSB Industrial/Commercial Vapor Intrusion Screening Table, July 2012.
Shading indicates values above screening levels
* = Shared functional space with Suite 100
< = Indicates non-detect at the reporting limit shown.
PCE = tetrachloroethene.
TCE = trichloroethene.
cis-1,2-DCE = cis-1,2-dichloroethene.µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
ppb = parts per billion
Ambient air readings collected by PID during sample collection
Purge air readings collected by PID during monitoring point purging
Sub-Slab Vapor Analytical Results
Call Center - Warehouse
Call Center - Riser Room Warehouse
Suite 100 Suite 200 Basement Suite 500 Suite 500 Suite 400
Metal Parts Mfr. Warehouse - Multiple* Building Storage Area
Table 5Sub-Slab Analytical and Screening Results
Former Square D Company Site - Asheville, NC
MP-1 MP-2 MP-3 MP-4 MP-5 MP-6
1 of 1
Figures
SITE LOCATION MAP
FIGURE
1
FORMER SQUARE D COMPANY SITE128 BINGHAM ROAD, ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA
Approximate Scale: 1" = 2000'
2000' 2000'0
Site Location
REFERENCE: USGS 7.5 Min. Topo. Quad. Asheville, N.C. 1961.
Quadrangle Location
NC
03/0
4/2
013 S
YR
AC
US
E, D
IV/G
RO
UP
: E
NV
/IM
-DV
DJH
OW
ES
B0006476/0
009/0
0002/C
DR
/06470N
02.C
DR
FIGURE
FORMER SQUARE D - COMPANY SITE
128 BINGHAM ROAD
ASHEVILLE, NC 28806
RESULTS OF GROUNDWATER AND
SUB-SLAB SAMPLING
2
SITE FEATURES MAP
IM
AG
ES
:X
RE
FS
:
06476X
BL
06476X
01
PR
OJE
CT
NA
ME
: ----
CIT
Y: (C
AR
Y, N
C), S
YR
AC
US
E, N
Y D
IV
/G
RO
UP
: E
NV
/R
EM
-W
/IM
-D
V D
B: (L. E
LLIS
), P
. LIS
TE
R P
M: J. R
UT
LE
DG
E T
M: E
. W
HIT
IN
G T
R: A
. F
RIZ
ZE
LL LY
R: O
N=
*;O
FF
=*R
EF
*
G:\E
NV
CA
D\S
YR
AC
US
E\A
CT
\B
0006476\0009\00002\D
WG
\06476B
02.D
WG
LA
YO
UT
: 2
S
AV
ED
: 4/18/2013 1:05 P
M A
CA
DV
ER
: 18.1S
(LM
S T
EC
H) P
AG
ES
ET
UP
: ---- P
LO
TS
TY
LE
TA
BLE
: P
LT
FU
LL.C
TB
P
LO
TT
ED
: 4/18/2013 1:05 P
M B
Y: LIS
TE
R, P
AU
L
BASEMENT
MW-7
OB-1
RW-1(MW-11)
MW-3
MW-2
MW-8
MW-1
TW-2
TW-1
MW-14
BW-1
BS-14
BW-5
KEY:
SUB-SLAB SAMPLING LOCATIONS
MONITORING WELLS (APPROXIMATE
LOCATIONS)
SOIL SAMPLE FROM 2008 PHASE II ESA
FLOOR SCALE/FEATURE
FREIGHT ELEVATOR
FLOOR SUMP
ORIGINAL BUILDING FOOTPRINT
BASEMENT FOOTPRINT
NOTES:
1. THIS FIGURE IS FROM AN UNDATED DRAWING BY
CORNERSTONE REAL ESTATE CONSULTANTS, INC, NO SCALE.
2. SUB-SLAB SAMPLE LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE.
3. RESULTS ARE MICROGRAMS PER CUBIC METER (ug/m ³)
4. DATA WERE EVALUATED TO THE IHSB
INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL SCREENING CRITERIA (ug/m ³)
SHADED VALUES INDICATE RESULTS ABOVE THEIR
APPLICABLE CRITERIA:
• PCE - 350 ug/m³
• TCE - 17.6 ug/m³
• cis-1,2-DCE - NA
• VC - 280 ug/m³
5. HI = NON-CANCER HAZARD INDEX (TARGET = 1)
6. ELCR = EXCESS LIFETIME CANCER RISK (TARGET = 1 x 10
-4
)
7. PCE - TETRACHLOROETHENE.
8. TCE - TRICHLOROETHENE.
9. CIS-1,2-DCE - CIS-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE.
10. VC - VINYL CHLORIDE.
11. < = NOT DETECTED AT THE REPORTING LIMIT SHOWN.
12. NA = NOT APPLICABLE.
BUILDING LAYOUT WITH SUB-SLAB
RESULTS
IM
AG
ES
:
B
RB
C U
pdated F
loor P
lan June.2010 .tiff
XR
EF
S:
06476X
BL
PR
OJE
CT
NA
ME
: ----
CIT
Y: (R
ALE
IG
H, N
C), S
YR
AC
US
E, N
Y D
IV
/G
RO
UP
: E
NV
/R
EM
-W
/IM
-D
V D
B:(L. E
LLIS
), P
. LIS
TE
R P
M: J. R
UT
LE
DG
E T
M: E
. W
HIT
IN
G T
R :A
. F
RIZ
ZE
LL LY
R:O
N=
*;O
FF
=*R
EF
*
G:\E
NV
CA
D\S
YR
AC
US
E\A
CT
\B
0006476\0009\00002\D
WG
\06476C
01.dw
g LA
YO
UT
: 3
S
AV
ED
: 4/18/2013 3:46 P
M A
CA
DV
ER
: 18.1S
(LM
S T
EC
H) P
AG
ES
ET
UP
: ---- P
LO
TS
TY
LE
TA
BLE
: P
LT
FU
LL.C
TB
P
LO
TT
ED
: 4/18/2013 3:46 P
M B
Y: LIS
TE
R, P
AU
L
FIGURE
FORMER SQUARE D - COMPANY SITE
128 BINGHAM ROAD
ASHEVILLE, NC 28806
RESULTS OF GROUNDWATER AND
SUB-SLAB SAMPLING
3
FIGURE
FORMER SQUARE D - COMPANY SITE
128 BINGHAM ROAD
ASHEVILLE, NC 28806
RESULTS OF GROUNDWATER AND
SUB-SLAB SAMPLING
4
SHALLOW GROUNDWATER ELEVATION
CONTOUR MAP
NOVEMBER 26, 2012
IM
AG
ES
:X
RE
FS
:
06476X
01
06476X
BL
PR
OJE
CT
NA
ME
: ----
CIT
Y: (C
AR
Y, N
C), S
YR
AC
US
E, N
Y D
IV
/G
RO
UP
: E
NV
/R
EM
-W
/IM
-D
V D
B: (L. E
LLIS
), P
. LIS
TE
R P
M: J. R
UT
LE
DG
E T
M: E
. W
HIT
IN
G T
R: A
. F
RIZ
ZE
LL LY
R: O
N=
*;O
FF
=*R
EF
*
G:\E
NV
CA
D\S
YR
AC
US
E\A
CT
\B
0006476\0009\00002\D
WG
\06476W
03.dw
g LA
YO
UT
: 4
S
AV
ED
: 4/18/2013 1:02 P
M A
CA
DV
ER
: 18.1S
(LM
S T
EC
H) P
AG
ES
ET
UP
: ---- P
LO
TS
TY
LE
TA
BLE
: P
LT
FU
LL.C
TB
P
LO
TT
ED
: 4/18/2013 1:03 P
M B
Y: LIS
TE
R, P
AU
L
FIGURE
FORMER SQUARE D - COMPANY SITE
128 BINGHAM ROAD
ASHEVILLE, NC 28806
RESULTS OF GROUNDWATER AND
SUB-SLAB SAMPLING
5
IM
AG
ES
:X
RE
FS
:
06476X
BL
06476X
01
PR
OJE
CT
NA
ME
: ----
CIT
Y: (C
AR
Y, N
C), S
YR
AC
US
E, N
Y D
IV
/G
RO
UP
: E
NV
/R
EM
-W
/IM
-D
V D
B: (L. E
LLIS
), P
. LIS
TE
R P
M: J. R
UT
LE
DG
E T
M: E
. W
HIT
IN
G T
R: A
. F
RIZ
ZE
LL LY
R: O
N=
*;O
FF
=*R
EF
*
G:\E
NV
CA
D\S
YR
AC
US
E\A
CT
\B
0006476\0009\00002\D
WG
\06476C
11.D
WG
LA
YO
UT
: 5
S
AV
ED
: 4/18/2013 1:13 P
M A
CA
DV
ER
: 18.1S
(LM
S T
EC
H) P
AG
ES
ET
UP
: ---- P
LO
TS
TY
LE
TA
BLE
: P
LT
FU
LL.C
TB
P
LO
TT
ED
: 4/18/2013 1:13 P
M B
Y: LIS
TE
R, P
AU
L
PCE CONCENTRATIONS
IN SHALLOW AQUIFER GROUNDWATER -
MOST RECENT
FIGURE
FORMER SQUARE D - COMPANY SITE
128 BINGHAM ROAD
ASHEVILLE, NC 28806
RESULTS OF GROUNDWATER AND
SUB-SLAB SAMPLING
6
IM
AG
ES
:X
RE
FS
:
06476X
BL
06476X
01
PR
OJE
CT
NA
ME
: ----
CIT
Y: (C
AR
Y, N
C), S
YR
AC
US
E, N
Y D
IV
/G
RO
UP
: E
NV
/R
EM
-W
/IM
-D
V D
B: (L. E
LLIS
), P
. LIS
TE
R P
M: J. R
UT
LE
DG
E T
M: E
. W
HIT
IN
G T
R: A
. F
RIZ
ZE
LL LY
R: O
N=
*;O
FF
=*R
EF
*
G:\E
NV
CA
D\S
YR
AC
US
E\A
CT
\B
0006476\0009\00002\D
WG
\06476C
12.D
WG
LA
YO
UT
: 6
S
AV
ED
: 4/18/2013 1:15 P
M A
CA
DV
ER
: 18.1S
(LM
S T
EC
H) P
AG
ES
ET
UP
: ---- P
LO
TS
TY
LE
TA
BLE
: P
LT
FU
LL.C
TB
P
LO
TT
ED
: 4/18/2013 1:15 P
M B
Y: LIS
TE
R, P
AU
L
TCE CONCENTRATIONS
IN SHALLOW AQUIFER GROUNDWATER -
MOST RECENT
FIGURE
FORMER SQUARE D - COMPANY SITE
128 BINGHAM ROAD
ASHEVILLE, NC 28806
RESULTS OF GROUNDWATER AND
SUB-SLAB SAMPLING
7
IM
AG
ES
:X
RE
FS
:
06476X
BL
06476X
01
PR
OJE
CT
NA
ME
: ----
CIT
Y: (C
AR
Y, N
C), S
YR
AC
US
E, N
Y D
IV
/G
RO
UP
: E
NV
/R
EM
-W
/IM
-D
V D
B: (L. E
LLIS
), P
. LIS
TE
R P
M: J. R
UT
LE
DG
E T
M: E
. W
HIT
IN
G T
R: A
. F
RIZ
ZE
LL LY
R: O
N=
*;O
FF
=*R
EF
*
G:\E
NV
CA
D\S
YR
AC
US
E\A
CT
\B
0006476\0009\00002\D
WG
\06476C
04.D
WG
LA
YO
UT
: 7
S
AV
ED
: 4/18/2013 1:17 P
M A
CA
DV
ER
: 18.1S
(LM
S T
EC
H) P
AG
ES
ET
UP
: ---- P
LO
TS
TY
LE
TA
BLE
: P
LT
FU
LL.C
TB
P
LO
TT
ED
: 4/18/2013 1:17 P
M B
Y: LIS
TE
R, P
AU
L
PCE CONCENTRATIONS
IN BEDROCK GROUNDWATER -
MOST RECENT
FIGURE
FORMER SQUARE D - COMPANY SITE
128 BINGHAM ROAD
ASHEVILLE, NC 28806
RESULTS OF GROUNDWATER AND
SUB-SLAB SAMPLING
8
IM
AG
ES
:X
RE
FS
:
06476X
BL
06476X
01
PR
OJE
CT
NA
ME
: ----
CIT
Y: (C
AR
Y, N
C), S
YR
AC
US
E, N
Y D
IV
/G
RO
UP
: E
NV
/R
EM
-W
/IM
-D
V D
B: (L. E
LLIS
), P
. LIS
TE
R P
M: J. R
UT
LE
DG
E T
M: E
. W
HIT
IN
G T
R: A
. F
RIZ
ZE
LL LY
R: O
N=
*;O
FF
=*R
EF
*
G:\E
NV
CA
D\S
YR
AC
US
E\A
CT
\B
0006476\0009\00002\D
WG
\06476C
10.D
WG
LA
YO
UT
: 8
S
AV
ED
: 4/18/2013 1:19 P
M A
CA
DV
ER
: 18.1S
(LM
S T
EC
H) P
AG
ES
ET
UP
: ---- P
LO
TS
TY
LE
TA
BLE
: P
LT
FU
LL.C
TB
P
LO
TT
ED
: 4/18/2013 1:19 P
M B
Y: LIS
TE
R, P
AU
L
TCE CONCENTRATIONS
IN BEDROCK GROUNDWATER -
MOST RECENT
KEY:
SUB-SLAB SAMPLING LOCATIONS
INDOOR/AMBIENT AIR SAMPLING
LOCATIONS
MONITORING WELLS (APPROXIMATE
LOCATIONS)
SOIL SAMPLE FROM 2008 PHASE II ESA
FLOOR SCALE/FEATURE
FREIGHT ELEVATOR
FLOOR SUMP
ORIGINAL BUILDING FOOTPRINT
BASEMENT FOOTPRINT
NOTES:
1. THIS FIGURE IS FROM AN UNDATED
DRAWING BY CORNERSTONE REAL
ESTATE CONSULTANTS, INC, NO
SCALE.
2. SUB-SLAB SAMPLE LOCATIONS ARE
APPROXIMATE.
BASEMENT
MW-7
OB-1
RW-1(MW-11)
MW-3
MW-2
MW-8
MW-1
TW-2
TW-1
MW-14
BW-1
BS-14
MP-1
MP-2
MP-6
MP-4
MP-5
MP-3
IA-10
IA-8
IA-7
IA-9
IA-1
IA-2
IA-6
IA-5
IA-4
IA-3
BW-5
PROPOSED INDOOR AIR SAMPLE
LOCATIONS
CITY: SYRACUSE, NY DIV/GROUP: ENV/REM-W/IM-DV DB: P. LISTER PM: J. RUTLEDGE TM: E. WHITING TR: R. HALL LYR: ON=*;OFF=*REF*
G:\ENVCAD\SYRACUSE\ACT\B0006476\0009\00002\DWG\06476M06.dwg LAYOUT: 9 SAVED: 4/18/2013 12:59 PM ACADVER: 18.1S (LMS TECH) PAGESETUP: ---- PLOTSTYLETABLE: PLTFULL.CTB PLOTTED: 4/18/2013 12:59 PM BY: LISTER, PAUL
FIGURE
FORMER SQUARE D - PLANT 1
128 BINGHAM ROAD
ASHEVILLE, NC 28806
RESULTS OF GROUNDWATER AND
SUB-SLAB SAMPLING
9
IMAGES:
BRBC Updated Floor Plan June.2010 .tiff
XREFS: PROJECTNAME: ----
Appendix A
Findings of Plant 1 Building Surveys
1
Appendix A: Findings of Plant 1 Building Surveys
Building surveys were conducted at the former Plant 1 building on October 29, 2012 and February 13, 2013. The following descriptions of suites combine the findings of both surveys. Several points are noted that apply to the suite descriptions:
The building was constructed in several phases. The outline of the original building is shown in Figure 3.
All locations are intended for continual occupancy unless otherwise noted.
The air handlers for the HVAC system at the site are continually running for ventilation. Differential pressure (∆P) was measured between indoor and outdoor spaces, unless otherwise specified. ∆P units are in inches of water.
Floor construction and conditions are discussed where specific observations were made. The majority of flooring observed was concrete or assumed to be concrete when the slab is on grade. No floor construction assumptions are made for flooring that is above the basement.
Floor surface conditions, floor and wall penetrations, emission points, chemical usage, and current chemical inventory will be investigated prior to collecting indoor air quality samples.
Suite 100 – Metal Parts Manufacturing
This area was constructed during the 1968 and 1970 addition. According to lessee management, all floor drains and the concrete floor were sealed upon accepting lease to this suite.
The suite is used for metal finishing and painting. There is secondary spill containment around every machine and no process fluid is discharge to sewer. The lessee provided a comprehensive list of chemicals used and indicated that air permits are held. Approximately 50 workers are present in this suite over two to three shifts. The lessee performed a Phase II ESA in 2006. Several areas had PCE detections; BS-14 was a shallow soil sample near the location of vapor monitoring point MP-1 that had a 6.4 µg/kg concentration of PCE, and temporary wells BW-1 and BW-5 installed to the west of the building near Suite 100 and Suite 290 contained 6.4 µg/L and 48 µg/L of PCE, respectively.
∆P was measured between -0.0116 and -0.0055. This indicates that air flows into this suite. ∆P measurements collected in the break room of Suite 100 were observed to be positive (0.0037 to 0.0044) which indicates air is flowing from this room.
2
Suite 200 – Warehouse – Multiple Tenants
This area was constructed in the 1968 and 1970 additions. It is separated from Suite 100 by a chain link fence, thus sharing a common airspace. The concrete floor and expansion joints appear to be epoxy coated. There is an unused approximately 4-foot by 4-foot floor scale present in the north side of the Suite. The floor scale weighing platform is level with the surrounding floor and still present, so observations below the platform were not made.
Bathrooms with floor drains are present between Suites 100 & 200.
Occupancy is approximately 8. ∆P was measured between -0.0019 and -0.0092. This indicates that air flows into this suite.
Suite 290 – Warehouse
This Suite is a concrete floor warehouse addition to the structure constructed post-1970. The area is unheated and not intended for continual occupancy.
Access to this suite is through a metal roll-up door and the floor is approximately 5-feet above grade.
∆P was measured between -0.0039 and -0.0097. This indicates that air flows into this suite.
Suite 300 – Bakery
This suite is part of the original construction. It lies partially over the basement and there is an old conduit hatch that connects the airspace with the basement. The conduit hatch is located directly over the sumps in the maintenance area. Air is flowing to Suite 300 from the basement in this location.
The suite contains two industrial bread ovens and the occupancy is approximately 10. ∆P was measured between -0.0103 and -0.0169. This indicates that air flows into this suite.
Suite 350 – Flour Mill
This is a small section of Suite 300 that is on grade with no basement connection. This area is only used sporadically by 2 workers.
∆P measurements were not collected in this suite due to access issues on February 13, 2013.
3
Suite 400 – Warehouse
This suite is part of the original construction and contains a concrete floor on earth fill. The area contains many historic features, possibly sumps or floor scales.
Current occupancy is approximately 10.
∆P was measured between -0.0090 and -0.0137 in Suite 450. Suites 400, 430, and 450 are considered to be one continual space because of linked air space. The measurements indicate that air flows into this suite.
Suite 430 – Warehouse
This area is part of the 1968 construction and contains a concrete floor that is above grade between 10-15 feet. It was reported by the building owner that there is possibly a void space under this area of the building that has no entry point.
Current occupancy is approximately 7.
∆P was measured between -0.0090 and -0.0137 in Suite 450. The measurements indicate that air flows into this suite.
A spiral staircase located in the southwest corner of suite 430 connects with the maintenance area in the basement. This stairway is open and has upward air flow of 250-500 feet per minute. The door was 2-feet wide by 7-feet tall and represents approximately 3,500 to 7,000 cubic feet per minute of air flowing through this doorway. Penetrations in the wall of Suite 430 are linked to the high ceiling area of the maintenance garage and air is flowing into Suite 430.
Suite 450 – Warehouse
This area is part of the 1968 construction and contains a concrete floor that is above grade between 10-15 feet. It was reported by the building owner that there is possibly a void space under this area of the building that has no entry point.
Currently the occupancy is approximately 1-2.
∆P was measured between -0.0090 and -0.0137. The measurements indicate that air flows into this suite.
4
Suite 480 – Salt & Equipment Storage
This is a metal building addition that is not sealed from weather, not heated, and not intended for continual occupancy. This area is used to store salt, equipment, and large outdoor items.
∆P measurements were not collected in this suite because there is essentially no atmospheric difference between this unsealed and unheated suite and the exterior.
Suite 500 – Office Space
This suite covers portions of the original construction and 1968, 1970, and post-1970s additions. The building owner reported that a portion of this suite is potentially over a void space that has no entry. The void space size is unknown and was possibly filled.
The current tenant constructed a 6-inch high floating floor over the existing concrete floor to conceal wiring needed for current activities as a call center with approximately 400 workers. There are three riser rooms around the exterior of the suite with the original floor exposed. These rooms are vented to the exterior by a PVC floor drain in each room. At locations MP-4 and MP-5, the flooring was concrete and constructed on a gravel sub-base layer.
This suite is walled off from the remainder of the building with fire-rated sheet rock and observed penetrations have been sealed. ∆P was measured between -0.0117 and -0.0231 indicating that air flows to this suite.
Suite 600 – Small Technical Manufacturing Office
This suite was constructed during the 1968 addition. The floor of this suite is on grade and assumed to be concrete covered with floor tiles which were not removed for inspection.
The current occupancy is 3 and ∆P was measured between -0.0025 and -0.0047 indicating that air flows to this suite.
Suite 700 – Office Space
This suite was constructed during the 1968 addition. The floor is assumed to be concrete, but was covered with carpet which was not removed for inspection.
Occupancy is approximately 15 and ∆P was measured between -0.0130 and -0.0538 indicating that air flows to this suite.
5
Suite 800 – Office Space
This suite was part of the original construction. The floor is assumed to be concrete, but was covered with carpet which was not removed for inspection.
Occupancy is approximately 5 and ∆P measurements were not collected in this suite because the space is considered similar to Suites 700, 900, and 1000.
Suite 850 – Facility Maintenance Office
This suite was part of the original construction. The floor was covered with carpet which was not removed for inspection. There is a small section of this suite that overlies the basement.
Current occupancy is approximately 5 and ∆P measurements were not collected in this suite due to the distance to an exterior pathway for measurement.
Suite 900 – Office Space
This suite was part of the original construction. The floor is assumed to be concrete, but was covered with carpet which was not removed for inspection.
Occupancy is approximately 15 and ∆P was measured between -0.0082 and -0.0091. This indicates that air flows into this suite.
Suite 950 – Office Space
This suite was part of the original construction. The floor was covered with carpet which was not removed for inspection.
Occupancy varies and is generally 4-10. ∆P measurements of -0.0007 to 0.0000 were collected between this suite and the connecting hallway. This indicates that air flow between these areas is relatively stable.
Suite 1000 – Office Space
The suite is partially in the newest construction (post-1970) and partially in the original construction. The floor is assumed to be concrete, but was covered with carpet which was not removed for inspection.
Occupancy is approximately 80 and ∆P was measured between -0.0122 and -0.0143 indicating that air flows into this suite.
6
Suite 1100 – Currently Not Leased- Basement
This suite is in the basement of the original construction and abuts the maintenance area and the freight elevator. The suite also contains entry to a recessed plumbing chase for bathrooms.
The Suite is currently unoccupied and ∆P measurements of -0.0001 to 0.0002 were collected between this suite and the connecting hallway. This indicates that air flow between these areas is relatively stable; however, readings in the hallway were between -0.0100 and -0.0200. Both of these locations have air flowing to them.
Suite 1200 – Leased to be a Cafeteria- Basement
This suite is in the original construction of the basement and concrete flooring is covered by aged floor-tiles.
The Suite is currently unoccupied, but has been leased to be a cafeteria. ∆P was measured between -0.0200 and -0.0300.
Maintenance Area – Basement
The suite is partially in the original construction of the basement and includes newer construction for garage and chiller areas. Other features in this area include boilers, freight elevator, sumps, and many floor and trench drains. The floor of this area is concrete and over earth fill where observed.
The Suite is only occupied on an as-needed basis to complete work tasks.
∆P was measured between -0.0400 and -0.0500.
Appendix B
Sub-Slab Port Installation and Sampling
History for Asheville, NCWeek of December 9, 2012 through December 15, 2012
Week of December 9, 2012 through December 15, 2012
Page 1 of 2History | Weather Underground
1/9/2013http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KAVL/2012/12/13/WeeklyHistory.html
Daily Observations
2012 Temp. (°F) Dew Point (°F) Humidity (%) Sea Level Press. (in) Visibility (mi) Wind (mph) Precip. (in) Events
Dec high avg low high avg low high avg low high avg low high avg low high avg high sum
9 66 57 47 54 51 46 100 82 63 30.12 30.05 29.96 10 7 0 20 6 26 0.01 Fog , Rain
10 60 53 46 56 54 42 93 90 86 29.97 29.79 29.68 10 9 2 25 8 33 0.22 Rain
11 46 40 34 39 32 28 89 76 62 30.16 29.97 29.78 10 10 10 26 13 33 0.00
12 43 38 33 33 31 28 89 76 62 30.29 30.24 30.17 10 10 10 16 6 20 0.00
13 54 41 28 32 26 20 82 55 28 30.36 30.31 30.26 10 10 10 10 3 12 0.00
14 58 41 23 34 27 21 92 60 28 30.39 30.31 30.23 10 10 10 13 3 16 0.00
15 58 46 33 37 33 29 89 64 39 30.24 30.15 30.04 10 10 10 10 4 15 0.00
Comma Delimited File
Page 2 of 2History | Weather Underground
1/9/2013http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KAVL/2012/12/13/WeeklyHistory.html
weather.gov
Asheville Regional Airport
Enter Your "City, ST" or zip code Go metric en español
Date
Time(est)
Wind(mph)
Vis.(mi.) Weather Sky
Cond.
Temperature (ºF)RelativeHumidity
WindChill(°F)
HeatIndex(°F)
Pressure Precipitation (in.)
Air Dwpt6 hour altimeter
(in)
sea level(mb)
1 hr 3 hr 6 hrMax. Min.
14 09:54 N 5 10.00 Fair CLR 37 26 65% 33 NA 30.02 1017.2
14 08:54 N 7 10.00 Fair CLR 35 26 70% 29 NA 30.02 1017.3
14 07:54 N 6 10.00 Fair CLR 32 25 75% 26 NA 30.00 1016.6
14 06:54 NW 6 10.00 Overcast OVC024 31 26 35 31 82% 25 NA 29.97 1015.3
14 05:54 NW 7 10.00 Mostly Cloudy
BKN024 32 26 79% 25 NA 29.94 1014.3
14 04:54 N 14 G 21
10.00 Fair CLR 33 27 78% 23 NA 29.93 1013.6
14 03:54 N 14 G 25
10.00 Fair CLR 34 27 76% 25 NA 29.92 1012.9
14 02:54 N 12 G 16
10.00 A Few Clouds
FEW027 34 27 76% 25 NA 29.92 1013.2
14 01:54 N 9 G 20
10.00 Fair CLR 35 29 78% 28 NA 29.90 1012.7
14 00:54 N 10 G 18
10.00 Fair CLR 35 29 40 35 78% 27 NA 29.90 1012.8
13 23:54 N 13 10.00 Mostly Cloudy
BKN030 36 29 76% 27 NA 29.88 1012.3
13 22:54 N 9 10.00 A Few Clouds
FEW032 35 29 78% 28 NA 29.87 1011.7
13 21:54 N 13 G 23
10.00 Fair CLR 35 29 78% 26 NA 29.85 1011.3
13 20:54 N 12 G 24
10.00 A Few Clouds
FEW029 36 30 79% 28 NA 29.83 1010.3
13 19:54 N 14 10.00 A Few Clouds
FEW035 38 32 79% 30 NA 29.80 1009.3
13 18:54 N 14 G 20
10.00 Partly Cloudy
SCT040 40 34 55 40 79% 32 NA 29.78 1008.6
13 17:54 N 21 G 30
10.00 Partly Cloudy and Breezy
FEW036 SCT045
46 34 63% 38 NA 29.71 1005.7
13 16:54 NW 13 G 23
10.00 Fair CLR 51 36 56% NA NA 29.66 1003.9
13 15:54 NW 16 G 28
10.00 A Few Clouds
FEW050 54 35 49% NA NA 29.63 1002.8
13 14:54 SW 8 10.00 A Few Clouds
FEW016 48 43 83% 44 NA 29.64 1003.2
13 13:54 SE 5 10.00 Overcast OVC012 47 42 83% 45 NA 29.64 1003.4
Page 1 of 3National Weather Service : Observed Weather for past 3 Days : Asheville Regional Airport
2/14/2013http://w1.weather.gov/data/obhistory/KAVL.html
13 12:54 SE 6 10.00 Overcast OVC005 42 40 42 39 92% 38 NA 29.66 1004.4 0.01
13 11:54 SE 6 4.00 Fog/Mist BKN005 OVC009
40 39 97% 36 NA 29.71 1006.1 0.01
13 10:54 SE 5 2.00 Fog/Mist FEW005 OVC009
40 39 97% 36 NA 29.73 1006.8
13 09:54 SE 6 2.00 Fog/Mist BKN003 BKN008 OVC015
39 39 100% 35 NA 29.74 1007.1
13 08:54 S 6 2.00 Fog/Mist BKN003 OVC017
39 39 100% 35 NA 29.75 1007.6
13 07:54 S 5 2.00 Fog/Mist OVC003 39 38 96% 35 NA 29.78 1008.5
13 06:54 S 3 10.00 Overcast OVC011 39 38 40 39 96% NA NA 29.77 1007.7 0.05
13 05:54 SE 3 10.00 Overcast OVC013 39 38 96% NA NA 29.78 1008.2
13 04:54 SE 5 10.00 Overcast OVC019 39 38 96% 35 NA 29.80 1008.7
13 03:54 Calm 10.00 Overcast OVC027 39 38 96% NA NA 29.81 1009.0 0.05
13 02:54 Calm 10.00 Overcast OVC029 40 37 89% NA NA 29.84 1010.1
13 01:54 Calm 10.00 Light Rain
OVC037 39 38 96% NA NA 29.86 1010.8 0.05
13 00:54 W 3 4.00 Heavy Rain Fog/Mist
SCT055 OVC075
39 38 48 39 96% NA NA 29.91 1012.6 0.16 0.24
12 23:54 SW 3 8.00 Light Rain
FEW040 SCT055 OVC080
40 38 93% NA NA 29.94 1013.6 0.02
12 22:54 Calm 10.00 Overcast OVC065 41 38 89% NA NA 29.94 1013.6
12 21:54 N 3 10.00 Overcast OVC070 41 36 82% NA NA 29.98 1015.2 0.06
12 20:54 N 9 10.00 Light Rain
BKN044 OVC055
42 38 85% 37 NA 30.00 1015.8 0.04
12 19:54 Calm 10.00 Light Rain
OVC050 42 37 82% NA NA 29.99 1015.5 0.02
12 18:54 W 5 10.00 Overcast BKN070 OVC095
48 25 52 47 41% 46 NA 29.95 1014.1
12 17:54 Calm 10.00 Overcast BKN080 OVC100
49 24 38% NA NA 29.94 1013.5
12 16:54 N 5 10.00 Overcast BKN075 OVC090
50 24 36% 48 NA 29.99 1015.3
12 15:54 N 6 10.00 Partly Cloudy
SCT110 52 23 32% NA NA 30.03 1016.4
12 14:54 Calm 10.00 Fair CLR 52 23 32% NA NA 30.01 1015.7
12 13:54 N 5 10.00 Fair CLR 52 23 32% NA NA 30.03 1016.6
12 12:54 NW 6 10.00 Fair CLR 51 23 51 40 33% NA NA 30.05 1017.1
12 11:54 N 8 10.00 Fair CLR 50 23 35% 47 NA 30.07 1017.6
12 10:54 N 14 G 18
10.00 Fair CLR 47 23 39% 41 NA 30.09 1018.4
12 09:54 N 26 G 31
10.00 Fair and Windy
CLR 44 24 45% 35 NA 30.10 1019.0
12 08:54 N 15 G 26
10.00 Fair CLR 42 23 47% 34 NA 30.10 1018.9
12 07:54 N 15 G 24
10.00 Fair CLR 40 23 51% 32 NA 30.10 1019.1
12 06:54 N 13 10.00 Fair CLR 40 23 45 40 51% 32 NA 30.07 1017.8
Page 2 of 3National Weather Service : Observed Weather for past 3 Days : Asheville Regional Airport
2/14/2013http://w1.weather.gov/data/obhistory/KAVL.html
G 23
12 05:54 N 13 G 22
10.00 Fair CLR 41 23 49% 34 NA 30.07 1017.7
12 04:54 N 15 G 22
10.00 Fair CLR 41 23 49% 33 NA 30.07 1017.8
12 03:54 N 15 G 23
10.00 Fair CLR 42 24 49% 34 NA 30.06 1017.4
12 02:54 N 15 G 24
10.00 Fair CLR 43 26 51% 36 NA 30.07 1017.7
12 01:54 NW 10
10.00 Fair CLR 44 30 58% 39 NA 30.06 1017.2
12 00:54 NW 7 10.00 Fair CLR 45 28 52 45 52% 41 NA 30.05 1016.7
11 23:54 N 7 10.00 Fair CLR 47 30 52% 44 NA 30.05 1016.6
11 22:54 N 6 10.00 Fair CLR 48 30 50% 45 NA 30.05 1016.7
11 21:54 Calm 10.00 Fair CLR 48 32 54% NA NA 30.06 1017.0
11 20:54 N 5 10.00 Fair CLR 49 34 56% 47 NA 30.04 1016.7
11 19:54 N 3 10.00 Fair CLR 50 36 59% NA NA 30.04 1016.5
11 18:54 N 3 10.00 Fair CLR 51 37 58 51 59% NA NA 30.03 1016.2
11 17:54 N 5 10.00 Fair CLR 54 35 49% NA NA 30.01 1015.3
11 16:54 NW 7 G 18
10.00 Fair CLR 57 32 39% NA NA 30.01 1015.2
11 15:54 Calm 10.00 Fair CLR 57 50 78% NA NA 30.00 1015.0
11 14:54 Calm 10.00 Fair CLR 57 50 78% NA NA 30.00 1015.1
11 13:54 N 9 10.00 Overcast FEW016 BKN031 OVC110
56 51 84% NA NA 30.02 1015.8
11 12:54 NW 3 10.00 Mostly Cloudy
BKN025 58 53 59 49 84% NA NA 30.01 1015.2
11 11:54 N 3 10.00 Overcast BKN009 OVC047
57 52 83% NA NA 30.05 1016.9
11 10:54 Calm 10.00 Mostly Cloudy
SCT009 SCT047 BKN055
56 52 87% NA NA 30.05 1016.9
Date
Time(est)
Wind(mph)
Vis.(mi.) Weather Sky
Cond.Air Dwpt
Max. Min.RelativeHumidity
WindChill(°F)
HeatIndex(°F)
altimeter(in.)
sea level(mb)
1 hr 3 hr 6 hr6 hour
Temperature (ºF) Pressure Precipitation (in.)
National Weather ServiceSouthern Region HeadquartersFort Worth, TexasDisclaimer
Back to previous page Last Modified: Febuary, 7 2012Privacy Policy
Credits
Page 3 of 3National Weather Service : Observed Weather for past 3 Days : Asheville Regional Airport
2/14/2013http://w1.weather.gov/data/obhistory/KAVL.html
Appendix C
Documentation of Field Work Related to Wells MW-20D and MW-26
Date Start/Finish:
Stratigraphic DescriptionWell/BoringConstruction
Descriptions By:
Casing Elevation:Easting:
Surface Elevation:Borehole Depth:
Well/Boring ID:
Client:
Location:
Northing:Drilling Company:Driller's Name:Drilling Method:Sampling Method:
DE
PTH
ELE
VA
TIO
N
US
CS
Cod
e
Geo
logi
c C
olum
n
Sam
ple/
Int/T
ype
Blo
w C
ount
sRig Type:Auger/Bit Size:
Rec
over
y In
ches
PID
Hea
dspa
ce (p
pm)
Project: Template:
Remarks:
Data File: Date: 2/26/2013Page: 1 of 1
0
-5
-10
-15
-20
-25
-30
-35
-40
-45
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Former Square D Asheville FacilityBoard of Education Property175 Bingham RoadAsheville, NC
Adam Dostler
10-10-12/10-10-12GeoLab
--
46 feet bgs
R. Hall
MW-26Schneider Electric
----
--Split Spoon
Hollow Stem Auger and Air Rotary
CME-55HSA - 8.25 in, Air Rotary - 4.25 in
B0006476.0008(MW-26).dat
G:\COMMON\LogPlot Shared Files\Log Plot 2005 Templates\boring_well2005.ldfJ. Franz
ft bgs: feet below ground surfacePID: Photo Ionization Detectorppm: parts per million--: Not applicable/not availablePVC: Polyvinyl Chloride
Asphalt and gravel FILL
Sandy SILT, trace clay, trace fine gravel, micaceous, loose, dry, black, brown, noodor, likely saprolite
Hand Auger 0-5 feet
Highly weathered rock, sandy, dense, dry, micaceous, no odor
Sandy SILT, trace clay, trace fine gravel, micaceous, loose, dry, black, brown, noodor, likely saprolite
Partially weathered rock, quartz bearing, micaceous, brown, black, orange, no odor
At 29 feet: Hollow stem auger refusal/switch to air rotary
Highly weathered rock 33 to 37 feet.
Return to partially weathered rock at 37 feet.
Highly weathered rock 39 to 40.5 feet.
Return to partially weathered rock at 40.5 feet.
Highly weathered rock 43 to 44 feet.
Return to partially weathered rock at 44 feet.
2,6,4,7
3,7,5,6
6,12,19,14
9,19,50/5
10,24,18,28
12,12,12,13
17,50/5
60
24
24
24
24
24
24
12
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
ML
SP
ML
SP
SP
SP
Cement Pad
Flush MountProtectiveCasing
Portland Cement(0-22' bgs)
2" Sch 40 PVCRiser (0-26' bgs)
Bentonite (22-24'bgs)
2" Sch 40 PVC0.01" Slot Screen(26-46' bgs)
#2 Sand Pack(24-46' bgs)
Groundwater Sample Log Page 1 of 1
Project No. B0006476.0007.0002 Well ID MW-20D Date
Project Name/Location Square D Asheville/ BCBOE Property Weather
Measuring Pt. Screen Casing Well Material X PVC
Description Setting (ft-bmp) Diameter (in.) 6 SS
OtherStatic Water
Total Depth (ft-bmp) 195 Level (ft-bmp) 65.66 Water Column in Well 129.34 Gallons in Well 190
Calc.Gallons Purged 250 Pump Intake (ft-bmp) 185 Purge Method: SamplePDB Method
Gallons Purged 250 MP Elevation Submersible X
Disp. Bailer Pump On/Off 1411/1430Sample Time: Label 1500 Replicate/ Peristaltic
Code No. Sampled Dave Twamley
by
Time Minutes Gallons Depth to Temp. Dissolved ORPElapsed Purged Water (ft) (oC) Oxygen pH (mV) Comments
TOC (oF) (mg/L) Color Odor
1411 0 0 65.66 Begin Purge
1425 14 182 16.98 141 3.3 6.24 -10.6 clear 8.71 turb
1430 19 ~250 113.5 End Purge
1500 30 72.5 Sample
Constituents Sampled Container Number Preservative
VOCs (8260) 40 ml 3 HCl
Well Information
BCBOE Property Yes /
Paved over at start, well intact, rebuilt surface completion Yes /
Flush Mount /
NOTES: Purge water was transferred to Square D pump and treat system.
Samples shipped to Pace Labs for analysis via FEDEX overnight.
GW Sample log transcribed by Robert Hall from Dave Twamley field notes.
Well Casing Volumes
Gallons/Foot 1" = 0.04 1.5" = 0.09 2.5" = 0.26 3.5" = 0.50 6" = 1.47
1.25" = 0.06 2" = 0.16 3" = 0.37 4" = 0.65
ARCADIS
8/8/2012
TOC
Bailer
Cond. Appearance
Well Completion: Key Number To Well:
(µmhos)(uS/cm)
Well Location: Well Locked at Arrival:
Condition of Well: Well Locked at Departure:
Appendix D
Investigation-Derived Waste Documentation
Appendix E
Screening Evaluation of Former Plant 1 Groundwater and Sub-Slab Data
1
Appendix E – Screening Evaluation of Former Plant 1 Groundwater and Sub-slab Data
Introduction
This appendix describes the approach used to evaluate potential exposure to vapors migrating from the subsurface into the former Plant 1 building at the former Square D facility located at 128 Bingham Road in Asheville, North Carolina. Groundwater samples collected during the May 2012 sampling event were used to evaluate the potential for vapor migration. Additionally, sub-slab soil vapor sampling was conducted and these data were also evaluated for possible vapor migration into buildings. The approach used to evaluate these data is outlined below.
Groundwater Evaluation
The groundwater data collected during the May 2012 sampling event were reviewed and compared to the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) vapor intrusion screening levels. The purpose was to evaluate the potential for vapor migration from groundwater into buildings at the former Plant 1. The approach used is outlined below.
Saprolite and bedrock monitoring wells were sampled on May 30 and 31, 2012. The maximum constituent concentrations in wells within 100 feet of the Plant 1 building were detected in saprolite monitoring well MW-15. The vapor migration pathway for Plant 1 was evaluated using only the monitoring well MW-15 data and then also using the maximum detected concentrations for all constituents in the monitoring wells within 100 feet of the Plant 1 building. Monitoring well MW-15 was selected because this well has the majority of the elevated constituent concentrations. The screening level comparison was also performed using the maximum detected concentrations from all of the wells sampled in May 2012.
DENR vapor intrusion screening levels were derived based on a target excess lifetime cancer risk (ELCR) of 1×10-5 and a non-cancer hazard quotient (HQ) of 0.2. DENR selected the lower of the two concentrations (if a constituent has both cancer and non-cancer toxicity values) as their screening level. To calculate the constituent-specific ELCR or the non-cancer HQ, the following equations were used:
ELCR = (Cgw × 1×10-5)/ SL
HQ = (Cgw × 0.2)/ SL
Where: ELCR = excess lifetime cancer risk HQ = hazard quotient Cgw = groundwater concentration SL = DENR screening level
2
The constituent-specific ELCRs were then summed to obtain a cumulative or total ELCR. Likewise, the constituent-specific HQs were summed to obtain a cumulative hazard index (HI). The cumulative ELCR was compared to the DENR and United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) target risk range of 1×10-4 to 1×10-6 and the cumulative HI was compared to DENR and USEPA target HI of 1.
Table 1 presents the comparison of groundwater concentrations measured at monitoring well MW-15 to the DENR industrial vapor intrusion groundwater screening levels and the calculations of both constituent-specific ELCRs and HQs and the cumulative ELCR and HI. The majority of the non-cancer contribution was from trichloroethane while the majority of the cancer risk was from chloroform. Using data from monitoring well MW-15, the total ELCR was calculated to be 7×10-7 which is well below the target ELCR of 1×10-4, and the HI was calculated to be 14 which is greater than the benchmark of 1. The non-cancer driver was trichloroethene whose constituent-specific HQ was 13. None of the other constituent-specific HQs were greater than 1 which is also the total HI used by DENR for decision making.
Table 2 presents the comparison of maximum groundwater concentrations in the vicinity of buildings to the DENR industrial vapor intrusion groundwater screening levels and the calculations of both constituent-specific ELCRs and HQs and the cumulative ELCR and HI. The maximum detected concentration of chloroform was greater in monitoring well MW-12. The constituent-specific ELCR for chloroform was 3×10-6 (which was also equal to the total cumulative ELCR) which is below the target ELCR of 1×10-4 (Table 2). As seen in Table 2, the total HI for exposure to vapors migrating from groundwater under an industrial scenario was calculated to be 14, greater than the DENR and USEPA benchmark of 1.
The results of the screening level vapor intrusion evaluation indicated that the concentrations of trichloroethene were above the screening levels and were found to be the major contributor to the elevated HI. The ELCRs were below the benchmark. It should be noted that both trichloroethene and tetrachloroethene are considered to be carcinogenic by USEPA. However, screening levels were not available to calculate ELCRs for these constituents because the non-cancer screening level was lower than the cancer screening level. Therefore, if a risk assessment were performed, the total ELCR could be greater than that presented herein.
Sub-Slab Soil Gas Evaluation
Sub-slab soil gas data were collected in December 2012 and February 2013, as discussed in the main body of the document. As seen in Table 3, the DENR screening concentrations were exceeded in three locations, MP-1, MP-3, and MP-6 at former Plant 1 during both sampling rounds. Therefore, a more detailed evaluation was conducted to evaluate potential exposures of individuals working in the buildings at the former Plant 1. All of the buildings in the area of the former Plant 1 are used for nonresidential purposes. Therefore, the only potential receptor or potentially exposed population is a site worker.
3
Exposure Assessment
The purpose of the exposure assessment is to estimate the ways a population may potentially be exposed to constituents at the Site. The exposure assessment includes characterization of the physical environment, identification of exposure pathways (including migration pathways, exposure points, and exposure routes), and identification of potentially exposed individuals and populations. The exposure assessment typically involves projecting concentrations along potential pathways between sources and receptors. The projection usually is accomplished using site-specific data and, when necessary, mathematical modeling. Exposure can occur only when the potential exists for a receptor to directly contact released constituents or when there is a mechanism for released constituents to be transported to a receptor.
The sub-slab soil gas concentrations were used with an attenuation factor of 0.03 to account for attenuation from the subsurface through the foundation and into the building. This attenuation factor is a conservative estimate used by USEPA to calculate screening levels (USEPA 2013a). This attenuation factor was used to modify the measured sub-slab soil gas concentrations to calculate an indoor air exposure point concentration.
The equations used to evaluate site worker exposure to constituents migrating from the subsurface into buildings from each of the sampling points, are presented in Table 4. The exposure assumptions used in the evaluation are included on Table 5.
Toxicity Assessment
There are two general categories of toxic effects (non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic) and constituent-specific toxicity values used to calculate potential risks for these two types of toxic effects. Toxicity values for potential non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic effects are available for arsenic from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) (USEPA 2013b). The inhalation toxicity values used in this evaluation are included in Table 6.
Risk Characterization
Risk characterization is the integration of the results of the exposure assessment and toxicity assessment to yield a quantitative measure of excess lifetime cancer risk and non-cancer hazard. Potential risks to human health are evaluated quantitatively by combining calculated exposure levels and toxicity data. A distinction is made between non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic endpoints, and two general criteria are used to describe the hazard quotient (HQ) for non-carcinogenic effects and ELCR for constituents evaluated as human carcinogens.
4
Hazard Quotient for Non-Cancer Hazard
Exposure doses are averaged over the expected exposure period to evaluate non-carcinogenic effects. The HQ is the ratio of the estimated exposure dose and the reference concentration (RfC). Thus, an HQ greater than 1 indicates that the estimated exposure level for that constituent exceeds the RfC. This ratio does not provide the probability of an adverse effect. Although an HQ less than 1 indicates that health effects should not occur, an HQ that exceeds 1 does not imply that health effects will occur, but that health effects are possible. The USEPA and DENR consider HQs at or equal to one as potentially acceptable non-cancer hazards (USEPA 1989; DENR 2011).
ELCR
The ELCR is an estimate of the potential increased risk of cancer that results from lifetime exposure, at specified average daily dosages, to constituents detected in media at the site. Estimated doses or intakes for each constituent are averaged over the hypothesized lifetime of 70 years. It is assumed that a large dose received over a short period is equivalent to a smaller dose received over a longer period, as long as the total doses are equal. The ELCR is calculated as the product of the exposure dose and the IUR. When evaluating potential individual cancer risks, USEPA has established an acceptable risk range of 1 in 1,000,000 (1×10-6) to 1 in 10,000 (1×10-4) (USEPA 1989). In establishing this range, USEPA accepted the policy that a risk range, rather than a single risk value, adequately protects public health.
Risk Characterization Results
Exposure to vapors migrating into the buildings was evaluated using both the December 2012 and February 2013 data. The tables for each location and each sampling event are presented in Tables 7 through 18. Table 19 presents a summary of the results. With the exception of sampling point MP-3, all of the ELCRs were less than the benchmark of 1×10-6. The non-cancer HIs were less than the benchmark of 1 for all sampling locations and events with the exception of MP-3 in February 2013. The results indicate that further evaluation at MP-3 at the former Plant 1 is warranted.
5
References
NCDENR, Inactive Hazardous Sites Branch, 2011. Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Structural Vapor Intrusion Potential for Site Assessments and Remedial Actions under the Inactive Hazardous Sites Branch, June 21, 2011.
USEPA. 2013a. OSWER Final Guidance for Assessment and Mitigating the Vapor Intrusion Pathway from Subsurface Sources to Indoor Air (External Review Draft). 11 April. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/oswer/vaporintrusion/documents/vaporIntrusion-final-guidance-20130411-reviewdraft.pdf
USEPA. 2013b. Integrated Risk Information System. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/iris
USEPA. 2002. Supplemental Guidance for Developing Soil Screening Levels for Superfund Sites. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC. OSWER 9355.4-24. December.
USEPA. 1991. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual. Supplemental Guidance. Standard Default Exposure Factors. Interim Final. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC. OSWER Directive 9285.6-03. March 25.
USEPA. 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Human Health Evaluation Manual, Volume 1, Part A. Interim Final. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC. EPA/540/1-89/002. December.
Tables
1 Assessment of Cumulative Risk Under an Industrial Scenario from Vapor Intrusion due to Constituents in Groundwater Measured at Monitoring Well MW 15
2 Assessment of Cumulative Risk Under an Industrial Scenario from Vapor Intrusion due to Constituents in Groundwater in Site Vicinity
3 Results of Sub-Slab Vapor Sampling
4 Risk and Hazard Equations for Exposure to Air
5 Receptor Exposure Parameters
6 Toxicity Values
7 Risk and Hazard Calculations for a Hypothetical Site Worker Receptor for Exposure to Vapors in Indoor Air, Sample Location MP-1, December 2012 Sampling Data
6
8 Risk and Hazard Calculations for a Hypothetical Site Worker Receptor for Exposure to Vapors in Indoor Air, Sample Location MP-2, December 2012 Sampling Data
9 Risk and Hazard Calculations for a Hypothetical Site Worker Receptor for Exposure to Vapors in Indoor Air, Sample Location MP-3, December 2012 Sampling Data
10 Risk and Hazard Calculations for a Hypothetical Site Worker Receptor for Exposure to Vapors in Indoor Air, Sample Location MP-4, December 2012 Sampling Data
11 Risk and Hazard Calculations for a Hypothetical Site Worker Receptor for Exposure to Vapors in Indoor Air, Sample Location MP-5, December 2012 Sampling Data
12 Risk and Hazard Calculations for a Hypothetical Site Worker Receptor for Exposure to Vapors in Indoor Air, Sample Location MP-6, December 2012 Sampling Data
13 Risk and Hazard Calculations for a Hypothetical Site Worker Receptor for Exposure to Vapors in Indoor Air, Sample Location MP-1, February 2013 Sampling Data
14 Risk and Hazard Calculations for a Hypothetical Site Worker Receptor for Exposure to Vapors in Indoor Air, Sample Location MP-2, February 2013 Sampling Data
15 Risk and Hazard Calculations for a Hypothetical Site Worker Receptor for Exposure to Vapors in Indoor Air, Sample Location MP-3, February 2013 Sampling Data
16 Risk and Hazard Calculations for a Hypothetical Site Worker Receptor for Exposure to Vapors in Indoor Air, Sample Location MP-4, February 2013 Sampling Data
17 Risk and Hazard Calculations for a Hypothetical Site Worker Receptor for Exposure to Vapors in Indoor Air, Sample Location MP-5, February 2013 Sampling Data
18 Risk and Hazard Calculations for a Hypothetical Site Worker Receptor for Exposure to Vapors in Indoor Air, Sample Location MP-6, February 2013 Sampling Data
19 Summary of Calculated Human Health Risks and Hazards
Table 1Assessment of Cumulative Risk Under an Industrial Scenario
from Vapor Intrusion due to Constituents in Groundwater Measured at Monitoring Well MW 15Former Square D Company Site
Asheville, North Carolina
Industrial Vapor Intrusion Excess LifetimeAnalyte
Concentration [a]
[b] Cancer Risk [c] Hazard Quotient [d]
Concentration at MW-15 [a] (TCR=1E-5, THI =0.2) (ELCR) (HQ)(µg/L) (µg/L) basis
Tetrachloroethene (PCE) 123 4.9E+01 n NA 0.5 4%Trichloroethene (TCE) 287 4.4E+00 n NA 13 96%cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 11.7 NA NA NA1,1-Dichloroethene 2.2 1.6E+02 n NA 0.003 <0.1%1,1-Dichloroethane 1.5 3.3E+02 c 4.5E-08 6% NAChloroform 2.3 3.5E+01 c 6.6E-07 94% NA
Total / Cumulative ELCR 7E-07 HI 14
HI Hazard IndexNA Not ApplicableTCR Target Cancer RiskTHI Target Hazard Indexµg/L micrograms per liter
[a] May 30, 2012 sample.[b] North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DNER), Inactive Hazardous Sites Branch (IHSB) screening levels.
February 2012 version. Available at: http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wm/sf/ihs/ihsguideScreening levels are based one either noncancer effects (n) or cancer effects (c) as indicated.
[c] Cancer risks calculated by dividing the concentration by the IHSB based on cancer effects and multiplying by 1E-05.[d] Noncancer hazards calculated by dividing the concentration by the IHSB based on noncancer effects and multiplying by 0.2.
Site Vicinity Location Excess Lifetime Concentration [a] of Cancer Risk [c] Hazard Quotient [d]
Constituent Concentration [a] Maximum (ELCR) (HQ)(µg/L) Concentration (µg/L) basis
Tetrachloroethene (PCE) 123 MW-15 4.9E+01 n NA 0.50 4%Trichloroethene (TCE) 287 MW-15 4.4E+00 n NA 13 96%cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 11.7 MW-15 NA NA NA1,1-Dichloroethene 2.2 MW-15 1.6E+02 n NA 0.0028 <0.1%1,1-Dichloroethane 1.5 MW-15 3.3E+02 c 4.5E-08 2% NAChloroform 8.8 MW-12 3.5E+01 c 2.5E-06 98% NA
Total / Cumulative ELCR 3E-06 HI 14
HI Hazard IndexNA Not ApplicableTCR Target Cancer RiskTHI Target Hazard Indexµg/L micrograms per liter
[a] Maximum concentration detected in samples from May 2012 near a building.[b] North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DNER), Inactive Hazardous Sites Branch (IHSB) screening levels.
July 2012 version. Available at: http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wm/sf/ihs/ihsguideScreening levels are based one either noncancer effects (n) or cancer effects (c) as indicated.
[c] Cancer risks calculated by dividing the concentration by the IHSB based on cancer effects and multiplying by 1E-05.[d] Noncancer hazards calculated by dividing the concentration by the IHSB based on noncancer effects and multiplying by 0.2.
Groundwater Screening Level [b] (TCR=1E-5, THI =0.2)
Table 2Assessment of Cumulative Risk Under an Industrial Scenario
from Vapor Intrusion due to Constituents in Groundwater in Site VicinityFormer Square D Company Site
Asheville, North Carolina
Industrial Vapor Intrusion
IHSB Industrial/Commercial
Vapor Intrusion Screening
Concentrations (µg/m3)
Location of Sample:
Business Operation:
Sample Collection Date: 12/13/12 2/13/13 12/13/12 2/13/13 12/13/12 2/13/13 12/13/12 2/13/13 12/13/12 2/13/13 12/13/12 2/13/13
Ambient air (ppb) -- 815 2,200 934 1078 0 0 0 0 0 0 242 227Purged air (ppb) -- 0 296 0 460 50 56 0 0 0 22 386 327
Tetrachloroethene 350 75 150 140 130 440/420 820/220 16 18 18 27 500 360Trichloroethene 17.6 130 110 < 6.5 < 6.4 240/240 440/120 < 7.1 < 6.6 < 7.1 < 6.5 60 23cis-1,2-Dichloroethene Not Established < 4.8 < 4.7 < 4.8 < 4.7 < 4.7/< 4.7 < 4.4/< 4.1 < 5.2 < 4.9 < 5.2 < 4.8 < 4.9 < 4.6Vinyl chloride 280 < 3.1 < 3.0 < 3.1 < 3.0 < 3.0/< 3.0 < 2.9/< 2.7 < 3.4 < 3.2 < 3.4 < 3.1 < 3.2 < 3.0Notes:All sub-slab vapor samples analyzed by AirToxics laboratory using EPA Method TO-15.Results compared to the Preliminary Acceptable Soil Gas Concentrations- IHSB Industrial/Commercial Vapor Intrusion Screening Table, July 2012. Shading indicates values above screening levels* = Shared functional space with Aprotech.< = Indicates non-detect at the reporting limit shown.Aprotech = Aprotech Powertrain LLC.µg/m3
= micrograms per cubic meter.
ppb = parts per billionAmbient air readings collected by PID during sample collectionPurge air readings collected by PID during monitoring point purging
Table 3Results of Sub-Slab Vapor Sampling
Former Square D Company SiteAsheville, North Carolina
MP-6
Suite 100 Suite 200 Basement Suite 500 Suite 500 Suite 400
MP-1 MP-2 MP-3 MP-4 MP-5
PID Screening Results:
Sub-Slab Vapor Analytical Results (µg/m3)
Aprotech Warehouse - Multiple* Building Storage Area Veterans Administration- Warehouse
Veterans Administration- Riser Room All Fun Gifts- Warehouse
CANCER RISK:
EPCair × ET × CF2 × EF × ED × IUR
NON-CANCER HAZARD:
EPCair × CF1 × ET × CF2 × EF × ED
Variable Definitions:ATC Averaging time for cancer effects (days) (Table 5).
ATNC Averaging time for non-cancer effects (days) (Table 5).
BW Body weight (kg) (Table 5).CF1 Conversion Factor 0.001 mg/µg.CF2 Conversion Factor 0.042 day/hour.ED Exposure duration (years) (Table 5).EF Exposure frequency (days/year) (Table 5).ELCR Excess lifetime cancer risk (unitless).EPCair Exposure point concentration in air (µg/m³).HQ Hazard quotient for non-cancer hazard (unitless).IUR Inhalation Unit Risk (m³/µg) (Table 6).RfC Reference concentration (mg/m³) (Table 6).
HQ =ATNC × RfC
Table 4Risk and Hazard Equations for Exposure to Air
Former Square D FacilityAsheville, North Carolina
ELCR =ATC
Table 5Receptor Exposure Parameters
Former Square D FacilityAsheville, North Carolina
SiteParameter Symbol Units Worker [ref]
General FactorsAveraging Time (cancer) ATc days 25,550 [1,2,a]Averaging Time (noncancer) ATnc days 9,125 [1,2,a]Body Weight BW kg 70 [1,2]Exposure Frequency EF weeks/year 52 [1,2]Exposure Frequency EF days/year 250 [3]Exposure Duration ED years 25 [1,2]
InhalationExposure Time ET hour/day 8 [b]Conversion Factor CF day/hour 0.042
References [ref]:[1] USEPA 1989[2] USEPA 1991[3] USEPA 2002
[a] The averaging time for cancer risk is the expected lifespan of 70 years expressed in days. The averaging time for non-cancer hazard is the total exposure duration (ED) expressed in days.
[b] Site worker assumed to be at work 8 hours each working day.
city, state
Table 6Toxicity Values
Former Square D FacilityAsheville, North Carolina
Constituent
value [ref] value [ref]Volatile Organic Compoundscis-1,2-Dichloroethene NA NATetrachloroethene 4.0E-02 I 2.6E-07 ITrichloroethene 2.0E-03 I 4.1E-06 IVinyl chloride 1.0E-01 I 4.4E-06 I
Reference [ref]:I USEPA, Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) (USEPA 2013b).
mg/m3 Milligrams per cubic meter.(µg/m3)-1 Inverse micrograms per cubic meter.
city, state
Inhalation Unit Risk (µg/m3)-1 Inhalation RfC (mg/m3)
Table 7Risk and Hazard Calculations for a Hypothetical Site Worker Receptor for Exposure to Vapors in Indoor Air
Sample Location MP-1, December 2012 Sampling DataFormer Square D FacilityAsheville, North Carolina
Subslab Attenuation Percent PercentConcentration Factor EPCair IUR Calculated Total RfC Calculated Total
Constituent (µg/m3) (USEPA 2013a) (µg/m3) (µg/m3)-1 Risk ELCR (mg/m3) Hazard HI
ELCRi HQiVolatile Organic Compoundscis-1,2-Dichloroethene < 4.8 0.03 NA NA NA NA NATetrachloroethene 75 0.03 2.3 2.60E-07 4.8E-08 4% 4.0E-02 1.3E-02 3%Trichloroethene 130 0.03 3.9 4.10E-06 1.3E-06 96% 2.0E-03 4.5E-01 97%Vinyl chloride < 3.1 0.03 NA 4.40E-03 NA 1.0E-01 NA
Total ELCR 1E-06 100% Total HI 0.5 100%
IUR Inhalation unit risk. µg/m³ Micrograms per cubic meter.ELCR Excess lifetime cancer risk. mg/m³ Milligrams per cubic meter.EPCair Calculated exposure point concentration in indoor air (sub-slab concentration × attenuation factor). NA Not available.HI Hazard index (sum of the HQs). RfC Inhalation reference concentration.HQ Hazard quotient for non-cancer effects.
Equations: (see Table 4).ELCRi = (EPCair × 8 × 0.042 × 250 × 25 × IUR ) / (25,550) HQi = (EPCair × 0.001 x 8 × 0.042 × 250 × 25) / (9,125 × RfC)
CANCER RISK NON-CANCER HAZARD
Risk and Hazard Calculations for a Hypothetical Site Worker Receptor for Exposure to Vapors in Indoor AirSample Location MP-2, December 2012 Sampling Data
Former Square D FacilityAsheville, North Carolina
Subslab Attenuation Percent PercentConcentration Factor EPCair IUR Calculated Total RfC Calculated Total
Constituent (µg/m3) (USEPA 2013a) (µg/m3) (µg/m3)-1 Risk ELCR (mg/m3) Hazard HI
ELCRi HQiVolatile Organic Compoundscis-1,2-Dichloroethene < 4.8 0.03 NA NA NA NA NATetrachloroethene 140 0.03 4.20 2.60E-07 8.9E-08 100% 4.0E-02 2.4E-02 100%Trichloroethene < 6.5 0.03 NA 4.10E-06 NA 2.0E-03 NAVinyl chloride < 3.1 0.03 NA 4.40E-03 NA 1.0E-01 NA
Total ELCR 9E-08 100% Total HI 0.02 100%
IUR Inhalation unit risk. µg/m³ Micrograms per cubic meter.ELCR Excess lifetime cancer risk. mg/m³ Milligrams per cubic meter.EPCair Calculated exposure point concentration in indoor air. NA Not available.HI Hazard index (sum of the HQs). RfC Inhalation reference concentration.HQ Hazard quotient for non-cancer effects.
Equations: (see Table 4).ELCRi = (EPCair × 8 × 0.042 × 250 × 25 × IUR ) / (25,550) HQi = (EPCair × 0.001 x 8 × 0.042 × 250 × 25) / (9,125 × RfC)
CANCER RISK NON-CANCER HAZARD
Table 8
Table 9Risk and Hazard Calculations for a Hypothetical Site Worker Receptor for Exposure to Vapors in Indoor Air
Sample Location MP-3, December 2012 Sampling DataFormer Square D FacilityAsheville, North Carolina
Subslab Attenuation Percent PercentConcentration Factor EPCair IUR Calculated Total RfC Calculated Total
Constituent (µg/m3) (USEPA 2013a) (µg/m3) (µg/m3)-1 Risk ELCR (mg/m3) Hazard HI
ELCRi HQiVolatile Organic Compoundscis-1,2-Dichloroethene < 4.7 0.03 NA NA NA NA NATetrachloroethene 440 0.03 13.2 2.60E-07 2.8E-07 10% 4.0E-02 7.5E-02 8%Trichloroethene 240 0.03 7.2 4.10E-06 2.4E-06 90% 2.0E-03 8.2E-01 92%Vinyl chloride < 3.0 0.03 NA 4.40E-03 NA 1.0E-01 NA
Total ELCR 3E-06 100% Total HI 1 100%
IUR Inhalation unit risk. µg/m³ Micrograms per cubic meter.ELCR Excess lifetime cancer risk. mg/m³ Milligrams per cubic meter.EPCair Calculated exposure point concentration in indoor air. NA Not available.HI Hazard index (sum of the HQs). RfC Inhalation reference concentration.HQ Hazard quotient for non-cancer effects.
Equations: (see Table 4).ELCRi = (EPCair × 8 × 0.042 × 250 × 25 × IUR ) / (25,550) HQi = (EPCair × 0.001 x 8 × 0.042 × 250 × 25) / (9,125 × RfC)
CANCER RISK NON-CANCER HAZARD
Risk and Hazard Calculations for a Hypothetical Site Worker Receptor for Exposure to Vapors in Indoor AirSample Location MP-4, December 2012 Sampling Data
Former Square D FacilityAsheville, North Carolina
Subslab Attenuation Percent PercentConcentration Factor EPCair IUR Calculated Total RfC Calculated Total
Constituent (µg/m3) (USEPA 2013a) (µg/m3) (µg/m3)-1 Risk ELCR (mg/m3) Hazard HI
ELCRi HQiVolatile Organic Compoundscis-1,2-Dichloroethene < 5.2 0.03 NA NA NA NA NATetrachloroethene 16 0.03 0.48 2.60E-07 1.0E-08 100% 4.0E-02 2.7E-03 100%Trichloroethene < 7.1 0.03 NA 4.10E-06 NA 2.0E-03 NAVinyl chloride < 3.4 0.03 NA 4.40E-03 NA 1.0E-01 NA
Total ELCR 1E-08 100% Total HI 0.003 100%
IUR Inhalation unit risk. µg/m³ Micrograms per cubic meter.ELCR Excess lifetime cancer risk. mg/m³ Milligrams per cubic meter.EPCair Calculated exposure point concentration in indoor air. NA Not available.HI Hazard index (sum of the HQs). RfC Inhalation reference concentration.HQ Hazard quotient for non-cancer effects.
Equations: (see Table 4).ELCRi = (EPCair × 8 × 0.042 × 250 × 25 × IUR ) / (25,550) HQi = (EPCair × 0.001 x 8 × 0.042 × 250 × 25) / (9,125 × RfC)
CANCER RISK NON-CANCER HAZARD
Table 10
Risk and Hazard Calculations for a Hypothetical Site Worker Receptor for Exposure to Vapors in Indoor AirSample Location MP-5, December 2012 Sampling Data
Former Square D FacilityAsheville, North Carolina
Subslab Attenuation Percent PercentConcentration Factor EPCair IUR Calculated Total RfC Calculated Total
Constituent (µg/m3) (USEPA 2013a) (µg/m3) (µg/m3)-1 Risk ELCR (mg/m3) Hazard HI
ELCRi HQiVolatile Organic Compoundscis-1,2-Dichloroethene < 5.2 0.03 NA NA NA NA NATetrachloroethene 18 0.03 0.54 2.60E-07 1.1E-08 100% 4.0E-02 3.1E-03 100%Trichloroethene < 7.1 0.03 NA 4.10E-06 NA 2.0E-03 NAVinyl chloride < 3.4 0.03 NA 4.40E-03 NA 1.0E-01 NA
Total ELCR 1E-08 100% Total HI 0.00 100%
IUR Inhalation unit risk. µg/m³ Micrograms per cubic meter.ELCR Excess lifetime cancer risk. mg/m³ Milligrams per cubic meter.EPCair Calculated exposure point concentration in indoor air. NA Not available.HI Hazard index (sum of the HQs). RfC Inhalation reference concentration.HQ Hazard quotient for non-cancer effects.
Equations: (see Table 4).ELCRi = (EPCair × 8 × 0.042 × 250 × 25 × IUR ) / (25,550) HQi = (EPCair × 0.001 x 8 × 0.042 × 250 × 25) / (9,125 × RfC)
CANCER RISK NON-CANCER HAZARD
Table 11
Risk and Hazard Calculations for a Hypothetical Site Worker Receptor for Exposure to Vapors in Indoor AirSample Location MP-6, December 2012 Sampling Data
Former Square D FacilityAsheville, North Carolina
Subslab Attenuation Percent PercentConcentration Factor EPCair IUR Calculated Total RfC Calculated Total
Constituent (µg/m3) (USEPA 2013a) (µg/m3) (µg/m3)-1 Risk ELCR (mg/m3) Hazard HI
ELCRi HQiVolatile Organic Compoundscis-1,2-Dichloroethene < 4.9 0.03 NA NA NA NA NATetrachloroethene 500 0.03 15 2.60E-07 3.2E-07 35% 4.0E-02 8.6E-02 29%Trichloroethene 60 0.03 1.8 4.10E-06 6.0E-07 65% 2.0E-03 2.1E-01 71%Vinyl chloride < 3.2 0.03 NA 4.40E-03 NA 1.0E-01 NA
Total ELCR 9E-07 100% Total HI 0 100%
IUR Inhalation unit risk. µg/m³ Micrograms per cubic meter.ELCR Excess lifetime cancer risk. mg/m³ Milligrams per cubic meter.EPCair Calculated exposure point concentration in indoor air. NA Not available.HI Hazard index (sum of the HQs). RfC Inhalation reference concentration.HQ Hazard quotient for non-cancer effects.
Equations: (see Table 4).ELCRi = (EPCair × 8 × 0.042 × 250 × 25 × IUR ) / (25,550) HQi = (EPCair × 0.001 x 8 × 0.042 × 250 × 25) / (9,125 × RfC)
CANCER RISK NON-CANCER HAZARD
Table 12
Risk and Hazard Calculations for a Hypothetical Site Worker Receptor for Exposure to Vapors in Indoor AirSample Location MP-1, February 2013 Sampling Data
Former Square D FacilityAsheville, North Carolina
Subslab Attenuation Percent PercentConcentration Factor EPCair IUR Calculated Total RfC Calculated Total
Constituent (µg/m3) (USEPA 2013a) (µg/m3) (µg/m3)-1 Risk ELCR (mg/m3) Hazard HI
ELCRi HQiVolatile Organic Compoundscis-1,2-Dichloroethene < 4.7 0.03 NA NA NA NA NATetrachloroethene 150 0.03 4.5 2.60E-07 9.5E-08 8% 4.0E-02 2.6E-02 6%Trichloroethene 110 0.03 3.3 4.10E-06 1.1E-06 92% 2.0E-03 3.8E-01 94%Vinyl chloride < 3.0 0.03 NA 4.40E-03 NA 1.0E-01 NA
Total ELCR 1E-06 100% Total HI 0 100%
IUR Inhalation unit risk. µg/m³ Micrograms per cubic meter.ELCR Excess lifetime cancer risk. mg/m³ Milligrams per cubic meter.EPCair Calculated exposure point concentration in indoor air. NA Not available.HI Hazard index (sum of the HQs). RfC Inhalation reference concentration.HQ Hazard quotient for non-cancer effects.
Equations: (see Table 4).ELCRi = (EPCair × 8 × 0.042 × 250 × 25 × IUR ) / (25,550) HQi = (EPCair × 0.001 x 8 × 0.042 × 250 × 25) / (9,125 × RfC)
CANCER RISK NON-CANCER HAZARD
Table 13
Risk and Hazard Calculations for a Hypothetical Site Worker Receptor for Exposure to Vapors in Indoor AirSample Location MP-2, February 2013 Sampling Data
Former Square D FacilityAsheville, North Carolina
Subslab Attenuation Percent PercentConcentration Factor EPCair IUR Calculated Total RfC Calculated Total
Constituent (µg/m3) (USEPA 2013a) (µg/m3) (µg/m3)-1 Risk ELCR (mg/m3) Hazard HI
ELCRi HQiVolatile Organic Compoundscis-1,2-Dichloroethene < 4.7 0.03 NA NA NA NA NATetrachloroethene 130 0.03 3.9 2.60E-07 8.3E-08 100% 4.0E-02 2.2E-02 100%Trichloroethene < 6.4 0.03 NA 4.10E-06 NA 2.0E-03 NAVinyl chloride < 3.0 0.03 NA 4.40E-03 NA 1.0E-01 NA
Total ELCR 8E-08 100% Total HI 0.02 100%
IUR Inhalation unit risk. µg/m³ Micrograms per cubic meter.ELCR Excess lifetime cancer risk. mg/m³ Milligrams per cubic meter.EPCair Calculated exposure point concentration in indoor air. NA Not available.HI Hazard index (sum of the HQs). RfC Inhalation reference concentration.HQ Hazard quotient for non-cancer effects.
Equations: (see Table 4).ELCRi = (EPCair × 8 × 0.042 × 250 × 25 × IUR ) / (25,550) HQi = (EPCair × 0.001 x 8 × 0.042 × 250 × 25) / (9,125 × RfC)
CANCER RISK NON-CANCER HAZARD
Table 14
Risk and Hazard Calculations for a Hypothetical Site Worker Receptor for Exposure to Vapors in Indoor AirSample Location MP-3, February 2013 Sampling Data
Former Square D FacilityAsheville, North Carolina
Subslab Attenuation Percent PercentConcentration Factor EPCair IUR Calculated Total RfC Calculated Total
Constituent (µg/m3) (USEPA 2013a) (µg/m3) (µg/m3)-1 Risk ELCR (mg/m3) Hazard HI
ELCRi HQiVolatile Organic Compoundscis-1,2-Dichloroethene < 4.1 0.03 NA NA NA NA NATetrachloroethene 820 0.03 24.6 2.60E-07 5.2E-07 11% 4.0E-02 1.4E-01 9%Trichloroethene 440 0.03 13.2 4.10E-06 4.4E-06 89% 2.0E-03 1.5E+00 91%Vinyl chloride < 2.7 0.03 NA 4.40E-03 NA 1.0E-01 NA
Total ELCR 5E-06 100% Total HI 2 100%
[a] Subslab concentration listed is the greater of the detected concentrations or the lower of the detection limits.
IUR Inhalation unit risk. µg/m³ Micrograms per cubic meter.ELCR Excess lifetime cancer risk. mg/m³ Milligrams per cubic meter.EPCair Calculated exposure point concentration in indoor air. NA Not available.HI Hazard index (sum of the HQs). RfC Inhalation reference concentration.HQ Hazard quotient for non-cancer effects.
Equations: (see Table 4).ELCRi = (EPCair × 8 × 0.042 × 250 × 25 × IUR ) / (25,550) HQi = (EPCair × 0.001 x 8 × 0.042 × 250 × 25) / (9,125 × RfC)
CANCER RISK NON-CANCER HAZARD
Table 15
Risk and Hazard Calculations for a Hypothetical Site Worker Receptor for Exposure to Vapors in Indoor AirSample Location MP-4, February 2013 Sampling Data
Former Square D FacilityAsheville, North Carolina
Subslab Attenuation Percent PercentConcentration Factor EPCair IUR Calculated Total RfC Calculated Total
Constituent (µg/m3) (USEPA 2013a) (µg/m3) (µg/m3)-1 Risk ELCR (mg/m3) Hazard HI
ELCRi HQiVolatile Organic Compoundscis-1,2-Dichloroethene < 4.9 0.03 NA NA NA NA NATetrachloroethene 18 0.03 0.54 2.60E-07 1.1E-08 100% 4.0E-02 3.1E-03 100%Trichloroethene < 6.6 0.03 NA 4.10E-06 NA 2.0E-03 NAVinyl chloride < 3.2 0.03 NA 4.40E-03 NA 1.0E-01 NA
Total ELCR 1E-08 100% Total HI 0.00 100%
IUR Inhalation unit risk. µg/m³ Micrograms per cubic meter.ELCR Excess lifetime cancer risk. mg/m³ Milligrams per cubic meter.EPCair Calculated exposure point concentration in indoor air. NA Not available.HI Hazard index (sum of the HQs). RfC Inhalation reference concentration.HQ Hazard quotient for non-cancer effects.
Equations: (see Table 4).ELCRi = (EPCair × 8 × 0.042 × 250 × 25 × IUR ) / (25,550) HQi = (EPCair × 0.001 x 8 × 0.042 × 250 × 25) / (9,125 × RfC)
CANCER RISK NON-CANCER HAZARD
Table 16
Risk and Hazard Calculations for a Hypothetical Site Worker Receptor for Exposure to Vapors in Indoor AirSample Location MP-5, February 2013 Sampling Data
Former Square D FacilityAsheville, North Carolina
Subslab Attenuation Percent PercentConcentration Factor EPCair IUR Calculated Total RfC Calculated Total
Constituent (µg/m3) (USEPA 2013a) (µg/m3) (µg/m3)-1 Risk ELCR (mg/m3) Hazard HI
ELCRi HQiVolatile Organic Compoundscis-1,2-Dichloroethene < 4.8 0.03 NA NA NA NA NATetrachloroethene 27 0.03 0.81 2.60E-07 1.7E-08 100% 4.0E-02 4.6E-03 100%Trichloroethene < 6.5 0.03 NA 4.10E-06 NA 2.0E-03 NAVinyl chloride < 3.1 0.03 NA 4.40E-03 NA 1.0E-01 NA
Total ELCR 2E-08 100% Total HI 0.01 100%
IUR Inhalation unit risk. µg/m³ Micrograms per cubic meter.ELCR Excess lifetime cancer risk. mg/m³ Milligrams per cubic meter.EPCair Calculated exposure point concentration in indoor air. NA Not available.HI Hazard index (sum of the HQs). RfC Inhalation reference concentration.HQ Hazard quotient for non-cancer effects.
Equations: (see Table 4).ELCRi = (EPCair × 8 × 0.042 × 250 × 25 × IUR ) / (25,550) HQi = (EPCair × 0.001 x 8 × 0.042 × 250 × 25) / (9,125 × RfC)
CANCER RISK NON-CANCER HAZARD
Table 17
Risk and Hazard Calculations for a Hypothetical Site Worker Receptor for Exposure to Vapors in Indoor AirSample Location MP-6, February 2013 Sampling Data
Former Square D FacilityAsheville, North Carolina
Subslab Attenuation Percent PercentConcentration Factor EPCair IUR Calculated Total RfC Calculated Total
Constituent (µg/m3) (USEPA 2013a) (µg/m3) (µg/m3)-1 Risk ELCR (mg/m3) Hazard HI
ELCRi HQiVolatile Organic Compoundscis-1,2-Dichloroethene < 4.6 0.03 NA NA NA NA NATetrachloroethene 360 0.03 10.8 2.60E-07 2.3E-07 50% 4.0E-02 6.2E-02 44%Trichloroethene 23 0.03 0.69 4.10E-06 2.3E-07 50% 2.0E-03 7.9E-02 56%Vinyl chloride < 3.0 0.03 NA 4.40E-06 NA 1.0E-01 NA
Total ELCR 5E-07 100% Total HI 0.1 100%
IUR Inhalation unit risk. µg/m³ Micrograms per cubic meter.ELCR Excess lifetime cancer risk. mg/m³ Milligrams per cubic meter.EPCair Calculated exposure point concentration in indoor air. NA Not available.HI Hazard index (sum of the HQs). RfC Inhalation reference concentration.HQ Hazard quotient for non-cancer effects.
Equations: (see Table 4).ELCRi = (EPCair × 8 × 0.042 × 250 × 25 × IUR ) / (25,550) HQi = (EPCair × 0.001 x 8 × 0.042 × 250 × 25) / (9,125 × RfC)
CANCER RISK NON-CANCER HAZARD
Table 18
Former Square D FacilityAsheville, North Carolina
Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk and Total non-cancer Hazard Index [a]
Total Excess Total Total Excess TotalRECEPTOR Lifetime Non-Cancer Lifetime Non-Cancer
Exposure Medium - Location Cancer Risk Hazard Cancer Risk Hazard
Site Worker
Inhalation of Indoor Air - MP-1 1E-06 0.5 1E-06 0.4Inhalation of Indoor Air - MP-2 9E-08 0.02 8E-08 0.02Inhalation of Indoor Air - MP-3 3E-06 0.9 5E-06 2Inhalation of Indoor Air - MP-4 1E-08 0.003 1E-08 0.003Inhalation of Indoor Air - MP-5 1E-08 0.003 2E-08 0.005Inhalation of Indoor Air - MP-6 9E-07 0.3 5E-07 0.1
[a] Cancer risk estimates exceeding 1x10-6 and non-cancer hazard estimates exceeding one are in bold.
December 2012 February 2013
Table 19Summary of Calculated Human Health Risks and Hazards
Appendix F
Laboratory Reports for Sub-Slab Samples
1/7/2013
Ms. Angie Frizzell
Arcadis U.S., Inc.
4915 Prospectus Drive
Suite F
Durham NC 27713
Project Name:
Project #: B0006476.0008.00001.
Dear Ms. Angie Frizzell
The following report includes the data for the above referenced project for sample(s) received on 12/17/2012 at Air Toxics Ltd.
The data and associated QC analyzed by Modified TO-15 are compliant with the project requirements or laboratory criteria with the exception of the deviations noted in the attached case narrative.
Thank you for choosing Air Toxics Ltd. for your air analysis needs. Air Toxics Ltd. is committed to providing accurate data of the highest quality. Please feel free to contact
the Project Manager: Ausha Scott at 916-985-1000 if you have any questions regarding the data in this report.
Regards,
Ausha Scott
Project Manager
Workorder #: 1212349
Page 1 of 16
Ms. Angie FrizzellArcadis U.S., Inc.4915 Prospectus DriveSuite FDurham, NC 27713
WORK ORDER #: 1212349
CLIENT: BILL TO:
PHONE:
Accounts PayableArcadis U.S., Inc.630 Plaza DriveSuite 600Highlands Ranch, CO 80129
919-328-5615
919-544-569012/17/2012
DATE COMPLETED: 01/06/2013
P.O. # B0006476.0008.00001.
PROJECT # B0006476.0008.00001.
Work Order Summary
FAX:
DATE RECEIVED: CONTACT: Ausha Scott
NAMEFRACTION # TEST VAC./PRES.RECEIPT
PRESSUREFINAL
01A MP-1 Modified TO-15 5.0 "Hg 15 psi02A MP-2 Modified TO-15 5.0 "Hg 15 psi03A MP-3 Modified TO-15 4.5 "Hg 15 psi04A MP-4 Modified TO-15 7.0 "Hg 15 psi05A MP-5 Modified TO-15 7.0 "Hg 15 psi06A MP-6 Modified TO-15 5.5 "Hg 15 psi07A Duplicate-1 Modified TO-15 4.5 "Hg 15 psi08A Lab Blank Modified TO-15 NA NA09A CCV Modified TO-15 NA NA10A LCS Modified TO-15 NA NA10AA LCSD Modified TO-15 NA NA
CERTIFIED BY:
Technical Director
DATE:
Name of Accrediting Agency: NELAP/ORELAP (Oregon Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program)Accreditation number: CA300005, Effective date: 10/18/2011, Expiration date: 10/17/2012.
180 BLUE RAVINE ROAD, SUITE B FOLSOM, CA - 9563(916) 985-1000 . (800) 985-5955 . FAX (916) 985-1020
01/06/13
Page 2 of 16
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the written approval of Eurofins Air Toxics, Inc.
Eurofins Air Toxics Ltd. certifies that the test results contained in this report meet all requirements of the NELAC standards
Certfication numbers: AZ Licensure AZ0775, CA NELAP - 12282CA, NY NELAP - 11291, TX NELAP - T104704434-12-5, UT NELAP CA009332012-3, WA NELAP - C935
LABORATORY NARRATIVEEPA Method TO-15
Arcadis U.S., Inc.Workorder# 1212349
Seven 1 Liter Summa Canister samples were received on December 17, 2012. The laboratory performed analysis via EPA Method TO-15 using GC/MS in the full scan mode.
This workorder was independently validated prior to submittal using 'USEPA National Functional Guidelines' as generally applied to the analysis of volatile organic compounds in air. A rules-based, logic driven, independent validation engine was employed to assess completeness, evaluate pass/fail of relevant project quality control requirements and verification of all quantified amounts.
There were no receiving discrepancies.
Receiving Notes
There were no analytical discrepancies.
Analytical Notes
Eight qualifiers may have been used on the data analysis sheets and indicates as follows: B - Compound present in laboratory blank greater than reporting limit (background subtraction not performed). J - Estimated value. E - Exceeds instrument calibration range. S - Saturated peak. Q - Exceeds quality control limits. U - Compound analyzed for but not detected above the reporting limit. UJ- Non-detected compound associated with low bias in the CCV and/or LCS. N - The identification is based on presumptive evidence.
File extensions may have been used on the data analysis sheets and indicates as follows: a-File was requantified b-File was quantified by a second column and detector r1-File was requantified for the purpose of reissue
Definition of Data Qualifying Flags
Page 3 of 16
EPA METHOD TO-15 GC/MS FULL SCANSummary of Detected Compounds
Client Sample ID: MP-1
Lab ID#: 1212349-01A
(ug/m3)(ug/m3)(ppbv)(ppbv)CompoundAmountRpt. LimitAmountRpt. Limit
1.2 24 6.5 130Trichloroethene
1.2 11 8.2 75Tetrachloroethene
Client Sample ID: MP-2
Lab ID#: 1212349-02A
(ug/m3)(ug/m3)(ppbv)(ppbv)CompoundAmountRpt. LimitAmountRpt. Limit
1.2 20 8.2 140Tetrachloroethene
Client Sample ID: MP-3
Lab ID#: 1212349-03A
(ug/m3)(ug/m3)(ppbv)(ppbv)CompoundAmountRpt. LimitAmountRpt. Limit
1.2 45 6.4 240Trichloroethene
1.2 65 8.1 440Tetrachloroethene
Client Sample ID: MP-4
Lab ID#: 1212349-04A
(ug/m3)(ug/m3)(ppbv)(ppbv)CompoundAmountRpt. LimitAmountRpt. Limit
1.3 2.3 9.0 16Tetrachloroethene
Client Sample ID: MP-5
Lab ID#: 1212349-05A
(ug/m3)(ug/m3)(ppbv)(ppbv)CompoundAmountRpt. LimitAmountRpt. Limit
1.3 2.6 9.0 18Tetrachloroethene
Client Sample ID: MP-6
Lab ID#: 1212349-06A
(ug/m3)(ug/m3)(ppbv)(ppbv)CompoundAmountRpt. LimitAmountRpt. Limit
Page 4 of 16
EPA METHOD TO-15 GC/MS FULL SCANSummary of Detected Compounds
Client Sample ID: MP-6
Lab ID#: 1212349-06A
(ug/m3)(ug/m3)(ppbv)(ppbv)CompoundAmountRpt. LimitAmountRpt. Limit
1.2 11 6.6 60Trichloroethene
1.2 74 8.4 500Tetrachloroethene
Client Sample ID: Duplicate-1
Lab ID#: 1212349-07A
(ug/m3)(ug/m3)(ppbv)(ppbv)CompoundAmountRpt. LimitAmountRpt. Limit
1.2 44 6.4 240Trichloroethene
1.2 62 8.1 420Tetrachloroethene
Page 5 of 16
Client Sample ID: MP-1Lab ID#: 1212349-01A
EPA METHOD TO-15 GC/MS FULL SCAN
p122707File Name:Dil. Factor: 2.42
Date of Collection: 12/13/12 8:20:00 PMDate of Analysis: 12/27/12 01:56 PM
(ug/m3)(ug/m3)(ppbv)(ppbv)CompoundAmountRpt. LimitAmountRpt. Limit
1.2 Not Detected 3.1 Not DetectedVinyl Chloride
1.2 Not Detected 4.8 Not Detectedcis-1,2-Dichloroethene
1.2 24 6.5 130Trichloroethene
1.2 11 8.2 75Tetrachloroethene
Container Type: 1 Liter Summa Canister
Limits%RecoverySurrogatesMethod
98 70-130Toluene-d8
98 70-1301,2-Dichloroethane-d4
96 70-1304-Bromofluorobenzene
Page 6 of 16
Client Sample ID: MP-2Lab ID#: 1212349-02A
EPA METHOD TO-15 GC/MS FULL SCAN
p122708File Name:Dil. Factor: 2.42
Date of Collection: 12/13/12 8:54:00 PMDate of Analysis: 12/27/12 03:37 PM
(ug/m3)(ug/m3)(ppbv)(ppbv)CompoundAmountRpt. LimitAmountRpt. Limit
1.2 Not Detected 3.1 Not DetectedVinyl Chloride
1.2 Not Detected 4.8 Not Detectedcis-1,2-Dichloroethene
1.2 Not Detected 6.5 Not DetectedTrichloroethene
1.2 20 8.2 140Tetrachloroethene
Container Type: 1 Liter Summa Canister
Limits%RecoverySurrogatesMethod
98 70-130Toluene-d8
96 70-1301,2-Dichloroethane-d4
98 70-1304-Bromofluorobenzene
Page 7 of 16
Client Sample ID: MP-3Lab ID#: 1212349-03A
EPA METHOD TO-15 GC/MS FULL SCAN
p122709File Name:Dil. Factor: 2.38
Date of Collection: 12/13/12 9:21:00 PMDate of Analysis: 12/27/12 04:37 PM
(ug/m3)(ug/m3)(ppbv)(ppbv)CompoundAmountRpt. LimitAmountRpt. Limit
1.2 Not Detected 3.0 Not DetectedVinyl Chloride
1.2 Not Detected 4.7 Not Detectedcis-1,2-Dichloroethene
1.2 45 6.4 240Trichloroethene
1.2 65 8.1 440Tetrachloroethene
Container Type: 1 Liter Summa Canister
Limits%RecoverySurrogatesMethod
99 70-130Toluene-d8
98 70-1301,2-Dichloroethane-d4
96 70-1304-Bromofluorobenzene
Page 8 of 16
Client Sample ID: MP-4Lab ID#: 1212349-04A
EPA METHOD TO-15 GC/MS FULL SCAN
p122715File Name:Dil. Factor: 2.64
Date of Collection: 12/13/12 6:23:00 PMDate of Analysis: 12/27/12 07:43 PM
(ug/m3)(ug/m3)(ppbv)(ppbv)CompoundAmountRpt. LimitAmountRpt. Limit
1.3 Not Detected 3.4 Not DetectedVinyl Chloride
1.3 Not Detected 5.2 Not Detectedcis-1,2-Dichloroethene
1.3 Not Detected 7.1 Not DetectedTrichloroethene
1.3 2.3 9.0 16Tetrachloroethene
Container Type: 1 Liter Summa Canister
Limits%RecoverySurrogatesMethod
99 70-130Toluene-d8
99 70-1301,2-Dichloroethane-d4
104 70-1304-Bromofluorobenzene
Page 9 of 16
Client Sample ID: MP-5Lab ID#: 1212349-05A
EPA METHOD TO-15 GC/MS FULL SCAN
p122716File Name:Dil. Factor: 2.64
Date of Collection: 12/13/12 6:53:00 PMDate of Analysis: 12/27/12 08:40 PM
(ug/m3)(ug/m3)(ppbv)(ppbv)CompoundAmountRpt. LimitAmountRpt. Limit
1.3 Not Detected 3.4 Not DetectedVinyl Chloride
1.3 Not Detected 5.2 Not Detectedcis-1,2-Dichloroethene
1.3 Not Detected 7.1 Not DetectedTrichloroethene
1.3 2.6 9.0 18Tetrachloroethene
Container Type: 1 Liter Summa Canister
Limits%RecoverySurrogatesMethod
98 70-130Toluene-d8
101 70-1301,2-Dichloroethane-d4
102 70-1304-Bromofluorobenzene
Page 10 of 16
Client Sample ID: MP-6Lab ID#: 1212349-06A
EPA METHOD TO-15 GC/MS FULL SCAN
p122717File Name:Dil. Factor: 2.47
Date of Collection: 12/13/12 7:29:00 PMDate of Analysis: 12/27/12 09:14 PM
(ug/m3)(ug/m3)(ppbv)(ppbv)CompoundAmountRpt. LimitAmountRpt. Limit
1.2 Not Detected 3.2 Not DetectedVinyl Chloride
1.2 Not Detected 4.9 Not Detectedcis-1,2-Dichloroethene
1.2 11 6.6 60Trichloroethene
1.2 74 8.4 500Tetrachloroethene
Container Type: 1 Liter Summa Canister
Limits%RecoverySurrogatesMethod
96 70-130Toluene-d8
97 70-1301,2-Dichloroethane-d4
103 70-1304-Bromofluorobenzene
Page 11 of 16
Client Sample ID: Duplicate-1Lab ID#: 1212349-07A
EPA METHOD TO-15 GC/MS FULL SCAN
p122718File Name:Dil. Factor: 2.38
Date of Collection: 12/13/12 5:00:00 PMDate of Analysis: 12/27/12 09:49 PM
(ug/m3)(ug/m3)(ppbv)(ppbv)CompoundAmountRpt. LimitAmountRpt. Limit
1.2 Not Detected 3.0 Not DetectedVinyl Chloride
1.2 Not Detected 4.7 Not Detectedcis-1,2-Dichloroethene
1.2 44 6.4 240Trichloroethene
1.2 62 8.1 420Tetrachloroethene
Container Type: 1 Liter Summa Canister
Limits%RecoverySurrogatesMethod
98 70-130Toluene-d8
97 70-1301,2-Dichloroethane-d4
100 70-1304-Bromofluorobenzene
Page 12 of 16
Client Sample ID: Lab BlankLab ID#: 1212349-08A
EPA METHOD TO-15 GC/MS FULL SCAN
p122706File Name:Dil. Factor: 1.00
Date of Collection: NA Date of Analysis: 12/27/12 12:13 PM
(ug/m3)(ug/m3)(ppbv)(ppbv)CompoundAmountRpt. LimitAmountRpt. Limit
0.50 Not Detected 1.3 Not DetectedVinyl Chloride
0.50 Not Detected 2.0 Not Detectedcis-1,2-Dichloroethene
0.50 Not Detected 2.7 Not DetectedTrichloroethene
0.50 Not Detected 3.4 Not DetectedTetrachloroethene
Container Type: NA - Not Applicable
Limits%RecoverySurrogatesMethod
99 70-130Toluene-d8
97 70-1301,2-Dichloroethane-d4
99 70-1304-Bromofluorobenzene
Page 13 of 16
Client Sample ID: CCVLab ID#: 1212349-09A
EPA METHOD TO-15 GC/MS FULL SCAN
p122702File Name:Dil. Factor: 1.00
Date of Collection: NA Date of Analysis: 12/27/12 08:52 AM
%RecoveryCompound
98Vinyl Chloride
102cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
94Trichloroethene
98Tetrachloroethene
Container Type: NA - Not Applicable
Limits%RecoverySurrogatesMethod
102 70-130Toluene-d8
97 70-1301,2-Dichloroethane-d4
100 70-1304-Bromofluorobenzene
Page 14 of 16
Client Sample ID: LCSLab ID#: 1212349-10A
EPA METHOD TO-15 GC/MS FULL SCAN
p122703File Name:Dil. Factor: 1.00
Date of Collection: NA Date of Analysis: 12/27/12 09:31 AM
%RecoveryCompound
97Vinyl Chloride
96cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
91Trichloroethene
93Tetrachloroethene
Container Type: NA - Not Applicable
Limits%RecoverySurrogatesMethod
100 70-130Toluene-d8
96 70-1301,2-Dichloroethane-d4
98 70-1304-Bromofluorobenzene
Page 15 of 16
Client Sample ID: LCSDLab ID#: 1212349-10AA
EPA METHOD TO-15 GC/MS FULL SCAN
p122704File Name:Dil. Factor: 1.00
Date of Collection: NA Date of Analysis: 12/27/12 10:01 AM
%RecoveryCompound
94Vinyl Chloride
95cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
90Trichloroethene
91Tetrachloroethene
Container Type: NA - Not Applicable
Limits%RecoverySurrogatesMethod
100 70-130Toluene-d8
93 70-1301,2-Dichloroethane-d4
100 70-1304-Bromofluorobenzene
Page 16 of 16
3/1/2013
Ms. Angie Frizzell
Arcadis U.S., Inc.
4915 Prospectus Drive
Suite F
Durham NC 27713
Project Name: Asheville, NC
Project #: Square D
Dear Ms. Angie Frizzell
The following report includes the data for the above referenced project for sample(s) received on 2/15/2013 at Air Toxics Ltd.
The data and associated QC analyzed by Modified TO-15 are compliant with the project requirements or laboratory criteria with the exception of the deviations noted in the attached case narrative.
Thank you for choosing Air Toxics Ltd. for your air analysis needs. Air Toxics Ltd. is committed to providing accurate data of the highest quality. Please feel free to contact
the Project Manager: Ausha Scott at 916-985-1000 if you have any questions regarding the data in this report.
Regards,
Ausha Scott
Project Manager
Workorder #: 1302282
Page 1 of 17
Ms. Angie FrizzellArcadis U.S., Inc.4915 Prospectus DriveSuite FDurham, NC 27713
WORK ORDER #: 1302282
CLIENT: BILL TO:
PHONE:
Accounts PayableArcadis U.S., Inc.630 Plaza DriveSuite 600Highlands Ranch, CO 80129
919-328-5615
919-544-569002/15/2013
DATE COMPLETED: 03/01/2013
P.O. # B0006476
PROJECT # Square D Asheville, NC
Work Order Summary
FAX:
DATE RECEIVED: CONTACT: Ausha Scott
NAMEFRACTION # TEST VAC./PRES.RECEIPT
PRESSUREFINAL
01A MP-1 Modified TO-15 4.5 "Hg 15 psi02A MP-2 Modified TO-15 4.5 "Hg 15 psi03A MP-3 Modified TO-15 3.0 "Hg 15 psi04A MP-4 Modified TO-15 5.5 "Hg 15 psi05A MP-5 Modified TO-15 5.0 "Hg 15 psi06A MP-6 Modified TO-15 4.0 "Hg 15 psi07A Duplicate Modified TO-15 1.0 "Hg 15 psi08A Trip Blank Modified TO-15 29.5 "Hg 15 psi09A Lab Blank Modified TO-15 NA NA10A CCV Modified TO-15 NA NA11A LCS Modified TO-15 NA NA11AA LCSD Modified TO-15 NA NA
CERTIFIED BY:
Technical Director
DATE:
Name of Accrediting Agency: NELAP/ORELAP (Oregon Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program)Accreditation number: CA300005, Effective date: 10/18/2012, Expiration date: 10/17/2013.
180 BLUE RAVINE ROAD, SUITE B FOLSOM, CA - 9563(916) 985-1000 . (800) 985-5955 . FAX (916) 985-1020
03/01/13
Page 2 of 17
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the written approval of Eurofins Air Toxics, Inc.
Eurofins Air Toxics Ltd. certifies that the test results contained in this report meet all requirements of the NELAC standards
Certification numbers: AZ Licensure AZ0775, CA NELAP - 12282CA, NY NELAP - 11291, TX NELAP - T104704434-12-4, UT NELAP CA009332012-3, WA NELAP - C935
LABORATORY NARRATIVEEPA Method TO-15
Arcadis U.S., Inc.Workorder# 1302282
Eight 1 Liter Summa Canister samples were received on February 15, 2013. The laboratory performed analysis via EPA Method TO-15 using GC/MS in the full scan mode.
This workorder was independently validated prior to submittal using 'USEPA National Functional Guidelines' as generally applied to the analysis of volatile organic compounds in air. A rules-based, logic driven, independent validation engine was employed to assess completeness, evaluate pass/fail of relevant project quality control requirements and verification of all quantified amounts.
There were no receiving discrepancies.
Receiving Notes
There were no analytical discrepancies.
Analytical Notes
Eight qualifiers may have been used on the data analysis sheets and indicates as follows: B - Compound present in laboratory blank greater than reporting limit (background subtraction not performed). J - Estimated value. E - Exceeds instrument calibration range. S - Saturated peak. Q - Exceeds quality control limits. U - Compound analyzed for but not detected above the reporting limit. UJ- Non-detected compound associated with low bias in the CCV N - The identification is based on presumptive evidence.
File extensions may have been used on the data analysis sheets and indicates as follows: a-File was requantified b-File was quantified by a second column and detector r1-File was requantified for the purpose of reissue
Definition of Data Qualifying Flags
Page 3 of 17
EPA METHOD TO-15 GC/MS FULL SCANSummary of Detected Compounds
Client Sample ID: MP-1
Lab ID#: 1302282-01A
(ug/m3)(ug/m3)(ppbv)(ppbv)CompoundAmountRpt. LimitAmountRpt. Limit
1.2 21 6.4 110Trichloroethene
1.2 23 8.1 150Tetrachloroethene
Client Sample ID: MP-2
Lab ID#: 1302282-02A
(ug/m3)(ug/m3)(ppbv)(ppbv)CompoundAmountRpt. LimitAmountRpt. Limit
1.2 19 8.1 130Tetrachloroethene
Client Sample ID: MP-3
Lab ID#: 1302282-03A
(ug/m3)(ug/m3)(ppbv)(ppbv)CompoundAmountRpt. LimitAmountRpt. Limit
1.1 81 6.0 440Trichloroethene
1.1 120 7.6 820Tetrachloroethene
Client Sample ID: MP-4
Lab ID#: 1302282-04A
(ug/m3)(ug/m3)(ppbv)(ppbv)CompoundAmountRpt. LimitAmountRpt. Limit
1.2 2.7 8.4 18Tetrachloroethene
Client Sample ID: MP-5
Lab ID#: 1302282-05A
(ug/m3)(ug/m3)(ppbv)(ppbv)CompoundAmountRpt. LimitAmountRpt. Limit
1.2 4.0 8.2 27Tetrachloroethene
Client Sample ID: MP-6
Lab ID#: 1302282-06A
(ug/m3)(ug/m3)(ppbv)(ppbv)CompoundAmountRpt. LimitAmountRpt. Limit
Page 4 of 17
EPA METHOD TO-15 GC/MS FULL SCANSummary of Detected Compounds
Client Sample ID: MP-6
Lab ID#: 1302282-06A
(ug/m3)(ug/m3)(ppbv)(ppbv)CompoundAmountRpt. LimitAmountRpt. Limit
1.2 4.2 6.3 23Trichloroethene
1.2 52 7.9 360Tetrachloroethene
Client Sample ID: Duplicate
Lab ID#: 1302282-07A
(ug/m3)(ug/m3)(ppbv)(ppbv)CompoundAmountRpt. LimitAmountRpt. Limit
1.0 22 5.6 120Trichloroethene
1.0 32 7.1 220Tetrachloroethene
Client Sample ID: Trip Blank
Lab ID#: 1302282-08ANo Detections Were Found.
Page 5 of 17
Client Sample ID: MP-1Lab ID#: 1302282-01A
EPA METHOD TO-15 GC/MS FULL SCAN
o022609File Name:Dil. Factor: 2.38
Date of Collection: 2/13/13 7:30:00 PMDate of Analysis: 2/26/13 04:40 PM
(ug/m3)(ug/m3)(ppbv)(ppbv)CompoundAmountRpt. LimitAmountRpt. Limit
1.2 Not Detected 3.0 Not DetectedVinyl Chloride
1.2 Not Detected 4.7 Not Detectedcis-1,2-Dichloroethene
1.2 21 6.4 110Trichloroethene
1.2 23 8.1 150Tetrachloroethene
Container Type: 1 Liter Summa Canister
Limits%RecoverySurrogatesMethod
96 70-130Toluene-d8
91 70-1301,2-Dichloroethane-d4
96 70-1304-Bromofluorobenzene
Page 6 of 17
Client Sample ID: MP-2Lab ID#: 1302282-02A
EPA METHOD TO-15 GC/MS FULL SCAN
o022610File Name:Dil. Factor: 2.38
Date of Collection: 2/13/13 7:02:00 PMDate of Analysis: 2/26/13 05:20 PM
(ug/m3)(ug/m3)(ppbv)(ppbv)CompoundAmountRpt. LimitAmountRpt. Limit
1.2 Not Detected 3.0 Not DetectedVinyl Chloride
1.2 Not Detected 4.7 Not Detectedcis-1,2-Dichloroethene
1.2 Not Detected 6.4 Not DetectedTrichloroethene
1.2 19 8.1 130Tetrachloroethene
Container Type: 1 Liter Summa Canister
Limits%RecoverySurrogatesMethod
92 70-130Toluene-d8
88 70-1301,2-Dichloroethane-d4
96 70-1304-Bromofluorobenzene
Page 7 of 17
Client Sample ID: MP-3Lab ID#: 1302282-03A
EPA METHOD TO-15 GC/MS FULL SCAN
o022611File Name:Dil. Factor: 2.24
Date of Collection: 2/13/13 7:49:00 PMDate of Analysis: 2/26/13 05:57 PM
(ug/m3)(ug/m3)(ppbv)(ppbv)CompoundAmountRpt. LimitAmountRpt. Limit
1.1 Not Detected 2.9 Not DetectedVinyl Chloride
1.1 Not Detected 4.4 Not Detectedcis-1,2-Dichloroethene
1.1 81 6.0 440Trichloroethene
1.1 120 7.6 820Tetrachloroethene
Container Type: 1 Liter Summa Canister
Limits%RecoverySurrogatesMethod
91 70-130Toluene-d8
86 70-1301,2-Dichloroethane-d4
94 70-1304-Bromofluorobenzene
Page 8 of 17
Client Sample ID: MP-4Lab ID#: 1302282-04A
EPA METHOD TO-15 GC/MS FULL SCAN
o022612File Name:Dil. Factor: 2.47
Date of Collection: 2/13/13 5:26:00 PMDate of Analysis: 2/26/13 06:34 PM
(ug/m3)(ug/m3)(ppbv)(ppbv)CompoundAmountRpt. LimitAmountRpt. Limit
1.2 Not Detected 3.2 Not DetectedVinyl Chloride
1.2 Not Detected 4.9 Not Detectedcis-1,2-Dichloroethene
1.2 Not Detected 6.6 Not DetectedTrichloroethene
1.2 2.7 8.4 18Tetrachloroethene
Container Type: 1 Liter Summa Canister
Limits%RecoverySurrogatesMethod
93 70-130Toluene-d8
92 70-1301,2-Dichloroethane-d4
94 70-1304-Bromofluorobenzene
Page 9 of 17
Client Sample ID: MP-5Lab ID#: 1302282-05A
EPA METHOD TO-15 GC/MS FULL SCAN
o022613File Name:Dil. Factor: 2.42
Date of Collection: 2/13/13 5:58:00 PMDate of Analysis: 2/26/13 07:13 PM
(ug/m3)(ug/m3)(ppbv)(ppbv)CompoundAmountRpt. LimitAmountRpt. Limit
1.2 Not Detected 3.1 Not DetectedVinyl Chloride
1.2 Not Detected 4.8 Not Detectedcis-1,2-Dichloroethene
1.2 Not Detected 6.5 Not DetectedTrichloroethene
1.2 4.0 8.2 27Tetrachloroethene
Container Type: 1 Liter Summa Canister
Limits%RecoverySurrogatesMethod
91 70-130Toluene-d8
93 70-1301,2-Dichloroethane-d4
94 70-1304-Bromofluorobenzene
Page 10 of 17
Client Sample ID: MP-6Lab ID#: 1302282-06A
EPA METHOD TO-15 GC/MS FULL SCAN
o022614File Name:Dil. Factor: 2.33
Date of Collection: 2/13/13 6:33:00 PMDate of Analysis: 2/26/13 07:49 PM
(ug/m3)(ug/m3)(ppbv)(ppbv)CompoundAmountRpt. LimitAmountRpt. Limit
1.2 Not Detected 3.0 Not DetectedVinyl Chloride
1.2 Not Detected 4.6 Not Detectedcis-1,2-Dichloroethene
1.2 4.2 6.3 23Trichloroethene
1.2 52 7.9 360Tetrachloroethene
Container Type: 1 Liter Summa Canister
Limits%RecoverySurrogatesMethod
96 70-130Toluene-d8
94 70-1301,2-Dichloroethane-d4
95 70-1304-Bromofluorobenzene
Page 11 of 17
Client Sample ID: DuplicateLab ID#: 1302282-07A
EPA METHOD TO-15 GC/MS FULL SCAN
o022615File Name:Dil. Factor: 2.09
Date of Collection: 2/13/13 8:30:00 PMDate of Analysis: 2/26/13 08:26 PM
(ug/m3)(ug/m3)(ppbv)(ppbv)CompoundAmountRpt. LimitAmountRpt. Limit
1.0 Not Detected 2.7 Not DetectedVinyl Chloride
1.0 Not Detected 4.1 Not Detectedcis-1,2-Dichloroethene
1.0 22 5.6 120Trichloroethene
1.0 32 7.1 220Tetrachloroethene
Container Type: 1 Liter Summa Canister
Limits%RecoverySurrogatesMethod
97 70-130Toluene-d8
94 70-1301,2-Dichloroethane-d4
93 70-1304-Bromofluorobenzene
Page 12 of 17
Client Sample ID: Trip BlankLab ID#: 1302282-08A
EPA METHOD TO-15 GC/MS FULL SCAN
o022608File Name:Dil. Factor: 1.00
Date of Collection: 2/13/13 Date of Analysis: 2/26/13 03:56 PM
(ug/m3)(ug/m3)(ppbv)(ppbv)CompoundAmountRpt. LimitAmountRpt. Limit
0.50 Not Detected 1.3 Not DetectedVinyl Chloride
0.50 Not Detected 2.0 Not Detectedcis-1,2-Dichloroethene
0.50 Not Detected 2.7 Not DetectedTrichloroethene
0.50 Not Detected 3.4 Not DetectedTetrachloroethene
Container Type: 1 Liter Summa Canister
Limits%RecoverySurrogatesMethod
89 70-130Toluene-d8
88 70-1301,2-Dichloroethane-d4
95 70-1304-Bromofluorobenzene
Page 13 of 17
Client Sample ID: Lab BlankLab ID#: 1302282-09A
EPA METHOD TO-15 GC/MS FULL SCAN
o022607File Name:Dil. Factor: 1.00
Date of Collection: NA Date of Analysis: 2/26/13 01:17 PM
(ug/m3)(ug/m3)(ppbv)(ppbv)CompoundAmountRpt. LimitAmountRpt. Limit
0.50 Not Detected 1.3 Not DetectedVinyl Chloride
0.50 Not Detected 2.0 Not Detectedcis-1,2-Dichloroethene
0.50 Not Detected 2.7 Not DetectedTrichloroethene
0.50 Not Detected 3.4 Not DetectedTetrachloroethene
Container Type: NA - Not Applicable
Limits%RecoverySurrogatesMethod
85 70-130Toluene-d8
86 70-1301,2-Dichloroethane-d4
97 70-1304-Bromofluorobenzene
Page 14 of 17
Client Sample ID: CCVLab ID#: 1302282-10A
EPA METHOD TO-15 GC/MS FULL SCAN
o022602File Name:Dil. Factor: 1.00
Date of Collection: NA Date of Analysis: 2/26/13 10:11 AM
%RecoveryCompound
99Vinyl Chloride
100cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
96Trichloroethene
95Tetrachloroethene
Container Type: NA - Not Applicable
Limits%RecoverySurrogatesMethod
90 70-130Toluene-d8
85 70-1301,2-Dichloroethane-d4
102 70-1304-Bromofluorobenzene
Page 15 of 17
Client Sample ID: LCSLab ID#: 1302282-11A
EPA METHOD TO-15 GC/MS FULL SCAN
o022603File Name:Dil. Factor: 1.00
Date of Collection: NA Date of Analysis: 2/26/13 10:48 AM
%RecoveryCompound
101Vinyl Chloride
99cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
97Trichloroethene
95Tetrachloroethene
Container Type: NA - Not Applicable
Limits%RecoverySurrogatesMethod
91 70-130Toluene-d8
86 70-1301,2-Dichloroethane-d4
100 70-1304-Bromofluorobenzene
Page 16 of 17
Client Sample ID: LCSDLab ID#: 1302282-11AA
EPA METHOD TO-15 GC/MS FULL SCAN
o022604File Name:Dil. Factor: 1.00
Date of Collection: NA Date of Analysis: 2/26/13 11:25 AM
%RecoveryCompound
102Vinyl Chloride
100cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
96Trichloroethene
96Tetrachloroethene
Container Type: NA - Not Applicable
Limits%RecoverySurrogatesMethod
90 70-130Toluene-d8
87 70-1301,2-Dichloroethane-d4
99 70-1304-Bromofluorobenzene
Page 17 of 17
Appendix G
Indoor Air Sampling Plan
1
Appendix G – Indoor Air Sampling Plan
Indoor air samples are proposed, at the locations shown in Figure 9. The number of samples was chosen based on ARCADIS’ experience in indoor air sampling, the complexity of Plant 1, and the program objective. Proposed indoor air sample locations were chosen to represent portions of the building built at different times; the basement; suites that are the primary recipients of air flow from the basement; several different “linked” air spaces (as described in Appendix C; and the locations where sub-slab VOCs produced cumulative HIs above the IHSB benchmark of 1. Several of the indoor air samples are co-located with the sub-slab ports, so that attenuation factors can be calculated. Rationale for selection of the proposed indoor air sample locations are as follows:
• IA-1 – near MP-1, for pairing with a sub-slab sample
• IA-2 – near MP-2, for pairing with a sub-slab sample
• IA-3 – near MP-3, where cumulative HI for VOCs in sub-slab vapor was greater than 1, and for pairing with a sub-slab sample
• IA-4 – in Suite 500, to cover a high-occupancy work space and for pairing with a sub-slab sample
• IA-5 – in Suite 700, where relatively high differential pressure measurements were recorded, and representing an enclosed office space
• IA-6 – near MP-6, in the original building, and for pairing with a sub-slab sample
• IA-7 – in Suite 430, near the spiral staircase from the basement
• IA-8 – in Suite 300, near the conduit to the basement
• IA-9 – in Suite 1000, to represent the newest construction and enclosed office space
• IA-10 – outdoors, in an upwind location (one or more outdoor samples will be collected at various locations)
Prior to collecting indoor air samples, a chemical inventory will be completed to rule out interference from chemicals currently used in the building. The inventory will include collection of MSDSs for all of the tenant businesses, and listing of cleaning and
2
maintenance supplies, focusing on any that may contain the groundwater constituents of potential concern (COPCs). Building occupants may be asked to remove any products of concern from the building prior to the indoor air sampling event. A ppb-range portable photoionization detector (PID) will be used as a field screening tool to assess the potential for VOC entry points through any visible cracks or seams in the floor slab, utility penetrations, wall/floor seams, etc. Sources of permitted air emissions will be identified for consideration in the final selection of sample locations.
Air samples will be analyzed for the groundwater COPCs and degradation products: PCE, TCE, cis-1,2-DCE and vinyl chloride, using Method TO-15 with low-level reporting limits appropriate for indoor air. Sub-slab samples will be analyzed for the same four compounds, using Method TO-15 with reporting limits appropriate for sub-slab vapor. The ambient (outdoor) sample(s) will be supplemented with a duplicate sample and a trip blank. Sampling locations are tentative and may need to be adjusted based on access to the proposed location, concerns by the property owner, and findings of the pre-sampling chemical inventory.
The proposed indoor air samples will be collected simultaneously with sub-slab samples at the existing sub-slab ports. Two rounds of indoor air and simultaneous sub-slab sampling are anticipated, one in the near-term (outside of the heating season) and one in “worst-case” conditions, during the heating season.
Indoor air sample results will be compared to the IHSB industrial screening levels for indoor air. The sub-slab data will be used to evaluate whether any COPCs detected in indoor air are also present in the sub-slab space in similar proportions. Attenuation factors will be calculated to support this evaluation.
The results of the indoor air evaluation will be used to determine if additional action is warranted. The result of the evaluation will be provided to DENR in a future report.