Attachment J-1l Phase II ESA SJC Airport.pdf

New ATCT Facility, Site 1 and Site 4, Portion of Mineta San José International Airport

Phase II Environmental Site Assessment prepared for

Federal Aviation Administration prepared by

Rincon Consultants, Inc.

June 14, 2023

4 8 2 5 J S t r e e t , S u i t e 2 0 0 Sacramen to , Ca l i fo rn ia 95819

9 1 6 7 0 6 1 3 7 4 i n f o @ r i n c o n c o n s u l t a n t s . c o m w w w . r i n c o n c o n s u l t a n t s . c o m

E n v i r o n m e n t a l S c i e n t i s t s P l a n n e r s E n g i n e e r s

June 14, 2023 Rincon Project No: 22-12557

John Louie FAA WSA Engineering Services Via email: john.louie@faa.gov

Subject: Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Report New ATCT Facility, Site 1 and Site 4, Portion of Mineta San José International Airport San José, California

Dear Mr. Louie, At the request of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon) conducted a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) for the property located at Site 1 and Site 4, a portion of the Mineta San José International Airport, San José, California. The Phase II ESA was performed in accordance with the proposal dated February 7, 2022. The proposal was developed based on the findings of the Phase I ESA that Rincon prepared for the FAA, which identified three Recognized Environmental Conditions which could impact site conditions.

The purpose of this Report is to detail soil and soil vapor sampling activities, results, conclusions, and recommendations.

Sincerely, This document has been digitally signed and sealed by Alex Cruz, PG on 6/14/2023.

This document has been digitally signed and sealed by Ryan Thacher, PG on 6/14/2023.

Alex Cruz, PG Senior Environmental Geologist

Ryan Thacher, PhD, PE, Director of Site Assessment and Remediation mailto:john.louie@faa.gov

Table of Contents

Phase II Environmental Site Assessment i

Table of Contents

1 Introduction

2 Background and Physical Setting

2.1 Background

2.2 Physical Setting

3 Regulatory Setting and Screening Levels

4 Site Assessment

4.1 Sample Location Rationale

4.2 Completed Scope

4.3 Field and Analytical Program

5 Analytical Results

5.1 Soil Analytical Results

5.2 Groundwater Analytical Results

5.3 Soil Vapor Analytical Results

5.4 QA/QC Analysis

6 Conclusions and Recommendations

6.1 Soil

6.2 Groundwater

6.3 Soil Vapor

6.4 Constituents of Concern

6.5 Recommendations

7 Limitations

8 References

In-Text Tables

Table I Sample Depth Intervals

Table II Analyzed Sample Summary

Table III Summary of Soil OCP ESL Exceedances

Table IV Summary of Soil PFAS ESL Exceedances

Table V Summary of Groundwater PFAS ESL Exceedances

Table VI Summary of Helium Results in Sub-Slab Vapor

Table VII Summary of Soil Vapor VOC ESL Exceedances

Table VIII QA/QC Analysis Matrix

Table IX Constituents of Concern

Federal Aviation Administration New ATCT Facility, Site 1 and Site 4, Portion of Mineta San José International Airport ii

Tables as Attachments

Table 1 Soil Matrix Analytical Results –Oganochlorine Pesticides and Arsenic

Table 2 Soil Matrix Analytical Results – Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances Table 3 Groundwater Analytical Results – Volatile Organic Compounds

Table 4 Groundwater Analytical Results – Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances Table 5 Soil Vapor Analytical Results – Volatile Organic Compounds

Table 6 Soil Vapor Analytical Results – Fixed Gases

Figures Figure 1 Vicinity Figure 2 Site

Figure 3 Select Soil Matrix Analytical Results

Figure 4 Select Groundwater Analytical Results

Figure 5 Select Soil Vapor Analytical Results

Appendices Appendix A Field Procedures Appendix B Boring Logs and Vapor Well Constructions Appendix C Soil and Soil Vapor Sampling Field Sheets Appendix D Laboratory Analytical Reports

Introduction

Phase II Environmental Site Assessment 1

1 Introduction

At the request of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon) conducted a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) for the property located at Site 1 and Site 4, a portion of the Mineta San José International Airport, San José, California (site; Figure 1). The site is currently developed with an airport parking lot and current Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) in an area that is primarily composed of commercial and industrial properties (Figure 2). Rincon understands that the FAA intends to develop the site with a new ATCT facility.

The Phase II ESA was performed in accordance with the proposal dated February 7, 2022. The proposal was developed based on the findings of the Phase I ESA (Rincon 2020), which was prepared for the site in accordance with FAA Order 1050.19C, which establishes requirements for environmental due diligence with respect to FAA property transactions (FAA 2019). The Phase I ESA identified three Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs):

Former agricultural use of the site Past release of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) at 282 Brokaw Road (hydrologically upgradient of the site) California Water Code Section 13267 order (Order) requiring soil and groundwater samples be collected at the Mineta San José International Airport which is considered to be a potential source of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)

The purpose of this Phase II ESA Report (Report) is to detail soil, groundwater, and soil vapor sampling activities, results, and to present conclusions and recommendations thereof.

2 Background and Physical Setting

2.1 Background

The site is an approximately 3.75-acre parcel located north of Brokaw Road and northeast of Martin Avenue in San José, California (Figure 2). The property is identified as 273 and 275 Martin Avenue and portions of Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APN) 230-02-026, 230-02-07, 230-46-065, and 230-46-011. The site is part of the Mineta San José International Airport.

In general, it appears that the site was undeveloped from 1889 to 1899, used for agricultural purposes from approximately 1939 through approximately 1972, developed with the existing structures in approximately 1993, developed with the airport parking lot in approximately 2006, and developed with the current ATCT in approximately 2009.

The Phase I ESA identified the following RECs:

Former agricultural use of the site Past release of VOCs at 282 Brokaw Road1 (hydrologically upgradient of the site) California Water Code Section 13267 Order requiring soil and groundwater samples be collected at the Mineta San José International Airport which is considered to be a potential source of

PFAS

Additionally, based on a review of the PFAS Preliminary Investigation Workplan prepared by Woodard & Curran for the Mineta San José International Airport (dated June 13, 2019), several investigation areas are in the vicinity of the site. Specifically, the southeastern adjacent property has been identified as “former fire training area 2,” where fire training was conducted in a “concrete lined pit.” A nearby property to the northwest (Signature Flight Support Hangars) features a fire suppression system connected to tanks containing PFAS related foam.

Based on these findings, arsenic, organochlorine pesticides (OCPs), VOCs, and PFAS are identified as constituents of potential concern (COPCs).

2.2 Physical Setting

The site has the following physical characteristics based on a review of publicly available resources and onsite observations.

2.2.1 Topography

The current topographic map indicates that the site is situated at an elevation of about 50 feet above mean sea level with topography sloping gently to the south (USGS 2018). The adjacent topography consists of generally flat topography.

1 https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report.asp?global_id=SLT2O306197

Background and Physical Setting

Phase II Environmental Site Assessment 3

2.2.2 Geology and Hydrogeology

The site is underlain by Pleistocene undeformed alluvial terrace gravel, sand, and clay (Dibblee 2007). During the Phase II ESA, soil composed of sand, silt, clay and gravel mixtures were encountered.

According to the Groundwater Monitoring Program Report, 282 Brokaw Road, San Clara, California prepared by H2OGEOL, dated March 2018, groundwater was reported to be between 7 and 9 feet below ground surface (ft bgs) and flows toward the north (H2OGEOL 2018). During the Phase II ESA, groundwater was encountered between 15 and 20 ft bgs.

3 Regulatory Setting and Screening Levels

The site is not currently enrolled in an oversight program but is within the jurisdictional area of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFBRWQCB). The SFBRWQCB regulates groundwater quality in the region, and its goal is to protect human health, water resources, and the environment, from unauthorized releases by providing oversight in accordance with the California Health and Safety Code, California Fire Code, and California Code of Regulations.

Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) were established by the SFBRWQCB for chemicals commonly found in soil, groundwater, soil vapor, and air at sites where releases of hazardous chemicals may have occurred. ESLs are considered to be health-conservative concentration thresholds designed to be protective of the environment and/or human health, and are applied at sites throughout California. Under most circumstances, the presence of a chemical in soil, soil vapor, groundwater, or ambient air at concentrations below the ESL corresponding to the site’s exposure scenario (commercial/industrial, residential, etc.) can be assumed to not pose a significant, long term (chronic) threat to human health. Additional evaluation will generally be necessary at sites where a chemical is present at concentrations above the corresponding ESL.

Rincon understands the proposed site use includes the development of a new ATCT facility.

Therefore, COPC concentrations are primarily compared to the Commercial/Industrial and Construction Worker ESLs in this Report, where they have been established. PFAS are also compared to Soil Leaching ESLs for the protection of groundwater from leaching and migration of chemicals through the vadose zone. It should be noted that because PFAS is an emerging contaminant, the SFBRWQCB has established ESLs for only two PFAS substances. Although they are not decision-driving thresholds, Tier 1 ESLs (the most conservatively low) are also included on the analytical tables for context2 (where established); concentrations that are below Tier 1 ESLs are not considered to pose a risk to human or environmental health.

Because metals are naturally occurring in the environment, they are commonly compared to regional background levels. A commonly used reference that lists estimates of naturally occurring concentrations of metals in California soil is a Kearney Foundation of Soil Science special report (Kearney 1996). Arsenic concentrations in soil samples collected at the site were compared to the Background Level described in the Kearney Foundation report (arsenic is typically naturally elevated throughout California relative to ESLs).

Results were also compared to hazardous waste screening criteria. Results exceeding the hazardous waste screening criteria may be classified as hazardous waste pending additional hazardous waste analysis. Hazardous waste thresholds are not risk-based but affect the handling and disposal of impacted soil. The soluble threshold limit concentration (STLC) Screening Criteria is ten times the STLC Threshold. Exceeding the STLC Threshold, or exceeding the Total Threshold Limit Concentration (TTLC), classifies the material as California hazardous waste. The toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP) Screening Criteria is twenty times the TCLP Threshold.

Exceeding the TCLP Threshold qualifies the material as Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste by federal standards.

2 For soil vapor, Tier 1 ESLs are equal to Residential ESLs

Site Assessment

Phase II Environmental Site Assessment 5

4 Site Assessment

A discussion of the scope and findings of soil sampling is included below.

4.1 Sample Location Rationale

The purpose of this subsurface investigation was to assess the potential for elevated arsenic, OCPs, and PFAS in the soil, VOCs and PFAS in groundwater, and VOCs in soil vapor, which are associated with the RECs identified in the Phase I ESA. Borings were located to provide a purposeful and spatially distributed assessment of COPCs onsite.

4.2 Completed Scope

The completed scope of the site assessment included the following:

Performed soil boring mark outs and notified Underground Service Alert (USA) (notification completed on March 7, 2023; Ticket #2023030701692-000).

Performed geophysical survey to clear the proposed drilling locations of underground utilities.

Prepared a site-specific Health and Safety Plan that was used by staff during field activities.

Advanced a total of five soil borings onsite to a depth of 15 to 20 ft bgs.

Completed temporary soil vapor probes at 5 ft bgs at each boring location.

Collected a total of 15 soil samples (three from each boring) and analyzed them for arsenic, OCPs, and PFAS.

Collected a total of five groundwater samples (one from each boring) and analyzed them for

VOCs and PFAS.

Collected soil vapor samples from each soil vapor probe and analyzed them for VOCs and fixed-gases with helium.

Abandoned soil vapor probes with grout and patching to match ground surface.

Assessed soil, groundwater, and soil vapor laboratory analytical results and evaluated COPC concentrations against applicable ESLs.

Presented findings of the soil, groundwater, and soil vapor assessment in this Report.

4.3 Field and Analytical Program

The soil, groundwater, and soil vapor sampling and analytical methods are described in this section.

Sampling locations are shown on Figure 2.

4.3.1 Field Program

Rincon mobilized to the site with Subtronic, a geophysical surveyor, and Penecore Drilling, a C-57 licensed drilling subcontractor, to complete the field program.

Geophysical Survey. On March 16, 2023, Rincon mobilized to the site with Subtronic to complete a geophysical survey to clear the boring location of underground utilities. Subtronic used electromagnetic field induction and a ground penetrating radar to complete the survey.

Soil Boring and Sampling. On April 7, 2023, under the direction of Rincon, Penecore advanced five soil borings (SV-1, -2, -3, -4, and -5) to between 15 and 20 ft bgs using a track-mounted direct push technology rig. A total of 15 soil samples were collected in accordance with the field procedures detailed in Appendix A; samples were collected from the depth intervals summarized in Table I below. The boring logs are included in this Report as Appendix B.

Groundwater Sampling. Grab-groundwater samples were collected from all five boring locations. Groundwater samples and sampling depths are summarized in Table I below.

Soil Vapor Sampling. SV-1, -2, -3, -4, and -5 were completed as temporary soil vapor probes installed at 5 ft bgs. The vapor probe construction diagrams are included on the boring logs included as Appendix B. After each probe was installed, subsurface conditions were allowed to equilibrate for two hours at each location. Rincon sampled each of the five soil vapor probes using 1-liter summa cannisters and flow controllers using helium as a leak check gas. Soil vapor probe installation and sampling were conducted in accordance with Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Advisory guidance (DTSC 2015) and the field procedures detailed in Appendix A. Rincon collected six soil vapor samples, including one duplicate, as summarized in Table I below, and sampling field sheets are included as Appendix C. The soil vapor probes were abandoned after sampling and patched to match the surrounding surface.

Table I Sample Depth Intervals Medium Sample Location Sample Depths (ft bgs) Total Number of Samples Collected

Soil SV-1, -2, -3, -4, -5 0.5 – 1 | 2 – 2.5 | 4.5 – 5 15

Groundwater GW-1, -2, -3, -4, -5 15 5

Soil Vapor SV-1, -2, -3, -4, -5 4 – 5 61 1 Including one duplicate

Variances There were no variances from the scope described in Rincon’s proposal or Rincon’s field procedures.

Site Assessment

Phase II Environmental Site Assessment 7

4.3.2 Analytical Program

Soil, groundwater, and soil vapor samples were transported under chain-of-custody protocol to the analytical laboratory. Samples were analyzed as summarized in Table II below and as follows:

Soil. Each of the fifteen soil samples were analyzed for arsenic, OCPs, and PFAS.

Groundwater. Each of the five groundwater samples were analyzed for VOCs and PFAS.

Soil Vapor. Each of the six soil vapor samples (including one duplicate) were analyzed for VOCs and fixed gases with helium.

Table II Analyzed Sample Summary Medium Sample Location Analyzed Sample Depths (ft bgs) Analytes and Method

Soil SV-1, -2, -3, -4, -5 0.5 – 1 | 2 – 2.5 | 4.5 – 5 Arsenic by EPA Method 6010B/7471A OCPs by EPA Method 8081A PFAS by DoD QSM Version 5.3

Groundwater GW-1, -2, -3, -4, -5 15 VOCs by EPA Method 8260B

PFAS by DoD QSM Version 5.3

Soil Vapor SV-1, -2, -3, -4, -5 4 – 5 VOCs by EPA Method TO-15 Helium by ASTM D1946

ASTM – American Society for Testing and Materials

DoD QSM – Department of Defense Quality Systems Manual

EPA – Environmental Protection Agency

OCPs – organochlorine pesticides

PFAS – per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances

VOCs – volatile organic compounds

4.3.3 Investigation Derived Waste

Investigation-derived waste (IDW) was containerized in a 55-gallon drum placed at the site. Upon receipt of analytical data, the IDW will be characterized and disposed of offsite at an approved California disposal, treatment, or recycling facility.

5 Analytical Results

All soil, groundwater, and soil vapor samples were analyzed by Enthalpy Analytical, a laboratory certified by the California Department of Health Services Lab Accreditation Program (ELAP;

ELAP #1338). Laboratory analytical reports for soil, groundwater, and soil vapor are included as Appendix D.

The analytical laboratory was requested to report both the method detection limit (MDL) and the practical quantitation limit (PQL) for soil and groundwater results. Per 40 CFR, part 136, Appendix C, the MDL is defined as the minimum concentration of a substance that can be measured and reported with 99% confidence that the analyte concentration is greater than zero. The PQL is typically 2 to 10 times the MDL. A detection between the MDL and the PQL is flagged by the laboratory (J flag) to indicate that the laboratory cannot reliably quantify the detection. The laboratory was requested to report all detections and all data qualifiers. All non-detections in soil and groundwater were reported as not detected less than the value of the MDL.

When the MDLs for non-detect results are higher than the applicable ESL, it can be considered a data gap because it would be unknown whether the real concentration was above the ESL.

Therefore, an analysis is included for each constituent with an applicable ESL to evaluate whether there is a potential data gap.

All non-detections in soil vapor were reported as not detected less than the value of the PQL.

5.1 Soil Analytical Results

5.1.1 Arsenic and OCPs

Arsenic and OCP analytical results for soil are summarized in Table 1.

Arsenic concentrations were below the background level. Except for dieldrin, OCPs were not detected above Commercial/Industrial or Construction Worker ESLs. OCP detections that exceeded ESLs are summarized in Table III below.

Table III Summary of Soil OCP ESL Exceedances

Constituent

Number of Borings with Concentrations that Exceed Commercial/Industrial ESL(s)

(out of 5 borings)

Maximum Detected Concentration

(mg/kg) ESL Exceeded and ESL Value (mg/kg)

Dieldrin 1 0.23 (SV-1 at 1 ft bgs) Commercial/Industrial ESL (0.16)

ESL – Environmental Screening Level mg/kg – milligrams per kilogram ft bgs – feet below ground surface

Additionally, one chlordane and several 4,4’-dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene (DDE) results exceeded hazardous waste screening criteria. Chlordane in SV-1 at 1 ft bgs exceeded the TTLC, and therefore classifies as California hazardous waste; the result also exceeded the TCLP Screening Criteria, and is potentially RCRA hazardous waste. The 1 ft bgs sample from SV-1, and each of the 5 ft bgs samples from SV-3, -4, and -5, exceeded the STLC Screening Criteria, and are potentially California hazardous waste.

Analytical Results

Phase II Environmental Site Assessment 9

MDL Analysis All MDLs for arsenic and OCPs were below Commercial/Industrial and Construction Worker ESLs.

5.1.2 Polyfluoroalkyl Substances

PFAS analytical results for soil are summarized in Table 2.

The SFBRWQCB has only established ESLs for perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA); both substances were detected in various samples above Soil Leaching ESLs. Only PFOS was detected above the Commercial/Industrial ESL, and only in one sample (SV-2 at 5 ft bgs). One or more additional PFAS substances for which an ESL has not been established were also detected in most other samples. PFAS detections that exceed ESLs are summarized in Table IV below.

Table IV Summary of Soil PFAS ESL Exceedances

Constituent Number of Borings with Concentrations that Exceed ESL(s) (out of 5 borings) Maximum Detected

Concentration (mg/kg) ESL Exceeded and ESL Value (mg/kg)

PFOS 5 190 (SV-2 at 5 ft bgs) Commercial/Industrial ESL (51) Leaching to Groundwater (0.4)

PFOA 2 3.5 (SV-2 at 5 ft bgs) Leaching to Groundwater (0.4)

ESL – Environmental Screening Level ft bgs – feet below ground surface mg/kg – milligrams per kilogram

PFOA – perfluorooctanoic acid

PFOS – perfluorooctanesulfonic acid

MDL Analysis All MDLs were below Commercial/Industrial ESLs for PFOA and PFOS, and below Soil Leaching ESLs for PFOS; however, all PFOA MDLs were above the Soil Leaching ESLs.

5.2 Groundwater Analytical Results

5.2.1 Volatile Organic Compounds

VOC analytical results for groundwater are summarized in Table 3.

VOCs were detected in all five groundwater samples; however, concentrations did not exceed Commercial/Industrial ESLs in any of the samples.

MDL Analysis All MDLs were below all groundwater ESLs for VOCs.

5.2.2 PFAS

PFAS analytical results for groundwater are summarized in Table 4.

The SFBRWQCB has only established ESLs for PFOS and PFOA; both substances were detected in various samples above MCL Priority ESLs and Direct Exposure ESLs. Several additional PFAS substances for which ESLs have not been established were also detected in each of the other samples. PFAS detections that exceeded ESLs are summarized in Table V below.

Table V Summary of Groundwater PFAS ESL Exceedances

Constituent

Number of Borings with Concentrations that Exceed

ESL(s) (out of 5 borings) Maximum Detected Concentration (ng/L) ESL Exceeded and ESL Value (mg/kg)

PFOS 4 970 (GW-1) Direct Exposure Human Health Risk ESL (1.7) MCL Priority ESL (6.5)

PFOA 5 91 (GW-1) Direct Exposure Human Health Risk ESL (0.54) MCL Priority ESL (5.1)

ESL – Environmental Screening Level mg/kg – milligram per kilogram ng/L – nanograms per liter

MDL Analysis All MDLs were below ESLs for PFAS.

5.3 Soil Vapor Analytical Results

Fixed gases with helium and VOC analytical results are discussed below.

5.3.1 Fixed Gases

Concentrations of oxygen (which indicates the presence of an aerobic environment), helium (which was used as the leak-check compound), and carbon dioxide are summarized in Table VI below.

Table VI Summary of Helium Results in Sub-Slab Vapor Location and Depth (ft bgs) Helium (percent) Oxygen (percent) Carbon Dioxide (percent)

SV-1 at 5’ <0.2 21 0.34

SV-2 at 5’ <0.3 16 2.2

SV-3 at 5’ <0.5 5.5 2.4

SV-4 at 5’ <0.5 13 0.72

SV-4-DUP at 5’ <1.1 11 1.4

SV-5 at 5’ <0.3 9.9 1.6 ft bgs – feet below ground surface

Analytical Results

Phase II Environmental Site Assessment 11

The 2015 DTSC Advisory states that a concentration of helium greater than or equal to 5% of the shroud’s atmosphere concentration indicates that a leak occurred during sampling. In the field, the shroud’s atmosphere was maintained at a concentration of 15%; therefore, a laboratory result of 0.75% or greater would indicate a leak. Helium was not detected above 0.75% in any sample;

therefore, evidence of a leak during sampling has not been established and the samples are assumed to be representative of sub-surface conditions.

5.3.2 Volatile Organic Compounds

VOC analytical results are summarized in Table 5.

Except for benzene, VOCs were not detected above Commercial/Industrial ESLs. A summary of benzene detections that exceeded ESLs are summarized in Table VII below.

Table VII Summary of Soil Vapor VOC ESL Exceedances

Constituent

Number of Borings with Concentrations that Exceed Commercial/Industrial ESL

(out of 5 borings) Maximum Detected

Concentration (mg/kg) ESL Exceeded and ESL Value (µg/m3)

Benzene 4 88 (SV-4-DUP at 5) Commercial/Industrial ESL (14)

ESL – Environmental Screening Level µg/m3 – micrograms per cubic meters

PQL Analysis All PQLs were below Commercial/Industrial ESLs for VOCs.

5.4 QA/QC Analysis

There were apparent inconsistencies between the soil vapor regular and duplicate data. In soil vapor, there was a 73% relative percent difference in benzene concentrations (41 micrograms per cubic meter [µg/m3] in the regular sample as compared to 88 µg/m3 in the duplicate). Other VOCs were also elevated in the duplicate as compared to the regular sample. There were no reported laboratory issues that are considered to have biased the analytical results.

Enthalpy performed Level II data validation. Fourteen J flags, 5 C flags, and 7 # flags were reported in the analysis of arsenic and OCPs in soil. 17 J flags were reported in the analysis of PFAS in soil. 18 J flags and 4 B flags were reported in the analysis of VOCs in groundwater. 10 J flags were reported in the analysis of PFAS in groundwater. No flags were reported in the analysis of VOCs in soil vapor.

Definitions of the flags applied to the analytical data are summarized in Table VIII below.

Table VIII QA/QC Analysis Matrix Media Data Flag or Problem Affected Results Analysis

Groundwater J; result between PQL and MDL Multiple Estimated value, but data usable for health risk assessment because PQLs were below ESLs.

B; Contamination found in associated method blank

Multiple Possible high bias, but data usable for health risk assessment because affected constituent does not have established ESLs.

Soil Matrix J; result between PQL and MDL Multiple Estimated value, but data usable for health risk assessment because PQLs were below ESLs.

C; presence confirmed but relative percent difference between columns exceeds 40%

Multiple Possible high or low bias, but data usable for health risk assessment because affected data were either order(s) of magnitude below ESLs, or constituents do not have established ESLs.

#; CCV drift outside limits; average CCV drift within limits per method requirements

Multiple Possible small high or low bias, but data useable because average drift within method requirements.

ESL – Environmental Screening Level

CCV – Continuing calibration verification

MDL – method detection limit

PQL – practical quantitation limit

Conclusions and Recommendations

Phase II Environmental Site Assessment 13

6 Conclusions and Recommendations

Based on the results of this assessment, Rincon concludes and recommends the following.

6.1 Soil

6.1.1 Arsenic and OCPs

Arsenic and most OCP concentrations did not exceed Commercial/Industrial or Construction Worker ESLs, and therefore are not considered to pose an unacceptable risk to human health.

Dieldrin was detected above the Commercial/Industrial ESL in one shallow soil sample collected from an unpaved area of the taxi way and is likely associated with the former agricultural use of the site. Based on the analytical results from other samples collected from the borehole, the dieldrin impacts appear constrained to the upper 2.5 feet, and to the general northeasterly portion of the site, although the lateral extent is not well delineated.

Chlordane was detected at levels classifying as California hazardous waste, and potentially classifying as RCRA hazardous waste, at SV-1. Additionally, 4,4’-DDE was detected at levels exceeding the STLC Screening Criteria in four borings, potentially classifying as California hazardous waste. Personnel handling soil classified as hazardous waste must have the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s Hazardous Waste and Emergency Response certification, and hazardous waste must be disposed as appropriately licensed landfills.

Because chlordane and 4,4’-DDE were detected at concentrations classifying or potentially classifying as hazardous waste, and because dieldrin may pose an unacceptable health risk, they are considered constituents of concern (COC) at the site.

6.1.2 PFAS

PFOS was detected above the Commercial/Industrial ESL in one boring at a depth of 5 ft bgs, and above the Soil Leaching ESL in each boring. Because concentrations exceeding these ESLs were detected at the 5-foot depth, the impacts are not vertically constrained. Because each boring contained PFOS above Soil Leaching ESLs, the impacts are likewise not laterally constrained with respect to Soil Leaching ESLs.

PFOA was only detected above the Soil Leaching ESL in two borings, SV-1 and -2, and was not detected above the Commercial/Industrial ESL.

The presence of PFAS in soil establishes evidence of an onsite release.

Because PFOS and PFOA may pose an unacceptable health risk and/or threat to groundwater, they are considered COCs.

6.2 Groundwater

6.2.1 VOCs

VOCs were not detected above Commercial/Industrial ESLs and therefore are not considered to pose an unacceptable risk to human health. It is notable that benzene, which was detected in soil vapor (see Section 6.3), was generally not detected in groundwater.

6.2.2 PFAS

PFOS was detected above the Direct Exposure and MCL Priority ESLs in four out of five borings;

PFOA was detected above both ESLs in all five borings. Because PFAS has been detected in onsite soil, evidence of an onsite release has been established, although these data may also represent the presence of an unconstrained co-mingled PFAS plume associated with the “former fire training area 2” site located adjacent to the project site.

Because PFOS and PFOA may pose an unacceptable health risk, they are considered COCs.

6.3 Soil Vapor

6.3.1 Fixed Gases

The 2015 DTSC Advisory states that a concentration of helium greater than or equal to 5% of the shroud’s atmosphere concentration indicates a leak during sampling. In the field, the shroud’s atmosphere was maintained at a concentration of 15%; therefore, a laboratory result of 0.75% or greater indicates that a leak may have occurred. Because helium was not detected above 0.75% in any sample, Rincon concludes that there were no leaks during sampling.

The California State Water Resources Control Board’s Low-Threat Underground Storage Tank Case Closure Policy establishes that a soil gas oxygen concentration of greater than 4% is considered to indicate an aerobic environment, and to be evidence of a bioattentuation zone. Detected oxygen concentrations ranged between 5.5 and 21%; therefore, evidence of a bioattentuation zone beneath the site has been established.

6.3.2 VOCs

Benzene was detected above the Commercial/Industrial ESL in four of the five boring locations, but as previously noted, was not detected above ESLs in any groundwater sample; therefore, it does not appear that benzene soil vapor impacts originate from a release to groundwater. In the absence of groundwater impacts, it is possible that an offsite soil vapor plume is migrating onsite, or that soil vapor impacts are attributable to a release to soil that has not migrated to groundwater; however, additional data are needed to assess these potential sources. Because the known release at 282 Brokaw Road was comprised of chlorinated solvents, and not petroleum hydrocarbons (which includes benzene), it is unlikely that the onsite soil vapor impacts are attributable to that case.

Because benzene may pose an unacceptable health risk, it is considered a COC.

Conclusions and Recommendations

Phase II Environmental Site Assessment 15

6.4 Constituents of Concern

Based on the results of this Phase II ESA, the constituents identified by media in Table IX below are considered COCs.

Table IX Constituents of Concern Medium Analytes and Method

Soil Chlordane, 4,4’-DDE, dieldrin, PFOS, PFOA

Groundwater PFOS, PFOA

Soil Vapor Benzene

PFOA – perfluorooctanoic acid

PFOS – perfluorooctanesulfonic acid

6.5 Recommendations

Given the widespread extent of the soil vapor benzene impacts, engineering controls should be implemented in the new ATCT facility to mitigate the risk of vapor intrusion. Engineering controls may include a vapor barrier, a sub-slab venting system, and/or designing the heating ventilation and air conditioning system such that high air-exchange rates occur and/or a positive pressure is created within the facility relative to the sub-slab environment.

Impacts to soil that may pose an unacceptable health risk appear to be localized and not widespread (apparently limited to SV-2 at 5 ft bgs, and SV-1 at 1 ft bgs). However, soil classifying as hazardous waste was detected in SV-1, and potentially at other locations at the site. Therefore, if earthwork is to be conducted in these areas, Rincon recommends that a soil and groundwater management plan (SGMP) be prepared prior to the commencement of construction activities to delineate methods and procedures for the handling, management, and disposal of impacted soil in a manner that is protective of human and environmental health. The SGMP would also include guidance on the management of impacted water if encountered during construction.

To protect the health of future site users from exposure to soil impacts, mitigation or remediation should be implemented at the locations of the elevated soil COCs. Additional soil sampling would be valuable to better target these efforts. Based on the available data and current site understanding, remedial excavations would likely be the most feasible remedy. Alternatively, mitigation measures, such as encapsulation of the soil impacts, can be implemented to protect against exposure to soil COCs; however, if mitigation measures are implemented, a land use covenant (LUC) may be required. Given the current site use, it is not expected that a LUC would have material impacts on current or future site operations.

PFAS was detected in soil throughout the site at concentrations that could pose a risk to groundwater. PFAS was also detected in groundwater, thereby establishing evidence of an onsite release to soil and groundwater. PFAS is an emerging contaminant, and the regulatory environment and requirements developing. Therefore, it is difficult to evaluate remediation and/or mitigation requirements without the input of a regulatory agency, such as the SFBRWQCB.

Based on these circumstances, Rincon recommends that a regulatory agency, such as the SFBRWQCB, be engaged for oversight of vapor intrusion mitigation measure implementation. The SFBRWQCB may also provide guidance and a framework for addressing PFAS impacts onsite.

Regulatory oversight will help ensure the next phases of the project are completed in accordance with current local, State, and Federal rules and guidelines.

Limitations

Phase II Environmental Site Assessment 17

7 Limitations

This report has been prepared for and is intended for the exclusive use of the FAA. The contents of this report should not be relied upon by any other party without the written consent of Rincon Consultants, Inc.

Our conclusions regarding the site are based on observations of existing site conditions and the results of a limited subsurface sampling program. The results of this evaluation are qualified by the fact that only limited sampling and analytical testing was conducted during this assessment.

This scope was not intended to completely establish the quantities and distribution of contaminants present at the site. The concentrations of contaminants measured at any given location may not be representative of conditions at other locations. Furthermore, conditions may change at any particular location as a function of time in response to natural conditions, chemical reactions, and other events. Conclusions regarding the condition of the site do not represent a warranty that all areas within the site are similar to those sampled.

8 References

Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2015. Advisory for Active Soil Gas Investigations.

July 2015.

Dibblee, Thomas W. 2007. Geologic Map of the Cupertino and San Jose West Quadrangles. 2007.

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). 2019. FAA Order 1050.19C – Environmental Due Diligence in the Conduct of FAA Real Property Transactions. May 5, 2019.

H20GEOL A Groundwater Consultancy (H20GEOL). 2018. Groundwater Monitoring Program Report, 282 Brokaw Road, San Clara, California. March 2018.

Kearney Foundation. 1996. Background Concentrations of Trace and Major Elements in California Soils. Kearney Foundation of Soil Science, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of California. March 1996.

Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon). 2020. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, New ATCT Facility, Site 1 and Site 4, Portion of Mineta San José International Airport, San José, California.

April 10, 2020.

United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2018. Topographic Map of San Jose West Quadrangle.

2018.

Tables

Table 1: Soil Matrix Analytical Results - Organochlorine Pesticides and Arsenic

A rs e n ic

,4

D

D D

,4

D

D E

,4

D

D T

A ld ri n

C h lo rd a n e

T e c h n ic a l)

D ie ld ri n

E n d o s u lf a n

I I

E n d ri n k e to n e

E n d ri n

1 5.5 <0.0011 2.7 0.6 <0.0013 1 0.23 <0.0015 0.024 C 0.28

2.5 4.9 <0.0011 0.028 0.0047 J <0.0013 <0.011 0.0024 J <0.0016 <0.0014 0.0023 J

5 3.2 <0.0011 0.0024 J <0.0015 <0.0013 <0.011 <0.0014 <0.0016 <0.0014 <0.0016

1 6.3 <0.011 <0.014 <0.014 <0.013 <0.11 <0.014 <0.016 <0.014 <0.016

2.5 2.9 0.013 0.076 0.0047 J <0.0025 <0.022 0.0061 J <0.0031 <0.0028 <0.0031

5 9.2 <0.0011 0.0029 J <0.0014 <0.0013 <0.011 <0.0014 <0.0016 <0.0014 <0.0015

1 2.6 <0.011 <0.014 <0.014 <0.013 <0.11 <0.014 <0.016 <0.014 <0.016

2.5 4.8 0.069 0.31 0.052 <0.013 <0.11 0.021 J <0.016 <0.014 0.028 J

5 5.4 0.24 1.8 0.05 C <0.0013 0.49 0.11 0.0036 J 0.0052 0.0084 C

1 3 <0.022 <0.028 <0.029 <0.025 <0.22 <0.028 <0.031 <0.028 <0.031

2.5 3.2 <0.0055 <0.0072 <0.0072 <0.0064 <0.055 <0.0072 <0.0078 <0.007 <0.0078

5 5.2 0.18 1.9 0.037 C <0.0064 <0.055 0.1 <0.0078 <0.007 <0.0078

1 3.2 <0.022 <0.028 <0.029 <0.025 <0.22 <0.028 <0.031 <0.028 <0.031

2.5 6.1 0.059 # 0.39 # 0.017 #J <0.0064 0.16 J 0.017 #J <0.0078 <0.007 <0.0078

5 5.1 0.19 # 1.6 0.035 # <0.0026 0.52 0.078 #C <0.0032 <0.0028 0.0075 CJ

0.067 2.7 0.33 0.0011 0.0024 0.0085 0.00046 0.0098 NE 0.0011

0.98 81 57 57 1.0 14 1.1 1,500 NE 74

0.31 12 8.3 8.5 0.15 2.2 0.16 5,800 NE 290

0.6 - 11 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

1 - Arsenic concentrations compared to Kearny background concentration

Notes

No other analyzed OCP was detected above the method detection limits

C - Presence confirmed but relative percent difference between columns exceeds 40%.

J - Results reported between method detection limit (MDL) and practical quantitation limit (PQL); Estimated value.

# - CCV drift outside limits; average CCV drift within limits per method requirements.

Definitions bold - Analyte detected above method detection limit

- Concentrations detected above Tier 1 ESLs

- Concentrations detected above Commercial/Industrial ESLs

4/7/2023

SV-4

SV-5

SV-1

SV-2

SV-3

Construction Worker ESLs

Commercial/Industrial ESLs mg/kg

Background Concentration

Sample ID

Sample

Depth

(ft. bgs)

Sample Date

Tier 1 ESLs

5/23/2023 Page 1 of 2 Rincon Consultants, Inc.

New ATCT Facility, Site 1 and Site 4, Portion of Mineta San José International Airport, San José, California

Phase II Environmental Site Assessment

5/23/2023 Page 2 of 2 Rincon Consultants, Inc.

New ATCT Facility, Site 1 and Site 4, Portion of Mineta San José International Airport, San José, California

Phase II Environmental Site Assessment

Table 1: Soil Matrix Analytical Results - Organochlorine Pesticides and Arsenic < - Not detected above the method detection limit

CCV - Continuing Calibration Verification

OCP -Organochlorine pesticide mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram

ft. bgs - Feet below ground surface

NE - Not established

ESLs - Environmental Screening Levels, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, July 2019, Revision 2

Tier 1 ESLs - ESLs for unrestricted land use at most sites

Construction Worker ESLs - Any Land Use/Any Depth Soil Exposure - Direct Exposure Human Health Risk Levels (Table S-1), Cancer Risk or Non-Cancer Hazard

(lower value selected)

Commercial/Industrial ESLs - Commercial/Industrial: Shallow Soil Exposure - Direct Exposure Human Health Risk Levels (Table S-1), Cancer Risk or Non-Cancer

Hazard (lower value selected)

Background Concentration - Kearney, Background Concentrations of Trace and Major Elements in California Soils, University of California, 1996

Soil samples analyzed by Enthalpy Analytical

Analysis:

Organochlorine Pesticides by EPA Method 8081A, Arsenic by EPA Method 6010B

Perfluoro-butanesulfonic acid

(PFBS)

Perfluoro-butanoic acid

(PFBA)

Perfluoro-heptanesulfonic acid

(PFHpS)

Perfluoro-heptanoic acid

(PFHpA)

Perfluoro-hexanesulfonic acid

(PFHxS)

Perfluoro-hexanoic acid

(PFHxA)

Perfluoro-nonanesulfonic acid

(PFNS)

Perfluoro-nonanoic acid (PFNA)

Perfluoro-octanesulfonic acid

(PFOS)

Perfluoro-octanoic acid

(PFOA)

Perfluoro-pentanesulfonic acid

(PFPeS)

Perfluoro-pentanoic acid

(PFPeA)

1.0 <0.17 1.2 <0.14 1.1 0.59 J 1.6 <0.2 0.29 J 4.8 2.7 J <0.2 2

2.5 <0.17 0.57 J <0.14 <0.23 <0.2 1.9 <0.2 <0.23 <0.15 <0.36 <0.2 2.6

5.0 <0.17 <0.57 <0.14 <0.23 <0.2 0.75 J <0.2 <0.23 <0.15 <0.36 <0.2 2

1.0 <0.17 <0.57 <0.14 <0.23 <0.2 <0.18 <0.2 <0.23 0.76 J <0.36 <0.2 <0.16

2.5 <0.17 <0.57 <0.14 <0.23 1.6 0.18 J <0.2 <0.23 4.9 <0.36 <0.2 <0.16

5.0 1.9 0.59 J 5.5 1 33 4.8 0.56 J <0.23 190 3.5 J 2.5 1.1

1.0 <0.17 <0.57 <0.14 <0.23 <0.2 <0.18 <0.2 <0.23 0.94 J <0.36 <0.2 0.2 J

2.5 <0.17 <0.57 <0.14 <0.23 0.86 J <0.18 <0.2 <0.23 3.9 <0.36 <0.2 <0.16

5.0 <0.17 <0.57 <0.14 <0.23 0.77 J <0.18 <0.2 <0.23 4.8 <0.36 <0.2 <0.16

1.0 <0.17 <0.57 <0.14 <0.23 <0.2 <0.18 <0.2 <0.23 <0.15 <0.36 <0.2 <0.16

2.5 <0.17 <0.57 <0.14 <0.23 0.93 J <0.18 <0.2 <0.23 2.4 <0.36 <0.2 <0.16

5.0 <0.17 <0.57 <0.14 <0.23 <0.2 <0.18 <0.2 <0.23 2.6 <0.36 <0.2 <0.16

1.0 <0.17 <0.57 <0.14 <0.23 <0.2 <0.18 <0.2 <0.23 <0.15 <0.36 <0.2 <0.16

2.5 <0.17 <0.57 <0.14 <0.23 0.22 J <0.18 <0.2 <0.23 1.4 <0.36 <0.2 <0.16

5.0 <0.17 <0.57 <0.14 <0.23 <0.2 <0.18 <0.2 <0.23 0.36 J <0.36 <0.2 <0.16

NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE 51 16 NE NE

NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE 0.4 0.097 NE NE

Notes

No other analyzed PFAS was detected above the method detection limits

J - Results reported between method detection limit (MDL) and practical quantitation limit (PQL); Estimated value.

Definitions bold - Constituent detected at or above laboratory reporting limit

- Concentrations detected above Commercial/Industrial ESL

- Concentrations detected above Soil Leaching ESL

< - Constituent not detected above method detection limit

SV-1

SV-2

SV-3 4/7/2023

Soil Leaching ESLs

SV-4

SV-5

Commercial/Industrial ESLs ng/g

Sample ID Sample Date Sample Depth

(feet bgs)

5/23/2023 1 of 2 Rincon Consultants, Inc.

Table 2: Soil Matrix Analytical Results - Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances

New ATCT Facility, Site 1 and Site 4, Portion of Mineta San José International Airport, San José, California

5/23/2023 2 of 2 Rincon Consultants, Inc.

Site 1 and Site 4, Portion of Mineta San José International Airport, San José, California

Phase II Environmental Site Assessment

Table 2: Soil Matrix Analytical Results - Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances

ESL - San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFRWQCB) Environmental Screening Levels (revised May 2020)

ft. bgs - feet below ground surface ng/g - nanograms per gram

NE - Screening level not established

Commerical/Industrial ESLs - Commercial/Industrial: Soil ESLs - Direct Exposure Human Health Risk Levels, Cancer Risk or Non-Cancer Hazard (lower value selected)

Soil Leaching ESLs - Leaching to Groundwater ESLs: Drinking Water

Soil samples analyzed by Enthalpy Analytical

Analysis

PFAS by DoD QSM Version 5.3

New ATCT Facility, Table 3: Groundwater Analytical Results - Volatile Organic Compounds

B e n z e n e

T o lu e n e

E th y lb e n z e n e m ,p

-X y le n e s o -X y le n e

T e tr a c h lo ro e th e n e

(P C

E

T ri c h lo ro e th e n e

(T C

E

,1

,1 -T ri c h lo ro e th a n e

,1

-D ic h lo ro e th a n e

,1

-D ic h lo ro e th e n e

,2

-D ic h lo ro e th a n e c is

-1 ,2

-D ic h lo ro e th e n e

M e th y le n e C h lo ri d e

-B u ta n o n e

F re o n te rt

-B u ty l

A lc o h o l (T

B A

O th e r

V O

C s

GW-1 0.09 J 0.1 J <0.1 <0.2 <0.1 <0.2 4.3 0.7 0.3 J 0.4 J <0.1 0.3 J <0.5 5.3 0.4 J 2 BJ <various

GW-2 <0.08 <0.1 <0.1 <0.2 <0.1 <0.2 <0.1 3 17 14 0.1 J 0.7 <0.5 1.6 J 0.6 2.2 BJ <various

GW-3 <0.08 <0.1 <0.1 <0.2 <0.1 <0.2 <0.1 0.2 J 5.1 2 <0.1 <0.1 0.5 J 5.8 <0.1 3 BJ <various

GW-4 <0.08 <0.1 <0.1 <0.2 <0.1 <0.2 <0.1 <0.1 2.6 <0.1 <0.1 0.9 0.5 J 4.9 J <0.1 <1.6 <various

GW-5 <0.08 <0.1 <0.1 <0.2 <0.1 <0.2 1.6 <0.1 2.2 0.4 J <0.1 2.2 <0.5 4.3 J <0.1 1.7 BJ <various

Tier 1 ESLs 0.42 40 3.5 20 20 0.64 1.2 62 5.0 3.2 0.5 6.0 5.0 5,600 NE 12 Various

Commercial/Industrial ESLs 1.8 4,900 15 1,600 1,600 2.8 7.5 6300 33 280 9.8 210 94 NE NE NE Various

Notes:

J - Results reported between method detection limit (MDL) and practical quantitation limit (PQL); Estimated value.

B - Contaminated found in associated method blank.

Definitions bold - Analyte detected above method detection limit

- Concentrations detected above Commercial/Industrial ESLs

< - Not detected above the method detection limit

VOCs - Volatile Organic Compounds µg/L - micrograms per liter

NE - Not established

ESLs - Environmental Screening Levels, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, July 2019, Revision 2

Tier 1 ESLs - ESLs for unrestricted land use at most sites

Commercial/Industrial ESL - Groundwater Vapor Intrusion Human Health Risk Levels(Table GW-3); Most conservative ESL included

Groundwater samples analyzed by Enthalpy Analytical

Analysis

VOCs by EPA Method 8260B

- Concentrations detected above Tier 1 ESLs µg/L

BTEX Chemicals

Sample ID Sample Date

4/7/2023

Chlorinated VOCs

5/23/2023 Page 1 of 1 Rincon Consultants, Inc.

New ATCT Facility, Site 1 and Site 4, Portion of Mineta San José International Airport, San José, California

Table 4: Groundwater Analytical Results - Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances

6:2 FTS

Perfluoro-butanesulfonic acid

(PFBS)

Perfluoro-butanoic acid

(PFBA)

Perfluoro-heptanesulfonic acid

(PFHpS)

Perfluoro-heptanoic acid

(PFHpA)

Perfluoro-hexanesulfonic acid

(PFHxS)

Perfluoro-hexanoic acid

(PFHxA)

Perfluoro-nonanoic acid (PFNA)

Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid

(PFOS)

Perfluorooctanoic acid

(PFOA)

Perfluoro-pentanesulfonic acid

(PFPeS)

Perfluoro-pentanoic acid

(PFPeA)

Other PFAS

Compounds

GW-1 18 150 55 25 47 1600 270 13 970 91 150 140 <various

GW-2 2.6 J 83 36 5.4 17 340 200 1.1 J 65 42 61 48 <various

GW-3 <1.9 54 24 1.7 J 7.4 210 48 <0.68 23 76 28 21 <various

GW-4 <35 4 <37 <0.27 1 J 6.8 2.9 J <0.63 1.1 J 6 0.91 J 4.1 <various

GW-5 <1.7 16 11 J 0.81 J 2.7 J 48 11 <0.61 19 18 6.6 5.6 <various

NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE 1.7 0.54 NE NE NE

Notes:

No other analyzed PFAS was detected above the method detection limits.

J - Results reported between the method detection limit (MDL) and practical quantitation limit (PQL); Estimated value.

Definitions:

bold - Constituent detected at or above laboratory reporting limit

- Direct Exposure ESL

< - Constituent not detected at or above associated laboratory method detection limit

ESL - San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFRWQCB) Environmental Screening Levels (revised May 2020) ng/L - nanograms per liter

NE - Screening level not established

Direct Exposure ESL - Groundwater ESLs: Direct Exposure Human Health Risk Levels: Direct Exposure ESL

Groundwater samples analyzed by Enthalpy Analytical

Analysis

PFAS by DoD QSM Version 5.3

Direct Exposure ESL

4/7/2023 ng/L

Sample ID Sample Date

5/23/2023 1 of 1 Rincon Consultants, Inc.

New ATCT Facility, Site 1 and Site 4, Portion of Mineta San José International Airport, San José California

Table 5: Soil Vapor Analytical Results - Volatile Organic Compounds

T e tr a c h lo ro e th e n e

(P C

E

T ri c h lo ro e th e n e

(T C

E tr a n s

-1 ,2

D ic h lo ro e th e n e c is

-1 ,2

D ic h lo ro e th e n e

V in y l C h lo ri d e

B e n z e n e

T o lu e n e

E th y lb e n z e n e

T o ta l X y le n e s

,1

,1 -T ri c h lo ro e th a n e

,1

-D ic h lo ro e th a n e

,1

-D ic h lo ro e th e n e

C h lo ro e th a n e

C h lo ro m e th a n e

M e th y le n e c h lo ri d e

,3

,5

T ri m e th y l-b e n z e n e

-B u ta n o n e

-H e x a n o n e

-M e th y l-

-P e n ta n o n e

A c e to n e

C a rb o n D is u lf id e

F re o n

Is o p ro p a n o l (I

P A

D ic h lo ro d if lu o ro m e th a n e

T ri c h lo ro fl u o ro m e th a n e

,2

,4 -T ri m e th y l-b e n z e n e

SV-1 5 <2.7 <2.1 <1.6 <1.6 <1 8.5 8.9 <1.7 7.8 <2.2 <1.6 <1.6 1.2 <0.83 3.6 <2 7.4 5.2 2.1 <4.8 1.3 15 <4.9 7.5 2.3 2

SV-2 5 <4.1 <3.2 <2.4 <2.4 <1.5 27 20 2.6 11 4.5 23 <2.4 <1.6 2.3 5.3 <2.9 18 <6.1 4.8 50 25 7.7 9.6 <3 <3.4 <2.9

SV-3 5 <6.8 <5.4 <4 <4 <2.6 27 22 <4.3 24 <5.5 25 5.6 12 2.3 5.4 <4.9 64 <10 6.2 220 84 <7.7 <12 <4.9 <5.6 <4.9

5 <6.8 <5.4 <4 <4 <2.6 41 31 5 33 <5.5 <4 <4 <2.6 2.7 5.2 <4.9 63 <10 11 240 43 <7.7 14 <4.9 <5.6 5.4

DUP <15 <12 <8.7 <8.7 <5.6 88 56 <9.6 57 <12 <8.9 <8.7 <5.8 6.6 10 <11 120 <23 19 500 76 <17 <27 <11 <12 <11

SV-5 5 <4.1 <3.2 <2.4 <2.4 <1.5 41 31 5.9 29 <3.3 6.9 <2.4 2.5 2.4 4.1 4.4 190 <6.1 8.5 520 59 <4.6 12 <3 3.8 8.3

Tier 1 ESLs 15 16 2,800 280 0.32 3.2 10,000 37 3,500 35,000 58 2,400 350,000 3,100 34 NE NE NE 14,000 1,000,000 NE NE NE NE NE NE

Commercial/Industrial ESLs 67 100 12,000 1,200 5.2 14 44,000 160 15,000 150,000 260 10,000 1,500,000 13,000 410 NE NE NE 440,000 4,500,000 NE NE NE NE NE NE

Notes

No other analyzed VOC or SVOC was detected above the method detection limits

Definitions bold - Analyte detected above method detection limit

- Concentrations detected above Commercial/Industrial ESLs

< - Not detected above the method detection limit

VOC - Volatile organic compound µg/m

- micrograms per cubic meter

ft. bgs - Feet below ground surface

NE - Not established

Commercial/Industrial ESLs = SFBRWQCB ESLs for Direct Exposure, Human Heath Risk…